SpiderJerusalem said:
Let's take a look at this here argument.
Me: So, I'm going to assume that you haven't read Joss Whedon's draft? (I even go out and point that it's not gold, but not even close to the disaster the movie was)
-- aaaaaaand that's a lie. Look, it's upthread. I made it very clear that the script stank on ice regardless of the director's interpretation AND pointed out you were acting like an arrogant jerk for assuming I haven't read the script --
which you're still doing.
Is it possible for you to put your own head any further up your excretory canal?
, I follow that up with a quote from the author, describing the difficulties of getting the draft to the screen when everything was going against you.
SpiderJerusalem said:
Bullshit. I didn't say "it was all subjective," I said your claims that the script was "good" was completely fact-free -- which is why you're strawmanning and lying here.
SpiderJerusalem said:
If you have read Whedon's draft, I'd ask what was so awful about it. But since you clearly haven't --
-- aaaaaaand that's a lie. You know at this point you said something you shouldn't have, that I hadn't read the draft, without evidence, and now you're doubling down.
I have no idea why your ego is so fragile that you can't admit that you had no cause to say what I had or hadn't read, but hey, if the internet is cheaper than therapy, I guess this is how it has to be.
Bit of advice: basing your well-being on the quality of Whedon's work is hardly a healthy mental outlook. Good luck with that.
