Originally posted by Devil King
Enlighten us. How do you do this with such aptitude?
Such cynicism. 😛
How do you think you can tell?
1. I didn't imply that I have any special aptitude, I worded it with the ambiguous "you".
2. Deductive reasoning.
3. Many years from simply being a social organism lends itself many wonderful conversation skills such as telling when someone is talking out of their ass or when someone is legit.
4. You are playing this "card" because you don't want to portray that you have "weakened in your resolve" about his lying about his credentials. It's okay, I have an ego to.
I learned something from his reply to me....that he knows what he is talking about. That post and a several others have lead me to believe that he is who is says he is. There is still the possibility of him just looking that information up and trying to pass it off as something he just knows off the top of his head because he wants to portray that he is "legit". If it turns out that he is lying, I will admit that my assessment of him is wrong and apologize to you. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong and it won't be the last, however I don't think I am wrong about this.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Such cynicism. 😛How do you think you can tell?
1. I didn't imply that I have any special aptitude, I worded it with the ambiguous "you".
2. Deductive reasoning.
3. Many years from simply being a social organism lends itself many wonderful conversation skills such as telling when someone is talking out of their ass or when someone is legit.
4. You are playing this "card" because you don't want to portray that you have "weakened in your resolve" about his lying about his credentials. It's okay, I have an ego to.
I learned something from his reply to me....that he knows what he is talking about. That post and a several others have lead me to believe that he is who is says he is. There is still the possibility of him just looking that information up and trying to pass it off as something he just knows off the top of his head because he wants to portray that he is "legit". If it turns out that he is lying, I will admit that my assessment of him is wrong and apologize to you. It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong and it won't be the last, however I don't think I am wrong about this.
I haven't weakened in any resolve. I just want to know how you think you've gotten so good at spotting the truth when you see it posted on a message board, and how it varies from spotting bullshit. I've already pointed out that 2 of the 3 documentaries were directed by different guys, and I'm waiting on confirmation of the third. So, if it's so easy for you, then I simply asked how you're so good at it.
The whole basis for this entire situation is that he is a creationist, who thinks that because some events in the bible are supported by archaeology, that it's all true and there's an all powerful santa god. This is not up for dispute, despite how he wants to claim that the thread has always been about history alone. The documentaries for which he has taken credit are all presented from this perspective. I will admit that it is odd that those three particular documentaries are the one's he's chosen, but as I've already said, 2 of the 3 were directed by 2 different guys. If 2 of the 3 have been directed by different guys, then it stands to reason that all 3 were not directed by the same guy. Since the last one is up for debate, I've taken steps to find out who directed it. He then decided to say that he directed the European versions or updates of one of the documentaries, despite the reality that a documentary doesn't get a new director or a new version for a European language release.
If he was not the director of these documentaries, then he had no business claiming as much. I have no issues with the both of you being creationists who believe that there's a Michelangelo painting floating just above the horizon, but when our opposing perspectives are the basis for discussion in this forum, I will make my opinions on the matter clear.
Anaconda is right.
Originally posted by Devil King
I haven't weakened in any resolve. I just want to know how you think you've gotten so good at spotting the truth when you see it posted on a message board, and how it varies from spotting bullshit. I've already pointed out that 2 of the 3 documentaries were directed by different guys, and I'm waiting on confirmation of the third. So, if it's so easy for you, then I simply asked how you're so good at it.The whole basis for this entire situation is that he is a creationist, who thinks that because some events in the bible are supported by archaeology, that it's all true and there's an all powerful santa god. This is not up for dispute, despite how he wants to claim that the thread has always been about history alone. The documentaries for which he has taken credit are all presented from this perspective. I will admit that it is odd that those three particular documentaries are the one's he's chosen, but as I've already said, 2 of the 3 were directed by 2 different guys. If 2 of the 3 have been directed by different guys, then it stands to reason that all 3 were not directed by the same guy. Since the last one is up for debate, I've taken steps to find out who directed it. He then decided to say that he directed the European versions or updates of one of the documentaries, despite the reality that a documentary doesn't get a new director or a new version for a European language release.
If he was not the director of these documentaries, then he had no business claiming as much. I have no issues with the both of you being creationists who believe that there's a Michelangelo painting floating just above the horizon, but when our opposing perspectives are the basis for discussion in this forum, I will make my opinions on the matter clear.
Oh good, it continues...
Lemme reply.
1. I never claimed to be a creationist. That's a label you stuck on me. That was an assumption on your part which you used to discredit me immediately, as you clearly do here again. That's you're style of debating: throw a label at someone without reason and judge him on that.
2. You said explicitly all three films I mentioned were directed by THREE DIFFERENT directors. Now you say you only found TWO. Obviously, a lie has been detected on your side, and in your own words. Your assumption that the identity of the third director is a third party now counts as your rule.
3. I always said from the very first time that I did a remake on the second films, I never claimed otherwise. And I also explained we used the original footage (directed by Timothy Copestake, as you prolly found out). So making four (or five actually, counting the German version as well) completely new documentaries out of three, doesn't make me director of all, but does make me the director of five very different docs. Plus, what that means is that doing a thing like that is doing at least as much research as the orginal director. In fact, the host of the show said I did a lot more. And all this crap was about was giving some sort of credibility to an antagonist to show I sorta knew what I was talking about. Now I regret that move because this has turned into a sick witch hunt.
4. Hating creationists and, worse, hating people you label as creationists for no reason makes me feel sad for you. Because it points to you maybe have a need for that, a need to be antagonistic at least, a need to hate at worst...
Originally posted by queeq
Anaconda is right.
Good, then you can explain it to me Queeq. You can explain how people get together and decide to make a documentary and spend twice as much to produce both an english and non-english version
Originally posted by queeq
I never claimed to be a creationist. That's a label you stuck on me. That was an assumption on your part which you used to discredit me immediately, as you clearly do here again. That's you're style of debating: throw a label at someone without reason and judge him on that.
I know you never claimed to be, in as many words. But when I called you one, you got defensive and accused me of name calling. Besides, it obvious to me that you are one. Besides, when I asked what you were, giving you the opprotunity to labels yourself something other than creationist, you declined to do so. This thread is full of me giving you chances to defend your position in the discussion and full of you refusing to do much supporting of it, other than claiming you make biblical movies.
My debating tactic involves making a statement and waiting for the other's response. In this case, it was to point out that the idea of god and his involvment in our lives is a human construct that has been used through out time to keep people firmly underfoot of those in power. Your response was the claim that you had directed these 3 documentaries, all of which are presented as evidence for the existence of god and the legitimacy of the claims of his existence as made in the bible. These are "your own" documentaries, and if they don't speak to your perspective, then you're wasting the viewers time. Every website where they are mentioned is a biblical website and the award presented to one is an award honoring films that further "His Cause and Truth".
Originally posted by queeq
2. You said explicitly all three films I mentioned were directed by THREE DIFFERENT directors. Now you say you only found TWO. Obviously, a lie has been detected on your side, and in your own words. Your assumption that the identity of the third director is a third party now counts as your rule.
Yes, I said all three, and this is why I have made an attempt to get indesputible evidence to varify. I assume you remember the link I posted, which another member assumed was a picture of you? It was the Shroud.com, or some such sillinest. I emailed him and asked him if the names I'd found listed as the directors of the other 2 films were the same as the name mentioned on the film about the Shroud. He said he wasn't %100 sure, but that he did not personally recognize either name. So while I did say that the films had been directed by 3 different guys, I followed it up with "all the evidence I've found suggests" it was directed by 3 different guys. The gentleman from that site's name is Barrie.
Originally posted by queeq
3. I always said from the very first time that I did a remake on the second films, I never claimed otherwise. And I also explained we used the original footage (directed by Timothy Copestake, as you prolly found out). So making four (or five actually, counting the German version as well) completely new documentaries out of three, doesn't make me director of all, but does make me the director of five very different docs. Plus, what that means is that doing a thing like that is doing at least as much research as the orginal director. In fact, the host of the show said I did a lot more. And all this crap was about was giving some sort of credibility to an antagonist to show I sorta knew what I was talking about. Now I regret that move because this has turned into a sick witch hunt.
So, there have been five remakes of a film made in the mid to late '90s? Oh, and just an aside, how do you support yourself on the income generated by making only 3 films in 15 years?
Again, the story continues to change.
Originally posted by queeq
4. Hating creationists and, worse, hating people you label as creationists for no reason makes me feel sad for you. Because it points to you maybe have a need for that, a need to be antagonistic at least, a need to hate at worst...
In fact, in my last post, I said I had no issues with creationists. I think their belief is silly, but, hey, I still buy Star Wars toys. But since this is the RELIGION FORUM, I made the outlandish assumption that it was a place to discuss differing religious ideas; mine being that believing anything written in the bible as proof of god or baby Jesus, is batshit. I just wonder why you're so ashamed to admit that you are one, because all the "evidence" you have used to bolster your opinion has come from biblical websites and from 3 documentaries that support that position that god created the world. And if you went to Dallas and accepted an award from a creationist group that praised your film for supporting their position, I would think you'd have declined their acolade, declaring their praise as being misplaced. Besides, if you aren't a creationist, why would you care what I think of their religious beliefs or that it was "name calling"?
Originally posted by Devil King
if you aren't a creationist, why would you care what I think of their religious beliefs or that it was "name calling"?
Because the term 'creationist' was completely irrelevant in what we were discussing. It's like suddenly saying something stupid like "oh you're gay, you hate all religious people anyway." Gayness is not an argument, neither was creationism. It came out of nowhere and was clearly not used as a compliment.
And Houston Worldfest is a not a religious filmfestival, dude. You've got your facts screwed, again. You don't care about what's true, you care about your own truth. That's why you keep on ranting like this. No wonder people call you rabid, going on like that.
A long time ago in this debate, I would have answered any civilised question about these things, as most people that converse normally with me on these boards know. But you choose an aggressive approach. I'm sure this gets you a lot of answers to your questions.
And to remind you again of your very enlightend style of debating, quite some posts before I ever made a claim about making a numbers of documentaries, this sweet and well meant quote from you, where you just cut off half my line:
Originally posted by Devil King[/B][/QUOTE][QUOTE=10185859]Originally posted by queeq
[B]
I NEVER EVER made any claims that the Bible is reliable
Yes, DK, you are a true asset to these boards. A real example of truth and fair debating.
Originally posted by queeq
That's not scoffing, that's being sarcastic to someone who consistently patronising me.
I keep thinking queeq is a very decent (if very different) individual but then you get started on DK and I conclude you are in the same boat with the rest of us loosers.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I just wish they would get a room.puke
Exactly.
Originally posted by Devil King
And if you went to Dallas and accepted an award from a creationist group that praised your film for supporting their position,
The award was won at the Houston Worldfest, that claims to be one of the oldest filmfestivals in the world (you don't read very well), Vision Video did NOT release documentaray but was the distributor of the sales DVD in the US. You're pretty bad at research for a truthsayer, you know.
The Goliath doc aired in Canada, History Channel UK, SBS Australia, Arte and some more. The company I worked for at the time did worldwide broadcast distribution.
You don't seem to know a lot about production and broadcast, do you?
Well, I call it distributor because it was primarily made and released for broadcast. Semantics, I know, but it's more correct to call them distributors. They hold no rights unless the producers give it to them. It can also be taken away from them if the producers would find a better distributor. They just get the DVD to stores and stuff.