Posted by Neil at speakeasy-cafe.dsl.speakeasy.net on March 23, 2001 at 23:35:01:
In Reply to: Re: Your arguments hold zero weight... posted by TravisBickle on March 23, 2001 at 16:02:43:
: : : No... it is a well known fact that Goldman did a rewrite.
: : : You can all try to goad me as much as you want. I was hoping for some intellegent civilized exchanges about this. Silly me.
: : The problem with wanting intelligent conversation but not revealing your "source", is the fact that no one here believes you actually have on. Actually, that's not true. It's not that we don't believe it necessarily, but with no proof, it's difficult to believe.
: : No one would equate intelligent journalism with the National Enquirer, and one of the primary reasons is the fact that they print stories that rely on innuendo and half-truths.
: : The truth is, it is NOT a well known fact that Goldman did a rewrite. It is a well known fact that he looked at the script. you say that they denied it "at first", but find me an article or statement made by them that has admitted it since.
: : As for Affleck not mentioning it on "Actor's Studio", doesn't that make sense to you? If you wrote a script and a small group of people were constantly trying to give credit to someone else, would you want to perpetuate that myth by giving it any credence at all?
: : Affleck, Damon AND Golding have all come out and said that Golding did NOT write GWH. To my knowledge, other than a very tongue-in-cheek reference in his book, Golding has denied having written any part of it at all (much less a rewrite).
: : So if you want "intelligent conversation", bring something to the table. We have written evidnce in the form of quotes from the parties involved on our side. You have hearsay from a person supposedly in the know. If this were a court of law, which side do you think would win?
: : I'd be willing to debate this further if you could produce one shred of evidence supporting your argument other than the sarcasm golding placed in his book, but I have a feeling you can't do that.
: : ksb
: Right you are. That's why I am not going any further with this. The source is not in print, it was from a conversation, but I won't give that person up. If that means I lose an argument on this board, fine. As far as shreds of evidence... I'm a little suprised that opinionated people such as yourselves, are quick to believe everything that is said by all these parties.
: I rewrote, I only read it, I made a suggestion, I never changed anything, I changed a little, I only doctored it.... oh, just kidding!
: This 'source' is very close to Matt Damon, and he confided in her. Like I said, if she holds a grudge, then fine. I see no reason for her to. And fine, my arguments hold no water at all, because I won't reveal my source... and I won't. That's it, dead issue... although I'd love to see one of the VA'ers weigh in.