Trying to be fair - What's your point?

Subject:

Comments:
: : : : 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. : Unfortunately, without OFFERING any, which I'm not seeing, it becomes increasingly unlikely this will happen. : : : 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? : Not to mention that "Inside the Actor's Studio" is always obviously heavily edited from the original event and the editors at Bravo could have been the people who didn't feel that discussion merited airing over the things they kept. : : : 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. : : Right you are. That's why I am not going any further with this. : If you have a source you're unwilling to give up, then why did you bring this up in the first place? How could an intelligent conversation of these kinds of questions not ultimately involve issues that you wouldn't be able to deal with reasonably. : Of course, if you bring it up and then slip out as if there's more you just CAN'T say, then it's dodgy and you've never even presented a fair fight to lose. : : The source is not in print, it was from a conversation, but I won't give that person up. : Well, then. Who gives a rat's ass? : : 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! : If these are documented, please demonstrate them. This contradicts my understanding of events. : : 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. : Let's see. How fucking subtle. : Now, if your source is real, I'm sure she appreciates your "discretion". : Now, let's say this source were on the set. I don't believe that he would have "confided" that the script was polished at that time, as that would be standard. So, then, what is the accusation exactly? : That the script went through an incredibly standard practice that wasn't discussed at the time of the film's release - most likely out of the pure mundanity - and then it was covered up to give Ben & Matt more cred? : To be honest, that's the most boring rumor I ever heard.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: