# Irreversible-Rape Scene



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

Discussing this with a friend last night. The films infamous brutal rape scene-what are your views on it?

*poll to follow*


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Oct 18, 2005)

welshDJ said:
			
		

> Discussing this with a friend last night. The films infamous brutal rape scene-what are your views on it?
> 
> *poll to follow*



Never heard of the film - care to give us more details?


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 18, 2005)

Divisive Cotton said:
			
		

> Never heard of the film - care to give us more details?


it's a film that tracks backwards across a story that basically involves a woman being raped in a subway, and the consequences thereof


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

Divisive Cotton said:
			
		

> Never heard of the film - care to give us more details?



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290673/

theres quite a good review of it below the synopsis.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2005)

One of two horrible scenes in the film. If i remember rightly the criticisms were that it was a) too graphic b) too long c) humiliating for the actress -  she herself rejected all these i believe. It's a rape scene, it's not going to be nice, and it had to be pretty bloody graphic to explain the violence of the opening scene.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Oct 18, 2005)

welshDJ said:
			
		

> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290673/
> 
> theres quite a good review of it below the synopsis.





> For those with a strong stomach, the film is simply a journey into hell.



So is it a 'journey into hell'?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

Divisive Cotton said:
			
		

> So is it a 'journey into hell'?



The opening sequence and the rape sequence are the most violent film scenes I have ever witnessed.

During the rape sequence when I went to the cinema to watch it-I counted 7 people leave (which was roughly a third of the audience)

However thats not to detract from the film which I thought was an excellent movie IMO


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> it had to be pretty bloody graphic to explain the violence of the opening scene.



Id agree totally on that-but do you think the director couldve got the point across just as well if the scene was shorter maybe? Or do you think the length was totally justified (its nearly 10 mins long)


----------



## Kameron (Oct 18, 2005)

welshDJ said:
			
		

> Discussing this with a friend last night. The films infamous brutal rape scene-what are your views on it?


The length of the rape scene in that film is important. The reason for this is that if you portray rape as something that is over very quickly it helps trivialise it. That film is about the impact of the rape and it is critical that the full brutality of rape is explained to the audience. It is shocking because rape is shocking not the other way around.

Films out of the traditional Hollywood mould that trivialise sex and violence lead to a society that has unrealistic expectations of the results of its actions.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 18, 2005)

Wasn't an issue - it's a film about brutality and it handles it unflinchingly and without sensationalism which makes it far more effective. Reminded me of the way films like 'Scum' handle violence - there's a feeling of it being truly rooted in reality as opposed to the OTT and often blackly comedic violence employed in films like Sexy Beast (which has the same 'feel' of reality as opposed to say, Pulp Fiction).

Still not a patch on films like Straw Dogs and Deliverance for the feeling of stark visceral terror. Or maybe I'm just desensitised.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2005)

welshDJ said:
			
		

> Id agree totally on that-but do you think the director couldve got the point across just as well if the scene was shorter maybe? Or do you think the length was totally justified (its nearly 10 mins long)


 To be honest, i don't think looking at this scene and asking if it was 'justified' is the right way to approach it. Did it work? Yes it did, Would it have worked as well as it did if it had been shorter? Maybe, maybe not. (I don't think it would have myself) But to look at in terms of 'justification' is to come close to taking up an _a priori_ postion that depictions of graphic rape that are integral to a film have to be made in a certain manner that's got nothing to do with whether they work within that _particular_ film but is, rather, dictated by the fact of simply _being a rape scene_ - and you can't really impose that on creative endeavours without damaging the wider project.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

Kameron said:
			
		

> The length of the rape scene in that film is important. The reason for this is that if you portray rape as something that is over very quickly it helps trivialise it. That film is about the impact of the rape and it is critical that the full brutality of rape is explained to the audience. It is shocking because rape is shocking not the other way around.
> 
> Films out of the traditional Hollywood mould that trivialise sex and violence lead to a society that has unrealistic expectations of the results of its actions.



I dont think cutting a scene shorter actually trivialises it. Its only when it becomes titilating (for example the 'rape' sequence in Basic Instinct when Douglas rapes his therapist) does the anatomy of any scene start to walk on thin ice.

The rape scene in this film captures perfectly the fear and brutality of rape but from actual penetration to rapists orgasm is there any need to further elaborate on this act of violence. The scene shows not only the penetration but the orgasm and withdrawl all this done when the rapist is sniffing amyl nitrate.

I think the scene was totally necessary but far too long-I just dont feel like the director wouldve lost any impact if he had cut the scene right down. Even if it was halved down the actual penetration and brutal beating he gives his victim would have been suffice enough for me.


Arguably it could be said that actually setting the scene as an actual 'stranger' rape when in reality thats a statistical rarity is also trivialising rape?


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 18, 2005)

welshDJ said:
			
		

> Arguably it could be said that actually setting the scene as an actual 'stranger' rape when in reality thats a statistical rarity is also trivialising rape?




sorry,but that's nonsense. how can it trivialise rape just by showing one instance of it? is being raped by a stranger more titillating, less valid, more trivial etc? the background to it - and possibly the effects on the victim - may vary but one is not really any less horrifying than the other.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2005)

The fact that the rapist was a gangster type was supposed to bring out the _power_ side of the thing as well i suspect.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

butchersapron said:
			
		

> To be honest, i don't think looking at this scene and asking if it was 'justified' is the right way to approach it. Did it work? Yes it did, Would it have worked as well as it did if it had been shorter? Maybe, maybe not. (I don't think it would have myself) But to look at in terms of 'justification' is to come close to taking up an _a priori_ postion that depictions of graphic rape that are integral to a film have to be made in a certain manner that's got nothing to do with whether they work within that _particular_ film but is, rather, dictated by the fact of simply _being a rape scene_ - and you can't really impose that on creative endeavours without damaging the wider project.



On reflection I think my use of the word 'justified' is mis-placed and I would agree in part with what you say. 

My point is the scene is totally justified but not, I believe-its duration. A film maker has his or her right and IMO responsibility to show horrific acts of violence (whatever they may be) in all its glory. However they can do that without having to dwell on it.

The rape sequence in The War Zone for example is as brutal and just as powerful but it doesnt dwell on the act for a prolonged period like the discussed scene. Im not sure if you've seen this film but if you have would you have agreed that to show a father having sex from behind with his daughter from penetration to orgasm without the camera moving from one position and in one take (as is the case with irriversible) necessary to the film?

I


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2005)

Oddly enough, i was trying to think of similar scenes and that one did come to mind, but what stuck was how different it was from the highly ambiguous scene in the book - in fact the whole film just dropped any hint of the amibiguity that was present throughout the book. OT though.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> sorry,but that's nonsense. how can it trivialise rape just by showing one instance of it? is being raped by a stranger more titillating, less valid, more trivial etc? the background to it - and possibly the effects on the victim - may vary but one is not really any less horrifying than the other.



Which is why I said 'arguably'.

The poster said that by not showing rape in all its glory (which in this case debated is duration) actually trivialises it. Well arguably depicting rape as something that occurs between strangers and victims (as I pointed out a rarity) could also be argued is trivialising it.


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 18, 2005)

that's still nonsense. statistically unusual is not the same as trivial.

please try and bear in mind that it's a film, not a documentary. so obviously although the director didn't want to pull any punches, it's also an exercise in narrative, in telling a story (in a radical way) and the director or writer obviously felt that this was the story they wanted to tell.

i really don't get what point you're trying to make


----------



## Kameron (Oct 18, 2005)

welshDJ said:
			
		

> Arguably it could be said that actually setting the scene as an actual 'stranger' rape when in reality thats a statistical rarity is also trivialising rape?


Criticising a film for portraying something that is a statistical rarity would be going a bit far don't you think? Next we'll have to chuck out Die Hard on the same basis. This is an argument that doesn't hold water if we only make films about the statically probably there will be no films about rape what so ever. You can have another film about my commute to work today though.

I really an interested in why you are horrified by this portrayal to the point where you think it should be cut. I can imagine thinking something should be cut if it trivialised, encouraged, lent a semblance of imprimatur to the act. I don't think this example does.


Have you seen War Zone BTW? (sorry, when I wrote that post I hadn't seen your note on War Zone already..)


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> that's still nonsense. statistically unusual is not the same as trivial.
> 
> please try and bear in mind that it's a film, not a documentary. so obviously although the director didn't want to pull any punches, it's also an exercise in narrative, in telling a story (in a radical way) and the director or writer obviously felt that this was the story they wanted to tell.
> 
> i really don't get what point you're trying to make



To trivialise:-

_to make something seem less important than it really is:_

The original poster argues that:-

*The reason for this is that if you portray rape as something that is over very quickly it helps trivialise it
*

And as I stated _arguably_ to portray a type of rape that is a statistical rarity could actually be in danger of making something less important than it really is (eg rape is perpetrated by men who are strangers to women) when in reality as is commonly known its perpetrated by men known to their victims.

As for your last point-yes I agree. Its a film not a documentary but my point is that the director couldve got the point across just as effectively with a shorter scene.


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 18, 2005)

welsh dj - debating with you is like trying to nail jelly to a wall.

i would also suggest YOU'RE the one doing the trivialising by playing down the frequency and impact of 'stranger' rape.

but i'm sure you're right about all of this 


btw - YOU'RE the original poster, why do you keep referring to yourself in the third person?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

Kameron said:
			
		

> Criticising a film for portraying something that is a statistical rarity would be going a bit far don't you think?



Im not.....Im saying 'arguably' in response to your point about portrayal of rape in cinema. Im actually argueing that the duration of the scene is IMO too long for the reasons Ive already stated.



> Have you seen War Zone BTW?



Yes I have-and the climatic rape sequence certainly isnt dwelled on by Roth at all (in comparison to this film) yet the point made just as effectively as Irriversible.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> btw - YOU'RE the original poster, why do you keep referring to yourself in the third person?



the original poster i.e kameron


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 18, 2005)

welshDJ said:
			
		

> the original poster i.e kameron



er, no, you're definitely the original poster. have a look at the top of the thread. kameron is a responding poster.

(bangs head on desk, for long enough to avoid trivialising the true horror of desk-head-banging. but fails to take into account that most head banging is actually done at Iron Maiden concerts, and thus trivialises the whole issue  )


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> er, no, you're definitely the original poster. have a look at the top of the thread. kameron is a responding poster.
> 
> (bangs head on desk, for long enough to avoid trivialising the true horror of desk-head-banging. but fails to take into account that most head banging is actually done at Iron Maiden concerts, and thus trivialises the whole issue  )




ha ha ha ha...point taken.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

Quite an interesting viewpoint...

_But can one show anything at all on the screen and justify it with abstract intellectual defenses? Obviously, the hordes of patrons, primarily women, who walk out of this movie during the rape scene would say no, and they are likely disturbed by something more than the scene’s content and the unflinching way it is shot. There is a tinge of a smug, in-your-face quality to it. Perhaps the scene can be thematically justified, but the way it exists can’t wholly be attributed to artistic intent. _ 

http://www.culturevulture.net/Movies6/Irreversible.htm


----------



## Bomber (Oct 18, 2005)

A gruesome scene, I think it could have been filmed equally as effectively had it have been shorter or not just filmed from one angle [It's a while since I saw the movie and I don't recall there being cuts to different angles ?} . Scenes of this nature will desensitize if they become more commonplace. I thought the film was poor personally.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

Bomber said:
			
		

> A gruesome scene, I think it could have been filmed equally as effectively had it have been shorter or not just filmed from one angle [It's a while since I saw the movie and I don't recall there being cuts to different angles ?} . Scenes of this nature will desensitize if they become more commonplace. I thought the film was poor personally.



Your right...its one camera...one take and just one angle.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 18, 2005)

Which has the effect of turning the viewer into a witness and placing them in the scene with the rapist and victim, one of the reasons it's so effective. Jump cutting around depersonalises the action because you can't physically do that as a human being...


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Which has the effect of turning the viewer into a witness and placing them in the scene with the rapist and victim, one of the reasons it's so effective. Jump cutting around depersonalises the action because you can't physically do that as a human being...



Id agree with that. At one point her hand reaches out and almost touches the camera....almost like she is reaching out to the viewer for help. Makes me shudder thinking about it.


----------



## Bomber (Oct 18, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Which has the effect of turning the viewer into a witness and placing them in the scene with the rapist and victim, one of the reasons it's so effective. Jump cutting around depersonalises the action because you can't physically do that as a human being...



 But has a witness would you just stand there and stare without flinching for ten minutes ?    I don't think the technique of one angle shooting makes the viewer a witness I think it makes them a voyeur !


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 18, 2005)

welshDJ said:
			
		

> Id agree with that. At one point her hand reaches out and almost touches the camera....almost like she is reaching out to the viewer for help. Makes me shudder thinking about it.



It's one of the reasons Peepshow works so well  - the FP perspective immediately involves the viewer and makes them complicit in what is happening.

I'm trying to think of other examples where the single shot camera has been used to create the same effect...and it's been an age since I watched Irreversible too...


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

Bomber said:
			
		

> I don't think the technique of one angle shooting makes the viewer a witness I think it makes them a voyeur !



Reading some of the reviews online now it seems that is a common criticism of the film.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2005)

Bomber said:
			
		

> But has a witness would you just stand there and stare without flinching for ten minutes ?    I don't think the technique of one angle shooting makes the viewer a witness I think it makes them a voyeur !


 That's the question you're _supposed_ to ask yourself, that it's designed to make you think about - and the impact of what decisions you make is the point of the rest of the film.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 18, 2005)

Bomber said:
			
		

> But has a witness would you just stand there and stare without flinching for ten minutes ?    I don't think the technique of one angle shooting makes the viewer a witness I think it makes them a voyeur !



Go read a book on camera langauge and style and come back to us.

Of COURSE IN REAL LIFE you wouldn't stand there unless you were prevented from moving but IN FILM it is a way of turning the viewer into an player in the scene - because it's shot from a single POV, just as you would see it IRL your brain places you in the scene far more effectively than it beign cut, and it's not simple voyeurism since that implies a degree of detachment from what's happening - this technique makes you a part of the film.


----------



## Bomber (Oct 18, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Go read a book on camera langauge and style and come back to us.



  Oh! The 'Sight & Sound' / Media studies clique have arrived have they     I don't profess to be a student of camera technique. I watch a film has a member of Joe Public, I'm just putting my opinion forward in the debate if thats OK by you ..........  Cheers !


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

Bomber said:
			
		

> Oh! The 'Sight & Sound' / Media studies clique have arrived have they     I don't profess to be a student of camera technique. I watch a film has a member of Joe Public, I'm just putting my opinion forward in the debate if thats OK by you ..........  Cheers !



Ha Ha Ha...welcome to the Urban 'You really should know the facts before you post' clique.


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 18, 2005)

welshDJ said:
			
		

> Ha Ha Ha...welcome to the Urban 'You really should know the facts before you post' clique.



well, don't you think knowing the facts before you post is a good thing?


----------



## perplexis (Oct 18, 2005)

None of those options really cover it for me- the duration of the scene was an issue of sorts- I felt extremely uncomfortable, horrified, upset by the scene, and obviously its duration played a large part in that (11seconds wouldn't have had quite the same impact). I do think it was necessary (if anything, it's the only thing that makes the ultra-violence at the beginning of the film make any sense), and it should have been that long, since the duration is a major part of its impact.
As others have said, the whole point of the scene is to make you witness the event with the maximum possible amount of empathy/horror, and I think it achieves this very well indeed. Whether or not people feel comfortable with this is a non-issue in my eyes, people can (and did) walk out of the cinema if it's too much for them. The fact that it did disturb people that much is (to my mind) a tribute to the skill of all involved in the film.
But now I'm asking myself the question- how much could I have taken, where's my rape-scene threshold. I don't know, but I imagine if it had gone on and on and on I too might eventually have had to leave.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> well, don't you think knowing the facts before you post is a good thing?



You back with your nails and jelly again?


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 18, 2005)

welshDJ said:
			
		

> You back with your nails and jelly again?




well your ability to construct a coherent argument hasn't really come on in leaps and bounds during the last hour.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 18, 2005)

Bomber said:
			
		

> Oh! The 'Sight & Sound' / Media studies clique have arrived have they     I don't profess to be a student of camera technique. I watch a film has a member of Joe Public, I'm just putting my opinion forward in the debate if thats OK by you ..........  Cheers !



Far from it, but if you're going to offer an opinion on something as specific as how camerawork is used to create mood, emotion and contact in the viewer it would be helpful of you'd at least got a 101ist idea of camera work.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> well your ability to construct a coherent argument hasn't really come on in leaps and bounds during the last hour.



Neither has your ability to troll.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Far from it, but if you're going to offer an opinion on something as specific as how camerawork is used to create mood, emotion and contact in the viewer it would be helpful of you'd at least got a 101ist idea of camera work.



But he hasnt got an idea of camerwork-he's already said that.

So if the camera angle made him feel voyeuristic surely he's entitled to that opinion even if he has now working knowledge of camerawork. And surely he's entitled to that opinion without a childish 'Read up on it then come back to 'us'

Jeez


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 18, 2005)

welshDJ said:
			
		

> Neither has your ability to troll.




oh jesus, you twat.

simply disagreeing with you - or anyone - is not the same thing as trolling. look it up, have a think..


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> oh jesus, you twat.
> 
> simply disagreeing with you - or anyone - is not the same thing as trolling. look it up, have a think..



Is there any need to throw playground insults?


----------



## Bomber (Oct 18, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> oh jesus, you twat.
> 
> simply disagreeing with you - or anyone - is not the same thing as trolling. look it up, have a think..



 Leaves yet another Urban thread that invites opinion only to degenerate into a slanging match ! Honestly I really do despair !


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 18, 2005)

welshDJ said:
			
		

> But he hasnt got an idea of camerwork-he's already said that.
> 
> So if the camera angle made him feel voyeuristic surely he's entitled to that opinion even if he has now working knowledge of camerawork. And surely he's entitled to that opinion without a childish 'Read up on it then come back to 'us'
> 
> Jeez



He offered an opinion on camerawork with no idea of how it works - and also made a REALLY fuckign stupid comment with the 'If you were there you wouldn't just stand around would you' - well DUH! I'm watching a work of fiction. Would I stand around and actually watch this if it was happening in front of me?


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

Bomber said:
			
		

> Leaves yet another Urban thread that invites opinion only to degenerate into a slanging match ! Honestly I really do despair !




Word.


----------



## Kameron (Oct 18, 2005)

Bomber said:
			
		

> Oh! The 'Sight & Sound' / Media studies clique have arrived have they     I don't profess to be a student of camera technique. I watch a film has a member of Joe Public, I'm just putting my opinion forward in the debate if thats OK by you ..........  Cheers !


It has fuck all to do with being a member of Joe Public, that film was set up to make you feel a certain way. You don't have to be a student of anything to figure that out. You don't need to know anything but how you feel.

IMO the point is your reaction to your feeling is "this scene should be cut/censored" or otherwise degraded in some way to make it more acceptable to you. If this was because you felt it trivialised, excused or legitimised rape then I think you might have a solid argument but I think that you should perform self censorship and not watch it yourself rather than suggest that a film that unusually for cinema shows violence and its consequences should be made more palatable. Indeed I think the suggestion that it should be made more palatable for you is in rather poor taste given the content being explored here.

If it was shorter but just as effective then you would be here posting about some other way in which the content should be softened up for your taste buds. This was not a feel good movie, get over it.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> He offered an opinion on camerawork with no idea of how it works - and also made a REALLY fuckign stupid comment with the 'If you were there you wouldn't just stand around would you' - well DUH! I'm watching a work of fiction. Would I stand around and actually watch this if it was happening in front of me?



Right so do you feel the best way to correct this 'fucking stupid' comment is to tell him to go read up on a subject then come back to 'us' who the fuck is 'us' some sort of elite know it alls?

I despair of some of the posters on this site.


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 18, 2005)

Well if you're going to make comments and criticism about a specific aspect of anything isn't it best to be informed about it first?


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 18, 2005)

Bomber said:
			
		

> Leaves yet another Urban thread that invites opinion only to degenerate into a slanging match ! Honestly I really do despair !



if you bother to read the thread you'll find i was only too happy to debate until welshdj started throwing around accusations of trolling.


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 18, 2005)

welshDJ said:
			
		

> I despair of some of the posters on this site.



as do i. but maybe you'll turn out ok when you grow up


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Well if you're going to make comments and criticism about a specific aspect of anything isn't it best to be informed about it first?



Absolutely but you dont go about 'informing people' by saying:-

*Go read a book on camera langauge and style and come back to us*


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> as do i. but maybe you'll turn out ok when you grow up



Still throwing the insults around. You havent changed one bit since we first met in the kylie thread.

*exits thread and leaves the usual suspects to swing their holier than thou 'Im an urban clever clogs' placard around*


----------



## Bomber (Oct 18, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> He offered an opinion on camerawork with no idea of how it works - and also made a REALLY fuckign stupid comment with the 'If you were there you wouldn't just stand around would you' - well DUH! I'm watching a work of fiction. Would I stand around and actually watch this if it was happening in front of me?



 Well thanks! So nice of you to refer to me as stupid just for having an opinion. Sorry I don't meet your exacting standards !


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 18, 2005)

why is it whenever anyone is on the losing end of an argument on these boards they throw a hissy fit and take their ball home?

tossers


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 18, 2005)

Bomber said:
			
		

> Well thanks! So nice of you to refer to me as stupid just for having an opinion. Sorry I don't meet your exacting standards !



Go back and re-read your first comment and the context in which is was made. Then come back and say it wasn't an ill thought out (polite for stupid) comment to say 'If you were actually there you wouldn't just stand there'.

Besides, stupid is one of the least offensive and lightweight insults that'll be thrown at you if you hang around here long enough. Get used to it.


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 18, 2005)

look at you,clever clogs, with your placard and your 'being right about stuff'.

i despair, i really do


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> why is it whenever anyone is on the losing end of an argument on these boards they throw a hissy fit and take their ball home?
> 
> tossers



Why is whenever someone thinks their on the winning end of an arguement on these boards their true arrogance shows through backed up with childish personal playground insults and smart ass placed smilies.


----------



## Bomber (Oct 18, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> if you bother to read the thread you'll find i was only too happy to debate until welshdj started throwing around accusations of trolling.



 I'm sure, but that guy out of the Usual Suspects


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 18, 2005)

welshDJ said:
			
		

> Why is whenever someone thinks their on the winning end of an arguement on these boards their true arrogance shows through backed up with childish personal playground insults and smart ass placed smilies.




listen, simpleton, you started with the 'trolling' accusations, so don't blame me if you ended up looking a tad foolish.


----------



## Bomber (Oct 18, 2005)

kyser_soze said:
			
		

> Besides, stupid is one of the least offensive and lightweight insults that'll be thrown at you if you hang around here long enough. Get used to it.



 I'm shaking , truly


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 18, 2005)

I am too - just not when people say one thing and then immediately turn round and say 'Well I don't know about that' having just offered an opinion on it.

And for confusing criticism and commentry on a work of fantasy with the real world.


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 18, 2005)

oh come on, bomber - you're thicker skinned than this. kyser can be a bit abrasive (as can i) but he was hardly laying into you. 

as for welsh dj - there really is no hope.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> listen, simpleton, you started with the 'trolling' accusations, so don't blame me if you ended up looking a tad foolish.



Yes whatever   

Here have the fucking thread...its yours. You win.

*waits for Dubversion to quote this post and to get the last word in*


----------



## kyser_soze (Oct 18, 2005)

Bomber said:
			
		

> I'm shaking , truly



Well don't cry about being called stupid for making a stupid comment then.



> But has a witness would you just stand there and stare without flinching for ten minutes ?



Not in the real world, but this is FANTASY and it's a very specific camera technique that's employed to create the effect. WDJ did actually make the more relevant point about the line between being a witness and materially involved in the scene as a viewer, or was it simply a piece of very nasty voyeurism?

THAT'S a debate worth having.


----------



## Grandma Death (Oct 18, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> oh come on, bomber - you're thicker skinned than this. kyser can be a bit abrasive (as can i) but he was hardly laying into you.
> 
> as for welsh dj - there really is no hope.



Translates - Please join my Lord Of The Flies gang


----------



## Bomber (Oct 18, 2005)

Dubversion said:
			
		

> oh come on, bomber - you're thicker skinned than this. kyser can be a bit abrasive (as can i) but he was hardly laying into you.
> 
> as for welsh dj - there really is no hope.



 I know, that's why I'm _shaking_, NOT    Pity about the thread, think I'll nip back off to the footy forum


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 18, 2005)

welshDJ said:
			
		

> Translates - Please join my Lord Of The Flies gang




well, it's good to see you've done SOME reading anyway


----------



## Dubversion (Oct 18, 2005)

welsh dj - i'm going out to the chemists now. feel free in my absence to posit an argument, throw a hissyfit when it's rebuffed and then start sulking.

tatty-bye


----------

