▲ 67 ▼ Steven Spielberg Says James Bond Movies ‘Constantly Turned Me Down’ and ‘If They Asked Me Now’ to Direct the Answer Would Be: ‘You Can’t Afford Me’ Discussion (variety.com) submitted 5 months ago by TheImpressiveX@piefed.social to c/movies@piefed.social 21 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] kreskin@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago (2 children) Really? Aside from the fact that the burden is always on the accuser to provide proof, the only thing you have is an article from just after the Hamas attacks, when the entire world was in shock and emotions were running high? THAT'S all you have to go on? Never mind that his foundation is funding groups that are protesting Israel, let's just ignore actions and focus on a few sentences spoken in the past. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kreskin@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child) So you ask for an article source, I give it to you, and your response is to question the timing of the article rather than the content of the article itself (since its a guardian.com article and you cant legit question that source) And get it removed by a mod with the claim "Deleted by mod: Spreading misinformation/going off-topic." You and the mod are not being honest here. That article was directly about the accusations against Speilberg. Furthermore the guardian.com's editorial integrity is established-- its not just whatever you want to say it is. Its neither off topic nor misinformation. So why are you two so bent on burying this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 months ago Your comment was reported for being grossly uncivil. Since, you know, you were a major dick. I have no idea why the removal reason listed is misinformation. Probably the mod felt the same way I did about the irrelevance of your link. your response is to question the timing of the article rather than the content of the article itself Is there anything in my explanation that is confusing about why that's bullshit? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago (2 children) Really? Aside from the fact that the burden is always on the accuser to provide proof, the only thing you have is an article from just after the Hamas attacks, when the entire world was in shock and emotions were running high? THAT'S all you have to go on? Never mind that his foundation is funding groups that are protesting Israel, let's just ignore actions and focus on a few sentences spoken in the past. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] kreskin@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child) So you ask for an article source, I give it to you, and your response is to question the timing of the article rather than the content of the article itself (since its a guardian.com article and you cant legit question that source) And get it removed by a mod with the claim "Deleted by mod: Spreading misinformation/going off-topic." You and the mod are not being honest here. That article was directly about the accusations against Speilberg. Furthermore the guardian.com's editorial integrity is established-- its not just whatever you want to say it is. Its neither off topic nor misinformation. So why are you two so bent on burying this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 months ago Your comment was reported for being grossly uncivil. Since, you know, you were a major dick. I have no idea why the removal reason listed is misinformation. Probably the mod felt the same way I did about the irrelevance of your link. your response is to question the timing of the article rather than the content of the article itself Is there anything in my explanation that is confusing about why that's bullshit? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kreskin@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 child) So you ask for an article source, I give it to you, and your response is to question the timing of the article rather than the content of the article itself (since its a guardian.com article and you cant legit question that source) And get it removed by a mod with the claim "Deleted by mod: Spreading misinformation/going off-topic." You and the mod are not being honest here. That article was directly about the accusations against Speilberg. Furthermore the guardian.com's editorial integrity is established-- its not just whatever you want to say it is. Its neither off topic nor misinformation. So why are you two so bent on burying this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 months ago Your comment was reported for being grossly uncivil. Since, you know, you were a major dick. I have no idea why the removal reason listed is misinformation. Probably the mod felt the same way I did about the irrelevance of your link. your response is to question the timing of the article rather than the content of the article itself Is there anything in my explanation that is confusing about why that's bullshit? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 months ago Your comment was reported for being grossly uncivil. Since, you know, you were a major dick. I have no idea why the removal reason listed is misinformation. Probably the mod felt the same way I did about the irrelevance of your link. your response is to question the timing of the article rather than the content of the article itself Is there anything in my explanation that is confusing about why that's bullshit? permalink fedilink source parent