NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

Reply to thread

Message

I appreciate the point behind what you're saying, but the title doesn't bother me. It seems to bother Kimball because he's had negative confrontations with the director and perhaps that led him to front-load the title with his assumption that the witness has drawn some interpretive conclusion, when that may not be the case at all. It may be the case that the witness is simply describing what they saw e.g. "It was very large and had 3 lights." or "The stars disappeared and reappeared as it moved making it seem like a solid object." In fact, a lot of the descriptions in the film are just like that.

So to me, from a more neutral perspective, the title simply puts value in the eye-witness, which is something I think is very important ( provided that it's not unduly exaggerated ). On the other hand, Kimball's criticism prejudicially diminishes the value of the witness, which I don't think is fair to them. It's not their fault Fox acted out with Kimball. Their value should be considered separate from Fox and Kimball's conflict, and if anyone should know, Paul should know that a witness shouldn't be approached with a front-loaded prejudicial attitude.

Lastly, it should be pointed out that while degenerating into violence solves nothing and may even be illegal, there are few cases where someone becomes that upset over absolutely nothing. There's usually some sort of antagonizing or provocation, and given some of the exchanges I've had here with Kimball, I can see how someone less resilient than me might have difficulty containing themselves. That's no excuse, but I don't think we've heard what Fox's side of the story is either.

<blockquote data-quote="Randall" data-source="post: 263741" data-attributes="member: 2682">I appreciate the point behind what you&#039;re saying, but the title doesn&#039;t bother me. It seems to bother Kimball because he&#039;s had negative confrontations with the director and perhaps that led him to front-load the title with his assumption that the witness has drawn some interpretive conclusion, when that may not be the case at all. It may be the case that the witness is simply describing what they saw e.g. &quot;It was very large and had 3 lights.&quot; or &quot;The stars disappeared and reappeared as it moved making it seem like a solid object.&quot; In fact, a lot of the descriptions in the film are just like that.So to me, from a more neutral perspective, the title simply puts value in the eye-witness, which is something I think is very important ( provided that it&#039;s not unduly exaggerated ). On the other hand, Kimball&#039;s criticism prejudicially diminishes the value of the witness, which I don&#039;t think is fair to them. It&#039;s not their fault Fox acted out with Kimball. Their value should be considered separate from Fox and Kimball&#039;s conflict, and if anyone should know, Paul should know that a witness shouldn&#039;t be approached with a front-loaded prejudicial attitude.Lastly, it should be pointed out that while degenerating into violence solves nothing and may even be illegal, there are few cases where someone becomes that upset over absolutely nothing. There&#039;s usually some sort of antagonizing or provocation, and given some of the exchanges I&#039;ve had here with Kimball, I can see how someone less resilient than me might have difficulty containing themselves. That&#039;s no excuse, but I don&#039;t think we&#039;ve heard what Fox&#039;s side of the story is either.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Randall, post: 263741, member: 2682"] [FONT=Arial][SIZE=4]I appreciate the point behind what you're saying, but the title doesn't bother me. It seems to bother Kimball because he's had negative confrontations with the director and perhaps that led him to front-load the title with his assumption that the witness has drawn some interpretive conclusion, when that may not be the case at all. It may be the case that the witness is simply describing what they saw e.g. "It was very large and had 3 lights." or "The stars disappeared and reappeared as it moved making it seem like a solid object." In fact, a lot of the descriptions in the film are just like that. So to me, from a more neutral perspective, the title simply puts value in the eye-witness, which is something I think is very important ( provided that it's not unduly exaggerated ). [FONT=Arial][SIZE=4][FONT=Arial][SIZE=4]O[SIZE=4]n the other hand, [/SIZE]Kimball's criticism prejudicially diminishes the value of the witness, which I don't think is fair to them. It's not their fault Fox acted out with Kimball. Their value should be considered separate from Fox and Kimball's conflict, and if anyone [I]should[/I] know, Paul should know that a witness shouldn't be approached with a front-loaded prejudicial attitude.[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT] [FONT=Arial]Lastly, it should be pointed out that while degenerating into violence solves nothing and may even be illegal, there are few cases where someone becomes that upset over absolutely nothing. There's usually some sort of antagonizing or provocation, and given some of the exchanges I've had here with Kimball, I can see how someone less resilient than me might have difficulty containing themselves. That's no excuse, but I don't think we've heard what Fox's side of the story is either.[/FONT] [/QUOTE]

Verification