Consider Fox New's demographic, and I believe one will see a selection effect. According to a number of survey's a left leaning person is more likely to get their news from a printed source, like a newspaper or website, while a conservative person is more likely to depend on cable news.
pawpro2's forum posts
You need to take a symbolic logic class judging from your logical structure. While I'm not defending Vidiot's language, I would point out that assuming that the phrase, "this is why you don't piss off an English major" makes a pretty brash assumption about the Philosophy of Language. "This is why you don't piss off x" infers that under certain cirumstances, something bad could happen. Defining x as something (anything) could make the conclusion more or less likely, but does nothing rule it out entirely. It's an inductive conclusion, which Hume proved could not be accepted as fact - its illogical to do so. Furthermore, if that phrase is "stupid," than so are the phrases., "this is why you don't piss off an asshole on the internet," or "this is why you don't piss off a doofus in a hat." I have clearly done both. Lastly, being an English Major only excludes "crocodile" from my possible alternate occupations.
You are correct, the letter was one written utilizing the strategem of pathos. YAY! WE DID IT! *Cues the Dora The Explorer music* But your trekkie example is not pathos, it is technically bathos. The two are quite different.
Now, I chose pathos due to its historical lethality. It certainly is not as upstanding or pure as ethos or logos, but humans are not terribly bright. Nietzche (rather sarcastically) criticized Socretes of pushing man to be "absurdly rational." We, as a species, certainly are not that. We like fire, yelling, war - things like that. And pathos is the ultimate motivator; one needs only to look at the most successful leaders in our planet's history for comfirmation. Had I written a quaint and polite letter of complaint I would have gotten a few movie passes and a non-chalant apology. But pathos stirs emotions, evokes anger, and effects change in a large body of people. Thats what I wanted. Thats what happened.
Also, I am sure this has already been reiterated to a point of nausea, but the letter was satirical. Satire is a lovely little literary device in which human vices, shortcomings, and other imperfections, are scrutinized and ridiculed through irony and derision in order to bring about some form of improvement. Comedians do it. Editorial cartoons do it too. Mark Twain lived off it. And the world listens. And the world changes.
And my initial response to you? Long winded is a fine way to describe it. It works for your last post too (and mine), so thats not really fair. And why avoid hyperbole? Judging by the response and concession from the theater (late developments) it seems to be pretty effective. And why is it a poor argument? It's a classic RAA (Reductio Ad Absurdum), which does not require me to forward new premises or a logical conclusion. I just have to show that your's is invalid.
This discussion is all rather silly. But thats what I get for pissing off a man in sunglasses.
Hi all, my name is Peter and I wrote the letter. Vidiot (this is the internet, I guess I have to call him by his stupid screen name) posted the letter without telling me. I was actually searching on the internet and stumbled across it. Somehow, through the magic of Google, this little thread pops up when a user searches for "Lincoln Square Cinemas," which makes me happy. My experience seems to be anything but an isolated incident - other moviegoers have experienced similar if not identical scenarios - and now that people can easily find my own comments and understand that the theater is well aware of the problem, heads are rolling. To be specific, I mean whoever was charged with protecting the sacred gates of theater 16 from those darned teenagers is gone. Vidiot's prediction was correct; the theaters response was very typical and manufactured. I'll post the text below.
It's a pretty run-of-the-mill response letter. It's also quite unsatisfying. The first paragraph admits fault on the part of the theater's "common sense," but goes on to suggest that I should have made a good faith effort to resolve the problem then and there. I did. Talking to a manager usually implies that one seeks to mend conflicts and reach agreeable conclusions through negotiation. But it didn't work, he still made me drive my friend home. The first paragraph is worthless.Dear Mr. Williams,
I have reviewed your letter and received some feedback from management and staff related to your experience at the theatre. While you were understanding of the need for ratings enforcement the problem might have been better resolved right at the box office. As a sophmore at the University of Washington, it is unlikely (though possible) that your companion would be under 17 years of age. As you and the others in your party had sufficient identifiable ID's with your ages, common sense would have had management decide that the standard University picture ID was sufficient in this instance.
As you note, ratings compliance is a voluntary action taken on by the film and exhibition industry. While it can be annoying, the effect of not having the ratings system in force would probably be worse. At that point the government would step in and set the rules. In that case a common sense approach would likely not apply.
With regard to what transpired at the auditorium entrance, I would ask that you not come to a conclusion about the whole of operations at Lincoln Square based on that one instance. Just prior to your entering the auditorium a group of young men who were not old enough tried to enter the movie. The person who was handling the door notified the manager and these two then went to find the four young men. The task at the door was, unfortunately, assigned quickly to a person who was not prepared for the task. Without further facts regarding the situation, the women should have been carded and not allowed into the auditorium. Had there been some exception, it should have been worked out by management. That is in essence why there was someone at the door. The person who manned the door will be spoken to regarding the need for an even-handed and encompassing approach to checking for ID's as warranted.
I am not so clear as to your reference to Atreus and Thyestes. Jealousy ruled their brotherly relationship and lead them down a road where no one came out the winner. Atreus actions are in line with those of Dr. Hannibal Lecter whose last line in "The Silence of the Lambs" was something to the effect of "I am having an old friend for dinner." We would prefer to learn from our mistakes and move forward.
If there is anything further I can do for you, please respond to this email or contact me at my office.
Sincerely,
George Mann
I was never critical of the ratings system. I actually threatened to let those in control of it know about what happened. That kind of suggests I support it. Goodbye paragraph two.
In the third glorious paragraph, Mr. Mann states that
Just prior to your entering the auditorium a group of young men who were not old enough tried to enter the movie. The person who was handling the door notified the manager and these two then went to find the four young men.
What? Now I'm really confused. So, if I'm reading this correctly, four kids were carded and got in anyways. And their level of disruption required two employees to shut 'em down. How is, "your complaint is invalid because we already fucked up" an acceptable response? The rest of the words are senseless babble; you don't need to explain the purpose of a doorman to me because I obviously understand his role better than you do. Paragraph three is gone.
This leaves paragraph four - a semi-flaccid retort to my allusion to Atreus and Thyestes. For whatever reason, George tried to read into the whole cannibalism thing, and he failed. Why is he quoting Hannibal? And I guess the last sentence is a smug, "I know how to Greek Mythology better than you do" type comment. The effect I wanted to convey to the Lincoln Square management was my level of anger. It takes a lot of hatred to feed your twin brother his children and then banish him from his own kingdom. It summons even more rage to experience it. I was exaggerating my anger; George's kids are safe. But I wanted to get the point across; I wasn't happy. Fuck you, paragraph 4.
Oops, the whole letter is gone. But I'm happy. This reaction is what I wanted. I didn't want free movie passes, if I did I would have written a different kind of letter. One does not reap benefits or rewards from anger fueled revenge. I wanted change. I chose to make the language inflammatory and sardonic because it would not sit well with whomever read it. Sure they'd think I was an asshole, but this letter was not something easily ignored. Management probably gets a couple letters a month, but I'm sure one like this is a bit more rare. I expected to be written off, but I got what I wanted.
@PrimevilKneivel
Your comments are, to a degree, well founded. You're right that this was not an effective letter of complaint in that I will never see beneficiary restitution for my experience. I'll shove those words aside; you and I do not and probably never will agree whether or not I did the right thing.
What concerns me, is your treatment of "English Major." You seem to be operating under the assumption that we are not "captains of industry," and if by that you mean that we don't control the world, then fine. Your accidental reference to Fight Club is rather ironic, the bit on angry waiters soiling a customer's food. I could get into Tyler's whole monologue, but I won't because I'm above using pointed cultural context as a rebuttal.
To assume that becoming an English Major is akin to giving up and dying in a sewer isn't fair at all. Forbes magazine typically rates English among the top 10 wage earners for graduates, and when coupled with another degree it can be lethal. Still, that whole "captains of industry" comment assumes that I made my decision because I love money, and that's quite the logical fallacy. Maybe I enjoy it.
But this flame war is a waste of my time; neither of us is going to change their opinion. And why should you? You're content with life, lambasting anonymous persons on the internet. I on the other hand, am going to continue wallowing in my own self-pity as I go to college, learn a thing or two other than English (Law, my main focus, seems to be a captain of industry), and observe a world beyond the internet.
Log in to comment