What a load of Crap!
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Tombstone
bigbadwolf666 — 4 years ago(May 16, 2021 12:06 PM)
More of Hollyweird's fantasy of Iconic made up Wyatt Earp and those who know nothing of history subscribing to a television set!
Without strife, your victory has no meaning.
Without strife, you do not advance.
Without strife, there is only stagnation. -
bigbadwolf666 — 4 years ago(May 17, 2021 10:40 AM)
Basic my ass. Look up the real Wyatt Earp, and the real cowboys and you'll see the only thing that is "Basic" is the name of the characters. Everything else is generic Iconic Hollywood fairytale and it's a shame America is riddled with so many of these bs history storytelling.
Without strife, your victory has no meaning.
Without strife, you do not advance.
Without strife, there is only stagnation. -
TheAdlerian — 4 years ago(May 17, 2021 01:44 PM)
I have read about all of the characters in the movie and learned their real life stories are basically close to that of the story. So, I don't know what you have read verse me.
I also don't know what is real regarding what I've read.
Are you expecting 100% realism or do you think none of it happened? -
bigbadwolf666 — 4 years ago(May 17, 2021 07:04 PM)
You probably read the fictional version of him, which I'm sure there is many.
Check this out fully.
https://www.realclearhistory.com/historiat/2019/03/18/debunking_the_myth_of_wyatt_earp_425.html
I remembered reading about Holiday too, and of course it was amusing but the movie was from the truth and he wasnt as cool as they portrayed which is full of how Hollyweird likes to fictionalize many characters for cash reasons not giving a **** about the truth usually not paying the people they are using to create such delusions and not caring how they brainwash dumb people that fall for it. I've heard and read so many people about so many things not knowing **** about **** but they get their **** from the movies and really believe that is true even though it's far from it. Like the bible and religions, and news.
Just checkout the wiki of Wyatt. I stopped just after the first paragraph, far from the heroic hero they tried to portrayed just like Josephine, I wouldnt be surprised if she was some low class theater whore who was just with him for the cash and scams. The whole Wyatt family are scum and a stain on Americans but lets just turn that around and make him a Super Hero gun swinging fighter for justice. Give ME A BREAK!
Without strife, your victory has no meaning.
Without strife, you do not advance.
Without strife, there is only stagnation. -
TheAdlerian — 4 years ago(May 17, 2021 07:40 PM)
I see what you're saying.
I always thought the Doc Holiday story was interesting from a psychological perspective.
He was going to be a dentist and went to school in Philly. But, after he got TB he figured he was going to die horribly, so he must have gone crazy and decided to live any way he wanted.
That right there is very interesting.
I recall reading the wiki page about him and someone had put in a report that he once chased black guys out of a pond.
Someone put that in there to make him look badly.
However, that kind of thing doesn't affect my opinion of a person. For instance, I think Louis Farrakhan is very interesting and a good speaker, yet he's a massive racist.
I see him as smart and interesting, but incorrect about white people in general. His points are about rich people, not white people.
So, I can still like Doc and Wyatt even if they weren't perfect.
Also, there are some saints who were complete scumbags, and said so, then cleaned up their act. So, if someone like Doc thought Wyatt was okay or right and helped out, maybe that's who he really was. -
bigbadwolf666 — 4 years ago(May 21, 2021 11:25 PM)
Saints are an excuse to clean there sins even though they never really cleaned them.
There are so many people I've met nowadays that use this excuse to be even more corrupt and corrupt for stupid people to forgive under a belief all the while them ripping people off more, now legally.
I dont really think that's that original where you know your going to die so might as well go out with a bang. I think many common people go through in an everyday basis.
Doc, and Wyatt were both brothelers who went around scamming, killing, and abusing the law in every which way but now are portrayed as saints and heros for what reasons who the **** knows but is crap!
Without strife, your victory has no meaning.
Without strife, you do not advance.
Without strife, there is only stagnation. -
— 4 years ago(December 16, 2021 10:19 AM)I LIKED
Tombstone
! Don't know how ACCURATE or INACCURATE it was/is. MOST such films are HIGHLY INACCURATE from what I read.
“Call a SPADE, a SPADE; and a TRANNY, a TRANNY, or an IT!!!”.
"THAT'S SOME BAD
SHIT
,
HARRY
!". -
bigbadwolf666 — 4 years ago(December 17, 2021 12:58 AM)
Why you asking me. Am I the author? I think it is common knowledge if you actually read and just go by films or "articles" or what you actually think it might be.
Without strife, your victory has no meaning.
Without strife, you do not advance.
Without strife, there is only stagnation. -
Karl Aksel — 4 years ago(December 17, 2021 08:23 AM)
Why am I asking you? Because you
posted
it, wise-guy. You wouldn't post it if you didn't think it reliable, surely? And as there is nothing about the article
itself
which suggests reliability, perhaps YOU know something we don't. Hence the question. After all, if YOU don't know what's reliable about the article, why would you post it as "debunking" this movie?
You also suggested that the Wiki article was unreliable, but again, without actually backing your claims up. The Wiki article actually does source its claim, like I pointed out. You, by your own admission so far, simply posted an article the veracity of which you have no idea.
And don't refer to "common knowledge". That's a cop-out for people who don't actually know what they're talking about. And in cases like this, when the source matter isn't something you could call "common knowledge" anyway, it sounds particularly odd. -
bigbadwolf666 — 4 years ago(December 17, 2021 09:48 AM)
I posted an article but I didnt write it. You're asking me for sources to an article I didnt write like a scholar. You can ask the author yourself.
Wikipedia doesnt always source and it's source isnt always source or legit but let's all go by the almighty dictionary fact.
Hmm… I guess whatever film say is actually fact and common knowledge. You can look up Wyatt Earp even on Wikipedia and you'd find out more facts there than the Movie fact based. But again, it's "common knowledge" and since your facts have zero sources. Let's go by what whatever you have posted and counter with sources.
Without strife, your victory has no meaning.
Without strife, you do not advance.
Without strife, there is only stagnation. -
Karl Aksel — 4 years ago(December 17, 2021 01:11 PM)
I posted an article but I didnt write it. You're asking me for sources to an article I didnt write like a scholar. You can ask the author yourself.
I didn't ask you for sources, merely pointed out that the article
lacks
sources. What I asked YOU, because YOU thought the article worthy of posting, is why we should trust that article. If YOU don't know, why post it? What comes out of YOUR mouth is YOUR responsibility, and it is YOUR responsibility to stand for your own statements. In short, I'm asking you to justify the posting of that article.
Wikipedia doesnt always source and it's source isnt always source or legit but let's all go by the almighty dictionary fact.
Wikipedia is self-correcting, which is why it has a much better track record than regular encyclopedias.
Hmm… I guess whatever film say is actually fact and common knowledge.
No one has even come close to suggesting that. But you posted something absolutely worthless - judging by your extreme reticence to defend it - and expect people to just take your word for it. No rhyme, no reason.
You can look up Wyatt Earp even on Wikipedia and you'd find out more facts there than the Movie fact based. But again, it's "common knowledge" and since your facts have zero sources. Let's go by what whatever you have posted and counter with sources.
Now you've completely lost it. You want me to post sources for my
questions
? -
bigbadwolf666 — 4 years ago(December 18, 2021 12:08 PM)
You asked who is the author as if you cant read it yourself, do you want me to write a biography for you too?
Responsibility? I say and do whatever I want without any equivocation. It must be tough living in a word where you must hold accountable for everyone's action.
Ask all you want, you wont get a response.
Self-Correcting, bots and other people correcting it, which I'm sure all equivalent to scholars and Masters.
I had already included common knowledge, yes wikipedia, and searches. I guess that is too much for you to comprehend. Comprende?
Your questions are counters. So if you have counters you gotta back why you acting like a fool!
Without strife, your victory has no meaning.
Without strife, you do not advance.
Without strife, there is only stagnation. -
Karl Aksel — 4 years ago(December 18, 2021 02:26 PM)
You asked who is the author as if you cant read it yourself, do you want me to write a biography for you too?
I didn't ask the
name
of the author, you twit. But who is this guy, what makes him qualified?
Responsibility? I say and do whatever I want without any equivocation. It must be tough living in a word where you must hold accountable for everyone's action.
Holding people accountable for
their own actions
is called living in the real world. You posted an unsourced article by someone
you don't even know who is
, that makes you an idiot.
Self-Correcting, bots and other people correcting it, which I'm sure all equivalent to scholars and Masters.
In practice, actually yes. There is still chaff to be sorted from the wheat, but anyone with the vaguest familiarity with source criticism can use Wikipedia to great effect. That's why the history of each Wiki-article, as well as the discussion pages to each article
and
the history of the discussion pages are available to you at the click of a button.
I had already included common knowledge, yes wikipedia, and searches. I guess that is too much for you to comprehend. Comprende?
And I pointed out that "common knowledge" is irrelevant here, because the particulars of Wyatt Earp
do not constitute common knowledge
. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
Your questions are counters. So if you have counters you gotta back why you acting like a fool!
My god, you're thick.
Claims
need to be backed up. Questions are counters, yes,
but they are not claims
. Let me demonstrate, because you're obviously a child:
"What time is it?"
"CAN YOU BACK THAT UP??????"
See how stupid that is? -
bigbadwolf666 — 4 years ago(December 18, 2021 03:45 PM)
Someone who is read and know what he's talking about.
I dont know the reporters in the news neither, I dont know the politicians, doctors, officers, and people around me. I guess I shouldnt quote, source anyone since I dont know who they are.
Do you work for Wikipedia? or do you use it to turn in school material. Whatever the cause I'm sure your work is of manument proportions.
If you actually read a book about Wyatt instead of going by artistic media interpretations you would see how comical the vast differences are. IF!
When you counter and ask stupid questions like an idiot! Than you must have some basis for feeling on the contrary otherwise your a complete idiot! So what are your basis coming from??!
Without strife, your victory has no meaning.
Without strife, you do not advance.
Without strife, there is only stagnation. -
Karl Aksel — 4 years ago(December 20, 2021 12:09 PM)
Someone who is read and know what he's talking about.
Says who? To me he's just a guy on the internet.
I dont know the reporters in the news neither, I dont know the politicians, doctors, officers, and people around me. I guess I shouldnt quote, source anyone since I dont know who they are.
How do you figure that's remotely comparable? All those positions - with the notable exception of politicians - require qualifications.
Do you work for Wikipedia? or do you use it to turn in school material.
No one
works for
Wikipedia. It is entirely voluntary, and not even the admins make a dime.
Whatever the cause I'm sure your work is of manument proportions.
You think I'm as young as you? I'm old enough to spell "monumental", I can tell you that much. I'm also old enough to know what an encyclopedia is meant for, and what it is
not
meant for.
If you actually read a book about Wyatt instead of going by artistic media interpretations you would see how comical the vast differences are. IF!
So you say. You could be right for all I know, but then I
don't
know, do I? Which is precisely why you need to
demonstrate
why anyone should listen to you. So far you have only demonstrated that you do not know the value of source criticism. I even suspect you were entirely unfamiliar with the term until I brought it to your attention. This means one would have to be a fool to take your word for anything.
When you counter and ask stupid questions like an idiot!
Asking someone to source their claims is idiotic, now?
Than you must have some basis for feeling on the contrary otherwise your a complete idiot! So what are your basis coming from??!
Your grammar is falling apart here, but I
assume
you are asking "why would you question what I say unless you believe I'm wrong"? Well, I'll explain it to you:
You are the one to create a thread here lambasting this movie, calling it "a load of crap" and being all indignant about it. You offer no arguments. Naturally one is given to wonder why you say these things. Eventually you do post a link, which you tell people to read carefully. I didn't have to read it carefully, however, to tell right away that there is no reason to read it very carefully: it cites no sources. And based on your disturbing attitude towards source criticism, I am guessing that you found an article you liked, because you felt you learned something - and now you're treating it like gospel. If anything contradicts that article, then those
other
sources must be wrong - the article can never be wrong. Is that about right? I was like that myself when I was in my teens, I guess. You'll wise up in time, too. -
Joc Spader — 4 years ago(May 16, 2021 04:06 PM)
My only complaint was Kurt Russel standing almost even height to a 6'2 Sam Elliot when they greeted each other at the train station. Kurt can't be no more than 5'8ish
Tell you what…When I send my ex-wife her money…you can lick the stamps.