i'm not coming to anybody's rescue.

i just noticed that you made a blatantly ignorant statement and i called you on it.

nothing more than that.

>Remember: I didn't direct that shitty film.
>
>Tarantino did.
>
>Lol.

again: notice that i have not voiced an opinion on Pulp Fiction the movie in this post (or any of your other dick-greasing posts on the subject)

you don't even know whether i like Pulp Fiction or not.

on the other hand, i DO know that you said something ignorant and wrong. and i pointed it out. and now you mad.

>I was talking about within the context of this post,
>and was talking about people using it as a *specific*
>reason that they liked the film.

OHHHHHHH.... THAT'S what you were talking about!

*jerk-off motion*

this is the worst kind of pretzel logic: the kind that fails even in its attempt to obfuscate the truth.


>I've heard people PRAISE all kinds of movie music,
>just like I PRAISE the 'Glory' score/soundtrack.
>
>Problem is, when I explain WHY I LIKE THE MOVIE
>'GLORY', I don't say "because it had a good soundtrack."
>
>That'd be bullshit.
>
>I like it because its a fantastic fucking movie.

again: irrelevant.


>>in fact, for a long time it became a cliche to associate
>Pulp
>>with jheri-curl wigs, black suits and cool tunes by Dusty
>>Springfield and Urge Overkill
>
>You just ethered yourself, again.
>
>When people are discussing why they like 'Pulp Fiction'
>do they say:
>
>"Because of the Jheri Curls and black suits"
>
>No, they don't.
>
>Because neither of those things should be pointed
>out, by a rational person, as specific reasons why
>it was a good film.
>
>Same thing with the music.
>
>Music is great, and can really do a lot. Just like
>wigs and black suits can add a lot.
>
>They're not, however, the REASON why a film is good.

Damaja never said the music was the only or even the PRIMARY reason the movie was good.

and the amount of wordage you're spending to try to justify some bullshit is definitely self-ether by most definitions.


>And Damaja saying that the film had a "Brilliant"
>use of music is stupid, and its not even what YOU
>ARE SAYING.
>
>YOU'RE just saying it had a good soundtrack.
>
>That dude is saying the ACTUAL FILM USED MUSIC
>IN A BRILLIANT WAY AND THIS is a REASON WHY
>the film is GOOD.
>
>So you and him aren't even agreeing.
>
>LOL.

laugh at yourself.

Dam explicitly stated "soundtrack (not score)".

considering the fact that when you have a jukebox soundtrack rather rather than an original composed score, the very *selection/compilation* of the soundtrack constitutes its "use"

i think that was pretty clear in Dam's post, but you'd rather try to sophist shit up with lousy arguments.

>That's an irrelevant and stupid point, and to be honest,
>I don't give a fuck, and am not about to give Tarantino
>credit for making white people listen to Al Green.
>
>Sounds to me like another manufactured reason to
>like this film("It opened the eyes of ignorant ass
>white people")
>
>
>No, thank you.

again: you're tilting at the windmills.

that was an ancilliary observation and not the main point.

but you can huff and puff at it if it makes you feel smarter or manlier.

be my guest.


ok, i've already wasted enough time replying this far... i'm gonna just have to skip the rest. i'm sure it's as riddled with non sequiturs as the first half.

feel free to have the last word, though (i've found that letting a bitch have last word works wonders in getting her quit flapping her soup-coolers)