Having reviewed this debate over the last few days, I'm coming round to the view that ad hominem attacks have their place. I suggest that an appropriate mode for such an attack on Mr Dewhirst would be 'denial of service.'
He has demonstrated repeatedly and firmly that he has no knowledge of philosophy, or of philosophical approaches or attitudes (hell, he can't even spell 'ad hominem'). His quaint 1970s-style elevation of film directors to a pedestal above all others involved in film practice/industry indicates that his knowledge of film is at roughly late-primary school level (I'm absolutely serious).
Why give him any oxygen at all? Either set the list to automatically exclude him, or let's all just ignore everything he says from now on. The latter course is preferable: I'm fascinated to see just how childish he can become.
To use your own terms about your own most recent entry, Mr Dewhirst: "to be sure, I deliberately ignored that self righteous, priestly twaddle..."
Meanwhile, farewell to Heath Ledger — a wonderful actor who, like so many other actors (people who actually know something about film, Mr Dewhirst, would actually be able to name quite a few of them) would with maturity have probably become a wonderful director.
Greg
