Compass goes south at box office

Apparently I’m not the only one who thought it wasn’t that good. New Line’s $250 million adaptation of The Golden Compass is a box-office flop, making just $26.1 million in its opening weekend, a "dismally low figure" that "almost certainly means no sequel for
the proposed trilogy," according to MTV.

Deadline Hollywood Daily‘s Nikki Finke says, "This flop should sink New Line Cinema chairman Bob Shaye’s chances to stay on when his contract expires in 2008." Cinema Blend‘s Josh Tyler says we should just "pray New Line can remain solvent long enough to get The Hobbit made." As for Compass, Tyler writes:

I’m sure the religious right will declare the failure of The Golden Compass at the box office this weekend as some sort of victory for Jeebus, but the truth is the movie failed because it wasn’t that good, and audiences are getting sick of these second-rate fantasy adaptations.

I think that’s about right. Personally, I don’t care what, if any, religious messages my movies preach. But I do generally prefer films that actually take the time to develop their characters in some semi-meaningful way. And if the plot makes at least a modicum of sense, all’s the better.

70 Responses to “Compass goes south at box office”

  1. 4-7 says:

    “religious right” and “Jeebus” are bigotrous terms. It’s fine to criticize religious opposition to the film, but those terms are demeaning to the convictions of people who hold them. Especially Jeebus. Ok, it was mildly funny when Homer Simpson said it but that was arguably because it displayed the ever increasing depth of Homer’s ignorance. But I am getting tired of it being used to demean the triune God of Christians.

  2. David K. says:

    I can understand your point 4-7, but in this case I see it not as being directed at Jesus himself, but at the type of Jesus worshiped by the religous right. A fine distinction perhaps and still potentially offensive, but atleast we aren’t threatening to kill people over it i suppose…

  3. Marty West says:

    The movie was rushed. Pullman went into great detail in his books to develop the characters.

    Brendan – I would highly recommend reading the trilogy…although you might not have the time…considering you becoming a father and all that.

    4-7 – Wahhhhhhh!!!

  4. yea says:

    these articles are bad spin. this movie is a mild disapointment but nowhere near a flop. it’ll recoup its $175 budget and way more. its already made ~$25 million nationally, and another $50 million internationally and thats over the first weekend. the movie was trended well among families, which usually translated into steadier (read- long-term) numbers, so im guessing people will continue to see this movie througn the holidays. I’d expect anywhere from $200-250 million in theatures alone and thats not including DVDs + whatever HBO pays to air the movie.

    i thought this movie was not that good, but it just isn’t accurate to call it a flop. also, even if you hated the movie but like the fantasy genre you should probably root for this movie to do well.

  5. yea says:

    hopefully the next set of fantasy movies will move away from this family-fair type of stuff that narnia and compass have more towards and move toward a more sophisticated and character rich story.

    HBO’s upcoming song of ice and fire series, based on Martin’s novels, will imo surpass lord of the rings as the best fantasy production to be put into motion media. if anyone has seen enough of HBOs other shows, or has ready these novels, I think you’d be as excited about this as I am. i think the series format will give enough time to fully flesh out characters that just doesn’t seem to be present in movies unless the movie is willing to run reallllly long, which just isn’t possible unless the movie is a sure-fire hit (see lotr)

  6. Brendan says:

    even if you hated the movie but like the fantasy genre you should probably root for this movie to do well.

    I half-agree and half-disagree. The half-disagreement is because the problem with this movie isn’t that it’s in the “fantasy genre,” it’s that it’s a mediocre movie in that genre. Hollywood needs to freakin’ realize that, 9 times out of 10, the reason they fail when they copycat something successful isn’t because people are sick of the copycatted genre, it’s because the copycats are pale imitations of the original. In other words, if Lord of the Rings had come after Eragon and Compass and Beowulf, etc., people still would have gone to see it in droves, despite “fantasy fatigue,” because Lord of the Rings was REALLY, REALLY GOOD. In other words, the “secret” to getting people to go see a movie, for the most part, is to make good movies. If you build it, they will come.

    The reason I half-agree is because no one in Hollywood will see it that way. They’ll turn a blind eye to their own flaws (“we made another subpar movie”) and will blame the audience (“nobody wants to see fantasy movies anymore”) and so the genre will suffer, albeit unfairly.

  7. yea says:

    brendan, your entire post is pretty much right, but i think the second paragraph is so true it overwhelmes the first.

    also read george r. r. martins, song of ice and fire series, or at least the first book. if you liek fantasy you’ll love it cause its really awesome. think lotr, but a lot more meaner. you should definetely read cause its not like you have anything important going on in life right now so im sure you can drop everything to read a book suggested by an quasi-anonymous internet poster.

  8. David K. says:

    Marty, nice to see you being mature and discussing a valid issue in an adult manner…oh…wait…instead you just strength 4-7’s argument.

  9. yea says:


    the fact that 4-7 seems to be offended by the use of the term “religious right” kind of throws all of his credibility right out the window to bat.

  10. 4-7 says:

    Gee, didn’t I emphasize that it was the Jeebus that was the real offensive part? The term religious right is not so offensive by itself, but I consider it offensive given that liberals think that by combining the two most-hated “R” words in their vocabulary they delegitimize the argument, i.e., don’t listen to that conservative position, it’s from the (spooky music) RELIGIOUS right. Those bible-thumping, reason-crushing psychos !

    Jeebus used as the article author offered it is offensive. So some of you don’t care. Wow. Good for you. I mean, I can think of something better to do than always be hating on a bunch of peace and freedom loving servant-religion as if its a mythical Inquisitorial religion, but whatever floats your boat. It must be nice not to love and respect anything other than yourself – no vulnerability right ? Meebus Weebus ? See. Doesn’t really work.

  11. Aaron says:

    Over the last 15 years, regular church attendance has become one of the most reliable predictors of party affiliation in this country. The past week saw Mitt Romney giving a major speech in which he basically dismissed the non-religious as less than fully American. The same week saw Mike Huckabee insist that the only possible explanation for his dramatic surge in the polls was divine intervention. The term “religious right” is certainly no more an unfair generalization than is the way 4-7 just used the word “liberals.”


    Yea wrote: if anyone has seen enough of HBOs other shows, or has ready these novels, I think you’d be as excited about this as I am

    I have, and I have, and I am. Martin rocks. HBO rocks. I can’t wait.

    Please, please, please… George Martin, don’t die before you finish your series.

  12. Aaron says:

    Ross Douthat has an interesting post on comparing Pullman to Lewis and Tolkien.

    (Although, I’m a liberal and Douthat is of the religious right… so possibly that means I’m expected to dismiss him out of hand.)

  13. 4-7 says:

    Aaron. The generalization isn’t that a certain group of persons is likely to think a certain way – i.e. labels like conservative and liberal. The generalization that I fault is the one that conservative thought is somehow less entitled to respect or consideration because it is “religious”, i.e. here are those conservatives, or the “right,” who think the way they do because they’re religious, or because God tells them to think that way. Thank Al Gore we think independently unlike the “religious right”. Pointing out that the religious vote a certain way is one thing, but the term religious right is a perjorative in your circle and you know it. Bile starts creeping up your throat when you think it. That’s the gene I’d like to get rid of. The irrational mistrust and lack of understanding of religion. But I don’t have much faith that you’d understand. Two Americas – The John Adamses and the Bill Mahers.

  14. 4-7 says:

    If I were to meet your generalization tit-for-tat, I guess mine would be “the pretend-religious left” or “the godless left”. I don’t actually use such terms very often, if at all (and I’m sure you use religious right like its single dollar bills) but in the secret of my heart I’m betting mine is more accurate.*

    * If that statement pssd you off, then you know how I feel, and we have an understanding. But to liberals there’s no such thing as a double standard, so I guess you’re entitled to your rage at my comment, but I’m not entitled to take offense at yours. Now, tell me I’m not right you godless liberal.

  15. 4-7 says:

    and your distortive view of Romney’s speech is par for the course. Romney said nothing of the sort. It’s just amazing that you can’t comprehend this. Romney said at most that freedom thrives proximate to religion. Not one religion, but a pluralism of religion and a pluralism of mutual respect for religion. The non-religious always assume that thriving religion, and religion trying to thrive and be involved is a zero sum game. Read the flipping declaration of independence – All men are created equal – and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. This is what Romney is getting at. You don’t have to believe in God, but the fact that you have a right to free speech, Romney suggests, (and you may disagree but he is not saying you are less of an American) is because the people who framed this country believed that mankind does not endow itself with fundamental rights, it acknowledges fundamental rights. The fundamental rights are external to man. I don’t see how a non-religious person can agree with that (if they truly have no supernatural belief whatsoever), but the point is that they don’t have to agree with it to benefit from it. Romney’s speech was a well-said lecture that freedom thrives on the proximity of religion and religious peoples because these people have an affinity and familiarity for the notion that civil government does not define rights, it guards them. It’s the non-religious person’s irrational fear of the religious that drives this idea that if religion receives any positive acknowledgement by government as a friend of freedom, all atheists have a date with the gas chamber. The 20th century, in fact, tells the opposite tale (and that was a post-Enlightenment society). So don’t be so scared.

  16. Mike says:

    4-7, if you actually think that Aaron is part of a circle that automatically uses religious right as a pejorative, I’d argue that you haven’t paid a large amount of attention to his past posts. Aaron’s one of the most centrist commenters on this site.

  17. Keri says:

    I’m disappointed to hear that the movie isn’t very good, since I consider it my religious duty to go and see the thing.

    We got a fax in to the church office urging us to educate our congregation about how it’s meant to lead kids to atheism and the devil, continuing down the path set by Harry Potter movies. (No joke, wasting our fax paper like that! At least other trash faxes are trying to get us to go on vacation or change our lawn service.) I was hoping that it really would be as good as the Harry Potter movies. Silly Keri.

    That, and on my way in Sunday morning the radio told me that it’s an appetizer to atheism meant to lead our kids astray.

    Whereas I was previously content to wait and Netflix it, now I gotta go while it’s still in the theater. Like how Jenny said we had to see Barbershop because Jesse Jackson told us to boycott it.

  18. 4-7 says:

    well, he put on the hat, now didn’t he ?

    I guess Brendan could start hotlinking us to all of our previous posts, but then, why did he waste my time defending the use of the term ? obviously he has some hostility towards it.

    Now that you’ve told me he’s one of the most centrist commentators on the site, I find that I am in love with him. Thank you.

  19. Aaron says:

    Well… didn’t see that coming. I thought I was making a fairly uncontroversial point, but clearly I missed the mark somehow. I don’t really know how to begin responding, so what follows will be bullet-point thoughts in no particular order.

    – First, to Mike. I thank you for the compliment, although I can’t really accept the title of “centrist.” I call myself a liberal. If pressed, I would say that I’m a liberal with a strong libertarian streak. I do believe (immodestly) that I’m better able to argue congenially with my conservative friends (yes, even the religious ones) than many of my fellow liberals, and more likely to recognize and acknowledge the various weaknesses in liberal arguments. If that’s all it takes to be a centrist, then the bar is set pretty low. And I don’t want the title anyway.

    – So yes 4-7, I’m a liberal. You were right about the godless part too. Was that meant to be an insult, or something you expected me to deny?

    – My “bile” and “rage” only exist in your imagination. A reasonable person, reading your comments and examining their tone, might wonder if you have a bit of the bitter taste in your mouth, but I won’t make the assumption.

    – I have no problem whatsoever with your use of “the pretend-religious left” or “the godless left”. I take them as compliments. I wish more Democrats would drop the pretense, but that’s a separate discussion.

    – Your’s is a tendentious read of Romney’s speech. Romney has a problem in his quest for the GOP nomination. His problem is that many of his fellow religious conservatives think Romney’s own religion is silly, or weird, or worse. His attempted solution to this problem is to insist that , hey, I’m OK and you’re OK. All the believers are OK, and the people we should really be worried about are those non-believers and their religion of secularism. At one point, Romney details an absurd laundry list of religious sects and the qualities he admires in them. Non-believers are nowhere to be found, here or anywhere else in the speech, except to be warned against. This wasn’t merely an oversight, it was an essential element of his attempt to defuse his own religion problem.

    – “Two Americas – The John Adamses and the Bill Mahers” is an interesting juxtaposition. I notice you decided not to go with “The Thomas Jeffersons and the Bill Mahers,” presumably because the contrast wouldn’t be as dramatic as you would like. You could have more fairly said “The John Adamses and the Thomas Jeffersons,” and fair enough. I’ll take Jefferson, thank you very much.

    (And here I can practically see you, smiling to yourself and thinking “Woohoo, Aaron stepped in it now. Jefferson was a believer too.” Well yes, of a sort. Jefferson was a deist, which was the most logical position for a rational skeptic of the 18th century to take. Jefferson lived pre-Darwin, pre-Einstein, pre-Apollo, pre-Hubble. In other words, he lived before any of the science which would explain how the Universe, the Earth, and the people living on it might have come to be without the intervention of a Creator. So being the rational skeptic that he was, Jefferson assumed that such a Creator must exist, and rejected most of the rest of religious belief as transparent nonsense. The Deists were the atheists of their time.)

    – You took exception to my interpretation of Romney’s speech, but said nothing about Huckabee. Was there a reason for that?

    – I really don’t mean to be deliberately offensive when talking about religion. I can only say that, and hope you will believe me. It’s true that I ultimately find religious belief silly and irrational, and I suppose that comes through in my writing. But how could it be otherwise? I assume that you, as a believer, are convinced that I am misunderstanding the world in a fundamental way. That’s fine, I’m not offended, but it’s still a profound difference between the two of us that is bound to affect the way we view politics. And if you do feel put-upon or offended, you can take comfort in the fact that poll after poll shows that most Americans will refuse to vote for people like me. Doesn’t that make you feel better?

    I probably haven’t fully answered all your complaints, but that will have to do for now.

  20. Angrier and Angrier says:


    If Jesus can outlast being Crucified, the Roman Empire, all sorts of pogroms and the so-called “War on Christmas,” I believe He can withstand Homer Simpson calling Him Jeebus.

    Sounds to me like you might be doubting the strength of your own Lord.

  21. Angrier and Angrier says:

    “That, and on my way in Sunday morning the radio told me that it’s an appetizer to atheism meant to lead our kids astray.”

    Actually, that would be the job of organized religion.

  22. Aaron says:

    From the notoriously liberal Weekly Standard

    (whom I bashed just the other day… and I’m feeling slightly guilty about that. Just slightly though. I’m sure the feeling will pass…)

  23. David K. says:

    So what, AA, he shouldn’t bring up his opinion because you think Jesus can handle it? What a stupid argument. He brought up a point in a reasonable manner and the first reaction by those who disagreed with him was not a principled argument about why they thought he was wrong, but to call him a cry-baby. The childish behavior started on your side of the argument on this one, not his. So far the only people who have posted reasonably mature counter points to 4-7 are Sean and Aaron. Then, when we want mature conversation I suppose you are hardly the person to go to…

  24. Anonymous says:


    Don’t even bother trying to police discussions to distinguish between “stupid” arguments and “reasonably mature” ones. You don’t know the first thing about principled arguments. See here:

    And here:

  25. Joe Mama says:


    Your link to the Weekly Standard was great.

    A&A’s input not so much . . .

  26. 4-7 says:

    Aaron. I knew you would think that my purpose in saying godless liberal would be to offend you. Obviously it wasn’t but anyway.

    Atheists love Thomas Jefferson because, as you say, but I do not agree, deists were the atheists of their time. Convenient. Well, as hallowed as Jefferson remains in our society, and deservedly so, I don’t consider him the gold standard of Authentic American Freedom. I gladly throw my lot in with Hamilton and Adams instead. Just cause Jefferson was a good prose-man doesn’t make him my gold standard. He also was a fan of the French Revolution and made an ass out of himself playing Robespierre’s tool in a visit to Paris.

    Again, as I tried to say, I do not find “religious right” offensive in most contexts. I do find it offensive proximate to Jeebus because the author are using both in tandem to express his scorn for the convictions of the religious qua religious, i.e. the political concerns of the religious are inferior because they are somehow influenced by their religion. It suggests a lack of informedness that is an over-and-unfair generalization. Anti-religious sentiment is an epidemic in modern liberal circles and it’s destroying the group’s collective intellect (just as you might assume mindless devotion to religion injures the intellect of the right-leaning religious). Take people like Rosie O’Donnell or Bill Maher, who really and honestly and truly believe that conservative Christians are as much a threat to freedom as radical Islamists. Those kind of ideas don’t help the healthy growth of ideas, they are poison.

    I didn’t mean to touch off so much commentary about Jeebus. Scorn for Christianity is nothing new. I is the total Anti-Islam in today’s society and is always open for public scorn and is laughed at when people put up protest. Dogma, Stigmata, South Park, DaVinci Code; all cash in on falsities, hyperbole, and ignorance about the Church. There’s a reason they cash in – people are getting dumber. So I invite liberals and Jeebus casters to examine and reject their anti-religious bents cause, whether big or small, chips on the shoulder or life-long vendettas, they are poisoning you. We are not us all what you think.

  27. Aaron says:

    4-7, I wouldn’t want you to think that I’m dodging any of your arguments, but it doesn’t seem as though there’s anything in your latest that you want me to respond to. If I’m wrong about that, let me know and I’ll be happy to reply.

    But I’d rather talk about George Martin. Where the hell did yea go…? ;)

  28. Mike says:

    I still need to read A Feast For Crows, myself, but I imagine I probably need to reread the earlier parts of the series first so I’m sure I know what’s going on. ;)

    And I know you’re not actually a centrist, Aaron, but you’re still closer to the position than the vast majority who comment here on politics.

  29. Angrier and Angrier says:

    David K-

    I called 4-7 a crybaby? You should re-read my post. And if you were just lumping me in with some other poster’s comment, that is just laziness on your part.

    As for my actual comments, I have a real problem with people who profess to be Christian getting upset at the smallest of slights – real or otherwise – against someone who they believe is essentially God. I think it shows a real lack of faith. And, to be honest, a more accurate translation is Yeshua, not Jesus. Basically Christians have been calling the Christ the equivalent of Jeebus for over a thousand years.

  30. Aaron says:


    I’m slightly embarrassed to say, I’ve reread every book in the series before starting each new one. Feast was a bit of a letdown after the extraordinary Storm, but it’s still well worth your time.

  31. Marty West says:

    I actually called 4-7 a crybaby, not A&A.

    Anon just served David a nice warm plate of fail with a side of baked potatOWN3d!

  32. David K. says:

    AA, I said he was called a cry-baby, re-read my post.

    Marty, anyone who uses the phrase “owned, pwnd, etc” automatically loses the argument and any of the cowardly anonymi ND homers lose by virtue of not being willing to engage in discussion.

    Anonymous – How can those posts have anythign to do with this discussion? They are long winded posts by someone trying to ascribe to me an argument I never made. Apparently making stuff up is good enough for you? Seriously, you need help.

  33. Wobbly H says:

    Davie, it’s not just a few crazy posters who have a problem with the way you argue. By my count, it includes me, Andrew, Brian Foster, Derek, Coach Leahy, the woman from the HPV vaccination thread who you called a “heinous bitch”, and the master of this blog himself.

  34. Marty West says:

    David – I don’t know what ND homers and you being PWN3D have to do with each other. I’m not an ND homer…I have been to Notre Dame twice in my 24 years. Don’t be salty…just sit there and drink your warm little cup of fail.

  35. David K. says:

    Marty, I didn’t call you an ND Homer, I said the ‘anonymous ND homers’ and you seperately.

    Wobbly, Andrew is an ass in general, Brian was arguing a point I never even made, Coach Leahy is pathetic and his banning was well earned, and Brendan may disagree with some of my arguing style, but again your list is hardly proof. To me the main counter point to your argument is your continuing need to try and point it out.

    However, thats neither here nor there since my point has been made repeatedly in this thread. 4-7 brought up what he felt was a valid complaint and instead of people engaging him on it they immediately decided insults were the best approach.

  36. David K. says:

    BTW the heinous bitch comment was towards someone who accused me of wanting people to die of cancer, shortly after someone close to me had actually died of cancer. It was perhaps over the top, but I’d hardly say it was an innocent exchange nor was it related to normal blog interaction. It scares me that you are so obbsessed with me that you remember things back that far…

  37. yea says:

    feast for crows wasn’t bad, but it was disapointing after the godliness that is storm of swords. the 5th book should totally rock because it’ll have pretty much all of my favorite characters.

    hbo is the perfect network to make this into a series. they won’t cut anything out and with it being a tv series there will be enough time to tell the story the right way.

  38. Wobbly H says:

    Get over yourself, you fat piece of shit. I think you’re an idiot, but I’m certainly not obsessed with you. I have a decent memory, and that exchange was so over the top that anyone can remember it. Please end this “obbsessed (sic) with me” bullshit. I am a regular reader of this blog, and it’s reasonable that I would remember what people write on certain notorious threads.

  39. Mad Max, Esquire says:

    David K cracks me up. All you have to say is Catholics are (fill in the blank) and he will spend the next two or three days going ape-shit. So predictable.

  40. David K. says:

    Wow Wobbly, for someone who isn’t obsessed you sure seem to be easily upset by it. If you think I am an idiot i find it interesting you post so often after I do, but hey, whatever, guess its your free time to do with as you please…

  41. David K. says:

    Max, where did anyone say anything about Catholics?

  42. Wobbly H says:

    I post after you because most of what you say is poorly reasoned junk, and this is a forum for discussion.

  43. Brendan Loy says:

    Well, Merry Christmas to y’all, too.

    Can a week not go by without the usual suspects calling David an idiot and vice versa? Don’t you all tire of calling each other names at some point?


  44. Brian Foster says:

    “Max, where did anyone say anything about Catholics?”

    I’d ask you a similar question, David: where did anyone say anything about ND homers? Did you just automatically assume that the anonymous poster who linked to my earlier comments conclusively proving that you are unable to follow a rational argument was an “ND homer,” simply because I went to Notre Dame Law School? If so, that’s ridiculous — especially since I have stated repeatedly that I myself am not a Notre Dame fan of any sort, except for the law school itself.

    “How can those posts have anythign to do with this discussion? They are long winded posts by someone trying to ascribe to me an argument I never made. Apparently making stuff up is good enough for you?”

    The relevance is pellucidly clear, as I just stated above.

    “Brian was arguing a point I never even made”

    Patently false, as demonstrated repeatedly in the linked comments. I shan’t rehash the substance here; the links are available to anyone interested.

    “Can a week not go by without the usual suspects calling David an idiot and vice versa? ”

    I don’t know if I qualify as a “usual suspect” or not, but I made it at least 11 days. More if you consider the fact that I never actually called him an idiot, either then or now. :)

  45. 4-7 says:

    A&A. You just dropped about ten places on the credibility totem pole with your asinine Yeshua comment. When people say “Jeebus” as the original linked author did, they are packing “Christians are stupid” in between the six letters. It is mocking and scornful. Some people need Christian-hate to live. Maybe you’re one. If Christians are mispronouncing Jesus in the English tongue, they are not intentionally maligning the Son of God. Of course, what’s the point of responding to you with reason >? you didn’t speak with it. why would you listen to it ?

    “People who profess to be Christians” That is a funny rhetorical device too. Like so-called Christians. Ah. It’s funny sometimes. It really is.

  46. Angrier and Angrier says:

    I say “people who profess to be Christians” because most Christians I know really don’t follow in the footsteps of Jesus. It’s all about accepting Jesus as savior and conveniently forgetting things like helping the poor, turning the other cheek, not profiting on God’s name, not pursuing wealth, etc, etc.

  47. 4-7 says:

    Yeah, I figured. You didn’t need to explain. I am sure you feel very entitled to that.

  48. Joe Mama says:

    I’m pretty sure I qualify as a “usual suspect”, so I would just like it noted for the record that I have likewise not called David an idiot in quite some time :-)

  49. David K. says:

    Brian, Once again you do a fantastic job of accusing me of saying something I never did. If you will go back up and re-read my post, you will note that i mentioned anonymous ND Homers. (I suppose you COULD argue that since this is a blog you could be posting under an assumed name and also technically be anonymous. Of course if you were arguing it it woudl probably take up an entire screen of text…) This stems back to the person or persons who started attcking me (and others) in threads on ND football and specifically our disbelief in Charlie Weis genuis but did so without using any type of handle. So you are wrong, i never called YOU an ND homer. But really are you interested in politics? Seems like a great field for you since you like attributing things to people that they never actually said.

  50. Anonymous says:

    David K. is Ferrous Cranus.

  51. David K. says:

    Hmm, you post anonymously and post attempts at insults. I explain my position. And you are calling me the one impervious to reason? Ok, whatever floats your boat.

  52. Brian Foster says:

    Eleven days it is.

    David, you’re an idiot. And apparently illiterate besides. I never said, suggested, implied, hinted, or intimated that you called me an anonymous ND homer. I simply asked you why you brought “anonymous ND homers” into this thread, when there apparently was no anonymous ND homer posting about anything at all. And I used the same phrasing you used when someone brought up Catholics – although arguably, the Catholic reference at least made some sense, given that the (very loose) topic of this thread is religion. Your reference to ND was a complete non sequitur.

    In an attempt to give you at least a modicum of credit, by supposing that you actually had an on-topic reason for mentioning “anonymous ND homers,” I theorized that perhaps you thought the anonymous poster who linked to my earlier comments was, by promoting an NDLS alum’s writing, being an “ND homer.” I did not specifically say that you thought this, however; I merely raised the possibility, and then dismissed it as ridiculous. But I never definitively attributed it to you.

    And somehow you get from all that I thought you were referring to me as an “anonymous ND homer,” even though I a) am not anonymous, and b) am not an ND homer. It boggles the mind. The only reason I mentioned the fact that I am not an ND homer was to demonstrate that, IF you were subscribing to the theory I just outlined, it would be stupid. That’s it.

    “Ferrous Cranus” indeed.

  53. David K. says:


    Did you just automatically assume that the anonymous poster who linked to my earlier comments conclusively proving that you are unable to follow a rational argument was an “ND homer,” simply because I went to Notre Dame Law School?

    YOU brought it up as a reference to yourself.

    My comment was not a non-sequitor because the various anonymous poster(or one poster) as I have said started heckling me and others SPECIFICALLY REGARDING NOTRE DAME. It is entirely reasonable to assume the same type of behavior coming from the same type of anonymous poster is related to them.

    On the other hand Catholics had in no way been brought up in this thread and my objections from earlier in the post had absolutely NOTHING to do with religion and everything to do with the attitude taken towards 4-7 for making an argument.

    Seriously, if you are so darn smart, you could atleast spend some time reading the thread before throwing out insults and making stuff up, as you are so fond of doing.

  54. Brian Foster says:


    As I implicitly suggested in the Genarlow Wilson thread, you have a maddening tendency to project your own flaws and shortcomings onto those with whom you interact in this forum. For as your latest response makes clear, you utterly failed to read my post, even as you accuse me of failing to read what has been written here.

    “YOU brought it up as a reference to yourself.”

    You say this as if it somehow contradicts or disproves me. Yet I freely admitted it: “The only reason I mentioned the fact that I am not an ND homer was to demonstrate that, IF you were subscribing to the theory I just outlined, it would be stupid.” Apparently you didn’t read this. Or else you failed to comprehend it. Either way.

    “My comment was not a non-sequitor because the various anonymous poster(or one poster) as I have said started heckling me and others SPECIFICALLY REGARDING NOTRE DAME.”

    First, David, a non-sequitur (note the proper spelling) is “a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from or is not clearly related to anything previously said.” See here. The fact that various anonymous posters have started heckling you and others specifically regarding Notre Dame “does not follow logically from” and “is not clearly related to” “anything previously said” in this comment thread. Thus, by your own explanation, your statement is a non-sequitur.

    Second, as I have explained but you evidently failed to read or comprehend, I, being foolish and naive, tried to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that you were not making a non-sequitur. Thus, I tried to figure out how your comment about anonymous ND homers might actually “follow logically from” or be “clearly related to” something “previously said.” I therefore re-read the entire thread, and found nothing at all to suggest that your comment was relevant, except for the fact that there was a single anonymous comment in the thread at the point, and it criticized you. Still, there was nothing at all to link that anonymous poster to being an “ND homer.” The only possible connection, as I explained, was that the anonymous poster pointed at comments I had previously written, and since I am a ND grad, perhaps that was your basis for assuming that the anonymous poster was also an ND homer. Again, this was all explained above but you still fail to demonstrate any grasp of it.

    Moreover, I point out that your original comment about the “anonymous ND homer” appears in the very same sentence where you criticize Marty West for using “pwned”. And Marty West used “pwned” to describe the effect of the anonymous poster’s comment on you, as apparently Marty found you to have been ” dominated by an opponent or situation” — here, the anon poster.

    Given this context for your original comment about “anonymous ND homers,” it was entirely reasonable for me to theorize that you were indeed referring to the anonymous poster who, in Marty’s estimation, “pwned” you.

    But given that you have expressly disavowed such a meaning (which, as I have said, is a good thing, given how stupid and unsupportable that meaning would have been), we are left with your offering a complete non-sequitur, as previously discussed.

    So congratulations, David. You either made a completely irrelevant and illogical comment, or a really stupid one based on an unsupportable and undemonstrated factual assumption. Again, either way.

    “Catholics had in no way been brought up in this thread and my objections from earlier in the post had absolutely NOTHING to do with religion and everything to do with the attitude taken towards 4-7 for making an argument.”

    This is all undoubtedly true; but at least the reference to Catholics was in keeping with the general theme of religion, whereas your reference to “ND homers” was not — notwithstanding that ND is a Catholic school — because you clearly meant it in terms of football and Charlie Weis, not in any religious sense.

    Further, you cannot deny that the “attitude taken towards 4-7” in this thread has involved a fair bit of implicit (if not explicit) condescension toward him for being religious/Christian, and given your own proclivities on that same topic, it is at least logically perceptible that one might find your defense of 4-7 to be at least partially motivated by your adherence to Catholicism.

    No such logically perceptible connection can be made for your ND homer comment. Except, again, for the one I offered, which is nonetheless stupid, and which you have disavowed (although at this point I assume that the fact that you distanced yourself from a stupid explanation is a mere accident of history).

    “Seriously, if you are so darn smart, you could atleast spend some time reading the thread before throwing out insults and making stuff up, as you are so fond of doing.”

    Res ipsa loquitur.

  55. David K. says:

    You really love hearing yourself talk don’t you Brian?

  56. Brian Foster says:

    Actually David, I can both read and type without having to say the words out loud as I go, so I don’t hear it at all.

    As for the purported “substance” of your point, I don’t recall ever seeing you attempt to dismiss Brendan with a “you really love to hear yourself talk,” even though he routinely writes comments at least as long as, if not longer than, mine, not to mention his many very long-winded main blog posts, and the general fact that as the host of this blog, he daily engages in very essence of “loving to hear himself talk.”

    But I’m sure that’s different. Right?

    Also, I notice you didn’t even attempt to respond to my argument. If I were still being foolish and naive, I’d assume that’s because you finally read it, understood it, and realized you had no response.

    But I know better now, especially after your admissions re Wilson and Widner . . . I’ll bet you didn’t even read it.

    “LA LA LA I CAN’T HEAR YOU” all over again. It really is sad.

  57. David K. says:

    Brian, the difference is Brendan rights long things with a purpose. You just re-hash the same thing over and over trying to show how “smart” you are.

    I read your post, I just don’t think its worth responding too, you are sayign the same thing as before and I’ve allready explained the difference. You aren’t going to do anything but keep writing long winded posts to prove how smart you are and that you think i’m wrong so why bother? If I felt like you were interested in engaging in debate and not showing off how good of a lawyer you might be, i’d respond in kind. I simply have better things to do with my time than keep trying to get you to understand that you keep attributing arguments and points to me that I have never made or claim to have made.

    So feel free to keep on talking, but i’m ready to move on. This post has been to long as is.

  58. Brian Foster says:


    “the difference is Brendan rights long things with a purpose”

    Dear god. After reading that opening, I know there is absolutely no point in continuing, let alone responding. And yet, even now, I cannot give up all hope and faith that David might someday be redeemed. So here I go . . .

    I “re-hash the same thing over and over” not to try and show how “smart” I am, but because your responses demonstrate that you completely fail to understand what I said the last time (the “Ferrous Cranous” thing is really perfectly appropriate).

    So I explain it again, and again, and again, each time using more (but usually smaller) words in the hopes that you’ll catch on. If I am to be faulted, it is for foolishly having enough faith in you as an intellect that I keep trying long after others have given up.

    Case in point: you say you’ve “already explained the difference,” but I’ve shown you that you did no such thing. You just ignore that and restate falsehoods.

    You also frequently claim that I’m only interested in “showing off how good of a laywer [I] might be,” which is nonsense. First, almost nothing that I write here has any bearing or comparison to what I do for my job, and to the extent it does, it reflects only my interests and nothing more. Second, there’s no one here to show off to. Third, to the extent I do this writing while at work, it actually makes me a pretty bad lawyer.

    But you go right on clinging to your “truths” if they make you feel better.

    “you keep attributing arguments and points to me that I have never made or claim to have made”

    Yeah. Like that old canard. Tell whatever lies you have to tell yourself to get through the day.

  59. Brian Foster says:

    Clarification and postscript —

    First, to clarify: “Second, there’s no one here to show off to.” By this, I meant only that as far as I am aware, there is no one reading this blog that I particularly want to impress. I did not mean that “no one reads this blog” or “no one worthy reads this blog” or anything of that sort.

    And, postscript:

    David, I relish debate. I love an intellectually stimulating discussion about a topic that has no right or wrong answer but only a diversity of viewpoints, exposure to which makes me a richer, smarter, better human being.

    I don’t get that from you, however — certainly not in this topic or the Wilson one. Both here and there, all I’ve seen you do is spout factually and/or logically wrong nonsense and then refuse to acknowledge your mistakes, instead falsely accusing me of arguing against points you never made.

    In other words, I can’t have a debate with you until you move past your factual and logical erros and falsehoods, and actually enter the realm of opinion and viewpoint, where a debate is actually possible.

    Until you do that — so long as you cling to factual errors and logical fallacies — you can’t ever debate with anybody. You can only be educated by them.

    Or not.

    Your choice.

  60. David K. says:

    Brian, your need to insult my intelligence and claim to speak down to me over and over again is a poor example of being able to hold a reasoned and civil debate.

    You can explain your position all you want, but just because you assert it and argue it does not make it valid. For example, you are claiming that my reference to the anonymous-ND-homers is equivalent to someone else bringing up my reaction to anti-Catholic sentiment. I have tried to point out to you that its not, but you refuse to listen to what I am actually saying and instead keep arguing the same things repeatedly.

    Here are the facts of the two situations. My reference to anonymous-ND-homers has nothing to do with you or anyone else bringing up Notre Dame and it does not need to. Why? Because I was referring to a class of people who have demonstrated that they don’t like me. While it is certainly possible that the “anonymous” who posted here is not affiliated with Notre Dame, given the past pattern it is not unreasonable to assume from their one line comments that it is the same person or persons. They have established with their past behavior this pattern and I am extrapolating from that. Again I admit this particular commenter might NOT be affiliated with Notre Dame, but my guess is that they are.

    As for the Catholic comment, its a non-sequitor because none of the previous posts I had made in this thread referenced a disagreement over religious poitns being made by others. I merely pointed out that 4-7 brought up an opinion, without attacking any other poster, without resorting to name calling, and the FIRST responses by certain people like Marty, was to insult and demean rather than counter argue. For the record I even posted that I didn’t fully agree with 4-7’s view. At no point did I object to anything remotely Catholic, Catholicism was not even mentioned in the thread. My response to the comment made about me was a simple one as well, as I said, where did Catholicism even come into this thread? It certainly may be true that I am more likely to react to anti-Catholic comments (just as you are more likely to respond to anti-something comments), but that had nothing to do with THIS particular thread.

    The two situations, as I hope you can see are different. One is about me mentioning a class of people who dislike me, because that was releveant to the accusations made against me, the other was just an accusation against me that didn’t actually have anything to do with the thread at hand.

    I can and will ahve debates with people, but not if they are going to tell me I’m wrong and stupid simply because I don’t agree with the conclusions they make from their arguments ESPECIALLY if they attribute to me arguments and views I do not actually hold. If you want to debate, fine, do so, and I will respond in kind, but don’t blame me when you pin innacurate views on me and I don’t respond to them, why should I?? If I claimed that you hated babies and accused you of not arguing well because you didn’t respond to that critcism, would YOU feel like it worth responding to? You have now more than once mis-represented my views and what i have said, if you want me to take you seriously, stop doing so.

  61. Brian Foster says:

    Since you don’t like my thorough responses, David, I’ll keep this one as brief as possible.

    ” you are claiming that my reference to the anonymous-ND-homers is equivalent to someone else bringing up my reaction to anti-Catholic sentiment.”

    No, I’m not. I’m claiming they are distinct, and that yours is the more irrelevant and therefore a likelier candidate for non-sequitur. That you have missed this yet again does not square with your implication that I have unfairly judged your intelligence.

    Since you don’t like me re-explaining myself after you’ve completely missed the point, however, I won’t do it again. Feel free to re-read any of my posts if you want to take another stab at comprehension.

    “If you want to debate, fine, do so, and I will respond in kind, but don’t blame me when you pin innacurate views on me and I don’t respond to them,”

    For the nth time, this is not what I was doing. I simply lined up your various comments at various times, demonstrated that they were mutually exclusive and internally contradictory, invited you to explain yourself, and then to the extent that you actually responded to the invitation, found those explanations as flawed as the previous inconsistent and mutually contradictory statements. As such, I was only ever simply attempting to establish the basics of, and basis for, your position, so that we could move on to whatever debate might have been appropriate. But instead of acknowledging the flaws that were patently obviously there, you denied their existence and then accused me of fabricating your position, when in fact all I ever did was probe the soft underbelly of your position to reveal its inherent weakness and rot.

    “If I claimed that you hated babies and accused you of not arguing well because you didn’t respond to that critcism, would YOU feel like it worth responding to? ”

    If I claimed that you hated babies, then this question might make sense, but I never did that, or anything remotely analogous. You yourself claimed that judges need to ignore the law sometimes because the rule of law can’t take account of circumstances. You yourself engaged in the non-sequitur of bringing up anonymous ND homers when they had never spoken nor been spoken of in this thread. It’s not misrepresenting your views, but simply restating them unremarkably, to point these things out.

    “stop doing so”

    I cannot stop what I am not in fact doing.

    You are living in a fantasy land, David, from your ad-hoc views on justice to your self-created definitions of terms like “non-sequitur” and “neo-con,” your mindless insistence that a person who needs to be “reminded” to pray can still mean such prayers as sincerely as one who needs no reminder, and now this self-defense mechanism you’ve erected whereby I am supposedly misrepresenting your views and attirbuting to you things you never said.

    It’s irrational, illogical, anti-intellectual nonsense. All of it.

  62. David K. says:


    Re: the anonymous-ND-homers I refer you to this post:

    I was directly refering to it by calling out the Anonymous-ND-homers. You may not like it, but there it is. It is now a non-sequitor to refer to someone who made a comment directed at me? I’m not sure what more you need to listen to reality, but there it is in black and white so to speak. It may not be relevent to the Golden Compass but it IS relevent to comments made about me in THIS thread. If you don’t like that, fine, but it IS relevant and to claim otherwise is to ignore objective reality.

  63. Brian Foster says:

    Oh. My. God.

    David, I have discussed that very post in almost every single one of my own comments. How could you possibly think that I was unaware of it or otherwise needed to be referred to it? Seriously.

    The whole point is that you referred to that comment by mentioning “anonymous ND homers,” even though absolutely nothing about that comment, or anything else in this thread, had anything at all to do with ND homerism. That is what makes your comment a non-sequitur. I never questioned that you were referring to the anonymous comment you now point me to — in fact that was the very crux of my original theory, in which I struggled to come up with a logical explanation for why you might have thought that anonymous poster was also an ND homer.

    I say again, there is absolutely nothing in this thread to support your assumption that the anonymous poster in question is an ND homer. Nothing except your apparent paranoia and delusions of grandeur, that is.

    Every time I think you’ve hit rock bottom, you surprise me yet again. I mean, really, didn’t you live in an honors dorm at USC?

  64. David K. says:

    Brian, let me spell it out for you one last time.

    In threads where I was critical of Notre Dame football a person or persons commenting anonymously began posting negative comments towards me. This had not happened prior to those threads. Since those threads the same type of anonymous posters have continued to post negative things about me. Until I have reason to believe otherwise it is a reasonable assumption to assume that we are talking about the same groups/person based on the same pattern of behavior. You may not believe me, but I don’t frankly care anymore what you believe because I’m just a little tired of you telling me what I am saying or arguing. You are correct that nothing in this thread has anything to do with Notre Dame, and I’m not claiming there is, I’m claiming that these same anonymous antagonistic coments are coming from the same group of people or person. Your inability to grasp the idea that I might be referring to something that has come up in other threads boggles the mind. But whatever, clearly all you are interested in is trying to be right/be smart/insult me. If you were interested in rational discussion you wouldn’t behave as you are. I’m done with this thread, feel free to have the last word, I know you are dying to.

  65. Anonymous says:

    Stop saying “one last time” and “feel free to have the last word”, asshole. You know you don’t mean it.

  66. Brian Foster says:

    “Your inability to grasp the idea that I might be referring to something that has come up in other threads boggles the mind.”

    I grasped that perfectly, from the very first moment you explained it. That does not change the fact that your making the comment was the very essence of a non-sequitur, which you appear to continue to deny, presumably based on your individualized definition of non-sequitur which excludes statements founded on unstated internal assumptions that have no bearing or basis on the actual exchange in which the comment occurs.

    I linked to the definition above; go read it and see how there’s no exception in there for “unless the speaker is employing an unstated assumption unrelated to the discussion at hand.”

    As you yourself admit, I am “correct that nothing in this thread has anything to do with Notre Dame.” So now all you have to do is further admit that your comment was a non-sequitur because it contained that irrelevant logical leap, which confused not just me, but (at minimum) Wobbly and Marty as well.

    ” I’m claiming that these same anonymous antagonistic coments are coming from the same group of people or person.”

    Fine. You might even be right, for all I know. But that’s not the point. The point is that your reference to them in this thread was illogical and irrelevant in that it did not follow from either the discussion then underway nor the elements of the anonymous post itself.

    It would be as if I responded to your most recent post by saying, “But I like puppies!” The statement itself may be 100% correct, but it has nothing to do with what we’re talking about. Hence, non-sequitur.