Lord knows if we were both capable of being fair and not petty, I think we can both see that we’re overstating the other’s case…but such is not the way of modern discourse. Oh, and I would never suggest that you are a dilettante because foreign-sounding words frighten and confuse me. I will freely admit I was spirited in my first post, your rhetoric seemed to move me to that tone.

I guess in the end, all I was trying to say was that it was possible to disagree with you, to support a defense of Tarantino without being a potato head. If you concede that, I have no more qualms.

What surprises me is that you took it so personally that I had the gall — the gall! — to suggest that A.O. Scott should have included Tarantino or at least some of his films in his article about the childishness of American cinema. If you don’t think the phrase “get medieval on your ass” is childish (for starters), then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

But hey, at least people are reading me and getting riled up. And by people I mean moronic pig people who “thought enough of [my] blog to respond.” Fancy! And you traffic in a sea of snark, so what’s the problem?

What chaps my metaphorical hide — as opposed to my literal hide — is the way your calmer, more thoughtful second response is casual/clever: “I guess what chapped my metaphorical hide was that it seems like the new modus operandi…” To say nothing of the fact that the “modus operandi” you describe, this so called “new cultural tradition,” isn’t new at all. Please see Manohla Dargis, Pauline Kael, Patrick Goldstein and certainly Roger Ebert, who has books called “Your Movie Sucks” and “I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie.”

Finally, I’m puzzling over the last line of your second comment, trying to unpack its tortured syntax. When you speak of the size of those willing to metaphorically fellate QT (again with the metaphorically! thanks, I get that it’s not literal), do you mean physical size, as in a Weinstein? Or audience size? In any case, I’m pretty sure the “If other people like it, it must be great” logic isn’t necessarily more noble or correct than the “If you disagree, you’re fat” approach.

As for me being quick to anger, I suggest you re-read your first comment, which I think had a whole lotta cyber dick swingin’.

I guess what chapped my metaphorical hide was that it seems like the new modus operandi for people having discussions of all kinds these days is to piss on the character and quality of the people who support a given issue (be it health care reform or, say, film) in an attempt to make a point. If you remove your slaps against the people who like Tarantino’s work, I think you make a few valid claims, but I was instantly turned off by the “I’m cooler than you” posturing. I was not morally offended, I was not shocked to my core, I just didn’t like it and…to be honest…thought enough of your blog to respond.

I guess I’m just tired of the constant character attack above content attack. The “if you disagree, you’re fat” approach. If it makes me an asshole to respond instead of just reading it, thinking something negative and walking away, then okay, I’m an asshole. I’m okay with that. I’ve been called worse. For the record, I don’t think you’re an asshole. I just think that you engaged in what has become the new cultural tradition: take your shots while making your point. Also, just a tiny little point, isn’t there the slightest chance, given the size of those who seem willing to metaphorically fellate him, that they may have some measure of a point?