Here's Why The Media Denies it Was Terrorism

[G.T.]

Of course that is not the "position of the OP."

You have tried to use a definition without proper consideration of context.

It is the times we are living in and the numerous terroristic acts of the past decade or so that give context for the act.

The majority of the public see the terroristic act for what it is, and the OP lays out a method that explains why the MSM, which is also responsible for the positive coverage that Barack Obama has gotten ( "It's part of reporting this case, this election, the feeling most people get when they hear Barack Obama's speech. My, I felt this thrill going up my leg.) will not comment on it as such.

It isn't leftist propaganda to insist on adequate facts before insisting it is "terrorism" nor is it leftist propaganda to try to stick to a legal definition of "terrorism". Stating that "the majority of the public see the terroristic act for what it is" doesn't make it true. In fact, it's a logical fallacy - appeal to popularity.

The OP plays fast and loose with people's fears doesn't it? It's opinion without much fact peppered with linguistic red flags. The OP is also notable for it's contempt of "We should wait until ‘all the evidence is in’…". Anyone recall the bruhaha over Obama's infamous foot-in-the-mouth about "police acting stupidly" in the Prof. Gates situation? Yet, those same vociferous critics want to rush to the charge of "terrorism" before all the facts are in. Fortunately - unlike rightwing punditry - the military is keeping quiet about it while gathering information in order to build a case.

Whether it is terrorism (which thus far doesn't seem to fit the legal criteria) or a nut with a chip on his shoulder (and given his allegations about being mistreated for being muslim and his psychiatric history this seems possible) it represents a substantial issue for the military to deal with: how do you identify people who might erupt like this and how do you get rid of them before they do?

Given the facts we know so far - what makes Hassan different than the VA Tech shooter? Would you call both terrorism? Terrorism involves intimidating people to achieve a particular goal and in order to do that, the goal has to be known so the terrorism can be attributed to it. What was Hassan's goal? Did he state any?

What is interesting is that the main reason implied by those calling it terrorism is that Hassan was Muslim and extreme in his beliefs. That alone isn't enough to fit the criteria of "terrorism".

I kinda' like the tone and tenor of your post.

But, you are conflating things that should not be conflated. In short your post is syncretic in that you are demanding a far more stringent basis for 'opinion' than is required.

An opinion is a belief that cannot be proved with evidence. It is a subjective statement and may be the result of an emotion or an interpretation of facts; people may draw opposing opinions from the same facts.

If I were to suggest that you were being devious, I would see your argument as an attempt to parry my 'theory' using parliamentary rules. Such rules are in no way related to expressions of opinon. Clear?

Let's assume you have merely misunderstood.

To review:
1. The MSM, who still think they can determine total analysis of events, ignoring the impact of the internet and talk radio, all just happen to pose explantions for Major Hasan's massacre as the results of him being a 'nut,' or the result of some imaginary combat-related stress.

2. The same MSM folks were the ones who gave overwhelming support to the candidacy of the pretender who we now call POTUS.

3. Continued support requires shielding President Obama from any taint that would fall on him if this attack were to be labeled 'terror-related.'

4. Explanations base on 'coincidence' are often the last bastion of the naive.

5. I am not naive.

This is my thesis.

Care to comment?

I have a comment: it's low to use this event in such a Political way, as you are. The media may be "in the tank," but all you can offer is circumstancial bullshit in this case, while ignoring one simple thing: we don't know all of the facts, neither does the media; therefore, they have a logical basis for not jumping to that "conclusion" and contrary to your analysis I HAVE in fact heard them all report on how the FBI knew some previous shit >which is damning.

It would be irresponsible FOR THEM to jump to the terror conclusion without a sound grasp on all of the facts. Jabbing them for not: ridiculous.

And it shouldn't bother anyone that stations may be "in the tank" when there's certain other stations "in the tank" for the other "political philosophies" to balance it out nicely. Who gives a flying ****, is my thesis. Questions?

 

[PoliticalChic]

It isn't leftist propaganda to insist on adequate facts before insisting it is "terrorism" nor is it leftist propaganda to try to stick to a legal definition of "terrorism". Stating that "the majority of the public see the terroristic act for what it is" doesn't make it true. In fact, it's a logical fallacy - appeal to popularity.

The OP plays fast and loose with people's fears doesn't it? It's opinion without much fact peppered with linguistic red flags. The OP is also notable for it's contempt of "We should wait until ‘all the evidence is in’…". Anyone recall the bruhaha over Obama's infamous foot-in-the-mouth about "police acting stupidly" in the Prof. Gates situation? Yet, those same vociferous critics want to rush to the charge of "terrorism" before all the facts are in. Fortunately - unlike rightwing punditry - the military is keeping quiet about it while gathering information in order to build a case.

Whether it is terrorism (which thus far doesn't seem to fit the legal criteria) or a nut with a chip on his shoulder (and given his allegations about being mistreated for being muslim and his psychiatric history this seems possible) it represents a substantial issue for the military to deal with: how do you identify people who might erupt like this and how do you get rid of them before they do?

Given the facts we know so far - what makes Hassan different than the VA Tech shooter? Would you call both terrorism? Terrorism involves intimidating people to achieve a particular goal and in order to do that, the goal has to be known so the terrorism can be attributed to it. What was Hassan's goal? Did he state any?

What is interesting is that the main reason implied by those calling it terrorism is that Hassan was Muslim and extreme in his beliefs. That alone isn't enough to fit the criteria of "terrorism".

I kinda' like the tone and tenor of your post.

But, you are conflating things that should not be conflated. In short your post is syncretic in that you are demanding a far more stringent basis for 'opinion' than is required.

An opinion is a belief that cannot be proved with evidence. It is a subjective statement and may be the result of an emotion or an interpretation of facts; people may draw opposing opinions from the same facts.

If I were to suggest that you were being devious, I would see your argument as an attempt to parry my 'theory' using parliamentary rules. Such rules are in no way related to expressions of opinon. Clear?

Let's assume you have merely misunderstood.

To review:
1. The MSM, who still think they can determine total analysis of events, ignoring the impact of the internet and talk radio, all just happen to pose explantions for Major Hasan's massacre as the results of him being a 'nut,' or the result of some imaginary combat-related stress.

2. The same MSM folks were the ones who gave overwhelming support to the candidacy of the pretender who we now call POTUS.

3. Continued support requires shielding President Obama from any taint that would fall on him if this attack were to be labeled 'terror-related.'

4. Explanations base on 'coincidence' are often the last bastion of the naive.

5. I am not naive.

This is my thesis.

Care to comment?

I have a comment: it's low to use this event in such a Political way, as you are. The media may be "in the tank," but all you can offer is circumstancial bullshit in this case, while ignoring one simple thing: we don't know all of the facts, neither does the media; therefore, they have a logical basis for not jumping to that "conclusion" and contrary to your analysis I HAVE in fact heard them all report on how the FBI knew some previous shit >which is damning.

It would be irresponsible FOR THEM to jump to the terror conclusion without a sound grasp on all of the facts. Jabbing them for not: ridiculous.

And it shouldn't bother anyone that stations may be "in the tank" when there's certain other stations "in the tank" for the other "political philosophies" to balance it out nicely. Who gives a flying ****, is my thesis. Questions?

What a juvenile post.

This event is political.

It should be viewed as such, and, since data should inform policy, it must be viewed so.

As for the media and your statement that 'it shouldn't bother anyone that stations may be "in the tank" ,' the idea that the 'Fourth Estate' can be rightly married to one political party, exposes inordinate ignorance in you.

We see in views such as yours the real result of the disintegration of our education system.

Reconsider the value of a critical press.

 

[G.T.]

I kinda' like the tone and tenor of your post.

But, you are conflating things that should not be conflated. In short your post is syncretic in that you are demanding a far more stringent basis for 'opinion' than is required.

An opinion is a belief that cannot be proved with evidence. It is a subjective statement and may be the result of an emotion or an interpretation of facts; people may draw opposing opinions from the same facts.

If I were to suggest that you were being devious, I would see your argument as an attempt to parry my 'theory' using parliamentary rules. Such rules are in no way related to expressions of opinon. Clear?

Let's assume you have merely misunderstood.

To review:
1. The MSM, who still think they can determine total analysis of events, ignoring the impact of the internet and talk radio, all just happen to pose explantions for Major Hasan's massacre as the results of him being a 'nut,' or the result of some imaginary combat-related stress.

2. The same MSM folks were the ones who gave overwhelming support to the candidacy of the pretender who we now call POTUS.

3. Continued support requires shielding President Obama from any taint that would fall on him if this attack were to be labeled 'terror-related.'

4. Explanations base on 'coincidence' are often the last bastion of the naive.

5. I am not naive.

This is my thesis.

Care to comment?

I have a comment: it's low to use this event in such a Political way, as you are. The media may be "in the tank," but all you can offer is circumstancial bullshit in this case, while ignoring one simple thing: we don't know all of the facts, neither does the media; therefore, they have a logical basis for not jumping to that "conclusion" and contrary to your analysis I HAVE in fact heard them all report on how the FBI knew some previous shit >which is damning.

It would be irresponsible FOR THEM to jump to the terror conclusion without a sound grasp on all of the facts. Jabbing them for not: ridiculous.

And it shouldn't bother anyone that stations may be "in the tank" when there's certain other stations "in the tank" for the other "political philosophies" to balance it out nicely. Who gives a flying ****, is my thesis. Questions?

What a juvenile post.

This event is political.

It should be viewed as such, and, since data should inform policy, it must be viewed so.

As for the media and your statement that 'it shouldn't bother anyone that stations may be "in the tank" ,' the idea that the 'Fourth Estate' can be rightly married to one political party, exposes inordinate ignorance in you.

We see in views such as yours the real result of the disintegration of our education system.

Reconsider the value of a critical press.

Point being, you're a hack. You took this opportunity as another means to criticize the media, but you conveniently only attack Media which sides against your Conservative Ideaology. Are you for media ethics, or are you for the LMSM being shut down, which is it? Your tune only plays the fiddle of a partisan. If FOX and MSNBC are not mirror images of one another than I don't know what crack you're smoking. Realism is not juvenile. Where are your threads re: FOX? Silly me for jumping to "conclusions." Hop off your pedestal.

 

[G.T.]

We see in views such as mine why most Americans pay no mind to Politics. There's no honor in a Politician, and there's no "fair and balanced" pieces written by partisans, such as yourself. So it's a futile exercise to give a ****, when you're beating dead horses on the left, dead horses on the right, with fingers in their ears going "la la la la" when anything is presented which is contrary to their side's "world view." It's rather pathetic.

 

[noose4]

just pointing it out but it is sad to see Superman and Supergirl arguing like this.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
"...those media outlets who outright DENIED..." This is nothing but an underhanded but transparent attempt to change the direction of the argument.

I understand that you are, in the words of the MSM re: John 'I served in VietNam' Kerry, nuance-challenged. You probably fail to not that my OP stated that the MSM refused to use the reference to terrorism, rather than "outright DENIED" same.

Well, let me AGAIN quote YOU from you original post:

"Now we see the big push by the administration and the media to shield the President by announcing that this was surely not terrorism: anything but."

So why don't you explain to me the difference between 'announcing this was surely not terrorism' and 'outright denying it was terrorism'.

This should be entertaining.

Oh, not to mention the small matter of your thread title, which claims that the media DENIES it was terrorism...

 

[manu1959]

here are some facts....

he enlisted in the us military

he was muslim

he was opposed to the us being at war in the middle east

he was very concerned about being deployed to the middle east

he killed 13 unarmed us troops

he wounded dozens more

treason pure and simple...shoot him at dawn

 

[G.T.]

A person such as myself can say things like "good job, Mr. President" without reservation, and the next day say "what the hell, Mr. President" when he does something disagreeable such as taking too long w/Afghanistan decision.

A PARTISAN; however, seeks-out information to make their opponents look bad. Their opponents don't make "mistakes," they are "evil socialists and fascists" and dumb chimps who can't speak or Uber-Secret Muslims.

When you have an entire diatribe devoted to "the mindset of a librul" or "the racism of a conservative," you're a ****-wad, on a pedestal who *thinks* they're pretty logical, but guess what? Partisanship flies in the face of Logical. Ascribing a "mindset" to your political opponents is "stereptyping," which is not logical it's dumb. It's calling the world black and white as though you're unable to understand the gray area. It's weak mindedness, and I'll never choose a side. Keep tuning your fiddle, a few strings are broken.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have a comment: it's low to use this event in such a Political way, as you are. The media may be "in the tank," but all you can offer is circumstancial bullshit in this case, while ignoring one simple thing: we don't know all of the facts, neither does the media; therefore, they have a logical basis for not jumping to that "conclusion" and contrary to your analysis I HAVE in fact heard them all report on how the FBI knew some previous shit >which is damning.

It would be irresponsible FOR THEM to jump to the terror conclusion without a sound grasp on all of the facts. Jabbing them for not: ridiculous.

And it shouldn't bother anyone that stations may be "in the tank" when there's certain other stations "in the tank" for the other "political philosophies" to balance it out nicely. Who gives a flying ****, is my thesis. Questions?

What a juvenile post.

This event is political.

It should be viewed as such, and, since data should inform policy, it must be viewed so.

As for the media and your statement that 'it shouldn't bother anyone that stations may be "in the tank" ,' the idea that the 'Fourth Estate' can be rightly married to one political party, exposes inordinate ignorance in you.

We see in views such as yours the real result of the disintegration of our education system.

Reconsider the value of a critical press.

Point being, you're a hack. You took this opportunity as another means to criticize the media, but you conveniently only attack Media which sides against your Conservative Ideaology. Are you for media ethics, or are you for the LMSM being shut down, which is it? Your tune only plays the fiddle of a partisan. If FOX and MSNBC are not mirror images of one another than I don't know what crack you're smoking. Realism is not juvenile. Where are your threads re: FOX? Silly me for jumping to "conclusions." Hop off your pedestal.

I note you were not able to comment on my criticism of you, and your levels of posting and education.

But as for your left-wing talking points, also wrong.

Fox News is well respected, fair and balanced, and, much to the chagrin of the left, has the highest viewership of the cable stations.

"Here's something you never hear from a Democrat: of all the cable networks, Fox News is doing the fairest job covering an issue.

Yet, that's exactly what Gov. Ed Rendell (D-Penn.), an outspoken Hillary Clinton supporter, said on "Fox & Friends" Monday."

Hillary Supporter Ed Rendell: Fox Has Done Fairest Job Covering Campaign | NewsBusters.org

And-

"The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism has found what many people already knew - Fox News is the most FAIR AND BALANCED news on televsion."

MacErudite Mac Forums :: Pew Study: FOX NEWS is most FAIR AND BALANCED on TV

The fact that you parrot the talking points of the left is further indication of how education has failed you.

Now, for your edification, MSM generally refers to the print media and the broadcast channels, which are most viewed- far more than cable.

Not talk radio and not Fox News. Get it?

Wise up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

just pointing it out but it is sad to see Superman and Supergirl arguing like this.

Ya' know, I hadn't noticed it.

That was funny.


But-
he's a pretender.
Supie wouldn't use that language in his fight for truth, justice, and the American way.

 

[G.T.]

What a juvenile post.

This event is political.

It should be viewed as such, and, since data should inform policy, it must be viewed so.

As for the media and your statement that 'it shouldn't bother anyone that stations may be "in the tank" ,' the idea that the 'Fourth Estate' can be rightly married to one political party, exposes inordinate ignorance in you.

We see in views such as yours the real result of the disintegration of our education system.

Reconsider the value of a critical press.

Point being, you're a hack. You took this opportunity as another means to criticize the media, but you conveniently only attack Media which sides against your Conservative Ideaology. Are you for media ethics, or are you for the LMSM being shut down, which is it? Your tune only plays the fiddle of a partisan. If FOX and MSNBC are not mirror images of one another than I don't know what crack you're smoking. Realism is not juvenile. Where are your threads re: FOX? Silly me for jumping to "conclusions." Hop off your pedestal.

I note you were not able to comment on my criticism of you, and your levels of posting and education.

But as for your left-wing talking points, also wrong.

Fox News is well respected, fair and balanced, and, much to the chagrin of the left, has the highest viewership of the cable stations.

"Here's something you never hear from a Democrat: of all the cable networks, Fox News is doing the fairest job covering an issue.

Yet, that's exactly what Gov. Ed Rendell (D-Penn.), an outspoken Hillary Clinton supporter, said on "Fox & Friends" Monday."

Hillary Supporter Ed Rendell: Fox Has Done Fairest Job Covering Campaign | NewsBusters.org

And-

"The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism has found what many people already knew - Fox News is the most FAIR AND BALANCED news on televsion."

MacErudite Mac Forums :: Pew Study: FOX NEWS is most FAIR AND BALANCED on TV

The fact that you parrot the talking points of the left is further indication of how education has failed you.

Now, for your edification, MSM generally refers to the print media and the broadcast channels, which are most viewed- far more than cable.

Not talk radio and not Fox News. Get it?

Wise up.

Wait, I'm not supposed to make my determination re: FOX News on my own? I'm supposed to listen to others' opinions of it, and form my opinion that way? Like I said: weakmindedness. I don't need studies to show me an obvious bias on a station. I don't need them from a Democrat, or a Republican, but I see you can easily dismiss any opposition view to your own as "liberal" (ad-hominem) without knowing where I stand on, ya know: actual social and fiscal policy. Seems you're the one in need of an education, sorry.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[
"...those media outlets who outright DENIED..." This is nothing but an underhanded but transparent attempt to change the direction of the argument.

I understand that you are, in the words of the MSM re: John 'I served in VietNam' Kerry, nuance-challenged. You probably fail to not that my OP stated that the MSM refused to use the reference to terrorism, rather than "outright DENIED" same.

Well, let me AGAIN quote YOU from you original post:

"Now we see the big push by the administration and the media to shield the President by announcing that this was surely not terrorism: anything but."

So why don't you explain to me the difference between 'announcing this was surely not terrorism' and 'outright denying it was terrorism'.

This should be entertaining.

Oh, not to mention the small matter of your thread title, which claims that the media DENIES it was terrorism...

To announce:
1.To make known publicly.
2.To proclaim the presence or arrival of: announce a caller.
3.To provide an indication of beforehand; foretell: The invention of the microchip announced a new generation of computers.

Surely even you understand that proclaiming the motivation was stress, insanity, etc. etc. was an attempt to hide the real motive.

 

[G.T.]

Ya' know, I hadn't noticed it.

That was funny.


But-
he's a pretender.
Supie wouldn't use that language in his fight for truth, justice, and the American way.

"Supie" doesn't get called "Supie" and "Supie" has a mind of his own and doesn't follow a Political montra.

Anything not your view is a Liberal talking point. We all know. Get over yourself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ya' know, I hadn't noticed it.

That was funny.


But-
he's a pretender.
Supie wouldn't use that language in his fight for truth, justice, and the American way.

"Supie" doesn't get called "Supie" and "Supie" has a mind of his own and doesn't follow a Political montra.

Anything not your view is a Liberal talking point. We all know. Get over yourself.

This 'Supie' has yet to demonstrate any mind, much less a mind of his own.

 

[G.T.]

Ya' know, I hadn't noticed it.

That was funny.


But-
he's a pretender.
Supie wouldn't use that language in his fight for truth, justice, and the American way.

"Supie" doesn't get called "Supie" and "Supie" has a mind of his own and doesn't follow a Political montra.

Anything not your view is a Liberal talking point. We all know. Get over yourself.

This 'Supie' has yet to demonstrate any mind, much less a mind of his own.

Mmm-kay, says the Woman who's bias points toward all things Conservative, while Conveniently holding the "right's" view that this "has" to be labeled Terrorism, short of..........you know.................waiting for the facts first. Just so happens you agree with the right here, we know. You think for yourself, your "side" doesn't tell you where to stand on issues.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Supie" doesn't get called "Supie" and "Supie" has a mind of his own and doesn't follow a Political montra.

Anything not your view is a Liberal talking point. We all know. Get over yourself.

This 'Supie' has yet to demonstrate any mind, much less a mind of his own.

Mmm-kay, says the Woman who's bias points toward all things Conservative, while Conveniently holding the "right's" view that this "has" to be labeled Terrorism, short of..........you know.................waiting for the facts first. Just so happens you agree with the right here, we know. You think for yourself, your "side" doesn't tell you where to stand on issues.

Ah, mr-clutching-at-straws, while I am proudly conservative in my views, it has nothing to do with my ability to see through this attempt to shield President Obama (Peace be on him) from a justified criticism based on a terrorist attack, the kind the Bush Administration prevented.

 

[G.T.]

Ah, mr-clutching-at-straws, while I am proudly conservative in my views, it has nothing to do with my ability to see through this attempt to shield President Obama (Peace be on him) from a justified criticism based on a terrorist attack, the kind the Bush Administration prevented.

Ok, let's do it this way then. From your statement above:

How would this attack, whether terrorism or not, be a "justified criticism" on Obama when from current information all that we can gather is that the FBI let this one slip through? How would this be "justified" as a criticism on Obama?

Number two: How do you come to the conclusion it's Terrorism without all of the pertinent information?

The fact you feel its a "justified" criticism on Obama, coupled with the fact you're quick to jump on the "it's terrorism" bandwagon, aludes to your Conservative views having the apparent effect on your judgement we'd think it would have.

 

[skookerasbil]

Let me share with my fellow board members a theory that helps us explain all of the administration and MSM proclamations that...
1. Major Hasan was just a ‘nut,’ and his actions were not related to Islamofascist terrorism
2. We should wait until ‘all the evidence is in’…
3. Better we take a pass on identifying Major Hasan’s motivations than risk losing ‘diversity’
4. It's all those right-wingers...

Here is the real skinny’
1. Anyone who hasn’t lived in a distant cave for the last decade knows that this was an act of Islamo-fascist terrorism
2. We had to rely on the British press to find out Major Hasans outbursts and links to terrorists.
3. Red-flags as to the dangers posed by this individual were buried based on a fear of being painted with the red letter “R” for racist.

Here is Dick Morris’ analysis, one which ties together both sets of bullet-points:

A major criticism of both Candidate Obama and of President Obama was that his attitude and actions with respect to protecting this country form Moslem terrorism was both the laxity and use of the power of government to investigate and restrict, vis-à-vis the Bush Administration.
1. Close Gitmo
2. Make nice with captured terrorists
3. Pressure interrogators to restrict investigations
4. Create the atmosphere that makes citizens reluctant to question any 'strange' activities

Many said we would suffer the effects of this ‘new’ attitude, and that if there were to be acts of terrorism, they would be the responsibility of President Obama..

Now we see the big push by the administration and the media to shield the President by announcing that this was surely not terrorism: anything but.

It's your call.

LOL It's funny how you end your spin and propaganda with "it's your call" when you had already prepped your counter insult and attack if the reader didn't agree with your spin. oh and since you went there when were "red flags" discovered and who buried them??

The sad thing is that you are trying to spin this that the administration and media are out to "shield" the president while you are apparently out to blame him based on your spin from dick morris when you have presented no factual evidence to support your OPINIONS.

^^^^^ one of the cave guys

 

[skookerasbil]

Ah, mr-clutching-at-straws, while I am proudly conservative in my views, it has nothing to do with my ability to see through this attempt to shield President Obama (Peace be on him) from a justified criticism based on a terrorist attack, the kind the Bush Administration prevented.

Ok, let's do it this way then. From your statement above:

How would this attack, whether terrorism or not, be a "justified criticism" on Obama when from current information all that we can gather is that the FBI let this one slip through? How would this be "justified" as a criticism on Obama?

Number two: How do you come to the conclusion it's Terrorism without all of the pertinent information?

The fact you feel its a "justified" criticism on Obama, coupled with the fact you're quick to jump on the "it's terrorism" bandwagon, aludes to your Conservative views having the apparent effect on your judgement we'd think it would have.

lol...........another cave guy ^^^^^

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ah, mr-clutching-at-straws, while I am proudly conservative in my views, it has nothing to do with my ability to see through this attempt to shield President Obama (Peace be on him) from a justified criticism based on a terrorist attack, the kind the Bush Administration prevented.

Ok, let's do it this way then. From your statement above:

How would this attack, whether terrorism or not, be a "justified criticism" on Obama when from current information all that we can gather is that the FBI let this one slip through? How would this be "justified" as a criticism on Obama?

Number two: How do you come to the conclusion it's Terrorism without all of the pertinent information?

The fact you feel its a "justified" criticism on Obama, coupled with the fact you're quick to jump on the "it's terrorism" bandwagon, aludes to your Conservative views having the apparent effect on your judgement we'd think it would have.

All of this has been covered in this thread.

Have you read it completely, or do you arrive in the middle of a film and demand that it be started over for you?