Left untouched

[FactJack]

I read the whole Mike Martinez controversy in the Letters page. While I am not disputing anything Andrew  said in his reponse, I could not help but notice Mike gave at least one valid argument - bringing up "I might not enjoy the film, I might not like the film, I might even harbor resentment against you and the writer, but it will be reviewed." - that Andrew did not respond to.

[Squishy]

So?

If Martinez wrote--in the middle of all that crap--"the sky is blue," or "I like pie," and Andrew did not respond, does that also constitute a "valid argument," and does Andrew's lack of response have some Earth-shattering significance?

Or is someone just farting for the sake of making a little noise?

[Andrew]

Crimes were committed in making the film.  In one of my first responses to Mr. Martinez, I let him know it was a show-stopper.

If someone sent me a tape of them killing a cat, I would not review the film either.

[Fearless Freep]

As oppposed to much of the stuff you review where the resuling film is a crime :)

[Dano]

Even if you overlook the moral implications (which you shouldn't), in this day and age, I could honsetly see legal action being bought against the webmaster of a site that reviewed movies containing crimes (and thereby "encouraged" or "incited" the crimes).  Sounds like an early-season "Law & Order."  Would you do it if it meant you could meet Angie Harmon?