[ SECRET POST #4867 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4867 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 48 secrets from Secret Submission Post #697.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Your argument supposes that people are always accurate in their reading of a documentary and never make any mistakes in interpretation. Do you think that's a reasonable assumption to make?

[(Anonymous)]

if there's a strong pattern of a specific audience reading, even if that reading is incorrect, I think it's very likely that at the very least the original source material failed to exercise due care and regard in making its message clear and making sure people did not come to the incorrect conclusion.

[(Anonymous)]

You have a lot more faith in a creator's ability to make sure people don't come to the wrong conclusion about something than I do.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, when the creators purposefully remove things that can make their star look worse, maybe the creator wanted the bad guy to look better?

[(Anonymous)]

There's an argument for that. There's also an argument that "better" is a relative term. Did Joe look good in this documentary? I don't think so, but clearly others think differently.