Wow. This forum is soooo much more mature than the other forums. I can't remember which one..(S2Ki.com or rx7club.com) A post went up about the Passion and all hell broke loose
The Passion of the Christ
- Thread starter Joel
- Start date
Lot of insightful comments here.
From what ive heard about this movie, it sounds like it focuses entirely on the death of Jesus. I suppose there is some value in this, as someone else pointed out the physical abuse suffered has been portrayed up to this point in a very antiseptic fashion. I suppose religion has focused on the transendence of the abuse, not how horrific it really was.
My personal opinion has always been that the life of Jesus is the focus, not the death. Whether a person believes in the resurrection or 'son of God' status, the stories of Jesus are powerful and uplifting to me.
I actually thought the "last Temptation of Christ" was an excellent movie. Very metaphorical, but made perfect sense to me. If you believe Jesus was the son of God, how powerful to acknowledge that Jesus chose the path leading to crucifixation instead of choosing all the joys of life as a man.
To take any depiction of Jesus as an excuse for antisemitism or any form of prejudice is really to contradict all of the teachings we ascribe to Jesus.
Just my opinions. Seems like all religions have had some members and even factions that take their 'scriptures' and turn them into bigotry, prejudice, murder and war.
One of the least known and most appalling of the crusades (there were several Christian crusades) was the crusade of CHILDREN. Under the misguided hope that the children would not be treated like adult crusaders, thousands of children were sent to their deaths. This has always stood out to me as one of the most egregious and atrocious examples of zealotry and stupidity by Christianity.
Anybody want to talk about Dan Brown's books? Although entertaining and somewhat fictional, there are also many little known historical facts interwoven throughout.
From what ive heard about this movie, it sounds like it focuses entirely on the death of Jesus. I suppose there is some value in this, as someone else pointed out the physical abuse suffered has been portrayed up to this point in a very antiseptic fashion. I suppose religion has focused on the transendence of the abuse, not how horrific it really was.
My personal opinion has always been that the life of Jesus is the focus, not the death. Whether a person believes in the resurrection or 'son of God' status, the stories of Jesus are powerful and uplifting to me.
I actually thought the "last Temptation of Christ" was an excellent movie. Very metaphorical, but made perfect sense to me. If you believe Jesus was the son of God, how powerful to acknowledge that Jesus chose the path leading to crucifixation instead of choosing all the joys of life as a man.
To take any depiction of Jesus as an excuse for antisemitism or any form of prejudice is really to contradict all of the teachings we ascribe to Jesus.
Just my opinions. Seems like all religions have had some members and even factions that take their 'scriptures' and turn them into bigotry, prejudice, murder and war.
One of the least known and most appalling of the crusades (there were several Christian crusades) was the crusade of CHILDREN. Under the misguided hope that the children would not be treated like adult crusaders, thousands of children were sent to their deaths. This has always stood out to me as one of the most egregious and atrocious examples of zealotry and stupidity by Christianity.
Anybody want to talk about Dan Brown's books? Although entertaining and somewhat fictional, there are also many little known historical facts interwoven throughout.
While it graphically shows the death of Christ, that is not really the point. The movie is trying to realistically depict how enormous the sacrafice that Christ made actually is. It is not meant to be dramatized, but meant to be realistic of what Christ had to go through. Mel wanted to make a point and not sugar coat in any way, and that may be more than some people want to see in one sitting. (possibly including me, but we shall see)
I was being a little facetious, but I think there is some truth there. Whether that was his motivation or not, the reason he financed it himself is very simple: The studios thought he was insane for wanting to make a graphic movie, about a controversial subject, in dead languages.Joel said:
I find this thread interresting and sofar well behaved.I'm not going to speak to the films content because I have not seen it.My contribution to this thread is to question the motivation of Mel.Why was he so inspired to create a movie about this particular 12 hrs.What little I know of him and his prior films don't suggest to me that he is deeply religious but he has been in other dramatic representations of history(braveheart).So Obviously I don't know him at all.If he did fund this movie all the way then iether he shopped it and no one bought it or he felt the potential benefit to his wallet was worth the risk.If successful he stands a good chance of making 100's of millions and not just the 20 or so he'd be payed as actor only,plus whatever %,of sales.I leave you with this thought,In the last 3 yrs we have seen traditional tv shows,and entertainment in general replaced by the reality genre.I would suggest to you all that it is intriguing to me that this movie smells like a reality portrayl of an event we all have learned about and know about,but never could imagine or wish/hope? to actually see.Is Mel that much of a genious to have thought up a reality movie about the crucifiction?
The only problem with your statement is the assumption that Mel (or anyone for that matter) knows what actually happened in the last 12 hours of Christ's life. How do you know this movie is realistically depicting events? What research is Mel basing this on?jlindy said:
nkb said:
I have only seen certain talking points about his direction of the film and can't see it until the wife and I can get a sitter but, the 12 hrs you speak of are the accounts taken from the Gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. His research is those books and the accounts given in them. Realistic events: history, manuscript evidence from the Greek and Hebrew text , Roman law & government in addition to the know practice of crusification.
I also would like to say thanks for the manner in which those have participated in this thread.
Well, given the widely varying interpretations of the Bible (and the fact that it can be INTERPRETED) makes me skeptical that you could pinpoint such detail.Tom Larkins said:
Are you saying that the Bible specifically states what kind of a person Pilate was, for example? Or who was really behind the prosecution of Christ? Or, the exact details of how Christ was beaten?
How did they miss this the first time?
All I'm questioning at this point is how someone can claim that this movie depicts Christ's death "realistically", when it should be obvious that any movie will have, at the very least, some of the director's and/or producer's bias in it.
nsxtasy said:
As far a Gibsons father is concerned. Can we acknowledge that sometimes we don't always agree w/what our own fathers say. Heck, my dad didn't think that mixed marriage was right at all for years. That didn't mean that I was in his camp and we butted heads on that issue for a while. His dad is wrong, and just b/c dad said it doesn't mean thats his thought too.
As I stated above, the Anti-Semitic thoughts that this film is supposed to induce isn't gonna happen hear. If it does, the ones doing it are not anywhere close to being a Christian. If anything their would be a problem w/that kind of low life behavior in Europe. Its been an issue for years b/c of the lack of faith and watered down humanist doctrine over there.
What your watching is the dramatization of the Media. They do make there valid points....yes, but its a classic example of the era we live in and the lack of knowledge by them about people like me.
I agree it prob. does have some bias in it. That is human nature, but its not the real issue. Exact depiction of the last 12 hours....ask youself this.nkb said:
Just b/c you didn't see it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Did someone ever tell you something you believed was truth and didn't actually see it or was wittness to it! Have you ever believed something you read, but you knew it wasn't exactly how it happened.
That is why I mentioned a few times about missing the real point of what Christ did and why. Read the Bible and find out what it says for yourself.
I hope what I've stated above will help even as difficult as it is to do via typing.
Goodnite
Hi Guys,
I just saw this at a screening the other night. Very violent. What stuck me the most is that the movie was more about the way he died than the way he lived his life. I left the movie thinking that it was more about human hatred, rather than Godly love.
Sure .. its a story about Jesus, but it seemed like the movie otherwise stayed away from the implications, and focused on the process of his death, making it somewhat easier for someone who isnt Christian to watch. Really not what I was expecting.
My 2 cents
I just saw this at a screening the other night. Very violent. What stuck me the most is that the movie was more about the way he died than the way he lived his life. I left the movie thinking that it was more about human hatred, rather than Godly love.
Sure .. its a story about Jesus, but it seemed like the movie otherwise stayed away from the implications, and focused on the process of his death, making it somewhat easier for someone who isnt Christian to watch. Really not what I was expecting.
My 2 cents
yeah, the "Da Vinci Code" is pretty controversial. Ive noticed a lot of people have taken this book pretty seriously, including the media. Too bad that the current controversies with the Catholic church have many people thinking the book is historical fact.
Anybody here a student of history----read up on Christianity's history over the past 2k yrs? Examined doctrines from a socio-economic political perspective?
One of the interesting things I've read concerns the question of priests and celibacy. Some accounts suggest there was a problem with priests behavior out proselytizing---too many were out impregnating potential converts. A policy of celibacy helped to control this, among other things.
In our current day and age, we forget that the separation of church and state (or at least the attempt) is a fairly recent occurence.
Anybody here a student of history----read up on Christianity's history over the past 2k yrs? Examined doctrines from a socio-economic political perspective?
One of the interesting things I've read concerns the question of priests and celibacy. Some accounts suggest there was a problem with priests behavior out proselytizing---too many were out impregnating potential converts. A policy of celibacy helped to control this, among other things.
In our current day and age, we forget that the separation of church and state (or at least the attempt) is a fairly recent occurence.
nkb said:
I don't know maybe the bible?
Interpretations? You are making this too complex. Did you expect them to show 10 different interpretations to make everybody happy? You are so focused on the specifics we don't know that you forget the importance of the specifics we do know. Should he have abandoned the project out of skepticism for possibly not being able to protray every detail 100% correct? You've missed the point nkb.
Review by Andrew Sullivan
Here is a review of the movie by Andrew Sullivan, a writer I admire. The review seems well balanced and evenly considered to me. gm
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST: Well, I went last night to see the movie everyone is talking about. I'm writing this not long after leaving the theater so these are my raw and immediate impressions - not a fully considered review. I was of course deeply moved in parts. If you are a person of the Christian faith, it is impossible not to be moved by a rendition of the passion of the Savior that is not a travesty. The very story itself, embedded in the soul and the memory, stirs the emotions and prayers and meditations of a lifetime. To see it rendered in a believable setting in languages that, however inaccurate, give you an impression of being there, is arresting. It brings this simple but awe-inspiring story to life in a way very difficult to approximate in the written or spoken word. You can see why Passion plays were once performed. The Gospels do end in extraordinary drama, pathos, plot, agony. Portraying them vividly may, we can hope, bring some people to read the Gospels and even to explore further what the redemptive message of Jesus really is.
PURE PORNOGRAPHY: At the same time, the movie was to me deeply disturbing. In a word, it is pornography. By pornography, I mean the reduction of all human thought and feeling and personhood to mere flesh. The center-piece of the movie is an absolutely disgusting and despicable piece of sadism that has no real basis in any of the Gospels. It shows a man being flayed alive - slowly, methodically and with increasing savagery. We first of all witness the use of sticks, then whips, then multiple whips with barbed glass or metal. We see flesh being torn out of a man's body. Just so that we can appreciate the pain, we see the whip first tear chunks out of a wooden table. Then we see pieces of human skin flying through the air. We see Jesus come back for more. We see blood spattering on the torturers' faces. We see muscled thugs exhausted from shredding every inch of this man's body. And then they turn him over and do it all again. It goes on for ever. And then we see his mother wiping up masses and masses of blood. It is an absolutely unforgivable, vile, disgusting scene. No human being could sruvive it. Yet for Gibson, it is the h'ors d'oeuvre for his porn movie. The whole movie is some kind of sick combination of the theology of Opus Dei and the film-making of Quentin Tarantino. There is nothing in the Gospels that indicates this level of extreme, endless savagery and there is no theological reason for it. It doesn't even evoke emotion in the audience. It is designed to prompt the crudest human pity and emotional blackmail - which it obviously does. But then it seems to me designed to evoke a sick kind of fascination. Of over two hours, about half the movie is simple wordless sadism on a level and with a relentlessness that I have never witnessed in a movie before. And you have to ask yourself: why? The suffering of Christ is bad and gruesome enough without exaggerating it to this insane degree. Theologically, the point is not that Jesus suffered more than any human being ever has on a physical level. It is that his suffering was profound and voluntary and the culmination of a life and a teaching that Gibson essentially omits. One more example. Toward the end, unsatisfied with showing a man flayed alive, nailed gruesomely to a cross, one eye shut from being smashed in, blood covering his entire body, Gibson has a large crow perch on the neighboring cross and peck another man's eyes out. Why? Because the porn needed yet another money shot.
GUTTING THE MESSAGE: Moreover, the suffering is rendered almost hollow by a dramatic void. Gibson has provided no context so that we can understand better who Jesus is - just a series of cartoon flashbacks. We cannot empathize with Mary fully or with Peter or John - because they too are mere props for the violence. The central message of Jesus - of love and compassion and forgiveness - is reduced to sound-bites. Occasionally, such as when the message of the sermon on the mount is juxtaposed with the crucifixion, the effect is almost profound - because there has been an actual connection between who Jesus was and what happened to him. But this is the exception to the rule. Watching the movie, you can see how a truly powerful rendition could have been made - by tripling the flashbacks and context, by providing a biography of Jesus, by showing us why he endured what he endured. Instead, all that context, all that meaning, has been removed for endless sickening gratuitous violence.
PILATE, THE SAINT: Is it anti-Semitic? The question has to be placed in the context of the Gospels and it is hard to reproduce the story without risking such inferences. But in my view, Gibson goes much further than what might be forgivable. The first scene in which Caiphas appears has him relaying to Judas how much money he has agreed to hand over in return for Jesus. The Jew - fussing over money again! There are a few actors in those scenes who look like classic hook-nosed Jews of Nazi imagery, hissing and plotting and fulminating against the Christ. For good measure, Gibson has the Jewish priestly elite beat Jesus up as well, before they hand him over to the Romans; and he has Jesus telling Pilate that he is not responsible - the Jewish elite is. Pilate and his wife are portrayed as saints forced by politics and the Jewish elders to kill a man they know is innocent. Again, this reflects part of the Gospels, but Gibson goes further. He presents Pilate's wife as actually finding Mary, providing towels to wipe up Jesus' blood, arguing for Jesus' release. Yes, the Roman torturers are obviously evil; yes, a few Jews dissent; and, of course, all the disciples are Jewish. I wouldn't say that this movie is motivated by anti-Semitism. It's motivated by psychotic sadism. But Gibson does nothing to mitigate the dangerous anti-Semitic elements of the story and goes some way toward exaggerating and highlighting them. To my mind, that is categorically unforgivable. Anti-Semitism is the original sin of Christianity. Far from expiating it, this movie clearly enjoys taunting those Catholics as well as Jews who are determined to confront that legacy. In that sense alone, it is a deeply immoral work of art.
Here is a review of the movie by Andrew Sullivan, a writer I admire. The review seems well balanced and evenly considered to me. gm
THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST: Well, I went last night to see the movie everyone is talking about. I'm writing this not long after leaving the theater so these are my raw and immediate impressions - not a fully considered review. I was of course deeply moved in parts. If you are a person of the Christian faith, it is impossible not to be moved by a rendition of the passion of the Savior that is not a travesty. The very story itself, embedded in the soul and the memory, stirs the emotions and prayers and meditations of a lifetime. To see it rendered in a believable setting in languages that, however inaccurate, give you an impression of being there, is arresting. It brings this simple but awe-inspiring story to life in a way very difficult to approximate in the written or spoken word. You can see why Passion plays were once performed. The Gospels do end in extraordinary drama, pathos, plot, agony. Portraying them vividly may, we can hope, bring some people to read the Gospels and even to explore further what the redemptive message of Jesus really is.
PURE PORNOGRAPHY: At the same time, the movie was to me deeply disturbing. In a word, it is pornography. By pornography, I mean the reduction of all human thought and feeling and personhood to mere flesh. The center-piece of the movie is an absolutely disgusting and despicable piece of sadism that has no real basis in any of the Gospels. It shows a man being flayed alive - slowly, methodically and with increasing savagery. We first of all witness the use of sticks, then whips, then multiple whips with barbed glass or metal. We see flesh being torn out of a man's body. Just so that we can appreciate the pain, we see the whip first tear chunks out of a wooden table. Then we see pieces of human skin flying through the air. We see Jesus come back for more. We see blood spattering on the torturers' faces. We see muscled thugs exhausted from shredding every inch of this man's body. And then they turn him over and do it all again. It goes on for ever. And then we see his mother wiping up masses and masses of blood. It is an absolutely unforgivable, vile, disgusting scene. No human being could sruvive it. Yet for Gibson, it is the h'ors d'oeuvre for his porn movie. The whole movie is some kind of sick combination of the theology of Opus Dei and the film-making of Quentin Tarantino. There is nothing in the Gospels that indicates this level of extreme, endless savagery and there is no theological reason for it. It doesn't even evoke emotion in the audience. It is designed to prompt the crudest human pity and emotional blackmail - which it obviously does. But then it seems to me designed to evoke a sick kind of fascination. Of over two hours, about half the movie is simple wordless sadism on a level and with a relentlessness that I have never witnessed in a movie before. And you have to ask yourself: why? The suffering of Christ is bad and gruesome enough without exaggerating it to this insane degree. Theologically, the point is not that Jesus suffered more than any human being ever has on a physical level. It is that his suffering was profound and voluntary and the culmination of a life and a teaching that Gibson essentially omits. One more example. Toward the end, unsatisfied with showing a man flayed alive, nailed gruesomely to a cross, one eye shut from being smashed in, blood covering his entire body, Gibson has a large crow perch on the neighboring cross and peck another man's eyes out. Why? Because the porn needed yet another money shot.
GUTTING THE MESSAGE: Moreover, the suffering is rendered almost hollow by a dramatic void. Gibson has provided no context so that we can understand better who Jesus is - just a series of cartoon flashbacks. We cannot empathize with Mary fully or with Peter or John - because they too are mere props for the violence. The central message of Jesus - of love and compassion and forgiveness - is reduced to sound-bites. Occasionally, such as when the message of the sermon on the mount is juxtaposed with the crucifixion, the effect is almost profound - because there has been an actual connection between who Jesus was and what happened to him. But this is the exception to the rule. Watching the movie, you can see how a truly powerful rendition could have been made - by tripling the flashbacks and context, by providing a biography of Jesus, by showing us why he endured what he endured. Instead, all that context, all that meaning, has been removed for endless sickening gratuitous violence.
PILATE, THE SAINT: Is it anti-Semitic? The question has to be placed in the context of the Gospels and it is hard to reproduce the story without risking such inferences. But in my view, Gibson goes much further than what might be forgivable. The first scene in which Caiphas appears has him relaying to Judas how much money he has agreed to hand over in return for Jesus. The Jew - fussing over money again! There are a few actors in those scenes who look like classic hook-nosed Jews of Nazi imagery, hissing and plotting and fulminating against the Christ. For good measure, Gibson has the Jewish priestly elite beat Jesus up as well, before they hand him over to the Romans; and he has Jesus telling Pilate that he is not responsible - the Jewish elite is. Pilate and his wife are portrayed as saints forced by politics and the Jewish elders to kill a man they know is innocent. Again, this reflects part of the Gospels, but Gibson goes further. He presents Pilate's wife as actually finding Mary, providing towels to wipe up Jesus' blood, arguing for Jesus' release. Yes, the Roman torturers are obviously evil; yes, a few Jews dissent; and, of course, all the disciples are Jewish. I wouldn't say that this movie is motivated by anti-Semitism. It's motivated by psychotic sadism. But Gibson does nothing to mitigate the dangerous anti-Semitic elements of the story and goes some way toward exaggerating and highlighting them. To my mind, that is categorically unforgivable. Anti-Semitism is the original sin of Christianity. Far from expiating it, this movie clearly enjoys taunting those Catholics as well as Jews who are determined to confront that legacy. In that sense alone, it is a deeply immoral work of art.
I was hoping that the thread stayed as a discussion among forum members and their views rather than resorting to outside critiques to bolster one's position.
And one well established film critic that should be given equal space and time, is Roger Ebert. Rather than take space in here, I will quote his most important criteria for evaluating the movie: "I prefer to evaluate a film on the basis of what it intends to do, not on what I think it should have done."
You can read the rest of his review here:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.html
And one well established film critic that should be given equal space and time, is Roger Ebert. Rather than take space in here, I will quote his most important criteria for evaluating the movie: "I prefer to evaluate a film on the basis of what it intends to do, not on what I think it should have done."
You can read the rest of his review here:
http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.html
nkb said:
Actually, a lot of your questions were answered in that interview he did with Sawyer. He stated that this was his own interpretation based on what he knew and studied about the accounts surrounding Jesus' death.
I have no problem believing that Mel interjected a few of his own biases in it. For instance, the movie was done in Latin/Aramaic when it should have been in Greek (New Testament Literature). But to be totally objective in making ANY movie is mission impossible. There's no such thing.
I guess you can liken it to writing books or making movies about, say...Julius Caesar, Nefertiti, Cleopatra, King Tut or any of the ancient figures. The History Channel is revered for making programs that depict the lives of those who impacted the world, but I doubt that even they would claim absolute authority in presenting actual, factual accounts of these people.
Re: Review by Andrew Sullivan
Can we please leave the journalistic minds out of this! They have proven to be lacking when it comes to the real world at times.
Did this guy write the same things about:
Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, Titanic. We know through history the accounts what it was, but to see it on the screen is different yet he's offended. Or how about the numerous horrors that come from the great minds of Hollywood that show constant deplorable acts that cater to the younger crowds. If this author has been proven to be credibile over a period of time w/other things hes written in the same context I stand corrected, but I would doubt it!
Soichiro said:
Can we please leave the journalistic minds out of this! They have proven to be lacking when it comes to the real world at times.
Did this guy write the same things about:
Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, Titanic. We know through history the accounts what it was, but to see it on the screen is different yet he's offended. Or how about the numerous horrors that come from the great minds of Hollywood that show constant deplorable acts that cater to the younger crowds. If this author has been proven to be credibile over a period of time w/other things hes written in the same context I stand corrected, but I would doubt it!
>>But to be totally objective in making ANY movie is mission impossible. There's no such thing.
I disagree. There are many unbiased documentary films made evey year.
I disagree. There are many unbiased documentary films made evey year.
>>Did this guy write the same things about :
>>Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, Titanic.
Why would this matter? We're not discussing those movies.
I abhor gratuitous violence in the media. People who fight wars (for example) see terrible things and their lives are often scarred by them. Does that mean the rest of us need to see these exact scenes in order to appreciate or understand them? I don't think so. Sullivan is saying the violence in Gibson's movie has been filmed and edited in such a way to as shock people and support Gibson's personal point of view, not to tell the story. I think that's a valid comment on this movie.
>>I was hoping that the thread stayed as a discussion among forum members
Are Joe Williams or George Will forum members? I found both viewpoints illuminating.
>>rather than resorting to outside critiques to bolster one's position.
Hrant, please show the rest of us the post where I outlined "my position" on this topic. You know, the one that I bolstered by posting Andrew Sullivan's column.
>>Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, Titanic.
Why would this matter? We're not discussing those movies.
I abhor gratuitous violence in the media. People who fight wars (for example) see terrible things and their lives are often scarred by them. Does that mean the rest of us need to see these exact scenes in order to appreciate or understand them? I don't think so. Sullivan is saying the violence in Gibson's movie has been filmed and edited in such a way to as shock people and support Gibson's personal point of view, not to tell the story. I think that's a valid comment on this movie.
>>I was hoping that the thread stayed as a discussion among forum members
Are Joe Williams or George Will forum members? I found both viewpoints illuminating.
>>rather than resorting to outside critiques to bolster one's position.
Hrant, please show the rest of us the post where I outlined "my position" on this topic. You know, the one that I bolstered by posting Andrew Sullivan's column.
Soichiro said:
It matters because it goes to the author's credibility when dealing with movies of this type.. Thats why we all tend to lean toward critics that best fit our own interpretations of a given movie or play.
Soichiro said:
By posting this persons review and no other with a different outcome you have definately shown that this is in fact your position on the movie.
As for myself... I have not seen the film and may not go to see it. I have already seen far too much violence in my lifetime and typically avoid films that are graphic in nature.
Whatever the Bible means to each individual, it is not a reliable historical record. It is a book which was written by a multitude of people, at least 30 years after Christ's death, with so many translations and edits, that to use it as an accurate historical reference is futile.jlindy said:I don't know maybe the bible?
Just to illustrate my point, which Bible are you talking about? Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Jewish, Samaritan? They all vary significantly.
You missed my point. I was arguing with your statement that this movie "realistically" portrays the last 12 hours of Christ's life. When you say that, you are implying that the specifics are accurate, which is what I am questioning.jlindy said:
If you say the Bible is where Mel got this from, then I challenge you to show me where it specifies the details: the fact that Pilate was acting under the direction of the Jewish rulers, the actual beatings and tortures of Jesus, and so on.
Just because someone says it happened, doesn't mean it did. That logic works both ways.Tom Larkins said:
I am a skeptical person by nature, so, anything I hear from other sources has to pass my BS meter first, before I even consider that it might be true (part of the reason I don't answer chain emails that promise you a fortune just for forwarding them).
You lost me on the last part: If I knew something wasn't exactly how it happened, then, no, I didn't believe it when I read it.
Similar threads
