Kick-Ass - Awesome Superhero Film - Trailer inside...

[romerojpg]

If Kick-Ass had been made into an anime IMO there wouldnt be as much fuss.

Thats becuase no one gives a shit about anime not exactly mainstream.

[grim_tales]

She's the younger and wiser and slightly more foul-mouthed (although not as bad as hit girl) sister of Joseph Gordon Levitt's character in 500 Days of Summer.

Thanks. I didnt know that

[Yi-Long]

My girlfriend went to see this movie on friday, and she said she really liked the movie, and didn't mention the swearing or violence, so I guess she didn't mind it that much.

[Markgway]

Angry backlash from Kick-Ass fans:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... s-net.html

[romerojpg]

Under cyber attack: Daily Mail film critic Christopher Tookey

What a total tool

[saltysam]

Christopher Tookey-Uber-Knob.

[romerojpg]

I cannot take in his rant about the ranters seriously at all it is as if he does not get paid for his shockingly dire words

[grim_tales]

Tookey is a knob, to compare real murders to the "bullying" he recieved is offensive and tasteless.

[Markgway]

I think he's most upset about being called a paedophile.

It's pretty sad when you can't criticize a movie without sustaining vulgar personal attacks from strangers.

I've been critical about Kick-Ass on this forum so I can imagine what these inarticulate cretins would say about me.

[saltysam]

!Hundreds of bloggers, twitterers and Facebook fiends weighed in, creating websites dedicated to destroying my character and levelling the most outrageous accusations against me." Fucking drama queen.

[Shingster]

It's pretty sad when you can't criticize a movie without sustaining vulgar personal attacks from strangers.

I've been critical about Kick-Ass on this forum so I can imagine what these inarticulate cretins would say about me.

Well considering Tookey was the one who raised the question of the encouragement of paedoophilia in relation to Hit Girl and Kick Ass then frankly he deserves everything he gets! As far as I'm concerned there is no difference between him essentially accusing Mark Vaughan and Jane Goldman (whose name is written with the appendage: wife of Jonothan Ross. - Funny that, isn't it!) of pandering to paedophiles and some equally moronic kid calling Tookey a Paedo in response. They're both as bad as each other, the irony is that before he starts droning on about the sexualisation of pre-teens his criticism of Kick Ass is partly on the money (although he also gloriously misreads other aspects of the film), but nope he's got to have his day in the sun and make ludicrous accusations.

I also find it disgracefully insensitive and immeasurably arrogant on Tookey's part for him to liken the backlash, that frankly he's brought on himself thanks to his aggressive style of "film criticism" (and I use that term with the amount of respect it deserves when referring to Tookey, a hack of the highest order), to the ongoing and prolongued cyber bullying that alienates teenagers and forces them into fatalistic contemplation.

The Daily Mail often sets the news agenda, and I knew my review would provoke debate. What I hadn't anticipated is that it would result in an avalanche of vitriolic personal abuse - much of it simply too obscene to be repeated here.

How old is this guy? How long has he been writing reactionary reviews? He knew exactly what reaction he was garnering when he wrote that review and it's exactly the respone he wanted. The smug glee with which he writes this artcle is sickening, it's given him free reign to stir up exactly the kind of fascisistic right-wing pro-censorship stance we've come to expect from The Mail, the single biggest daily waste of paper and ink in the history of mankind.

Oh and let's not forget his astonishingly obtuse idea of paedophilia as a sexual disorder. I don't think they require children to dress up as masked vigilantes to get their kicks, pretty much most children in most films are gonna be loved by paedophiles! In fact if anything I'd imagine children behaving like adults (grotesquely in Hit Girl's case) would probably be a turn off for them.

[Shingster]

I've been critical about Kick-Ass on this forum so I can imagine what these inarticulate cretins would say about me.

Oh, btw Mark I've edited one of your quotes for you. I think you meant this:

I think he's most upset about being called a paedophile. It's pretty sad when you can't criticize a movie without having watched it!!

(joking!)

[Markgway]

It's pretty sad when you can't criticize a movie without having watched it!!

(joking!)

You don't always need to have watched something in order to have an opinion about it. It's better if you have because then you can go into detail and not have to rely on secondary information. But we all form opinions based on what we read or hear. It's not the same as experiencing something for ourselves and I don't pretend it is. But if a critic claims that a little girl swears and graphically kills in an ammoral fashion then (unless he's lying) I can form a negative opinon based on that (and I have seen that red band trailer). It's something everyone here does. If later I disagree with my initial opinion then that's fine. We all change our minds. I think the animal cruelty in Cannibal Holocaust is disgusting. I haven't seen the film. Does that mean I'm not entitled to that opinion?

[Markgway]

Well considering Tookey was the one who raised the question of the encouragement of paedoophilia in relation to Hit Girl and Kick Ass then frankly he deserves everything he gets!

Did he say it was intentional on the part of the filmmakers? I must admit I didn't get that vibe from the bits I saw. A pint-sized adult for sure, but they seem to have avoided overt sexualisation. As crude as it is, I don't think use of the word "cunt" in an agressive context really counts. Mind you, as you say I haven't seen the film and so there might be dubious material elsewhere. That I can't comment upon as I don't recall him offering examples.

As far as I'm concerned there is no difference between him essentially accusing Mark Vaughan

Mark? You really are obsessed with me aren't you?

and Jane Goldman (whose name is written with the appendage: wife of Jonothan Ross. - Funny that, isn't it!)

It's tired. They can't find something to get at Ross for so they have a go via proxy. As far as I know Ross had nothing to do with this film and Goldman is her own person. Ross can be a right knob but you can't blame him for anything in Kick-Ass.

of pandering to paedophiles and some equally moronic kid calling Tookey a Paedo in response. They're both as bad as each other

I see the irony, and I do feel that Tookey overstated the suggestion in his original article, but I also saw some of the comments that weren't printed and they were very crude, nasty and personal. Beyond mere disagreement on a film topic. Tookey has been controversial before (Crash, anyone?) but the response here has been more vitriolic than I've ever seen. That's why I thought this would make an interesting topic (I would've posted it in debate, but felt that the Kick-Ass thread would do given that we've already started...)

the irony is that before he starts droning on about the sexualisation of pre-teens his criticism of Kick Ass is partly on the money

I read the Roger Ebert review and he was similarly critical but without the references to paedophilia.

although he also gloriously misreads other aspects of the film

Can you elaborate...? I'm curious.

I also find it disgracefully insensitive and immeasurably arrogant on Tookey's part for him to liken the backlash, that frankly he's brought on himself thanks to his aggressive style of "film criticism" (and I use that term with the amount of respect it deserves when referring to Tookey, a hack of the highest order), to the ongoing and prolongued cyber bullying that alienates teenagers and forces them into fatalistic contemplation.

Yes, I don't think that's done him any favours. Although I think the article has a point, he should've kept it focused on himself. Aren't all critics hacks then? I'm not sure I would single Tookey out as one just because his text might be disagreeable. He has his own style and POV - like it or not.

How old is this guy? How long has he been writing reactionary reviews? He knew exactly what reaction he was garnering when he wrote that review and it's exactly the respone he wanted.

You really think he expected as much abuse? I haven't seen that before directed at a critic. Usually it's reserved for actual filmmakers or Michael Bay... lol

The smug glee with which he writes this artcle is sickening, it's given him free reign to stir up exactly the kind of fascisistic right-wing pro-censorship stance we've come to expect from The Mail, the single biggest daily waste of paper and ink in the history of mankind.

Hardly. I know you dislike Tookey but let's not get silly. The Mail prints some rubbish, but also some good articles by good writers. Also it's worth mentioning that despite the strength of his criticism Tookey didn't actually call for the film to be censored or banned. He did that with Hostel 2 and Crash (neither of which i've seen).

Oh and let's not forget his astonishingly obtuse idea of paedophilia as a sexual disorder.

At the risk of becoming Tookey II -- isn't it?

I would've said psycho-sexual.

I don't think they require children to dress up as masked vigilantes to get their kicks, pretty much most children in most films are gonna be loved by paedophiles! In fact if anything I'd imagine children behaving like adults (grotesquely in Hit Girl's case) would probably be a turn off for them.

That I have no idea about... one for the experts methinks.

[grim_tales]

I agree with Shing that what Tookey says trying to draw comparisons between Kick-Ass and real cases of bullying/murder etc is insensitive and very offensive.
Ebert was critical but his review is well written and I think he praises Chloe's performance.
I didnt know paedophiles were into vigilantes - don't they like kids who dress as - well, kids?! He's (Tookey) looking for sexual undertones that arent there.
Just because 1 guy in the film says he finds Hit-Girl attractive its silly to level accusations of paedophilia. He's a teen (well, playing one) and not an adult.
She'll be attractive when she gets older for sure
Her school uniform is just a normal uniform too.
I've seen Crash (Cronenberg) BTW, pretty disturbing.
As for Cannibal Holocaust, I don't think you "need" to see it per se to form an opinion on animal cruelty as we (most of us I hope) already have a preset idea that animal cruelty is disgisting.

[Markgway]

To be clear - in case I wasn't - I'm not supporting Tookey's argument about the sexualisation of Hit Girl.

[grim_tales]

Fair enough then I dont support that either so we agree

[Shingster]

I think the animal cruelty in Cannibal Holocaust is disgusting. I haven't seen the film. Does that mean I'm not entitled to that opinion?

In Holocaust's case the animal cruelty real, whereas the violence in Kick Ass is dramatised, in which case context and filming techniques can change the impact of violent sequences considerably. My comment was rather facetious though as I doubt Kick Ass will hold many surprises for you given that it does tend to glorify violence in a rather irresponsible manner.

Did he say it was intentional on the part of the filmmakers? I must admit I didn't get that vibe from the bits I saw. A pint-sized adult for sure, but they seem to have avoided overt sexualisation.

Yup, early on in the review:

It deliberately sells a perniciously sexualised view of children

Mark? You really are obsessed with me aren't you?

I've always had a habit of calling him Mark Vaughan for some reason!

Beyond mere disagreement on a film topic. Tookey has been controversial before (Crash, anyone?) but the response here has been more vitriolic than I've ever seen. That's why I thought this would make an interesting topic (I would've posted it in debate, but felt that the Kick-Ass thread would do given that we've already started...)

Got a url to these vitriolic responses? The ones on the review webpage are quite tame (just so I can gauge how extreme/agressive they are, I don't doubt there are lots of moronic insults being thrown his way). Either way I doubt they're much different to the kind of comments you find on AICN when Harry Knowles writes even a positive a review! There are far too many idiots in the world with PCs.

I read the Roger Ebert review and he was similarly critical but without the references to paedophilia.

Yeah Ebert's review is much more reasonable and succinct. It's a good review, but then Ebert is an actual film critic and not a shit stirrer like Tookey - although he has written a few sensationalistic comments in his Kick Ass review, like: "it shows deadly carnage dished out by an 11-year-old girl, after which an adult man brutally hammers her to within an inch of her life." She takes about 3 punches, definitely not "beaten within an inch of her life". He also spoils a fair bit about the film, which is inconsiderate.

Can you elaborate...? I'm curious

Well to start off with there's the comment I quoted above about the "perniciously sexualised view of children", I always felt the promo still of moretz in short-skirt uniform and pigtails was potentially inappropriately sexualised, but I feel this is more a result of erotic films/magazines having subverted and fetishised this particular schoolgirl look rather than any deliberate intent on the filmmaker's part to sell Hit Girl as a sexual character. I certainly didn't get that feeling from the film itself.

Other examples:

The biggest problem of the movie, creatively speaking, is that it has pretensions to intelligence but is profoundly, irredeemably bone-headed.

There are absolutely no pretensions in Kick Ass to anything but a mindless action comic book popcorner.

Our hero learns nothing, except that extreme violence against criminals is cool, which is something he thought in the first place.

Now this is just flat out bollocks, it's true that Dave Lizewski conveniently embraces graphic violence with no real moral/pyschological hesitations during the film's finale, but up until then he's absolutely terrified and disgusted at the actions of Hit Girl and Big Daddy.

Aren't all critics hacks then? I'm not sure I would single Tookey out as one just because his text might be disagreeable. He has his own style and POV - like it or not.

Tookey's a hack, The Mirror's David Edwards is a hack, most critics are actual writers and have something intelligent and worthwhile to say. Tookey on the other hand is about one quarter insightful film commentator and three quarters a reactionary lunatic so many of his reviews are frankly garbage.

You really think he expected as much abuse? I haven't seen that before directed at a critic.

Hell yes! He's naive if he didn't expect a big fat dollop of geek flaming after writing that review, I would've expected just as much from even half as ranty a review and I'm not a professional with the years of experience as a film critic Tookey has. Sometimes I wonder if you live on a rock or visit sites other than BnB and AsianDVDGuide Mark as it's absolutely staggering you've not come across inarticulate stoner comments from morons who disagree with a review before! Then again I would notice this shit given I write for a film review site!

The Mail prints some rubbish, but also some good articles by good writers.

And other newspapers print good articles by good writers without the level of fear mongering and bigotry expressed by the Daily Mail. It's a hate rag with many hateful articles written by hateful hacks and the sooner it's gone from our newsagents and our memories the better!

At the risk of becoming Tookey II -- isn't it? I would've said psycho-sexual.

Probably not very good wording on my part, I meant he demonstrates an extremely ignorant understanding about the sexual aspect of Paedophilia. Obviously I'm no expert myself but most paedophiles target children because they're attracted to naivety over maturity. How often does a paedophile ever need a 10yr old to act like a 20yr old in order to get them off? You don't need to be an expert to understand that basic principle about the disorder.

[grim_tales]

Hit Girl does get quite badly beaten compared to how she's basically not got a scratch for most of the movie, IMO.
Chloe's skirt is (IMO) moderate length and the blouse is fully buttoned, the uniform isn't exactly presented in a sexual way although that costume is used in a fetishy way by people who want it to be as you say Shing. In this case it isn't. She's not presenting herself as a sexual being, just a young girl (well, she is) to fool the guards.

I guess its down to "Why would you want to see a girl in a school uniform?" Though she doesnt look like a young woman in the film, she'll be very attractive when she's older, is that wrong? You may be right "potentially sexualised" with the uniform, pigtails etc.
Remember the TATU video? Britney Spear's debut video?

[Markgway]

In Holocaust's case the animal cruelty real, whereas the violence in Kick Ass is dramatised, in which case context and filming techniques can change the impact of violent sequences considerably. My comment was rather facetious though as I doubt Kick Ass will hold many surprises for you given that it does tend to glorify violence in a rather irresponsible manner.

I was just trying to think of an example off-hand that we could all agree on. And we all detest animal cruelty here. I have a very good idea of what Kick-Ass will be like which is why I'm dubious. I may still watch it when it hits DVD - just in case it's not as bad as I fear. But even the positive reviews don't adequately deflect the moral criticisms I have/have read. Worst case scenario: I hate the film; I know it's not going to corrupt me.

It deliberately sells a perniciously sexualised view of children

I didn't get that from the trailer. Violent and foul-mouthed, yes, but not sexual.

I've always had a habit of calling him Mark Vaughan for some reason!

Yes... that's what it is.

Got a url to these vitriolic responses? The ones on the review webpage are quite tame (just so I can gauge how extreme/agressive they are, I don't doubt there are lots of moronic insults being thrown his way).

An uncut version of the article

http://www.movie-film-review.com/devFilm.asp?ID=15578

The nastiest remarks are near the bottom of the page under the heading "Am I Secret Paedophile?"

Either way I doubt they're much different to the kind of comments you find on AICN when Harry Knowles writes even a positive a review!

I never read that site.

She takes about 3 punches, definitely not "beaten within an inch of her life".

I thought it was supposed to be a lot more brutal than that. Can't believe anything you read these days... lol

I feel this is more a result of erotic films/magazines having subverted and fetishised this particular schoolgirl look rather than any deliberate intent on the filmmaker's part to sell Hit Girl as a sexual character.

You mean like this?
http://www.scavengeinc.com/images/legav ... ostume.jpg

Tookey's a hack, The Mirror's David Edwards is a hack, most critics are actual writers and have something intelligent and worthwhile to say. Tookey on the other hand is about one quarter insightful film commentator and three quarters a reactionary lunatic so many of his reviews are frankly garbage.

I'm not so sure you can label Tookey a hack simply because you don't agree with his politics.

Sometimes I wonder if you live on a rock or visit sites other than BnB and AsianDVDGuide Mark as it's absolutely staggering you've not come across inarticulate stoner comments from morons who disagree with a review before! Then again I would notice this shit given I write for a film review site!

I don't use that many new-film websites to be honest. I tend to spend more time at fewer. Have you had any nasty comments directed at your reviews?

And other newspapers print good articles by good writers without the level of fear mongering and bigotry expressed by the Daily Mail. It's a hate rag with many hateful articles written by hateful hacks and the sooner it's gone from our newsagents and our memories the better!

I don't agree... but there you go. We all have opinions.

It's funny that the guy who wrote the comic is a Mail reader.

Probably not very good wording on my part, I meant he demonstrates an extremely ignorant understanding about the sexual aspect of Paedophilia. Obviously I'm no expert myself but most paedophiles target children because they're attracted to naivety over maturity. How often does a paedophile ever need a 10yr old to act like a 20yr old in order to get them off? You don't need to be an expert to understand that basic principle about the disorder.

What you're saying seems logical... but I really don't have enough knowledge to go into detail about what paedophiles want. Whether it's a pre-teen under ANY circumstance or ONLY if they act like little children. Frankly I doubt the film is worth any of this aspect of debate.

[Shingster]

An uncut version of the article
http://www.movie-film-review.com/devFilm.asp?ID=15578

Yeah many of those replies are clearly right from the fingers of inarticulate NEDs. I still see no difference in him charging KickAss with pandering to paedos and them claiming he's a possible paedo for even considering that Hit Girl could be a Lolita type figure though, they're both going waaay OTT.

I thought it was supposed to be a lot more brutal than that. Can't believe anything you read these days... lol

My memory isn't the best, but she basically has a fulll on martial arts duel with Strong's character and takes a couple of punches, kicks and is flung around a bit. If it was a fght between adults you wouldn't consider it to be a particularly vicious beating, but it does come across a bit strong when it's againdst a little girl. But like I say, if you're savvy about the way fight scenes are edited (and I know you are) then you clearly tell the filmmakers were holding back.

I'm not so sure you can label Tookey a hack simply because you don't agree with his politics.

I'll label him whatever the hell I want! How can anyone defend someone who insidiously joins dots like this:

"The film-makers are sure to argue that there's nothing wrong with breaking down taboos of taste - but there are often good reasons for taboos. Do we really want to live, for instance, in a culture when the torture and killing of a James Bulger or Damilola Taylor is re-enacted by child actors for laughs?"

What the fuck has Kick Ass got to do with that? Like I say, when it comes to The Daily Mail there is always an agenda.

Have you had any nasty comments directed at your reviews?

My reviews are too bland! Our reviewers tend to be quite balanced and objective in their approach so we've never garnered the same level of vitriol as Tookey's Kick Ass review (plus Colin and Dave moderate the User comments section pretty effectively), but some of our reviews have proved controversial with our readers and garnered some inappropriate abuse. Not that I bother reading AICN talkback threads much these days, but they always have a lot of shit flinging in them.

Whether it's a pre-teen under ANY circumstance or ONLY if they act like little children.

Obviously there's going to be a wide range of indivisual fetishes as with any pyscho-sexual disorder so I'm sure there's a lot of paedos out there who will be specifically turned on by Hit Girl as a costumed action-heroine, but I think it's fair to assume that Padeos generally want children as they are. The general thinking about just one of the aspects of Paedophilia is that their sexual development is stopped/cut off at a young age and hence they never develop a mature adult sexuality, which is one of the reasons why so many Catholic Priests have the issues they do because so many of them are taught to follow a life of celibacy from as early as their formative pubescent (or pre-pubescent in some cases) years.

Tookey is essentially talking about a particularly fetshised subsection of paedophiles and using them to ram home a very generalised overstatement about the film. It's only right that people bring him to task on that (in a less offensive way than many of the Facebook commentators have been doing of course).

[grim_tales]

Tookey's statement linking James Bulger to Kick-Ass is particularly outrageous, not to mention offensive to his family. As you say, what has Kick-Ass got to do with that? He's implying also that the film is dangerous to children but its not for kids, its a 15 rated actioner FFS.
What do you think of what I said Shing (a few/more posts before yours).
Hit-Girl isnt a Lolita type, thats way OTT. But what if someone watches Kick-Ass and imagines someone older in the superhero outfit or schoolgirl outfit? Maybe that is where "potentially inappropriately sexualised" comes in.

[Markgway]

I still see no difference in him charging KickAss with pandering to paedos and them claiming he's a possible paedo for even considering that Hit Girl could be a Lolita type figure though, they're both going waaay OTT.

I see a clear difference between "It deliberately sells a perniciously sexualised view of children" and "Hey Tookey how many wanks have you had over Hit Girl today? hahahah! Pedo in denial! Clearly.” If you don't then that's your perception. We'll have to disagree.

I'll label him whatever the hell I want!

Now, now... put your claws away or Gway will get mad.

How can anyone defend someone who insidiously joins dots like this

You won't find me arguing. That statement of his is totally out of order. But I believe your strong personal animosity toward Tookey has coloured your judgement on certain aspects of both his critical ability and right not to be abused. I don't have any particular like for Tookey - I've disagreed with him countless times - but you clearly detest him.

Like I say, when it comes to The Daily Mail there is always an agenda.

Yes, they have a pathetic obsession with video nasties and Child's Play etc...

My reviews are too bland!

I know. I've read them.

Kidding...

Obviously there's going to be a wide range of indivisual fetishes as with any pyscho-sexual disorder so I'm sure there's a lot of paedos out there who will be specifically turned on by Hit Girl as a costumed action-heroine, but I think it's fair to assume that Padeos generally want children as they are. The general thinking about just one of the aspects of Paedophilia is that their sexual development is stopped/cut off at a young age and hence they never develop a mature adult sexuality, which is one of the reasons why so many Catholic Priests have the issues they do because so many of them are taught to follow a life of celibacy from as early as their formative pubescent (or pre-pubescent in some cases) years.

That all makes sense. Hey, we agree on something!

Tookey is essentially talking about a particularly fetshised subsection of paedophiles and using them to ram home a very generalised overstatement about the film. It's only right that people bring him to task on that (in a less offensive way than many of the Facebook commentators have been doing of course).

Agree again. I would probably argue with Tookey myself on aspects of his review (had I seen the film) but to generate that level of abuse is out of order. Some of the things said about Roger Ebert were disgusting. I wouldn't even want ignorant and offensive people like that defending my movie.

[Shingster]

What do you think of what I said Shing (a few/more posts before yours).

I've echoed and expanded upon most of the things you've said this thread, so naturally I agree with those comments.

I see a clear difference between "It deliberately sells a perniciously sexualised view of children" and "Hey Tookey how many wanks have you had over Hit Girl today? hahahah! Pedo in denial! Clearly.” If you don't then that's your perception. We'll have to disagree.

The first case is an example of articulate idiocy, the 2nd is inarticulate idiocy. Both views demand zero respect or agreement from any well adjusted free thinker.

But I believe your strong personal animosity toward Tookey has coloured your judgement on certain aspects of both his critical ability and right not to be abused. I don't have any particular like for Tookey - I've disagreed with him countless times - but you clearly detest him.

I don't know Tookey as a person so to say I detest him is a bit rich. My criticism is focussed on Tookey as a journalist, the prevaricative comments he's made regarding Kick Ass and the completely ostentatious article he wrote after the inevitable Internet fallout from said comments. I do detest The Daily Mail as a newspaper though, will happily admit to that.

Agree again. I would probably argue with Tookey myself on aspects of his review (had I seen the film) but to generate that level of abuse is out of order. Some of the things said about Roger Ebert were disgusting. I wouldn't even want ignorant and offensive people like that defending my movie.

I agree it's out of order. I've never really disagreed with you on that particular point, I just have no sympathy for Tookey given he's also been flinging shit like the rest of the monkeys.

[Markgway]

The first case is an example of articulate idiocy, the 2nd is inarticulate idiocy. Both views demand zero respect or agreement from any well adjusted free thinker.

Maybe so. But you finally get my point? It's not about whose opinion you agree with but whether it's criticism or abuse being doled out. A "well adjusted free thinker" such as yourself would I'm sure know the difference.

I do detest The Daily Mail as a newspaper though, will happily admit to that.

Apart from their pro-censorship stance I can't really think of anything much i detest (generally speaking) about The Mail. There is the occasional article (like the Jan Moir piece about Stephen Gately) that I think is wrong. What is it you detest specifically? Or would you feel the same about any middle-right paper? And which paper do you read out of interest?

I just have no sympathy for Tookey given he's also been flinging shit like the rest of the monkeys.

I wouldn't say I sympathise with Tookey as such - like you say he must have known his review would have provoked some level of strong reaction. I just think he has a point about debate turning into abuse and how 'the net' masks a kind of anonymous nastiness that - let's face it - we've all seen on forums.