(I can't believe you felt compelled to write that bullying line... as if he thought that... makes me want to pull my hair out.)
Carry on!
Well, Adam, I don't think the tone of my comment was any more condescending than Josh suggesting in the bonus content that preview viewers didn't "get" 'Kevin' without the Q&A with the director afterward. I (as well as other viewers at that particular event, I suspect) "got" that 'Kevin' didn't have the same agenda as 'Elephant' (nor does it need to) the second I walked out of the theater. In fact, I've read three reviews of 'Kevin' that don't even mention 'Elephant' ... In any event, if you're going to actively continue the discussion on the bonus content by pouring more fuel on the fire (e.g., I believe the term Josh now uses to describe the term is "exploitative"), then shouldn't you expect more push-back from the people who looked at the film a different way and loved it?
Come on dude, you know that isn't what Josh suggested... One person made that comment about the director's remarks and he was specifically referencing that. Obviously he wasn't suggesting everyone needed that handholding.
I have no problem with push back. I have a problem when there's a tone of 'you're an idiot.' But you said I misread your comments so I thought there was no condescension at all? I think the key here is that you heard us as "adding fuel to the fire" when, you know, we were doing our best to just respond as reasonably as possible. There may have been fire, but there was no fuel.
I thought exploitative may have come up in the actual review, but either way I used it in the spoiler response, so nothing new there really.
The fact that other reviews you've read haven't mentioned Elephant only makes me appreciate that Josh mentioned it more.