For what it's worth, Cindy, I'm sorry if I offended you with my flippancy.I think because the flippancy was based on both a mistaken assumption and involved (what seemed to me to be) a gross generalization it surprised me to see it coming from you. There were comments by someone else, but I don't know (or so therefore have any respect) that person, it didn't matter. FWIW, I was trying to be flip back, rather than lecture-y, which is where the "open your mind" thing came in. Thank you Daniel, and I apologize for making you uncomfortable. No hard feelings, and happy new year to you.
(note to self "Now hard feelings" != "No hard feelings")
Since Daniel wasn't the only one who seemed to attribute the "wholesome fluff" comment to some Christian and/or conservative label your response seemed to be addressed more broadly despite the quote at the start of your post.The quoted reviews were included to back up my assertion that it was the NYT saying the movie was "wholesome fluff." I probably should have organized my post better. I started on one track, went off on a side track, and then came back to the first track again.
I saw the piece you linked on Whedonesque a day or two before it showed up here. The Whedonesque posters (I only ever lurk there) jumped to the same conclusion. At the time, I had one of those, "Why do I ever bother leaving b.org" thoughts, and so to see the same thing happen here was just sort of...I don't know how to put it--"discouraging" is more overwrought than what I mean, but there ya go.
And ita's assessment is not wrong. It was the lecture quality (in the middle of a mostly silly conversation) that pinged me. I probably shouldn't have said "imagine my surprise at being lectured about my small world view" because I never felt that the post was pointed at me in particular. Poor phrasing on my part.
It's not worth this. Happy new year.