I'm sorry but your argument is simply stupid and wrong. Well spoken. You're eloquence is overwhelming. If someone mentally ill, there is a higher chance what

I'm sorry but your argument is simply stupid and wrong. Well spoken. You're eloquence is overwhelming. If someone mentally ill, there is a higher chance what they write is not reflective of reality. I acknowledged that possibility in my previous reply. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I wont discuss that here. I wasn't attempting to 'disprove' anything in the letter using his mental illness. Whether you intended to or not, you used his mental illness as a piece of evidence. Your intent doesn't really factor in to the meaning your words convey. The letter is obviously overblown and inaccurate on its face. The guy hadn't even seen the movie! This is a valid piece of evidence and the correct way to argue that a piece of writing is incorrect. The mental health of the author is a useful piece of information when evaluating [the correctness] a piece of writing. Saying that it isn't is bonkers. Saying that is very, very wrong. Once upon a time we claimed the author's gender and skin color were "useful" pieces of information when evaluating the correctness of the writing of women and black people. This was used as an excuse to not publish the work of these disadvantaged groups. Why do you think we have double blind submissions to scientific journals? The correct and only way to evaluate the correctness of a piece of writing in on the words alone. My stance is not a controversial one, it is an accepted fact. When correctness is the primary concern, only the writing is examined. Information about the author can be used as a filter (example: submitting an OpEd to the NYTimes), but never as a factor in determining correctness. I've done my best to convince you, but if I have failed at this point we're both just wasting time.