Maybe this should go in the Kurt Russel article, as that seems to have become the designated place for this topic.
To start, I didn't always agree with KJ, like everyone else. I do think the behavior of many members of this community was rather appalling the other day.
I never understood the argument that KJ should just post his take "down here" like everyone else. How would that be any different? You would still read his comment, and you would still bash it mercilessly. Although, I do wonder if that's actually true. I suspect a lot of people were just jumping all over the opinion so hard because of where it appeared. If Karl took the easy route and espoused the most popular opinion, no one would have complained about "KJ's Take." It's allowed for one to not be status quo.
The reality is that many internet movie news sites involve giving the news with some manner of editorializing. Nobody involved in this particular business is an objective observer/reporter. If they were, they never would have gotten involved in the first place. People don't do this unless they love film in its various forms. Moreover, KJ put his take at the bottom of the article, making it very easy to skip over. He could have written his opinion into the actual body of the article (as others do) and then you'd have no choice but to read it along with the news item.
How many people that ripped KJ apart have, at some point in the comments section, made the argument that everyone is entitled to their opinion? Based on my experience over the several years I've frequented this site, it's a lot. Falling back to the KJ can post his opinion down here like everyone else does not change the fact that the entire argument is hypocritical (unless you don't think everyone is entitled to their own opinion).
It's one thing to suppress comments like those that Spyder made since they neither contributed to a discussion, nor expressed any manner of personal opinion. KJ's Take was nothing like Spyder's vapid copy and paste marathons. I did, however, sometimes question whether Karl was expressing his genuine opinion or intentionally taking a Devil's Advocate type stance to incite activity in the comments section. If he was, it certainly backfired on Kurt Russel day.
I would have understood an argument for less baiting (something I believe he did), but bitching so much as to suppress his opinion just was not right. KJ has every right to post his opinion anywhere he likes on the articles for which he is responsible. I did not care about this issue until two days ago, but now I am a KJ's Take apologist.
In the spirit of the season, I thought I'd go through my top five Christmas movies of all time and then a smattering of other favorite listed at the end. Merry Christmas everyone!
5) National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation: This fifth spot was really a toss up among several films, but I ultimately went with this because it is the best Christmas comedy ever made. Besides, how can you go wrong with Randy Quaid and fried cats?
4) A Charlie Brown Christmas: This movie uses a simple formula for success: Snoopy Christmas = Awesome. What makes this movie so great, especially for the kids, is it essentially pauses in the middle and outlines what the meaning of Christmas really is without the viewer even noticing.
3) It's a Wonderful Life: This movie really captures the spirit of Christmas and is probably one of the best movies of all time.
2) Miracle on 34th Street (1947 version): Just missing the number one spot is this touching story detailing the events surrounding Santa Clause's decision to no longer personally come to your local mall or department store.
1) Die Hard: The 1988 classic tale of a man who rediscovers the lost love of his estranged wife while saving Christmas. You know the story.
Other Favorites: Santa Clause is Comin' to Town, Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer, Scrooged and A Muppet Christmas Carol, Frosty the Snowman, Ernest Saves Christmas (I know, I know...nostalgia does crazy things).