I'm tired of arguing about this.
It just seems to me like you're trying to make it sound like your opinion of something is the definitive and undeniable truth, which is just kind of annoying.
It isn't even a matter of opinion.
Here is what I'm saying, summed up to its most simple: Clarke's version of the story contained scenes at the end which Kubrick's version of the story didn't. Kubrick's version didn't replace those scenes with anything, but simply stopped telling the story during an earlier scene.
Hate to say it, but that IS an undeniable truth. It contain's no opinion or slant.
Now, for the part your arguing: You say Kubrick didn't "leave anything out".
I clarified myself in that last post by saying "sorry, by leave something out, I just meant that it's not there". That settles that.
The opinion part came in when I said by leaving that stuff out, Kubrick also left out the entire point of the story.
I don't even know how you think you can argue with this, since you haven't read the novel or seen the film, so you don't even know what the point of the story is, let alone who made it.
Now comes the part where you accuse me of "annoyingly" trying to state my opinions as fact.
You're also "too tired" to actually show me a single place where I've done this. That's convienient.
I can tell you right now, though, I'm not going to just let you insult me like that without a defence. I do have an opinion here, and I believe in it because
it has facts and evidence to back it up
(which is VERY different from the opinion being a fact itself).
If you actually want to defend what you just said about me by listening to the facts and evidence, I'll be glad to explain them more thouroughly.
If you're not so big on actually defending what you say about people, feel free to post a picture of a bunch of puppies or something.