I wasn't bashing you,
@Ravage, for thinking the book sucked. I was making my case for why I think the movie is going to kick ass whether the book sucked or not. I enjoyed reading it, imperfections and all, but I do have to clarify that a book must be nothing short of atrocious before I'll discard it. I stand by my opinion that, literary failures aside, Eastwood has plenty to work with to make a damned good movie in its own right simply based on the fact that the book is a solid primary source of historical information, perhaps with adequate Hollywood embellishment already built in.
I'm not going to apologize for disagreeing with you about the movie's potential, just as I don't expect you to. However, I expect more out of you after having been here on the board long enough to have developed some leathery thick skin when dealing with the other members here. I thought I did a pretty fair job of acknowledging that AS wasn't exactly a literary classic along the lines of To Kill a Mockingbird while not disparaging you for thinking it's literary toilet paper. As far as why you formed your opinion, I'm going to chalk up the misunderstanding to context and the language barrier.
As far as everyone else bashing on him for bashing on a book, I'm actually on board with
@TLDR20 on this one. Let him hate it, and feel free to think what you want of his hating it, but he's not doing anything to run afoul of the rules just because he's sailing against the prevailing winds on this one. I personally think he just didn't do a good job of articulating exactly why it is he hates the book, and he's not as in tune as we are with American cinematography to understand the positive potential that having Clint Eastwood on board imparts on this project.
All y'all are trying my nerves today, and I'm not even through my first pot of coffee yet.