Celebrities And Their Opinions [Archive]

j2k4

04-18-2003, 02:42 AM

I'll start this now and get back to it 4/21.

Spent the whole day in the car listening to talk radio; a "main topic" was the Bull Durham/Hall of Fame/Tim Robbins "I'm a celebrity and here's what I have to say" incident.

Here's what I have to ask:
Celebrities seem to think (my opinion) their inherent "superiority" obligates them to grace us with opinions ranging from A to Z. The public has a commensurate obligation to pay heed to their enlightenments. On occasion, public opinion is gauged as being negative in response to their intellectual frothings; the celebrities counter that their rights are being battered if their proclamations meet with any response other than swooning acceptance.
Under no circumstances does the media require a celebrity to debate or otherwise stand behind their statements.

They are guaranteed the right to free speech-I would go to war to defend this right.
I am also entitled to the same right-somehow I don't feel any celebrity would extend themselves on my behalf.

Their rights are curtailed when they wish to expound and a full contingent of media doesn't magically appear; their right to speak includes amplification and dissemination by all available media. Their rights are likewise curtailed if ANYONE questions them.

I've been calling press conferences for a month now; nobody shows-What gives? :huh:

clocker

04-18-2003, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by j2k4@17 April 2003 - 20:42
I'll start this now and get back to it 4/21.

Spent the whole day in the car listening to talk radio; a "main topic" was the Bull Durham/Hall of Fame/Tim Robbins "I'm a celebrity and here's what I have to say" incident.

I've been calling press conferences for a month now; nobody shows-What gives? :huh:
Well, first of all you don't have Susan Saradon hanging out at your press conferences.

Secondly,
In the article that I read today in the Denver Post ( granted, not as acclaimed as the Yooper Times, but well, there you go...) my take on this was that nobody even ASKED Robbins/Sarandon if they were planning on turning this baseball love-fest into a political event. A unilateral presumption was made and acted on. Couldn't the presumption of good sense have been made, or failing that, a preliminary discussion initiated before disinviting the couple? If Hollywood stars trade upon their celebrity to expound their positions, didn't the Hall of Fame use their public position to do exactly the same thing?

DiogenesUK

04-18-2003, 05:21 PM

Please forgive my ignorance here,but I'm constantly reading & hearing about 'freedom of speech' & 'freedom of the press' in the States,yet all I see is anyone with an alternative view to the current one, being marginalised,scoffed at,and even silenced (metaphorically speaking) in the most crass fashion on occasion.

So I'm genuinely interested to read how ordinary Americans who don't have millions of $$$'s are able to express themselves,possibly with a different view, without fear of retribution.

It appears to me,that if the only way to be heard, is to be (financially) rich,the media are missing the point,and merely pandering to mans most base instincts.

This is genuinely not a criticism of your system,merely an enquiry.

Also,one can't help but notice that many of the people on these boards appear to be pretty right-wing,and therefore appear to follow the authority of their masters without question.How do they square that with theft of copyrighted material,much of which is of U.S. origin, via kazaa(lite)???..it all seems a little incongruous & inconsistent to me.

Personally,I have no problem morally or ethically,because I don't subscribe to their view........in case that wasn't glaringly obvious :ph34r:

j2k4

04-21-2003, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by clocker+17 April 2003 - 22:10--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 17 April 2003 - 22:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@17 April 2003 - 20:42
I'll start this now and get back to it 4/21.

Spent the whole day in the car listening to talk radio; a "main topic" was the Bull Durham/Hall of Fame/Tim Robbins "I'm a celebrity and here's what I have to say" incident.

I've been calling press conferences for a month now; nobody shows-What gives?  :huh:
Well, first of all you don't have Susan Saradon hanging out at your press conferences.

Secondly,
In the article that I read today in the Denver Post ( granted, not as acclaimed as the Yooper Times, but well, there you go...) my take on this was that nobody even ASKED Robbins/Sarandon if they were planning on turning this baseball love-fest into a political event. A unilateral presumption was made and acted on. Couldn't the presumption of good sense have been made, or failing that, a preliminary discussion initiated before disinviting the couple? If Hollywood stars trade upon their celebrity to expound their positions, didn't the Hall of Fame use their public position to do exactly the same thing? [/b][/quote]
Yes yes-
I should begin by proffering a guilty plea; my post was not as well-formulated as it could/should have been-It was very late, and I could scarcely focus my eyes, much less my mind.
While I agree the H.O.F.'s cancellation of the event (to honor the film "Bull Durham") was a bit reactionary, it seems a bit less so in light of the previous inclinations of Robbins and Sarandon (for whom I admit I harbor "feelings"; she's still luscious). They both are known for dropping their mal-formed socio-political statements at the drop of a hat, regardless of milieu. Given that, it seems the timing of the H.O.F.'s decision was, in itself, a bit of a statement-the unilateral presumption you speak of, normally exercised by the celebrity in question, i.e., one best not presume "celebrity" and "good sense" to be mutually inclusive qualities.

So, to answer your last, "yes they did, and it's about time".

It should be noted that everyone involved was allowed full media access and at no time were rights curtailed or denied. It was a beautiful thing!

Clocker: please be advised the "Yooper Times" is now known as the "Porcupine Press". :D

clocker

04-21-2003, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by j2k4@21 April 2003 - 06:25
one best not presume "celebrity" and "good sense" to be mutually inclusive qualities.

Certainly the world overflows with sterling examples illustrating your point...Charo, Jerry Lewis and ,ah....oh yeah...Charlton Heston.
So we agree that one mustn't make that assumption. Does that, however, mean that the obverse is necessarily so?
My primary objection to the way that this was handled by the HOF is that they unilaterally politicized an event before it was necessary. Keeping in mind that "Bull Durham" was the movie that introduced Robbins and Sarandon, that they both consider it to be high point in their respective careers, and that Robbins is somewhat of a baseball fan, I don't find it beyond reason to think that the couple MAY have been willing to forego their usual political posturing and simply enjoy the event for what is was. This may have been difficult for them as any such event would almost certainly been prefaced with some sort of tribute to " our brave boys overseas", but it IS concievable that they would have been politically mute. Not likely, granted,but concievable.
Contact could have been initiated privately before any decisions were made.
BTW...what moron invited them - and made the invitation public- before considering their past history of political activism anyway?
As it is, the HOF appeared ( to me at any rate) to be cartoonishly naive and politically opportunistic- whipping up a typhoon in a bathtub merely to focus attention on an event which in a normal world would have drawn minimal media attention. Baseball as an industry is dying you know, and jumping on the patriotic bandwagon this way seems as tasteless as the statements that you presume R/S would have made.
The grand sport of ballroom dancing would never have behaved so badly. :P

Blue_Seraphim

04-21-2003, 10:28 PM

You said it all J2K. I wanted to reply in your thread, but the more i read your post the more i agree with you. However allow me to quote someone. [QUOTE] "Charlie Daniels' Open Letter to the Hollywood Bunch" and all the other protesters.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

OK -- Let's just say for a moment you bunch of
pampered, overpaid, unrealistic children
had your way and the U.S.A. didn't go into Iraq.

Let's say that you really get your way
and we destroy all our nuclear weapons
and stick daisies in our gun barrels
and sit around with some white wine and cheese
and pat ourselves on the back,
so proud of what we've done for world peace.

Let's say that we cut the military budget to
just enough to keep the National Guard
on hand to help out with floods and fires.

Let's say that we close down
our military bases all over the world
and bring the troops home,
increase our foreign aid
and drop all the trade sanctions
against everybody.

I suppose that in your fantasy world
this would create a utopian world
where everybody would live in peace.
After all, the great monster,
the United States of America,
the cause of all the world's trouble
would have disbanded it's horrible military
and certainly all the other countries
of the world would follow suit.

After all, they only arm themselves
to defend their countries from the mean old U.S.A.

Why you bunch of pitiful, hypocritical,
idiotic, spoiled mugwumps.
Get your head out of the sand
and smell the Trade Towers burning.

Do you think that a trip to Iraq by Sean Penn
did anything but encourage a wanton murderer
to think that the people of the U.S.A.
didn't have the nerve or the guts to fight him?

Barbra Streisand's fanatical and hateful rankings
about George Bush makes about as much sense
as Michael Jackson hanging a baby over a railing.

You people need to get out of Hollywood
once in a while and get out into the real world.
You'd be surprised at the hostility you would find out
here.

Stop in at a truck stop and tell an overworked,
long distance truck driver that you don't think
Saddam Hussein is doing anything wrong.

Tell a farmer with a couple of sons in the military
that you think the United States
has no right to defend itself.

Go down to Baxley, Georgia and hold an anti-war rally
and see what the folks down there think about you.

You people are some of the most disgusting examples
of a waste of protoplasm I've ever
had the displeasure to hear about.

Sean Penn, you're a traitor to the United States of
America.
You gave aid and comfort to the enemy.
How many American lives will your little,
"fact finding trip" to Iraq cost?
You encouraged Saddam to think
that we didn't have the stomach for war.

You people protect one of the most evil men
on the face of this earth and won't lift a finger
to save the life of an unborn baby.
Freedom of choice you say?

Well I'm going to exercise
some freedom of choice of my own.

If I see any of your names on a marquee,
I'm going to boycott the movie.
I will completely stop going to movies if I have to.
In most cases it certainly wouldn't be much of a loss.

You scoff at our military whose boots
you're not even worthy to shine.

They go to battle and risk their lives
so ingrates like you can live in luxury.

The day of reckoning is coming
when you will be faced with the undeniable truth
that the war against Saddam Hussein
is the war on terrorism.

America is in imminent danger.

You're either for her or against her.
There is no middle ground.

I think we all know where you stand.

What do you think?

God Bless America!

Charlie Daniels
Copyright © 2003 Charlie Daniels

myfiles3000

04-21-2003, 11:13 PM

bullocks, bullucks, bullocks...

OK -- Let's just say for a moment you bunch of pampered, overpaid, unrealistic children
had your way and the U.S.A. didn't go into Iraq.

Let's say that you really get your way
and we destroy all our nuclear weapons
and stick daisies in our gun barrels
and sit around with some white wine and cheese
and pat ourselves on the back,
so proud of what we've done for world peace.

Why you bunch of pitiful, hypocritical,
idiotic, spoiled mugwumps.

not nearlys as funny as the author thought
Get your head out of the sand
and smell the Trade Towers burning.
rhetorical error: false link between iraq and 9/11

Do you think that a trip to Iraq by Sean Penn did anything but encourage a wanton murderer
to think that the people of the U.S.A. didn't have the nerve or the guts to fight him?
do you think Americans should be restricted in their mobility?

Barbra Streisand's fanatical and hateful rankings about George Bush makes about as much sense
as Michael Jackson hanging a baby over a railing.
Gratuitous, irrelevant

You people need to get out of Hollywood once in a while and get out into the real world.
You'd be surprised at the hostility you would find out here.
I think that's their point. Hostility displacing reason

Stop in at a truck stop and tell an overworked, long distance truck driver that you don't think
Saddam Hussein is doing anything wrong.
Yeah, i want MY foreign policy dictated by an exhausted truck driver with a grade 11 education. that's what the nation needs

Tell a farmer with a couple of sons in the military that you think the United States
has no right to defend itself.
I bet he'd sport a shit-eating grin to know his sons' lives won't be wasted

Go down to Baxley, Georgia and hold an anti-war rally and see what the folks down there think about you.
just make sure not to create a scheduling conflict with Baxley's weekly cross burning

You people are some of the most disgusting examples of a waste of protoplasm I've ever
had the displeasure to hear about.
Protoplasm=big word=smart author...if you're 12
Waste of life? Like jews, you mean? or the Kikes? or the Gays?

Sean Penn, you're a traitor to the United States of America.
You gave aid and comfort to the enemy. How many American lives will your little,
"fact finding trip" to Iraq cost? You encouraged Saddam to think
that we didn't have the stomach for war.
Whats the threshold for being a traitor these days? Giving aid and comfort to civilians?

You people protect one of the most evil men on the face of this earth and won't lift a finger
to save the life of an unborn baby. Freedom of choice you say?
Well, now we know for a FACT you're on the lunatic fringe

Well I'm going to exercise some freedom of choice of my own.

If I see any of your names on a marquee, I'm going to boycott the movie.
that'll show all those pansy hollywood types who's who, wont it?
I will completely stop going to movies if I have to. In most cases it certainly wouldn't be much of a loss.
You're telling me

You scoff at our military whose boots you're not even worthy to shine.
Like the jews?

They go to battle and risk their lives By their own choice, its a private army
so ingrates like you can live in luxury. no, i think they volunteer so they can blow stuff up and shoot guns

The day of reckoning is coming more apocalyptic language. this guy is definitely fundamental christian, just be thankful he's not ringing your front doorbell right now
when you will be faced with the undeniable truth i love irony
that the war against Saddam Hussein is the war on terrorism.
I guess that means the war on terrorism is now officially over. Cool

America is in imminent danger. yeah, sure, from all those WMDs no one's been able to locate....

You're either for her or against her. There is no middle ground.
false binary, favourite of bush, stalin, hitler, pol pot, suharto, etc

I think we all know where you stand.
What do you think?
I'm thinking, you think you all know where i stand, but ask me anyway what i'm thinking, which makes me think there's something wrong with your question
God Bless America! God Bless Allah!

Blue_Seraphim

04-21-2003, 11:24 PM

My personal opinion isn't hand in hand with that of my quote. I just thought it was funny how he told the other celebs to stick it. If you were trying to get something going between us, I am unoffended in any way.This is the opinion of yes another celeb.

clocker

04-22-2003, 12:39 AM

Originally posted by Blue_Seraphim@21 April 2003 - 17:24
My personal opinion isn't hand in hand with that of my quote. I just thought it was funny how he told the other celebs to stick it. If you were trying to get something going between us, I am unoffended in any way.This is the opinion of yes another celeb.
On what planet is Charlie Daniels considered a celebrity?

hobbes

04-22-2003, 01:32 AM

C'mon you idiot. He's famous for his whiskey, globally.

How can anyone be so ignorant!?

;)

Blue_Seraphim

04-22-2003, 02:36 AM

Lol !!! ok ok ! Don't flame me too hard now. lol. I'm just trying to have some fun with this otherwise morbid topic. My bad. Shit!

You obviously know who he is.

Yeah calling me an idiot is a nice way to get what point across? :blink: Why do you not try and contribute. Your post is nothing but a juvenile attempt to flame someone. I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE DIRECT WITH MY ORIGINAL POST!! I think they should all be quiet. That is my opinion on the matter. I notice you do not have one :lol:

Don't get me wrong. Again, I am not offended. I didn't expect many people to see the humor in this. As you all obviously didn't.

hobbes

04-22-2003, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by Blue_Seraphim@22 April 2003 - 03:36
Lol !!! ok ok ! Don't flame me too hard now. lol. I'm just trying to have some fun with this otherwise morbid topic. My bad. Shit!

You obviously know who he is.

Yeah calling me an idiot is a nice way to get what point across? :blink: Why do you not try and contribute. Your post is nothing but a juvenile attempt to flame someone. I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE DIRECT WITH MY ORIGINAL POST!! I think they should all be quiet. That is my opinion on the matter. I notice you do not have one :lol:

Don't get me wrong. Again, I am not offended. I didn't expect many people to see the humor in this. As you all obviously didn't.
Not you my friend, I was poking at Clocker.

Sorry. :lol:

I was intentionally pretending to mistake Charlie Daniels for Jack Daniels. That delayed emote was there to suggest that something was not as it appeared.

Blue_Seraphim

04-22-2003, 03:23 AM

Yea like I said any way no offence. B)

clocker

04-22-2003, 03:50 AM

Originally posted by Blue_Seraphim@21 April 2003 - 20:36
Lol !!! ok ok ! Don't flame me too hard now. lol. I'm just trying to have some fun with this otherwise morbid topic.    My bad. 
You think this thread is morbid?
Hmmm....

Well, just in case my position remains unclear let me state it for the record.
I think we ALL have a right to our opinions and the right to express them in any forum available to us.If the press is willing to hang on every word out of Susan Sarandon's pouty little mouth then that speaks more about the press than it does about the validity of her opinion.
Don't you think that celebrities sit at home and shudder to see some of their more inane utterances printed for all to see?
How would you come across if your every casual remark was printed in a major media outlet and then held up to the scrutiny of critics?
Michael Moore has said that he regrets the way he came across at the Academy Awards and he is somewhat practised in the art of being a public persona. Generally he seems to me to be very articulate and reasoned ( there you go j2k4 , TAKE YOUR SHOT NOW! ) , but the excitement of the moment overwhelmed him.
While I would agree that being a "celebrity" ( with the exception of Charlie Daniels, who is a supercilious, pompous, unrepentantly ignorant hick- and a mediocre fiddle player, to boot) doesn't automatically give your opinions weight or validity, it doesn't lessen your chances of being reasonable and correct either. So there. ;)

myfiles3000

04-22-2003, 04:21 AM

Originally posted by clocker@22 April 2003 - 04:50
I think we ALL have a right to our opinions and the right to express them in any forum available to us.If the press is willing to hang on every word out of Susan Sarandon's pouty little mouth then that speaks more about the press than it does about the validity of her opinion.
word.

clocker

04-22-2003, 04:36 AM

Originally posted by myfiles3000@21 April 2003 - 22:21

word.
WORD?

You developing carpal tunnel syndrom there, M?

j2k4

04-22-2003, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by clocker+21 April 2003 - 15:50--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 21 April 2003 - 15:50)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@21 April 2003 - 06:25
one best not presume "celebrity" and "good sense" to be mutually inclusive qualities.

Certainly the world overflows with sterling examples illustrating your point...Charo, Jerry Lewis and ,ah....oh yeah...Charlton Heston.
So we agree that one mustn't make that assumption. Does that, however, mean that the obverse is necessarily so?
My primary objection to the way that this was handled by the HOF is that they unilaterally politicized an event before it was necessary. Keeping in mind that "Bull Durham" was the movie that introduced Robbins and Sarandon, that they both consider it to be high point in their respective careers, and that Robbins is somewhat of a baseball fan, I don't find it beyond reason to think that the couple MAY have been willing to forego their usual political posturing and simply enjoy the event for what is was. This may have been difficult for them as any such event would almost certainly been prefaced with some sort of tribute to " our brave boys overseas", but it IS concievable that they would have been politically mute. Not likely, granted,but concievable.
Contact could have been initiated privately before any decisions were made.
BTW...what moron invited them - and made the invitation public- before considering their past history of political activism anyway?
As it is, the HOF appeared ( to me at any rate) to be cartoonishly naive and politically opportunistic- whipping up a typhoon in a bathtub merely to focus attention on an event which in a normal world would have drawn minimal media attention. Baseball as an industry is dying you know, and jumping on the patriotic bandwagon this way seems as tasteless as the statements that you presume R/S would have made.
The grand sport of ballroom dancing would never have behaved so badly. :P[/b][/quote]
Okay-where to start?
1) I'll preface by noting the H.O.F. issued a statement today acknowledging the rashness and impropriety of it's action re: Robbins & Sarandon; bottom line-I agree with their self-assessment and compulsion to apologize.
I will be watching closely for Mr. Robbins to make a similar statement of contrition re: his response(s).

2) I'll personally hand Heston, Selleck, Willis, and Patricia Heaton their ideological walking papers if all the "Hollylibs" will shut-up. :D

3) Susan Sarandon first achieved critical notice, I believe, in the movie "Atlantic City", which also starred Burt Lancaster. Robbins I'm not so sure of.

4) A pre-event inquiry WOULD have been advisable, but having been thereby importuned not to comment re: their anti-war/Bush stances, could our intrepid duo have refrained from demanding the H.O.F. likewise refrain from making any statements of support, (as was certainly it's prerogative) no matter how innocuous?

5) Re: "What moron invited them...." Yes, exactly on point.

6) Correct-the H.O.F. did not distinguish itself; though I hope this fiasco doesn't result in the critical positions there being filled by a motley collection of lawyers specializing in civil torts.

7) Major-League Baseball can go ahead and die-good riddance. I will remain a huge fan of the game itself.

8) The "Grand sport of ballroom dancing" was populated by people who had supreme regard for dignity and propriety; we are agreed there :P

As for the rest of the posting: Blue Seraphim-myfiles is spoiling for a fight; in as gentlemanly a manner as you can muster, I suggest you send him to the shallow end of the pool where can be found Mr. Charlie Daniels, who is also aching to clash.

Clocker-I had not heard of Mr. Moore's expression of regret; I would put as much faith in it's sincerity as he puts in the likelihood of an American financing his next movie. No doubt either, that his eloquence, articulateness and apparent sincerity are maximized by his perception of having harmed his "career" with his performance at the Academy Awards.
Shot taken! :D

clocker

04-22-2003, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by j2k4@21 April 2003 - 23:13
bottom line-I agree with their self-assessment and compulsion to apologize.
I will be watching closely for Mr. Robbins to make a similar statement of contrition re: his response(s).

2) I'll personally hand Heston, Selleck, Willis, and Patricia Heaton their ideological walking papers if all the "Hollylibs" will shut-up. :D

3) Susan Sarandon first achieved critical notice, I believe, in the movie "Atlantic City", which also starred Burt Lancaster. Robbins I'm not so sure of.

Clocker-I had not heard of Mr. Moore's expression of regret; I would put as much faith in it's sincerity as he puts in the likelihood of an American financing his next movie. No doubt either, that his eloquence, articulateness and apparent sincerity are maximized by his perception of having harmed his "career" with his performance at the Academy Awards.
Shot taken! :D
Nice to see you back, j2!

1. What does Robbins have to apologize for? He didn't even get the opportunity to fulfill your ( and the HOF"'s) expectations. His presumption of innocence was revolked- not terribly American, methinks.

2. I have no problem with any of the celebs you mention, they certainly have the right to take themselves as seriously as they please. My problem lies with the mouthbreathers who read People and the like. They take all that crap as gospel. You'll be bored at the dentist's office, but if you avoid the claptrap popmags you'll find your exposure to celebrity opinions will be substantially reduced.

3.This misunderstanding is all my fault. I meant that "Bull Durham" is the movie that intoduced Sarandon and Robbins to each other. My bad ( whatever the hell that means!).

4. Moore screwed up and he admitted it. He wasn't contrite about his views, just the shrill and off-putting way in which he expressed them. You want blood?*

5.That was a shot? You must still be tuckered out by your long drive. :P

*Don't answer that...

BTW... Moore's book "Stupid White Men" is still #3 on the NY Times bestseller list. I should think his chances for financing are pretty good.

j2k4

04-22-2003, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by clocker@22 April 2003 - 00:36
1. What does Robbins have to apologize for? He didn't even get the opportunity to fulfill your ( and the HOF"'s) expectations. His presumption of innocence was revolked- not terribly American, methinks.

2. I have no problem with any of the celebs you mention, they certainly have the right to take themselves as seriously as they please. My problem lies with the mouthbreathers who read People and the like. They take all that crap as gospel. You'll be bored at the dentist's office, but if you avoid the claptrap popmags you'll find your exposure to celebrity opinions will be substantially reduced.

3.This misunderstanding is all my fault. I meant that "Bull Durham" is the movie that intoduced Sarandon and Robbins to each other. My bad ( whatever the hell that means!).

4. Moore screwed up and he admitted it. He wasn't contrite about his views, just the shrill and off-putting way in which he expressed them. You want blood?*

5.That was a shot? You must still be tuckered out by your long drive. :P

*Don't answer that...

BTW... Moore's book "Stupid White Men" is still #3 on the NY Times bestseller list. I should think his chances for financing are pretty good.
1) Didn't you catch all of Robbins' remarks? Boy's got it in for the H.O.F., FoxNews-basically anybody who didn't default their coverage to his "My right to free speech..." as a primary concern. (I'm not into links, but this was early last week?)

2) Correct assessment of "People" people-as a dedicated reader :lol: :lol:, I can state positively the only redeeming value on the pages of that magazine are titty-shots of Britney Spears, et.al. B) I have noticed that when viewing same, I am mouth-breathing; I assume your astute observation on this point was arrived at through your own research. :lol:

3) Point taken; I have envied Mr. Robbins ever since.

4) Keep your eye on Mr. Moore; I predict HE will change your mind without further input from me. I have no wish for his blood; it's "stupid" count is dangerously high. BTW, "Bowling for Columbine" was financed by Canadians, this was the root of my attempted mot.

5) I thought the "shot" reflective of the respect I have for your posting; you realize, of course, that having asked for it, I couldn't just grant your request willy-nilly? Wouldn't fit my M.O. :D :D

WeeMouse

04-22-2003, 10:44 AM

Ok, here's the mouse's humble opinion! :P

Celebrities should express their views! Everyone is entitled to,after all - it's just that because they are famous, their views are made a little bit more public than ours! :D

Loads of celebrities over here were making a stand against the war, using their fame to let everyone know that they thought the war was wrong, and fair dues to them! The way I see it, we had George W and Tony Blair etc going on about how right the war is, so it was refreshing to read someone else's opinion.

PS - I was against the war! :lol:

j2k4

04-22-2003, 05:06 PM

Originally posted by WeeMouse@22 April 2003 - 05:44
Ok, here's the mouse's humble opinion! :P

Celebrities should express their views! Everyone is entitled to,after all - it's just that because they are famous, their views are made a little bit more public than ours! :D

Loads of celebrities over here were making a stand against the war, using their fame to let everyone know that they thought the war was wrong, and fair dues to them! The way I see it, we had George W and Tony Blair etc going on about how right the war is, so it was refreshing to read someone else's opinion.

PS - I was against the war! :lol:
WeeMouse-
Nice of you to follow Liam's lead and use your own face in your av, how 'bout one with eyes open (wider)?
It's not the exercise of the "right" that hacks me off, it's the availability of the microphone.
If it's all about equality, where's my microphone? I can speak more relevantly than most, if not all, celebrities, and to top it off, I could do it without the smug condescension.

clocker

04-22-2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by j2k4@22 April 2003 - 11:06

It's not the exercise of the "right" that hacks me off, it's the availability of the microphone.
If it's all about equality, where's my microphone? I can speak more relevantly than most, if not all, celebrities, and to top it off, I could do it without the smug condescension.
Why j2, you sound jealous!
Aren't we enough of a rapt audience for you?
You do speak more relevantly than most, but I should think that you would be pretty intolerant of all the nonsense that would accompany the easy media access that celebrities enjoy ( abuse?).
Like that last baby dangling episode- did you really want that exposed in the Enquirer?
Or your tryst with Anna Nicole?

Thought not. ;)

clocker

04-22-2003, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by j2k4@22 April 2003 - 11:06

WeeMouse-
Nice of you to follow Liam's lead and use your own face in your av, how 'bout one with eyes open (wider)?

Aye, 'twas a right bold move, I'd say.
Ya look lae fine Scottish breeding stock, lassie. :P

j2k4

04-23-2003, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by clocker+22 April 2003 - 15:30--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 22 April 2003 - 15:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@22 April 2003 - 11:06

It's not the exercise of the "right" that hacks me off, it's the availability of the microphone.
If it's all about equality, where's my microphone? I can speak more relevantly than most, if not all, celebrities, and to top it off, I could do it without the smug condescension.
Why j2, you sound jealous!
Aren't we enough of a rapt audience for you?
You do speak more relevantly than most, but I should think that you would be pretty intolerant of all the nonsense that would accompany the easy media access that celebrities enjoy ( abuse?).
Like that last baby dangling episode- did you really want that exposed in the Enquirer?
Or your tryst with Anna Nicole?

Thought not. ;) [/b][/quote]
JEALOUS?

Um.....No. I suspect my pique is due to the fawning, boot-licking, swooning media reaction whenever a "celebrity" pronounces.
As you noted previously, the mouth-breathing "People" readers eat this stuff up, and most of them, IF they make it to the voting booth, become that which I most fear: "UN/MIS-INFORMED VOTERS". I have immense problems with the basic fallibility and naivete of people.
Why aren't there more smart, knowledgably curious people in the world? If the percentage in the general population was as high as in this forum, I'd have high hopes, but I'm continually assaulted with evidence to the contrary.
Boy, I'm depressed! :lol:

Clocker, tell me you understand, Okay? :huh:

Well, then.

Anna Nicole is going to be reincarnated as a schnauzer whose feet don't quite reach the ground.

j2k4

04-23-2003, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by clocker+22 April 2003 - 15:34--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 22 April 2003 - 15:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@22 April 2003 - 11:06

WeeMouse-
Nice of you to follow Liam's lead and use your own face in your av, how 'bout one with eyes open (wider)?

Aye, 'twas a right bold move, I'd say.
Ya look lae fine Scottish breeding stock, lassie. :P [/b][/quote]
Don't she look peachy?

And a sunny disposition, too.

Lucky boy, that Liam.

WeeMouse

04-23-2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by j2k4+23 April 2003 - 06:22--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 23 April 2003 - 06:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -clocker@22 April 2003 - 15:34
<!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@22 April 2003 - 11:06

WeeMouse-
Nice of you to follow Liam's lead and use your own face in your av, how 'bout one with eyes open (wider)?

Aye, 'twas a right bold move, I'd say.
Ya look lae fine Scottish breeding stock, lassie. :P
Don't she look peachy?

And a sunny disposition, too.

Lucky boy, that Liam. [/b][/quote]
:">

Shucks...you guys make me blush!

:lol:

clocker

04-23-2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by j2k4@22 April 2003 - 23:20

Clocker, tell me you understand, Okay? :huh:

There, there, of course I understand...

I figured from the beginning that we would end up here.
Being somewhat familiar with your worldview from your posts I knew you weren't railing against "celebrity access" so much as "blind public acceptance".
This is, of course, a problem.
Check out a couple of the threads in Filesharing and I think you'll be impressed (appalled?) with the level of sheer self delusion and dogged unwillingness to apply even a modicum of critical analysis.
For crissakes, if Sean Penn makes some statement that strikes you as suspect, three hits on Google and you can arm yourself with enough information to evaluate his views for yourself.
I know this can be tiring, people.
But j2 may have a stroke if you don't. :o

j2k4

04-23-2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by clocker+23 April 2003 - 08:27--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 23 April 2003 - 08:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@22 April 2003 - 23:20

Clocker, tell me you understand, Okay? :huh:

There, there, of course I understand...

I figured from the beginning that we would end up here.
Being somewhat familiar with your worldview from your posts I knew you weren't railing against "celebrity access" so much as "blind public acceptance".
This is, of course, a problem.
Check out a couple of the threads in Filesharing and I think you'll be impressed (appalled?) with the level of sheer self delusion and dogged unwillingness to apply even a modicum of critical analysis.
For crissakes, if Sean Penn makes some statement that strikes you as suspect, three hits on Google and you can arm yourself with enough information to evaluate his views for yourself.
I know this can be tiring, people.
But j2 may have a stroke if you don't. :o [/b][/quote]
Why, thank you, Clocker.

You got right to MY point! Good on you!

And good idea re:Googling-I think I'd better get used to doing more of that myself, but the TIME, my God, I KNOW the dangers of too much reading-I have 4 books going now, plus several weekly/monthly publications that MUST be read cover-to-cover!
I am sorely taxed, here-just bought my first pair of reading glasses, too. :huh:

clocker

04-23-2003, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by j2k4@23 April 2003 - 08:56

I am sorely taxed, here-just bought my first pair of reading glasses, too. :huh:
Ah, the many joys of reaching maturity.
Just when you begin to really develop an appreciation of your senses they go to hell.

Fortunately for you, Googling is easy on the knees.

j2k4

04-23-2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by clocker@23 April 2003 - 11:19
Fortunately for you, Googling is easy on the knees.
Not the way I do it! :lol: :lol: :lol:

AHEM-just kidding.

clocker

04-23-2003, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by j2k4@23 April 2003 - 10:27

Not the way I do it! :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

Perhaps you should produce a video.

Which, of course, would be pirated in seconds.

j2k4

04-23-2003, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by clocker+23 April 2003 - 11:44--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 23 April 2003 - 11:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@23 April 2003 - 10:27

Not the way I do it! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Perhaps you should produce a video.

Which, of course, would be pirated in seconds. [/b][/quote]
I'll entertain any idea that will inflate the bottom line! :lol:

Boy, those idjits who burn and sell-GREAT example of the ignorance I spoke of earlier-you told 'em; I wish we could be sure you provoked some thought, but probably not, huh? :blink:

clocker

04-23-2003, 04:57 PM

No, I'm pretty sure I stumped 'em with "re".

j2k4

04-23-2003, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by clocker@23 April 2003 - 11:57
No, I'm pretty sure I stumped 'em with "re".
Count on it-

But, as ever, we must "forge on" :P

clocker

04-23-2003, 05:17 PM

Hammer and tongs, Matey.

nahan

04-24-2003, 06:07 AM

Celebs take advantage of their freedom and speak out against the very government that protects them.

They should try living in Iraq for one year without any of ther money and try working like a regular middle class person .Just to see how helpless they really are, I wonder how Sean Penn would try to sleep with one eye open.

Pathetic these people are trying tomake a differance ,Saddam is a dictator.
Do you really think the USA needs Iraqs oil ..........please

dwightfry

04-24-2003, 02:23 PM

HYPOCRACY!!!!!!

I can't watch TV for an hour without seeing a celebrity telling us to support our troop. I don't see any anti-war people black listing them. People have the right to voice there opionions EVEN IF THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE DISAGREE. That is what America is about, the minority can voice there opinion with out being criticized. There are hundreds up celebs who agreed with the war and voice there opionions, so why can't the ones who disagree do the same?!?!?!? It doesn't make any sense.

Those who refuse to buy a dixie chicks album (why would they want to anyways), or won't watch any movie with Tim Robbins have the right to do that, but I think that it is childish, and VERY VERY immature.

j2k4

04-24-2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by dwightfry@24 April 2003 - 09:23
HYPOCRACY!!!!!!

I can't watch TV for an hour without seeing a celebrity telling us to support our troop. I don't see any anti-war people black listing them. People have the right to voice there opionions EVEN IF THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE DISAGREE. That is what America is about, the minority can voice there opinion with out being criticized. There are hundreds up celebs who agreed with the war and voice there opionions, so why can't the ones who disagree do the same?!?!?!? It doesn't make any sense.

Those who refuse to buy a dixie chicks album (why would they want to anyways), or won't watch any movie with Tim Robbins have the right to do that, but I think that it is childish, and VERY VERY immature.
Now I'm confused, Renfield-did you read the thread or not? :huh:

dwightfry

04-24-2003, 02:55 PM

Yeah

Celebrities seem to think (my opinion) their inherent "superiority" obligates them to grace us with opinions ranging from A to Z. The public has a commensurate obligation to pay heed to their enlightenments. On occasion, public opinion is gauged as being negative in response to their intellectual frothings; the celebrities counter that their rights are being battered if their proclamations meet with any response other than swooning acceptance.

I'm saying there rights aren't being violated if people disagree, but I think that it is completely inappropriate to put these boycotts on there music, movies, etc. because of there opionions.

Celebs take advantage of their freedom and speak out against the very government that protects them.

They should try living in Iraq for one year without any of ther money and try working like a regular middle class person .Just to see how helpless they really are, I wonder how Sean Penn would try to sleep with one eye open.

Pathetic these people are trying tomake a differance ,Saddam is a dictator.
Do you really think the USA needs Iraqs oil ..........please

This is a good example. He is only complaining about the ones who speak out against the gov't, and not the ones who speak out for the gov't. It isn't the idea of celebs voicing there opinions that make him mad, it is when celeb's voice opionions which disagree with his own, and his gov't.

If no celebrities voiced there opisition to the gov't, would have this thread still been posted? I think not. The problem is that some do oppose our gov't, and that's hypacriticle.

j2k4

04-24-2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by dwightfry@24 April 2003 - 09:55

I'm saying there rights aren't being violated if people disagree, but I think that it is completely inappropriate to put these boycotts on there music, movies, etc. because of there opionions.

This is a good example. He is only complaining about the ones who speak out against the gov't, and not the ones who speak out for the gov't. It isn't the idea of celebs voicing there opinions that make him mad, it is when celeb's voice opionions which disagree with his own, and his gov't.

If no celebrities voiced there opisition to the gov't, would have this thread still been posted? I think not. The problem is that some do oppose our gov't, and that's hypacriticle.
It still seems you've missed MY point; these people are pandered to by the media.

Though free speech is a constitutional right; nowhere in the constitution does it say "This right includes a microphone and full media access, but only if you are sufficiently celebrated".

My objection is the relative volume of their speech-GET IT?

dwightfry

04-24-2003, 03:26 PM

My objection is the relative volume of their speech-GET IT?

If celebrities only said stuff that you agreed with, I don't believe you would have a problem with it, but there is no way of telling.

I do, however, know that there are people who just don't want to here celebs disagree with them. It is those people that I direct my comments to.

j2k4

04-24-2003, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by dwightfry@24 April 2003 - 10:26

My objection is the relative volume of their speech-GET IT?

If celebrities only said stuff that you agreed with, I don't believe you would have a problem with it, but there is no way of telling.

I do, however, know that there are people who just don't want to here celebs disagree with them. It is those people that I direct my comments to.
Alright-ONE MORE TIME.

Take away their microphone, BUT NOT THEIR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, and I'll be happy.

C'mon Renfield, anyone who can do illicit lab work at home right under Mum's & Dad's noses can't be this thick. :huh:

clocker

04-24-2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by j2k4@24 April 2003 - 10:04

Take away their microphone, BUT NOT THEIR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, and I'll be happy.

C'mon Renfield, anyone who can do illicit lab work at home right under Mum's & Dad's noses can't be this thick. :huh:
How much would you struggle to keep YOUR microphone, should you have one?

re: Renfield...too much insect protein isn't good for you, ask the folks on Survivor
;)

j2k4

04-24-2003, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by clocker+24 April 2003 - 15:11--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 24 April 2003 - 15:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@24 April 2003 - 10:04

Take away their microphone, BUT NOT THEIR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, and I'll be happy.

C'mon Renfield, anyone who can do illicit lab work at home right under Mum's & Dad's noses can't be this thick. :huh:
How much would you struggle to keep YOUR microphone, should you have one?

[/b][/quote]
If a microphone was required to equalize the relative volume, the phrase "Cold, dead fingers...." might apply. :D

dwightfry

04-24-2003, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by j2k4+24 April 2003 - 10:04--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 24 April 2003 - 10:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--dwightfry@24 April 2003 - 10:26

My objection is the relative volume of their speech-GET IT?

If celebrities only said stuff that you agreed with, I don't believe you would have a problem with it, but there is no way of telling.

I do, however, know that there are people who just don't want to here celebs disagree with them. It is those people that I direct my comments to.
Alright-ONE MORE TIME.

Take away their microphone, BUT NOT THEIR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, and I'll be happy.

C'mon Renfield, anyone who can do illicit lab work at home right under Mum's & Dad's noses can't be this thick. :huh: [/b][/quote]
MY GOD!!! I believe you are LYING to yourself. I know what you are saying, What I'M saying is that I believe you wouldn't give a RATS ASS about them voicing there opinions in their 'microphone' if they were only saying stuff that you agreed with. I understood you the first time, and the second time and the third time, I just didn't/don't believe you. <_<

(oh yeah...and I don't live with my parents)

j2k4

04-25-2003, 12:27 AM

Ah-I see.

You might have thought to say, "In light of your political stance....." or, "You just don't like what they have to say, so just shut the libs up?", but no, you have to play dumb.

Okay-you're saying that, indeed, I AM guilty of wanting to deprive them of their speech rights?
Even given my statements specifically to the contrary?
You are ignoring plain statements that exist IN THIS THREAD?

You have obviously armed yourself with your own personal set of facts about me, Renfield-did you cook THEM up in your lab, too?

Well, YOU may enjoy an occasional bout of thickness, but you might devote some time to your mental folio, too, as IT is very thin. ;)

clocker

04-25-2003, 12:36 AM

Out of idle curiousity j2, what is the origin of the "Renfield" honorific? Dracula?

j2k4

04-25-2003, 02:54 AM

Originally posted by clocker@24 April 2003 - 19:36
Out of idle curiousity j2, what is the origin of the "Renfield" honorific? Dracula?
By Netty Dingo, we got a bingo!

Yup-he also portrayed Ygor in lots of Frankenstein movies. :D

hobbes

04-25-2003, 03:17 AM

Originally posted by j2k4+25 April 2003 - 03:54--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 25 April 2003 - 03:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--clocker@24 April 2003 - 19:36
Out of idle curiousity j2, what is the origin of the "Renfield" honorific? Dracula?
By Netty Dingo, we got a bingo!

Yup-he also portrayed Ygor in lots of Frankenstein movies. :D [/b][/quote]
Not Renfield and Stimpy, the cartoon? I was so sure!

j2k4

04-25-2003, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by hobbes+24 April 2003 - 22:17--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 24 April 2003 - 22:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -j2k4@25 April 2003 - 03:54
<!--QuoteBegin--clocker@24 April 2003 - 19:36
Out of idle curiousity j2, what is the origin of the "Renfield" honorific? Dracula?
By Netty Dingo, we got a bingo!

Yup-he also portrayed Ygor in lots of Frankenstein movies. :D
Not Renfield and Stimpy, the cartoon? I was so sure! [/b][/quote]
Alright-

Who's really in charge of comic relief around here? :huh:

Wouldn't mind hearing a sane voice here, Hobbes-leave something worthwhile, huh?

I'm gonna go play with my wife for a bit. B)

DiogenesUK

04-25-2003, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by j2k4+25 April 2003 - 04:23--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 25 April 2003 - 04:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -hobbes@24 April 2003 - 22:17

Originally posted by -j2k4@25 April 2003 - 03:54
<!--QuoteBegin--clocker@24 April 2003 - 19:36
Out of idle curiousity j2, what is the origin of the "Renfield" honorific? Dracula?
By Netty Dingo, we got a bingo!

Yup-he also portrayed Ygor in lots of Frankenstein movies. :D
Not Renfield and Stimpy, the cartoon? I was so sure!
Alright-

Who's really in charge of comic relief around here? :huh:

Wouldn't mind hearing a sane voice here, Hobbes-leave something worthwhile, huh?

I'm gonna go play with my wife for a bit. B)[/b][/quote]
Nice one,you can't beat a good game of scrabble in front of the fire I'm told :P

Take care J,hope you had a good easter break.

j2k4

04-25-2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by DiogenesUK+25 April 2003 - 12:57--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (DiogenesUK @ 25 April 2003 - 12:57)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -j2k4@25 April 2003 - 04:23

Originally posted by -hobbes@24 April 2003 - 22:17

Originally posted by -j2k4@25 April 2003 - 03:54
<!--QuoteBegin--clocker@24 April 2003 - 19:36
Out of idle curiousity j2, what is the origin of the "Renfield" honorific? Dracula?
By Netty Dingo, we got a bingo!

Yup-he also portrayed Ygor in lots of Frankenstein movies. :D
Not Renfield and Stimpy, the cartoon? I was so sure!
Alright-

Who's really in charge of comic relief around here? :huh:

Wouldn't mind hearing a sane voice here, Hobbes-leave something worthwhile, huh?

I'm gonna go play with my wife for a bit. B)
Hey,join the queue,we've all paid good money here for the privelege of her ahem......company :lol: :lol: :lol:

Take care J,hope you had a good easter break. [/b][/quote]
I'll do you the favor of not showing her your post, Dio.

She used to be a skip-tracer; she could find you easy-even in the U.K., where we have been meaning to holiday.

Did I mention, she also has experience as a meat-cutter? B) B)

clocker

04-25-2003, 09:56 PM

Why can't she hold down a steady job?

dwightfry

04-25-2003, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by j2k4@24 April 2003 - 18:27
Ah-I see.

You might have thought to say, "In light of your political stance....." or, "You just don't like what they have to say, so just shut the libs up?", but no, you have to play dumb.

Okay-you're saying that, indeed, I AM guilty of wanting to deprive them of their speech rights?
Even given my statements specifically to the contrary?
You are ignoring plain statements that exist IN THIS THREAD?

You have obviously armed yourself with your own personal set of facts about me, Renfield-did you cook THEM up in your lab, too?

Well, YOU may enjoy an occasional bout of thickness, but you might devote some time to your mental folio, too, as IT is very thin. ;)
As I stated earlier, none of my comments were directed specifically at you. You replied, I explained, and you start insulting my intelligence, so I made the mistake of questioning your honesty with YOURSELF. I didn't, and I don't have any set 'facts' about you, I am just thinking with commensense, and stating how I see things.

If every celebrity spoke out for the things that you believe in, why would you want them to stop? You don't have a microphone, they do, so why wouldn't you want your opinion spread anyway it can. The problem is that some celebrities are speaking out for things you don't believe in, and you would like that to stop. I 'believe' that you tell yourself that the entire idea of celebrities speaking in their microphone is wrong, but in truth, the idea of celebs spreading opinions that differ from your own is the real problem. I could be wrong, but I don't believe I am, and that to is just an opinion, it doesn't mean I'm right.

If I'm wrong, than I am wrong. Once again, my original post wasn't directed at you, you just made things personal.

hobbes

04-26-2003, 12:03 AM

Sorry J2K4,

I totally missed the incident and I have not looked into it as I don't care what celebrities have to say.

Many people cannot separate stars from their roles and these people are not worth worrying about because they live in this concrete world called "the box". They are the cattle, we are the shepards.

As for the celeb's themselves, they must realize that they are a product of society. On the upside, they can use their notoriety to rally people around their pet causes. Charleton Heston draws a lot more attention than J2K4 would, after all he is Moses.

On the other hand, as a commodity, they must be aware that public opinion or perceived opinion by movie financiers is important. If Catherine Zeta Jones decides that a babies should be branded on the ass, she is welcome to voice this opinion on the "Tonight" show, but job offers might just fall of a touch.

But, as I said, I don't care what stars have to say, but I will stand behind their right to say it.

j2k4

04-26-2003, 12:25 AM

Well said, Hobbes-
I will second your post and it's sentiment.

Renfield-I stand by my post(s), you may stand by yours; we are apparently having interpretive difficulties, though I have re-read the entire thread, I can't identify the problem.

dwightfry

04-26-2003, 04:56 PM

Great. I'm just glad it's over. I was getting sick of this. :wacko:

Skillian

04-26-2003, 07:59 PM

Well dwightfry I understood your point all along and find it difficult to see how others could miss it or find it irrelevant. Plenty of mentions of Sarandon and Robbins and the like but no chastising of those celebrities that speak/spoke out for the war.

Not gonna really get into it though as I don't really wish to be talked down to in such as condescending manner as you were.

j2k4

04-27-2003, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by Skillian@26 April 2003 - 14:59
Well dwightfry I understood your point all along and find it difficult to see how others could miss it or find it irrelevant. Plenty of mentions of Sarandon and Robbins and the like but no chastising of those celebrities that speak/spoke out for the war.

Not gonna really get into it though as I don't really wish to be talked down to in such as condescending manner as you were.
Skillian-
Didn't mean any disrespect to ANYBODY-just didn't think he understood my point, for whatever reason. After, I think, three such posts, I began to think he was just having me on and then I got a little short. I think if you go back and give an honest read from the point at which DF first posted, you might see why I was confused-I don't think I was unclear in making my point, but if you are also misunderstanding me, then perhaps I am wrong.
Maybe I should have included ALL celebrities, but in this case, my first post referenced the H.O.F. incident, which had no "Pro-war" celebrity proponent/ component; was I to invent one, in the name of fairness?