On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:53:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Andrew McDowell <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote in
>news:342571b7-0a8a-4cb7-afa3-c69cdce6fcabn@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 1:14:39 AM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>>> I can't bring myself to have a lot of sympathy for Chris
>>> Rock. He should have realized that in this day and age,
>>> making jokes based on alopecia is something our
>>> society no longer accepts; it's viewed the same way we
>>> view making jokes about someone with a disability or
>>> an exceptionality.
>>>
>>> Thus, the movie Tropic Thunder was condemned for the
>>> frequent use of what is now called "the R-word" within it,
>>> with the intent to convey the same attitude towards the
>>> word in question as the phrase "the N-word" does.
>>>
>>> So if Chris Rock winds up being "cancelled", well, even if
>>> it is terribly unjust instead of serving him right, it's only
>>> to be expected.
>>>
>>> But what about Will Smith?
>>>
>>> While it is true that it isn't really appropriate to approve
>>> of his reaction, waxing eloquent about how physical
>>> violence must never be condoned regardless of the
>>> provocation... would be hypocritical, at least on my
>>> part. Because I don't feel like waggilng my finger in the
>>> same way at Dr. Edwin Aldrin, who lost his temper at
>>> an advocate of the notion that the moon landings were
>>> a hoax who called him a liar.
>>>
>>> Edwin Aldrin and Will Smith are two unique human
>>> individuals. So it would be untrue to say that the only
>>> difference between them is that Edwin Aldrin is a real
>>> astronaut, and Will Smith only played one in the movie
>>> Independence Day.
>>>
>>> But I'm only going to note _one_ other difference between
>>> the two of them. And no points for guessing which one of
>>> those many differences it is going to be.
>>>
>>> Because while what Will Smith did wasn't an evil act, and
>>> it doesn't make him a bad man, it still will have evil
>>> consequences.
>>>
>>> Because, unlike Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Will Smith... doesn't
>>> have white privilege? Maybe _that's_ not the right way to
>>> put it; if Will Smith had been hauled away by the LAPD,
>>> _then_ that would be a sequence of events fitting that
>>> paradigm.
>>>
>>> But it's still something in that area.
>>>
>>> Because to a lot of the white people who either saw what
>>> transpired on the Oscars that night, or who just heard about
>>> it, the incident will only serve as confirmation to some of the
>>> most harmful racial stereotypes that have been floating around
>>> for hundreds of years.
>>>
>>> The conclusion that has been supported once again is this one:
>>>
>>> You can put a suit and a tie on a black man, but you can't
>>> change his "real" nature, said nature being that of... an
>>> impulsive small child. A savage at heart, rather than a
>>> civilized adult.
>>>
>>> This is where a legitimate criticism of Will Smith needs to
>>> start; not with hypocritical sanctimony about physical
>>> violence, but with honestly facing the damage he has the
>>> potential of doing to the fragile progress being made by
>>> Americans of color.
>>>
>>> John Savard
>> We now know from sports that even very mild head trauma can be
>> dangerous, so we should be even less tolerant of attacks than
>> before, regardless of excuse. As it happens, I find the reported
>> joke entirely unobjectionable
>> (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/mar/27/will-smith-punch-ch
>> ris-rock-wife-joke-gi-jane-video-oscars). I find any culture
>> that regards violence as the proper reaction to perceived
>> so-called disrespect much more troubling.
>>
>Every state in the US has some form of "fighting words" law,
>wherein it is recognized that there are things one can say that are
>*so* offensive that any reasonable person would respond with
>violence.
>
>Rock's joke did not rise to that level. It was, perhaps, in bad
>taste (but most comedy is), and perhaps not particularly funny, in
>context, but it certainly wasn't "fighting words."
>
>Smith's lucky that Rock doesn't want to pursue it in a legal venue.
>I guess he's too busy booking more shows due to the massive
>increase in ticket sales for his concerts.

Exactly. The free publicity is worth more than pursuing criminal
action. Which might reduce the value of the free publicity.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 17:16:02 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>news:qfF1K.321345$Gojc.202181@fx99.iad:
>>
>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>>>On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 12:57:58 AM UTC-6, Charles Packer
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 17:14:36 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> >...
>>>>> > The conclusion that has been supported once again is this
>>>>> > one:
>>>>
>>>
>>> That hollywood is a narcissistic wasteland and the Oscars are
>>> the height of narcissism?
>>
>>And irrelevant. Don't forget irrelevant.
>>
>>> And a colossal waste of time and
>>> money.
>>>
>>It's their money. If they want to light metaphorical cigars with
>>hundred dollar bills, they can.
>
>I would argue it is _our_ money; just how much is a ticket
>to first-run at the cinema nowadays?

Who can say? The Rotten Tomatoes "get tickets" button might tell you.

I haven't been to a theater for years now. I didn't even go for the
latest James Bond film. Which was probably a good thing.

I never even rented it -- it came out on DVD before the rental dropped
below $20 [1].

It made more sense the second time I saw it, but I still noticed the
total lack of any effort to be entertaining.

[1] Which, for a couple or a family, might make economic sense
compared to the theater, of course. Even adding in the price of
microwave popcorn.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:56:02 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>news:qfF1K.321345$Gojc.202181@fx99.iad:
>
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>>On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 12:57:58 AM UTC-6, Charles Packer
>>>wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 17:14:36 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> >...
>>>> > The conclusion that has been supported once again is this
>>>> > one:
>>>
>>
>> That hollywood is a narcissistic wasteland and the Oscars are
>> the height of narcissism?
>
>And irrelevant. Don't forget irrelevant.
>
>> And a colossal waste of time and
>> money.
>>
>It's their money. If they want to light metaphorical cigars with
>hundred dollar bills, they can.
>
>Just means I'll be looking for someting on one of the rerun channels
>to watch that night. Which is what I do pretty much every night
>anyway.

Hey, at least you will be watching something popular enough to have
made it into reruns, thus avoiding any losers appearing for the first
time.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On 2022-04-02 9:12 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:56:02 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>> news:qfF1K.321345$Gojc.202181@fx99.iad:
>>
>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 12:57:58 AM UTC-6, Charles Packer
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 17:14:36 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> The conclusion that has been supported once again is this
>>>>>> one:
>>>>
>>>
>>> That hollywood is a narcissistic wasteland and the Oscars are
>>> the height of narcissism?
>>
>> And irrelevant. Don't forget irrelevant.
>>
>>> And a colossal waste of time and
>>> money.
>>>
>> It's their money. If they want to light metaphorical cigars with
>> hundred dollar bills, they can.
>>
>> Just means I'll be looking for someting on one of the rerun channels
>> to watch that night. Which is what I do pretty much every night
>> anyway.
>
> Hey, at least you will be watching something popular enough to have
> made it into reruns, thus avoiding any losers appearing for the first
> time.

I think you'll find there is very little correlation between popularity
and whether or not a movie makes it onto a rerun channel.

On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:41:53 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in news:5eddd544-ccdc-4e42-
>837d-b2d264b4ca7cn@googlegroups.com:
>
>> I can't bring myself to have a lot of sympathy for Chris
>> Rock. He should have realized that in this day and age,
>> making jokes based on alopecia is something our
>> society no longer accepts; it's viewed the same way we
>> view making jokes about someone with a disability or
>> an exceptionality.
>>
>> Thus, the movie Tropic Thunder was condemned for the
>> frequent use of what is now called "the R-word" within it,
>> with the intent to convey the same attitude towards the
>> word in question as the phrase "the N-word" does.
>>
>> So if Chris Rock winds up being "cancelled", well, even if
>> it is terribly unjust instead of serving him right, it's only to
>> be expected.
>
>Tickets to his concerts are telling for nearly 10 times what they
>were before The Slap, and he's adding extra shows.
>
>https://www.freep.com/story/entertainment/movies/julie-
>hinds/2022/03/30/chris-rock-detroit-show-oscars-slap-
>smith/7217880001/
>
>https://tinyurl.com/2a62peby
>
>Seems like being cancelled is pretty fucking profitable these days.

He wasn't "cancelled", just slapped for insulting a lady.

>Which is also only to be expected, given what a joke the fascist
>left has become.
>>
>> But what about Will Smith?
>
>He's facing explusion from the Academy, Probably won't get quite
>that exteme, but that has far more to do with his box office appeal
>- money - than what's just or right.

Apparently, he has resigned.

Maybe this is the start of a trend ...
>> While it is true that it isn't really appropriate to approve
>> of his reaction, waxing eloquent about how physical
>> violence must never be condoned regardless of the
>> provocation... would be hypocritical, at least on my
>> part. Because I don't feel like waggilng my finger in the
>> same way at Dr. Edwin Aldrin, who lost his temper at
>> an advocate of the notion that the moon landings were
>> a hoax who called him a liar.
>
>Buzz didn't "lose his temper," he was defending himself against a
>criminal attack.
>
>The Los Angeles County District Attorney nailed it precisely when
>he invstigated the incident thoroughly, watched the videos,
>interviewed the witnesses, and held a press conference to announce
>no criminal charges would be filed . . . against the guy with the
>camera. (Complete with the dramatic pause.)
>
>The only person potentially facing criminal charges from The Slap
>is Smith. Rock didn't even defend himself.
>>
>> Edwin Aldrin and Will Smith are two unique human
>> individuals. So it would be untrue to say that the only
>> difference between them is that Edwin Aldrin is a real
>> astronaut, and Will Smith only played one in the movie
>> Independence Day.
>>
>> But I'm only going to note _one_ other difference between
>> the two of them. And no points for guessing which one of
>> those many differences it is going to be.
>
>The other difference is that Aldrin was the victim of a criminal
>assault and Smith committed a criminal assault.
>>
>> Because while what Will Smith did wasn't an evil act, and
>> it doesn't make him a bad man, it still will have evil
>> consequences.
>>
>> Because, unlike Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Will Smith... doesn't
>> have white privilege? Maybe _that's_ not the right way to
>> put it; if Will Smith had been hauled away by the LAPD,
>> _then_ that would be a sequence of events fitting that
>> paradigm.
>
>Your blatant racism is one of those evil consequences. Or, rather,
>your feeling like you can spew your racism out loud. Again.

I suspect that others, like Fox, say, have adopted much the same line.

But I must admit that I haven't been interested enough to read the
stories whose headlines might suggest that.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in
news:t286t1$1qu$1@dont-email.me:

> On 2/04/22 07:31, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>> news:7cfbeb67-afca-489e-8c7b-e0b4bbc70870n@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 10:15:21 AM UTC-6,
>>> mcdow...@sky.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is literally the first principle of Natural Justice (at
>>>> least as ordered by Wikipedia) that "A person is barred from
>>>> deciding any case in which he or she may be, or may fairly be
>>>> suspected to be, biased." I believe that this covers the use
>>>> of machine guns for road clearance, where the driver and the
>>>> machine gunner are one and the same.
>>>
>>> To clarify: I certainly am _not_ suggesting, even
>>> hypothetically, that the motorist be allowed to act as judge,
>>> jury, and executioner.
>>>
>>> He would only be allowed to spray the demonstrators with
>>> machine-gun fire if, by doing so, he were using the _minimum
>>> force_ required to clear them out of the way so that he could
>>> get to where he was going on time. Even _with_ a "legitimate"
>>> stand-your-ground law.
>>
>> So killing people is justified if someone is running late to,
>> say, an appointment with their hairdresse?
>
> No. Professor Fourbricks clearly wrote "to get to...(the
> hairdresser)..ON TIME".

You've just agreed with me. And you're too stupid to know it.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:2dtg4hpe53g6j2vtkckkn4qop9l8bh9vie@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:56:02 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>news:qfF1K.321345$Gojc.202181@fx99.iad:
>>
>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>>>On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 12:57:58 AM UTC-6, Charles Packer
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 17:14:36 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> >...
>>>>> > The conclusion that has been supported once again is this
>>>>> > one:
>>>>
>>>
>>> That hollywood is a narcissistic wasteland and the Oscars are
>>> the height of narcissism?
>>
>>And irrelevant. Don't forget irrelevant.
>>
>>> And a colossal waste of time and
>>> money.
>>>
>>It's their money. If they want to light metaphorical cigars with
>>hundred dollar bills, they can.
>>
>>Just means I'll be looking for someting on one of the rerun
>>channels to watch that night. Which is what I do pretty much
>>every night anyway.
>
> Hey, at least you will be watching something popular enough to
> have made it into reruns, thus avoiding any losers appearing for
> the first time.

There is a distinct difference between old TV and what's being
spewed out today. You can sum it up as "old TV was good, new TV is
crap," but that comes from some very different creative choices
made. Very few producers even want to make shows that I find
entertaining any more.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:mjtg4hdgcb0ece2rlui9aukekii4c0fjva@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:41:53 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in news:5eddd544-ccdc-4e42-
>>837d-b2d264b4ca7cn@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> I can't bring myself to have a lot of sympathy for Chris
>>> Rock. He should have realized that in this day and age,
>>> making jokes based on alopecia is something our
>>> society no longer accepts; it's viewed the same way we
>>> view making jokes about someone with a disability or
>>> an exceptionality.
>>>
>>> Thus, the movie Tropic Thunder was condemned for the
>>> frequent use of what is now called "the R-word" within it,
>>> with the intent to convey the same attitude towards the
>>> word in question as the phrase "the N-word" does.
>>>
>>> So if Chris Rock winds up being "cancelled", well, even if
>>> it is terribly unjust instead of serving him right, it's only
>>> to be expected.
>>
>>Tickets to his concerts are telling for nearly 10 times what
>>they were before The Slap, and he's adding extra shows.
>>
>>https://www.freep.com/story/entertainment/movies/julie-
>>hinds/2022/03/30/chris-rock-detroit-show-oscars-slap-
>>smith/7217880001/
>>
>>https://tinyurl.com/2a62peby
>>
>>Seems like being cancelled is pretty fucking profitable these
>>days.
>
> He wasn't "cancelled", just slapped for insulting a lady.

For values of "slapped" that include "assaulted," even if in a
pretty minor way.

The point remains: the comparison to Buzz Aldrin isn't Will Smith,
it's Chris Rock. The victim of an attack.
>
>>Which is also only to be expected, given what a joke the fascist
>>left has become.
>>>
>>> But what about Will Smith?
>>
>>He's facing explusion from the Academy, Probably won't get quite
>>that exteme, but that has far more to do with his box office
>>appeal - money - than what's just or right.
>
> Apparently, he has resigned.

Looks better than being tossed, and he certainly has people who
know how to manage his image.
>
> Maybe this is the start of a trend ...

I suspect it's all about "what's the best way to get back to making
more money for a few weeks for than most people make in their
entire lives."
>
>>> While it is true that it isn't really appropriate to approve
>>> of his reaction, waxing eloquent about how physical
>>> violence must never be condoned regardless of the
>>> provocation... would be hypocritical, at least on my
>>> part. Because I don't feel like waggilng my finger in the
>>> same way at Dr. Edwin Aldrin, who lost his temper at
>>> an advocate of the notion that the moon landings were
>>> a hoax who called him a liar.
>>
>>Buzz didn't "lose his temper," he was defending himself against
>>a criminal attack.
>>
>>The Los Angeles County District Attorney nailed it precisely
>>when he invstigated the incident thoroughly, watched the videos,
>>interviewed the witnesses, and held a press conference to
>>announce no criminal charges would be filed . . . against the
>>guy with the camera. (Complete with the dramatic pause.)
>>
>>The only person potentially facing criminal charges from The
>>Slap is Smith. Rock didn't even defend himself.
>>>
>>> Edwin Aldrin and Will Smith are two unique human
>>> individuals. So it would be untrue to say that the only
>>> difference between them is that Edwin Aldrin is a real
>>> astronaut, and Will Smith only played one in the movie
>>> Independence Day.
>>>
>>> But I'm only going to note _one_ other difference between
>>> the two of them. And no points for guessing which one of
>>> those many differences it is going to be.
>>
>>The other difference is that Aldrin was the victim of a criminal
>>assault and Smith committed a criminal assault.
>>>
>>> Because while what Will Smith did wasn't an evil act, and
>>> it doesn't make him a bad man, it still will have evil
>>> consequences.
>>>
>>> Because, unlike Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Will Smith... doesn't
>>> have white privilege? Maybe _that's_ not the right way to
>>> put it; if Will Smith had been hauled away by the LAPD,
>>> _then_ that would be a sequence of events fitting that
>>> paradigm.
>>
>>Your blatant racism is one of those evil consequences. Or,
>>rather, your feeling like you can spew your racism out loud.
>>Again.
>
> I suspect that others, like Fox, say, have adopted much the same
> line.
>
> But I must admit that I haven't been interested enough to read
> the stories whose headlines might suggest that.

To be blunt, even Quaddie's insane rantings are more entertaining
that the Oscars, or any Hollwood insider crap.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 09:16:52 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2022-04-02 9:12 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:56:02 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>> news:qfF1K.321345$Gojc.202181@fx99.iad:
>>>
>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 12:57:58 AM UTC-6, Charles Packer
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 17:14:36 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> The conclusion that has been supported once again is this
>>>>>>> one:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That hollywood is a narcissistic wasteland and the Oscars are
>>>> the height of narcissism?
>>>
>>> And irrelevant. Don't forget irrelevant.
>>>
>>>> And a colossal waste of time and
>>>> money.
>>>>
>>> It's their money. If they want to light metaphorical cigars with
>>> hundred dollar bills, they can.
>>>
>>> Just means I'll be looking for someting on one of the rerun channels
>>> to watch that night. Which is what I do pretty much every night
>>> anyway.
>>
>> Hey, at least you will be watching something popular enough to have
>> made it into reruns, thus avoiding any losers appearing for the first
>> time.
>
>I think you'll find there is very little correlation between popularity
>and whether or not a movie makes it onto a rerun channel.

I was thinking more of TV shows.

My brother, when he was in the hospital a few years back, found one or
more channels showing movies -- good movies -- he hadn't seen for a
decade or two. "Ah", I said, "the New Classics".

If the Studios are still using "packaging" to foist known stinkers on
TV channels in return for including a few good movies, then, yes, a
lot of the films shown would be ... bad.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:

> What *I* expect of a well-ordered society is this:
>
> *All* acts of aggression are punished, with the intent of deterring
> them so that aggression does not take place. No loophole is left so
> that some kinds of aggression are permitted and ignored.

Even for children?

> Thus, if someone calls you names and tries to hurt your feelings,
> why of course you can hit him to shut him up. That's self-defence.
> No innocent human is to be the target of _any_ form of aggression,
> and emotional aggression *is included*.

This is beyond ridiculous. Hitting somebody is bound to hurt the
hit person's feelings, and may well hurt the feelings of people
associated with that person.

So, they should be allowed to hit the original "victim" back, and
we end up with either a Western-style barroom brawl or a feud as
described in "Huckleberry Finn" where people from different groups
end up killing each other because the other group did so previously.

This would set back justice before the 7th of August 1495 (look up
that date if that does not mean anything to you).

And of course, that cop giving me a speeding ticket is also hurting
my feelings, so... open season on cops?

On Sat, 02 Apr 2022 19:43:15 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:2dtg4hpe53g6j2vtkckkn4qop9l8bh9vie@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:56:02 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>news:qfF1K.321345$Gojc.202181@fx99.iad:
>>>
>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>>>>On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 12:57:58 AM UTC-6, Charles Packer
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 17:14:36 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>> >...
>>>>>> > The conclusion that has been supported once again is this
>>>>>> > one:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That hollywood is a narcissistic wasteland and the Oscars are
>>>> the height of narcissism?
>>>
>>>And irrelevant. Don't forget irrelevant.
>>>
>>>> And a colossal waste of time and
>>>> money.
>>>>
>>>It's their money. If they want to light metaphorical cigars with
>>>hundred dollar bills, they can.
>>>
>>>Just means I'll be looking for someting on one of the rerun
>>>channels to watch that night. Which is what I do pretty much
>>>every night anyway.
>>
>> Hey, at least you will be watching something popular enough to
>> have made it into reruns, thus avoiding any losers appearing for
>> the first time.
>
>There is a distinct difference between old TV and what's being
>spewed out today. You can sum it up as "old TV was good, new TV is
>crap," but that comes from some very different creative choices
>made. Very few producers even want to make shows that I find
>entertaining any more.

99% of everything is crap.

The difference is, the old TV we remember is the 1% that was not crap.
For current TV, the crap is up front and centered.

And, of course, tastes change. Think of the abominble reboots of the
last few decades. Some people liked them, and it is not impossible
that some of them now make TV shows in the style they adore.

And, anyway, by the 80s I wasn't watching TV [1] for the programs -- I
was watching it for the commercials. Which had better production
values and, often, a superior plot.

[1] I was doing this while studying (I was back in college), and I
glanced at the actual show from time to time, but I found myself
/always/ watching the commercials.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sat, 02 Apr 2022 19:47:00 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:mjtg4hdgcb0ece2rlui9aukekii4c0fjva@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:41:53 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in news:5eddd544-ccdc-4e42-
>>>837d-b2d264b4ca7cn@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> I can't bring myself to have a lot of sympathy for Chris
>>>> Rock. He should have realized that in this day and age,
>>>> making jokes based on alopecia is something our
>>>> society no longer accepts; it's viewed the same way we
>>>> view making jokes about someone with a disability or
>>>> an exceptionality.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, the movie Tropic Thunder was condemned for the
>>>> frequent use of what is now called "the R-word" within it,
>>>> with the intent to convey the same attitude towards the
>>>> word in question as the phrase "the N-word" does.
>>>>
>>>> So if Chris Rock winds up being "cancelled", well, even if
>>>> it is terribly unjust instead of serving him right, it's only
>>>> to be expected.
>>>
>>>Tickets to his concerts are telling for nearly 10 times what
>>>they were before The Slap, and he's adding extra shows.
>>>
>>>https://www.freep.com/story/entertainment/movies/julie-
>>>hinds/2022/03/30/chris-rock-detroit-show-oscars-slap-
>>>smith/7217880001/
>>>
>>>https://tinyurl.com/2a62peby
>>>
>>>Seems like being cancelled is pretty fucking profitable these
>>>days.
>>
>> He wasn't "cancelled", just slapped for insulting a lady.
>
>For values of "slapped" that include "assaulted," even if in a
>pretty minor way.

Fair enough.

>The point remains: the comparison to Buzz Aldrin isn't Will Smith,
>it's Chris Rock. The victim of an attack.

The point is affirmed.
>>>Which is also only to be expected, given what a joke the fascist
>>>left has become.
>>>>
>>>> But what about Will Smith?
>>>
>>>He's facing explusion from the Academy, Probably won't get quite
>>>that exteme, but that has far more to do with his box office
>>>appeal - money - than what's just or right.
>>
>> Apparently, he has resigned.
>
>Looks better than being tossed, and he certainly has people who
>know how to manage his image.

Indeed. And it's free publicity!
>> Maybe this is the start of a trend ...
>
>I suspect it's all about "what's the best way to get back to making
>more money for a few weeks for than most people make in their
>entire lives."

Some of the not-so-special features I have seen suggest that, in some
cases, it is more than a "few weeks", involves more than just the
acting (ie, re-recording sessions) and, for a /busy/ actor, can need
to be carefully scheduled so that he or she can make three or four
films for different filmmakers during the same period of time.

>>>> While it is true that it isn't really appropriate to approve
>>>> of his reaction, waxing eloquent about how physical
>>>> violence must never be condoned regardless of the
>>>> provocation... would be hypocritical, at least on my
>>>> part. Because I don't feel like waggilng my finger in the
>>>> same way at Dr. Edwin Aldrin, who lost his temper at
>>>> an advocate of the notion that the moon landings were
>>>> a hoax who called him a liar.
>>>
>>>Buzz didn't "lose his temper," he was defending himself against
>>>a criminal attack.
>>>
>>>The Los Angeles County District Attorney nailed it precisely
>>>when he invstigated the incident thoroughly, watched the videos,
>>>interviewed the witnesses, and held a press conference to
>>>announce no criminal charges would be filed . . . against the
>>>guy with the camera. (Complete with the dramatic pause.)
>>>
>>>The only person potentially facing criminal charges from The
>>>Slap is Smith. Rock didn't even defend himself.
>>>>
>>>> Edwin Aldrin and Will Smith are two unique human
>>>> individuals. So it would be untrue to say that the only
>>>> difference between them is that Edwin Aldrin is a real
>>>> astronaut, and Will Smith only played one in the movie
>>>> Independence Day.
>>>>
>>>> But I'm only going to note _one_ other difference between
>>>> the two of them. And no points for guessing which one of
>>>> those many differences it is going to be.
>>>
>>>The other difference is that Aldrin was the victim of a criminal
>>>assault and Smith committed a criminal assault.
>>>>
>>>> Because while what Will Smith did wasn't an evil act, and
>>>> it doesn't make him a bad man, it still will have evil
>>>> consequences.
>>>>
>>>> Because, unlike Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Will Smith... doesn't
>>>> have white privilege? Maybe _that's_ not the right way to
>>>> put it; if Will Smith had been hauled away by the LAPD,
>>>> _then_ that would be a sequence of events fitting that
>>>> paradigm.
>>>
>>>Your blatant racism is one of those evil consequences. Or,
>>>rather, your feeling like you can spew your racism out loud.
>>>Again.
>>
>> I suspect that others, like Fox, say, have adopted much the same
>> line.
>>
>> But I must admit that I haven't been interested enough to read
>> the stories whose headlines might suggest that.
>
>To be blunt, even Quaddie's insane rantings are more entertaining
>that the Oscars, or any Hollwood insider crap.

Well, yes, but then, they have a certain entertainment value on a more
reliable basis than the Oscars generally do.

IIRC, a lot of the awards [1] aren't even televised. They are too dull
for TV. Which makes them very dull indeed.

[1] These would be the technical awards -- best camera work and stuff
like that.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 9:36:51 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Apr 2022 19:47:00 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >The point remains: the comparison to Buzz Aldrin isn't Will Smith,
> >it's Chris Rock. The victim of an attack.

> The point is affirmed.

I will have to research this, now that there's a credible claim;
what I remember from the news coverage at the time did not
make this point visible, let alone clear.

John Savard

On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 4:23:27 PM UTC+1, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
> > What *I* expect of a well-ordered society is this:
> >
> > *All* acts of aggression are punished, with the intent of deterring
> > them so that aggression does not take place. No loophole is left so
> > that some kinds of aggression are permitted and ignored.
> Even for children?
> > Thus, if someone calls you names and tries to hurt your feelings,
> > why of course you can hit him to shut him up. That's self-defence.
> > No innocent human is to be the target of _any_ form of aggression,
> > and emotional aggression *is included*.
> This is beyond ridiculous. Hitting somebody is bound to hurt the
> hit person's feelings, and may well hurt the feelings of people
> associated with that person.
>
> So, they should be allowed to hit the original "victim" back, and
> we end up with either a Western-style barroom brawl or a feud as
> described in "Huckleberry Finn" where people from different groups
> end up killing each other because the other group did so previously.
>
> This would set back justice before the 7th of August 1495 (look up
> that date if that does not mean anything to you).
>
> And of course, that cop giving me a speeding ticket is also hurting
> my feelings, so... open season on cops?
FWIW somebody attempted to appeal to trial by combat against the government within living (in fact my) memory. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_by_combat

Despite this abolition, in 2002, a Welshman in Bury St. Edmunds refusing to pay a small penalty charge for a vehicle-registration violation demanded trial by combat with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency; his demand was rejected, and he was fined by a court.

(On the assumption that the Champion of the Crown would be from whichever SAS squadron was on alert at the time, I considered this demand unwise).

On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 9:23:27 AM UTC-6, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:

> > What *I* expect of a well-ordered society is this:

> > *All* acts of aggression are punished, with the intent of deterring
> > them so that aggression does not take place. No loophole is left so
> > that some kinds of aggression are permitted and ignored.

> Even for children?

I don't expect to involve the police. But I do expect teachers
to train children properly, so that the impulse to misbehave
in this manner is thoroughly extinguished before adulthood
is attained.

So, routinely, when a crime is committed, it is checked what
schools the criminal attended growing up, as they will be
liable for having turned out a defective product.

Also, when someone is convicted of a crime, his or her DNA
will be sequenced, to determine what genetic defect made the
crime possible. (ObSf: the planet Solaris, in "The Naked Sun"
by Isaac Asimov.)

This, of course, assumes it is even _possible_ to build a society
in which every single human is completely peaceful, completely
inclined to respect the rights of others. There is no crime ever,
because there is no one who could concievably want to commit
a crime.

There are good reasons for suspecting that such a dream is not
achievable. Or, at least, that it does not seem to be achievable at
the present time. The first step to a solution is always to understand
the problem!

One of the basic issues that present themselves is this:

A natural characteristic of many animal species, also known to be
found in man, is a tendency for the creatures in groups to attempt to
form _dominance hierarchies_. To achieve the kind of aggression-free
society desired, this *basic human characteristic*, inherited in our
design from our animal ancestors, would have to be removed.

Re-designing the human psyche almost from scratch is clearly far
beyond our capabilities.

However, it is the case that some societies have achieved such low
levels of crime among adults at least that they at least seem to have
approached the ideal of a thoroughly peaceful society.

The obvious characteristic of such societies that has enabled them
to get there is that they are free from the strife caused by poverty.

And to ensure that everyone has enough, we have to ensure that there
_is_ enough to go around. That is already a problem so difficult it hasn't
already been solved.

John Savard

On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 9:23:27 AM UTC-6, Thomas Koenig wrote:

> This would set back justice before the 7th of August 1495 (look up
> that date if that does not mean anything to you).

Yes, I _did_ have to look it up.

You are no doubt referring to that enactment of the Diet of Worms which
enacted the Perpetual Public Peace, thus abolishing all feuds, dueling, _and wars_
within Christendom.

Looking out the metaphorical window by examining today's news headlines,
apparently we are _already_ living in such a primitive era, given that both
Russia and Ukraine are Christian countries (even if under the sway of the
Orthodox church instead of the Roman Catholic church), and yet war is
taking place there.

And, of course, there is also the usual joke about a diet of worms being for
the birds.

John Savard

On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 6:09:39 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 9:23:27 AM UTC-6, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > This would set back justice before the 7th of August 1495 (look up
> > that date if that does not mean anything to you).
> Yes, I _did_ have to look it up.
>
> You are no doubt referring to that enactment of the Diet of Worms which
> enacted the Perpetual Public Peace, thus abolishing all feuds, dueling, _and wars_
> within Christendom.
>
> Looking out the metaphorical window by examining today's news headlines,
> apparently we are _already_ living in such a primitive era, given that both
> Russia and Ukraine are Christian countries (even if under the sway of the
> Orthodox church instead of the Roman Catholic church), and yet war is
> taking place there.
>
> And, of course, there is also the usual joke about a diet of worms being for
> the birds.
>
> John Savard
It appears to be possible to find doctrinal documents of the Russian Orthodox Church which (while not lining up with liberal American Progressivism) are sane enough to our eyes that they should lead to a stand against Putin's aggression - https://incommunion.org/fundamentals-of-the-social-conception-of-the-russian-orthodox-church/ - so I do not think the problem is that of a lack of understanding or of an unflinching adherence to some antediluvian doctrine of religious war - for better or for worse the Russian Orthodox Church must contain senior people whose professional expertise tells them that what Putin is doing is officially wrong by their own agreed positions.

On 4/3/2022 10:32 AM, Andrew McDowell wrote:
> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 6:09:39 PM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 9:23:27 AM UTC-6, Thomas Koenig wrote:
>>> This would set back justice before the 7th of August 1495 (look up
>>> that date if that does not mean anything to you).
>> Yes, I _did_ have to look it up.
>>
>> You are no doubt referring to that enactment of the Diet of Worms which
>> enacted the Perpetual Public Peace, thus abolishing all feuds, dueling, _and wars_
>> within Christendom.
>>
>> Looking out the metaphorical window by examining today's news headlines,
>> apparently we are _already_ living in such a primitive era, given that both
>> Russia and Ukraine are Christian countries (even if under the sway of the
>> Orthodox church instead of the Roman Catholic church), and yet war is
>> taking place there.
>>
>> And, of course, there is also the usual joke about a diet of worms being for
>> the birds.
>>
>> John Savard
> It appears to be possible to find doctrinal documents of the Russian Orthodox Church which (while not lining up with liberal American Progressivism) are sane enough to our eyes that they should lead to a stand against Putin's aggression - https://incommunion.org/fundamentals-of-the-social-conception-of-the-russian-orthodox-church/ - so I do not think the problem is that of a lack of understanding or of an unflinching adherence to some antediluvian doctrine of religious war - for better or for worse the Russian Orthodox Church must contain senior people whose professional expertise tells them that what Putin is doing is officially wrong by their own agreed positions.

That assumes that people who can think that way could rise to the upper
levels of the Russian Orthodox Church in the first place....

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:1rej4hpeq9kcr1j300lhgfegvjsqrnpahm@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 02 Apr 2022 19:43:15 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:2dtg4hpe53g6j2vtkckkn4qop9l8bh9vie@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:56:02 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>>news:qfF1K.321345$Gojc.202181@fx99.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>>>>>On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 12:57:58 AM UTC-6, Charles
>>>>>>Packer wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 17:14:36 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>>> >...
>>>>>>> > The conclusion that has been supported once again is
>>>>>>> > this one:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That hollywood is a narcissistic wasteland and the Oscars
>>>>> are the height of narcissism?
>>>>
>>>>And irrelevant. Don't forget irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>> And a colossal waste of time and
>>>>> money.
>>>>>
>>>>It's their money. If they want to light metaphorical cigars
>>>>with hundred dollar bills, they can.
>>>>
>>>>Just means I'll be looking for someting on one of the rerun
>>>>channels to watch that night. Which is what I do pretty much
>>>>every night anyway.
>>>
>>> Hey, at least you will be watching something popular enough to
>>> have made it into reruns, thus avoiding any losers appearing
>>> for the first time.
>>
>>There is a distinct difference between old TV and what's being
>>spewed out today. You can sum it up as "old TV was good, new TV
>>is crap," but that comes from some very different creative
>>choices made. Very few producers even want to make shows that I
>>find entertaining any more.
>
> 99% of everything is crap.

You're an optomist.
>
> The difference is, the old TV we remember is the 1% that was not
> crap. For current TV, the crap is up front and centered.

There isn't a single show on TV today that anybody will remember 20
years from now. Certainly nothing I'll remember, even the few shows
I actually watch.
>
> And, of course, tastes change. Think of the abominble reboots of
> the last few decades. Some people liked them, and it is not
> impossible that some of them now make TV shows in the style they
> adore.
>
> And, anyway, by the 80s I wasn't watching TV [1] for the
> programs -- I was watching it for the commercials. Which had
> better production values and, often, a superior plot.
>
> [1] I was doing this while studying (I was back in college), and
> I glanced at the actual show from time to time, but I found
> myself /always/ watching the commercials.

When spinoffs were the latest thing since sliced bread (70s), I
once sent a letter to each of the (then) three networks suggesting
the black filler between the commercials could come in multiple
colors. (I even got an snswer, from NBC, IIRC, saying that "while
we consider programming suggestions from viewers, or netter of such
and such a date does not appear to be of that nature.") I was only
half joking, even then, when only 95% of television sucked.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:65fj4hpc3vu7kffv4nnmg8pe46ftgp2qm2@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 02 Apr 2022 19:47:00 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>news:mjtg4hdgcb0ece2rlui9aukekii4c0fjva@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:41:53 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>news:5eddd544-ccdc-4e42- 837d-b2d264b4ca7cn@googlegroups.com:
>>>>
>>>>> I can't bring myself to have a lot of sympathy for Chris
>>>>> Rock. He should have realized that in this day and age,
>>>>> making jokes based on alopecia is something our
>>>>> society no longer accepts; it's viewed the same way we
>>>>> view making jokes about someone with a disability or
>>>>> an exceptionality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, the movie Tropic Thunder was condemned for the
>>>>> frequent use of what is now called "the R-word" within it,
>>>>> with the intent to convey the same attitude towards the
>>>>> word in question as the phrase "the N-word" does.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if Chris Rock winds up being "cancelled", well, even if
>>>>> it is terribly unjust instead of serving him right, it's
>>>>> only to be expected.
>>>>
>>>>Tickets to his concerts are telling for nearly 10 times what
>>>>they were before The Slap, and he's adding extra shows.
>>>>
>>>>https://www.freep.com/story/entertainment/movies/julie-
>>>>hinds/2022/03/30/chris-rock-detroit-show-oscars-slap-
>>>>smith/7217880001/
>>>>
>>>>https://tinyurl.com/2a62peby
>>>>
>>>>Seems like being cancelled is pretty fucking profitable these
>>>>days.
>>>
>>> He wasn't "cancelled", just slapped for insulting a lady.
>>
>>For values of "slapped" that include "assaulted," even if in a
>>pretty minor way.
>
> Fair enough.
>
>>The point remains: the comparison to Buzz Aldrin isn't Will
>>Smith, it's Chris Rock. The victim of an attack.
>
> The point is affirmed.
>
>>>>Which is also only to be expected, given what a joke the
>>>>fascist left has become.
>>>>>
>>>>> But what about Will Smith?
>>>>
>>>>He's facing explusion from the Academy, Probably won't get
>>>>quite that exteme, but that has far more to do with his box
>>>>office appeal - money - than what's just or right.
>>>
>>> Apparently, he has resigned.
>>
>>Looks better than being tossed, and he certainly has people who
>>know how to manage his image.
>
> Indeed. And it's free publicity!
>
>>> Maybe this is the start of a trend ...
>>
>>I suspect it's all about "what's the best way to get back to
>>making more money for a few weeks for than most people make in
>>their entire lives."
>
> Some of the not-so-special features I have seen suggest that, in
> some cases, it is more than a "few weeks", involves more than
> just the acting (ie, re-recording sessions) and, for a /busy/
> actor, can need to be carefully scheduled so that he or she can
> make three or four films for different filmmakers during the
> same period of time.

Which is how Bruce Willis got his own category at the Razzies
(before they backpedalled after his recent announcement).
>
>>>>> While it is true that it isn't really appropriate to approve
>>>>> of his reaction, waxing eloquent about how physical
>>>>> violence must never be condoned regardless of the
>>>>> provocation... would be hypocritical, at least on my
>>>>> part. Because I don't feel like waggilng my finger in the
>>>>> same way at Dr. Edwin Aldrin, who lost his temper at
>>>>> an advocate of the notion that the moon landings were
>>>>> a hoax who called him a liar.
>>>>
>>>>Buzz didn't "lose his temper," he was defending himself
>>>>against a criminal attack.
>>>>
>>>>The Los Angeles County District Attorney nailed it precisely
>>>>when he invstigated the incident thoroughly, watched the
>>>>videos, interviewed the witnesses, and held a press conference
>>>>to announce no criminal charges would be filed . . . against
>>>>the guy with the camera. (Complete with the dramatic pause.)
>>>>
>>>>The only person potentially facing criminal charges from The
>>>>Slap is Smith. Rock didn't even defend himself.
>>>>>
>>>>> Edwin Aldrin and Will Smith are two unique human
>>>>> individuals. So it would be untrue to say that the only
>>>>> difference between them is that Edwin Aldrin is a real
>>>>> astronaut, and Will Smith only played one in the movie
>>>>> Independence Day.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I'm only going to note _one_ other difference between
>>>>> the two of them. And no points for guessing which one of
>>>>> those many differences it is going to be.
>>>>
>>>>The other difference is that Aldrin was the victim of a
>>>>criminal assault and Smith committed a criminal assault.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because while what Will Smith did wasn't an evil act, and
>>>>> it doesn't make him a bad man, it still will have evil
>>>>> consequences.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because, unlike Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Will Smith... doesn't
>>>>> have white privilege? Maybe _that's_ not the right way to
>>>>> put it; if Will Smith had been hauled away by the LAPD,
>>>>> _then_ that would be a sequence of events fitting that
>>>>> paradigm.
>>>>
>>>>Your blatant racism is one of those evil consequences. Or,
>>>>rather, your feeling like you can spew your racism out loud.
>>>>Again.
>>>
>>> I suspect that others, like Fox, say, have adopted much the
>>> same line.
>>>
>>> But I must admit that I haven't been interested enough to read
>>> the stories whose headlines might suggest that.
>>
>>To be blunt, even Quaddie's insane rantings are more
>>entertaining that the Oscars, or any Hollwood insider crap.
>
> Well, yes, but then, they have a certain entertainment value on
> a more reliable basis than the Oscars generally do.
>
> IIRC, a lot of the awards [1] aren't even televised. They are
> too dull for TV. Which makes them very dull indeed.

That was what they believed was behind the long, steady decline in
ratings, yes. They're too narcissitic to understand that the real
reason is that a) while the Oscars have never been based on
popularity, they have become more and more disconnected from
entertainment values, and are now far, *far* more about the woke
politics of the participants, and b) nobody really gives a shit
anyway about Hollywood's inner workings, and haven't for years.

Much like, say, the Hugos and the Nebulas (on both counts).

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:967318ac-34b6-4b58-9d91-3a8c3471e7dan@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 9:36:51 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person
> wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2022 19:47:00 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
>> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >The point remains: the comparison to Buzz Aldrin isn't Will
>> >Smith, it's Chris Rock. The victim of an attack.
>
>> The point is affirmed.
>
> I will have to research this, now that there's a credible claim;
> what I remember from the news coverage at the time did not
> make this point visible, let alone clear.
>
Perhaps the coverage was more in depth here in southern California,
where it happened. (The local news covered the DA's press
conference, which I doubt many other stations elsewhere did.) What
coverge I find now (mostly from *years* later) says he wasn't
charged, but that's about where the accuracy ends. It wasn't the
police who decided not to charge anyone, it was the District
Attorney for the County of Los Angeles, and the DA made it *very*
clear at the press conference that the decision to not charge was
regarding Sibrel, not Aldrin. Subsequent comments by Aldrin (which
may or may not be 100% accurate, mind you, Buzz has an ego to match
his intelligence) indicated he could have filed charges if he'd
wanted to - Sibrel assualted him by poking him with a Bible, and
was blocking his exit from the building (which could be prosecuted
as unlawful imprisonment) - but he didn't want to bother with
having the testify (and, IIRC, travel back to California to do so),
and he didn't want to give the asshat the publicity.

Plus, of course, this is California, and Buzz Aldrin being a
celebrity (if a minor one by Hollywood standards), so the law is
entirely on his side anyway. But it was local news, so it got a
fair amount of coverage at the time.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:ilej4hd04p9i43uiobf9jrctr2vu1atlsu@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 2 Apr 2022 09:16:52 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-04-02 9:12 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:56:02 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>> news:qfF1K.321345$Gojc.202181@fx99.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> writes:
>>>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 12:57:58 AM UTC-6, Charles
>>>>>> Packer wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 31 Mar 2022 17:14:36 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> The conclusion that has been supported once again is this
>>>>>>>> one:
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That hollywood is a narcissistic wasteland and the Oscars
>>>>> are the height of narcissism?
>>>>
>>>> And irrelevant. Don't forget irrelevant.
>>>>
>>>>> And a colossal waste of time and
>>>>> money.
>>>>>
>>>> It's their money. If they want to light metaphorical cigars
>>>> with hundred dollar bills, they can.
>>>>
>>>> Just means I'll be looking for someting on one of the rerun
>>>> channels to watch that night. Which is what I do pretty much
>>>> every night anyway.
>>>
>>> Hey, at least you will be watching something popular enough to
>>> have made it into reruns, thus avoiding any losers appearing
>>> for the first time.
>>
>>I think you'll find there is very little correlation between
>>popularity and whether or not a movie makes it onto a rerun
>>channel.
>
> I was thinking more of TV shows.
>
> My brother, when he was in the hospital a few years back, found
> one or more channels showing movies -- good movies -- he hadn't
> seen for a decade or two. "Ah", I said, "the New Classics".
>
> If the Studios are still using "packaging" to foist known
> stinkers on TV channels in return for including a few good
> movies, then, yes, a lot of the films shown would be ... bad.

The rerun channels have a pretty limited budget, and crap movies
are a lot cheaper than good ones.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:d171d4ff-8295-412f-af8e-4f4590d10042n@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, April 3, 2022 at 9:23:27 AM UTC-6, Thomas Koenig
> wrote:
>> Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
>
>> > What *I* expect of a well-ordered society is this:
>
>> > *All* acts of aggression are punished, with the intent of
>> > deterring them so that aggression does not take place. No
>> > loophole is left so that some kinds of aggression are
>> > permitted and ignored.
>
>> Even for children?
>
> I don't expect to involve the police. But I do expect teachers
> to train children properly, so that the impulse to misbehave
> in this manner is thoroughly extinguished before adulthood
> is attained.

You didn't naswer his question. And thank God you're too much of a
loser to ever find a women to let you breed.

Psychopath.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:hssg4hl2pbnqr26rdhh3qudlo7ria82a2i@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:53:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Andrew McDowell <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote in
>>news:342571b7-0a8a-4cb7-afa3-c69cdce6fcabn@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 1:14:39 AM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> I can't bring myself to have a lot of sympathy for Chris
>>>> Rock. He should have realized that in this day and age,
>>>> making jokes based on alopecia is something our
>>>> society no longer accepts; it's viewed the same way we
>>>> view making jokes about someone with a disability or
>>>> an exceptionality.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, the movie Tropic Thunder was condemned for the
>>>> frequent use of what is now called "the R-word" within it,
>>>> with the intent to convey the same attitude towards the
>>>> word in question as the phrase "the N-word" does.
>>>>
>>>> So if Chris Rock winds up being "cancelled", well, even if
>>>> it is terribly unjust instead of serving him right, it's only
>>>> to be expected.
>>>>
>>>> But what about Will Smith?
>>>>
>>>> While it is true that it isn't really appropriate to approve
>>>> of his reaction, waxing eloquent about how physical
>>>> violence must never be condoned regardless of the
>>>> provocation... would be hypocritical, at least on my
>>>> part. Because I don't feel like waggilng my finger in the
>>>> same way at Dr. Edwin Aldrin, who lost his temper at
>>>> an advocate of the notion that the moon landings were
>>>> a hoax who called him a liar.
>>>>
>>>> Edwin Aldrin and Will Smith are two unique human
>>>> individuals. So it would be untrue to say that the only
>>>> difference between them is that Edwin Aldrin is a real
>>>> astronaut, and Will Smith only played one in the movie
>>>> Independence Day.
>>>>
>>>> But I'm only going to note _one_ other difference between
>>>> the two of them. And no points for guessing which one of
>>>> those many differences it is going to be.
>>>>
>>>> Because while what Will Smith did wasn't an evil act, and
>>>> it doesn't make him a bad man, it still will have evil
>>>> consequences.
>>>>
>>>> Because, unlike Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Will Smith... doesn't
>>>> have white privilege? Maybe _that's_ not the right way to
>>>> put it; if Will Smith had been hauled away by the LAPD,
>>>> _then_ that would be a sequence of events fitting that
>>>> paradigm.
>>>>
>>>> But it's still something in that area.
>>>>
>>>> Because to a lot of the white people who either saw what
>>>> transpired on the Oscars that night, or who just heard about
>>>> it, the incident will only serve as confirmation to some of
>>>> the most harmful racial stereotypes that have been floating
>>>> around for hundreds of years.
>>>>
>>>> The conclusion that has been supported once again is this
>>>> one:
>>>>
>>>> You can put a suit and a tie on a black man, but you can't
>>>> change his "real" nature, said nature being that of... an
>>>> impulsive small child. A savage at heart, rather than a
>>>> civilized adult.
>>>>
>>>> This is where a legitimate criticism of Will Smith needs to
>>>> start; not with hypocritical sanctimony about physical
>>>> violence, but with honestly facing the damage he has the
>>>> potential of doing to the fragile progress being made by
>>>> Americans of color.
>>>>
>>>> John Savard
>>> We now know from sports that even very mild head trauma can be
>>> dangerous, so we should be even less tolerant of attacks than
>>> before, regardless of excuse. As it happens, I find the
>>> reported joke entirely unobjectionable
>>> (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/mar/27/will-smith-punch-
>>> ch ris-rock-wife-joke-gi-jane-video-oscars). I find any
>>> culture that regards violence as the proper reaction to
>>> perceived so-called disrespect much more troubling.
>>>
>>Every state in the US has some form of "fighting words" law,
>>wherein it is recognized that there are things one can say that
>>are *so* offensive that any reasonable person would respond with
>>violence.
>>
>>Rock's joke did not rise to that level. It was, perhaps, in bad
>>taste (but most comedy is), and perhaps not particularly funny,
>>in context, but it certainly wasn't "fighting words."
>>
>>Smith's lucky that Rock doesn't want to pursue it in a legal
>>venue. I guess he's too busy booking more shows due to the
>>massive increase in ticket sales for his concerts.
>
> Exactly. The free publicity is worth more than pursuing criminal
> action. Which might reduce the value of the free publicity.

Plus, it was a slap. Technically, battery, but c'mon. Man up and
don't whine. Which Rock did. (I suspect that, while he should have
known that Smith's wife is bald due to a medical condition, he
probably didn't concsiously realize it when he wrote the joke,
which was apparently improved (if he'd rehearsed it, it's likely
somebody would have say, "Hey, dude, remember . . .). In the
moment, he was too surprised to react, and by the time he gave any
real thought to police reports, I suspect he felt bad about the
joke anyway.)

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

On Mon, 04 Apr 2022 10:59:13 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>news:hssg4hl2pbnqr26rdhh3qudlo7ria82a2i@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:53:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Andrew McDowell <mcdowell_ag@sky.com> wrote in
>>>news:342571b7-0a8a-4cb7-afa3-c69cdce6fcabn@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 1:14:39 AM UTC+1, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> I can't bring myself to have a lot of sympathy for Chris
>>>>> Rock. He should have realized that in this day and age,
>>>>> making jokes based on alopecia is something our
>>>>> society no longer accepts; it's viewed the same way we
>>>>> view making jokes about someone with a disability or
>>>>> an exceptionality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, the movie Tropic Thunder was condemned for the
>>>>> frequent use of what is now called "the R-word" within it,
>>>>> with the intent to convey the same attitude towards the
>>>>> word in question as the phrase "the N-word" does.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if Chris Rock winds up being "cancelled", well, even if
>>>>> it is terribly unjust instead of serving him right, it's only
>>>>> to be expected.
>>>>>
>>>>> But what about Will Smith?
>>>>>
>>>>> While it is true that it isn't really appropriate to approve
>>>>> of his reaction, waxing eloquent about how physical
>>>>> violence must never be condoned regardless of the
>>>>> provocation... would be hypocritical, at least on my
>>>>> part. Because I don't feel like waggilng my finger in the
>>>>> same way at Dr. Edwin Aldrin, who lost his temper at
>>>>> an advocate of the notion that the moon landings were
>>>>> a hoax who called him a liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> Edwin Aldrin and Will Smith are two unique human
>>>>> individuals. So it would be untrue to say that the only
>>>>> difference between them is that Edwin Aldrin is a real
>>>>> astronaut, and Will Smith only played one in the movie
>>>>> Independence Day.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I'm only going to note _one_ other difference between
>>>>> the two of them. And no points for guessing which one of
>>>>> those many differences it is going to be.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because while what Will Smith did wasn't an evil act, and
>>>>> it doesn't make him a bad man, it still will have evil
>>>>> consequences.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because, unlike Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Will Smith... doesn't
>>>>> have white privilege? Maybe _that's_ not the right way to
>>>>> put it; if Will Smith had been hauled away by the LAPD,
>>>>> _then_ that would be a sequence of events fitting that
>>>>> paradigm.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it's still something in that area.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because to a lot of the white people who either saw what
>>>>> transpired on the Oscars that night, or who just heard about
>>>>> it, the incident will only serve as confirmation to some of
>>>>> the most harmful racial stereotypes that have been floating
>>>>> around for hundreds of years.
>>>>>
>>>>> The conclusion that has been supported once again is this
>>>>> one:
>>>>>
>>>>> You can put a suit and a tie on a black man, but you can't
>>>>> change his "real" nature, said nature being that of... an
>>>>> impulsive small child. A savage at heart, rather than a
>>>>> civilized adult.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is where a legitimate criticism of Will Smith needs to
>>>>> start; not with hypocritical sanctimony about physical
>>>>> violence, but with honestly facing the damage he has the
>>>>> potential of doing to the fragile progress being made by
>>>>> Americans of color.
>>>>>
>>>>> John Savard
>>>> We now know from sports that even very mild head trauma can be
>>>> dangerous, so we should be even less tolerant of attacks than
>>>> before, regardless of excuse. As it happens, I find the
>>>> reported joke entirely unobjectionable
>>>> (https://www.theguardian.com/film/2022/mar/27/will-smith-punch-
>>>> ch ris-rock-wife-joke-gi-jane-video-oscars). I find any
>>>> culture that regards violence as the proper reaction to
>>>> perceived so-called disrespect much more troubling.
>>>>
>>>Every state in the US has some form of "fighting words" law,
>>>wherein it is recognized that there are things one can say that
>>>are *so* offensive that any reasonable person would respond with
>>>violence.
>>>
>>>Rock's joke did not rise to that level. It was, perhaps, in bad
>>>taste (but most comedy is), and perhaps not particularly funny,
>>>in context, but it certainly wasn't "fighting words."
>>>
>>>Smith's lucky that Rock doesn't want to pursue it in a legal
>>>venue. I guess he's too busy booking more shows due to the
>>>massive increase in ticket sales for his concerts.
>>
>> Exactly. The free publicity is worth more than pursuing criminal
>> action. Which might reduce the value of the free publicity.
>
>Plus, it was a slap. Technically, battery, but c'mon. Man up and
>don't whine. Which Rock did. (I suspect that, while he should have
>known that Smith's wife is bald due to a medical condition, he
>probably didn't concsiously realize it when he wrote the joke,
>which was apparently improved (if he'd rehearsed it, it's likely
>somebody would have say, "Hey, dude, remember . . .). In the
>moment, he was too surprised to react, and by the time he gave any
>real thought to police reports, I suspect he felt bad about the
>joke anyway.)

We are, of course, overlooking the obvious point that these are
/performers/ on /television/, meaning the whole thing could have been
rehearsed beforehand and written into the script.

The entire 50s (?) gaming scandal (contestants being fed answers when
the audience was told they were not) could have been avoided by simply
admitting that they were entertainment, and then scripting them.
Basically, you would have a "sitcom" where the "sit" was advancing
through the stages of a game show to the top prize.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."