Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:24po4hp6tsb7peb0hhc1rlbnc75v8c0o1c@4ax.com:

> 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-punc
>>>>> h- 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.

Many thought that at first, but it appears not, based on pretty
much everything anyone involved has said.
>
> 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.

Most people don't realize that nearly all "reality" television is
structured as a game show, and has script writers (who are listed
in the credits).

Of course, just *watching* most of it makes that clear 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 Tue, 05 Apr 2022 10:32:06 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
wrote:

> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> news:24po4hp6tsb7peb0hhc1rlbnc75v8c0o1c@4ax.com:
>
>> 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-punc h- 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.
>
> Many thought that at first, but it appears not, based on pretty much
> everything anyone involved has said.

As several people pointed out Chris Rock is not that good of an actor.
Or a comedian either, if he was after the "Keep your mouth off of my
wife" he would have answered "From what I hear I am the only dude who
does not have his mouth on your wife".

Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com> wrote in
news:t2i106$13o$1@dont-email.me:

> On Tue, 05 Apr 2022 10:32:06 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> Kujisalimisha wrote:
>
>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> news:24po4hp6tsb7peb0hhc1rlbnc75v8c0o1c@4ax.com:
>>
>>> 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-pu
>>>>>>> nc h- 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.
>>
>> Many thought that at first, but it appears not, based on pretty
>> much everything anyone involved has said.
>
>
> As several people pointed out Chris Rock is not that good of an
> actor. Or a comedian either, if he was after the "Keep your
> mouth off of my wife" he would have answered "From what I hear I
> am the only dude who does not have his mouth on your wife".
>
And he was clearly too surprised in the moment to have been
expecting it. While, in theory, he might have faked it, that
wouldn't have been the script if it was planned.

Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> schrieb:

> 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.

Not sure if it counts as "today", but "Orphan Black" was quite good.
A tour de force by Tatiana Maslany, if nothing else (and reasonably
SF-ish).

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:55:11 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Apr 2022 10:59:13 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> >news:hssg4hl2pbnqr26rd...@4ax.com:
> >
> >> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:53:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> >> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Andrew McDowell <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote in
> >>>news:342571b7-0a8a-4cb7...@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.

There used to be (maybe still is) a whole sub-genre of BBC radio
game shows where the contestants each week were drawn
from a small pool of well known entertainers and minor celebrities,
and the entertainment value was not so much the competition,
as in the sparkling bon mots and improv remarks of the players
and MC.

Examples:
Just a Minute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_a_Minute
I'm Sorry I haven't a Clue
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_Sorry_I_Haven%27t_a_Clue

pt

On 2022-04-05 12:12 p.m., Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Ninapenda Jibini <taustinca@gmail.com> schrieb:
>
>> 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.
>
> Not sure if it counts as "today", but "Orphan Black" was quite good.
> A tour de force by Tatiana Maslany, if nothing else (and reasonably
> SF-ish).

It's standard old man yelling at clouds.

On 2022-04-05 12:15 p.m., pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:55:11 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2022 10:59:13 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:hssg4hl2pbnqr26rd...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:53:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Andrew McDowell <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:342571b7-0a8a-4cb7...@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.
>
> There used to be (maybe still is) a whole sub-genre of BBC radio
> game shows where the contestants each week were drawn
> from a small pool of well known entertainers and minor celebrities,
> and the entertainment value was not so much the competition,
> as in the sparkling bon mots and improv remarks of the players
> and MC.
>
> Examples:
> Just a Minute
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_a_Minute
> I'm Sorry I haven't a Clue
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_Sorry_I_Haven%27t_a_Clue

And more recent examples:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_Out_of_10_Cats>

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Fat_Quiz_of_the_Year>

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 3:12:53 PM UTC-4, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Ninapenda Jibini <taus...@gmail.com> schrieb:
> > 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.
> Not sure if it counts as "today", but "Orphan Black" was quite good.
> A tour de force by Tatiana Maslany, if nothing else (and reasonably
> SF-ish).

I think a case could be made that we are in the Second Golden Age of
Television. With the development of streaming services, DVDs, and
time-shifting, writers have had the landscape open up to stories with
arcs that take years to develop - no longer does every episode have to
work standalone and out of order.

This has really changed the way TV works.

Of course, Sturgeon's Law is still in place, but more good US TV is being
made now than at any time in my life. along with a lot more crap.

pt

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
news:922a3597-7352-43ca-98a6-da8213539c3cn@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:55:11 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2022 10:59:13 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> >news:hssg4hl2pbnqr26rd...@4ax.com:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:53:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> >> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Andrew McDowell <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote in
>> >>>news:342571b7-0a8a-4cb7...@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-pu
>> >>>> nch- 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.
>
> There used to be (maybe still is) a whole sub-genre of BBC radio
> game shows where the contestants each week were drawn
> from a small pool of well known entertainers and minor
> celebrities, and the entertainment value was not so much the
> competition, as in the sparkling bon mots and improv remarks of
> the players and MC.

Nobody watched Hollywood Squares to listen to the questions and
answers.

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
news:7fa5de20-c887-4aea-9d97-07b5c4d01c8dn@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 3:12:53 PM UTC-4, Thomas Koenig
> wrote:
>> Ninapenda Jibini <taus...@gmail.com> schrieb:
>> > 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.
>> Not sure if it counts as "today", but "Orphan Black" was quite
>> good. A tour de force by Tatiana Maslany, if nothing else (and
>> reasonably SF-ish).
>
> I think a case could be made that we are in the Second Golden
> Age of Television. With the development of streaming services,
> DVDs, and time-shifting, writers have had the landscape open up
> to stories with arcs that take years to develop

The development of streaming services and cable networks getting
into original production will make it *more* difficult to create
something that will be rememeber 20 years down the road, not less.
In the days of three networks, a popular show was familiar to
nearly everyone. Now, more people have never heard of the most
popular shows (which have a *tiny* faction of the audience).

Plus, it's even more crap than before, because the people making
the big decisions - the money people - are outsiders to the
entertainment industry - technology company wonks, mostly.
Hollywood producers have less creativity than what I flush down the
toilet, but they at least understand the business of the business.

> - no longer does
> every episode have to work standalone and out of order.

Soap operas date back to Painted Dreams on WGN radio, in 1930.

The first daytime TV soap was These Are My Children, which started
in 1949. Weekly soaps predate it.

There has really never been a time when there have been
identifiable television networks that didn't have soaps. Episodic
formats were far more common in the 60s and 70s, sure, serial
format has been around a long time, and got pretty popular on the
big networks before the internet really became a thing.
>
> This has really changed the way TV works.

No, it hasn't.
>
> Of course, Sturgeon's Law is still in place, but more good US TV
> is being made now than at any time in my life. along with a lot
> more crap.
>
The most people with no business experience in entertainment making
top level decisions, the worse it gets.

--
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 2022-04-05 1:23 p.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:922a3597-7352-43ca-98a6-da8213539c3cn@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:55:11 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2022 10:59:13 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>> news:hssg4hl2pbnqr26rd...@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:53:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>>> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrew McDowell <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:342571b7-0a8a-4cb7...@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-pu
>>>>>>> nch- 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.
>>
>> There used to be (maybe still is) a whole sub-genre of BBC radio
>> game shows where the contestants each week were drawn
>> from a small pool of well known entertainers and minor
>> celebrities, and the entertainment value was not so much the
>> competition, as in the sparkling bon mots and improv remarks of
>> the players and MC.
>
> Nobody watched Hollywood Squares to listen to the questions and
> answers.

On 2022-04-05 1:33 p.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:7fa5de20-c887-4aea-9d97-07b5c4d01c8dn@googlegroups.com:
>
>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 3:12:53 PM UTC-4, Thomas Koenig
>> wrote:
>>> Ninapenda Jibini <taus...@gmail.com> schrieb:
>>>> 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.
>>> Not sure if it counts as "today", but "Orphan Black" was quite
>>> good. A tour de force by Tatiana Maslany, if nothing else (and
>>> reasonably SF-ish).
>>
>> I think a case could be made that we are in the Second Golden
>> Age of Television. With the development of streaming services,
>> DVDs, and time-shifting, writers have had the landscape open up
>> to stories with arcs that take years to develop
>
> The development of streaming services and cable networks getting
> into original production will make it *more* difficult to create
> something that will be rememeber 20 years down the road, not less.
> In the days of three networks, a popular show was familiar to
> nearly everyone. Now, more people have never heard of the most
> popular shows (which have a *tiny* faction of the audience).

And you're an expert in... ...what field to make that determination?

And isn't it interesting how you've pivoted from talking about quality
to quantity?

On Tue, 5 Apr 2022 18:15:35 -0000 (UTC), Magewolf <Magewolf@nc.rr.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Apr 2022 10:32:06 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
>wrote:
>
>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> news:24po4hp6tsb7peb0hhc1rlbnc75v8c0o1c@4ax.com:
>>
>>> 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-punc h- 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.
>>
>> Many thought that at first, but it appears not, based on pretty much
>> everything anyone involved has said.
>
>
>As several people pointed out Chris Rock is not that good of an actor.
>Or a comedian either, if he was after the "Keep your mouth off of my
>wife" he would have answered "From what I hear I am the only dude who
>does not have his mouth on your wife".

I suspect that shortly after that he would not have had a mouth.

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 4:23:43 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:922a3597-7352-43ca...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:55:11 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, 04 Apr 2022 10:59:13 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> >> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> >> >news:hssg4hl2pbnqr26rd...@4ax.com:
> >> >
> >> >> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:53:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> >> >> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Andrew McDowell <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote in
> >> >>>news:342571b7-0a8a-4cb7...@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-pu
> >> >>>> nch- 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.
> >
> > There used to be (maybe still is) a whole sub-genre of BBC radio
> > game shows where the contestants each week were drawn
> > from a small pool of well known entertainers and minor
> > celebrities, and the entertainment value was not so much the
> > competition, as in the sparkling bon mots and improv remarks of
> > the players and MC.
> Nobody watched Hollywood Squares to listen to the questions and
> answers.

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
news:674b8862-8125-4c72-876c-28b804c95546n@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 4:23:43 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:922a3597-7352-43ca...@googlegroups.com:
>> > On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:55:11 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 04 Apr 2022 10:59:13 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> >> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> >> >news:hssg4hl2pbnqr26rd...@4ax.com:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:53:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> >> >> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Andrew McDowell <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote in
>> >> >>>news:342571b7-0a8a-4cb7...@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
>> >> >>>> -pu nch- 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.
>> >
>> > There used to be (maybe still is) a whole sub-genre of BBC
>> > radio game shows where the contestants each week were drawn
>> > from a small pool of well known entertainers and minor
>> > celebrities, and the entertainment value was not so much the
>> > competition, as in the sparkling bon mots and improv remarks
>> > of the players and MC.
>> Nobody watched Hollywood Squares to listen to the questions and
>> answers.
>
> Same idea.
>
For that matter, most "reality" TV is far more about the
personalities than whatever the contestants are doing.

On 4/5/2022 1:40 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-04-05 1:23 p.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:922a3597-7352-43ca-98a6-da8213539c3cn@googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:55:11 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2022 10:59:13 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>> news:hssg4hl2pbnqr26rd...@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:53:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>>>> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andrew McDowell <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:342571b7-0a8a-4cb7...@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-pu
>>>>>>>> nch- 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.
>>>
>>> There used to be (maybe still is) a whole sub-genre of BBC radio
>>> game shows where the contestants each week were drawn
>>> from a small pool of well known entertainers and minor
>>> celebrities, and the entertainment value was not so much the
>>> competition, as in the sparkling bon mots and improv remarks of
>>> the players and MC.
>>
>> Nobody watched Hollywood Squares to listen to the questions and
>> answers.
>
> Yes... ...there were a few examples of the sub-genre in the US.
>
> Hollywood Squares
>
> Password
>
> Match Game
>
> The $10K/20K/25K/50K/100K Pyramid.
>
> But the all had ordinary people as the actual contestants.
>
> The British shows dispensed with that and got straight down to letting
> entertainers be entertaining.

On 2022-04-05 5:23 p.m., Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 4/5/2022 1:40 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-04-05 1:23 p.m., Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:922a3597-7352-43ca-98a6-da8213539c3cn@googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:55:11 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2022 10:59:13 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>>> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>> news:hssg4hl2pbnqr26rd...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:53:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>>>>> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andrew McDowell <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:342571b7-0a8a-4cb7...@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-pu
>>>>>>>>> nch- 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.
>>>>
>>>> There used to be (maybe still is) a whole sub-genre of BBC radio
>>>> game shows where the contestants each week were drawn
>>>> from a small pool of well known entertainers and minor
>>>> celebrities, and the entertainment value was not so much the
>>>> competition, as in the sparkling bon mots and improv remarks of
>>>> the players and MC.
>>>
>>> Nobody watched Hollywood Squares to listen to the questions and
>>> answers.
>>
>> Yes... ...there were a few examples of the sub-genre in the US.
>>
>> Hollywood Squares
>>
>> Password
>>
>> Match Game
>>
>> The $10K/20K/25K/50K/100K Pyramid.
>>
>> But the all had ordinary people as the actual contestants.
>>
>> The British shows dispensed with that and got straight down to letting
>> entertainers be entertaining.
>
> Hollywood Squares had civilian contestants but the people occupying the
> tic-tac-toe board were all celebs.
>

On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 6:22:46 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:674b8862-8125-4c72...@googlegroups.com:
> > On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 4:23:43 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
> > Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> >> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:922a3597-7352-43ca...@googlegroups.com:
> >> > On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:55:11 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 04 Apr 2022 10:59:13 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> >> >> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> >> >> >news:hssg4hl2pbnqr26rd...@4ax.com:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:53:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
> >> >> >> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>Andrew McDowell <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote in
> >> >> >>>news:342571b7-0a8a-4cb7...@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
> >> >> >>>> -pu nch- 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.
> >> >
> >> > There used to be (maybe still is) a whole sub-genre of BBC
> >> > radio game shows where the contestants each week were drawn
> >> > from a small pool of well known entertainers and minor
> >> > celebrities, and the entertainment value was not so much the
> >> > competition, as in the sparkling bon mots and improv remarks
> >> > of the players and MC.
> >> Nobody watched Hollywood Squares to listen to the questions and
> >> answers.
> >
> > Same idea.
> >
> For that matter, most "reality" TV is far more about the
> personalities than whatever the contestants are doing.

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote in
news:a4c9c311-d9d1-4abd-85d3-5e4900e3f57en@googlegroups.com:

> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 6:22:46 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:674b8862-8125-4c72...@googlegroups.com:
>> > On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 4:23:43 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
>> > Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> >> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:922a3597-7352-43ca...@googlegroups.com:
>> >> > On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:55:11 AM UTC-4, Paul S
>> >> > Person wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 04 Apr 2022 10:59:13 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>> >> >> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> >> >> >news:hssg4hl2pbnqr26rd...@4ax.com:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:53:43 -0700, Jibini Kula
>> >> >> >> Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>Andrew McDowell <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >>>news:342571b7-0a8a-4cb7...@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-sm
>> >> >> >>>> ith -pu nch- 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.
>> >> >
>> >> > There used to be (maybe still is) a whole sub-genre of BBC
>> >> > radio game shows where the contestants each week were
>> >> > drawn from a small pool of well known entertainers and
>> >> > minor celebrities, and the entertainment value was not so
>> >> > much the competition, as in the sparkling bon mots and
>> >> > improv remarks of the players and MC.
>> >> Nobody watched Hollywood Squares to listen to the questions
>> >> and answers.
>> >
>> > Same idea.
>> >
>> For that matter, most "reality" TV is far more about the
>> personalities than whatever the contestants are doing.
>
> The difference is that the British contestants were reliably
> witty and entertaining, while most reality TV contestants
> are raging narcissists and sociopaths.
>
Which is to say, casting directors in both countries know their
audience.

On 4/5/2022 7:03 PM, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 6:22:46 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:674b8862-8125-4c72...@googlegroups.com:
>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 4:23:43 PM UTC-4, Jibini Kula
>>> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> "pete...@gmail.com" <pete...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:922a3597-7352-43ca...@googlegroups.com:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 11:55:11 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2022 10:59:13 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>>>> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:hssg4hl2pbnqr26rd...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Apr 2022 09:53:43 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>>>>>> Kujisalimisha <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andrew McDowell <mcdow...@sky.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:342571b7-0a8a-4cb7...@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
>>>>>>>>>> -pu nch- 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> There used to be (maybe still is) a whole sub-genre of BBC
>>>>> radio game shows where the contestants each week were drawn
>>>>> from a small pool of well known entertainers and minor
>>>>> celebrities, and the entertainment value was not so much the
>>>>> competition, as in the sparkling bon mots and improv remarks
>>>>> of the players and MC.
>>>> Nobody watched Hollywood Squares to listen to the questions and
>>>> answers.
>>>
>>> Same idea.
>>>
>> For that matter, most "reality" TV is far more about the
>> personalities than whatever the contestants are doing.
>
> The difference is that the British contestants were reliably
> witty and entertaining, while most reality TV contestants
> are raging narcissists and sociopaths.
>
Because selecting for those personalities to appear in your reality show
gets better ratings.

pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> schrieb:

> There used to be (maybe still is) a whole sub-genre of BBC radio
> game shows where the contestants each week were drawn
> from a small pool of well known entertainers and minor celebrities,
> and the entertainment value was not so much the competition,
> as in the sparkling bon mots and improv remarks of the players
> and MC.
>
> Examples:
> Just a Minute
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_a_Minute

I _loved_ that in the 1980s when it was available on BFBS where
I lived.

Clement Freud (grandson of Sigmund) was one of the best with his
deep voice and deadpan humor.

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 10:41:58 AM UTC-6, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:

> Tickets to his concerts are telling for nearly 10 times what they
> were before The Slap, and he's adding extra shows.

I didn't say he was cancelled. I said he deserved to be cancelled.

> Your blatant racism is one of those evil consequences. Or, rather,
> your feeling like you can spew your racism out loud. Again.

And what racism would that be? Being aware that harmful racial
stereotypes exist, and pose a threat to members of minority groups,
is not racism.

John Savard

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> writes:
>On 4/5/2022 1:40 PM, Alan wrote:

>> The British shows dispensed with that and got straight down to letting
>> entertainers be entertaining.
>
>Hollywood Squares had civilian contestants but the people occupying the
>tic-tac-toe board were all celebs.

It's interesting how the actual set for the hollywood squares looks so
shabby when you're sitting in the middle square. There's a small
spotlight to keep you warm and a fan to keep you cool (I got to sit
in that square one day while an NBC friend and I wandered backstage
in the 1980's - just a week before the gunman walked onto the set
for the nightly news and took David Horowitz hostage). Security
was much improved thereafter.

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:da76e3d3-1d70-40e4-85db-4136f0903201n@googlegroups.com:

> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 10:41:58 AM UTC-6, Jibini Kula
> Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>
>> Tickets to his concerts are telling for nearly 10 times what
>> they were before The Slap, and he's adding extra shows.
>
> I didn't say he was cancelled. I said he deserved to be
> cancelled.

Because, being a Canadian, you approve of violent crime, and want to
punish the victim. We know.
>
>> Your blatant racism is one of those evil consequences. Or,
>> rather, your feeling like you can spew your racism out loud.
>> Again.
>
> And what racism would that be? Being aware that harmful racial
> stereotypes exist, and pose a threat to members of minority
> groups, is not racism.
>
QED.

--
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 Wednesday, April 6, 2022 at 10:05:20 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> writes:
> >On 4/5/2022 1:40 PM, Alan wrote:
>
> >> The British shows dispensed with that and got straight down to letting
> >> entertainers be entertaining.
> >
> >Hollywood Squares had civilian contestants but the people occupying the
> >tic-tac-toe board were all celebs.
> It's interesting how the actual set for the hollywood squares looks so
> shabby when you're sitting in the middle square. There's a small
> spotlight to keep you warm and a fan to keep you cool (I got to sit
> in that square one day while an NBC friend and I wandered backstage
> in the 1980's - just a week before the gunman walked onto the set
> for the nightly news and took David Horowitz hostage). Security
> was much improved thereafter.

TV sets are designed to look good from one direction. Beyond that,
sub-IKEA quality rules.

pt