Need a boycott, folks!!

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:39 pm

Wouldn't it be more appropriate to actually SEE a film before protesting the content of it?

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:42 pm

flopstock;526239 wrote:

Had they chosen to boycott Jerry Lewis because of this movie I might be able to better understand your mystification over the boycott target. But I can see the correlation and you could also, if you'd stop and think for a moment.

Thank you, God someone understands what I have been saying all along.

Lulu2;526242 wrote: Wouldn't it be more appropriate to actually SEE a film before protesting the content of it?

I could give two craps about this movie, I was just trying to play devil's advocate, in this case, however, I think I was more the Angel's (BR's) advocate. But of course I will be labeled as her puppet now Im sure!:D

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:46 pm

DesignerGal;526235 wrote: For the FOURTH AND FINAL time I was merely making a suggestion as to why BR might be boycotting Robert Redford instead of the producers, directors, actors, etc. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend????Because it's so utterly unjust. How you can be supporting this nonsense is plain baffling. Could you try one time using the word justice in a sentence, rather than refusing to address the issue of whether it's remotely fair as opposed to purely practical?

Your Michael Jordan, presumably, made a lot of money from his association with Nike. Your Pam Anderson presumably got a lot of publicity from an existing major charity by associating herself with it. All Robert Redford did was to altruistically support a minor Festival in its formative years while helping fund its beginnings. Thirty years later he has to be dragged through whatever mud you fundamentalist Americans invent out of nothing to benefit your own bigoted agenda, just because he's famous?

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:48 pm

spot;526250 wrote: Because it's so utterly unjust. How you can be supporting this nonsense is plain baffling. Could you try one time using the word justice in a sentence, rather than refusing to address the issue of whether it's remotely fair as opposed to purely practical?

Your Michael Jordan, presumably, made a lot of money from his association with Nike. Your Pam Anderson presumably got a lot of publicity from an existing major charity by associating herself with it. All Robert Redford did was to altruistically support a minor Festival in its formative years while helping fund its beginnings. Thirty years later he has to be dragged through whatever mud you fundamentalist Americans invent out of nothing to benefit your own bigoted agenda, just because he's famous?

And what bigoted agenda might me, a fundamentalist american (snigger) be trying to benefit by arguing a side for the sake of an argument?

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:50 pm

spot;526250 wrote: Thirty years later he has to be dragged through whatever mud you fundamentalist Americans invent out of nothing to benefit your own bigoted agenda, just because he's famous?

I'm still cracking up at this part!!!!!!!!! LOL! LOL! LOL!!:wah: :wah: :wah:

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:51 pm

I'm confused as to why DG is being singled out....she's certainly not the only one who supports BR's original post.

Guess I'm another "fundamentalist American" too?

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:53 pm

Lulu2;526254 wrote: I'm confused as to why DG is being singled out....she's certainly not the only one who supports BR's original post.

Because he doesnt like me. He thinks I am Snooze's puppet. He brought up her name in this thread again. Maybe we should boycott Snooze because she wants to marry hyenas!:D

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:58 pm

Lulu2;526254 wrote: I'm confused as to why DG is being singled out....she's certainly not the only one who supports BR's original post.BR seems to have realized that she made a mistake. DG has found a thread where she can continue a fight. Who else is left?

The essence of the argument seems to be that the Festival selection committee should exercise censorship over the submissions list. Even if they did, it seems unlikely that they'd censor a documentary on unsavoury practices in Enumclaw during 2005, especially since it avoids any explicit representation of the acts involved. Why does anyone in this thread think they ought not to have premiered the movie, given that it had been submitted to them?

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:01 pm

DesignerGal;526255 wrote: Because he doesnt like me. He thinks I am Snooze's puppet. He brought up her name in this thread again. I only mentioned her name because you used her line, up until then she hadn't crossed my mind once. This is post 42 or so that you're talking about and the main name I brought into it was Paul's, not hers. Paul invented it, you and she picked up whatever obsolete ammunition he'd set aside.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:06 pm

It was unnecessary, Spot, and you know it. Your eager willingness to show disrespect to someone who's not even here is very obvious, and your agenda is very obvious. You might consider that...I believe you are a moderator, yes? What kind of example do you set?

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:16 pm

Lulu2;526266 wrote: It was unnecessary, Spot, and you know it. Your eager willingness to show disrespect to someone who's not even here is very obvious, and your agenda is very obvious. You might consider that...I believe you are a moderator, yes? What kind of example do you set?

It never crossed my mind that Snooze would be capable of organizing a sock puppet which, given that it's an "additional account of an existing member of an Internet community to invent a separate user", would scarcely describe DG anyway.

You're good at uncovering agendas which have no existence outside your imagination, Lulu. I've noticed that several times.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:20 pm

You see? Yet another insult aimed at someone who isn't here.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:22 pm

Lulu2;526285 wrote: You see? Yet another insult aimed at someone who isn't here.
You wouldn't rather stick to the thread topic, Lulu?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:34 pm

Just making a point, Spot. One I'd think a moderator might consider. Civility. What an example.

Fibonacci · Post by **Fibonacci** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:35 pm

Those people are seriously f***ed Up!!

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:38 pm

Lulu2;526285 wrote: You see? Yet another insult aimed at someone who isn't here.

I reported him for calling me an "american fundamentalist" who has a "bigoted agenda". So, I'm done.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:39 pm

Lulu2;526295 wrote: Just making a point, Spot. One I'd think a moderator might consider. Civility. What an example.I do try. Mostly I succeed. In this thread I haven't put a foot wrong.

We were moving toward a discussion of the place moral censorship might play in the selection criteria of film festivals, if anyone wants to respond to that. I'm against it.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:40 pm

spot;526302 wrote: I do try. Mostly I succeed. In this thread I haven't put a foot wrong.

We were moving toward a discussion of the place moral censorship might play in the selection criteria of film festivals, if anyone wants to respond to that. I'm against it.

Why?

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:42 pm

DesignerGal;526235 wrote: I never said he did, and when I said he owned the company, I also edited my post to add I was wrong. Here it is in case you forgot:

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=24

I never said there was a Sundance Film Festival PRODUCTION COMPANY, and please show me where I said that. I also NEVER said they (they=Sundance Film Festival) made the movie. You will be hard pressed to find where I said that too.

For the FOURTH AND FINAL time I was merely making a suggestion as to why BR might be boycotting Robert Redford instead of the producers, directors, actors, etc. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend????

I am not trying to tarnish anyone (AGAIN I SAY). I am merely offering a suggestion (okay, a fifth time). Maybe BR was misinformed about Robert Redford's role in the festival. But thanks to your endless research, we now know he had nothing to do with it.

Do you need me to write a SIXTH time? Or are you THAT dense?

spot, I ams still waiting for you to address this...

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:46 pm

DesignerGal;526309 wrote: spot, I ams still waiting for you to address this...

I was not merely just referring to the OP, I was quoting from it. If you read it as claiming that you said it rather than that you were supporting the contention of the OP then that's your lookout.

Do I get a reply about the issues of justice and censorship in return now?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:52 pm

"Paul was trying to dig at me with "old chap" the week after I joined and, believe me, you're not even in the same league with him. Nor, come to think of it, is Snooze, who tried the same thing for size a couple of weeks back."

++++++++++ And this.

Want to stick to the topic, Spot? Leave personal names out of it. Don't go looking for ways to insult the absent. DO set a good example.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:53 pm

DesignerGal;526304 wrote: Why?

You don't remember the Hays code?No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented.Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.I thought we'd got away from people calling for those times to come again. It's possible I'm mistaken and the Moral Majority Coalition might lobby their way to getting it, with threads like this to back their argument. Jerry Falwell for 2008, eh?

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:57 pm

Lulu2;526326 wrote: "Paul was trying to dig at me with "old chap" the week after I joined and, believe me, you're not even in the same league with him. Nor, come to think of it, is Snooze, who tried the same thing for size a couple of weeks back."

++++++++++ And this.

Want to stick to the topic, Spot? Leave personal names out of it. Don't go looking for ways to insult the absent. DO set a good example.

You might suggest to DG who called him "old man" that name calling is inappropriate.

That was, if you look back, what he was replying to.

This constant trick of throwing a stone then pointing at someone else and yelling "they did it!" is the only thing old around here.

and to be "absent" a member has to not have a current account.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:05 pm

I had a little wager with myself....I "bet" you'd be here within half an hour. I win!

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:07 pm

DesignerGal;526170 wrote: Paul Newman is the movie guy with the salad dressing.

Hahaha!! Yep! You're right! :wah: I'm always getting those two confused.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:21 pm

Lulu2;526342 wrote: I had a little wager with myself....I "bet" you'd be here within half an hour. I win!
Within half an hour of what?

It's been 4hrs and 20 minutes since my last post in this thread. If the last half hour has the mark of some special event then you might want to share that with everyone.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:23 pm

Why, within half an hour of Spot starting to defend himself, of course! Good night.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:32 pm

Lulu2;526352 wrote: Why, within half an hour of Spot starting to defend himself, of course! Good night.

how silly,

he's been under attack since post 39. Well over half an hour ago.

I do feel badly though, I know how hard he's trying to keep this thread on topic and you all seem intent on preventing that.

As to the topic.

Sure. See how many people think boycotting Robert Redford will be an effective campaign against the independent filmmakers who actually made the movie. I, for one, will not be joining. While you're at it, put the word "censorship" somewhere in the boycott title.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:39 pm

BTW,

Congratulations BR and all those who helped this thread give the movie free publicity. If you'd like to help them out more then by all means continue your boycott. Spread the word!

Rain · Post by **Rain** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:29 pm

koan;526364 wrote: BTW,

Congratulations BR and all those who helped this thread give the movie free publicity. If you'd like to help them out more then by all means continue your boycott. Spread the word!

:wah: Yes, it's all FG's fault.

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:31 pm

Rain;526413 wrote: :wah: Yes, it's all FG's fault.

Fault?

No. The film is a documentary of probably very little public appeal, unless everyone gives the publicity of outrage that they are counting on. The best way to keep their profits down is to not give the film any attention.

I know the film industry.

Boycotts help them out.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:03 am

:wah: Yup...it's "HORSE LOVERS ANONYMOUS!" Or the "CORRAL CABAL."

Thanks for your very logical point about war/murder/torture being odious and still figuring in the plots of wonderful films.

Of COURSE anyone has the right to boycott a film, write a letter to the editors or to the owners of a film company, etc. It seems to me that a person's objections might possibly be taken more seriously if they'd actually SEEN the film they want to censor.