Need a boycott, folks!!

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:16 pm

I rarely ask for people to boycott anything, because things like this are opinion. BUT. I think many of you will find reason to support this boycott.

Robert Redford and the "Sundance Film Festival" production company have made a new movie that bottoms the scales of the new low people will stoop to. The name of the film is "Zoo" and it's about having sex with animals.

I will never, EVER again, for the rest of my days watch a Redford movie from before or in the future, whether he's in it, directed it produced it or had any hand in making that movie. I am outraged.

WonderWendy3 · Post by **WonderWendy3** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:29 pm

That is disgusting...I can't imagine that it will get much publicity...if it does...I'm just gonna sit and wait to be raptured!

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:30 pm

Why Robert Redford? He just runs the Sundance Festival.

according to IMDB:

Zoo - made in 2007

Directed by

Robinson Devor

Writing credits (in alphabetical order)

Robinson Devor

Charles Mudede

Cast (in alphabetical order)

Richard Carmen .... Mr. Hands Brother

Paul Eenhoorn .... Lead Detective

Russell Hodgkinson .... CJ

John Paulsen .... Mr. Hands

Produced by

Peggy Case .... producer

Alexis Ferris .... producer

Cinematography by

Sean Kirby

Film Editing by

Joe Shapiro

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:31 pm

WonderWendy3;525960 wrote: That is disgusting...I can't imagine that it will get much publicity...if it does...I'm just gonna sit and wait to be raptured!
The thing that's so awful, Wendy, is it's getting RAVE reviews! Check it out online, I refuse to post a link to how to get to this info.

WonderWendy3 · Post by **WonderWendy3** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:37 pm

BabyRider;525962 wrote: The thing that's so awful, Wendy, is it's getting RAVE reviews! Check it out online, I refuse to post a link to how to get to this info.

I will probably get sick to my stomach!! Thanks for letting me know about it though!

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:45 pm

I understand how you feel, BR. I have a personal boycott of all things Mel Gibson related.

I'm curious to read the reviews myself -- it sounds ridiculous and sick and twisted.

Koan, do you know anything about the film? I can't believe they could get away with hurting any animals in the filming. The premise is pretty disgusting.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:49 pm

cherandbuster;525965 wrote: I understand how you feel, BR. I have a personal boycott of all things Mel Gibson related.

I'm curious to read the reviews myself -- it sounds ridiculous and sick and twisted.

Koan, do you know anything about the film? I can't believe they could get away with hurting any animals in the filming. The premise is pretty disgusting.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/a ... nce14.html

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:50 pm

cherandbuster;525965 wrote: I understand how you feel, BR. I have a personal boycott of all things Mel Gibson related.

I'm curious to read the reviews myself -- it sounds ridiculous and sick and twisted.

Koan, do you know anything about the film? I can't believe they could get away with hurting any animals in the filming. The premise is pretty disgusting.

I just know that Robert Redford had nothing to do with the making of it.

...and that it is based on a true story.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:52 pm

I won't boycott it until I have more information to make a decision.

I guess we'll find out if the expression "He's hung like a horse!" has any merit :p

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:56 pm

cherandbuster;525973 wrote:

I guess we'll find out if the expression "He's hung like a horse!" has any merit :p
:yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:57 pm

BabyRider;525977 wrote: :yh_rotfl :yh_rotfl

I like to make you laugh, BR :-4

It's a beautiful sound coming from you, babe :-6

jennyswan · Post by **jennyswan** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:32 pm

He was fatally injured by a horse!!??? I don't even want to think about it.

SuzyB · Post by **SuzyB** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:38 pm

That is just :yh_sick :yh_sick :yh_sick

koan · Post by **koan** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:40 pm

Just so everyone caught this bit of info:

Robert Redford had nothing to do with the making of this movie.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:45 pm

Normally, I ignore koan but I have to add that Redford owns the company, which means he ok'ed the movie, which means he supports the theme of this movie. IN MY VIEW, that makes him as guilty as the rest of the sick %#*$'s who made it. His hand in it in any way makes him guilty.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:12 pm

BabyRider;526044 wrote: Normally, I ignore koan but I have to add that Redford owns the company, which means he ok'ed the movie, which means he supports the theme of this movie. IN MY VIEW, that makes him as guilty as the rest of the sick %#*$'s who made it. His hand in it in any way makes him guilty.

The Sundance Film Festival has films submitted to it from production companies all the time. It has an awards committee. This film, Zoo, won a prize for best film of 2007 in an award category [1]. It wasn't made by Robert Redford or any company he owns, it was made by Thinkfilm ("thinkfilm is a creative production company located in washington, dc. That means we create and produce projects of all types, including movies and tv shows, documentaries, commercials and corporate films. We also own an extensive stock footage library"). Zoo is a documentary, not a work of fiction.Although this incident made headlines and the tabloid news, Zoo is the complete antithesis of what you expect. Robinson Devor's filmmaking is as smart as it is eloquent. To begin with, Zoo is neither graphic nor exploitive. Most of it takes the form of recreations, but from the point of view of the men "who met for years without disturbance in the shadows of Mt. Rainier," as Devor puts it. He cleverly captures the essence of these men and their alienation by creating a visual poetry.Now, perhaps you can try to explain where exactly Robert Redford fits into this at all, BabyRider. He didn't write it, he didn't act in it, he didn't direct it, he didn't produce it, he didn't finance it, he didn't have anything to do with it. The film festival he set up decades ago considered it for a prize, just like the Oscars might later on this year for Documentary of the Year.

So... why boycott Robert Redford, exactly?

[1] eta: I just double-checked and actually the prize hasn't been awarded yet to anyone, the Festival goes on until the 28th. All they've done is shown the film on a screen for the first time anywhere - it's called a World Premiere. That's the total extent of their involvement with it!

The jury which will consider the prize award consists this year of Alan Berliner, Lewis Erskine, Lauren Greenfield, Julia Reichert and Carlos Sandoval. Not Robert Redford.

"122 feature films were selected and include 82 world premieres, 24 North American premieres, and 10 U.S. premieres from 25 countries. The festival will have films from almost 60 first or second-time feature filmmakers". - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Sunda ... m_Festival

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:33 pm

spot;526087 wrote: The Sundance Film Festival has films submitted to it from production companies all the time. It has an awards committee. This film, Zoo, won a prize for best film of 2007 in an award category [1]. It wasn't made by Robert Redford or any company he owns, it was made by Thinkfilm ("thinkfilm is a creative production company located in washington, dc. That means we create and produce projects of all types, including movies and tv shows, documentaries, commercials and corporate films. We also own an extensive stock footage library"). Zoo is a documentary, not a work of fiction.Although this incident made headlines and the tabloid news, Zoo is the complete antithesis of what you expect. Robinson Devor's filmmaking is as smart as it is eloquent. To begin with, Zoo is neither graphic nor exploitive. Most of it takes the form of recreations, but from the point of view of the men "who met for years without disturbance in the shadows of Mt. Rainier," as Devor puts it. He cleverly captures the essence of these men and their alienation by creating a visual poetry.Now, perhaps you can try to explain where exactly Robert Redford fits into this at all, BabyRider. He didn't write it, he didn't act in it, he didn't direct it, he didn't produce it, he didn't finance it, he didn't have anything to do with it. The film festival he set up decades ago considered it for a prize, just like the Oscars might later on this year for Documentary of the Year.

So... why boycott Robert Redford, exactly?

[1] eta: I just double-checked and actually the prize hasn't been awarded yet to anyone, the Festival goes on until the 28th. All they've done is shown the film on a screen for the first time anywhere - it's called a World Premiere. That's the total extent of their involvement with it!

The jury which will consider the prize award consists this year of Alan Berliner, Lewis Erskine, Lauren Greenfield, Julia Reichert and Carlos Sandoval. Not Robert Redford.

"122 feature films were selected and include 82 world premieres, 24 North American premieres, and 10 U.S. premieres from 25 countries. The festival will have films from almost 60 first or second-time feature filmmakers". - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Sunda ... m_Festival

He owns the film festival that is allowing an accolade to something she finds repulsive. Make sense?

JacksDad · Post by **JacksDad** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:40 pm

I believe the purpose of this film IS to disgust you. The directors want to point out how wrong the goings on of this ranch are.

You should try my method and boycott Hollywood. Makes for great peace of mind.

Except for maybe the Jackass movies. They're just TOO stupid to be offensive!:D

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:41 pm

DesignerGal;526104 wrote: He owns the film festival that is allowing an accolade to something she finds repulsive. Make sense?
No he doesn't:Over the next several years factors helped propel the growth of Utah/US Film Festival. First was the involvement of actor Robert Redford. Redford, a Utah resident, became the festival's inaugural chairman and having his name associated with Sundance gave the festival great attention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundance_Film_Festival

I doubt whether he has any involvement at all with the festival nowadays. He helped set it up thirty years ago. What on earth makes you think that "he owns the film festival"?

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:42 pm

spot;526113 wrote: No he doesn't:Over the next several years factors helped propel the growth of Utah/US Film Festival. First was the involvement of actor Robert Redford. Redford, a Utah resident, became the festival's inaugural chairman and having his name associated with Sundance gave the festival great attention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sundance_Film_Festival

I doubt whether he has any involvement at all with it. He helped set it up thirty years ago. What on earth makes you think that "he owns the film festival"?

Fine. I'm wrong. It was named after his association with Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Maybe I thought that for that reason.

OOPS: IM wrong again.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:47 pm

Maybe boycotting HIM (since he is so popularly associated with the festival) will get some negative attention for the movie she finds repulsive. Better?

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:54 pm

DesignerGal;526121 wrote: Maybe boycotting HIM (since he is so popularly associated with the festival) will get some negative attention for the movie she finds repulsive. Better?
Why stop there?

Here's the original news report concerning the case which led to the making of the documentary. Shall we boycott newspapers which carry Associated Press reports as well?

Associated Press report, 18th October 2005, "Charge filed in connection with man who died having horse sex".

King County prosecutors have charged a man with trespassing in connection with an incident in which a friend was fatally injured having sex with a horse in Enumclaw.

James Michael Tait, 54, of Enumclaw, is accused of entering a barn without the owner's permission. If convicted he faces up to a year in jail and a $5,000 fine.

Prosecutors filed the charge Tuesday in county district court. Arraignment is scheduled for the week of Oct. 31. Tait does not have a listed phone number and it was not clear if he had obtained a lawyer.

Tait admitted to officers that he entered a neighbor's barn last July in Enumclaw with Kenneth Pinyan to have sex with a horse, charging papers said. Tait was videotaping the episode when Pinyan received internal injuries that led to his death.

Tait, Pinyan and another local man, Greg Cooper, had snuck into the barn repeatedly to have sex with horses, both Tait and Cooper admitted, according to the documents. Cooper was not charged with trespassing because investigators found no videotapes or other evidence that placed him in the barn on a specific date.

The prosecutor's office says no animal cruelty charges were filed because there was no evidence of injury to the horses.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:31 pm

spot;526129 wrote: Why stop there?

Here's the original news report concerning the case which led to the making of the documentary. Shall we boycott newspapers which carry Associated Press reports as well?

spot, IM just trying to offer an answer to yours and koan's question on why BR would boycott Robert Redford. I dont particularly care about this movie or what its about, but it is nice to know that now that I'm back you are picking on me instead of her.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:34 pm

BabyRider;526044 wrote: Normally, I ignore koan but I have to add that Redford owns the company, which means he ok'ed the movie, which means he supports the theme of this movie. IN MY VIEW, that makes him as guilty as the rest of the sick %#*$'s who made it. His hand in it in any way makes him guilty.

I agree. But if you're going to b/c it, make sure you write letters/make calls to back it up. If you just stop supporting his movies and salad dressing he'll never know. There's no reason for a movie like this to be made. It's despicable.

ETA: The ACT is despicable. If the movie is in documentary form and made to show the sickness of these perverts, and will protect animals in the future then maybe it should be seen. But if it's for "entertainment value" forget it. The subject pisses me off and I won't be seeing the film.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:40 pm

RedGlitter;526164 wrote: I agree. But if you're going to b/c it, make sure you write letters/make calls to back it up. If you just stop supporting his movies and salad dressing he'll never know. There's no reason for a movie like this to be made. It's despicable.

Paul Newman is the movie guy with the salad dressing.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:42 pm

Before I condemn the film, I intend to see it.

People like Robert Redford (who believes some unpleasant subjects might have merit as films) have faith in this property. It's been well-received by others and it's been brought to the festival and offered to those who wish to keep an open mind and see it.

The fact that it's an account of a true story holds weight with me. So does freedom of expression. I hated the ideas behind "Jesus Camp," but I think the film should've been made. I hated the ideas behind "Ravenous," too (cannibalism) but I think the film should've been made.

Sorry, everyone....it's my considered opinion.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:49 pm

DesignerGal;526159 wrote: spot, IM just trying to offer an answer to yours and koan's question on why BR would boycott Robert Redford. I dont particularly care about this movie or what its about, but it is nice to know that now that I'm back you are picking on me instead of her.

Picking on? For crying out loud, I'm picking on nobody, I'm just trying to isolate what part of the OP actually contained even a grain of fact. Here's the sentence in case you've forgotten it...Robert Redford and the "Sundance Film Festival" production company have made a new movie that bottoms the scales of the new low people will stoop to.So, we have the non-existent Sundance Film Festival production company which didn't make a new movie, we have absolutely no involvement at all with Robert Redford except that he was once the inaugural chairman - thirty years ago! - of the film festival which premiered the film this month. The only thing left are the puns about "bottoms" and "the new low people will stoop to" in relation to buggery, ho ho. Great jokes, shame about the total lack of factual context. The only thing missing is a threat to shoot on sight anyone associated with the production, which is just as well since BabyRider is so incapable of attributing it correctly.

Have we finally agreed that Robert Redford had nothing to do with this documentary, yet? Absolutely zilch? Nada?

If anyone wants a film to criticize they might try Teeth instead...Teeth is a horror movie that follows the leader of the abstinence movement at a small-town Christian high school. When she's raped, she discovers that she has a Carrie-like power for revenge: a real vagina dentata. "It's a coming-of-age story about a young woman who has a particularly painful coming-of-age," says Mitchell Lichtenstein, a son of the late Pop artist Roy. "Across cultures, these myths are always about a male animal having to conquer the woman possessing this, um, dentata. I wanted to make it a good thing, so that the dentata was her protector. She's like a superhero, and it's her power." Hollywood sure needs another superhero-but will the studio execs headed to Park City bite?

New York Magazine: 22nd January 2007

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:50 pm

Lulu2;526173 wrote: Before I condemn the film, I intend to see it.

People like Robert Redford (who believes some unpleasant subjects might have merit as films) have faith in this property. It's been well-received by others and it's been brought to the festival and offered to those who wish to keep an open mind and see it.

The fact that it's an account of a true story holds weight with me. So does freedom of expression. I hated the ideas behind "Jesus Camp," but I think the film should've been made. I hated the ideas behind "Ravenous," too (cannibalism) but I think the film should've been made.

Sorry, everyone....it's my considered opinion.

When you say Jesus Camp, do you mean the book "Jesus Land" by Julia Scheeres?

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:54 pm

spot;526187 wrote: Here's the sentence in case you've forgotten it...Robert Redford and the "Sundance Film Festival" production company have made a new movie that bottoms the scales of the new low people will stoop to.

Its on page 1 of this thread on my computer the same as it is yours. But thanks.

spot;526187 wrote:

Have we finally agreed that Robert Redford had nothing to do with this documentary, yet? Absolutely zilch? Nada?

His name is widely used when referring to the Sundance Film Festival. Boycotting him might get some attention. Some negative attention since he is so popular and so well liked around the globe. Like I said I am offering an answer. Have you got that?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:54 pm

Flopstock, I completely agree.

DG, look here http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... jesus+camp

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:55 pm

By the way, I am boycotting Tom Cruise, who now has the Redskins owner funding hiw production company and I decided to boycott those Redskins functions as well.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 5:57 pm

DesignerGal;526196 wrote: His name is widely used when referring to the Sundance Film Festival. Boycotting him might get some attention. Some negative attention since he is so popular and so well liked around the globe. Like I said I am offering an answer. Have you got that?The concept of justice seems dead in sunny downtown USA, then.

As a minor detail, has nobody noticed yet that Washington State still has no law whatever that bans people from having sex with horses? Isn't criticizing the totally uninvolved Robert Redford something of a pointless distraction here?

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:01 pm

spot;526201 wrote: The concept of justice seems dead in sunny downtown USA, then.

As a minor detail, has nobody noticed yet that Washington State still has no law whatever that bans people from having sex with horses? Isn't criticizing the totally uninvolved Robert Redford something of a pointless distraction here?

You should have googled the Redskins (Im surprised you didnt), they are Washington District of Columbia. You know, the capital of The United States? I am sorry to inform you it isnt a place called "Sunnytown".

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:02 pm

spot;526201 wrote: The concept of justice seems dead in sunny downtown USA, then.

As a minor detail, has nobody noticed yet that Washington State still has no law whatever that bans people from having sex with horses? Isn't criticizing the totally uninvolved Robert Redford something of a pointless distraction here?

Next time anyone wants to make a statement, we'll make sure we hire you as a consultant. THanks old man.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:04 pm

DesignerGal;526203 wrote: You should have googled the Redskins (Im surprised you didnt), they are Washington District of Columbia. You know, the capital of The United States? I am sorry to inform you it isnt a place called "Sunnytown".

The relevance of that escapes me. Washington State is where the events which led to the making of the documentary happened. How do the Redskins come into this, or Sunnytown? The key word you're avoiding is "justice".

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:07 pm

DesignerGal;526199 wrote: By the way, I am boycotting Tom Cruise, who now has the Redskins owner funding hiw production company and I decided to boycott those Redskins functions as well.

Oh, I find that interesting, DG. Didn't know that.

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:07 pm

DesignerGal;526205 wrote: Next time anyone wants to make a statement, we'll make sure we hire you as a consultant. THanks old man.
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.

We were talking about traducing Robert Redford even though we know he's uninvolved, and the justice of such an approach, if I remember.

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:09 pm

It is, indeed.

So is civility.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:12 pm

spot;526207 wrote: The relevance of that escapes me. Washington State is where the events which led to the making of the documentary happened. How do the Redskins come into this, or Sunnytown? The key word you're avoiding is "justice".

You are avoiding the point I was trying to make in my answer. When stars are associated with a certain group, item, etc. They become sort of a ......public appointed association to that group, product, idea, whatever. When you think of Michael Jordan, you think of Nikes (he doesnt own Nike), when you think of Pam Anderson you think of PETA (she isnt a chairman, nor does she "own" anything within the PETA organization). When you think of the Sundance Film Festival, you think Robert Redford. I was offering an answer to your question. Here it is again in case you forgot (more specifically the 15th line down):

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=19

and Koan's final comment after questioning BR:

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... stcount=17

You dont like it. I dont care. I tried my best. I tried to offer a suggestion as to why she might be boycotting Robert Redford. What else can I do for you? You exhaust me.

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:17 pm

spot;526210 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 you're point?

Lulu2 · Post by **Lulu2** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:18 pm

NO! Flopstock...not YOU! I was referring to Spot, who never misses a chance to say something nasty about Snooze!

Post by **spot** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:20 pm

DesignerGal;526216 wrote: You dont like it. I dont care. I tried my best. I tried to offer a suggestion as to why she might be boycotting Robert Redford. What else can I do for you? You exhaust me.You could finally agree that Robert Redford had nothing to do with this documentary, that would help. You could perhaps agree that there is no "Sundance Film Festival" production company and that the Sundance Film Festival didn't have anything at all to do with "making the movie".

Basically you could try ditching all the things you're trying to hang Robert Redford for. Why does being involved with the Film Festival make him a justifiable target when the Film Festival did nothing whatever to make the movie? They have application forms for companies to submit new work, Thinkfilm submitted their latest documentary and it got queued for showing in the Festival. And for that you want to tarnish Robert Redford's name in public, because he gave the Festival some setup money in the 1970s? Is that, seriously, what you're telling us?

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:35 pm

spot;526228 wrote: You could finally agree that Robert Redford had nothing to do with this documentary, that would help.
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

spot;526228 wrote: You could perhaps agree that there is no "Sundance Film Festival" production company and that the Sundance Film Festival didn't have anything at all to do with "making the movie".

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.

spot;526228 wrote: Basically you could try ditching all the things you're trying to hang Robert Redford for. Why does being involved with the Film Festival make him a justifiable target when the Film Festival did nothing whatever to make the movie?

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????

spot;526228 wrote: They have application forms for companies to submit new work, Thinkfilm submitted their latest documentary and it got queued for showing in the Festival. And for that you want to tarnish Robert Redford's name in public

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.

spot;526228 wrote: because he gave the Festival some setup money in the 1970s? Is that, seriously, what you're telling us?

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