|
Post by robeiae on Mar 21, 2017 16:14:55 GMT -5
Filming women in the restroom is skeevy, but drugging, raping or murdering women is much worse in my less-than-humble-opinion. Right. On this we agree completely.
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Mar 21, 2017 18:38:05 GMT -5
Elvis was a hero to most...
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Mar 22, 2017 6:27:21 GMT -5
Been meaning to mention that I remember the discussion on Bill Cosby, and I don't remember Ohio going easy on him at all.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Mar 22, 2017 8:30:14 GMT -5
Chuck Berry's creepiness wasn't some minor naughtiness that fell short of a "totally pure and pristine life." No one is saying throw out all his albums. But he was a dirtbag, like a lot of entitled celebrities. Who will also no doubt be shat upon when they pass.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 22, 2017 8:50:14 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 8:52:08 GMT -5
Been meaning to mention that I remember the discussion on Bill Cosby, and I don't remember Ohio going easy on him at all. Mod note: I agree, Vince, but let's drop all the other message board talk. Modly derail/teaching moment: (1) I believe Opty when he says he didn't intend to reference another message board. At the same time, I totally get why Ohio thought he was doing so, since I did as well. I was an active participant in that thread, and vividly remember it (and particularly remember Ohio's position because it was pretty much mine). But I don't recall Opty participating in that thread, and indeed, I think he may not have been active in that forum at that time. So. I think it was a coincidence that Opty's bit of hyperbole coincided with that thread. So -- bygones are bygones on that point, m'K? Though this does go to show that hyperbole is done at one's own risk... 2) Even though another message board wasn't intentionally referenced, I still think this is an excellent example of one of the many good reasons for our rule not to drag discussions from other boards into discussions here: it is impossible to defend yourself without also dragging in the conversation from the other message board. If you can't find the relevant thread, and the other person got it wrong/invented facts/misunderstood your position, etc.,, you've got this wrong allegation hanging out there with no means of countering it. No one wants to be in that position, am I right? And even if you can find the thread, and can defend yourself, the whole thread here then becomes about an exchange from another board, leaving anyone who doesn't remember that discussion bored and mystified. Believe me, I understand the temptation -- I have a good memory and more than once have itched to point out something someone said elsewhere. But it's just much better for discussions here if we don't do that. Hence, one reason for the rule. /end modly derail We may now proceed with our regularly scheduled debate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 9:04:48 GMT -5
Chuck Barris may not have been enough of a legend for people to either go out of their way to muck up dirt on him or to get outraged that someone else did. I think we tend to care most when it is someone we (or a lot of people) deeply revered and lauded. I'm not sure many felt that way about Barris. Berry, on the other hand, was an icon. Cosby was an icon. When we put people on a pedestal, we want them to stay there, and if they tumble off, it's more likely to upset us. At the same time, it's more likely to upset people when they are vilified. (Surely no one would object to some random untalented creeper being vilified.)
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 22, 2017 9:06:34 GMT -5
Well, everyone can't be Paul Newman...
ETA: Actually, I think Barris' creepiness is part of what made him famous. Really, I just wanted to note his passing and reference Chuck Norris.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2017 10:10:10 GMT -5
Actually, I think Barris' creepiness is part of what made him famous. Well, that and his being a CIA assassin...
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 22, 2017 12:51:32 GMT -5
Been meaning to mention that I remember the discussion on Bill Cosby, and I don't remember Ohio going easy on him at all. Mod note: I agree, Vince, but let's drop all the other message board talk. Modly derail/teaching moment: (1) I believe Opty when he says he didn't intend to reference another message board. At the same time, I totally get why Ohio thought he was doing so, since I did as well. I was an active participant in that thread, and vividly remember it (and particularly remember Ohio's position because it was pretty much mine). But I don't recall Opty participating in that thread, and indeed, I think he may not have been active in that forum at that time. So. I think it was a coincidence that Opty's bit of hyperbole coincided with that thread. So -- bygones are bygones on that point, m'K? Though this does go to show that hyperbole is done at one's own risk... 2) Even though another message board wasn't intentionally referenced, I still think this is an excellent example of one of the many good reasons for our rule not to drag discussions from other boards into discussions here: it is impossible to defend yourself without also dragging in the conversation from the other message board. If you can't find the relevant thread, and the other person got it wrong/invented facts/misunderstood your position, etc.,, you've got this wrong allegation hanging out there with no means of countering it. No one wants to be in that position, am I right? And even if you can find the thread, and can defend yourself, the whole thread here then becomes about an exchange from another board, leaving anyone who doesn't remember that discussion bored and mystified. Believe me, I understand the temptation -- I have a good memory and more than once have itched to point out something someone said elsewhere. But it's just much better for discussions here if we don't do that. Hence, one reason for the rule. I agree and concur, Cassandra, but I emphasized the one word of your post I find to be problematic. I don't believe in coincidences. The Bill Cosby reference was a direct shot based upon another thread I started on another board under another name. It wasn't arbitrary and it didn't fall out of the sky and it wasn't a fluke and it wasn't any sort of "coincidence." I believed this board was meant to be something of a reset, a clean slate and a fresh start from zero. In reality, there's no such thing. You can't reset someone's perceptions of another person and wherever they go they are going to take those perceptions with them and respond accordingly. That said, I'm going to try to remove any reference---however obliquely---to other boards, other threads, other contentious debates. They have no relevance to The Colline Gate. This is now and that should be considered then. Leave the past in the past.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Mar 22, 2017 13:57:35 GMT -5
Quick question, for Rob I guess: what did Charlie Chaplin do that rises to the Cosby level? I had a quick poke around the interwebs but didn't see too much, so I thought I'd ask.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 22, 2017 15:22:17 GMT -5
Quick question, for Rob I guess: what did Charlie Chaplin do that rises to the Cosby level? I had a quick poke around the interwebs but didn't see too much, so I thought I'd ask. I'm not rob and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but here's the thing about Charlie Chaplin. He liked 'em young.
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Mar 22, 2017 16:30:10 GMT -5
Ah, yes, it seems he did. Thanks!
|
|