Bonds could become a sympathetic figure
Dr. Wayne Simon
against Bonds and if he is convicted or has to serve jail time. He
eventually will be a sympathetic figure as History looks back. ie;
shoeless joe jackson Mohammad Ali, or Jack Johnson. A movie will be made
circa 2020 and Barry will be the hero, if he has a harsh trial, or goes to
jail. Time will change the perceptions. Except for the 20 to 25% who
will continue to drink the cool ade (aid).
noogi...@yahoo.com
Possible include:
Field of "Cream"
The "Un"Natural
noogi...@yahoo.com
Possible "titles" include....
Grizzlie Antagonist
JW
A "Clear" and Present Danger?
Dr. Wayne Simon
Only to be seen on the Super large size screen.
Steven Rubio
No one is a bigger fan of Barry's than I am, but comparing him to
Muhammad Ali is like comparing George Bush to Abe Lincoln.
Steven
noogi...@yahoo.com
> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:32:23 -0500, "Dr. Wayne Simon"
>
"No one is a bigger fan of Barry's than I am.."
Except for Barry, of course.
Grizzlie Antagonist
"Witness for the Prosecution" NOT starring Greg Anderson
And eventually "The Verdict".
Grizzlie Antagonist
Upgraded from a normal size one.
Mr Postman
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydso...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fc8b82c-0e64-423d...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Gone with the Syringe
JW
[No wonder Jimmy acted so strange]
Primal "Clear" (1996)
Cape "Clear" (1962), (1991)
"Clear" and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)
Dr. Wayne Simon
How old are you? Why don't you go back to the clips of the 1960's and see
how Ali, then Cassius Clay was one of the most hated men in America.
JW
<wayne...@comcast.net> wrote:
Why was he one of the most hated men in the 60's, Wayne? It's not
the same reason as the stigma that Bonds carries.
Jeanne Douglas
JW <Jo...@clearwire.net> wrote:
No, it was far far far worse.
--
JD
"...if you think the 'Star Wars' prequels are a disease, then
'Serenity' is the cure."
TheDave©
> > The "Clear" Strikes Out.
>
> Only to be seen on the Super large size screen.
"Super-Size Me"?
TheDave©
> > No one is a bigger fan of Barry's than I am, but comparing him to
> > Muhammad Ali is like comparing George Bush to Abe Lincoln.
> >
> and see how Ali, then Cassius Clay was one of the most hated men in
> America.
And he eventually won people over himself. Once people looked beyond
the act and the color of his skin they realized that Ali's true self
was an ok guy. If Bonds has to depend on people looking at his true
self, he's in big trouble.
Jonathan Bernstein
news:op1ak31lhlon7b3sd...@4ax.com:
That's true, but to the larger point: if people idolize Joe Jackson,
youneverknow. Bonds almost certainly is more worthy of sympathy than
Jackson, or at least less unworthy of sympathy.
JHB
TheDave©
> Bonds almost certainly is more worthy of sympathy than
> Jackson, or at least less unworthy of sympathy.
Why do you say that?
Gregg Pearlman
Probably has something to do with Jackson playing to lose....
Gregg
noogi...@yahoo.com
You might want to recheck his stats for the series.
bolobar
Jackson was barely literate. We tend to forgive easily with the
exception of Hitler and OJ.
bolobar
Steven Rubio
<j...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>if people idolize Joe Jackson, youneverknow.
True. I mean, Forrest Gump grossed close to 3/4 of a billion dollars,
so I suppose there's no underestimating people's ability to feel
kindly towards a moron. Of course, Joe Jackson was a far better
ballplayer than Forrest Gump was a movie, but at least Forrest didn't
cheat.
Steven
TheDave©
> > > Bonds almost certainly is more worthy of sympathy than Jackson,
> > > or at least less unworthy of sympathy.
> >
> > Why do you say that?
>
> Probably has something to do with Jackson playing to lose....
The jury's still out on that, and we will probably never *know* for
sure. I have done much reading on this, from many different sources,
and I have come to the conclusion that he was approached to cheat (that
part is pretty much not in dispute) but that he refused or didn't do
it. Basically, to be blunt, I believe he was too stupid to cheat,
especially on the level he has been accused.
TheDave©
I'm not convinced that Jackson actually did cheat, but this plays into
my theory that people *want* to forgive other people and all they ask
is that those people be decent people, or at least appear to be... and
this is where Bonds continues to strike out.
Brad Filippone
Brad Filippone
: Steven Rubio <sru...@gmail.com> wrote in
: news:op1ak31lhlon7b3sd...@4ax.com:
The difference is that while Joe Jackson was indeed guilty of taking the
money, he most certainly still performed well on the field.
Brad
Brad Filippone
: On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 05:40:25 GMT, Jonathan Bernstein
: <j...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
Forrest is mentally impaired, not a moron.
Brad
Greg Lentz
Well, there's a post that says absolutely nothing.
--
Greg Lentz
Steven Rubio
As are the people who liked his vile movie. But I stand corrected.
Steven
Fleur
>Bonds almost certainly is more worthy of
>sympathy than Jackson, or at least less
>unworthy of sympathy.
I do not agree with that statement ... at all.
Gregg Pearlman
> On Nov 23, 11:29 pm, Gregg Pearlman <EEEEE...@EEEEEEgp.com> wrote:
>
>>TheDave(c) wrote:
>>
>>>>Jonathan Bernstein wrote:
>>>>Bonds almost certainly is more worthy of sympathy than
>>>>Jackson, or at least less unworthy of sympathy.
>>
>>>Why do you say that?
>>
>>Probably has something to do with Jackson playing to lose....
>
Or I might just want to buy into what Bill James said about it.
Gregg
Gregg Pearlman
>>Gregg Pearlman wrote:
>>
>>>>Bonds almost certainly is more worthy of sympathy than Jackson,
>>>>or at least less unworthy of sympathy.
>>>
>>>Why do you say that?
>>
>>Probably has something to do with Jackson playing to lose....
>
>
> The jury's still out on that, and we will probably never *know* for
> sure.
True enough. But Bill James makes a strong case.
> I have done much reading on this, from many different sources,
> and I have come to the conclusion that he was approached to cheat (that
> part is pretty much not in dispute) but that he refused or didn't do
> it. Basically, to be blunt, I believe he was too stupid to cheat,
> especially on the level he has been accused.
I think he probably agreed to do it -- and *possibly* changed his mind.
Didn't he receive money at some point, though?
Gregg
Fleur
>>Probably has something to do with Jackson
>>playing to lose....
>The jury's still out on that, and we will probably
>never *know* for sure. I have done much
>reading on this, from many different sources,
>and I have come to the conclusion that he was
>approached to cheat (that part is pretty much
>not in dispute) but that he refused or didn't do
>it. Basically, to be blunt, I believe he was too
>stupid to cheat, especially on the level he has
>been accused.
I'm inclined to agree with your point of view on this, The Dave©, and
to disagree with Gregg's. What I agree with most is that we will never
know the true story in its entirety as to exactly what happened. As far
as Shoeless Joe is concerned, he hit .375 in the 1919 WS but I guess he
would have had to hit .600 for people to say that he didn't throw it.
TheDave©
Why is it a "vile" movie? Just curious, because you're in a pretty
small minority with this opinion I think, so I'm guessing there's a
reason. I know people who don;t like it, but I've never heard it
referred to as bad as "vile" before.
TheDave©
> TheDaveŠ wrote:
> > > Gregg Pearlman wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Bonds almost certainly is more worthy of sympathy than
> > > > > Jackson, or at least less unworthy of sympathy.
> > > >
> > > > Why do you say that?
> > >
> > > Probably has something to do with Jackson playing to lose....
> >
> >
> > sure.
>
> True enough. But Bill James makes a strong case.
My conclusions are my own, though to be fair I have not read Bill
James' thoughts on this matter.
> > I have done much reading on this, from many different sources,
> > and I have come to the conclusion that he was approached to cheat
> > (that part is pretty much not in dispute) but that he refused or
> > didn't do it. Basically, to be blunt, I believe he was too stupid
> > to cheat, especially on the level he has been accused.
>
> I think he probably agreed to do it -- and possibly changed his mind.
> Didn't he receive money at some point, though?
My memory tells me he didn't agree to it, but they tried to pay him and
rope him into it nonetheless. I was very interested in this subject
back in the late 80s and early 90s but have hardly even thought about
it since, so I remember more my thoughts and conclusions and the basic
premise more so than minute details, though at the time I could have
recited all kinds of extraneous stuff and varying theories.
elizabeth
> Except for the most ardent Bonds haters, if the government goes gung ho
> against Bonds and if he is convicted or has to serve jail time.
As if . .. there is no way to seat a "nonbiased" jury. I mean, who
hasn't heard about this, and hasn't formed an opinion? the biggest
problem will be to screen out those who want to be on the jury "to
send a message" and write a book, and will lie about what they
think.
but the tide has turned on the BarryBashers. The Feds, as they often
do, just should have realized that this was a no win situation, and
just quietly dropped the whole thing. Now, they seem to be under the
influence of the Sunk Cost Effect, and don't want to let go.
> He
> eventually will be a sympathetic figure as History looks back. ie;
> shoeless joe jackson Mohammad Ali, or Jack Johnson. A movie will be made
> circa 2020 and Barry will be the hero, if he has a harsh trial, or goes to
> jail. Time will change the perceptions. Except for the 20 to 25% who
> will continue to drink the cool ade (aid).
There is the concept, "You can't fix dumb" which means that the
numbnuts will continue to believe what they want to believe, and no
proof to the contrary will have any effect on them.
elizabeth
snip
> How old are you? Why don't you go back to the clips of the 1960's and see
> how Ali, then Cassius Clay was one of the most hated men in America
Uh, Wayne, the young 'uns out there have no concept of history, and
are too stupid to understand the lessons of history, anyway.
I remember what was said about Ali. My dad loved him for what he did,
and I learned that the mobs are usually full of shit. But I was
raised at at time of decent education, when people were expected to
think about current events, not be deluded by psychotropic drugs and
mass media pushing the pecadillos of the "famous"
Jonathan Bernstein
_NXanZ2dnU...@comcast.com:
Specifically, on the point about his series stats...the Black Sox
weren't throwing every game, and Jackson hit well in the honest games,
but not in the fixed games. There's also the infamous two (IIRC)
triples to left field, both in the fixed games. I'm no expert on it,
but I'm pretty sure those are the basic facts about it. IOW, it's not a
matter of Bill James's opinion; it's that the full WS stats aren't
really relevant to the question of whether he threw the games that they
were throwing.
(Of course, hitting poorly in a handful of games isn't proof, or even
strong evidence, that a player is tanking deliberately; the point is
that hitting well in games that aren't in question has no bearing at all
on his intent in the games that *are* in question).
Also, AFAIK there's a lot less evidence than one might think that
Jackson was a dumb guy.
I suppose in overall morality, Jackson (if that's his only sin; I have
no idea) would not rank anywhere near where people like Bobby Cox or
Kirby Puckett live (assuming the complaints against them were true).
But baseball-wise, it's hard to imagine a worse sin than throwing the
World Series, and since baseball-wise is the only context in which
anyone today could possibly care about him, he's pretty much as bad as
it gets. And from what I understand, there's really not much question
but that Jackson was totally and completely guilty.
JHB
Steven Rubio
>Why is it a "vile" movie? Just curious, because you're in a pretty
>small minority with this opinion I think, so I'm guessing there's a
>reason. I know people who don;t like it, but I've never heard it
>referred to as bad as "vile" before.
With apologies for the cut-and-paste-and-edit ... I've had this
argument many times, as you note I am in the minority, I taught it one
semester and I don't think I convinced a single student that my take
was anywhere close to correct, and I ruined an entire family holiday
once when I got into an argument with my then-brother-in-law, who
loved Forrest Gump. Anyway, I've said/typed this before, and you did
ask, so here goes:
I really detest this movie. What do I hate about it? Many people see
it as an inspirational story about a person overcoming handicaps to
make a good life for themselves. I understand that reading of the
movie, but it's not mine.
I see two very unfortunate things happening in Forrest Gump. First, I
don't think the film stops with "look what a mentally-challenged
person can accomplish." I think the movie goes much further than that.
Forrest is basically a better person than everyone else in the entire
world of the movie. And he's not just better because he overcomes
challenges ... I would argue that the movie makes the case that
Forrest is better because he's stupid. He's simple ... he doesn't
fully grasp the socio-cultural meanings of life, he's just a simple
guy with a simple outlook. And, in the world of Forrest Gump, that
puts him closer to god. He understands just enough to get by ... god
and good luck do the rest. The unstated opposite side of that
philosophy is that intelligence is a bad thing, something that just
complicates your life, pulls you away from god. I find this to be a
very dangerous philosophy ... I am sure our leaders would love for us
all to be as simple and accepting as Forrest Gump, but me, I think
it's better that we utilize our intelligence to the fullest, in order
to get more out of life. I don't think the film makers agree with me.
The other thing I really hate is the character of Jenny. Jenny is the
anti-Forrest ... she DOES know what's going on, she experiences the
cultural milieu first hand, and she is miserable. Eventually, she gets
mortally ill ... before she dies (for all of her sins, which consist
of partying and politicking), she sees the light and returns to
Forrest. Basically, Jenny is punished for not being stupid, punished
for actually engaging in the world (Forrest just gazes at it from the
outside).
Furthermore, the film's trickery, whereby Forrest and Jenny are
inserted into many famous historical events, demonstrates where the
movie's sympathies lie. There is no such thing in the movie Forrest
Gump as a reasoned political stance. Politics, like everything else
that is "of the world," is for neurotics ... only stupid people like
Forrest are touched by god. And so Jenny waltzes through the various
social movements of the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and all of them are treated
exactly the same: Jenny's participation is related to her neuroses,
she only takes part because her life is empty, and protesting the war
in Vietnam is exactly the same as doing coke in the disco era, that is
to say, a fad for screwed-up people, something you will dump whenever
a new fad comes along.
So you've got a movie that treats political activism as serving the
same function for neurotics that cocaine does, you've got a movie
where the most likable character, indeed the most successful character
in all aspects of life, is a stupid man who luckily doesn't really
understand any of that silly cultural stuff. I believe Forrest Gump is
an extremely reactionary movie that promotes the value of stupidity
for the masses. I think it's one of the most dangerous popular films
I've ever seen. I hate it.
Steven
noogi...@yahoo.com
I was always under the impression that he did accept the money.
Greg Lentz
Forrest Gump is a better movie than Buffy: The Vampire Slayer was a
television series.
--
Greg Lentz
Greg Lentz
>On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:15:23 GMT, "TheDave©" <n...@no.com> wrote:
>
>>Why is it a "vile" movie? Just curious, because you're in a pretty
>>small minority with this opinion I think, so I'm guessing there's a
>>reason. I know people who don;t like it, but I've never heard it
>>referred to as bad as "vile" before.
<snip>
>I see two very unfortunate things happening in Forrest Gump. First, I
>don't think the film stops with "look what a mentally-challenged
>person can accomplish." I think the movie goes much further than that.
>Forrest is basically a better person than everyone else in the entire
>world of the movie. And he's not just better because he overcomes
>challenges ... I would argue that the movie makes the case that
>Forrest is better because he's stupid.
LOL
>The other thing I really hate is the character of Jenny. Jenny is the
>anti-Forrest ... she DOES know what's going on, she experiences the
>cultural milieu first hand, and she is miserable. Eventually, she gets
>mortally ill ... before she dies (for all of her sins, which consist
>of partying and politicking)
Yes, she was quite the savvy political activist.
>Furthermore, the film's trickery, whereby Forrest and Jenny are
>inserted into many famous historical events, demonstrates where the
>movie's sympathies lie. There is no such thing in the movie Forrest
>Gump as a reasoned political stance. Politics, like everything else
>that is "of the world," is for neurotics ... only stupid people like
>Forrest are touched by god. And so Jenny waltzes through the various
>social movements of the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and all of them are treated
>exactly the same: Jenny's participation is related to her neuroses,
>she only takes part because her life is empty, and protesting the war
>in Vietnam is exactly the same as doing coke in the disco era, that is
>to say, a fad for screwed-up people, something you will dump whenever
>a new fad comes along.
Double LOL
>So you've got a movie that treats political activism as serving the
>same function for neurotics that cocaine does, you've got a movie
>where the most likable character, indeed the most successful character
>in all aspects of life, is a stupid man who luckily doesn't really
>understand any of that silly cultural stuff. I believe Forrest Gump is
>an extremely reactionary movie that promotes the value of stupidity
>for the masses. I think it's one of the most dangerous popular films
>I've ever seen. I hate it.
I think, like most academics, you're looking too hard for symbolism.
--
Greg Lentz
Ron Johnson
You might want to check what Jackson said under oath:
"When a Cincinnati player would bat a ball out into my
territory, I'd muff it if I could. But if it would look too
much like crooked work to do that, I'd be slow and would make a
throw to the infield that would be too short. My work netted
the Cincinnati team several runs that they would never have made
had I been playing on the square. I helped throw games by
muffing hard chances in the outfield or by throwing slowly to
the infield."
And: (also under oath)
Q. How much did he promise you?
A. $20,000 if I would take part.
Q. And you said you would?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. When did he promise you the $20,000?
A. It was to be paid after each game.
Q. How much?
A. Split up some way, I don't know just how much it amounts to,
but during the series it would amount to $20,000. Finally
Williams brought me this $5,000, threw it down.
Q. At the end of the first game you didn't get any money, did
you?
A. No, I did not, no sir.
Q. What did you do then?
A. I asked Gandil what is the trouble? He says, "Everything is
all right," he had it.
Q. Then you went ahead and threw the second game, thinking you
would get it then, is that right?
A. We went ahead and threw the second game, we went after him
again. Q. After the fourth game you went to Cincinnati and you
had the $5,000, is that right?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Does [Mrs. Jackson] know that you got $5,000 for helping to
throw these games?
A. She did that night, yes.
Q. What did she say about it?
A. She said she thought it was an awful thing to do.
Westbrook Pegler also claimed (there are reasons to
distrust Pegler) that he "only poked at the ball in key
situations". (consistent with a win probability added
analysis of his play in the series)
Not that it matters. There's not much doubt that
Buck Weaver played hard and never took a dime (Though
Eddie Collins wasn't so sure about this). He's
still banned. Guilty knowledge.
There's also a flip side to the Black Sox which
shows why the concept of guilty knowledge is so
important.
Not many people are aware of it, but there was an
attempt to organize a competing fix. (which would
have been a disaster for baseball -- both teams
playing to lose)
Fell apart when Edd Rousch heard about what was
going on (initial feel by a gambler) and went to
his manager. (who confronted the team, and made it
clear that he'd act as soon as he saw anything
going on)
Ron Johnson
> > Gregg Pearlman wrote:
>
> > I think he probably agreed to do it -- and possibly changed his mind.
> > Didn't he receive money at some point, though?
>
> My memory tells me he didn't agree to it,
Arnold Rothstein made Jackson's participation mandatory.
He wouldn't fund the fix without Jackson on board.
noogi...@yahoo.com
Wasn't that the recanted confession? Did that actual exchange happen
in court?
Ron Johnson
>
> Wasn't that the recanted confession? Did that actual exchange happen
> in court?
In court before a grand jury.
http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/joejackson.shtml
Wasn't an issue in the trial that followed because they
weren't on trial for throwing games, but for fraud.
Quoting from the judge's instructions:
"The State must prove that it was the intent of the ballplayers and
gamblers charged with conspiracy through throwing the World Series, to
defraud the public and others, not merely to throw ballgames."
Ron Johnson
> Jackson was barely literate.
Yeah but that didn't mean stupid. Kids in poor families often
left school very early back then.
Not that it's proof of intelligence, but it is worth
noting that Jackson was a moderately successful
businessman.
Ron Johnson
> I was always under the impression that he did accept the money.
He didn't get all that he was promised. Chick Gandil
ended up with $35K (didn't bother handing out the
money after the second and third payouts) and
Swede Risberg ended up with $15K.
I guess Cicotte understood Gandil. He got all of
his money up front.
noogi...@yahoo.com
thx.
TheDave©
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 18:15:23 GMT, "TheDaveŠ" <n...@no.com> wrote:
>
> > Why is it a "vile" movie? Just curious, because you're in a pretty
> > small minority with this opinion I think, so I'm guessing there's a
> > reason. I know people who don;t like it, but I've never heard it
> > referred to as bad as "vile" before.
>
> With apologies for the cut-and-paste-and-edit ... I've had this
> argument many times, as you note I am in the minority, I taught it one
> semester and I don't think I convinced a single student that my take
> was anywhere close to correct, and I ruined an entire family holiday
> once when I got into an argument with my then-brother-in-law, who
> loved Forrest Gump. Anyway, I've said/typed this before, and you did
> ask, so here goes:
Nothing wrong with the cut-and-paste, and I find the argument part
funny. As far as your assessment, I pretty much agree with many of
your individual points, but not the final conclusion.
> I really detest this movie. What do I hate about it? Many people see
> it as an inspirational story about a person overcoming handicaps to
> make a good life for themselves. I understand that reading of the
> movie, but it's not mine.
>
> I see two very unfortunate things happening in Forrest Gump. First, I
> don't think the film stops with "look what a mentally-challenged
> person can accomplish."
In this instance you're pointing what other think more so than what you
think, but I'll comment on it anyway since it is such a prevalent
observation.
I do not think it is about mentally challenged people overcoming
handicaps at all... in any way, shape, or form. To do so, one must be
conscious of their limitations and make conscious effort to strive to
overcome them. Forrest knew he wasn't very smart, but other than that
he was pretty much clueless about his surroundings. He didn't do
anything. Situations and opportunities were thrust upon him and he
dealt with them in his simplistic way and his overcoming them was more
chance than anything else.
> I think the movie goes much further than that.
> Forrest is basically a better person than everyone else in the entire
> world of the movie. And he's not just better because he overcomes
> challenges ... I would argue that the movie makes the case that
> Forrest is better because he's stupid. He's simple ... he doesn't
> fully grasp the socio-cultural meanings of life, he's just a simple
> guy with a simple outlook. And, in the world of Forrest Gump, that
> puts him closer to god. He understands just enough to get by ... god
> and good luck do the rest.
I agree with this observation, but I don't see it as a 'knock' against
him or his character. If anything, it makes him more endearing and
sympathetic, albeit wholly unrealistic. He has no racial predudice.
He has no class prejudice. There's not a mean or vindictive bone in
his body. Supposedly, that's what all us intelligent people keep
striving for.
> The unstated opposite side of that
> philosophy is that intelligence is a bad thing, something that just
> complicates your life, pulls you away from god.
I don't see them portraying it as 'bad' per se, but more that we tend
to misuse our abilities. Intelligence *can be* overrated sometimes.
Sometimes we overthink things to the point of absurdity when the best
answer really is the simple answer.
> I find this to be a
> very dangerous philosophy ... I am sure our leaders would love for us
> all to be as simple and accepting as Forrest Gump, but me, I think
> it's better that we utilize our intelligence to the fullest, in order
> to get more out of life. I don't think the film makers agree with me.
I have no doubt our so-called leaders would prefer us to not question
their superior intelligence.
> The other thing I really hate is the character of Jenny. Jenny is the
> anti-Forrest ... she DOES know what's going on, she experiences the
> cultural milieu first hand, and she is miserable. Eventually, she gets
> mortally ill ... before she dies (for all of her sins, which consist
> of partying and politicking), she sees the light and returns to
> Forrest. Basically, Jenny is punished for not being stupid, punished
> for actually engaging in the world (Forrest just gazes at it from the
> outside).
Agree again, except for the conclusion. I find Jenny to be repugnant.
She's a user. Granted, she is the only one who befriends him as a
child, but even that is with ulterior motives, as we realize later.
She's not really a bad person in that she never harms anybody else, but
her life is filled with the wrong choice... and you always feel like
she knows better. Forrest is always "Plan B"... whenever she gets in
trouble and needs to fall back and regroup she knows he's there to help
her, no questions asked. She's actually quite lucky in that regard.
Most people don't have that, even with family.
I disagree that she's punished for "not being stupid", and for engaging
in the world. I see her as literally being punished for being dumb,
which is different than stupid IMHO. How I think of it is that Forrest
is not intelligent, but smart (in a way, he has a base common sense).
Jenny is intelligent but not smart. Intelligence is only worth a hill
of beans if one uses it appropriately.
> Furthermore, the film's trickery, whereby Forrest and Jenny are
> inserted into many famous historical events, demonstrates where the
> movie's sympathies lie. There is no such thing in the movie Forrest
> Gump as a reasoned political stance. Politics, like everything else
> that is "of the world," is for neurotics ... only stupid people like
> Forrest are touched by god. And so Jenny waltzes through the various
> social movements of the 60s, 70s, and 80s, and all of them are treated
> exactly the same: Jenny's participation is related to her neuroses,
> she only takes part because her life is empty, and protesting the war
> in Vietnam is exactly the same as doing coke in the disco era, that is
> to say, a fad for screwed-up people, something you will dump whenever
> a new fad comes along.
Each character being something of an extreme composite for the two
drastically opposite sides of the spectrum, I think it's pretty
accurate. For most people who participated, those things were merely
fads, to be discarded when the next fad comes along.
Forrest gets thrust into situation after situation and ends up
influencing major events in history, both political (Watergate, for
example) and cultural (teaching Elvis to 'dance'. etc.), yet he is
absolutely clueless to any of this. It's an absord notion that one
person could have such a deep-reaching influence even if they tried,
but it is a movie and part of it's charm and entertainment value is
precisely this absurdity.
> So you've got a movie that treats political activism as serving the
> same function for neurotics that cocaine does, you've got a movie
> where the most likable character, indeed the most successful character
> in all aspects of life, is a stupid man who luckily doesn't really
> understand any of that silly cultural stuff. I believe Forrest Gump is
> an extremely reactionary movie that promotes the value of stupidity
> for the masses. I think it's one of the most dangerous popular films
> I've ever seen. I hate it.
I'm sure many movie makers do strive to make a point with their work,
but in this case I sense that you're reading more into it than what's
really there. For example, you make the political aspect and God to be
more significant than what I think it is, so I wonder if those are
particular hot-button issues for you.
If it really was intended to promote the value of stupidity for the
masses, then it failed miserably. I am not aware of a single person
that would want to be Forrest Gump.
Steven Rubio
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:53:52 GMT, TheDaveŠ <n...@no.com> wrote:
>> Steven Rubio wrote:
>> The unstated opposite side of that
>> philosophy is that intelligence is a bad thing, something that just
>> complicates your life, pulls you away from god.
>
>I don't see them portraying it as 'bad' per se, but more that we tend
>to misuse our abilities. Intelligence *can be* overrated sometimes.
>Sometimes we overthink things to the point of absurdity when the best
>answer really is the simple answer.
The movie, our reaction to it, and this discussion for that matter,
all occur within the context of a culture that is strongly
anti-intellectual. Americans tend to devalue the expert in favor of a
more populist "reg'lar guy" approach. It's appropriate that we're
talking about this in a baseball newsgroup ... the tired "aesthetics
vs. stats" argument is a version of the above. Forrest Gump is all
about the notion that intelligence is overrated, and it's entirely
fair to challenge it on that basis.
>I'm sure many movie makers do strive to make a point with their work,
>but in this case I sense that you're reading more into it than what's
>really there.
The bias I bring to the table is that I think everything is ripe for
close reading. I make my mostly insignificant "living" reading "more"
into things ... I'm the guy who taught an entire course on Buffy the
Vampire Slayer, after all :-). So yes, I'm biased, in that I think
it's probably impossible to read too much into anything. That's me as
a cultural studies scholar. As an English teacher, I am one of those
who cares little for authorial intent. Once the work leaves the
creator's hands, it's ours. So, since I wasn't clear and it is another
of my biases, I'll add that I don't have the slightest idea whether
the movie makers had any of this in mind when they made the movie. I
just don't think it matters what they intended. Interesting, sure, but
it's like gossip, fun to know but ultimately unimportant.
>If it really was intended to promote the value of stupidity for the
>masses, then it failed miserably. I am not aware of a single person
>that would want to be Forrest Gump.
I don't know anyone like that, either ... well, maybe my
ex-brother-in-law :-). But that wasn't the point I was trying to make.
I don't believe the movie encourages us to be mentally challenged. But
I think it does make the case for an unquestioning apathy, treating
proactive measures as nothing more than fads while giving real power
to those who cluelessly let stuff happen to them. A nation of Forrest
Gumps ... not a nation of people with low IQs, but a nation of people
who just let life waft over them, who have no real use for
intelligence, who just take what life gives them ... that's a nation
in trouble.
Again, thanks for the reply ... lotta meat in your comments.
Steven
radiomd
Steven Rubio <sru...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it does make the case for an unquestioning apathy, treating
> proactive measures as nothing more than fads while giving real power
> to those who cluelessly let stuff happen to them. A nation of Forrest
> Gumps ... not a nation of people with low IQs, but a nation of people
> who just let life waft over them, who have no real use for
> intelligence, who just take what life gives them ... that's a nation
> in trouble.
Interesting reading of the film. Three major problems with it:
1) Forrest Gump is far from a stupid apathetic figure. While it's true
that he's neither intelligent nor political, he's smart enough to
reflect by the end of the film that there is parity in his own life
between the self-directed destiny his mother has told him about and the
accidents that Lieutenant Dan has described, that keep them all
"floating around on the breeze." "I think maybe it's both," he says, in
what must be in the film's world the most reflective speech of the late
Twentieth Century.
In a film in which "stupid is as stupid does," he absolves himself of
the charge of stupidity by doing well where he can. In his deeds he is
loyal, tenacious, generous, and unexpectedly gifted. To say that he
"gazes at the world from the outside" is to disregard his several acts
of rescue, of tending those who need him, and of serendipitous invention.
2) Jenny is hardly the antithesis of stupid. In fact, if "stupid is as
stupid does," then it's possible to argue that if anyone in the film is
locked into a pattern of stupidity, she is. She forms the habit of
running away at a young age when she must flee for her safety, and for
the rest of her life she repeats this act, always leaving, even from
mutual love in a home where she's safe. Perhaps her prayer in the
cornfield was granted, and thereafter she is the stupid bird she wanted
to be.
You've put a lot of emphasis on her participation in the anti-war
protests, and because of this you've cast her as a savvy and political
anti-Forrest, but in reality she's just there with her boyfriend, whom
she eventually (yes) flees after they return to Berkeley together.
Jenny's character is probably the biggest problem in the finished film.
It's impossible to hold any sympathy for her when she leaves Forrest
after finally telling him that she loves him. This penultimate departure
of hers is in retrospect a necessary set-up for a tear-jerker finish
(revelation of Forrest Jr., revelation of terminal illness, marriage,
death, Forrest's graveside soliloquy, etc.), but it feels forced even
before you know what depends on it. The cab driver asks, "Where're you
running to?" She says, "I'm not running." The viewer wants to yell at
the screen, "Either you are running like he says, you stupid
ill-motivated character, or you have devolved into a mere plot device in
a film in search of an ending."
Jenny's advice to Forrest before he goes to Viet Nam is telling: "If
you're ever in trouble donšt try to be brave. You just run, OK, just run
away." It's also telling that he doesn't follow it, as it turns out, all
that well.
3) There are at least two intelligent characters in the film who are not
"punished for engaging in the world", Mrs. Gump and Lieutenant Dan.
Having written this much already, it's not clear to me that this film
deserves a close reading. My gut feeling is that Zemeckis was happy just
to have enough of a plot on which to hang the various digital insertions
of Forrest Gump into period footage. But I don't think you've done it
justice, such as it is.
Ron Johnson
Weird how things work out sometimes.
A whole pile of important Black Sox documents have
just turned up and are going to auction.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-blacksox_bd25nov25,1,6992914.story
For a look at some of the documents see:
http://chicagotribune.com/blacksox
Includes a report from a private detective to Comiskey,
Cicotte's grand jury testimony, and Lefty Williams'
statement to Charles Comiskey, plus some documents
from Jackson's suit for back pay.
elaich
@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net:
>
> Interesting reading of the film. Three major problems with it:
I must be the only person on the face of the earth who has never seen
Forrest Gump. Fact is, I don't like movies. I could never understand why
others attach so much importance to them. I'd rather sit down and read the
book.
--
A: Because it disturbs the logical flow of the message.
Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
Steven Rubio
wrote:
>You've put a lot of emphasis on her participation in the anti-war
>protests, and because of this you've cast her as a savvy and political
>anti-Forrest, but in reality she's just there with her boyfriend, whom
>she eventually (yes) flees after they return to Berkeley together.
She is as you describe because she is written that way, which is kinda
the point. She could have been a savvy political activist ... they did
exist, you know ... she could have actually cared about the stuff she
did ... people did ... but they wrote her instead as a character who
wasn't a savvy political activist but rather a fad-chasing airhead,
locked into a pattern of stupidity as the movie defines it. I agree
with you that she is dumb ... it's part of the movie's take on
intelligence, that the smarter you are, the dumber you are, while if
you're Forrest Gump, you're closer to God.
Steven
Greg Lentz
In other words, you're right and anyone who disagrees isn't.
--
Greg Lentz
radiomd
Steven Rubio <sru...@gmail.com> wrote:
It's not a persuasive reading. Go ahead and hate the film, that's fine.
But if you want to criticize it, you have to let it define its terms.
These are not its terms.
TheDave©
> The cab driver asks, "Where're you running to?" She says, "I'm not
> running." The viewer wants to yell at the screen, "Either you are
> running like he says, you stupid ill-motivated character, or you have
> devolved into a mere plot device in a film in search of an ending."
Interesting you say that. Every time I watch it I want to say "not
running, my ass.".
TheDave©
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 20:40:50 -0800, radiomd <rad...@outthere.net>
> wrote:
>
> > You've put a lot of emphasis on her participation in the anti-war
> > protests, and because of this you've cast her as a savvy and
> > political anti-Forrest, but in reality she's just there with her
> > boyfriend, whom she eventually (yes) flees after they return to
> > Berkeley together.
>
> She is as you describe because she is written that way, which is kinda
> the point. She could have been a savvy political activist ... they did
> exist, you know ... she could have actually cared about the stuff she
> did ... people did ... but they wrote her instead as a character who
> wasn't a savvy political activist but rather a fad-chasing airhead,
> locked into a pattern of stupidity as the movie defines it.
That was part of my point in my other post. Of the people who
participated in these protests and movements, how many were really
seriously and honestly dedicated to the causes? Those people existed,
absolutely, but my guess would be maybe 10%. Maybe another 10-30% were
serious about it... for awhile, then something else comes along to
divert their attention. The remainder were merely fad-seekers,
followers, and people trying to fit in and/or have some fun. Jenny was
one of the remainders. I don't see how casting her as one of the
followers was necessarily bad or deceptive as that was what most of
them were anyway. It was kind of refreshingly accurate, even.
> I agree
> with you that she is dumb ... it's part of the movie's take on
> intelligence, that the smarter you are, the dumber you are, while if
> you're Forrest Gump, you're closer to God.
There's that God thing again. I didn't see it as a major part of the
film at all. Forrest believed, but only because he was told to by his
mother, IMHO. That, plus it was far more prevelant in the south in
that era. Time and place should be taken into account, also.
radiomd
wrote:
Very succinct. I'll try that next time. :-)
Brad Filippone
: On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:43:49 +0000 (UTC), al...@chebucto.ns.ca (Brad
: Filippone) wrote:
: >Steven Rubio (sru...@gmail.com) wrote:
: >: On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 05:40:25 GMT, Jonathan Bernstein
: >: <j...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote:
: >
: >: >if people idolize Joe Jackson, youneverknow.
: >
: >: True. I mean, Forrest Gump grossed close to 3/4 of a billion dollars,
: >: so I suppose there's no underestimating people's ability to feel
: >: kindly towards a moron. Of course, Joe Jackson was a far better
: >: ballplayer than Forrest Gump was a movie, but at least Forrest didn't
: >: cheat.
: >
: >Forrest is mentally impaired, not a moron.
: As are the people who liked his vile movie. But I stand corrected.
You didn't like it, so the people who do are mentally impaired? So much
for the Academy. We should just have you give out the awards.
Brad
radiomd
al...@chebucto.ns.ca (Brad Filippone) wrote:
Surely we're not bound by the Academy's assessment of films. I think we
can agree that they've picked a few vile movies as Best Picture, even if
we can't agree on which ones those are.
Greg Lentz
I think we'll get more agreement on Titanic than most.
--
Greg Lentz
radiomd
Greg Lentz <nodam...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
Perhaps, but I think it takes a bit of work to separate the merely bad
from the truly vile. I'd say that somebody has to be as inspired as
Steven was to draft a case for the vileness of a film before it can be
nominated, and that case has to be more convincing than Steven's for
"Forrest Gump" for it to be generally accepted. Because a convincing
case may require one or more careful viewings above and beyond what has
probably already been counted as lost time, the inspiration needed would
have to be of a compelling nature, perhaps even obsessive.
"Titanic" doesn't inspire me to sit down and work out how bad it is.
Sure it's flawed, but I can let it go at that.
Take Pedro Feliz. Anyone can tell from his statistical line that he's a
bad hitter, but is he truly vile? To answer this question you must watch
him, patiently noting the way he hits a groundball to the right side
when there's a runner on first and less than 2 out, a flyball to left
when there's a runner on 2nd and nobody out, and a popout to short when
there's a runner on 3rd and less than 2 out (if he makes any contact at
all). It may take years to build the case -- at least it takes that kind
of time for Brian Sabean, a savvy baseball man. Who knows how long the
rest of us would need?
Greg Lentz
I always appreciate when someone can take any subject, no matter how
unrelated, and somehow tie it back to Pedro Feliz.
--
Greg Lentz
malbuff
> > So you've got a movie that treats political activism as serving the
> > same function for neurotics that cocaine does, you've got a movie
> > where the most likable character, indeed the most successful character
> > in all aspects of life, is a stupid man who luckily doesn't really
> > understand any of that silly cultural stuff. I believe Forrest Gump is
> > an extremely reactionary movie that promotes the value of stupidity
> > for the masses. I think it's one of the most dangerous popular films
> > I've ever seen. I hate it.
As we all might expect, you and I are on opposite sides here.
IMO, Forrest Gump was a refreshing and necessary antidote to
The Big Chill, which was both vile and evil.
David M
Awesome Lincecum
"TheDaveŠ" <n...@no.com> wrote in message news:gNB2j.2285
>
> Of the people who
> participated in these protests and movements, how many were really
> seriously and honestly dedicated to the causes? Those people existed,
> absolutely, but my guess would be maybe 10%. Maybe another 10-30% were
> serious about it... for awhile, then something else comes along to
> divert their attention. The remainder were merely fad-seekers,
> followers, and people trying to fit in and/or have some fun.
That reminds me of the critical mass idiots.
Awesome Lincecum
"Ron Johnson" <joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:ebd7862a-1917-4fcf...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 25, 2:17 am, noogied...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >
> > Wasn't that the recanted confession? Did that actual exchange happen
> > in court?
>
> In court before a grand jury.
>
> http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/joejackson.shtml
Ooh, this will change some opinions...
Jamal Bernhard
>> I think we'll get more agreement on Titanic than most.
>
> Perhaps, but I think it takes a bit of work to separate the merely bad
> from the truly vile. I'd say that somebody has to be as inspired as
> Steven was to draft a case for the vileness of a film before it can be
> nominated, and that case has to be more convincing than Steven's for
> "Forrest Gump" for it to be generally accepted. Because a convincing
> case may require one or more careful viewings above and beyond what has
> probably already been counted as lost time, the inspiration needed would
> have to be of a compelling nature, perhaps even obsessive.
>
> "Titanic" doesn't inspire me to sit down and work out how bad it is.
> Sure it's flawed, but I can let it go at that.
I would have enjoyed Titanic more if the master reel from Forrest Gump had been
on board.
Ron Johnson
>
> I always appreciate when someone can take any subject, no matter how
> unrelated, and somehow tie it back to Pedro Feliz.
Six Degrees of Feliz.
Didn't somebody make a really vile movie on the subject?
TheDave©
Ok, so if I'm reading that right, I get the following...
- He (Jackson) agreed to throw games... seemingly reluctantly, maybe
not, kinda hard to tell, he waffles some on that.
- He denies ever doing anything that would have hurt his team...
implying that while he took the money he didn't "earn" it.
- It seems to conform some of my earlier conclusions that he wasn't a
very bright guy, and may have felt stuck between a rock and a hard
place, and afraid to do the right thing, maybe for fear of physical
harm or just slow and unsure, but I'm not so sure that's a valid excuse.
Gary Rosen
"malbuff" <mal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a1d3ccbd-57cc-448d...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> As we all might expect, you and I are on opposite sides here.
> IMO, Forrest Gump was a refreshing and necessary antidote to
> The Big Chill, which was both vile and evil.
The Big Chill was NOT vile and evil ... just trite
and overrated.
- Gary Rosen
radiomd
Greg Lentz <nodam...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> I always appreciate when someone can take any subject, no matter how
> unrelated, and somehow tie it back to Pedro Feliz.
I was inspired by the leap from Joe Jackson to "Forrest Gump".
Besides, just in case Sabean trades everybody in the system with upside
for Miguel Cabrera and finally lets Pedro Feliz find his own way in the
world, I wanted to make sure I made good use of my powers before they
become obsolete.
Greg Lentz
I've still never watched that movie, but I suspect I'd probably feel the
same way as you do.
I had feelings like that for Trainspotting, which most people liked, but I
like to be entertained in a movie. I don't want to watch people try to
kick heroin for my entertainment, much less take a swim in a toilet.
--
Greg Lentz
Greg Lentz
wrote:
LMAO
What if Pedro Feliz had been on board?
--
Greg Lentz
Greg Lentz
wrote:
I felt they were trying to say that triteness brought you closer to God.
--
Greg Lentz
Greg Lentz
>In article <abhmk3plcnqum9rvl...@4ax.com>,
> Greg Lentz <nodam...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> I always appreciate when someone can take any subject, no matter how
>> unrelated, and somehow tie it back to Pedro Feliz.
>
>I was inspired by the leap from Joe Jackson to "Forrest Gump".
Yes, but in terms of tying unrelated stuff back to himself, perhaps only
Kevin Bacon himself can out-Feliz Pedro Feliz.
>Besides, just in case Sabean trades everybody in the system with upside
>for Miguel Cabrera and finally lets Pedro Feliz find his own way in the
>world, I wanted to make sure I made good use of my powers before they
>become obsolete.
Ha!
--
Greg Lentz
radiomd
Greg Lentz <nodam...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >Besides, just in case Sabean trades everybody in the system with upside
> >for Miguel Cabrera and finally lets Pedro Feliz find his own way in the
> >world, I wanted to make sure I made good use of my powers before they
> >become obsolete.
>
> Ha!
"Ha!" as in "You haven't aimed low enough for Sabean yet," such as
trading every promising young player in the system for Andy Marte
instead?
Jamal Bernhard
>>> "Titanic" doesn't inspire me to sit down and work out how bad it is.
>>> Sure it's flawed, but I can let it go at that.
>>
>> I would have enjoyed Titanic more if the master reel from Forrest Gump had been
>> on board.
>
> LMAO
>
> What if Pedro Feliz had been on board?
Then it would have actually deserved the Oscar...
Steven Rubio
<joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:
>On Nov 26, 5:16 pm, Greg Lentz <nodamns...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I always appreciate when someone can take any subject, no matter how
>> unrelated, and somehow tie it back to Pedro Feliz.
>
>Six Degrees of Feliz.
I have a confession to make. I took over a very bad team in a Hardball
Dynasty league, and figured I'd go into rebuilding mode. So I traded
one of my aging, expensive but still worthwhile players for a
20-year-old prospect named ... Pedro Feliz:
http://whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=999241
Steven
Greg Lentz
"Ha!" as in you amused me greatly.
--
Greg Lentz
Tonawanda Kardex
> Except for the most ardent Bonds haters, if the government goes gung ho
> against Bonds and if he is convicted or has to serve jail time. He
> eventually will be a sympathetic figure as History looks back. ie;
> shoeless joe jackson Mohammad Ali, or Jack Johnson. A movie will be made
> circa 2020 and Barry will be the hero, if he has a harsh trial, or goes to
> jail. Time will change the perceptions. Except for the 20 to 25% who
> will continue to drink the cool ade (aid).
TMML.
[GOOGLE ARCHIVE MARKED KARDEX 2007]
Dr. Wayne Simon
"Jamal Bernhard" <no...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:Cw33j.24804$JD....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
Of course forrest Gump is dangerous, we have him as president.
Brad Filippone
: In article <fierom$5r7$1...@Kil-nws-1.UCIS.Dal.Ca>,
: al...@chebucto.ns.ca (Brad Filippone) wrote:
The winner is not always my top pick of the five nominees, but the fact
is, they've never even NOMINATED a movie that could reasonably be
described as "vile."
Brad
Jonathan Bernstein
news:fimivc$6q3$1...@Kil-nws-1.UCIS.Dal.Ca:
> The winner is not always my top pick of the five nominees, but the
> fact is, they've never even NOMINATED a movie that could reasonably be
> described as "vile."
Well, the Academy didn't get started as early as Birth of the Nation,
which almost certainly would have been nominated...let's see, I've seen
reasonable arguments that the following (not all of which I've seen) are
vile: The Green Mile; Life Is Beautiful; Gump (winner); JFK; Dances With
Wolves (winner); Field of Dreams; and Driving Miss Daisy (winner).
Actually, the 1989 nominees included Daisy, Dreams, Born on the Fourth
of July, and Dead Poets' Society, all of which I've heard described as,
essentially, vile). I'm taking "vile" to mean what I think Steven
meant, something like egregiously offensive.
Of course, there have been a far larger number of just plain bad movies
nominated.
I would say that I see far fewer movies I think of as vile before the
last twenty or so years, although there are a few I don't recognize.
ObGiants: Best Picture in 1951 was An American in Paris; 1954, On the
Waterfront; 1962, Lawrence of Arabia; 1989, Daisy; 2002, Chicago. Not
much of a pattern there.
JHB
Ron Johnson
wrote:
> al...@chebucto.ns.ca (Brad Filippone) wrote innews:fimivc$6q3$1...@Kil-nws-1.UCIS.Dal.Ca:
>
> > The winner is not always my top pick of the five nominees, but the
> > fact is, they've never even NOMINATED a movie that could reasonably be
> > described as "vile."
>
> Well, the Academy didn't get started as early as Birth of the Nation,
> which almost certainly would have been nominated.
Funny first thought that came to my mind.
Can't imagine that it wouldn't have won.
I remember the stunned look on everybody's face
as we watched it (group of history buff who'd
heard so much about what an important picture
it was.
On a related note, I remember the first time
I actually saw films of some of the legendary
foxers of that general time frame.
I'd read a lot about guys like Ketchel and
Corbett. Stunning to see how much the
fight game has changed in such a short time.
Awesome Lincecum
"Jonathan Bernstein" <j...@socrates.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
>
> ObGiants: Best Picture in 1951 was An American in Paris; 1954, On the
> Waterfront; 1962, Lawrence of Arabia; 1989, Daisy; 2002, Chicago. Not
> much of a pattern there.
I see a pattern! All but one have something to do with a location.
And the one film that has nothing to do with a location, the Giants lost to
a team of steroids users.
Awesome Lincecum
"TheDaveŠ" <n...@no.com> wrote in message news:VPN2j.10$ZF...@newsfe21.lga...
Hmm... seems like I got a little mixed up. The part that I was referring to
wasn't in this article. It was from a post by Ron Johnson. Not sure where
he got it:
***********************************************
You might want to check what Jackson said under oath:
"When a Cincinnati player would bat a ball out into my
territory, I'd muff it if I could. But if it would look too
much like crooked work to do that, I'd be slow and would make a
throw to the infield that would be too short. My work netted
the Cincinnati team several runs that they would never have made
had I been playing on the square. I helped throw games by
muffing hard chances in the outfield or by throwing slowly to
the infield."
************************************************
TheDave©
> "TheDave)" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
> news:VPN2j.10$ZF...@newsfe21.lga...
> > > Awesome Lincecum wrote:
> > > "Ron Johnson" <joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:ebd7862a-1917-4fcf...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups
Yeah, I had to go back and look through it again because I didn't catch
it either, and was wondering if it was just me.
Ron Johnson
> > Awesome Lincecum wrote:
> > "TheDave)" <n...@no.com> wrote in message
> >news:VPN2j.10$ZF...@newsfe21.lga...
> > > > Awesome Lincecum wrote:
Me too. I got that many years ago from a post
citing Harvey Frommer's Shoeless Joe and Ragtime
Baseball (the first book to cite the grand jury
testimony). Can't recall who first posted it,
but it might have been Doug Pappas -- a
generally very reliable source.
Maybe Frommer got confused and mixed in something
from a different version of Jackson's
story (Jackson told many different versions)
Or maybe he correctly noted the source
and the guy who first posted it mixed things
from two sources.
I don't currently have access to a copy of
Frommer's book.
I know Dan Szymborski does, but I don't
think he lurks here (and rates to be
kinda busy at the Transaction Oracle)
Whatever, the Hall of Fame is getting a
copy of all of the new Black Sox documents
and we'll have a much more detailed
understanding.
Awesome Lincecum
Well, if Jackson did say the quoted paragraph above, then there's not much
doubt that he did help to throw the game. I guess whether someone believes
Jackson was innocent or not depends greatly on if he believes the
authenticity of that paragraph.
Brad Filippone
: On Nov 29, 3:38 pm, Jonathan Bernstein <j...@socrates.berkeley.edu>
: wrote:
: > al...@chebucto.ns.ca (Brad Filippone) wrote innews:fimivc$6q3$1...@Kil-nws-1.UCIS.Dal.Ca:
: >
: > > The winner is not always my top pick of the five nominees, but the
: > > fact is, they've never even NOMINATED a movie that could reasonably be
: > > described as "vile."
: >
: > Well, the Academy didn't get started as early as Birth of the Nation,
: > which almost certainly would have been nominated.
: Funny first thought that came to my mind.
: Can't imagine that it wouldn't have won.
: I remember the stunned look on everybody's face
: as we watched it (group of history buff who'd
: heard so much about what an important picture
: it was.
"Birth of a Nation" has always been a controversial film. Certainly there
are few reasonable people today who agree with its politics. It's place
in history has more to do with Griffith's technique. If you ignore the
racial message, it is an amazing movie and nothing of its kind had ever
been even attempted before.
Of course, it very difficult to ignore the racial message. For a less
controversial, though still just as amazing, Griffith movie, try
"Intollerance"
Brad