The Passion of Mel
kay w
it really happening due to the movie's merits and newsworthiness?
They're predicting he'll more than make his $25 million investment back the
first weekend it's released.
--
But Tonto he was smarter/ And one day said "Kemo Sabe,
Kiss my ass; I bought a boat. / I'm going out to sea."
Lyle Lovett
Al Yellon
news:20040219211422...@mb-m04.aol.com:
> Has he deliberately created a brilliant marketing scheme for this
> movie, or is it really happening due to the movie's merits and
> newsworthiness?
>
> They're predicting he'll more than make his $25 million investment
> back the first weekend it's released.
Not off me, he won't.
I do believe those who have seen this film and say that the film is not
anti-Semitic. However, it has the possibility of raising anti-Semitic
thoughts and feelings, and that's the crux of the problem.
I also have lost a lot of respect for Gibson after he would not renounce
his father's ridiculous Holocaust denial crap, not even to say that he
doesn't believe the same things.
--
"The only thing that would jinx an animated feature film nomination for
'Finding Nemo' is the unexpected interference of a Chicago Cubs fan."
-- Michael Mallory, Daily Variety, December 10, 2003
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rants, comments, reviews: || To contact me use the following:
http://www.yellon.org/links.htm || itghtfr02 (at) sneakemail (dot) com
Incredible Rhyme Animal
>They're predicting he'll more than make his $25 million investment back the
>first weekend it's released.
Who is "they?"
I axe because I sawer on the AOL screen the other day speculation that the
movie would be "career ruining."
kay w
>I also have lost a lot of respect for Gibson after he would not renounce
>his father's ridiculous Holocaust denial crap, not even to say that he
>doesn't believe the same things.
To be fair, he did say:
"Do I believe that there were concentration camps where defenseless and
innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime? Of course I do; absolutely,"
he said. "It was an atrocity of monumental proportion."
Asked if the Holocaust represented a "particular kind of evil," he told Sawyer
it did, but added, "Why do you need me to tell you? It's like, it's obvious.
They're killed because of who and what they are. Is that not evil enough?"
Why should he have to publically say his dad is a nutjob? It's clear.
Boron Elgar
>Has he deliberately created a brilliant marketing scheme for this movie, or is
>it really happening due to the movie's merits and newsworthiness?
>
>They're predicting he'll more than make his $25 million investment back the
>first weekend it's released.
Just in what I have heard him say recently and from what I have read
about how the marketing has been done, I would say the apple does not
fall far from the tree.
boron
kay w
>Just in what I have heard him say recently and from what I have read
>about how the marketing has been done, I would say the apple does not
>fall far from the tree.
There's more at Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/gibson.asp
kay w
Me(kay):
>>They're predicting he'll more than make his $25 million investment back the
>>first weekend it's released.
Dutch:
>Who is "they?"
>I axe because I sawer on the AOL screen the other day speculation that the
>movie would be "career ruining."
That a fair question...I wish I had a firm answer. I want to say I heard it on
Entertainment Tonight, but am not at all sure.
Boron Elgar
>Previously, Boron said:
>
>>Just in what I have heard him say recently and from what I have read
>>about how the marketing has been done, I would say the apple does not
>>fall far from the tree.
>
>There's more at Snopes:
>
>http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/gibson.asp
I did not read the Times article at all, but read 2 other pieces while
I was waiting somewhere. Entertainment News was one of them (yeah,
yeah, I know). I was surprised at how negative a spin they put on him
and the way the marketing was being done. I though those mags all did
puff pieces.
Boron
Tedthecat85
>
>
>
>Has he deliberately created a brilliant marketing scheme for this movie, or
>is
>it really happening due to the movie's merits and newsworthiness?
For those who played the Jewish v Goyish game in this newsgroup, this movie may
perhaps be Gibson's way of joining in by saying that killing Christ is Jewish.
I thought that game was always in poor taste.
http://www.google.com/groups?q=%22jewish+or%22+++group:alt.fan.cecil-adams
&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&scoring=r&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=2000&
as_maxd=19&as_maxm=2&as_maxy=2004&selm=20010211233101.23777.00000031%40ng-
fw1.aol.com&rnum=4
James Gifford
> I did not read the Times article at all, but read 2 other pieces while
> I was waiting somewhere. Entertainment News was one of them (yeah,
> yeah, I know). I was surprised at how negative a spin they put on him
> and the way the marketing was being done. I though those mags all did
> puff pieces.
They're just the 21st century version of Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons.
Lick their butt enough and they'll write puff pieces on command. Piss them
off by not giving an interview or not playing by their rules, and they'll
try to bite your ass off.
--
| James Gifford * FIX SPAMTRAP TO REPLY |
| So... your philosophy fits in a sig, does it? |
| Heinlein Pages Updated! See www.nitrosyncretic.com |
Andrew Gore
>Has he deliberately created a brilliant marketing scheme for this movie, or is
>it really happening due to the movie's merits and newsworthiness?
>
>They're predicting he'll more than make his $25 million investment back the
>first weekend it's released.
What I want to know is, what makes it different from all the
other "Passions"? How many different versions of This Is Your Life,
J.C. has Hollywood churned out, from Cecil (B DeMille, that is) to
"The Last Temptation of Christ"? My favorite is Franco Zefferelli's
version. I'm waiting for the musical, m'self. What makes Mel's passion
so... different, supposedly better?
kay w
>For those who played the Jewish v Goyish game in this newsgroup, this movie
may
>perhaps be Gibson's way of joining in by saying that killing Christ is Jewish.
> I thought that game was always in poor taste.
I'd be interested to know why you say so...something Mel has said?
Chris Basken
> I'm waiting for the musical, m'self.
Jesus Christ Superstar?
Joe Shimkus
"Chris Basken" <n...@chance.com> wrote:
Who in Hell do you think you are?
--
PGP Key (DH/DSS): http://www.shimkus.com/public_key.asc
PGP Fingerprint: 89B4 52DA CF10 EE03 02AD 9134 21C6 2A68 CE52 EE1A
Windows has always aspired to be Mac-like without Microsoft ever really understanding what that even means. - Robert Cringely
Joseph Michael Bay
From bits I've seen it looks like it REALLY does up the Pius-X-Roman-
Catholic-artwork that's crazy with blood and dirt in a particular way.
Actually some of the more detailed frames in Jack Chick tracts have
a bit of that. I haven't seen it in a movie, though.
--
"PS. Please take note of the fact that, in conformity with the
regulations of this office, all information contained in the above
letter is false, for reasons of military security."
- Umberto Eco, /How to Travel with a Salmon & Other Essays/
Joseph Michael Bay
>Previously, Al said:
>>I also have lost a lot of respect for Gibson after he would not renounce
>>his father's ridiculous Holocaust denial crap, not even to say that he
>>doesn't believe the same things.
>To be fair, he did say:
>"Do I believe that there were concentration camps where defenseless and
>innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime? Of course I do; absolutely,"
>he said. "It was an atrocity of monumental proportion."
"Died cruelly"?
Kim
> Has he deliberately created a brilliant marketing scheme for this
> movie, or is it really happening due to the movie's merits and
> newsworthiness?
>
> They're predicting he'll more than make his $25 million investment
> back the first weekend it's released.
I think that when the star got struck by lightning while filming the scene
on the cross, well...I would have packed it all up and went home right then.
What more non-endorsement do you need?
I won't go to any theater that's *playing* the movie, let alone sit in the
audience to watch it. My momma didn't raise no fools.
--
Kim
*I cried because I had no sex until I met a cheap hooker. Problem solved,
right? Wrong! Bitch stole my shoes! (Tim H. Richweis)*
Randee
>
> Kay:
> >>They're predicting he'll more than make his $25 million investment back
the
> >>first weekend it's released.
>
> Dutch:
> >Who is "they?"
> >I axe because I sawer on the AOL screen the other day speculation that
the
> >movie would be "career ruining."
>
> That a fair question...I wish I had a firm answer. I want to say I heard
it on
> Entertainment Tonight, but am not at all sure.
From what I've read, church groups are purchasing tickets in mass quantities
(no pun intended). Whether or not they believe they have enough people under
wing to follow through on those tickets by attending will be the interesting
part: I'm tempted to go just to see if the theaters are actually full that
first weekend, and compare that unscientific observation to the box-office
receipts on Monday.
Dollars may be enough to indicate "success"; in Hollywood that's often all
it takes. But the influence a film like this may never be felt in the
so-called mainstream, and may eventually be played around the country in
churches and for church groups for years or decades to come (witness the
financial failure "Jesus," which has been doing just that since the early
1980s). Apparently Gibson's production company, Icon, is considering making
a whole series of Biblically-themed films, so even a mild success might soon
bring us "The Writings of Matthew" or even "The Tales of the Apocrypha, Part
I." Maybe Mel should just start helming the "Left Behind" films?
--Kitt
Andrew Gore
wrote:
>"Andrew Gore" wrote...
>> I'm waiting for the musical, m'self.
>
>Jesus Christ Superstar?
>
Shit! You're right.
Huey Callison
> From what I've read, church groups are purchasing tickets in mass
> quantities (no pun intended). Whether or not they believe they have
> enough people under wing to follow through on those tickets by
> attending will be the interesting part: I'm tempted to go just to see
> if the theaters are actually full that first weekend, and compare
> that unscientific observation to the box-office receipts on Monday.
It will be curious to see how many protesters it attracts as well.
When I went to see the Last Temptation of Christ, there were a couple
sad-looking picketers standing alone outside a mostly-empty multiplex at
9PM on a Tuesday. Inside the theatre, I was one of three people watching
the movie.
I'll probably go see this one. Hopefully they'll have it at Visions or
the Arlington Drunkhouse, so I can have a couple beers during the movie.
--
Huey
Lars Eighner
talented Joseph Michael Bay broadcast on alt.fan.cecil-adams:
> I haven't seen it in a movie, though.
I think I'll pass on the movie. I read the book and it was lousy.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the
merger of state and corporate power."-Benito Mussolini * When you write the
check to pay your taxes, remember there are two l's in "Halliburton."
Greg Goss
>Previously, TedTC said:
>
>>For those who played the Jewish v Goyish game in this newsgroup, this movie
>may
>>perhaps be Gibson's way of joining in by saying that killing Christ is Jewish.
>
>> I thought that game was always in poor taste.
>
>I'd be interested to know why you say so...something Mel has said?
Perhaps something that Mel's DAD has said. Far too many people try to
paint a son with the same brush used to tar a father. Daddy Gibson is
a serious Holocaust denier.
Greg Goss
>Randee <rande...@nospamearthlink.net> wrote:
>> From what I've read, church groups are purchasing tickets in mass
>> quantities (no pun intended). Whether or not they believe they have
>> enough people under wing to follow through on those tickets by
>> attending will be the interesting part: I'm tempted to go just to see
>> if the theaters are actually full that first weekend, and compare
>> that unscientific observation to the box-office receipts on Monday.
>
>It will be curious to see how many protesters it attracts as well.
>
>When I went to see the Last Temptation of Christ, there were a couple
>sad-looking picketers standing alone outside a mostly-empty multiplex at
>9PM on a Tuesday. Inside the theatre, I was one of three people watching
>the movie.
I, too, went to see the first showing of Last Temptation in our city.
Largely because of the protesters we'd been hearing about in the
states. At the theater in Vancouver, there were about 15 media
(Three-man TV teams, several reporters with note-recorders and
cameras) and three protestors. Our protestors weren't "sad-looking",
but rather earnest. One of them was handing out a brochure that said
something like. "Enjoy the show, but remember that this show does not
represent the Jesus that most of us believe in. You are invited to
bible study every Wednesday at ...."
Later when I went to rent it to show a friend, I was severely offended
that Blockbusters refuses (refused?) to stock it as a chainwide
decision. I think that was the last time I was in a blockbusters.
But largely because Rogers was always more convenient in Vancouver.
kay w
TedTC:
>>>For those who played the Jewish v Goyish game in this newsgroup, this movie
may
>>>perhaps be Gibson's way of joining in by saying that killing Christ is
Jewish.
>>> I thought that game was always in poor taste.
Me(kay):
>>I'd be interested to know why you say so...something Mel has said?
GregG:
>Perhaps something that Mel's DAD has said. Far too many people try to
>paint a son with the same brush used to tar a father. Daddy Gibson is
>a serious Holocaust denier.
Yes, that's why I asked if it were something "Mel" said.
My daddy (god rest him) and I had different views on many things...I hope I'm
not judged by his beliefs.
Lots42 The Library Avenger
>Why should he have to publically say his dad is a nutjob? It's clear.
>
>
It's clear Mel himself has lost it. He's said his wife is doomed to hell
--
"Oh, trusty soda machine! I push you for root beer, you give me coke." -
Willow Rosenberg
[ Yendi: "It's almost 10! Why didn't you eat dinner?"
Me: "Because I was writing." ] - Shadesong, via Livejournal
Lots42 The Library Avenger
>What makes Mel's passion
>so... different, supposedly better?
>
Possibily the various religous groups are with-it enough to know they got a big
budget production of what they believe in. So they're all saying 'Wheee, we got
something to preach with!'.
Witness (pun intended) the popularity of the Left Behind (AKA Anyone But Us Is
Evil) books.
Kim
> scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) wrote in
> news:20040219211422...@mb-m04.aol.com:
>
>> Has he deliberately created a brilliant marketing scheme for this
>> movie, or is it really happening due to the movie's merits and
>> newsworthiness?
>>
>> They're predicting he'll more than make his $25 million investment
>> back the first weekend it's released.
>
> Not off me, he won't.
>
> I do believe those who have seen this film and say that the film is
> not anti-Semitic. However, it has the possibility of raising
> anti-Semitic thoughts and feelings, and that's the crux of the
> problem.
>
> I also have lost a lot of respect for Gibson after he would not
> renounce his father's ridiculous Holocaust denial crap, not even to
> say that he doesn't believe the same things.
But isn't that a catch-22 for Mel?
One of the 10 Commandments is "Honour Thy Father and Mother".
If Mel denies his father's belief and renounces his father's claims, then he
is breaking one of the commandments he is claiming to follow so closely as a
"devout Christian". And you know the minute he said *anything* about his
father and his beliefs, the press would jump all over him, claiming that he
was a hypocrite. "Look - he's publicly denouncing his father - what about
that commandment??"
If he leaves the statement alone, and ignores his father's beliefs, then he
faces the judgement of everyone who believes that "if his father believes
it, well, he must too." And if he doesn't publicly call his father "a loon"
or at the very least "misguided", well, there's something wrong with that,
too.
I think he's in a no win situation, and no matter what he does, the press
and the public are going to say it's the wrong thing.
Dana Carpender
Randee wrote:
Personally, I'd love to see a really good movie of the story of Esther.
Heckuva soap opera, that one.
Dana
Dana Carpender
Kim wrote:
Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. I never see the press jumping
down people's throats for going after gay folks on religious grounds,
while being completely accepting of graven images of Jesus, not to
mention Sabbath violators and people who yell "JESUS CHRIST" when
they're startled.
Dana
kay w
Me(kay):
>>Why should he have to publically say his dad is a nutjob? It's clear.
lots:
>It's clear Mel himself has lost it. He's said his wife is doomed to hell
That directly conflicts with what I've heatf him say. Do you have a cite, a
quote?
kay w
>Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. I never see the press jumping
>down people's throats for going after gay folks on religious grounds,
>while being completely accepting of graven images of Jesus, not to
>mention Sabbath violators and people who yell "JESUS CHRIST" when
>they're startled.
Come on down, Dana. We got all kinds of sins down here, including those you
list.
artyw
>
> I'll probably go see this one. Hopefully they'll have it at Visions or
> the Arlington Drunkhouse, so I can have a couple beers during the movie.
Arlington Drunkhouse? is that the kind of place where you could yell out
"Blessed are the cheesemakers!" during the movie?
Estron
> > Jesus Christ Superstar?
> Who in Hell do you think you are?
I was in Catholic high school when "Jesus Christ Superstar" first came out.
I've considered it interesting, in retrospect, that we actually used some
of the songs in religious services.
"Always thought that I'd be an apostle
Knew that I could make it if I tried
Then when we retire we can write the gospels
So they'll still talk about us when we've died"
Somebody didn't give a whole lot of thought to the actual lyrical content
there.
--
All opinions expressed herein are only that, and are my own.
Pax vobiscum.
est...@tfs.net
Sugar Creek (really close to Kansas City), Missouri
Estron
> What I want to know is, what makes it different from all the
> other "Passions"? How many different versions of This Is Your Life,
> J.C. has Hollywood churned out, from Cecil (B DeMille, that is) to
> "The Last Temptation of Christ"? My favorite is Franco Zefferelli's
> version.
My favorite still has to be 1965's "The Greatest Story Ever Told," for that
one line delivered by John Wayne in archetypal Duke intonation:
"Truly this man was the son'a God."
--
All opinions expressed herein are only that, and are my own.
Pax vobiscum.
est...@tfs.net
"Yonda lies da castle of my fadda."
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> kay w wrote:
> > Has he deliberately created a brilliant marketing scheme for this
> > movie, or is it really happening due to the movie's merits and
> > newsworthiness?
> >
> > They're predicting he'll more than make his $25 million investment
> > back the first weekend it's released.
> I think that when the star got struck by lightning while filming the scene
> on the cross, well...I would have packed it all up and went home right then.
> What more non-endorsement do you need?
I think that when it happened, and he rose again, well what more solid
endorsement could you have gotten?
> I won't go to any theater that's *playing* the movie, let alone sit in the
> audience to watch it. My momma didn't raise no fools.
I was in a religious rite in a catholic church once. No lightning, the
eyes on the Jesus on the cross didn't look up or start crying blood or
nuthin. If I can't piss off christ I don't think anyone can.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
Dana Carpender
kay w wrote:
> Previously, Dana said:
>
>
>>Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. I never see the press jumping
>>down people's throats for going after gay folks on religious grounds,
>>while being completely accepting of graven images of Jesus, not to
>>mention Sabbath violators and people who yell "JESUS CHRIST" when
>>they're startled.
>
>
> Come on down, Dana. We got all kinds of sins down here, including those you
> list.
>
>
Does the press jump all over them? Wow.
Dana
Dana Carpender
Estron wrote:
> Previously, in alt.fan.cecil-adams, Joe Shimkus wrote:
>
>
>>>Jesus Christ Superstar?
>
>
>
>>Who in Hell do you think you are?
>
>
> I was in Catholic high school when "Jesus Christ Superstar" first came out.
> I've considered it interesting, in retrospect, that we actually used some
> of the songs in religious services.
>
> "Always thought that I'd be an apostle
> Knew that I could make it if I tried
> Then when we retire we can write the gospels
> So they'll still talk about us when we've died"
>
> Somebody didn't give a whole lot of thought to the actual lyrical content
> there.
>
Uh-yuh. I always thought it pretty clear that the apostles were
seriously wasted while singing that...
Dana
Greg Goss
>Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. I never see the press jumping
>down people's throats for going after gay folks on religious grounds,
>while being completely accepting of graven images of Jesus, not to
>mention Sabbath violators and people who yell "JESUS CHRIST" when
>they're startled.
My pagan friend says that Jesus "H" Christ is the pagan god for minor
household emergencies. She says he took the middle initial to
distinguish himself from his more famous relative.
Huey Callison
> Huey Callison <bas-...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> > I'll probably go see this one. Hopefully they'll have it at Visions or
> > the Arlington Drunkhouse, so I can have a couple beers during the movie.
> Arlington Drunkhouse? is that the kind of place where you could yell out
> "Blessed are the cheesemakers!" during the movie?
http://www.beeradvocate.com/beerfly/user_reviews/8806/
...although I disagree with that reviewer. It's a second-run movie
theatre with beer, which is amazingly cool.
--
Huey
Dana Carpender
Greg Goss wrote:
I've heard other pagans say that in most people's personal pantheon,
"Jesus Christ" (no H) is the god of household emergencies and minor
injuries. Same thing.
I also have met 1 pagan who had retrained himself to yell "Isis!" when
most people would have cried "Jesus." I found that impressive, in a
minor sort of way.
Was it in the Straight Dope that I learned that the H in Jesus H. Christ
stands for "haploid"?
Dana
sli...@slidge.com
>down people's throats for going after gay folks on religious grounds,
>while being completely accepting of graven images of Jesus, not to
>mention Sabbath violators and people who yell "JESUS CHRIST" when they're
>startled.
Not to mention all those people who go to Red Lobster and eat shellfish,
which God has admonished us is "an abomination" (shellfish, that is).
Dana Carpender
sli...@slidge.com wrote:
And cheeseburgers, and bacon, and the pork roast I'm making for dinner
tonight.
And the people who round the corners of their beards (or shave them
entirely.) And the people who don't circumcise their boy babies. And
the people who wear clothing made of two kinds of fiber. And the people
who don't slaughter everyone who does not worship "The Lord Your God."
But originally I was sticking with the top ten list. When was the last
time you heard someone object to all those television shows showcasing
the extravagant lifestyles of celebrities on the grounds that they
encourage covetousness?
Dana
Jerry Bauer
(in message <kppZb.22740$Xp.99640@attbi_s54>):
>
> Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. I never see the press jumping
> down people's throats for going after gay folks on religious grounds,
> while being completely accepting of graven images of Jesus, not to
> mention Sabbath violators and people who yell "JESUS CHRIST" when
> they're startled.
Comrade, sister!
http://www.americanpoems.com/poets/stephencrane/istoodupon.shtml
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
John Hatpin
>scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) writes:
>
>>Previously, Al said:
>
>>>I also have lost a lot of respect for Gibson after he would not renounce
>>>his father's ridiculous Holocaust denial crap, not even to say that he
>>>doesn't believe the same things.
>
>>To be fair, he did say:
>
>>"Do I believe that there were concentration camps where defenseless and
>>innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime? Of course I do; absolutely,"
>>he said. "It was an atrocity of monumental proportion."
>
>"Died cruelly"?
I think he was striving for "died cruel deaths", but his brain gave up
halfway through. After all, he's only an actor.
--
John Hatpin
Rick Burger
> Apparently Gibson's production company, Icon, is considering making
> a whole series of Biblically-themed films, so even a mild success might soon
> bring us "The Writings of Matthew" or even "The Tales of the Apocrypha, Part
> I." Maybe Mel should just start helming the "Left Behind" films?
The title "Mel Gibson's Left Behind" would sell a lot of tickets, but
I have a feeling that much of the audience would be highly
disappointed...
danny burstein
>I think I'll pass on the movie. I read the book and it was lousy.
That's only because the heathens in Vatican II changed the language. Try
reading it in the original Klingon.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Dana Carpender
Rick Burger wrote:
You bet. If I'm seeing Mel's behind, I want to see the whole thing.
Dana
groo
news:g9adnRSM6a8...@adelphia.com:
> kay w wrote:
>> Has he deliberately created a brilliant marketing scheme for this
>> movie, or is it really happening due to the movie's merits and
>> newsworthiness?
>>
>> They're predicting he'll more than make his $25 million investment
>> back the first weekend it's released.
>
> I think that when the star got struck by lightning while filming the
> scene on the cross, well...I would have packed it all up and went home
> right then.
>
> What more non-endorsement do you need?
>
> I won't go to any theater that's *playing* the movie, let alone sit in
> the audience to watch it. My momma didn't raise no fools.
That was only _one_ of the times he was struck by lightning while filming
the movie. He got zotted twice.
--
"He's not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays." - Ian Anderson
Kim
I think it should be an abomination to go to Red Lobster.
Kim
> sli...@slidge.com wrote:
>
>>> Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. I never see the press
>>> jumping down people's throats for going after gay folks on
>>> religious grounds, while being completely accepting of graven
>>> images of Jesus, not to mention Sabbath violators and people who
>>> yell "JESUS CHRIST" when they're startled.
>>
>>
>> Not to mention all those people who go to Red Lobster and eat
>> shellfish, which God has admonished us is "an abomination"
>> (shellfish, that is).
>
> And cheeseburgers, and bacon, and the pork roast I'm making for dinner
> tonight.
I think Hamburger Helper is on that list, too. I made it for the first time
ever the other night for hubby and I had to put milk in the hamburg mixture.
As I was running to the bathroom to gag, I thought of you guys and the
ongoing discussion of milk and meat and how you can't mix them.
Of course, after the Hamburger Helper was cooked, I figured that it should
be outlawed by every major religion, culture, and ethnicity.
Damn, that shit is downright nasty.
> And the people who round the corners of their beards (or shave them
> entirely.)
Well, now you've given hubby another reason why he can't shave off his long
ZZ Top beard.
>And the people who don't circumcise their boy babies.
I'm guilty on that one.
>
> But originally I was sticking with the top ten list. When was the
> last time you heard someone object to all those television shows
> showcasing
> the extravagant lifestyles of celebrities on the grounds that they
> encourage covetousness?
Well, now you're just getting picky. I mean, these are the same people that
think a "little person" picking a wife off of a TV show for the
entertainment of an audience is somehow more dignifying to the sanctity of
marriage than two committed gay people getting married would be.
Bill
I have to agree. I made the horried mistake of reading the first two books
in the series. Not only are they seriously on shaky ground with respect
to religion, they're one step from being "The Turner Diaries".
Bill
Al Yellon
> Previously, Al said:
>
>>I also have lost a lot of respect for Gibson after he would not
>>renounce his father's ridiculous Holocaust denial crap, not even to
>>say that he doesn't believe the same things.
>
> To be fair, he did say:
>
> "Do I believe that there were concentration camps where defenseless
> and innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime? Of course I do;
> absolutely," he said. "It was an atrocity of monumental proportion."
>
> Asked if the Holocaust represented a "particular kind of evil," he
> told Sawyer it did, but added, "Why do you need me to tell you? It's
> like, it's obvious. They're killed because of who and what they are.
> Is that not evil enough?"
>
> Why should he have to publically say his dad is a nutjob? It's clear.
Because his dad is using the publicity surrounding Mel and the film to
promote his agenda of hate.
--
"The only thing that would jinx an animated feature film nomination for
'Finding Nemo' is the unexpected interference of a Chicago Cubs fan."
-- Michael Mallory, Daily Variety, December 10, 2003
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rants, comments, reviews: || To contact me use the following:
http://www.yellon.org/links.htm || itghtfr02 (at) sneakemail (dot) com
Opus the Penguin
I think he was striving for "died cruelly." It's a perfectly
grammatical expression, clearly intelligible, and well expressed.
--
Opus the Penguin (that's my real email addy)
"Hallmark is part of the military-industrial complex." - John Lawler
incandescent blue
> artyw <art...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Arlington Drunkhouse? is that the kind of place where you could yell out
>> "Blessed are the cheesemakers!" during the movie?
>
> http://www.beeradvocate.com/beerfly/user_reviews/8806/
> ...although I disagree with that reviewer. It's a second-run movie
> theatre with beer, which is amazingly cool.
Even more amazingly, they serve *CIDER*, which makes li'l ol'
beer-hating me very very happy.
--
"It's called a shovel," said the Senior Wrangler.
"I've seen the gardeners use them. You stick the sharp end in the ground.
Then it gets a bit technical."
-- Terry Pratchett, _Reaper Man_
Blinky the Shark
Just the other day, washing some shrimp, I was wondering why there's a
prohibition on shellfish. The pork thing and some other laws have been
explained (belief in the explanations is a matter of personal choice) by
"health" considerations. But I can't say I've ever heard of a
few-thousand-year-old equivalent of mad prawn disease.
--
Blinky Linux RU 4892F
http://linuxnotjustforgeeks.org
http://blinkynet.net
Blinky the Shark
> "Always thought that I'd be an apostle
> Knew that I could make it if I tried
> Then when we retire we can write the gospels
> So they'll still talk about us when we've died"
> Somebody didn't give a whole lot of thought to the actual lyrical content
> there.
Why's that?
Dana Carpender
Blinky the Shark wrote:
No, but shellfish sure do go bad easily, and make you *really* sick when
they do.
Dana
kay w
Me(kay):
>> Why should he have to publically say his dad is a nutjob? It's clear.
Al:
>Because his dad is using the publicity surrounding Mel and the film to
>promote his agenda of hate.
Again, cite? The only references I've seen to Gibson Sr is from press coverage
of the movie; I've seen nothing at all presenting Sr as anything but a crazy
person. What do you have coming from Sr that used the movie to promote his
agenda of hate?
--
But Tonto he was smarter/ And one day said "Kemo Sabe,
Kiss my ass; I bought a boat. / I'm going out to sea."
Lyle Lovett
Blinky the Shark
> No, but shellfish sure do go bad easily, and make you *really* sick when
> they do.
Bummer the more logical wasn't installed: don't eat rotten food.
Greg Goss
>> Not to mention all those people who go to Red Lobster and eat shellfish,
>> which God has admonished us is "an abomination" (shellfish, that is).
>
>Just the other day, washing some shrimp, I was wondering why there's a
>prohibition on shellfish. The pork thing and some other laws have been
>explained (belief in the explanations is a matter of personal choice) by
>"health" considerations. But I can't say I've ever heard of a
>few-thousand-year-old equivalent of mad prawn disease.
Is it month WITH an R or months WITHOUT an R?
John Hatpin
>John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Joseph Michael Bay wrote:
>>
>>>scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) writes:
>>>
>>>>To be fair, he did say:
>>>
>>>>"Do I believe that there were concentration camps where
>>>>defenseless and innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime?
>>>>Of course I do; absolutely," he said. "It was an atrocity of
>>>>monumental proportion."
>>>
>>>"Died cruelly"?
>>
>> I think he was striving for "died cruel deaths", but his brain
>> gave up halfway through. After all, he's only an actor.
>
>I think he was striving for "died cruelly." It's a perfectly
>grammatical expression, clearly intelligible, and well expressed.
Nope, nope, nope, Ope. It's an object/subject thing. If you want to
die cruelly, jump off a tall building onto a poor, defenceless being,
and die in the process. You die, and you're cruel too.
"Dies cruelly" uses the adverb to describe the manner of the verb "to
die". "He died slowly", "she died gracefully" - these are describing
how the person experienced their own deaths; "slow" and "graceful"
require no expectation of an object. "Cruel" does.
The phrase "died cruel deaths" can only mean they died deaths which
were cruel to other people, which is senseless in context.
"Died cruel deaths" makes sense, since "death" is a noun, removed
from object and subject connections; those connections are inferred
rather than explicit. What's-his-face, the Oz actor, tried to say
that phrase and succumbed to thespian brain fever halfway through the
sentence.
--
John Hatpin
John Hatpin
>Opus the Penguin wrote:
>
>>John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Joseph Michael Bay wrote:
>>>
>>>>scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>To be fair, he did say:
>>>>
>>>>>"Do I believe that there were concentration camps where
>>>>>defenseless and innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime?
>>>>>Of course I do; absolutely," he said. "It was an atrocity of
>>>>>monumental proportion."
>>>>
>>>>"Died cruelly"?
>>>
>>> I think he was striving for "died cruel deaths", but his brain
>>> gave up halfway through. After all, he's only an actor.
>>
>>I think he was striving for "died cruelly." It's a perfectly
>>grammatical expression, clearly intelligible, and well expressed.
>
>Nope, nope, nope, Ope. It's an object/subject thing. If you want to
>die cruelly, jump off a tall building onto a poor, defenceless being,
>and die in the process. You die, and you're cruel too.
>
>"Dies cruelly" uses the adverb to describe the manner of the verb "to
>die". "He died slowly", "she died gracefully" - these are describing
>how the person experienced their own deaths; "slow" and "graceful"
>require no expectation of an object. "Cruel" does.
>
>The phrase "died cruel deaths" can only mean they died deaths which
>were cruel to other people, which is senseless in context.
Error in posting: the phrase "died cruel deaths" in that para should
read "died cruelly". Please amend your records, thank you, goodnight.
Alina
wrote:
>sli...@slidge.com wrote:
IIRC, insects are prohibited, and, well, shellfish, and lobster are
"insects" Don't ask me why.
Opus the Penguin
> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>
>>I think he was striving for "died cruelly." It's a perfectly
>>grammatical expression, clearly intelligible, and well expressed.
>
> Nope, nope, nope, Ope. It's an object/subject thing. If you want to
> die cruelly, jump off a tall building onto a poor, defenceless being,
> and die in the process. You die, and you're cruel too.
>
Sorry, that's not the way the language works. I understand your theory
and all. And I understand that some people teach this sort of theory as
though it governs, or ought to govern, proper usage. These are the same
sort of people who decry the use of "hopefully" and recommend you say
"it is to be hoped that" so you'll sound like a right twit, just as
they do. They use their spare time to quixotically fight the use of
split infinitives.
English is a flexible language and adverbs can related to what they
modify in a number of different ways. When the context does not allow
us to determine which of these relations obtains, then we have a
problem (though not necessarily a grammatical one).
Saying Jews in the Holocaust "died cruelly" is unambiguous. It's also
rather elegant, a turn of phrase Shakespeare wouldn't have turned his
nose up at.
Jerry Bauer
(in message <bhrZb.361101$xy6.1911825@attbi_s02>):
None of that ha'behind for you!
--
Jerry Randal Bauer
Lots42 The Library Avenger
>Previously,
>
>Me(kay):
>>>Why should he have to publically say his dad is a nutjob? It's clear.
>
>lots:
>>It's clear Mel himself has lost it. He's said his wife is doomed to hell
>
>That directly conflicts with what I've heatf him say. Do you have a cite, a
>quote?
>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4224452/
I love being efficent.
Matt Ackeret
kay w <scu...@aol.comatose> wrote:
>Previously,
>
>Me(kay):
>>> Why should he have to publically say his dad is a nutjob? It's clear.
>
>Al:
>>Because his dad is using the publicity surrounding Mel and the film to
>>promote his agenda of hate.
>
>Again, cite? The only references I've seen to Gibson Sr is from press coverage
>of the movie; I've seen nothing at all presenting Sr as anything but a crazy
>person. What do you have coming from Sr that used the movie to promote his
>agenda of hate?
Does this count?
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040219/ap_en_mo/passion_gibson_s_father_2
Tedthecat85
>
>
>
>Previously, TedTC said:
>
>>For those who played the Jewish v Goyish game in this newsgroup, this movie
>may
>>perhaps be Gibson's way of joining in by saying that killing Christ is
>Jewish.
>
>> I thought that game was always in poor taste.
>
>I'd be interested to know why you say so...something Mel has said?
No, I have no cite.
The buzz on the film is, of course, that it puts in the mind of some people a
connection between Jews and killing Christ. I don't know whether that buzz
about the film is valid or not. For my purpose it doesn't matter, because my
quarrel is with the mindset that the Jewish people, as a people, could be
considered responsible for the death of Jesus, whether this movie gives that
impression or not.
I find labels like "trailer parks are goyish" or Jews are Christ-killers to be
unhelpful and divisive. And I do see some similarity (although an obvious
difference in degree of offensiveness) between those labels. That's my point.
In an escalated, angry contest of Jewish v. Goyish, is the trump card for the
Goy a claim that Christ-killing is Jewish?
Charles Bishop
Penguin <nospa...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
>English is a flexible language and adverbs can related to what they
>modify in a number of different ways. When the context does not allow
>us to determine which of these relations obtains, then we have a
>problem (though not necessarily a grammatical one).
"I smoked a meditative cigarette"
charles, PGW o'course
Blinky the Shark
> Is it month WITH an R or months WITHOUT an R?
I can't remember. I've seen the signs along the beach, and I still
can't picture them closely enough. I'd *hope* it's "do eat in R
months", since they comprise most of the twelve.
Blinky the Shark
> IIRC, insects are prohibited, and, well, shellfish, and lobster are
> "insects" Don't ask me why.
Science wasn't very advanced then and there.
kay w
lots:
>>>It's clear Mel himself has lost it. He's said his wife is doomed to hell
Me(kay):
lots:
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4224452/
>I love being efficent.
OK, it does look like that's what he's quoted as implying. Sort of.
He says:
He elaborated: “Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She’s a much better
person than I am. Honestly. She’s, like, Episcopalian, Church of England. She
prays, she believes in God, she knows Jesus, she believes in that stuff. And
it’s just not fair if she doesn’t make it, she’s better than I am. But
that is a pronouncement from the chair. I go with it.”
From this, I don't think, as the author does, that he's saying there's *been* a
pronoucement from someone that his wife is condemned and he's going with it,
just
that it's not his decision to make, and he'll go with whatever the
pronouncement is. As will he. As will we all.
And he does say "if" she doesn't make it....
I'd really like to see the whole conversation, not just the snips in the
article.
However, I with my own ears heard Mel say absolutely that Jews *and* Christians
both go to heaven, although he believes his is the more direct route. I can't
believe he'd include Jews and disallow Episcolaplians. (I mean that Mel
wouldn't, not that God wouldn't, even though I don't think God would either.)
But I could be wrong.
Blinky the Shark
> Sorry, that's not the way the language works. I understand your theory
> and all. And I understand that some people teach this sort of theory
> as though it governs, or ought to govern, proper usage. These are the
> same sort of people who decry the use of "hopefully" and recommend you
> say "it is to be hoped that" so you'll sound like a right twit, just
> as they do. They use their spare time to quixotically fight the use of
> split infinitives.
Whoa, Hoss. I believe I just used "I'd hope" in the shrimp thread. I'm
what -- at least half a twit for using that instead of the smelly
"hopefully"? Neigh.
> English is a flexible language and adverbs can related to what they
> modify in a number of different ways. When the context does not allow
> us to determine which of these relations obtains, then we have a
> problem (though not necessarily a grammatical one).
> Saying Jews in the Holocaust "died cruelly" is unambiguous. It's also
> rather elegant, a turn of phrase Shakespeare wouldn't have turned his
> nose up at.
Just for fun, it can be ambiguous in *speech*.
"He didn't want his mother to recolor his pants black, just to cover the
small but unremovable stain on the leg. She didn't care, though, so
she dyed cruelly."
1. So she was stuck down for being insensitive to her son's wishes.
2. She cruelly recolored his pants anyway.
3. Both of the above.
I *said* just for fun!
Even though I *do* dislike "died cruelly" in the sense you were
discussing it.
Lalbert1
<no....@box.invalid> writes:
>Greg Goss wrote:
>
>> Is it month WITH an R or months WITHOUT an R?
>I can't remember. I've seen the signs along the beach, and I still
>can't picture them closely enough. I'd *hope* it's "do eat in R
>months", since they comprise most of the twelve.
From "Seafood Myths":
"Oysters and other shellfish should be eaten only in months with an "r" in
them. So far as the United States is concerned, this is not true. Under
commercial raising and harvesting conditions, oysters and other shellfish are
safe and good to eat any month of the year. Certain European oysters, which
brood their young in months without an "r" are less palatable at that time of
year, but this rule doesn't apply to U. S. oysters, which don't brood their
young. As a contradiction to the myth about "r" months, shellfish containing a
paralytic shellfish poison are occasionally found along the Pacific Coast in
"r" months. When this occurs, people are warned against gathering and eating
these particular shellfish. The California Department of Health places a
quarantine on the harvesting of mussels between May 1 and October 31; and along
the Oregon Coast, people are warned by the news media against gathering and
eating the mussels that cling to rocks that rim the beaches. The cardinal rule
is that any commercially available shellfish is non-toxic and is also safe to
eat."
Les
kay w
Al:
>>>Because his dad is using the publicity surrounding Mel and the film to
>>>promote his agenda of hate.
Me(kay):
>>Again, cite? The only references I've seen to Gibson Sr is from press
coverage
>>of the movie; I've seen nothing at all presenting Sr as anything but a crazy
>>person. What do you have coming from Sr that used the movie to promote his
>>agenda of hate?
Matt:
>Does this count?
>http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040219/ap_en_mo/passion_gib
son_s_father_2
I 'd think not...it is an article about the dad, brought about because of
publicity about the movie, but I don't see anything there that indicates the
dad is, as Al claims, using the movie to advance his agenda. Of course when
the press show up and ask questions, he's gonna answer them.
If I did something really newsworthy and attention getting, they'd be
interviewing *my* mother, god forbid, and who knows what she'd say? She has
her moments...about 10 years ago, out of the clear blue sky, she announced to a
gathered family reunion that I was cheating on my taxes. It wasn't true,
wasn't something she'd have known about even if it were, and to this day she
doesn't know why she said it, nor do I. Just imagine her having toddies with
Barbara Walters...I'd have to leave town and change my name.
kay w
>In an escalated, angry contest of Jewish v. Goyish, is the trump card for the
>Goy a claim that Christ-killing is Jewish?
I dunno. It's hard to tell whether we're getting a full spectrum of
representative comments, but I've not seen a non-Jew voice that concern on the
news, so I don't know who's card it might be.
I'm interested to see that some folks think Mel started the controversy himself
in order to build the buzz about the movie.
Dana Carpender
Opus the Penguin wrote:
>
> Saying Jews in the Holocaust "died cruelly" is unambiguous. It's also
> rather elegant, a turn of phrase Shakespeare wouldn't have turned his
> nose up at.
>
Preposition a the end of a sentence!!
(Is this the sort of arrant pedantry up with which you will not put?)
Dana
Opus the Penguin
> I find labels like "trailer parks are goyish" or Jews are
> Christ-killers to be unhelpful and divisive. And I do see some
> similarity (although an obvious difference in degree of
> offensiveness) between those labels. That's my point.
>
> In an escalated, angry contest of Jewish v. Goyish, is the trump
> card for the Goy a claim that Christ-killing is Jewish?
Huh. The game never struck me as representing a serious prejudice. It's
more a Harvard vs. Yale or East Coast vs. West Coast kind of thing. You
know, baked clams are East Coast, fish tacos are West Coast. And what I
mean by that is I think everyone on the East Coast stinks and I want
them dead and I want their families dead and I want their houses burned
down to the ground and I want to come there in the middle of the night
and pee on their hedges.
Hmmm. Ok, there's a little prejudice there, but it's all in good fun.
Opus the Penguin
> Opus the Penguin wrote:
>>
>> Saying Jews in the Holocaust "died cruelly" is unambiguous. It's
>> also rather elegant, a turn of phrase Shakespeare wouldn't have
>> turned his nose up at.
>>
>
> Preposition a the end of a sentence!!
Sorry. Change that to "at which Shakespeare wouldn't have turned his
nose up."
> (Is this the sort of arrant pedantry up with which you will not
> put?)
Madam, I may be drunk, but you are Mark Twain, and in the morning
Wagner's music will be better than it sounds.
Huey Callison
> modify in a number of different ways. When the context does not allow
> us to determine which of these relations obtains, then we have a
> problem (though not necessarily a grammatical one).
We don't, no, unless there's some pressing reason why we'd need to
understand what the author meant. But whoever wrote the damn thing sure
does.
For the last two years, I've made my living as a writer. Now, I will
freely admit -- and a cursory google of my posting history will most
assuredly demonstrate -- that I am an english-manglin' fool who clearly
doesn't know his morphology from his syntax, ain't got an infinitive
that ISN'T split, and has an annoying tendency to confuse 'sentence'
with 'paragraph', stretching the same idea out into a half-dozen
subordinate clauses that only cursorially relate to each other. On top
of that, I can even fuck up simple usage, and I don't spell-check my
usenet posts. So, in spite of being a "paid professional writer", I am
more than capable of producing some utter crap.
HOWEVER (with a capital 'however') I'm reasonably certain that most of
the writing I DO is capable of being understood by most of the people
I'm writing FOR. This means that I have at least a passing understanding
of basic rules of grammar, and can use those to construct sentences that
people can understand, so's to facilitate me gettin' the point across.
And that's key. If you can't get the point across, you're not writing,
you're just typing. Grammar is an important part of that. So, if
somebody can't make their adverbs agree, in the same way that I tend to
trip over antecedented pronouns, then yes, they have a problem, and it
_is_ a grammatical one, and they should sleep with the Little Brown book
under their pillow until they learn the errors of their ways or cruelly die.
--
Huey "Ask Mister English Person" Callison
Boron Elgar
>Previously, TedTC said, in part:
>
>>In an escalated, angry contest of Jewish v. Goyish, is the trump card for the
>>Goy a claim that Christ-killing is Jewish?
>
>I dunno. It's hard to tell whether we're getting a full spectrum of
>representative comments, but I've not seen a non-Jew voice that concern on the
>news, so I don't know who's card it might be.
Try this AP story
NEW YORK (AP) -- Jews and Christians who fear Mel Gibson's epic on the
crucifixion of Jesus will fuel anti-Semitism are planning lecture
series, interfaith talks and other programs to try to mute the film's
impact.
Gibson has insisted that "The Passion of the Christ," set to be
released Ash Wednesday, Feb. 25, does not malign Jews.
However, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee,
whose representatives saw a version the movie last week, said it
contained destructive stereotypes about the Jewish role in Christ's
death.
Critics of the film hope to explain how dramatizations of the
crucifixion, called Passion plays, were used in the Middle Ages to
incite anti-Jewish violence, and emphasize that many Christian
denominations now reject the idea of collective Jewish responsibility
in the slaying of Jesus.
"Do I think there will be pogroms (massacres) as a result of this
movie? No," said Rabbi David Elcott, the American Jewish Committee's
interfaith director.
"It's part of something larger, which is a hardening of religious
conversation. It is such an absolutist movie. It undermines the
progress that we've made in this country toward mutual respect and
religious pluralism."
Opponents do not plan boycotts or protests outside theaters.
"Artists have every right to create any kind of movie they want, but
an audience has the absolute right to pass judgment on that," said
Rabbi James Rudin, a longtime interfaith adviser for the committee, a
public policy organization based in New York.
The campaign is being undertaken in the face of a massive evangelistic
effort by many American churches in conjunction with the movie's
release. Several prominent conservative Christians, including the Rev.
Billy Graham, said the film was among the most powerful depictions
they'd seen of Christ's last hours.
Evangelical supporters of the film agree with Gibson that it does not
blame Jews for Christ's death but instead follows biblical teaching
that Jesus died because of the sins of each individual ever born. They
plan sermons and lectures related to the movie, and have even produced
special Bibles that contain images from the film.
In response, the American Jewish Committee is sending a 40-page
resource guide to its chapters nationwide on how to explain Jewish
concerns about the film. Rudin also is urging Christian colleagues not
to use the movie as an education tool.
The Center for Christian-Jewish Learning at Boston College has posted
a study guide for viewers explaining Gospel accounts of the
crucifixion and how Christian churches came to reject the charge of
deicide against the Jews. The center also plans a series of talks on
the subject.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which has not commented on
the movie, plans to reissue its criteria for dramatizing the
crucifixion along with papal and church statements on Catholic-Jewish
relations.
The Second Vatican Council, a series of meetings in the 1960s that
modernized the Roman Catholic Church, declared that Jews were not
collectively responsible for Christ's death.
Leaders of Reform Judaism, a liberal branch of the religion, are
preparing educational materials for members and encouraging them to
"sit down with churches in your community" to discuss the film, said
Mark Pelavin, director of the Commission on Interreligious Affairs of
Reform Judaism.
The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, through its panel on
Lutheran-Jewish relations, is urging pastors to "teach boldly" that
the mainline Protestant denomination does not "demean, malign or harm
the Jewish people" when preaching the Gospel.
"We hope people will be on guard against any tendency to blame `the
Jews' collectively for Jesus' death, rather than only a small circle
of Jewish collaborators with the Roman authorities," said the Rev.
Franklin Sherman, chairman of the Consultative Panel on
Lutheran-Jewish Relations.
Separately, the church communications director, the Rev. Eric Shafer,
reviewed the movie and said he did not believe it was anti-Jewish. But
he argued the film was "part Gospel story and part myth" and he
worried viewers would assume it was based entirely on the Bible.
Jewish and Christian leaders have said they are less concerned about
reaction to the film in the United States than they are about
screenings overseas, where anti-Semitism is on the rise and where some
Muslim extremists have used the charge of deicide to spark anti-Jewish
violence.
Philip Cunningham, executive director of the Center for
Jewish-Christian Learning, said it was too soon to know whether debate
about the movie ultimately will damage interfaith relations.
Christian-Jewish relations periodically encounter "conflicted moments
where both sides reassess where they are vis-a-vis the other,"
Cunningham said. "We're in the midst of one such moment because of the
Gibson film."
>I'm interested to see that some folks think Mel started the controversy himself
>in order to build the buzz about the movie.
You put an innocent spin on it. I think it is more insidious in
result.
Boro
tooloud
> Dana Carpender wrote:
>> sli...@slidge.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't. I never see the press
>>>> jumping down people's throats for going after gay folks on
>>>> religious grounds, while being completely accepting of graven
>>>> images of Jesus, not to mention Sabbath violators and people who
>>>> yell "JESUS CHRIST" when they're startled.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not to mention all those people who go to Red Lobster and eat
>>> shellfish, which God has admonished us is "an abomination"
>>> (shellfish, that is).
>>
>> dinner tonight.
>
> I think Hamburger Helper is on that list, too. I made it for the
> first time ever the other night for hubby and I had to put milk in
> the hamburg mixture.
>
> As I was running to the bathroom to gag, I thought of you guys and the
> ongoing discussion of milk and meat and how you can't mix them.
>
> Of course, after the Hamburger Helper was cooked, I figured that it
> should be outlawed by every major religion, culture, and ethnicity.
>
> Damn, that shit is downright nasty.
Which kind did you have? I basically lived off that stuff for several years
when my financial situation wasn't what it is now. I'd stock up on cheap
hamburger and HH when it was on sale. I couldn't find anything else I liked
as well that cost as little and was as easy to make. I definitely liked some
kinds better than others.
Except cheap frozen pizzas, when you could get the Jack's or Tombstones five
for ten dollars.
<snip>
--
tooloud
Remove nothing to reply...
Charles Bishop
scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) wrote:
>
>If I did something really newsworthy and attention getting, they'd be
>interviewing *my* mother, god forbid, and who knows what she'd say? She has
>her moments...about 10 years ago, out of the clear blue sky, she announced to a
>gathered family reunion that I was cheating on my taxes. It wasn't true,
>wasn't something she'd have known about even if it were, and to this day she
>doesn't know why she said it, nor do I. Just imagine her having toddies with
>Barbara Walters...I'd have to leave town and change my name.
In case you have to, you can choose ell x, and no one will suspect.
charles
kay w
Me(kay):
>>I'm interested to see that some folks think Mel started the controversy
himself
>>in order to build the buzz about the movie.
Boron:
>You put an innocent spin on it. I think it is more insidious in
>result.
You may be right. I'll admit I'm not particularly sensitive to the concept of
racial guilt, since it's such a stupid idea, and I've never know anyone who
wasn't either abysmally ignorant (or simply retarded) who gave it any weight,
unless they were using it simply as a weapon for political purposes.
It makes no more sense to blame Jews for the death of Christ than it does to
blame me for slavery, or midwesterners for genocide of the Native Americans.
I haven't seen the movie yet. I understand from the interview that Gibson did
remove the subtitles quoting Matthew where the crowd says the bit about his
blood being on them and their children. (Which, even if people could accept
guilt on behalf of their children, which of course they can't, certainly
applies to a much smaller group than "the Jews".)
I never understood why, if guilt is being passed out racially, the Italians got
a free pass...if Pilate hadn't been such a weak dick, who knows how things
might have gone?
Incredible Rhyme Animal
> I'll admit I'm not particularly sensitive to the concept
>of
>racial guilt, since it's such a stupid idea,
That's begging the question.
>and I've never know anyone who
>wasn't either abysmally ignorant (or simply retarded)
I really bet you've heard almost no ethical speculation from the retarded,
either.
>who gave it any weight,
>unless they were using it simply as a weapon for political purposes.
I've never met anyone who wasn't at least open to the idea who wasn't morally
complacent or otherwise intellectually lazy.
>It makes no more sense to blame Jews for the death of Christ than it does to
>blame me for slavery, or midwesterners for genocide of the Native Americans.
I'm not sure the essence of racial guilt is one of individual blame.
Boron Elgar
>I haven't seen the movie yet. I understand from the interview that Gibson did
>remove the subtitles quoting Matthew where the crowd says the bit about his
>blood being on them and their children. (Which, even if people could accept
>guilt on behalf of their children, which of course they can't, certainly
>applies to a much smaller group than "the Jews".)
He removed the subtitles, but left in the dialog itself. Granted,
there are few who understand Aramaic, but it implies superficial
appeasement, rather than rectitude.
Boron
Scott P
<nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Opus the Penguin wrote:
>
>>John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Joseph Michael Bay wrote:
>>>
>>>>scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>To be fair, he did say:
>>>>
>>>>>"Do I believe that there were concentration camps where
>>>>>defenseless and innocent Jews died cruelly under the Nazi regime?
>>>>>Of course I do; absolutely," he said. "It was an atrocity of
>>>>>monumental proportion."
>>>>
>>>>"Died cruelly"?
>>>
>>> I think he was striving for "died cruel deaths", but his brain
>>> gave up halfway through. After all, he's only an actor.
>>
>>I think he was striving for "died cruelly." It's a perfectly
>>grammatical expression, clearly intelligible, and well expressed.
>
>Nope, nope, nope, Ope. It's an object/subject thing. If you want to
>die cruelly, jump off a tall building onto a poor, defenceless being,
>and die in the process. You die, and you're cruel too.
They say every Usenet thread eventually degenerates to either a
discussion of Nazis or Grammar. Here we have found the center of the
Usenet universe; a combination of both.
Scott
kay w
Me(kay):
>>I haven't seen the movie yet. I understand from the interview that Gibson
did
>>remove the subtitles quoting Matthew where the crowd says the bit about his
>>blood being on them and their children. (Which, even if people could accept
>>guilt on behalf of their children, which of course they can't, certainly
>>applies to a much smaller group than "the Jews".)
Boron:
>He removed the subtitles, but left in the dialog itself. Granted,
>there are few who understand Aramaic, but it implies superficial
>appeasement, rather than rectitude.
I suspect superficial appeasement is all he intended, since the dialogue is
certainly scriptural:
Matthew 27
24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was
made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am
innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our
children.
Greg Goss
>scu...@aol.comatose (kay w) wrote:
>
>>I'd have to leave town and change my name.
>
>In case you have to, you can choose ell x, and no one will suspect.
Didn't we allready have an Elle? Did she arrive before, or after,
Kay?
*I* was here before both of them, I think. Do we have a Jay?
Greg Goss
>I haven't seen the movie yet. I understand from the interview that Gibson did
>remove the subtitles quoting Matthew where the crowd says the bit about his
>blood being on them and their children. (Which, even if people could accept
>guilt on behalf of their children, which of course they can't, certainly
>applies to a much smaller group than "the Jews".)
>
>I never understood why, if guilt is being passed out racially, the Italians got
>a free pass...if Pilate hadn't been such a weak dick, who knows how things
>might have gone?
I always interpret this story as an example that larger society is
prone to mob hysteria. Jesus happened to be a Jew, so the story
happens to feature jewish mob hysteria. If Jesus had been German,
then we would hear about Gothic guilt.
Al Yellon
news:slrnc3d1kg....@thurston.blinkynet.net:
> Dana Carpender wrote:
>
>> No, but shellfish sure do go bad easily, and make you *really* sick
>> when they do.
>
> Bummer the more logical wasn't installed: don't eat rotten food.
Problem was, in the days when dietary laws were established, food rotted
easily. So they probably approved the stuff that could be most easily
preserved.
--
"The only thing that would jinx an animated feature film nomination for
'Finding Nemo' is the unexpected interference of a Chicago Cubs fan."
-- Michael Mallory, Daily Variety, December 10, 2003
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Rants, comments, reviews: || To contact me use the following:
http://www.yellon.org/links.htm || itghtfr02 (at) sneakemail (dot) com
Al Yellon
news:20040220233010...@mb-m26.aol.com:
> Previously,
>
> Al:
>>>>Because his dad is using the publicity surrounding Mel and the film
>>>>to promote his agenda of hate.
>
> Me(kay):
>>>Again, cite? The only references I've seen to Gibson Sr is from
>>>press
> coverage
>>>of the movie; I've seen nothing at all presenting Sr as anything but
>>>a crazy person. What do you have coming from Sr that used the movie
>>>to promote his agenda of hate?
>
> Matt:
>>Does this count?
>>http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040219/ap_en_mo/passion_g
>>ib
> son_s_father_2
>
> I 'd think not...it is an article about the dad, brought about because
> of publicity about the movie, but I don't see anything there that
> indicates the dad is, as Al claims, using the movie to advance his
> agenda. Of course when the press show up and ask questions, he's
> gonna answer them.
Do you think Mel Gibson's father would be getting *any* attention now if
not for this film?
I mean, you'd hardly go talk to him about Mel's role in "What Women Want".
Rick B.
news:eu8f30tupia5dh5tm...@4ax.com:
Not since June 2002 per Google; before then at various times we'd had
Jay Pennington, Jay R. Ashworth, Jay Shorten, Jay Baum, Jay Wiggins
and Screaming Jay Hawkins, among others.
But if Kay followed the pattern, she'd become "jay v"...and that
wouldn't do, as she is definitely a varsity poster.
Rick "if you have a picture in the AFCA Album, everyone in the group
can eye you" B.
Joe Shimkus
Al Yellon <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Do you think Mel Gibson's father would be getting *any* attention now if
> not for this film?
Kay's point being that there is a difference between:
Hi, I'm Mel's old man and I'm here to stump for his new movie "The
Passion of the Christ." And while I'm here, let me tell you how the
so-called Holocaust never actually happened.
Versus:
What the heck are those people on my front lawn? Hey, whadda you
guys want? Huh, you're reporters here to ask me about the
controversy that's come up concerning my son's movie? Well, let me
tell you about something really controversial...
Now, in both situations Pere Gibson is getting the air time because of
the movie. However, only in the first is he using the movie. In the
latter, he's using the moron reporters who chose to interview him. If
they had stayed away from him, his views wouldn't be getting any airtime.
--
PGP Key (DH/DSS): http://www.shimkus.com/public_key.asc
PGP Fingerprint: 89B4 52DA CF10 EE03 02AD 9134 21C6 2A68 CE52 EE1A
Windows has always aspired to be Mac-like without Microsoft ever really understanding what that even means. - Robert Cringely
Hank Gillette
Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
> >
> > Saying Jews in the Holocaust "died cruelly" is unambiguous. It's also
> > rather elegant, a turn of phrase Shakespeare wouldn't have turned his
> > nose up at.
> >
>
> Preposition a the end of a sentence!!
>
For Dana's benefit:
Saying Jews in the Holocaust "died cruelly" is unambiguous. It's also
rather elegant, a turn of phrase Shakespeare wouldn't have turned his
nose up at, smart ass.
--
Hank Gillette
Hank Gillette
sli...@slidge.com wrote:
> Not to mention all those people who go to Red Lobster and eat shellfish,
> which God has admonished us is "an abomination" (shellfish, that is).
Not to mention, that some of them are women in slacks which would be
another "abomination".
What about it Opus? What does the word that the King James translates as
abomination really mean? I've seen some web sites that assert that a
more accurate translation would be "ritual uncleanness".
--
Hank Gillette
Hank Gillette
Blinky the Shark <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
> Just the other day, washing some shrimp, I was wondering why there's a
> prohibition on shellfish. The pork thing and some other laws have been
> explained (belief in the explanations is a matter of personal choice) by
> "health" considerations.
It's hard to get fresh seafood in the desert.
--
Hank Gillette
Hank Gillette
Alina <Al...@transfur.com> wrote:
> IIRC, insects are prohibited, and, well, shellfish, and lobster are
> "insects" Don't ask me why.
Not all insects; I believe grasshoppers were ok.
--
Hank Gillette
John Hatpin
Excretory orifice at the end of a sentence!!
--
John Hatpin
Alina
I believe lobster and other shellfish were added to the list later.