The Don Murphy Incident Explained
Alex Ward
OK, some people have been asking who Don Murphy is and what the whole QT
fight thing was all about. Well, first off, Don Murphy was a producer of
Natural Born Killers, as was his partner Jane Hamsher. The two of them
negotiated with Quentin in the very early days of the NBK production
process, and apparently they feel pretty damn bitter about the whole thing.
So bitter infact, that Jane Hamsher wrote the book Killer Instinct,
miserably blaming Quentin for her cancer, and pointing out her significant
role in the making of NBK. In reality, Quentin got screwed over by these
people, and Jane and Don had basically no creative input in the film. So
basically, these people have talked up a world of shit about Quentin in the
press and have done a lot of generally crappy and unprofessional things.
ANYWAY, Quentin saw Don at some restaurant, and beat the crap out of him.
Don is a pretty big (fatassed) guy, I'm surprised our puny little hero was
able to do what he do. Regardless, I applaud Quentin for his actions.
Too bad he didn't bitchslap Jane; that would have been icing on the cake.
- Alex Ward
The Unofficial Jackie Brown Homepage
http://www.silcom.com/~riffraff/jackie.htm
Horuun
> Regardless, I applaud Quentin for his actions.
>Too bad he didn't bitchslap Jane; that would have been icing on the cake.
>
>- Alex Ward
If you applaud this, you are a fool.
David Fresko
"Alex Ward" <riff...@silcom.com> wrote:
>OK, some people have been asking who Don Murphy is and what the whole QT
>fight thing was all about. Well, first off, Don Murphy was a producer of
>Natural Born Killers, as was his partner Jane Hamsher. The two of them
>negotiated with Quentin in the very early days of the NBK production
>process, and apparently they feel pretty damn bitter about the whole thing.
> So bitter infact, that Jane Hamsher wrote the book Killer Instinct,
>miserably blaming Quentin for her cancer, and pointing out her significant
>role in the making of NBK. In reality, Quentin got screwed over by these
>people, and Jane and Don had basically no creative input in the film. So
>basically, these people have talked up a world of shit about Quentin in the
>press and have done a lot of generally crappy and unprofessional things.
>ANYWAY, Quentin saw Don at some restaurant, and beat the crap out of him.
>Don is a pretty big (fatassed) guy, I'm surprised our puny little hero was
Uh, sorry, but its the other way around. Tarantino fucked them over by
posing as being on their side while they were trying to get NBK made, but
in actuality he was going around telling all the talent agencies not to
work with them. He convinced Rand Vossler to sue them. He lied to them. He
asked them for a $10,000 optioning fee after he said he didn't want any
money to begin with. He badmouthed their movie, which they did have quite
a bit to do with. Murphy and Hamsher are no angles, but Tarantino is far
from the poor misunderstood, harmless bystander you make him out to be.
Dave
BTW, Tarantino himself is pretty big and far from puny at a wopping 6'2
220 pounds. Real puny.
Jason Simpson
On 25 Oct 1997, David Fresko wrote:
> Uh, sorry, but its the other way around. Tarantino fucked them over by
> posing as being on their side while they were trying to get NBK made, but
Good for him!
> in actuality he was going around telling all the talent agencies not to
> work with them. He convinced Rand Vossler to sue them. He lied to them. He
Good for him!
> asked them for a $10,000 optioning fee after he said he didn't want any
> money to begin with. He badmouthed their movie, which they did have quite
> a bit to do with. Murphy and Hamsher are no angles, but Tarantino is far
> from the poor misunderstood, harmless bystander you make him out to be.
Oh God no. I should hope he wasn't just a "harmless bystander." Murphy
deserved what he got. Tarantino deserved to give it to him, and yes, he
should have bitchslapped Hamsher. That would have been more than icing on
the cake and I would have wanted it on videotape.
> BTW, Tarantino himself is pretty big and far from puny at a wopping 6'2
> 220 pounds. Real puny.
Damn right!
Jdprod
Alez Ward wrote;
>So bitter infact, that Jane Hamsher wrote the book Killer Instinct,
>miserably blaming Quentin for her cancer, and pointing out her significant
>role in the making of NBK.
If you knew ANYTHING about what you were speaking, you'd have a life.
Good luck to you; life's tough without a brain.
-Don Murphy
Matt Lynch
TJ <tre...@worldcom.us> wrote:
>
> Don Murphy acted in a film in 1946 called DRIFTIN' RIVER. How old
>is this guy Quentin "punchy" Tarantino heroically attacked?
>
Wrong Don Murphy. I seriously doubt that the Don Murphy that
Tarantino attacked was even born in 1946. Hamsher describes him as
"twentysomething" in "Killer Instinct", and the events in the book
took place in 92-94.
-----
Matt Lynch, aka The Magnificent OTIS,
Hot Handed God of Penn State
"I like this one...one dog goes one way, the other dog goes the
other way, and this guy's sayin', 'Whaddaya want from me?'"
-- Joe Pesci, "Goodfellas"
Justin Bennett
Jason Simpson wrote:
>
> On 25 Oct 1997, David Fresko wrote:
> Oh God no. I should hope he wasn't just a "harmless bystander." Murphy
> deserved what he got. Tarantino deserved to give it to him, and yes, he
> should have bitchslapped Hamsher. That would have been more than icing on
> the cake and I would have wanted it on videotape.
What bullshit. Stop defending your idol and admit what he did is the
type of thing little schoolkids do, it was very childish. And by the
way,in a interview with a security guard, he said that Tarantino
couldn't fight for shit.
> > BTW, Tarantino himself is pretty big and far from puny at a wopping 6'2
> > 220 pounds. Real puny.
>
> Damn right!
Let me guess, his forehead adds a hundred into that??
Justin
webm...@film.tierranet.com
> > > BTW, Tarantino himself is pretty big and far from puny at a wopping 6'2
> > > 220 pounds. Real puny.
> >
> > Damn right!
>
> Let me guess, his forehead adds a hundred into that??
>
> Justin
Well, then he must have a hell of a head butt at least.
Long Beach Mike
Marc Fleury wrote:
>
> Justin Bennett <ben...@wr.com.au> wrote:
>
> >Jason Simpson wrote:
> >> On 25 Oct 1997, David Fresko wrote:
> >> Murphy deserved what he got. Tarantino deserved to give it to him,
> >> and yes, he should have bitchslapped Hamsher.
>
> did (although if you had asked me before, I would have said that
> there's no way that *he* would have written them, either).
>
> Whoever wrote them is a moron, which is why it's important to identify
> the quote properly. They say that violence is the last refuge of the
> weak of mind (personally, I'd say that it's the *first* refuge . . .)
> More importantly, though, only the *severely* weak of mind *applaud*
> those violent actions.
Why do you always have everything in little *stars*?
>
> -- Marc.
Long Beach Mike
Justin Bennett wrote:
>
> Jason Simpson wrote:
> >
> > On 25 Oct 1997, David Fresko wrote:
>
> > deserved what he got. Tarantino deserved to give it to him, and yes, he
> > the cake and I would have wanted it on videotape.
>
> What bullshit. Stop defending your idol and admit what he did is the
> type of thing little schoolkids do, it was very childish. And by the
> way,in a interview with a security guard, he said that Tarantino
> couldn't fight for shit.
>
> > > 220 pounds. Real puny.
> >
> > Damn right!
>
> Let me guess, his forehead adds a hundred into that??
if you dislike Tarantino so much? Did you even bother to read what the
newgroup was about or did you think it was a bunch of SHE-MALES
accidentally talking about QT?
Get a life queer
>
> Justin
Jason Simpson
On Sat, 1 Nov 1997, Justin Bennett wrote:
> Jason Simpson wrote:
> > Oh God no. I should hope he wasn't just a "harmless bystander." Murphy
> > deserved what he got. Tarantino deserved to give it to him, and yes, he
> > should have bitchslapped Hamsher. That would have been more than icing on
> > the cake and I would have wanted it on videotape.
> What bullshit. Stop defending your idol and admit what he did is the
> type of thing little schoolkids do, it was very childish. And by the
> way,in a interview with a security guard, he said that Tarantino
> couldn't fight for shit.
My idol? Amnyway; What he did _was_ childish as hell. It was cool as fuck.
I would have liked to have it on videotape. "Stop defending your idol and
admit". . . I admit it was what shoolkids do.
You don't get it do you. That's why I said I wanted it on video you see.
(It was kind of a joke but) I can't go punch people who slander me. He
can. I'd get sued. He'd get his name in the papers. Hollywood is supposed
to entertain people.
I'm entertained. Why is it bullshit?
And security guards are a reliable bunch, let me tell you. They can talk
about everything from particle accelerators to Zen. When you're a security
guard you have to talk shit about other people's fighting, it's in the
contract that you sign to get your guard card.
Jason Simpson
On Sun, 2 Nov 1997, Marc Fleury wrote:
> Just to correct, Dave Fresko never wrote those words. Jason Simpson
> did (although if you had asked me before, I would have said that
> there's no way that *he* would have written them, either).
>
> Whoever wrote them is a moron, which is why it's important to identify
> the quote properly. They say that violence is the last refuge of the
> weak of mind (personally, I'd say that it's the *first* refuge . . .)
> More importantly, though, only the *severely* weak of mind *applaud*
> those violent actions.
I'm the moron. It's my quote. I like it when princesses get in drunk
over-media-inflated car accidents with their boyfriends. Flame me if you
want, call me sick, I could care. It's just more entertainment which is
what Hollywood's all about, right?
Being highly apathetic can do wonders for your sense of homour...Maybe I
am "*severely* weak of mind".
Justin Bennett
Long Beach Mike wrote:
>
> Justin Bennett wrote:
> >
> > Jason Simpson wrote:
> > >
> > > > BTW, Tarantino himself is pretty big and far from puny at a wopping 6'2
> > > > 220 pounds. Real puny.
> > >
> > > Damn right!
> >
> > Let me guess, his forehead adds a hundred into that??
I actually very much admire him as a person and love his talent as a
director. But when people say:
It was so fuckin cool to see QT beat the fuck out of some fuckin
prroducer that was fuckin boud mouthing him.
I find it a bit alarming.
Don't you?
Justin
Rabbit Warrior
Horuun wrote:
>
> Rabbit Warrior <le...@mindsync.com> wrote:
>
> Once again you prove yourself to be an utter idiot, sir.
Once again you've proved yourself utterly idiotic in your attempts to
insult me.
>
> >Listen, I do not appreciate someone blatently insulting my reading
> >capability
> >based solely on this singular post.
>
> You've had quite a few posts that clearly demonstarte what you're capable of.
What the hell is the word 'demonstarte'? Is this the sequel to From
Dusk to Dawn?
>
> >Don, if you are Don Murphy, how the
> >hell
> >old are you? You've at least gotta be in you late 70's. What I would
> >suggest you do, for an old timer as yourself, is try and settle down in
> >a
> >nice comfy retirement home were they'll dress and clothe you and wipe
> >your
> >ass whenever you can't control your bodily functions.
>
> Where do you people keep getting that he is this old. He is in his twenties
> from everything I understand.
Well, from everything that I understand he's starred in a movie made in
1946, which
leads me to believe he's pretty damn old. I could care less how old he
is anyhow. What matters is, is that he's a lying coward.
>
> >You should not
> >be,
> >however, making or producing movies,
>
> Why the hell not? Should you be? If you look at it, NBK is a fairly successful
> film and it has many fans. And, whether you like it or not, it was still
> written by your hero, Mr. Tarantino. Mr. Murphy's next project is Apt Pupil i
> believe, which is a film that I am pretty anxious to see. Although I didn't
> like Singer's first movie, called Public Access or something like that, The
> Usual Suspects was pretty good, and Apt Pupil seems like it will also be.
And I am one of those fans. I enjoyed Natural Born Killers for it's
brutal and choppy piecemeal effort of cinema. But the movie lacked
aesthetic beauty, something which can be very annoying and distracting.
Personally I dont care to see whatever Mr. Murphy's future projects are
because I know they'll be amateurish and puerile.
>
> >and especially not going around
> >provoking and instigating a great movie maker with cowardly lies.
>
> First off, how do you know they were lies, and secondly, if they were out in
how do you know they're not? It's painfully obvious your just reaching
for argument's sake.
> the open, which clearly they were, how can you call them cowardly?
If your going to insult someone, tell them to their face, dont hide
behind a false facade.
> >No one here want's to here anything you have to say about Tarantino and his
> >movies
> >if it's going to be negative.
>
> I'd like to see more posts from Mr. Murphy, personally. He has experience in
> films, he has experience with Tarantino, and when he posts, he has logic and
> something besides "FUCK OFF" in them. Add that to the fact that he knows how
You know exactly why I posted FUCK OFF. Should I remind you? Do you
have that little a memory? It's because your an arrogant selfish
bastard.
> to spell, and, well, he's twenty times more wanted than you.
Good, I'm glad. I don't really care. Since you love him so much, why
don't you go move in with him when he goes to prison and be his
buttbrother.
>
> > I know exactly who Harlan Ellison and he
> >performs
> >something of which you clearly have no grasp of: writing.
> >
> >
>
> How does he clearly have no "grasp of writing?" It's not clear to me.
It's pretty clear to me you have no grasp of writing either.
>
> >I admit I know nothing of Tarantino's life or him as a person. But I do
> >know that if someone went around and told false and untrue
> >stories about me, I would do exactly what
> >Tarantino did in that cafe.
>
> If you know nothing of Tarantino's life or him as a person, how do you know
> anybody was saying anything untrue about him? The way to retaliate to that
> kind of critcism is to go out and make a great film or two or three and prove
> that person wrong. It's not to do something as completely idiotic as
> assaulting a person in a public place and confirming that you are that
> asshole.
I know if you were in the same situation you would duck your head and
start crying like a little girl, the way Don Murphy did.
>
> >Why do you hate him so? Is it because Natural Born Killers was intended
> >to be better than Pulp Fiction?
>
> This question is just stupid.
No, actually it hold much water as to where this deeply rooted
resentment between Don and Quentin originated came from. Read up on it
kid, you'll find out.
>
> >Is it because he insulted you first?
> >Tell me the truth about this matter, because is truely boggles my mind
> >as to why you hold such a grudge against him.
>
> It seems that a lot truly boggles your mind, Leon. But the fact remains that
> Don Murphy is smarter than you, more talented than you, more successful than
> you, and more important than you will ever be. I have respect for anyone who
> can accomplish things like Mr. Murphy has. Hopefully one day I will. But you
> never will, Leon. And I bet you are too blind to see why that is, too.
You have delusions of grandeur. You'll just be another nameless nobody
in the heartless wasteland they call Hollywood, if you even get that
far. Mr. Murphy is not a very smart man, whatever his age, and I truely
feel sorry for you if you hold such high regards for some muckingraking
washup nobody-never-has-been.
>
> You remind me of Luke Woodham, that guy from Pearl, Mississippi that shot up
> his classmates. If you decide to do the same, make sure that you have the
> barrel pointed in the right direction. You know, to where you can see the
> bullet coming at you.
Oh wow, you are so versatile when it comes to witty retorts. I think
I'll go to my room, shut the door, pump up Heavy Metal and groan and
gripe about how the world doesn't understand me. But that's not going
to happen. The fact of the matter is your jealous that a person nearly
half your own age has such insight into such matters. I am 4 times the
distance you were at my age. Dont doubt that'll I'll soon be a
multi-billionaire sometime in my life. I just might let you be a
janitor if your lucky.
>
-Leon J. Rabbit Warrior(aka. Long Beach Mike)
eppy thatcher
is this guy claiming to be don murphy for real? and if it is him what
the the hell is he posting here for? wouldnt you think this "hollywood
player" would have more important shit to do then come to his enemy's
NG? after all according to brent hes smart, successful, talented, and
important.(i think brent may have himself a little crush)
-eppy
Horuun
Rabbit Warrior <le...@mindsync.com> wrote:
Once again you prove yourself to be an utter idiot, sir.
>Listen, I do not appreciate someone blatently insulting my reading
>capability
>based solely on this singular post.
You've had quite a few posts that clearly demonstarte what you're capable of.
>Don, if you are Don Murphy, how the
>hell
>old are you? You've at least gotta be in you late 70's. What I would
>suggest you do, for an old timer as yourself, is try and settle down in
>a
>nice comfy retirement home were they'll dress and clothe you and wipe
>your
>ass whenever you can't control your bodily functions.
Where do you people keep getting that he is this old. He is in his twenties
from everything I understand.
>You should not
>be,
>however, making or producing movies,
Why the hell not? Should you be? If you look at it, NBK is a fairly successful
film and it has many fans. And, whether you like it or not, it was still
written by your hero, Mr. Tarantino. Mr. Murphy's next project is Apt Pupil i
believe, which is a film that I am pretty anxious to see. Although I didn't
like Singer's first movie, called Public Access or something like that, The
Usual Suspects was pretty good, and Apt Pupil seems like it will also be.
>and especially not going around
>provoking and instigating a great movie maker with cowardly lies.
First off, how do you know they were lies, and secondly, if they were out in
the open, which clearly they were, how can you call them cowardly?
>No one here want's to here anything you have to say about Tarantino and his
>movies
>if it's going to be negative.
I'd like to see more posts from Mr. Murphy, personally. He has experience in
films, he has experience with Tarantino, and when he posts, he has logic and
something besides "FUCK OFF" in them. Add that to the fact that he knows how
to spell, and, well, he's twenty times more wanted than you.
> I know exactly who Harlan Ellison and he
>performs
>something of which you clearly have no grasp of: writing.
>
>
How does he clearly have no "grasp of writing?" It's not clear to me.
>I admit I know nothing of Tarantino's life or him as a person. But I do
>know that if someone went around and told false and untrue
>stories about me, I would do exactly what
>Tarantino did in that cafe.
If you know nothing of Tarantino's life or him as a person, how do you know
anybody was saying anything untrue about him? The way to retaliate to that
kind of critcism is to go out and make a great film or two or three and prove
that person wrong. It's not to do something as completely idiotic as
assaulting a person in a public place and confirming that you are that
asshole.
>Why do you hate him so? Is it because Natural Born Killers was intended
>to be better than Pulp Fiction?
This question is just stupid.
>Is it because he insulted you first?
>Tell me the truth about this matter, because is truely boggles my mind
>as to why you hold such a grudge against him.
It seems that a lot truly boggles your mind, Leon. But the fact remains that
Don Murphy is smarter than you, more talented than you, more successful than
you, and more important than you will ever be. I have respect for anyone who
can accomplish things like Mr. Murphy has. Hopefully one day I will. But you
never will, Leon. And I bet you are too blind to see why that is, too.
You remind me of Luke Woodham, that guy from Pearl, Mississippi that shot up
his classmates. If you decide to do the same, make sure that you have the
barrel pointed in the right direction. You know, to where you can see the
bullet coming at you.
-Brent Miles Sprinkle
Daniel J. Fienberg
eppy thatcher (chi...@webtv.net) wrote:
: is this guy claiming to be don murphy for real? and if it is him what
Don used to post here quite frequently a couple years ago. When I
started posting two and a half years ago he was already phasing himself
out. I would assume that if someone was saying that it was him... it was
him. The last time he posted, that I can remember, was a couple months
back when someone asked why he didn't post. He's wacky like that.
Why would he post here? Simple answer? Why not? Admittedly, at
this point, he isn't a fan of Tarantino, but who is?
And as for Brent? Well, seeing as how Don's out in LA, it
wouldn't matter too much if he did have a crush. So can't we all just...
move along.
-Daniel
--
Daniel J. Fienberg
d...@sas.upenn.edu
Daniel's Lion Den -- http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~djf
Managing Editor- 34th Street Magazine http://www.dp.upenn.edu/street
"Heard about the guy who fell off a skyscraper? On his way down past
each floor, he kept sayng to reassure himself: So far so good... so far
so good... so far so good. How you fall doesn't matter. It's how you land!"
-La Haine
--
Jen
Reading all about "THE BOOK", I decided to go and look for it, because I'm
truly curious. Anyway, since I live in such a far away place (Eastern
Canada), I can't find it! No Jane Hamsher book. Ain't life grand?
Jen
o1...@unb.ca
Rabbit Warrior
Daniel J. Fienberg wrote:
>
> Ken (k...@nr.infi.net) wrote:
> : This is not Don Murphy the producer writing these posts. It is the
> : person who dislikes
> : Leon and likes to fight with him. There is also a way to tell who it is
> : by name and put a stop to them.
>
> The problem is that:
> a) Lots of people dislike leon. How can we know who is who based on such
> a broad category.
The inverse variation is just as true!!
>
> b) No one on this newsgroup has ever taken the time to so totally
> humiliate the kid.
Oh yeah, he like took totally like so much time and stuff out of his
like totally busy schedule. Now I'm like totally and completly like
crushed dude.
>
> c) Don Murphy used to post here. I have no problems believing that this
> is him. Maybe I'm just a sucker like that.
A sucker? Your a sucker. Dont get me started.
> -Daniel
>
> --
> Daniel J. Fienberg
> d...@sas.upenn.edu
> Daniel's Lion Den -- http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~djf
> Managing Editor- 34th Street Magazine http://www.dp.upenn.edu/street
>
> -Caddyshack
>
> --
Rabbit Warrior
Jdprod wrote:
>
> More fun with Leon
>
> He writes---->Personally I dont care to see whatever Mr. Murphy's future
> projects are
> >because I know they'll be amateurish and puerile.
>
> I hope you paid for using that word "puerile." Did one of the guards loan you
> a dictionary?
Nope, I took it out of your dad's closet while you were playing with him
in the other room. You know, the one right by the September issue of
Spankoff Digest and the bottle of KY jelly.
>
> >If your going to insult someone, tell them to their face, dont hide
> >behind a false facade.
>
Wow, it's so good to see you using quotations correctly. Kinda leaves
me wondering though......where is the period at the end of the sentence?
> 2-The word "don't" has an apostrophe (that's that little squiggle, Leon.)
> 3-A facade has to be false by definition, estupido.
> 4- WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??
Disgruntled. What can I tell you?
>
> >You know exactly why I posted FUCK OFF. Should I remind you? Do you
> >have that little a memory? It's because your an arrogant selfish
> >bastard.
>
> 2-Why is he selfish? Did he not put out for you? I thought you had people
> there at the work farm to perform that task.
The only person who works for me is your filthy mom. And let me tell
you, she doesn't really bring in the dough. But she sure can suck like
a vacuum cleaner. I should know!
>
> >why
> >don't you go move in with him when he goes to prison and be his
> >buttbrother.
>
Your one to talk.
> Is that why you did that thing and they locked you up? Why are all your
> insults about "she-males" and men's anuses? Seek counseling while you are
> away.
"Is that why you did that thing.....", well, I sure would be insulted if
you had made sense. Seems to me your the one with anuses on the brain.
>
> >I know if you were in the same situation you would duck your head and
> >start crying like a little girl, the way Don Murphy did.
> >
Well it's true......
> As far as knowing what happened at AGO, you weren't there---- and again, you
> know nothing.
You're very hellbent in proving that I know 'nothing'. Goodluck to you.
>
> >Mr. Murphy is not a very smart man, whatever his age, and I truely
> >feel sorry for you if you hold such high regards for some muckingraking
> >washup nobody-never-has-been.
>
> 2- I am not smart, but I can use the word "muckraking" without hurting myself.
What an ingenious little poem! Did you write dat alllllllll by
yourself? I bet you did, yes you did, yes you did, your a cute little
fella!
> 3-I am a "washup"????? Should I ask you what that means, or seek a doctor's
> advice?
Well, I should certainly think you should know. I mean, you did
redefine the word.
>
> >The fact of the matter is your jealous that a person nearly
> >half your own age has such insight into such matters. I am 4 times the
> >distance you were at my age. Dont doubt that'll I'll soon be a
> >multi-billionaire sometime in my life. I just might let you be a
> >janitor if your lucky.
>
Well, I guess your out of luck. Sorry guy.
>
> -Don (Disgruntled) Murphy
Jdprod
Okay kids, it's time to HAVE FUN WITH LEON, the man who went back on line for
stupids three extra times.
He writes:
>Listen, I do not appreciate someone blatently insulting my reading
>capability
>based solely on this singular post.
The word is "blatantly". Case closed.
>Don, if you are Don Murphy, how the
>hell
>old are you? You've at least gotta be in you late 70's. What I would
>suggest you do, for an old timer as yourself, is try and settle down in
>a
>nice comfy retirement home were they'll dress and clothe you and wipe
>your
>ass whenever you can't control your bodily functions.
I am 35. What relevance is age to the question of your idiocy?
>You should not
>be,
>however, making or producing movies, and especially not going around
>provoking and instigating a great movie maker with cowardly lies
1- Thank you for your opinion which I have immediately ignored.
2- What cowardly lies? Proof is requested....but I doubt it will be provided.
3- I'm still waiting to address your ignorance.
>No
>one
>here want's to here anything you have to say about Tarantino and his
>movies
>if it's going to be negative
1- The bodily function is called "hearing".
2- Judging by the thread a lot of people do want to "here" from me.
3- So only positive things must be discussed? Sorry, not in the world of
Quentin Tarantino.
4- When do we talk about your lack of intelligence?
>I know exactly who Harlan Ellison and he
>performs
>something of which you clearly have no grasp of: writing.
1- For such a great writer, you should know not to put a colon before the word
"writing."
2- "Something of which"? Unacceptable grammar.
3- Still, the original post was about how STOOPID you are. Stick to the point.
>I admit I know nothing of Tarantino's life or him as a person. But I do
>know that if someone went around and told false and untrue
>stories about me, I would do exactly what
>Tarantino did in that cafe.
>
>
I will concede the first five words of your sentence.
>Why do you hate him so? Is it because Natural Born Killers was intended
>to be better than Pulp Fiction? Is it because he insulted you first?
>Tell me the truth about this matter, because is truely boggles my mind
>as to why you hold such a grudge against him.
1-The word, Mr. Great Writer who is being unfairly picked on is "truly."
2- I will hold a grudge against him for life because he is the worst kind of
Benedict Arnold/Judas. I'd tell you to read Jane's book, but we have
established the high likelihood of your inability to read.
3- I'd really like to discuss your IQ issue soon.
Daniel J. Fienberg
Ken (k...@nr.infi.net) wrote:
: This is not Don Murphy the producer writing these posts. It is the
: person who dislikes
: Leon and likes to fight with him. There is also a way to tell who it is
: by name and put a stop to them.
The problem is that:
a) Lots of people dislike leon. How can we know who is who based on such
a broad category.
b) No one on this newsgroup has ever taken the time to so totally
humiliate the kid.
c) Don Murphy used to post here. I have no problems believing that this
is him. Maybe I'm just a sucker like that.
TeddyB1018
Ken opines:
>This is not Don Murphy the producer writing these posts. It is the
>person who dislikes Leon and likes to fight with him. There is also a
>way to definitely tell who it is by name and put a stop to them.
>
"JDProd" is most certainly "Don Murphy the producer". Those of us who've been
reading this newsgroup for some time recognize his personal style. Judging by
his most recent posts, he is also the "Don Murphy who dislikes Leon and likes
to fight with him."
Don (along with Jane) and QT have a mutual grudge. Don seems to be angry enough
with Quentin to post things on the newsgroup sharing his negative opinion of
QT the person.
The rest of us -- who have had no personal dealings with QT -- are free to
enjoy his movies or not enjoy them (I like them myself). Of course there is a
moral component to this. If an artist is a heinous enough person, one might
choose to reject their work (Leni Riefenstahl? DW Griffith? Perhaps the guy
who made "Powder"? A mass murderer?) One makes their own decisions as to where
the line is.
Daniel J. Fienberg
Rabbit Warrior (le...@mindsync.com) wrote:
: Daniel J. Fienberg wrote:
: > c) Don Murphy used to post here. I have no problems believing that this
: > is him. Maybe I'm just a sucker like that.
The the conversation goes like this:
I say I'm a sucker.
leon (destroying grammer as he goes) calls me a sucker.
When I say it first, leon, it doesn't make you tough to repeat
it. It makes you silly. And learn how to use apostrophes.
Horuun
>2a- Finally, the only piece of real literature that has been mentioned
>here. I was so sick of reading about the pathetic excuse for a book
>entitled killer instinct.
Killer instinct was the piec3e of literature mentioned. What were you talking
about.
>GREAT SPIRITS HAVE ALWAYS ENCOUNTERED VIOLENT OPPOSITION FROM MEDIOCRE
>MINDS, --ALBERT EINSTEIN
>
>
>
And you have gone and proved this.
Jason Forrest
Tara E. Seeley (t...@ecst.csuchico.edu) wrote:
: If the poster is in fact Don Murphy (doubtful), it's sad that he would
: come into this newsgroup and even get himself involved to boot. It would
: only prove their was a reason for the fight beyond Tarantino's inability
: to control his anger at the moment. However, I do not intend to believe
: the poster is who he says he is. Don Murphy just cannot be that stupid...
: Therefore, although the poster makes good points, they are completely
: negated by the fact he tried to use someone else's identity.
I can positively guarantee it's Don Murphy posting. What's the big deal,
he wants to post here? He's not too special or famous to post.
: If
: you are a fan of neither tarantino or his films you do not belong here.
: This is alt.FAN.tarantino.
That's the age old debate. I don't think it holds water though. The whole
slew of alt.fan groups are used for discussion of the person in question,
good or bad. Otherwise they would just be too boring. If someone is
really childish and has no content in their posts (certain people come to
mind since the creation of this group), do what I do and twit filter them.
--------------------------------------------
Jason A. Forrest
aa...@chebucto.ns.ca
afn2...@freenet.ufl.edu
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~aa114/Profile.html
Jdprod
So I guess we need to let Leon slip back under his rock.
Among the many non-responsive things he writes:
>Nope, I took it out of your dad's closet while you were playing with him
>in the other room.
I ask everyone of any intelligence to not respond or address Mr. Leon until he
answers all three of the following questions. It's for his own good.
1- Why does he criticize other posters by attacking their masculinity? Did
something happen to him in the work camp? Can't he respect the sexual habits
of other people?
2- Why does he attack people's writing when he himself is sub-literate?
3- Why must Quentin be a perfect human being in order for Leon to worship at
his altar?
Facts are facts, Mr. Leon. Quentin is a HORRIBLE person, a plagiarist, someone
who has fucked over friends and supporters, and just not nice. You may like
his films (I quite enjoy aspects of all of them) but you would not want to be
his friend. The book you haven't read (being sub-literate) KILLER INSTINCT,
is a national bestseller and one of the best reviewed film books in Hollywood
history. It tells the truth about Quentin's past, stpe by step. If it was a
lie-filled book, Mr. Tarantino and friends would have sued our brains out. He
had no legal standing, and so resorted to playgound tactics, physical
violence. Maybe someone in the work camp can loan you a copy of the book.
Check out the last picture (someone can read the caption to you).
Maybe that's why you like QT - you have so much in common.
This will be my last post to you, until you actually answer those questions.
Good luck, troglodyte.
Jason Forrest
Ken (k...@nr.infi.net) wrote:
: This is not Don Murphy the producer writing these posts. It is the
: person who dislikes
: Leon and likes to fight with him. There is also a way to tell who it is
: by name and put a stop to them.
It's Don Murphy the producer, Ken. We all dislike leon. Only because he's
young.
eppy thatcher
if this is really don murphy then he is one pathetic mother fucker. he
doesnt insult leon just once but keeps going on and on post after post.
being such a "successful" producer he should have better things to do
than"have fun with leon"
whats up don,tarantino smack you around and you try and take it out on a
16 year old kid?
-eppy
Jason Simpson
On 4 Nov 1997, Jdprod wrote:
> 3- You scare me Leon, you really do. You walk the earth and speak your mind
> secure in the knowledge that you can inflict your opinion on everyone. To
> paraphrase Harlan Ellison (he's a writer Leon, and he knows how to write)
> everyone is NOT entitled to their own opinion, just to their own informed
> opinion. You know NOTHING about Tarantino, me, Hollywood, or the English
> language, so stop showing your ignorance and move on.
Why don't I scare you? Now I feel left out. I praised Quentin Tarantino
for what he did too, you know.
> 4- The end result of Tarantino's assault on me is that he gave control of his
> destiny (in a legal sense) to me. We shall see what we shall see.
"We shall see what we shall see"? Who do you think you are? It's people
like _you_ that scare _me_ actually.
> Leon, when you get out of the work farm, let us know (if there is still a need
> for a group devoted to QT then).
Maybe he won't go to Hollywood and "become someone" like Don Murphy,
right? You know that name...he was in that movie back in 1946. Shit.
Jason Simpson
On 6 Nov 1997, Jdprod wrote:
> Billionaires usually aren't locked up, or ignorant.
>
> -Don Murphy
sk...@wam.umd.edu
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.97110...@sol.sun.csd.unb.ca>,
online bookstores http://www.amazon.com or http://www.barnesandnoble.com
Both stores have it for a discount price. They shipped it out pretty fast.
I'm done reading it, and although it's obviously a biased account, it's
laugh-out-loud funny. If Tarantino is guilty of half the stuff in there,
I must say Jane and Don have a pretty good reason to be be so pissed.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Jason Simpson
On Wed, 5 Nov 1997, Rabbit Warrior wrote:
> Okay guys, your recieving these messages from a grown man with far too
> much idle time on his hands.
I think anyone who posts here has FAR too much time on their hands...That
includes me so don't flame me for that.
> Shouldn't you be out there trying to make
> a name for yourself? Shouldn't you be doing somthing constructive with
> your time? I thank you for the editorial inspection of my work; it
> always in need of some brushing up. This 'man' is disgruntled and
> childish and probably, most certainly needs psychiatric help.
So, I'm to believe this person really is Don Murphy. Don Murphy really is
bored enough to sit down at a terminal (or perhaps he dictates) and argue
with you, Leon, of all people. That's too bad. I'm really sorry to hear
that.
Mr. Murphy, shouldn't you be out doing things with really shallow
backstabbing friends rather than fighting with schoolkids via fiberoptic
cables?
If talented people didn't nail your ass in public, people would think you
starred in Frankenstein's Daughter and Lord Love a Duck (I think it was
called) "Wasn't he in that movie made in '46?" You were -16 years old.
(You claim you're 35 now?) You were successful at an early age. Most kids
are lucky to be in commercials. You weren't even born and already you
were in a full length film or two.
Lets be more correct with years, actually. There was no Donald Murphy film
in '46.
Four years before Don was born, he met Richard Cuntha. Cuntha had
a brilliant idea: "Frankenstein's Daughter"! (Stupid, perhaps, to you and
I but this early in Don's career, at age -4, he decided that it would be a
success and thus participated.)
The film was a flop. Cuntha realized that the world had enough
shitty, black and white horror movie. Shitty color ones was where the
money was at. (Critics also said the acting "needed oiling" but that's
okay, Don was young.) Don was later conceived and born and he met his
mother and father. This was a very happy time in his career.
Finally, at the unsigned age of four, in 1966, he met up with
George Axelrod in a trendy, Hollywood day-care. The two of them seemed to
hit it off, as Don was fascinated with (and could not pronounce) George's
last name. "George" was easy for the four year old to say, however,
("kind of like the monkey") And George was curious as to whether or not
the toddler would join him in the cast of his new movie "Lord Love a
Duck". Don liked the name of the movie and he jumped on the bandwagon.
This second and final movie was a much larger success than
"Frankenstein's Daughter". Axelrod and Don seemed to form quite a bond.
Cuntha and the four year old, however, were seen exchanging harsh words at
a trendy Hollywood eatery, Jack Rabbit Slims. It did not come to blows but
for the rest of his after-birth life, Don Murphy and Cuntha maintained no
rapport.
"It's just likee Leslie Caron," Cuntha sobbed once. "Birth always does
this to them."
Jason Simpson
On 6 Nov 1997, Jdprod wrote:
> I ask everyone of any intelligence to not respond or address Mr. Leon until he
> answers all three of the following questions.
Why on earth would I do something like that? (Or am I not a person of any
intelligence?)
> It's for his own good.
Oh, I see. It's like Dr. Don Murphy's Mental Health Hour.
DR. MURPHY: Send in the cured homosexual.
> 1- Why does he criticize other posters by attacking their masculinity? Did
> something happen to him in the work camp? Can't he respect the sexual habits
> of other people?
Why does it get to you so much, that's what I'd like to know. Does he pose
a threat to you with this nonsense? A threat to your "career"? Or is it
much deeper. Does he make you insecure about your own masculinity?
> 2- Why does he attack people's writing when he himself is sub-literate?
Grasping at straws.
Why do you attack Leon so much?
Grasping at straws.
> 3- Why must Quentin be a perfect human being in order for Leon to worship at
> his altar?
You wouldn't want to worship an imperfect God when so many religions offer
them nowadays, would you?
> Facts are facts, Mr. Leon. Quentin is a HORRIBLE person, a plagiarist, someone
> who has fucked over friends and supporters, and just not nice. You may like
> his films (I quite enjoy aspects of all of them) but you would not want to be
> his friend. The book you haven't read (being sub-literate) KILLER INSTINCT,
> is a national bestseller and one of the best reviewed film books in Hollywood
Every "national bestseller" I've picked up is a pure display of prose at
it's finest. Beautiful writing. That's why your local food store chain
carries so many of them.
Rabbit Soldier
I have the 'final solution' to all these problems. If everyone stops
responding to this thread, it will simply disappear. No more flaming
posts, no more Don Murphy (or whoever that confused child molesting gimp
ass motherfucker is).
Jason Forrest
Ken (k...@nr.infi.net) wrote:
: I would like you to take you up on your being able to "positively
: guarantee" that it is Don
: Murphy the co-producer of NBK and the new Brian Singer film. Please do
: so ASAP...or it
: will not make any difference.
Well, seeing as I have little idea who you are, I can't positively
guarantee you're going to believe me when I say it is. You're going to
have to take my good word on it. I will say I spoke to Don a few times,
and once on the phone, which confirmed it was him. Roger Avary and Craig
Hamann also confirmed to me it was him. Phoning JD Productions and getting
a hold of him pretty much was the clincher though.
Jason Simpson
I'm sorry, I can't stop. This is just too much fun.
On 6 Nov 1997, Jdprod wrote:
> Facts are facts, Mr. Leon. Quentin is a HORRIBLE person,
But wait, isn't that an opinion?
> but you would not want to be his friend.
That's an opinion too--and since you go around quoting Ellison--not even a
well informed one since Leon probably _would_ want to be his friend.
> (being sub-literate) KILLER INSTINCT,
Now doesn't _that_ look funny out of context.
Jdprod
So
1- The guy running the group (Forrest) says I'm done Murphy and cretins like
KHS still doubt it. Probably believes Napoleon is still president. The dope
tries to e-mail me personally, and thinks I'm somebody else. Really don't
care if you're too big a fool to accept the facts.
2- The next few posts insist I'm some old school actor. This guy simpson needs
to get on the medication.
3- And Leon is 16? Explains a lot. Didn't know that. But if I read some of
these posts (like webtv eppy) that entitles him to swear, write inane, stupid
things, and proceed unchallenged. Eh, no.
If someone is all that you think he is, he should be able to withstand
criticism. READ THE BOOK. The guy who co-wrote Pulp Fiction endorses it as
the truth.
I guess I must be too important to post here.
But interestingly, not a single moron ANSWERED OR ADDRESSED THE QUESTIONS!
That's a good enough reason not to post here again.
Nathan Dorfman
Rabbit Soldier <le...@mindsync.com> wrote, in `Re: The Don Murphy Incident: Over and Out':
Yeah, let's not have any more follow-ups here. :-)
Yeah, so it was a poor attempt at humor. Bite me.
--
________________ _______________________________
/ Nathan Dorfman V PGP: finger nat...@rtfm.net /
/ nat...@rtfm.net | http://www.rtfm.net /
Jason Simpson
On 7 Nov 1997, Jdprod wrote:
> 2- The next few posts insist I'm some old school actor. This guy simpson needs
> to get on the medication.
I wasn't insisting you were an old school actor. I was pointing out that
that's what people think. You're not much more than "the guy that
Tarantino hit" to most people who care. I was illustrating this by the
fact that I kept reading things like "How old is this guy Quentin
Tarantino so heroically hit? He was in some movie in '46." Apparently,
people think you're some B-actor from three/four/five decades ago. I
myself do not think this.
> If someone is all that you think he is, he should be able to withstand
> criticism. READ THE BOOK. The guy who co-wrote Pulp Fiction endorses it as
> the truth.
This group is just some big advertising section for you. READ THE BOOK!
READ THE BOOK! READ THE FUCKING BOOK!
Please read the book? PLEASE!?
> I guess I must be too important to post here.
Oh God.
> But interestingly, not a single moron ANSWERED OR ADDRESSED THE QUESTIONS!
> That's a good enough reason not to post here again.
The three questions you asked about Leon? I'm the single moron who
answered or addressed them.
-Jason "needs to be on the medication" Simpson
Jason Simpson
On Sat, 8 Nov 1997, eppy thatcher wrote:
> you also said i said leon"s age entitled him to do whatever he
> wants. i didnt. what i did say is that youre tring to take your anger
> at tarantino out on leon. which is pretty fucking sad and pathetic.
> tell me im wrong.
You, sir, are correct.
I just wished he'd take his anger out on me instead of Leon. That would be
so much more fun.
eppy thatcher
nobody answered your questions don? what questions? all youve done is
correct leon's grammar. so ask anything you like and "webtv eppy" will
answer.
by the way check out your last post in this thread whare you spell
your first name "done". any mother fucker who cant even spell his own
name shouldnt be correcting others.
you also said i said leon"s age entitled him to do whatever he
wants. i didnt. what i did say is that youre tring to take your anger
at tarantino out on leon. which is pretty fucking sad and pathetic.
tell me im wrong.
-eppy
Stiehayvon
The truth is that no one but QT and Don Murphy know why QT beat up on Mr.
Murphy. When you scamps get together your worst than a sewing circle, does
this sound familiar I hope so?
Stiehayvon
Has it ever occured to anyone that the most intelligent action do take with
your enemies is to know what they are up to or to know information about them,
this is why my father who is a Democrate watches the Republicans more closely
than he watches the his own party. Well, my point and I do have one is that I
believe this is Don Murphy I have seen him in AOL chatrooms and he presents
intelligent discussion there too. I also think Don Murphy is smart for
monitoring this newsgroup because QT is apparently one of his enemies and he
is keeping on top of him as much as possible, which is one of the smartest
things he can be doing.
Tara E. Seeley
I now think it is possible jdprod is Don Murphy. However, I don't
think having a child-like squabble match with obvious trouble-makers like
leon is "intelligent" discussion. And I don't think it's "smart" to
monitor this newsgroup because it has no bearing on the alleged
"incident." I think it shows how Don Murphy (if he really is Don Murphy)
is somehow obsessed with Tarantino and getting back at him. I'm sure don
Murphy is intelligent and can discuss things in an appropriate manner and,
at first, he seemed to be doing that in here but his latest behavior was
laughable. I admit Tarantino has let his fame go to his head. I've seen
this in recent interviews for example. And i don't think because he's made
some good films he's beyond criticism for his recent behavior. If he did
hit Don Murphy, that was out of line, no matter what the reason. But being
hit by Tarantino is still no reason to engage in pointless postings with
leon.
eppy thatcher
there are a lot of people wondering about tarantino's punching bag don
murphy. like his age and such. if youre curious check out the NBK
director's cut. the second tape has interviews with trhe cast and crew.
one of them being don himself. for those who dont have the tapes and
dont want to bother renting it heres the info:don is a 30ish, fat ass,
lisping, goofy looking geek. he looks like hes tring to get the cool
young hoolywood guy look. sunglasses, suit jacket over t-shirt. but he
aint pulling it off.
-eppy
Jason Forrest
Ken (k...@nr.infi.net) wrote:
: Prove it to me. Then MIRAMAX and PARAMOUNT will be even more
: interested.
: So will Showbiz Today, E-television, etc...
What? Why the hell would they care? What are you talking about?
Horuun
>The lawsuit. I thought everybody knew that was coming. If there is
>absolute proof that it was Don Murphy, the lawyers, the media, etc..
>will be coming here. If it wasn't Don Murphy, after they come here, they
>may still use it as evidence. If it was DM, it helps QT. If it wasn't,
>it helps DM.
>
>
>
>
How the hell is this evidence?
Jason Simpson
On Sat, 15 Nov 1997, eppy thatcher wrote:
> but it would be cool if this went to court(i dont think it will)
> and this NG came up. maybe well see transcipts of don and leon fighting
> in this NG broadcast on court tv.
Wow, if they broadcast him and leon fighting we'll all look like a bunch
of mindless fuckheads now, won't we? Wouldn't that make all of our days.
And then Mr. Murphy will have an even easier time bashing Tarantino and
his mindless fans.
chelsea corazon
Horuun, I must admit I'm a bit shocked: I thought you & I saw eye-to-eye
about a lot of things regarding QT-- (including, as per your latest email
to me, his brilliance as a screenwriter.) I am truly surprised that you
do not appear to agree that the |very first| thing Quentin's attorneys
should do in view of this recent lawsuit, is to subpoena every scrap of
Don Murphy's email files in the last 3 or 4 years, both to individuals
and to newsgroups. Quentin's lawyers should |immediately| contact any
known isp that Don has had in that period, because almost all isps keep
backup copies of incoming & outgoing emails...certainly aol (as much
as I hate them . . . ) does. :)
chelsea
chelsea
Daniel J. Fienberg
chelsea corazon (kare...@sirius.com) wrote:
: Horuun, I must admit I'm a bit shocked: I thought you & I saw eye-to-eye
: about a lot of things regarding QT-- (including, as per your latest email
: to me, his brilliance as a screenwriter.) I am truly surprised that you
: do not appear to agree that the |very first| thing Quentin's attorneys
: should do in view of this recent lawsuit, is to subpoena every scrap of
: Don Murphy's email files in the last 3 or 4 years, both to individuals
: and to newsgroups. Quentin's lawyers should |immediately| contact any
: known isp that Don has had in that period, because almost all isps keep
: backup copies of incoming & outgoing emails...certainly aol (as much
: as I hate them . . . ) does. :)
But chelsea, what's any of that going to prove? I like Tarantino
and his movies. However, there will be nothing ever posted to this
newsgroup that provides evidence justifying a man attacking another man
in a restaurant with no immediate physical justification. Tarantino was a
thug. Is 5 million a ridiculous sum to be asking for? You bet your ass!!!
Does Don Murphy have a case? Yes, again. There is no excuse for what
Tarantino did. If he had any class, he would have apologized immediately
and then it could have faded away. And I mean a public apology. What I
find disgraceful is the Murphy is ignoring criminal charges instead going
straight for the dough. In a criminal court, Tarantino wouldn't have had
a leg to stand on. I assume that Tarantino's lawyers will exhaust that
angle long before they do anything with this newsgroup.
-Daniel
--
Daniel J. Fienberg
d...@sas.upenn.edu
Daniel's Lion Den -- http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~djf
Managing Editor- 34th Street Magazine http://www.dp.upenn.edu/street
"My father says that almost the whole world is asleep. Everybody you
know. Everybody you see. Everybody you talk to. He says that only a few
people are awake and they live in a state of constant total amazement."
-Joe Versus the Volcano
--
Jason Simpson
On 17 Nov 1997, Daniel J. Fienberg wrote:
> and then it could have faded away. And I mean a public apology. What I
> find disgraceful is the Murphy is ignoring criminal charges instead going
> straight for the dough. In a criminal court, Tarantino wouldn't have had
> a leg to stand on.
Hell no he wouldn't have. Mr. Murphy really shouldn't let him slide like
that since that's a sure thing. He wouldn't need his girlfriends to go
bashing Tarantino in books when he could have every entertainment magazine
do it for him.
> I assume that Tarantino's lawyers will exhaust that
> angle long before they do anything with this newsgroup.
Exactly. He should have pressed criminal charges first at least. I really
have to wonder about this 5 million dollars that he thinks he's going to
get. He ought to settle out of court for an McDonalds Extra Value Meal.
Horuun
chelsea corazon <kare...@sirius.com> wrote:
>hor...@aol.com (Horuun) wrote:
>>>The lawsuit. I thought everybody knew that was coming. If there is
>>>absolute proof that it was Don Murphy, the lawyers, the media, etc..
>>>will be coming here. If it wasn't Don Murphy, after they come here, they
>>>may still use it as evidence. If it was DM, it helps QT. If it wasn't,
>>>it helps DM.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>How the hell is this evidence?
>
>
>Horuun, I must admit I'm a bit shocked: I thought you & I saw eye-to-eye
>about a lot of things regarding QT-- (including, as per your latest email
>to me, his brilliance as a screenwriter.) I am truly surprised that you
>do not appear to agree that the |very first| thing Quentin's attorneys
>should do in view of this recent lawsuit, is to subpoena every scrap of
>Don Murphy's email files in the last 3 or 4 years, both to individuals
>and to newsgroups. Quentin's lawyers should |immediately| contact any
>known isp that Don has had in that period, because almost all isps keep
>backup copies of incoming & outgoing emails...certainly aol (as much
>as I hate them . . . ) does. :)
See, if anything Don Murphy wrote on the internet showed up in court, which
this whole case probably never will, anyhow, it would not prove anything. The
case isn't about if Tarantino was pissed because Don Murphy was talking bad
about him. The case is that Quentin physically attacked him, no matter what
reasons he supposedly had for doing it. No judge can legally say, or will
say, "Oh, he said something bad about you? Well, then it's okay to kick his
ass. I'll let you get away with that." That's just not the way it works, so
none of Mr. Murphy's posts to this newsgroup would do anything for Mr.
Tarantino's side.
JL
Ken wrote:
> > See, if anything Don Murphy wrote on the internet showed up in court,
> > which
> > this whole case probably never will, anyhow, it would not prove
> > anything. The
> > case isn't about if Tarantino was pissed because Don Murphy was
> > talking bad
> > about him. The case is that Quentin physically attacked him, no
> > matter what
> > reasons he supposedly had for doing it. No judge can legally say, or
> > will
> > say, "Oh, he said something bad about you? Well, then it's okay to
> > kick his
> > ass. I'll let you get away with that." That's just not the way it
> > works, so
> > none of Mr. Murphy's posts to this newsgroup would do anything for
> > Mr.
> > Tarantino's side.
>
> Since I (Ken) wrote the original post at the top of the page, I must
> reply to your response.
> The lawsuit concerns the attack AND the claims of injury, suffering,
> career damage, etc... If you are attacked as Don Murphy was for the
> alleged reasons, and you plan to file a lawsuit for
> $5 million based on the claims as those mentioned above, do you run to
> your computer and start reinforcing QT's reasons as well as giving QT's
> lawyers some evidence that you may have acted this way in the past and
> continue to do so? Do you make youself look bad and then make that part
> of your lawsuit against QT. Do you help create the charges that support
> your own lawsuit? The answer is obviously, NO! You keep your mouth shut
> and your thoughts to yourself.
> If someone is pretending to be Don Murphy and is acting out by
> posting in the TARANTINO News Group, then you have something to present
> in court and say in your favor concerning the alleged "bad-mouthing"
> that QT attacked you for, i.e; other people have attributed to this
> misconception about me in the past; I'm not doing it now - other people
> (another person) are and it is hurting my career, etc... (Since the
> attack...)
> It would be just a small piece of evidence to support one side of
> the lawsuit...but if it wasn't Don Murphy, and they decide to use the
> posts from this NG and any E-mail, I feel sorry for the person who
> posted them (if they care to find out).
> It is still my opinion that Don Murphy was never posting here
> recently.
> -Ken
I requoted the original response that you were replying to, because I don't
think you got the point of what he was saying. The suit is about Don Murphy
being physically assaulted by Q. Unless Don provoked the physical
confrontation with PHYSICAL means, then Q has no case. At all. Like he
said, no judge has ever justified someone getting their ass kicked because
of what they said or wrote. Even if they were calling someone a nigger, or
an asshole, or a child molestor. Words do not cause PHYSICAL harm. If Q
had a problem with what Don said or wrote, then his recourse is to sue him
for libel (written) or slander (spoken). But any physical response is
completely and absolutely ILLEGAL. Don could have done everything that Q
said, called him names, insulted his mother, whatever. When Q got PHYSICAL,
he broke the law. And that's it.
Plus, take into account the kind of people who will be involved in a jury
(if they use one.) The people who like Q are smart enough to get out of
Jury duty. Those who are too stupid to get out of it, will probably find
Q's work offensive. Plus, Q has never come off as humble or subtle. That
kind of thing will kill him in court.
JL
Jason Forrest
Ken (k...@nr.infi.net) wrote:
: The lawsuit. I thought everybody knew that was coming. If there is
: absolute proof that it was Don Murphy, the lawyers, the media, etc..
: will be coming here. If it wasn't Don Murphy, after they come here, they
: may still use it as evidence. If it was DM, it helps QT. If it wasn't,
: it helps DM.
I don't see how anything Don posted here can help QT. The fact is, QT
smacked Don around which is against the law. No judge is going to say
'What you did was OK, now that I see what he wrote'. What QT did was no
different than what many of us would have done, but legally it was wrong.
Fortunately, he can probably afford the 5 mil, if not he can come to this
group for donations ;').
BTW, it's certainly DM who was posting here, you just refuse to believe
it. Someone who works for QT, at A Band Apart, said what I've been saying
all along. Phone JD Productions in Hollywood and find out for yourself, if
they let you through. You won't see Don posting here while this lawsuit is
going on, or Don's lawer will smack him around like QT did.
Jason Forrest
chelsea corazon (kare...@sirius.com) wrote:
: I am truly surprised that you
: do not appear to agree that the |very first| thing Quentin's attorneys
: should do in view of this recent lawsuit, is to subpoena every scrap of
: Don Murphy's email files in the last 3 or 4 years, both to individuals
: and to newsgroups. Quentin's lawyers should |immediately| contact any
: known isp that Don has had in that period, because almost all isps keep
: backup copies of incoming & outgoing emails...certainly aol (as much
: as I hate them . . . ) does. :)
Why? What would this prove? That it justifies Q. smacking Don around?
It doesn't. Don't get me wrong, I respect what Q. did, I would have done
the same in his situation. But that doesn't mean he had the right to, Don
pushed him into physical violence by 'sticks and stones'. 5 million is
certainly excessive, but he's going to win something. And if you think
some lawer is going to subpoena some of _my_ personal E-mail...
Horuun
Ken <k...@nr.infi.net> wrote:
>Horuun wrote:
>
>> chelsea corazon <kare...@sirius.com> wrote:
>>
>> >hor...@aol.com (Horuun) wrote:
>> >>>The lawsuit. I thought everybody knew that was coming. If there is
>> >>>absolute proof that it was Don Murphy, the lawyers, the media,
>> etc..
>> >>>will be coming here. If it wasn't Don Murphy, after they come here,
>> they
>> >>>may still use it as evidence. If it was DM, it helps QT. If it
>> wasn't,
>> >>>it helps DM.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>How the hell is this evidence?
>> >
>> >
>> >Horuun, I must admit I'm a bit shocked: I thought you & I saw
>> eye-to-eye
>> >about a lot of things regarding QT-- (including, as per your latest
>> email
>> >to me, his brilliance as a screenwriter.) I am truly surprised that
>> you
>> >do not appear to agree that the |very first| thing Quentin's
>> attorneys
>> >should do in view of this recent lawsuit, is to subpoena every scrap
>> of
>> >Don Murphy's email files in the last 3 or 4 years, both to
>> individuals
>> >and to newsgroups. Quentin's lawyers should |immediately| contact
>> any
>> >known isp that Don has had in that period, because almost all isps
>> keep
>> >backup copies of incoming & outgoing emails...certainly aol (as much
>> >as I hate them . . . ) does. :)
>>
But I don't think you read what I wrote. Whether Quentin Tarantino had reason
or not to fight with don Murphy doesn't matter. Don Murphy could badmouth him
until the day they're both dead, and that won't help Tarantino's case in one
itty bitty way. Whether or not Don Murphy posted anything here or not,
whether he said anything bad ever about Tarantino or not, all of that is
irrelevant to the case. This is a civil case for assault damages. It's not a
criminal case. No motive needs to be established. If this ever goes to
court, which I seriously doubt , Quentin Tarantino will lose. There are
witnesses that saw him do it. that's all there is to it.. Probably they'll
settle out of court and that'll be the end of it.
Now, as far as badmouthing, Quentin Tarantino can sue Don Murphy in another
case for slandering, but nothing that Don Murphy posted here would be able to
be used as evidence either. He never said anything bad or slanderous against
Quentin Tarantino's name. He only said, "I hold a grudge against him, I don't
like him. He's an asshole." And you cannot sue someone for calling you an
asshole. You can sue someone for lying about you, for saying you did things
you didn't do, and things like that if that person is attempting to destroy
your name and reputation. Personally, I haven't seen any case for Tarantino
anywhere in this. I see Don Murphy as having a great case and Tarantino as
having nothing to back him up.
Misanthrope
The man got slapped, and he wants a 5 million dollar band-aid; that's
offensive!
And I bet no one here knows what movie I stole that quote from. It
would be in quotes, but the dollar amount in the movie was just a paltry
50 thousand. I would tell you who starred in the film, but he's made so
few movies since his brat pack days it would just be way too easy to
figure out.
Misanthrope
John Loughlin
Got this one too. "From The Hip", starring Judd "what happened to my career?"
Nelson.
Now back atcha: the director of this film directed another cult favorite of
sorts......starring one actor who was in From The Hip. What's the movie (or
series of movies) and who's the actor (or the character he plays in the other
movies.)
JL
Misanthrope wrote:
--
John Loughlin
Tripod Entertainment
Misanthrope
John Loughlin wrote:
>
> Got this one too. "From The Hip", starring Judd "what happened to my career?"
> Nelson.
>
> Now back atcha: the director of this film directed another cult favorite of
> sorts......starring one actor who was in From The Hip. What's the movie (or
> series of movies) and who's the actor (or the character he plays in the other
> movies.)
>
> JL
>
> John Loughlin
> Tripod Entertainment
I knew someone in here would get that quote, but I didn't expect it to
happen quite so quickly. To answer your question, John, Bob Clark
directed Porky's and Porky's 2, and Dan Monahan starred in all three of
the Porky's movies. In the first one, he and all the other guys in the
movie wanted to get in the pants of........
Well, she was in another campy comedy classic (say that three times
fast), you know, with that old guy from Punky Brewster?
Misanthrope
Skander Halim
Jason Forrest (aa...@chebucto.ns.ca) writes:
> chelsea corazon (kare...@sirius.com) wrote:
>
> : I am truly surprised that you
> : do not appear to agree that the |very first| thing Quentin's attorneys
> : should do in view of this recent lawsuit, is to subpoena every scrap of
> : Don Murphy's email files in the last 3 or 4 years, both to individuals
> : and to newsgroups.
>
> Why? What would this prove? That it justifies Q. smacking Don around?
> It doesn't.
No, it doesn't. But I would not be at all surprised if QT's lawyers looked
into Don's Usenet activities anyway. Even if it's inadmissable as evidence,
lawyers like to play every angle and leave no stone unturned, especially
when they're being paid as much as QT is probably paying them. They may
be 99% sure they won't be able to use any of it, but if all it takes is a
trip to Deja News, they'll do it.
Looking into private e-mail would probably be a bit drastic, though. I
would imagine QT's lawyers would be more concerned with establishing that
Don was _publicly_ badmouthing their client.
> Don't get me wrong, I respect what Q. did, I would have done
> the same in his situation.
Jason, I would like to think that if you resorted to violence, you would
at least have the class to ask your nemesis to step outside and go mano a
mano (rather than sucker-punching him while he waited in a crowded
restaurant).
> But that doesn't mean he had the right to, Don
> pushed him into physical violence by 'sticks and stones'. 5 million is
> certainly excessive, but he's going to win something.
It's important to note that Don has said he's going to give all damages
he's awarded to charity (minus legal fees).
--
Skander Halim
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ba547/
Jason Forrest
Skander Halim (ba...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: No, it doesn't. But I would not be at all surprised if QT's lawyers looked
: into Don's Usenet activities anyway. Even if it's inadmissable as evidence,
: lawyers like to play every angle and leave no stone unturned, especially
: when they're being paid as much as QT is probably paying them. They may
: be 99% sure they won't be able to use any of it, but if all it takes is a
: trip to Deja News, they'll do it.
Yeah, you're probably right. Seeing as Don's going after him on Civil
charges and not criminal, and since he appears to be claiming things like
'career damages' QT's lawers could find some interesting tidbits in Don's
posts, if they can decipher them.
: Jason, I would like to think that if you resorted to violence, you would
: at least have the class to ask your nemesis to step outside and go mano a
: mano (rather than sucker-punching him while he waited in a crowded
: restaurant).
Well, of course. But since I wasn't there I'm not exactly sure of the
circumstances. If QT blindsided him, that's not very respectable.
Certainly neither is what Don was doing here and elsewhere over a movie
that QT would rather put behind him as history. It's both pretty silly
coming from people who should have bigger things to worry about.
: It's important to note that Don has said he's going to give all damages
: he's awarded to charity (minus legal fees).
Interesting, I didn't know he said that. The way DM is though, to
publicly humiliate QT over something that happened years ago, btw, would
be worth 500 million to him.
Jason Simpson
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, John Loughlin wrote:
> Got this one too. "From The Hip", starring Judd "what happened to my career?"
> Nelson.
>
> Now back atcha: the director of this film directed another cult favorite of
> sorts......starring one actor who was in From The Hip. What's the movie (or
> series of movies) and who's the actor (or the character he plays in the other
> movies.)
Okay, we're talking about Bob Clark, the guy who directed From The Hip, A
Christmas Story and The American Clock, was it? Okay, now we see that
Darren McGavin was in all three of those movies. Is this the answer you
are looking for?
staci...@hotmail.com
> What bullshit. Stop defending your idol and admit what he did is the
> type of thing little schoolkids do, it was very childish. And by the
> way,in a interview with a security guard, he said that Tarantino
> couldn't fight for shit.
>
Apparently he was slapping him. Not exactly "beating the shit out of him" like others would like to believe. I love QT's movies, but no reason for him or any other Hollywood "elite" to act like a dickhead. Whoever was at fault.
