The news source must have a Sampiro fan. They fixed the typo.
Yeah, which made the OP very, very confusing. But no worries, I figured it out [sub]after a few reads, a few minutes, a few What the hell?s…[/sub]
<pointless pedant for which I apologize but it’s not a really serious thread anyways…>
AGH! Huck and Tom weren’t on the raft!
</ppfwiabinarsta…>
Now if it were Jim giving it to him…
I saw Brokeback Mountain yesterday for the 5th time, and there is a scene where she stares. It’s the morning after Ennis and Jack have been out all night. She’s sitting at the kitchen table and is staring out at nothing. She “wakes up” when she hears Jack’s truck pull up. They didn’t like that scene? It makes me ache for her. If the school is going to reject her because of that then they’re just stupid!
The thing I like about the Michelle Williams story is that you have to hope that at least a few kids at the school are going to look at Michelle: how nice and kind and well-adjusted she turned out to be; that she’s made a good career for herself; has a good family; is nominated for an Academy Award; and has probably made more money than the headmaster has made in his lifetime while not doing anything too shameful for it (I can’t blame young actors for doing horror films for the paycheck), and then they’ll look at the headmaster, who’s being dickish toward Michelle just for appearing in a movie, and they’re going to think “well, if he’s SO wrong about Michelle, maybe he’s wrong about the gay thing” and their minds will be opened. Question authority! Watch Saved! Support Michelle!
Loud-mouthed phobes always shoot themselves in the foot.
In any case, he’s probably very aware that many students have already seen Brokeback Mountain just because Michelle was in it, and he’s mad about that. They’ve probably watched Saved! too.
I’ve thought the same thing. Thank you for putting it into words better than I could.
WTF?? They pulled his baseball scholarship because Sonny was gay? When was this? Someone needed to throw lawyers at that school.
Good story.
May have been while that was still legal, which AFAIK it still is in much of the US. It wasn’t illegal everywhere here until Vriend v. Alberta in 1998.
Ex-pupil? Ugh. How can you stare without pupils?
I don’t have a copy of the book handy, but how did Tom and Huck and Jeff get to and from the island where they did their little campout, by rowboat?
And what about the trip to the island with the Treasure cave? I’m pretty sure they didn’t swim back with that strongbox.
I doubt Michelle will be worried that they won’t “allow/let” her come back. I’m sure that was high priority on her list of things to do.
Now, the school is all in a twit about fiction, but I suppose they overlooked her out-of-wedlock child and the whole living-in-sin thing. :rolleyes:
All I can hope is that if she wins on Oscar night is that she’ll be like Sonny. 
I would just like to nitpick and say that Santa Fe Christian school is NOT in Santa Fe. It is in San Diego county.
(Just because a couple of you have been assuming that the city she lived in was actually called Santa Fe. And because I know her dad Larry, who is a fucking laugh riot.)
Neat. Tell him that the sight of his daughter singing to Richard Nixon’s tape recorder still ranks as about the most wonderful thing I’ve ever seen in my life.
–Cliffy
Yeah, that’s what I was going to say. Maybe the scholarship required his parents to submit some paperwork or something, and they refused. That’s quite shitty in any case.
You seem to think that these people actually WATCHED the movie. On The Colbert Report (a parody of shows like The O’Reilly Factor) recently, they showed clips of several conservative people talking negatively about the movie, but all including the words, “I haven’t SEEN the movie.” So many homophobes (though to be fair, probably not all of them) are judging the movie based on hearsay.
There’s some kind of Godwinesque internet law that PALATR threads like these have to have somebody tossing out the “that’s not illegal!” or “that’s protected free speech!” canards, even when the OP neither says nor even remotely implies otherwise.
I’d call it “Revtim’s Law”, but I’m already trying to get that to refer to the rule that whenever there’s a “is this photo real?” thread there are always people posting “that’s the WORST photoshopping I’ve ever seen!” or the like, even when the photo is completely unaltered and 100 percent genuine.
Um, what’s your point, duffer? No one acted as though the school was violating the law, or ought to be stopped. Sampiro merely pointed out that the school’s administration is acting like a bunch of morons. I know you feel the need to defend these people, as they’re your co-partisans and you’re nothing if not a kneejerk lunatic, but really - do you honestly believe the school is doing something good or right here? You sure haven’t made a case for it.
Or are we not even supposed to talk about it when one of your political allies does something so embarrassingly stupid? Are you upset here because you’re getting yet another reminder that yes, these are the people whose side you’re on, and yes, they’re complete idiots and malicious ones at that?
Since Sampiro didn’t even suggest that the school’s rights should be abrogated and they should be forced to admit a student they don’t want, your argument against it either suggests that you’re a drooling moron who launches into diatribes for no reason or you’re deviously trying to prevent any actual discussion of the issues by starting some argument that has nothing to do with the situation at hand. It’s tough to decide. But you’ve never come across to me as clever enough to be devious.
Hot! You know that was in his original draft, right? Also, before the publisher made him change the name, he wrote a little novel called A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Pants.
No offense, but why do you think a scholarship couldn’t be taken away because the kid was gay? If the scholarship is being given by a state school, then chances are the school has a nondiscrimination policy that extends to gay people. (A school in the south, however many years ago the story took place, is another story.) And if it’s a private scholarship, or a private school, then it might well not have such a policy. You’re not under the impression that any serious legal protections exist to prevent discrimination against queers in the United States, are you?
In case this level of ignorance (no offense - it can only be cured by knowledge) exists over gay rights, you should understand that I could easily be fired for being gay, or tossed out of my house. Gay people in most parts of the U.S. have very little legal protection against discrimination.
We can count on duffer to always spew some sort of nonsense like that. I think the real situation is that he’s trying to yell at us for disagreeing with him, but he knows that won’t fly. So instead he makes a silly argument against something that was never actually said.
This has already been covered dipshit. Awhile ago. :rolleyes:
I love Wolcott’s take on Medved’s take on the movie. (How did Medved go from being a guy who wrote frothy little books on bad movies to being the total dipwad finger pointing jerk that he is now, incidentally?)
Short version: Medved originally said “I’'m very proud that conservatives have not taken up the cudgels against Brokeback Mountain. There’s a recognition that most of the people on whom they could have any influence are not going to see this movie, anyway.” When he found out he’d missed the loop to get in on the most talked about movie in years he of course took up the cudgel and among other things claims it’s success was due to the fact it was “falsely advertised”. (‘Damn baby! I thought this was gone be a movie about a crippled fella takin’ up mountain climbin’ and they’s two guys a goin’ at it like one was a fee-male!")
:rolleyes: indeed - since you still don’t seem to have apologized for (or hell, even acknowledged) your mind-bending stupidity in this thread, it’s clear that it has not been covered.
By the way, your insult might sting a bit more if you hadn’t forgotten the comma. Or used “awhile” to mean “a while”. It’s funny that in your constant efforts to make an ass of yourself whenever your gay-hating (and so forth) redneck cohorts are attacked, you manage to evade criticism for your simian level of literacy. I guess the content is so astonishingly stupid, no one ever has time to get around to the form.
duffer, do you ever get tired of embarrassing your own side? I mean, every time you talk, you manage to make those who share your politics look stupider. I guess that makes you the opposite of Sam Stone or Bricker. Don’t get me wrong - I’m glad you’re around. If it weren’t for the numerous right-wingers like yourself with their heads appropriately filled with oatmeal, I might forget and start thinking that Bricker represented mainstream right-wing thought, and forget that semi-literate reactionaries like yourself are the actual mainstream of the U.S. Republican party.
Can anyone Lexis-Nexis the actual text from the San Diego newspaper where the principal made his comment? Not to defend the guy, but I’d be interested to know how his little statement was delivered. Did the paper seek him out for a comment, or did he find a microphone to talk into and let 'er rip himself?
From the San Diego Union-Tribune (3/1/06):
From the way the story is written, I’m guessing the reporter contacted the school about visiting and that’s when Hopson gave his quote.
Well, I guess I must keep posting to this thread even when it was implicit that I had nothing to offer.
I apologize Excalibre. To you, and you alone, I apologize. Personally. Since you, and you alone, seem to need it for your well-being, I apologize. I shall now go flog myself for offending your sensibilities.
ouch!
There. Better now?
And I knew once I hit submit that you, and you alone, would bring up the omitted comma. And for that I can only offer an apology. I apologize. To you, and you alone. I’m truly sorry for that. I can’t beleive I made such a gaffe.
Gay-hating?!? Fuck you. Funny you’re the only one that sees that little gem. If you have such a fucking problem with me, say so. Quit being a little turd. Whatever my stance is, it’s mostly consistant. And when it isn’t consistant it means I’ve either changed my view or decided that it was too inflammitory to keep it going and allowed more articulate Dopers to say what I mean to.
Fuck you for placing this tag on me. Fuck you.
Excuse me? You are defending homophobic trash here. You do remember, right? That’s what you jumped into this thread to do. To leap to the defense of the poor, beknighted homophobes when us mean ol’ liberals ganged up on them.
Why were you defending them if not because you have some sympathy for their views, hmm? As I and others have pointed out, there’s simply no basis to suggest that their rights are being in any way attacked here. In fact, no one even suggested that we should attack their right to admit whoever they wished. Sampiro just pointed out that they were idiotic jackasses for doing it.
And you leapt in to protest. Because it’s not okay, in your book, for the rest of us to even disagree with the jackasses running that school and their decision to kick a student out for appearing in a film with gay subject matter. You leapt right in to defend them, because it bothered you oh-so-much that someone might have been pitted for being a homophobic jackass.
Why, duffer, did that bother you? You practically tripped over your feet in your rush to stand up for these homophobic jackasses. Why did you feel the need to do that?
The only idea I have is that you feel some sympathy for their beliefs. If you can explain why you actually chose to stand up for them, I’d love to hear why. But spare me the self-righteous martyr act until you do.
And don’t forget that this little turd was your last contribution to the thread:
Hardly the sort of gracious explanation that might have been expected if you’d (somehow) misread the OP as calling for the school to be disbanded (or whatever fevered paranoia was gripping you). Nope, just a typical display of duffer feeling sorry for himself because his views were not “welcome”.
What, pray tell, are those unwelcome views, hmm? Since you’ve done such a good job whining about your opinions being unwelcome, what are those opinions? Because if your views had simply been, “Gosh, that guy’s a jackass! But he sure has the legal right to act like one!”, then golly gee - they might have been unnecessary (given that no one but you brought up the law in this entire thread), but you surely would have been welcome to share them.
See, that’s the thing - either you weren’t being viciously oppressed for your views, or you were bringing up the sort of views one might expect you to be oppressed for (i.e. sympathy for these homophobic jackasses.) I guess I’m not buying into your little pity party because I still haven’t come up with a third alternative, and oddly enough, neither have you.