He’s also magically delicious. Bigtime.
Hell, they could sell it on pay per view – I’d watch it!
(And Neeson’s Rob Roy was far superior to Braveheart)
Hasn’t gone unnoticed. Per tabloids anyway, Natasha Richardson’s funeral wasn’t over before women were throwing themselves at him. He doesn’t seem to have any interest in catching any just yet.
I wonder if he gets along with Vanessa Redgrave, who is an open atheist. Her family was so demolished so quickly (her daughter, her brother, and her sister in a year) that I hope so.
Well, Liam only acted in Rob Roy while Gibson directed Braveheart.
It’s better anyway. And the sex scene between him and Lange is top notch.
Wow. I just listened to it. So, is anyone else getting that this entire rant is him being pissed off because she wouldn’t give hi a blow job?
No, I don’t think she’s a gold digger. She bore him a child ferchrissakes, and now she is fighting for the life of that child. I know exactly how she feels. There’s a popular urban legend out there which convinces the nation that fathers are not treated well in courts. That may be true on the subject of primary custody, but you just wouldn’t believe how difficult it is to remove a truly, obviously psychotic father form the life of your child. No matter how sick, or how dangerous, he has a basic right to access to his child, and even achieving supervision for those visits is next to impossible.
I suspect she released the tapes because she learned that they were inadmissible in court,and was hoping to get the information out there.
I’ve often wondered if the comments he made about Jews in his drunken rant were prompted by the criticism of the Jewish community on his movie, PotC.
Now, I am no biblical scholar, but I do remember the statements of jewish people who refused to see it based on comments by Jewish organizations that claimed the movie was anti-semitic.
If you happen to believe the story of the Bible, that Jesus was murdered (or in common parlance, crucified), and that the Jews killed Jesus, then that is the story. Calling someone anti-semitic because you don’t like the way he portrayed the story of the crucifixion of Christ is just ridiculous, and I remember Mel being aggravated at the time because he was answering questions about the perceived anti-semitic context of the movie, instead of the movie itself. I saw the movie, and it was not a pleasant depiction of how the Jews treated Christ, but it’s one man’s interpretation of the crucifixion of Jesus, and he portrayed that on the screen.
Now Mel may be a raging anti-semite, but I didn’t get that feeling from watching PotC. I talked to a few Jewish friends of mine that hadn’t seen the movie and refused to because it was “anti-semitic”. That’s not an intelligent way to judge a movie. It’s best to see it for yourself and make a decision based on what you personally think. That’s like some german refusing to watch Schindler’s List because it was clearly anti-Nazi. Calling something anti-semitic because you don’t like how jews were portrayed in a movie doesn’t make much sense to me, especially if it reflects the crucifixion story as described in the bible.
I didn’t look at Jews in a different light after walking out of the theater. I watched a movie about the crucifixion, found it a fascinating story. Calling it anti-semitic waters down any *real *anti-semitic actions that should be dealt with.
I agree with your first statement. A judge would never instruct a jury to do that. It doesn’t mean, however, that a good defense attorney can’t twist the truth, trying to sink the idea of reasonable doubt into one of the 12. My use of the phrase “limits of absurdity” were for this group engaged in this thread, who IMHO are above the average intelligence of the average american juror. It only takes one to throw it off the rails
Unfortunately, the second statement is not correct. I think if you review all of my posts in this thread, I have stated unequivocally that I agree with most of those that believe Mel is off his rocker, he clearly was out of control on that tape, and he was incapable of controlling his rage even when it was clear that she was taking him down paths that would cook him in court (as well as the court of public opinion.) I am not in an argument with Dio. I’ve been around these boards long enough to know that there is no arguing with Dio. No matter what his position, he never changes it. He can be proven wrong and he still never changes his opinion, because he can’t. It’s not something he’s capable of.
In this particular instance, I was merely asking legal questions about the case to Dio, and he spent his time stating unequivocally the “facts” of this case. He has no idea of the facts of this case, any more than you or I do. I believe you will find instances where I’ve said “I don’t disagree with you” to Dio. Now he may have misinterpreted me, but I have no ax to grind with Dio. And if I did, I wouldn’t waste my time on this particular topic.
But **Dio **gets out of control when trying to convince others of his intellectual superiority. For instance:
when I said
He replies;
Well, no I don’t know who leaked the tapes. Does anyone? He also says “what makes you think she didn’t” to the idea that I mentioned that she may have held onto the tapes for months. Well, I don’t know if she did or she didn’t. But either does Dio. I believe there is no answer to this question right now. But he doesn’t want to deal with that possibility. His opinion is the only one that counts.
Another example of this is in the very next exchange:
It is true that I have no proof that she held onto them or tried to blackmail him. But **Dio **has no proof that she didn’t, either. We are both ignorant of many facts of this case. But his statement of “who gives a shit if she did? He deserved it.” is selective justification for an action that, if true, is illegal (as far as I know, blackmail IS illegal in California), and I would think the law would give a shit, even if **Dio **doesn’t. Deserving a crime to be committed on you is the same kind of notion that Dio objects to when Gibson says she “deserved” getting punched in the teeth. Or, if as many people believe she was a gold-digger, did she “deserve” to get punched in the teeth? No matter how terrible the actions of one person on another, the other person is not immune to protection from the law. So as much as **Dio **thinks that Mel deserved being blackmailed, the law won’t see it that way if indeed this was the case.
Finally, the last item in that exchange is **Dio **again at his finest:
I have no cite. He knows that. Just as I know he has no cite that she turned the tapes over immediately. But asking him for a cite is pointless, because we don’t know yet.
Here’s the thing, though. Once you take your emotions out of this argument, and you look at everything objectively, and you don’t have one position over the other, you must look at the whole picture. If anyone thinks that I am supporting the actions of Mel Gibson, they are wrong. I’m certainly not. However, until we find out how long the period of time between the recordings being made and turned over to the police, the question is not an irrelevant one.
And for Zoe;
:smack:
Yes, of course. Thank you for correcting my poorly constructed sentence.
Finally, I’d like to point out that for all of the posters in this thread that think any other interpretation of any part of that phone call is impossible, think again. If this goes to a jury trial, there will be 12 different people sitting in judgement of all of the evidence. After the OJ trial, I am not convinced that *any *jury is immune to the strategy of a talented lawyer. I heard a quote once that said “what are the three worst words you can hear in the american judicial system? Trial by jury”. Indeed.
I’ll stop replying to **Dio **in any fashion that resembles a debate. It has cluttered up the thread long enough.
On the nosey![/Igor]
Good one, Zoe!
FREEEEEEDOOOOOM!!!
TMZ is reporting that Oksana’s dentist saw her just after the altercation, and she did have damage to 2 teeth. Her lawyers claim to have pictures.
TMZ is quite an accurate source with respect to celebrities sometimes even scooping major news sources. And the last time her lawyers said they had something they referenced the tapes but did not discuss the contents.
When this evidence is presented, one would hope some of you would change your positions. Also, yes Dio can be frustrating with his arguments. However, he’s sometimes right as I believe he is here with respect to the legality of the taping and admissibility thereof. I don’t practice in CA so this is just my opinion based on that statute and reported legality of same.
I should have done it, because you deserved it, but I didn’t do it because I would never punch a woman. But I should have because you deserved it.
However, I think he hit her. Bet she has pictures, too.
No, in that situation, you’d say, “You WOULD HAVE deserved it.” Not “You deserved it.”
And how would that jibe with the “boo hoo” mocking?
Mel is free to try to convince a jury that he was being hypothetical, or whatever, but I have doubts about how successful he’d be.
Having said that, I doubt there’s much chance of anything going to trial. He’ll plead to something, pay some kind of damages and/or undisclosed civil settlement, then quietly disappear for a while and see if he can resurrect his career in a few years.
He probably won’t disappear at all and will immediately do a re-make of the The Burning Bed, from the guy’s point of view.
I can see the tagline on the poster now:
HOW DARE SHE BE SUCH A BITCH TO HIM AFTER HE HAS BEEN SO FUCKING NICE?
Please stop injecting reasonable logic into this thread when there is a GOLD-DIGGING BITCH ON THE LOOSE!
Why don’t you just fucking smile and blow me, Sleeps With Butterflies? I deserveeeeeeeeeeeee it.
You know back when I still liked Gibson, my favorite acting moments of his were when he’d have these flashes of manic rage - *Lethal Weapon *had several moemnts like this, as did Braveheart. Little did I realize that those were the moments he’d STOP acting.
You’re just jealous because all of your friends would BLOW MEEEEEE in a second if they could. I SAW THE LOOK IN THEIR EYES. I’m trying to PROTECT YOU. Can’t you see that? AND YOU TREAT ME THIS WAY WHEN I’VE BEEN SO NICE!
:: pow pow, pow pow pow upside your head ::
Hide your sons!
hahaaaaahaa!