I dont’ withdraw the thesis of my OP. I do withdraw the language. For those of you foaming at the mouth, eager to find out that I’ve been sued by a film studio, cool your jets. This is America. One may ask a question, and aside from a few very specific questions, one may ask such questions under protection of the 1st Ammendment. ( One may not ask questions regarding the injury to or threat aimed at the POTUS, etc. Do a Search, it’s been covered well here on the Dope. ). So, I’m not up nights worrying.
Reword the title as, " Why hasn’t the studio that released a film that made use of a 14 year old underage child been cited for using children posing as wives or sexual partners?"
And, talk amongst yourselves, because with a SDMB Moderator joining the flamefest to the degree that he already has, I’ve nothing more to say after this. No thread is worth being Banned over.
Quint? I will give you this- I literally did a typo. It’s not 29 years. It’s 26. Got paid to shoot my first job when I was 17. I’m 43 now. No clue why I hit 29 instead of 26, but 26 it is. Nice cheap shot during your " apology", stating basically that I’ve padded 10 years to my career. You always admit you were lying and being 100% accusatory and incorrect that way? Nice. Thanks for the mostly kind of apology. I mostly kind of accept it.
So, I apologize for bending everybody’s nose out of shape.
Someone up there assumed that there would be the beautiful rush of appreciation, that there’d be posts stating how I’d “shown what a classy guy I am”, etc. Not hardly.
I am just patently unwilling to continue to participate in a thread where a Moderator is just waiting for me to attack him directly so he can Ban me. Ain’t happening, not here, not anywhere. I have the utmost respect for tomndebb, and have nothing but praise for his work here. I apologize for posting something - anything- that cause ire from tomndebb, it wasn’t my intention to do so.
See ya.
For the umpteenth time, because the movie in question didn’t do that.
Cartooniverse, I don’t think well of you or ill of you, but in this thread you’re wrong. It happens, sometimes. Lord knows, it’s certainly happened to me a few times, and it stings when you realize the people who are telling you you’re wrong just may be right. Sometimes, you’ve just got to face the fact that you were wrong, admit it, and move on. It may gain you respect if you do that, and it will certainly make people who didn’t think ill of you before that lose respect for you if you don’t.
I’m sorry this happened to you, but if you’re going to continue to work yourself into a lather over something that never even happened, I’m afraid you’re stuck with the consequences.
That’s your new premise? Ok. In that case, you didn’t accuse anyone of rape and you aren’t identifying a particular film that you accuse of doing this. I’d ask “What studio has released a film that made use ect…?” if I were at all interested in this discussion.
Regardless, your outrage and crying “rape” was still way out of line, and you are still (somehow) standing by that. Sheesh.
What? We’re not allowed to ask questions about the injuries caused by John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, Charles J. Guiteau, or John Hinckley, Jr.?
To which I would reply, which studio released such a film, and which film is it? Countless other posters have proven that this recent Pocahontas film isn’t it.
Well it is hard to believe that anyone as determined as you are to totally ignore the facts could ever hold any position of responsibility. There were no love scenes! :rolleyes:
Your dramatic thread title and first post are completely undermined by the fact that no love scenes took place between Colin Farrell and a girl.
And you admit you’ve never watched the film.
Yet you blithely ignore repeated statements from people who have.
Over and over again.
Instead you desperately launch into personal attacks and non sequitors and irrelevancies.
Like this:
You’re the one who posted the same lie several times in your OP. You refuse to discuss it. ON A BOARD DEDICATED TO FIGHTING IGNORANCE!
By comparison, who cares what your qualifications are?
What law? There were no love scenes!
Wah tmorals? There were no love scenes!
What opinion? There were no love scenes!
You seem to completely miss the point. There were no love scenes!
That’s not an opinion, it’s a fact!
Am I interpreting this correctly? Have you now backed off of your allegations of “love scenes” and “faked intimacy” and instead are alleging that the studio should be charged with a crime because a teenaged actress was portrayed as being married in the film? Are you suggesting that it’s a crime for a film to imply that an underaged character has had sex off-screen? Are you shitting me?
I’ve recently come across a thread in which a poster’s position has been forcefully put down by, get this, facts, yet he doesn’t seem to back down. Discussing the events with various behavior specialists has yielded no results so I’ve decided to ask the master: Are there people physically unable to admit they’re wrong?
Cartooniverse, I don’t know what’s going on with you, but all I can see in this thread is that you were just plain wrong about what went on in the film in question, and you’re not willing to admit that you were wrong. Admitting you’re wrong is no big deal; it’s a wonderful growth opportunity.
Hmmm… I was going to react, but I just realized the first part of my reaction was taken over by glee in post #210; then the second part by Diogenes in #212 and the third by Martin Hyde in post #208, which leaves me my final paragraph:
So, sure, it may be that it squicks someone to no end to even think of the idea of a minor even being associated with a portrayal of someone’s wife or lover, and that person has been endowed by the Creator with the unalienable right to state it forcefully to any who will listen – but that evidently it is NOT the consensus position of the society we live in. Elsewhere I posted a huge quote of Florida (for the sake of example, couldn’t find Virginia) statute and case law cites wherein it is pretty clear that the courts have ruled repeatedly that circumstance and intent DO COUNT when deciding if something involving a minor is or is not a crime.
This thread will become the standard people will point to as an example of someone refusing to admit they’re wrong when the evidence is right there in front of their face (not just the people in this thread saying so, but the fact that the movie is currently in theaters and he could easily go see for himself).
Congratulations Cartooniverse. You’re now going to be famous for something else besides being at Ground Zero on 9/11. You let your stubbornness override the best message board legacy anyone could have hoped for.
Whenever the name Cartooniverse swam into my consciousness, I’d always think “Yeah, that cool guy who wrote those great posts!” but unfortunately, from now on, it’ll be “That idiot who refused to admit he was wrong about a movie he never saw.”
