babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » Theatre Censorship In NYC Part 2

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Theatre Censorship In NYC Part 2
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 10 March 2006 12:13 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The other thread was at 100 posts.

http://tinyurl.com/q25rc

[ 10 March 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ken Burch
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8346

posted 10 March 2006 10:10 PM      Profile for Ken Burch     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok, let's continue here.
From: A seedy truckstop on the Information Superhighway | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 March 2006 11:03 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I've got news for you: It is "my" point regarding the analysis of "action" that I made after we agreed regarding your point of the "who".

Yet, you keep harping on the "who" issue (plagarism, etc., etc.)....apparently because you cannot adequately retort the "action" analysis that concludes the thespians where not censored by the theater (or anyone else, for that matter) and that trolls are not censored by babble.


Sorry a friend called me from Paris and wanted to talk to me about her trip to Moscow.

As for the discussion I think I have been clear enough the theatre censored the thespians. It is that simple. Had it been the case that the the theater had outright turned the play down right from the start it would be impossible to claim censorship.

But as the theater cancelled (i.e. took a concrete positive step, what we are calling an "action") it is completely reasonable to say that the theater censored the play.

Just as we would say that a newspaper that had hired a journalist decided to fire an employee (took a concrete positive step, what we are calling an "action") for writing things the newspaper didn't like in their column.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 12 March 2006 03:17 PM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
Well said Cueball!
From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
FourteenRivers
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9863

posted 13 March 2006 01:12 AM      Profile for FourteenRivers        Edit/Delete Post
Robert Fisk weighs in:

quote:
Youve got to fight. Its the only conclusion I can draw as I see the renewed erosion of our freedom to discuss the Middle East. The most recent example and the most shameful is the cowardly decision of the New York Theatre Workshop to cancel the Royal Courts splendid production of My Name Is Rachel Corrie.

Its the story in her own words and emails of the brave young American woman who travelled to Gaza to protect innocent Palestinians and who stood in front of an Israeli bulldozer in an attempt to prevent the driver from destroying a Palestinian home. The bulldozer drove over her and then reversed and crushed her a second time. My back is broken, she said before she died.

An American heroine, Rachel earned no brownie points from the Bush administration which bangs on about courage and freedom from oppression every few minutes. Rachels was the wrong sort of courage and she was defending the freedom of the wrong people. But when I read that James Nicola, the New York Theatre Workshops artistic director his title really should be in quotation marks had decided to postpone the play indefinitely because (reader, hold your breath) in our pre-production planning and our talking around and listening in our communities (sic) in New York, what we heard was that after Ariel Sharons illness and the election of Hamas we had a very edgy situation, I didnt know whether to laugh or cry.

So lets confront this tomfoolery...



From: Quebec | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 10:39 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think Fisk makes it pretty clear what the "real" problem is here.

It's not that "a" play was "censored". It's that "this" play was "censored".

If this play were not grinding anyone's favourite axe, nobody would be getting up on any lofty soapboxes to discuss its "censorship".

Honestly, Fourteen Rivers, if this theatre company decided, at the last minute, to cancel an engagement of "Mamma Mia", you'd be cheering. You'd be delighted. You'd be beside yourself.

You certainly wouldn't be worried about any nasty ol' terms like "censorship", now would you? Be honest.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 10:42 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, that is right Magoo. It is called politics. However, that does not mean that people don't have a right to complain when it is their voice which is being shut down.

I know, I know Alexander Solzenitsyn was a whiner too.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 10:44 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fourteen Rivers' voice is being shut down?

How dreadful. LOL!


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 10:46 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No actually Raechel Corries voice is being shut down. We believe that she should be heard since she was run over by a bulldozer paid for with American Tax dollars, and made in the USA.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 10:57 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then why the attempt to manufacture some outrage with the whole "censorship" exaggeration?

Why not just say "we agree with the politics of this production, therefore we want this production to be shown, and we're mad that it won't be?"

At least that would be true. And we could have saved a whole thread, at least. The bullshit about "censorship" can be argued until the end of days, but if all this is really about is that you didn't get your wish granted and you're angry, what's to argue about?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 11:00 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That is not what was done.

There was censorship against a point of view which we wish to have heard.

The fact that we support the point of view is only the catalyst for our exposing the censorship.

The censorship is not invented. Niether is the fact that it is prejudicial to a voice we would like people to hear.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 11:06 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Uh, dude, you're not "exposing" the "censorship". You're actually just trying to convince people that it even was "censorship".

The whole "censorship" nonsense is political spin and nothing more. Why not drop the crap and just tell it like it is: "We want people to see this play."

Besides, what if the play did in fact offend someone? You're usually against people being offended by plays and cartoons and things of that nature. Have you forgotten the poor offended masses?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 11:15 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am sorry Magoo. If you want to discuss the issues fine.

But please don't tell me what I am saying and why I am saying it. I will express what it is I think and feel, without you deciding what it is that I think and feel.

So go ahead make up whatever responses you like to the doppleganger Cueball you have invented in your head, it should be about an equal match, given that the doppleganger Cueball has, perforce, more or less the same severe intellectual limitations of the doppleganger Cueball's inventor.

Have a nice conversation with yourself.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 11:26 AM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A selective definition of censorship.

Is it that surprising?

Unless the play was shut down by law, there was no censorship here.

You are still free to write a play about bulldozers and air it anywhere you like.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 11:42 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Exactly!

But who wants to say "We have the right to take this play elsewhere!" or "We have the right to be heard, just not at this one theatre!"

That sounds so wishy-washy. So lame.

Much better to say that you've been CENSORED!

See how much more impact a word like "CENSORED" has, versus "We didn't get what we wanted"?

One sounds like a great moral crime has occurred. The other just sounds like life as usual.

As noted in the previous thread, false claims of "censorship" have also been levelled by people who didn't get a free soapbox from their local newspaper. Just because you rilly rilly rilly want people to hear you doesn't mean you've been censored when someone else declines to help you be heard.

But anyway, Cueball and Fourteen Rivers are certainly free to try and drum up some outrage over this, and they're free to keep calling it "censorship" in the same way that I'm free to call my stapler a "hurdy-gurdy" if it amuses me, but I don't think either is going to stick.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 11:47 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:
A selective definition of censorship.

Is it that surprising?

Unless the play was shut down by law, there was no censorship here.

You are still free to write a play about bulldozers and air it anywhere you like.


Please Mr. Morgan rather than being a fucking asshole, please review the other thread and point out for me how it is that I have a selective view of what Censroship. I in fact made a very clear definition of what censorship is, and if you would like to actually engage in a conversation with me, rather than talking about what it is that Magoo says it is I am saying, do so.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to review the previous thread so as to get a clear idea of what I think, not what Magoo think I think.

If you do not want to talk to Magoo about his fantasies, please leave me out of it.

I challenge you to find one defintion of censorship which states that censorship must be an act of the state.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 12:01 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK then Cueball. How have they been censored then?

Do they have the right to hold the play?

Yes.

No censorship here.

Despite your rather rude ranting.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 12:06 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But C. Morgan, haven't you heard?

If you write a play about something you think is rilly rilly important you have a God-given right to present it at the theatre of your choosing.

If they decide not to present your play, you're a victim. A VICTIM OF CENSORSHIP!!!


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 12:09 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is me telling you to go fuck yourself worse than you not reading what I said, and then commenting on it.

I was very clear and have been consitently clear on this issue, if you will review this thread and the one that came to it.

I see no reason to repeat the same arguements with someone who is obviously more interested in sneering than actually disucssing the issues at hand, or reading what I wrote.

So again, please find me one defintion of censorship that states that censorship is predicated on the intervention of the state.

Try it. It is called research.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 12:13 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Is me telling you to go fuck yourself worse than you not reading what I said, and then commenting on it.

I was very clear and have been consitently clear on this issue, if you will review this thread and the one that came to it.

I see no reason to repeat the same arguements with someone who is obviously more interested in sneering than actually disucssing the issues at hand, or reading what I wrote.

So again, please find me one defintion of censorship that states that censorship is predicated on the intervention of the state.

Try it. It is called research.


You can tell me to go fuck myself.

That is because you are as uncensored here as the people who want to air plays are in other places.

No issue. Just lots of hyperbole.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 12:16 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
But C. Morgan, haven't you heard?

If you write a play about something you think is rilly rilly important you have a God-given right to present it at the theatre of your choosing.

If they decide not to present your play, you're a victim. A VICTIM OF CENSORSHIP!!!


You are an idiot Magoo. I said nothing remotely like that. Please refer to what I actually posted above, here, and on the other thread. If you want to discuss that fine.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 12:17 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:

You can tell me to go fuck myself.

That is because you are as uncensored here as the people who want to air plays are in other places.

No issue. Just lots of hyperbole.


Find me a defintion of censorship which requires the involvemnt of the law.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 12:20 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball, since it's you making the claim that this is censorship. I'd say the onus to go running around and researching is yours.

How about you find us a link to a court that agrees that if someone does not provide you a soapbox, you've been censored.

As noted, the fellow who sent a letter to the feminist newspaper, then whined that he'd been censored when they chose not to print it was shot down. But maybe you'll get lucky.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 12:21 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Find me a defintion of censorship which requires the involvemnt of the law.



Guess it depends on how much you want to broaden your definitions so that you can justify your baseless outrage.

I dont want people holding passion plays in my back yard.

I AM GUILTY OF CENSORSHIP

So what.

They can find another theater.

No vicitims here. Just a guy trying to make an issue out of nothing.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 12:22 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For instance asshole. I made it clear on the other thread that I believe that Babble does engage in "censorship."

But because you are so stuff full of your own bullshit, you have't even bothered to read what I wrote on the subject before disgorging your snearing self absorbed and a-factual crapola all over the thread.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 12:23 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We can't tell which of us you're trying to insult anymore Cueball.
From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 12:24 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
For instance asshole. I made it clear on the other thread that I believe that Babble does engage in "censorship."

But because you are so stuff full of your own bullshit, you have't even bothered to read what I wrote on the subject before disgorging your snearing self absorbed and a-factual crapola all over the thread.


Not even sure where you are going now.

What is the issue then aside from your ranting?

Was there a wrong done?

Nope.

Get over it.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 12:25 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Cueball, since it's you making the claim that this is censorship. I'd say the onus to go running around and researching is yours.

How about you find us a link to a court that agrees that if someone does not provide you a soapbox, you've been censored.

As noted, the fellow who sent a letter to the feminist newspaper, then whined that he'd been censored when they chose not to print it was shot down. But maybe you'll get lucky.


Ahh but you see. There was no PRIOR AGEEMENT BETWEEN THE LETTER WRITER AND THE "FEMINSIT NEWSPAPER." Wheras there was between the theater company and the production facility, and that is the key difference.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 12:27 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:

Not even sure where you are going now.

What is the issue then aside from your ranting?

Was there a wrong done?

Nope.

Get over it.


Of course you cant figure it out.

Wrong done? Ok Breach of contract. The play was in production, when it was canned.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 12:31 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As I noted on the last thread, if someone breaks a contract with you that falls under tort law. It's not a lofty issue of censorship. It's, at best, an issue of getting your deposit back. If the theatre causes the production company to incur losses, they have the opportunity to recoup them.

So far I've heard diddly squat about that though. It seems as though Mr. Rickman would much rather run around squawking "Censorship".

Of course it's also possible that the contract, if there was one, stipulated that the theatre has the right to cancel any engagement with notice.

Surely to god this is NOT the first time in the history of the theatre that a play has been cancelled before it runs. Is it??


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 12:31 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Of course you cant figure it out.

Wrong done? Ok Breach of contract. The play was in production, when it was canned.



That happens all the time.

Perhaps it was canned because the play was boring. Perhaps it was poorly written.

That is not censorship. It is good business practice.

If the play is that good, I dont doubt that other theaters will be lining up to take it on.

Those who really want to see it aired are welcome to rent a theater and have it shown.

No issue here.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 12:31 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But of course both of you could easily have acertained that "prior contract" and reasonable expectation to proceed on the basis of an agreement between the theater company and the production facility, was an essential point of my argument had you got your dicks out of your hand and bothered to scroll up to my earlier posts on the subject at the very top of this thread, you would know that.

I asked you to over and over and over and over again, but both of you are to thikc headed to bother, and so you have spent the entire thread arguing about something I DID NOT SAY.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 12:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And that is why I called you an asshole, and rightly so Mr Morgan, whatever the merits or lack of merits of your later arguement. And why should I bother discussing that with you or Magoo, since you are both to obtuse to actually confront the arguement that I made right from the begingin, even though I asked you again and again to read what I actually said

But you both refused. Instead deciding what it was that I said, and then arguing against a complete fiction.

Both of you are completely beneath contempt.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 12:35 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
But of course both of you could easily have acertained that "prior contract" and reasonable expectation to proceed on the basis of an agreement between the theater company and the production facility, was an essential point of my argument had you got your dicks out of your hand and bothered to scroll up to my earlier posts on the subject at the very top of this thread, you would know that.

I asked you to over and over and over and over again, but both of you are to thikc headed to bother, and so you have spent the entire thread arguing about something I DID NOT SAY.



If that is the case, a breach of contract suit may win.

So what?

Dont see it as evidence of widespread censorship.

They can still try and book the theater down the street.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 12:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cueball:
[qb]And that is why I called you an asshole, and rightly so Mr Morgan, whatever the merits or lack of merits of your later arguement. And why should I bother discussing that with you or Magoo, since you are both to obtuse to actually confront the arguement that I made right from the begingin, even though I asked you again and again to read what I actually said?

But you both refused. Instead deciding what it was that I said, and then arguing against a complete fiction.

Both of you are completely beneath contempt.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 12:39 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I stand contempted then.

Pointing out when you are breathlessly ranting on a non-issue is a moral obligation.

I am willing to endure the misery of sustaining your contempt in order to do that.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 12:39 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Precisely. If this is really all about a broken contract, well, stop the world! Nobody's ever broken a contract before, and we have no mechanism in place to deal with that!!!

Good grief. Instead of being a huge suck about it, call a friggin' tort lawyer.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 12:44 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:
I stand contempted then.

Pointing out when you are breathlessly ranting on a non-issue is a moral obligation.

I am willing to endure the misery of sustaining your contempt in order to do that.


So you wont mind if I point out that not being able to grasp the basic facts of the arguement against which you are arguing, is a sign of gross stupidity.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 12:46 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

So you wont mind if I point out that not being able to grasp the basic facts of the arguement against which you are arguing, is a sign of gross stupidity.


There is no arguement to grasp.

You are trying to play victim on a non-issue which is a breach of contract law at best.

Get over it.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 12:47 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, we grasp the facts alright Cueball. The fact is, this wasn't censorship.
From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 12:51 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No actually I have been arguing that any institutions can engage in acts of censorship.

Censorship being primarily the quashing of information or expression from a position of power within a power structure, for a political or moral reason.

In this way for instance, you might be able to claim that certain Danish Muslim Imams were attempting to censor the cartoons of Jylland-Posten, and I agree that is what they were trying to do.

For instance, on Babble the moderators censor racism.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 12:54 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
No actually I have been arguing that any institutions can engage in acts of censorship.

Censorship being primarily the quashing of information or expression from a position of power within a power structure, for a political or moral reason.

In this way for instance, you might be able to claim that certain Danish Muslim Imams were attempting to censor the cartoons of Jylland-Posten, and I agree that is what they were trying to do.

For instance, on Babble the moderators censor racism.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


OK Cueball, I will swallow your overly broad little perception of censorship.

No probs. Just as I censor those passion play people who may want to come into my yard.

Now that is out of the way.

What is the big deal? T

Nothing. This is simply non-issue that you have been trying to turn into something.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 13 March 2006 12:55 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
For instance asshole. I made it clear on the other thread that I believe that Babble does engage in "censorship."

Okay. Let's accept your definition of censorship.

I don't think it's a big deal when someone gets censored by a non-state agency like babble. Why do you think I should consider it a big deal when a theatre group gets censored by a non-state agency like the New York Theatre?


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 13 March 2006 01:02 PM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

This image shows Rachel Corrie an American peace activist, trying to stop an Israeli bull-dozer from demolishing Palestinian homes.


Rachel Corrie may you forever rest in peace. And your actions have not been in vain.

And based on incessant rantings of the right wingers on this board I am now inspired to forever make your murder known to all. Thanks to the right wingers on this borad for your inspiration.
http://www.patwardhan.com/writings/keynote.htm


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 01:07 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In this way for instance, you might be able to claim that certain Danish Muslim Imams were attempting to censor the cartoons of Jylland-Posten, and I agree that is what they were trying to do.

Seems to me that some of them were lobbying for the state to make such cartoons illegal, which would indeed be censorship.

quote:
I don't think it's a big deal when someone gets censored by a non-state agency like babble.

Nor does any babbler, that I'm aware of. And I'd be aware of it because they'd be protesting all these poor trolls being censored for being against SSM or believing that abortion is wrong.

I've yet to notice such a thread in rabble reactions. Cueball, in the interest of consistency, would you and Fourteen Rivers care to start such a thread?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 01:07 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What are you going on about Mary, the death of Raechel Corrie was no big deal.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 13 March 2006 01:09 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Thanks to the right wingers on this borad for your inspiration.

I like how you seem to think that a person's idea of what does and does not constitute censorship can be used to determine their overall ideology.

For the record, I am pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli. The only reason I don't say anti-Israel is because I think at this point undoing the original sin of zionism is a bit of a lost cause.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 01:15 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:

Okay. Let's accept your definition of censorship.

I don't think it's a big deal when someone gets censored by a non-state agency like babble. Why do you think I should consider it a big deal when a theatre group gets censored by a non-state agency like the New York Theatre?


Fine, and all I said was that because I am interested in the issue, and I believe it was censorship, there is no reason for me not to advertise what I believe was an act of censorship. Why is it such a big deal for me to defend the right of freedom of speech for these thespians?

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 01:16 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And based on incessant rantings of the right wingers on this board I am now inspired to forever make your murder known to all. Thanks to the right wingers on this borad for your inspiration.

LOL! I'm a right winger now! Wait'll my man Stevie finds out I voted for Olivia Chow though.

Meanwhile, your post sounds very similar to "For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three!".


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 01:16 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I dont think anybody was saying the death was no big deal.

What I am saying is that the play having to seek a new venue is no big deal.

And it isnt Cueball.

You are just seeking non-issues to get worked up about.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 01:18 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Will you quit being a fucking asshole, by telling me what I am and am not allowed to get worked up about?

You seem to be plenty worked up about my point of view, and attacking my point of view. If it is so irrelevant, why do you keep posting?

Well it is dude. The play will not play in New York. You can be absolutely sure of that. The play has been black listed, absolutely.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 01:19 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why is it such a big deal for me to defend the right of freedom of speech for these thespians?

Because their right to free speech has not been violated, for one. We're trying to tell you that and save you the embarrassment of tilting at windmills.

Take the friggin' play to another theatre if you don't believe me. Prove it to yourself.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 13 March 2006 01:20 PM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You have the right to think it's not censorship and I do whatever your political stripe. And neither of us will change each other's opinions either way.

quote:
The whole purpose of Rachel Corries struggle and sacrifice, as embodied in this play, was to speak out in defense of the basic rights of the Palestinian people against the Israeli occupation. To argue that the present situation makes the production of the play untimely is in fact an indirect way of saying that the play itself makes the defenders of the occupation uncomfortable. As far as the Zionist lobby is concerned, there will never be a right time to present it.

As Katharine Viner puts it in the Guardian on March 1, anyone who sees the play, or reads it, realizes that this is no piece of alienating agitprop. She relates instances of Israeli and American Jews who saw it in London and were profoundly moved by it, against their expectations. The Zionist censors arent concerned about agitprop, of course. It is precisely because the story of Rachel Corriein her own wordsso mercilessly exposes the nature of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, that the spokesmen and apologists for the Israeli regime cannot abide its presentation.


Play on Rachel Corrie canceled by New York theater group


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 13 March 2006 01:22 PM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
hahaha Mr Magoo is trying to subtly censor people here and reframe their words to suit his agenda.
hahahahahhahahahahha

He started since the old thread. I even chided him then that he was not to speak for me.

What Mr. Magoo scared of a what dead peace activist's piece of theatre can do, are ya?

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: mary123 ]


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 01:24 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Will you quit being a fucking asshole, by telling me what I am and am not allowed to get worked up about?

You seem to be plenty worked up about my point of view, and attacking my point of view. If it is so irrelevant, why do you keep posting?

Well it is dude. The play will not play in New York. You can be absolutely sure of that. The play has been black listed, absolutely.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]



I will bet you that if enough people wanted to see it, it would be viewed.

If somebody wanted to book a theater, they could show it.

Not giant blacklist conspiracy here Cueball.

Just you trying to make an issue out of nothing.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 01:28 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You are completely clueless Mr Morgan. A very large segement of the New York Theater ownership are from New Yorks Jewish community. Among them are a number of prominent Zionists. These are facts Morgan.

From the above article:

quote:
The New York group lamely claimed that its plans for My Name Is Rachel Corrie were only tentative. Viner pointed out, however, in an article in the British Guardian newspaper, that flights had been booked, the production schedule delivered, the press announcement drafted and tickets already advertised on the Internet. Rickman denounced the action. ...[C]alling this production postponed does not disguise the fact that it has been cancelled, said the writer and director of the piece.

According to Nicola, he polled local Jewish religious and community leaders in New York, and the uniform answer we got was that the fantasy that we could present the work of this writer simply as a work of art without appearing to take a position was just that, a fantasy.


Your "free market rules all" view of things is also a fantasy, Morgan.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 01:32 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
You are completely clueless Mr Morgan. A very large segement of the New York Theater ownership are from New Yorks Jewish community. Among them are a number of prominent Zionists. These are facts Morgan.

From the above article:

Your free market rules all are fantasies Morgan.



Ahh so now we get down to it.

It is all a Jewish conspiracy.

I call bullshit Cueball.

There is nothing to stop them from booking a theater.

The Jews don't own em all.

You continue to try and make an issue about nothing.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 01:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No man. It is not a Jewish conspiracy. It is that a number of important people in the New York theater community are prominent Zionists. I know this to be true, but their is also this, the person who cancelled the play said that he cancelled it because of the response of the Jewish community.

CAN YOU NOT READ:

Try it again without your ideological blinders:

quote:
According to Nicola, he polled local Jewish religious and community leaders in New York, and the uniform answer we got was that the fantasy that we could present the work of this writer simply as a work of art without appearing to take a position was just that, a fantasy.


By the way asshole, I am gassable uneder Hitlers Nuremberg law so dont fucking preach to me about my antisemitism you ignorant goof.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 01:37 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What Mr. Magoo scared of a what dead peace activist's piece of theatre can do, are ya?

If I were then I wouldn't keep suggesting that in lieu of bawling like a baby, you, the other supporters and Mr. Rickman could simply perform the play at one of the many thousands of theatres in NYC.

Why would I encourage you to do that if I had any personal interest in ensuring the play never runs?

quote:
hahaha Mr Magoo is trying to subtly censor people here

I have absolutely no power to censor anyone here. Only the moderators have that power.

If you don't understand that then you're stupider than you seem, Mary. If even half of your emotional energy could be rerouted to your braincells you'd have enough horsepower under your hat to cure cancer. Instead you're having a big tantrum because some guy cancelled some play you like. Boo hoo hoo.

Put it on somewhere else. Is that really so hard?


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 13 March 2006 01:37 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
quote:

Originally posted by voice of the damned:

Okay. Let's accept your definition of censorship.

I don't think it's a big deal when someone gets censored by a non-state agency like babble. Why do you think I should consider it a big deal when a theatre group gets censored by a non-state agency like the New York Theatre?

Cueball wrote:

Fine, and all I said was that because I am interested in the issue, and I believe it was censorship, there is no reason for me not to advertise what I believe was an act of censorship. Why is it such a big deal for me to defend the right of freedom of speech for these thespians?


Because if you believe that they have the right to have their ideas expressed in that particular venue, I think that assumes a general right for EVERYONE to have their ideas expressed in a similar venue. If you're going to appeal to the general principles underlying the anti-censorship view, and furthermore you're going to assume that censorship can be practiced by non-state entities, then you should also speak out in other instances when non-state entities(babble for example) behave that way.

But you could save yourself that obligation simply by saying "look, it's not really an issue of free speech for me, it's an issue of this being a good play that I think everyone should see". I say that sort of thing all the time when venues voluntarily choose not to feature certain stuff, but I don't claim that the issue is censorship.

The movie Team America was never shown in Korean theatres because distributors here thought that Koreans would be offended by the portrayal of Kim Jong-Il. I didn't really think that was a good decision, no one in any other country seemed to object to the portrayals of their leaders, but whatever. The Korean distributors thought it would offend Koreans, so they didn't show it. But I'm not gonna complain about censorship in this instance. If I wanna see the film so much, I can order a copy off the internet, or have my friends back home send me one. There is no law against watching the film in Korea, so I'm still free to pursue it as I wish.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 01:38 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
No man. It is not a Jewish conspiracy. It is that a number of important people in the New York theater community are prominent Zionists. I know this to be true, but their is also this, the person who cancelled the play said that he cancelled it because of the response of the Jewish community.

CAN YOU NOT READ:

Try it again without your ideological blinders:

By the way asshole, I am gassable uneder Hitlers Nuremberg law so dont fucking preech to me about my antisemitism you ignorant goof.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


And they own every theater and space where people can perform in all of New York?

Yeah whatever.

You are grasping at straws with your non-issue Cueball.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 01:42 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Go fuck yourself you fucking ignorant prick. Don't aavoid the fact that you in your completely pig-headed arrogance, can't believe that someones who grand parents escaped the fucking Holocaust by inches could take the position that I am taking now.

You are such a fucking intellelectual and moral coward.

You should apologize about your fucking "World conspiracy crack" but you are too much of prick to do that.

Goof.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 01:46 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Go fuck yourself you fucking ignorant prick. Don't aavoid the fact that you in your completely pig-headed arrogance, can't believe that someones who grand parents escaped the fucking Holocaust by inches could take the position that I am taking now.

You are such a fucking intellelectual and moral coward.

You should apologize about your fucking "World conspiracy crack" but you are too much of prick to do that.

Goof.


Hmmm well put Cueball.

What should I apologize here? You are the one implying a zionist conspiracy keeping plays out of theaters not me.

Its ok though, I will not demand or expect an apology from you.

If not the conspiracy that you implied, why cant they book a theater Cueball?


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 01:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh and asshole why not go look at the "Jewish Terrorism" thread I started. See, it has been censored. Ya fucking moron.

Go complain to the moderators about free speech why don't you, and how talking about Jewish Terrorism isn't racism, because if "Islamic terrorism" isn't racist, then "Jewish Terrorisim" isn't racist.

So why don't you go defend your so called principles? Why not because your so called principles aren't principles they are prejudices.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 01:47 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Oh and asshole why not go look at the "Jewish Terrorism" thread I started. See, it has been censored. Ya fucking moron.

Go complain to the moderators about free speech why don't you, and how talking about Jewish Terrorism isn't racism, because if "Islamic terrorism" isn't racist, then "Jewish Terrorisim" isn't racist.

So why don't you go defend your so called principles? Why not because your so called principles aren't principles they are prejudices.




Just as people can seek other theaters, you can seek other boards.

Still no realistic mass censorship.

Still no conspiracies.

Still no issue.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 01:49 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:

Hmmm well put Cueball.

What should I apologize here? You are the one implying a zionist conspiracy keeping plays out of theaters not me.

Its ok though, I will not demand or expect an apology from you.

If not the conspiracy that you implied, why cant they book a theater Cueball?


No what I was saying is that there are a number of Jews who are Zionists in the New York Theater community, and they have political views, which don't mesh with the views of the play in question.

What are you saying, Jews aren't allowed to have politcal views and make decisions about what they can and can not present in their theaters?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 01:49 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
See, it has been censored. Ya fucking moron.

No, it hasn't.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 01:53 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:


Just as people can seek other theaters, you can seek other boards.

Still no realistic mass censorship.

Still no conspiracies.

Still no issue.


You are the one who is talking about mass censorship. When did I mention that? You made it up.

You are the one talking about conspiracies. When did I mention that? You made it up.

You are the one repeatedly talking about something that you think is a non-issue. How stupid is that? Very!


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 01:53 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

No what I was saying is that there are a number of Jews who are Zionists in the New York Theater community, and they have political views, which don't mesh with the views of the play in question.

What are you saying, Jews aren't allowed to have politcal views and make decisions about what they can and can not present in their theaters?


Nope never said that Cueball.

You however trotted out the lame excuse of zionist blackballing as to why this play cant find another venue.

They can find another venue Cueball.

There is no conspiracy.

The is no issue here.

Just your fabricated outrage over nothing.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 01:53 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

No, it hasn't.


Thread closed buddy. Show is over.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 March 2006 01:55 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not that I've seen the play, which is the only sure way to judge - however:

This play was produced at the Royal Court in London, "to great acclaim." One of its producers was Alan Rickman, a great artist. And the NY Theatre Workshop had already accepted it and scheduled it.

Now, to me, those are a whole lot of blue-chip credentials. Most writers would sell their souls for that kind of cred in the theatre.

So really, one does have to wonder why the whole project was stopped.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 13 March 2006 01:55 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What should I apologize here? You are the one implying a zionist conspiracy keeping plays out of theaters not me.

I don't think you have to posit a protocols-of-the-elders style zionist plot to say that a certain cultural group tends to predminate in one particular area, and can influence what happens there.

Let's say I wanna break into the world of gangata rap, by performing pro-LAPD and pro-Republican tunes. The "powers-that-be" in that industry, be they the consumers, the producers, or the established performers, probably wouldn't let me in the door with that kind of a playlist. This doesn't mean that there is a cabal of African-Americans who control the world, deliberately trying to keep the white man down, just that there are a lot of African-Americans in the gangsta rap business, and they tend not to like pro-LAPD and pro-Republican songs.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 01:56 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The thread's not closed, and the show appears far from over.

Tell us more about these Jewish theatre owners.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 01:58 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The thread is closed you fucking assshole. Go look: You fucking shitty little prick
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 02:02 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
The thread is closed you fucking assshole. Go look: You fucking shitty little prick

The topic is locked.

The thread is still there.

No big deal. No major censorship issues. No Zionist conspiracies.

Why cant they book another theatre Cueball?


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 02:03 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because of assholes like you who don't send letters of support to the theater and instead waste hours and hours implying that Jewish that they are antisemites.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 02:06 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Because of assholes like you who don't send letter of support to the theater and instead wasting hours and hourse telling Jeish people that they are antisemites.

I didnt call you an anti-semite.

I said you are a guy who is hyperventilating about a non-issue.

(psst. it is still a non-issue and you are still hyperventilating)

You are the one who felt compelled that it is Jewish ownership that keeps these people from booking into another theater.

Explain how that is so Cueball.

Do they own every theater in New York?


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 02:08 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It does not matter wether or not they own every theater, everybody has to work together see? No one is going to rock the boat. Today a producer works in this theater, this agent with this production company, but tomorrow... tomorrow who knows where you will be working!

Do you get that?

I know this dude, because I spent years in the enterainment industry and have spent some of that time in New York, and I know the people personally.

Now why don't you go baack to your geologic surveys, which I hope you know more about than you do about the theater seen in New Yirk

THAT PLAY WILL NEVER EVER SHOW IN NEWS YORK. PERIOD.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 13 March 2006 02:11 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Cueball, can you have a strong disagreement with someone without calling people names? Its really unbecoming. And, its a violation of babble policy.

For your reference: You agree to avoid personal insults, attacks and mischievous antagonism (otherwise known as trolling). You will not post material that is inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy or otherwise violative of any law. (emphasis added)

Question for moderators: Why is this permitted? It contributes nothing to civil discussion. Heated disagreements are great (its the best way to hash out conflicting ideas) but there is simply no place for these kinds of attacks. They are not constructive and they affirmatively poison atmosphere of the board.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 02:12 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
It does not matter wether or not they own every theater, everybody has to work together see? Do you get that?

I know this dude, because I spent years in the enterainment industry and have spent some of that time in New York, and I know the people personally.

Now why don't you go baack to your geologic surveys, which I hope you know more about than you do about the theater seen in New Yirk

THAT PLAY WILL NEVER EVER SHOW IN NEWS YORK. PERIOD.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]



Explain that. You implied earlier that it wont air due to Jewish ownership.

Why is it impossible for them to book somewhere else?

Sorry, I have trouble accepting anecdotal evidence from a guy who cant go two words without calling somebody an asshole.

They can book another spot if they like.

There is no issue despite your hysteric efforts to make it one.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 02:15 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because Sven, if you look at the thread. The Obtuse brothers spent the entire first half of the thread telling me what it was I was saying, and refusing to acknowledge the baisis of the arguement I was making.

Telling someone else what they think is far worse than calling them an asshole frankly. And not only that they have both laid in with the usual implication of antisemetism, and that for someone such as myself is a cheap and slimy trick far beneath calling someone an asshole.

I am supposed to handle having allusion made about my "antisemetism" and not be able to call someone an asshole?

Seriously Sven, which is worse, asshole or antisemite?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 13 March 2006 02:16 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Question for moderators: Why is this permitted? It contributes nothing to civil discussion.

If you object, ya gotta send an email to Michelle or Audra. They can't be everywhere at once.

[email protected]
[email protected]


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 13 March 2006 02:18 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Crippled_Newsie:

If you object, ya gotta send an email to Michelle or Audra. They can't be everywhere at once.

[email protected]
[email protected]


Thanks.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 02:20 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
You are completely clueless Mr Morgan. A very large segement of the New York Theater ownership are from New Yorks Jewish community. Among them are a number of prominent Zionists. These are facts Morgan.
From the above article:


Your free market rules all are fantasies Morgan.


I havent called you an anti-semite Cueball. I will however call you a foulmouthed little man with no case to make.

Please explain your post above.

It is you who brought Jewish ownership into the issue as an excuse as to why the play cant run elsewhere.

They can book wherever they want Cueball.

Despite your efforts to make an issue out of nothing.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 02:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:


Explain that. You implied earlier that it wont air due to Jewish ownership.

Why is it impossible for them to book somewhere else?

Sorry, I have trouble accepting anecdotal evidence from a guy who cant go two words without calling somebody an asshole.

They can book another spot if they like.

There is no issue despite your hysteric efforts to make it one.


Ok why you are an asshole. Part 53:

If you have a problem with "accepting anecdotal evidence from a guy who cant go two words without calling somebody an asshole" then why are you asking me to "explain" anything?

Conclusion: Persons is deficient at simple logic.

Why you are an asshole. Part 54:

Posting yet again that an issue is a "non-issue" but thinking it is enough of an issue to post that it is a non-issue. One would think that if it is a non issue it wouldn't interest you. Right?

Concludion: Person is using the phrase "non-issue" to demean, rather then inform.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 13 March 2006 02:25 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
These guys must be a bunch of anti-semitic conspiracy-mongers...

quote:
Theater in New York City continues to show the Jewish influence. Even when shows do not deal specifically with Jewish themes and characters, the influence of Jewish writers, composers, directors continues to be pervasive.

http://tinyurl.com/jc6b8


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 02:26 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Ok why you are an asshole. Part 53:

If you have a problem with "accepting anecdotal evidence from a guy who cant go two words without calling somebody an asshole" then why are you asking me to "explain" anything?

Conclusion: Persons is deficient at simple logic.

Why you are an asshole. Part 54:

Posting yet again that an issue is a "non-issue" but thinking it is enough of an issue to post that it is a non-issue. One would think that if it is a non issue it wouldn't interest you. Right?

Concludion: Person is using the phrase "non-issue" to demean, rather then inform.


This is only an issue if you can prove that the play can't be shown elsewhere.

So far you have failed in proving anything except that you will imply that it is a Jewish conspiracy.

I will call it a non-issue until you prove otherwise.

Until then, put your hair out.

By the way, with the hysterical obcenities that pour from you in place of debate, you have no place to speak on demeaning. (nor on censorship so far)


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 13 March 2006 02:30 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:
These guys must be a bunch of anti-semitic conspiracy-mongers...
http://tinyurl.com/jc6b8

From the link:

quote:
So much for the Jewish touch. But New York is teeming with all kinds of theater all over town several hundred on any given night.

From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 02:30 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:

So far you have failed in proving anything except that you will imply that it is a Jewish conspiracy.


Sorry dude. Saying that I am implying that there is a "Jewish conspiracy" is calling me an antisemite.

You are an asshole. Fuck off.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 02:33 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The thread is closed you fucking assshole. Go look: You fucking shitty little prick

I see.

So I guess someone should take Michelle to Censorin' School then. One doesn't typically censor ideas by continuing to host them on the Internet. Rookie mistake!


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 02:34 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Sorry dude. Saying that I am implying that there is a "Jewish conspiracy" is calling me an antisemite.

You are an asshole. Fuck off.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
You are completely clueless Mr Morgan. A very large segement of the New York Theater ownership are from New Yorks Jewish community. Among them are a number of prominent Zionists. These are facts Morgan.
From the above article:

Your free market rules all are fantasies Morgan.


You used Jewish ownership of theaters as a reason why the play is not getting aired.

That would imply a Jewish conspiracy. You uttered the accusation, not I.

Or if not a conspiracy, perhaps you meant to imply that a group of Jewish owners has decided in private not to air this play and thus have shut it down due to their undue influence in New York theater.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 13 March 2006 02:35 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
From the link:


quote:

So much for the Jewish touch. But New York is teeming with all kinds of theater all over town several hundred on any given night.


Yeah, but I do wonder if any organization representing one single cultural group would describe that group's influnece on New York theatre as "pervasive".

But if the point is that the creators of the Rachel Corrie play could probably find another venue if they tried, point taken. What I was trying to say is that Cueball isn't necessarilly pushing conspiracy theories by saying that Jewish people have a big influence over the New York theatre.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 02:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Crippled_Newsie:
[QB][/QB]


Sure. But still the idea that a high profile play which has done well in Engalnd should play in some sad sack theater in Alpahbet City is a bit of a stretch. Expecially if you are fyling in actorsm, etc. etc.

I agree this production could probably go on as a locally produced play in a third rate company, but the level of production and costs as it is origincally concieved would be prohibative, I think.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 02:38 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:

You used Jewish ownership of theaters as a reason why the play is not getting aired.

That would imply a Jewish conspiracy. You uttered the accusation, not I.

Or if not a conspiracy, perhaps you meant to imply that a group of Jewish owners has decided in private not to air this play and thus have shut it down due to their undue influence in New York theater.


No. Dullard. I guess I have to repeat this one more time, since it takes about five or six times for you to get the idea of anything.

Jewish people, many of whom are Zionists have political opinions.

Do you understand?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 02:39 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's a one-woman show. What would they miss out on? The giant crowd scene? The laser light show? This isn't Lord of the Rings on stage we're talking about.
From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
voice of the damned
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6943

posted 13 March 2006 02:39 PM      Profile for voice of the damned     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You used Jewish ownership of theaters as a reason why the play is not getting aired.

That would imply a Jewish conspiracy. You uttered the accusation, not I.


Yes, but then can we really call it censorship? I don't think that freedom-of-speech guarantees that you'll jave the right to stage something in one city in the exact same sort of venue as it was statged in another.


From: Asia | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 02:41 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
It's a one-woman show. What would they miss out on? The giant crowd scene? The laser light show? This isn't Lord of the Rings on stage we're talking about.

Has michelle opened up the "Jewish Terrorism" thread again, yet Magoo?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 02:41 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

No. Dullard. I guess I have to repeat this one more time, since it takes about five or six times for you to get the idea of anything.

Jewish people, many of whom are Zionists have political opinions.

Do you understand?


Of course they have opinions. I have never denied that.

How though, does that apply to this group not getting theater space in New York?

You implied that they have excersised their opinions in order to shut down airing of the play.

Its your words not mine.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 13 March 2006 02:42 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by voice of the damned:

Yeah, but I do wonder if any organization representing one single cultural group would describe that group's influnece on New York theatre as "pervasive".

But if the point is that the creators of the Rachel Corrie play could probably find another venue if they tried, point taken.


That's more or less what I meant.

As for 'pervasive' influences... there's certainly lots of gay people in the NYC theater scene, so you might say that they're 'pervasive.' But the word does sound so insidious, doesn't it?


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 02:42 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

Has michelle opened up the "Jewish Terrorism" thread again, yet Magoo?


Has she deleted it Cueball?


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 02:43 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good. I am really happy that we have agreed that Jewish people are allowed to have opinions. I have some of my own as you see.

So lets go through this very slowly and simply so that you undestand. Ok?

Are there a lot of Jewish people in the theater scene in New York. Is that right genius?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 02:44 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Crippled_Newsie:

That's more or less what I meant.

As for 'pervasive' influences... there's certainly lots of gay people in the NYC theater scene, so you might say that they're 'pervasive.' But the word does sound so insidious, doesn't it?



It is all a matter of the context.

Cueball tried to imply that Jewish ownership was behind this group not finding a venue for their play.

I say they can find a venue regardless.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 13 March 2006 02:46 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:

I say they can find a venue regardless.

And I agree.


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 02:46 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Good. I am really happy that we have agreed that Jewish people are allowed to have opinions. I have some of my own as you see.

So lets go through this very slowly and simply so that you undestand. Ok?

Are there a lot of Jewish people in the theater scene in New York. Is that right genius?



Sure Cueball.

But why did you feel compelled to point that out when claiming that the group couldnt get a venue for their play?

Was it just something you blurted out of the blue?

I think not.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 02:46 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Crippled_Newsie:

That's more or less what I meant.

As for 'pervasive' influences... there's certainly lots of gay people in the NYC theater scene, so you might say that they're 'pervasive.' But the word does sound so insidious, doesn't it?


That is the word that Irene Backalenick used in the piece that you quoted.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 02:48 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:


Sure Cueball.

But why did you feel compelled to point that out when claiming that the group couldnt get a venue for their play?

Was it just something you blurted out of the blue?

I think not.


No no. Please don't try and tell me what I think. I know you like to think that you have ESP and all that but, I am going to explain what it is that I think, rather than have you tell me what I think?

That would be ok with you? Yes?

Ok. So are a lot of Jewish people Zionists? By this I mean would you say that more Jews are Zionist than no?

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 13 March 2006 02:48 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

That is the word that Irene Backalenick used in the piece that you quoted.

I know. I was only commenting offhand that it was an odd word choice on her part.


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 02:51 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

No no. Please don't try and tell me what I think. I know you like to think that you have ESP and all that but, I am going to explain what it is that I think, rather than have you tell me what I think?

That would be ok with you? Yes?

Ok. So are a lot of Jewish people Zionists? By this I mean would you say that more Jews are Zionist than no?

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]



Not even sure what you are rambling about now.

I will slow it down for you.

Why did you feel that bringing up Jewish ownership in New York theater was relevent when you were claiming this group could not find another venue?

Can you answer for a change?


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 02:52 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Crippled_Newsie:

I know. I was only commenting offhand that it was an odd word choice on her part.


It is an interesting choice of words, but not entirely negative. One would think that one would think it were negative, if one thought that the thing that was pervasive were negative.

I think I could say that "the rich smell of flowers was pervasive." I don't think it has an innate (or socially constructed) negative connotation.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 02:55 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:


Not even sure what you are rambling about now.

I will slow it down for you.

Why did you feel that bringing up Jewish ownership in New York theater was relevent when you were claiming this group could not find another venue?

Can you answer for a change?


I am trying to answer it, but I am going one step at a time, as it seems you are always getting lost in my "ramblings." So I thought if we broke it down a little bit, and went over the points that we agree on, so that there is a basic set of data that we agree is true.

K?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 02:58 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:

I am trying to answer it, but I am going one step at a time, as it seems you are always getting lost in my "ramblings." So I thought if we broke it down a little bit, and went over the points that we agree on, so that there is a basic set of data that we agree is true.

K?


No Cueball. What you are doing is dodging and obscuring the fact that you claimed Jewish ownership was conspiring to keep the play out of circulation.

Asking whether Jews exist or Zionists and in what proportion have nothing to do with it at all.

It was contended that the play could find another venue.

You said that could never happen and cited Jewish ownership as the reason.

That is implying a Jewish conspiracy no matter how you now dodge and try to deny it.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 03:00 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok with that final accusation of my antisemetism. I am going to ask the moderators to intervene at this point and ask you to stop doing it.

Do you mind if I do so?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 03:02 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Ok with that final accusation of my antisemetism. I am going to ask the moderators to intervene at this point and ask you to stop doing it.

Do you mind if I do so?


You dont need to ask me.

I never accused you of anti semitism by the way.

I have called you a conspiracy theorist and made the case well.

Why are you trying to censor me?


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 03:13 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because you see. When you repeatedly put words into my mouth, such as conspiracy (a word I never used) and when such words are linked with people of my cultural heritage, such as "Jewish conspiracy" you are revisting a particularly insidious line of propoganda which was used to diesnfranchise my family from it's homeland, And not just that they killed a whole bunch of people to whom I am nominally related.

Perhaps you are aware of these historical facts, though your knowledge seems quite limited, I assume you did take one or two basic history classes in school and might know something about it -- at least a glimmering.

So having you attribute this particular line of thought, about the "Jewish Conspiracy" is a very ugly and untrue thing, especially as I never actually said anything like it.

So to speak it is bad form. It is not so much what you are saying that is the problem, because you are essentially saying nothing, other than attempting to smear me repeatedly with the charge of racism, or so it appears.

Again and again I have asked you to quote me accurately, and speak to the points I have raised, but you do not, instead you put bad words into my mouth.

This is because you are an asshole. And your repeated retreat into this idiotic smear has made me very angry, so yes, not so much because you have said anything, (because you haven't other than to say the issue is a non-issue and that I am talking about a "jewish conspiracy") but because you are libelling me.

I think there is a big difference between libelling someone, (which means to say something untruthful about someone btw) and expressinga political opinion, and that is why having a moderator intervene at this point is not censoring your opinion, but censoring your libel of me.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 03:18 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
LOL! It's libel when someone else does it, but not when you do it?

Hypocrite. Liar.


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 03:21 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Because you see. When you repeatedly put words into my mouth, such as conspiracy (a word I never used) and when such words are linked with people of my cultural heritage, such as "Jewish conspiracy" you are revisting a particularly insidious line of propoganda which was used to diesnfranchise my family from it's homeland, And not just that they killed a whole bunch of people to whom I am nominally related.

Perhaps you are aware of these historical facts, though your knowledge seems quite limited, I assume you did take one or two basic history classes in school and might know something about it -- at least a glimmering.

So having you attribute this particular line of thought, about the "Jewish Conspiracy" is a very ugly and untrue thing, especially as I never actually said anything like it.

So to speak it is bad form. It is not so much what you are saying that is the problem, because you are essentially saying nothing, other than attempting to smear me repeatedly with the charge of racism, or so it appears.

Again and again I have asked you to quote me accurately, and speak to the points I have raised, but you do not, instead you put bad words into my mouth.

This is because you are an asshole. And your repeated retreat into this idiotic smear has made me very angry, so yes, not so much because you have said anything, (because you haven't other than to say the issue is a non-issue and that I am talking about a "jewish conspiracy") but because you are libelling me.

I think there is a big difference between libelling someone, (which means to say something untruthful about someone btw) and expressinga political opinion, and that is why having a moderator intervene at this point is not censoring your opinion, but censoring your libel of me.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


I explained at length how I came to the conclusion of your being a conspiracy theorist.

I have asked you to give me another explanation as to why you felt you needed to bring Jewish theater ownership into the debate.

You responded with a pile of expletives rather than make a case.

You have never shown where I have called you an anti-semite. It is indeed you who it trying to put words into somebodies mouth.

I suspect that you are simply trying to shut the thread down as it has been well demonstrated that you are full of crap on this one.

You have done an excellent demonstration though and I commend you on it.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 13 March 2006 03:22 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Huh?

The moderators have made it quite clear that loose accusations of anti-semitism will no more be tolerated on babble than anti-semitism itself.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 03:23 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
LOL! It's libel when someone else does it, but not when you do it?

Hypocrite. Liar.


And where did I do such? Where did I put words into anyones mouth? Yours! where?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 03:24 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Huh?

The moderators have made it quite clear that loose accusations of anti-semitism will no more be tolerated on babble than anti-semitism itself.


Fair enough.

Could somebody now showed me where I accused Cueball of being an anti-semite?

I keep asking him but he doesnt seem to have an answer.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 03:28 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:

I explained at length how I came to the conclusion of your being a conspiracy theorist.


Where did I say that I thought there was a "Jewish conspiracy." That is entirely your invention, in fact your conspiracy theory,

Name it. Find where I speak of a Jewish conspiracy, at all, except to deny the existance of one?


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 03:32 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OK Cueball if you insist on my repeating myself I will.

Here are your words in response to why this group could not get another venue.In fact you said in bolded text that they never would.:

quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
You are completely clueless Mr Morgan. A very large segement of the New York Theater ownership are from New Yorks Jewish community. Among them are a number of prominent Zionists. These are facts Morgan.
From the above article:
Your free market rules all are fantasies Morgan.


Now, you contended that Jewish ownership in the theater industry is why this group could not get another venue.

By your contention of blackballing (yes you used balckballing), that would mean they conspired to keep somebody out yes?

Thus you said there was a Jewish conspiracy.

And you are a hypocrite.

Why are you trying to censor me?


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 03:35 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is not censoship. It is preventing you from libeling me by saying that I am saying that there is a Jewish conspiracy, when I have said no such thing. Also repeatedly saying that I have said such even after I have corrected you dozens of times.
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 03:36 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
It is not censoship. It is preventing you from libeling me by saying that I am saying that there is a Jewish conspiracy, when I have said no such thing. Also repeatedly saying that I have said such even after I have corrected you dozens of times.


OK Cueball.

All you implied was that a group of Jewish theater owners agreed to keep the play from showing.

By anybody elses definition that is called conspiring.

You clearly use a different dictionary.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 03:43 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There doesn't have to be some back room clavern for a community to make a decision about how they feel about something. It sometimes has everything to do with joint cultural and personal experience, and a set fo shared opinions about the world. That is not a conspiracy.

Would you call it a conspiracy if I said that most americans would not allow for a play that was a pro-slavery play to be performed in a Broadway theatre? Would there have to be a consipracy, or would the shared values of the community make it difficult to produce?

A conspiracy is when a group of people conive together, and plot, which is precisely what is meant when someone asserts that someone is a "Jewish conspiracy" theorist.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 03:47 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
There doesn't have to be some back room clavern for a community to make a decision about how they feel about something. It sometimes has everything to do with joint cultural and personal experience, and a set fo shared opinions about the world. That is not a conspiracy.

Would you call it a conspiracy if I said that most americans would not allow for a play that was a pro-slavery play to be performed in a Broadway theatre.

A conspiracy is when a group of people conive together, and plot, which is precisely what is meant when someone asserts that someone is a "Jewish conspiracy" theorist.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]



Well, you contended that the Jewish theater owners have blackballed this play.

I have seen no open reports of this thus if your contention is true, these Jewish theater owners must have decided this behind closed doors.

Conspired to do it you could say. Yes?

Yer defense is getting sad Cueball.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 03:48 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And where did I do such? Where did I put words into anyones mouth? Yours! where?

Since you were kind enough to ask:

quote:
Just as long as you get to see some right Magoo? Skin that is. Everything is AOK.

quote:
Does Natacha Atlas have to show her camel toe, and say "I am doing this to opposed the Islamic fundamentalist" in order to get the Nazional Post to run an article on her and get you to defend her right to "self-expression?"

Remember that? Remember how you made all that up, for no reason other than to try and smear anyone who disagreed?

Then you picked it up again in this thread:

quote:
According to you, any Pakistani woman should be awarded a refugee status, and the Nobel prize, if she anounces that it is her life long politcal struggle to oppose the Islamic conservatives by fulfilling her life long dream of working at the Brass Rail.

Remember how I said no such thing, and indicated no such thing? And how you got warned for it?

Remember now?

Any whining you do at this point because you feel someone has besmirched your good name by calling you on your little conspiracy theory of Zionists is quite risible, and I hope the moderators will take your previous attitude toward libelling someone into account when they laugh in your face.

Poor Cueball! How dare someone accuse you so wrongly, so unjustly! Justice for Cueball!!!


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 03:49 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And I knew that is exactly what you were going to bring up Magoo, and what did you do when you felt you had been libeled Magoo?

And to be honest Magoo, I thought my censure was unjust, in that all I was doing was hyperbolic extension from your core arguement, A favourite ploy of yours.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 03:57 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by C.Morgan:


Well, you contended that the Jewish theater owners have blackballed this play.

I have seen no open reports of this thus if your contention is true, these Jewish theater owners must have decided this behind closed doors.

Conspired to do it you could say. Yes?

Yer defense is getting sad Cueball.


You are incredibly thick. I have posted the same piece of evidence that the feelings of the Jewish community were central to the cancellation of the play, from the lips of the very person who cancelled the play:

quote:
According to Nicola, he polled local Jewish religious and community leaders in New York, and the uniform answer we got was that the fantasy that we could present the work of this writer simply as a work of art without appearing to take a position was just that, a fantasy.

If this is the case here, it is a likely assumption that other theaters will make the same decisions.

So its not really a "theory" is it, let alone a conspiracy theory.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 03:59 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You are incredibly thick. I have posted the same piece of evidence that the feelings of the Jewish community were central to the cancellation of the play, from the lips of the very person who cancelled the play:


That only explains one venue.

You contended that they would get into no other venues do the Jewish ownership in the theater industry.

Thus you contend they conspired to blackball.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 13 March 2006 03:59 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Rarely have I seen a thread where both sides do more to harm their cause with every keystroke. The fact is that the New York Theater Workshop was wrong to cancel the engagement. Whether it constitutes "censorship" is immaterial. Try debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin instead. It would be just as productive.

And, btw, the Jewish Theater is a separate entity within the New York theater scene. It does not mean that Jews dominate the New York theater scene, anymore than gays do, or any other stereotypes that may be dredged up. But, of course, a lot of the same accusations were made of the Berlin theater scene in the late 20's and early 30's. And Rickman himself is Jewish. So, I fail to see how religion is relevant to this dicussion.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
C.Morgan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5987

posted 13 March 2006 04:02 PM      Profile for C.Morgan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
Rarely have I seen a thread where both sides do more to harm their cause with every keystroke. The fact is that the New York Theater Workshop was wrong to cancel the engagement. Whether it constitutes "censorship" is immaterial. Try debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin instead. It would be just as productive.

And, btw, the Jewish Theater is a separate entity within the New York theater scene. It does not mean that Jews dominate the New York theater scene, anymore than gays do, or any other stereotypes that may be dredged up. But, of course, a lot of the same accusations were made of the Berlin theater scene in the late 20's and early 30's. And Rickman himself is Jewish. So, I fail to see how religion is relevant to this dicussion.



I fully agree. Which is why I felt I had to call things when Cueball brought Jewish ownership of theaters into it.


From: Calgary | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 04:05 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Come on Josh the Jewish community is very important and respected and therefore influencial part of New York, as well as the NEw York theater scene.

The play was cancelled according to the person who cancelled the play entirely because it was not going to go over with the Jewish community. That is what the person who cancelled the play said, in interview with the Guardian.

There is no reason to suggest that the same would not apply to any number of other theaters in New York.

Remember the outrage at Adam Shaprio in New York. The Zionist demonstrated, called him a traitor and even threatened his family.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 13 March 2006 04:20 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Threatened, Couple Flee Apartment in Brooklyn

quote:
Death threats have prompted a Brooklyn couple to leave their home amid anger over reports that one of their sons, a humanitarian worker in the Middle East, shared breakfast with Yasir Arafat after being trapped in the Palestinian leader's besieged compound over the weekend, the couple's family said.

Doreen and Stuart Shapiro, shown yesterday after they left Brooklyn, received death threats because of their son's actions in Ramallah.
(Joyce Dopkeen/NY Times)

Noah Shapiro, a Manhattan lawyer, said that his parents, Stuart and Doreen Shapiro, who are both public school teachers, fled their home in Sheepshead Bay on Sunday to stay with friends out of state. He added that he did not feel safe in New York anymore, even as the police presence around his apartment has increased.

"I don't even think we can measure the emotional toll," he said. "People in New York have interpreted my brother's actions to say that he is a terrorist, a traitor, an aide to Arafat. And none of this is based on fact."

[SNIP]

According to Noah Shapiro, most of the messages wish "a fiery death" to the entire family. "Some of the messages say, `We hope,' and others say, `This will happen to you and we will make it happen to you.' " He said the family was turning over all messages to the police, who are monitoring the family's phone lines


Now measure that against Nicola's statement about the play:

quote:
the uniform answer we got was that the fantasy that we could present the work of this writer simply as a work of art without appearing to take a position was just that, a fantasy.

Then of course one has to note how the reaction to the Cartoon fiasco in Denmark, death threats and the like, are somehow particularly Islamic.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 March 2006 06:29 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And I knew that is exactly what you were going to bring up Magoo

You mean you remembered, and yet you still got all "victimey" when you felt someone else was pulling the same shit?

Like I said, fine when you do it eh, hypocrite?

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]


From: `,_,`,_,,_,, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 March 2006 08:40 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Holy crap, this is nasty. I got a complaint about this thread and came to check it out, and I discover that Cueball is typing a blue streak of abuse at C.Morgan, C.Morgan is claiming that Cueball is promoting some anti-semitic Jewish conspiracy, and I'm not even halfway through the thread yet.

What I WILL say is this: Cueball, you started with the namecalling and abusive posts before C.Morgan made any accusations. You were the one who kicked up the hostility from the start.

C.Morgan, if the article says that the people who owned the theatre claimed to poll the Jewish community in New York City and based their decision on the results of that, then there's no reason to accuse Cueball of some anti-semitic Jewish Conspiracy thing.

However, I can also see where Cueball's original post, about how a large number of New York theatre owners are Jewish, and how many of those are Zionists, could be taken the wrong way. Like josh, I don't really see why that was relevant to this at all, even if it were true, unless we're going to claim that all Jews share the same political opinions about Israel.

If both of you don't settle down, you're both having a time out. This feud is getting ridiculous and it's happening in every thread you're posting in together, it seems.

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca