To completely understand the situation as it escalated takes more than just reading Audacity's Reply as that was only Act III of the drama. The whole picture takes place over postings on 3 or 4 different topics.

I don't claim to be the originator but as someone who tapped into something that had been lurking beneath the surface of things on the board before I added my two cents.

For me, it starts with posts about Mission: Impossible 2. I disliked the film and really disliked the score and gave a number of reasons and supports and theories to back up my opinion. Then I just got frustrated and crossed that line and did one of the most enjoyable things I've ever done on this board--I called Hans Zimmer a talentless bum. I was half-joking but serious too. But that wasn't all--I slammed the sycophantic followers on the board who just worship this man with awe. I knew I was being a bad boy, that people are entitled to their opinions, but I figured I was entitled to mine and I was really tired of the whole thing.

This led to an ocean of slams that revealed that a number of people left the board because other people had been too harsh to them with their name calling and superior, Holier-Than-Thou attitudes.

I felt sorry about this. But it also set me off. I felt the people who left the board for this reason seemed spoiled and pampered and lacked the guts to fight, to defend their beliefs, or stick it out.

But saying this also opened the discussion to being about how people should conduct themselves on the board.

To me, I felt there should be no real rules of conduct, that it was unrealistic and repressive to try to get people to discuss art, culture, and personal passions in a dry, stuffy atmosphere of styfling etiquette.

I never wanted to hurt anyone personally and I didn't want to see others hurt people on the board, but suddenly I realized that I also wanted to do what I could to support the rougher, gruffer elements that show up on the board. They (and I) should be free to be ugly.

Now I realized that the site was a private site and not the world at large and that it was within the right of the administrator to set rules. But at this point, I decided to question them. People were calling me mean, a moron, they accused me of making pointless attacks, of being Holier-Than-Thou. I decided to embrace all these slams. I said, "Sure, that's what I am, so what? What's wrong with that. I should be able to be all these things and still express myself on this site." And so I kept forcing the boundary.

Finally, I was told I'd be suspended if I continued to post on the topic. That just seemed like a dare I had to take and went up against the administrator himself (though I meant nothing personal against PeterK whose site I love and who has done a great job of offering this forum to us all).

And I along with a few others wound up in the doghouse. I didn't really mind, found it kind of funny actually. I like this site and love the people I've met here and this site kills a lot of time for me when I'm working nights with nothing to do but play soundtracks and stare at the walls, but I could live without it. So I wasn't hurt or anything.

News spread and people posted and brought up a lot of interesting points.

PeterK's basic rules for the site are that we talk about film music and be charitable. I can abide by that even if I find it restrictive.

First, though, when you enter the site, right under the place where you click on General Topics, it reads "limitless discussion". Well, doesn't limitless mean without limits? We all come together here because of our mutual interest in film music, but having met people on the site and getting to know them, the site should open discussion to any topic. Culture is interconnected, it does not exist in a vacuum. To discuss film music without discussing film or the world at large or the personalities of the people listening to this music and what they are about in addition to this interest is a limit. To not be able to discuss how the site is run is a limit too. It's Peter's site, but I think of it as mine too in a small way and feel the best thing the administrator can do for us all is back off/butt out and let the chips fall where they may. Somebody said something about people posting about football--I don't see why not if that's what they want, just ignore it if it doesn't interest you.

As for being charitable, I don't even know how the administrator defines this term in terms of it being a rule. What specifically does this mean in terms of what I can and can't say or post?

PeterK asked me a few questions in one of his last Audacity's Reply posts but I was suspended before I could post a reply.

As a general rule I believe that speech should be free. This doesn't mean that everyone has a right to say what they want to in say a newspaper that someone else owns and publishes. But it does mean that people should be able to speak and publish as they please. I realize that I can't yell fire in a theater or tell the President I want to do him in, but these strike me as understandable exceptions to the basic rule. I define a criminal act as someone using force or fraud against another, but when it comes to speech, the only way someone can keep me from saying as I please is to force me not to talk. I define that use of force against me as something to include in the definition of what constitutes the criminal.

Now on a private site, someone can cut me off and it isn't criminal. But what I'm asking is why isn't this site as free as the world at large. I can conform to its rules, but why are there rules, we're all adults, there's no need for these rules. The site won't collapse. Anarchy won't rein. The discussions won't grind to a halt. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings but I don't want an atmosphere where we're restricted from name-calling even if it is a poor and impolite way to argue. I even question the astericks. I realize that some people don't want to see expletives, that they don't use them and consider them vulgar, so I understand the site blocking them. Still, again, I don't feel I need to be protected by the site from the "bad" things people want to express. I don't need the astericks to protect me and I don't need them to water down the passion of my opinions.

I said that repressing speech was a first step towards totalitarianism. I did not say that the administrator was a totalitarian, he is not. Still, I think I got under his skin with the remark since he mentioned it in his subsequent posts. I'm sorry. I really meant no personal attack along those lines.

Lastly, a thanks to the people who e-mailed me personally with their support. Also, in my defense, I invite people to enter my member profile and click on the line which gives you a complete listing of all the posts I've made on the board. If you review them, you will see hopefully that I have tried to be helpful and informative to people and well-reasoned when offering opinions. Reviewing the latest posts may also give you a better overall view of this entire incident.

For those who were disturbed, annoyed, or just plain bored by me and all this ruckus, well, I'm sorry I started it too. But before we all move on, I wanted a last airing of things.

Well, officially, this posting has to be about film music so I will say I think Hans Zimmer sucks.

But, too, I'm supposed to be charitable (whatever the **** that means) so I will say that Hans Zimmer doesn't entirely suck.

There. And I hope that in the future things will change around here so that I will be able to say as I please no matter what the **** it is without worrying about suspension. Until then, I'll play by the rules, but you can bet I'll try to get around them as much as I can too.

HANS ZIMMER SAID: "Our producer, Stanley Jaffe, at the time, hated everything I was doing. And hated it so much that I actually got shouted at after a screening at Paramount, and I fainted." [He's referring to BLACK RAIN.]

It suddenly dawned me that in the midst of this narrative that PeterK was surprised and maybe taken aback by his discovery that people had left or deserted the site. He wondered why. People wouldn't tell him at first. Then with a little pushing it became clear that people didn't like what they perceived as a change in climate around here.

In subsequent posts, PeterK reminded us of the rules and told people that they could move on if they didn't like it, not exactly an invitation to stay.

To quote PeterK: "If anyone doesn't like this place, they can certainly hang out at rec.music.movies all day, where there are no rules. There's something different about that place though...something is missing there."

So this got me thinking. Just what quality is it that is here and not elsewhere that PeterK wants to establish and preserve?

But before answering that, the question itself raises an issue. By being surprised at the fact that people had left, I don't think PeterK was aware that the tone of the site had changed. The place had changed, it IS changing, evolving, and it will probably change more. The site is getting away from PeterK and his conception of it. Now, it's his site. If he wants it a certain way, he can put his foot down, apply the brakes, close posts, and kick people out. But I don't think he wants to do that. But what does he want? Does he want things to remain as they were but by the VOLUNTARY consent of the people here? By not putting his foot down but having people BE a certain way when posting?

I read swashbucker's very interesting reply to the post topic, Realization of Stupidity. He starts out by putting it out there, his deepest opinions. He's willing to write a long post. But then somewhere he says, "Why did I waste your time" and "I apologize to everyone for this Daniel2-esque tirade."

And that spelled it out for me. There was no reason for Swash to couch his statements in these terms, but like most everyone, he doesn't want to bore people or to offend them, he worries about crossing lines, so he apologizes.

And I wonder if the thing that is "something different" about this place is that, in order to be polite, to seem civil, people weren't censoring themselves BEFORE their words ever hit the page. For some, the place doesn't require outside censorship--they were doing it themselves. Now you might look at some of the posts here and ask what the hell I'm talking about since people can be pretty hostile. Hey, it's just a thought I had. I could be wrong.

Of course, Swash follows up by saying, "If it sounds bitchy, so be it." Good for you. I hope raising these issues leads to less personal restraint like this.

Now I'm going off on a tangent for a second but it'll all connect so hold on.

Why do I come here? At a very basic level I come here because if I say James Newton Howard or Erich Wolfgang Korngold there are people here who know what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter if you love, hate, or are indifferent, you know, and that sets you apart from those who don't. There are times when it may seem that we're all at each other's throats, but we all have this common denominator that makes us "culprets in crime" if not friends.

Beyond that, certain battle lines have been drawn.

Golden Agers vs Current scores
Old movies vs new ones
FSM people vs original people
Rude people vs polite people
People for or against certain composers
People for or against specific scores or films
People who have differing ideas about the role of film music or the role and purpose of films in society as a whole

And sometimes it seems to me that the same 5 people say the same 6 things. Me too. I'm becoming so horribly one-note I don't think I'm going to finish reading this post and I'm the one writing it.

That's why I think evolution on this site is a good thing. We need new blood and we need the old blood to say new things. If we try to preserve a certain "special" quality about the site, the "limitless conversation" is going to dry up and die. The site as a whole doesn't have to have a goal, I don't think it could. It's enough that people learn something or at least have fun and enjoy the ride. But I think we need to tolerate the fringe to keep things alive around here.

PeterK says to Andre: "Your post is what I find unacceptable. Try writing a response that isn't so directly personal and more objective."

I say to PeterK: Accept that things change. Quit holding on and trying to preserve something about this site against the thrust of ways people feel the site should be different. There is nothing really unacceptible about Andre's post. If he wants to have a personal attack, "so be it." Maybe he can't be or doesn't want to be objective about whatever it is he's talking about--well then, why should he? People should be free to put it out there anyway they want or can. You can insist that people put things a certain way, as I've said repeatedly, this is your right as it is your site. But again as I said in the Audacity's Reply thread--please don't utilize your authority in this manner.

Well, once again, it's time to make fun of, I mean, follow the rules. I'm going to go easy on Zimmer this time and say something positive. The more Christopher Gunning I hear, the more I like, and I owe my even learning about this composer from people here at this site. Thank you.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.

And Damn Lazlo--You found me out! I am Stan Jaffe!!

NP: What's on my mind (or the voices in my head if you prefer)

In my view, the freedom to speak your piece does not imply that there are no restrictions on what may be said or done. The supreme court has ruled that rule of community standards is to be applied to erotic art to determine if it is pornographic by that communities standard. Similarly, our community standards are that we will communicate our opinions with denigrating our fellows. Why is this rule so hard to follow?

In addition, when such an approach is used it results in most people simply ignoring what was posted. It is hard to give credence to someone who does not respect other people enough not to insult them. There is a world of difference between saying “Hans Simmer Sucks” and saying “I don’t understand what it is that you find so amazing about his work. It is derivative, shows no passion or understanding of musical structure and sounds to me like a cacophony of synth and drum licks mixed to appeal to the club scene. Can you explain to what it is you like about it?”

As an aside, I agree that it was a mistake to try and limit the thread, because it inflamed the matter and has engendered more discussion on the topic, not less. I would probably have sent some e-mail to try and resolve the matter privately and failing that I would probably invoke the three strike rule. After three warnings, I would simply ban those who were not interested in participating politely.

That may seem harsh, and I am sure that it would cause problems for some who would see it as the resurrection of the fascist state, but keeping company on this site is a privilege, not a right. As such, it can be revoked when that privilege is no longer warranted.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not believe PeterK wants to employ censorship of ANY kind...on the other hand, there is a VERY distinct line between what we say and how we say it.

For ALL of Daniel2's endless threads...I don't believe there EVER came a point where he made fun of people by altering their screen names, or calling them stupid or ignorant or whatever the case may be. He stated his very polarized opinion...often. But, he did it in such a way as to cloak it in logic and, in many cases, a profound and interesting point of view that at least made people think. There have been a few posters that simply prefer to call someone a dumbass or wonder, aloud, at how idiotic they are for considering such-and-such's score MUSIC. Being human, I myself have faltered and succumbed to base, animalistic desires to defend my favorite composer at all costs.

My point here is twofold...1) there is no NEED to defend a composer, per se. Every composer has his attractors and detractors. Accept it and move on. and b) (hehehe)...before you post something, be aware that we all share one thing in common: music for film. Some of us may not think certain scores qualify as music (can anyone say Altered States is listenable music?) and some of us may think that a certain composer (who shall remain nameless) has no talent. Regardless of that opinion, there are those of us who DO think Altered States qualifies as complex and very listenable music and some of us think the only good definition of a hack is someone who says they write music for a film, but get someone else to write it for them and take all the credit (which happens, mind you).

We are a community. As far as moviemusic.com is concerned, we are a GROWING community. There WILL be conflict of opinion. There will be dissention in the ranks. But we MUST remember why we are here (at least 99.9% of us)...to discuss a particular sort of passion that we just cannot explain to anyone who doesn't share it.

We ARE brothers and sisters here...I believe that with all my heart. Some of you I like, some of you I like a little less and some of you I don't know well enough, or at all, to form an opinion about, but, personally, I would like that to change. The more we open up to one another and become friendly, the more we realize that, regardless of beliefs (Brad and I will NEVER totally agree on Horner, though I must admit I tend to acquiesce more to his point of view than he does to mine...isn't that right Bradley?), we do share our love of film music. And, at least in THIS forum, that should be enough!

HEY LOU...ya didn't bring any fleas back with ya I hope!

NP: Cyrano de Bergerac (anyone got the lowdown on which was composed first, Cyrano or Batman, because somebody's rippin somebody off here)!

Lou, I sincerely appreciate your thoughts. I know you didn't take a couple of minutes out of the day to say what you had to say, it most probably took an hour to gather all of your thoughts and type them out.

This place is free, and ever changing. My suggestion of "charitable" as a rule is not to be charitable when you are talking about a Hans Zimmer score, rather be charitable when discussing or debating the issues with someone you don't agree with. I don't mean "agree to disagree" either. What I do mean by charitable is to hear someone out, acknowledge and fully try and understand what it is they are saying, and respectfully disagree. Go after what they are saying, and not who they are. That's all.

Accepting people's attacks on each other, instead of their ideas and words, is something I will never do. I have seen enough flame wars in my life to wonder if there is any more fuel left to run our automobiles. That's what was so repugnant about rec.music.movies. I haven't been there for a good number of years, it might have changed, but that is beside the point. I know the fruitfulness of a forum like this, and I'd like to be a part of a place that doesn't go bad. Fresh fruit, all the time.
Preventing this place from becoming a flame war zone like rec.music.movies was, where there are no rules, is priority number one. This will never change. That's as hard as I get. I am not a cop on the internet. I hated the spiteful character of rec.music.movies. I thought I could make a better place. That's were I draw the line here.

That's it for now! The owner just threw me some CHICKEN!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoeInSanDiego:
For ALL of Daniel2's endless threads...I don't believe there EVER came a point where he made fun of people by altering their screen names, or calling them stupid or ignorant or whatever the case may be. He stated his very polarized opinion...often. But, he did it in such a way as to cloak it in logic and, in many cases, a profound and interesting point of view that at least made people think.

---

This simple isn't true at all.

DANIEL2 first appearences on "that" board were highly offensive and provokative. Anyone who was there at that time will remember his non-stop CAPS LOCK ON posts where he wrote some incredible nasty things about Jerry Goldsmith on a personal level. Not much differente from Pluto and similars...
But since he got such a bad reaction from the crowd, he simple decided to change the way he expressed himself to the ill "politically correct" dialect. So, instead of writing "Goldsmith is an old fart" he now writes "Goldsmith's pants and has no CSM". APLAUSES FROM THE CROWD!!
It's all the same provokative and repetitive threads, but now disguised in well-tought, polite bablings that seems to please so many around.

The only thing I can say about this whole subject is: I don't care much about his (or anyone) crazy theories. I'm sure that in past ancient cientists and religious had incredible and well tought, logical and, in many cases, a profound and interesting explanations about why Earth was flat.

The only thing that bothered me (and others) was how he insisted in repeating his theories over and over and over on endless and overwhelming threads and posts. So the guy wants to humilliate himself by proving that Earth is flat? Great. Do it. It's his right. But, please, don't pollute the area with 13 new endless threads about the same subject every week...

Now, tell me honestly: does any of you believe I would stay on this board two minutes after I started my # 12 thread to say what I think about "Gladiator" again just this week??? I started just ONE trhead weeks ago to express my opinions towards that flick and its score - without any name calling or simple "HANS ZIMMER SUCKS!!" statements - and was almost flamed by some people...

But a very positivie thing I must say: DANIEL2 is not the same person here. He's improved and much more bearable now.

As for the rest... Just read Lou Goldberg posts. He's said it all!

André Lux, the warned one

MWR--As I said in my posts, the site is private. So I agree with you that "keeping company on this site is a privlege not a right." I haven't said otherwise. Also, I said in my post that in a very few understandable situations, the freedom of speech can be curtailed. However, I'm dubious about how our country has created laws or enforced and interpreted laws involving "Incitement to Riot" or "Threat to Overthrow the Government." A lot of people have been deported over the years in red scares and not too long ago a woman was arrested and made to pay a percentage of the damages for showing her breasts to a crowd who later caused property damage. Her action was considered an incitement to riot.

While it is the law of the land and there is nothing much I can do about it, I have never agreed with the Supreme Court on the 1957 Ross case that failed to protect Pornography under the First Amendment. I don't believe in the "community standards" arguement because it is vague and undefined and fails to take in the rights of a minority or individual point of view. That doesn't mean it hasn't been used to shut down unwanted businesses, to harrass and jail citizens, but again, there's nothing much I can do about that. And don't even get me started on the recent Court's decision on nude dancing, that the states can ban it, that G-Strings are still enough to get the erotic idea across and so a freer (i.e., nude) expression isn't protected. These are such stains on the idea of free expression that it makes me ashamed to be an American. Other countries may be worse, but that still doesn't say much for ours. I think it is necessary to equate freedom of speech with rudeness and boorish behavior, it's precisely this form of expression that would be impossible without the freedom. If I take that idea to its logical conclusion there isn't much behavior that wouldn't be permissible and I like that, that's OK by me as long as no one hits me or forces me to shut up. Of course these are just my opinions about the world at large and I don't expect people to agree with me on them any more than they do about which composers they should like or ignore. But since you brought the ideas up in your reply, I thought I'd address them from my perspective.

Andre Lux.

Since I’m just a couple of years behind Jerry Goldsmith, I am hardly likely to refer to him as an ‘old fart’. I might call myself an ‘old fart’….you may think of me as an old fart…..but since I’ve never met JG, or engaged in internet ‘chat’ with him, I am in no position to pass personal judgement on the guy. He may well be an ‘old fart’, personally speaking, but that’s beside the point….I’m here to discuss his music, not to ponder in which room of the house he cuts his toenails. Having said that, I have never said anything nasty about Goldsmith, or any other composer…on a personal level. I may criticize a small portion of Goldsmith’s work in the strongest of terms, but that does not amount to a personal attack…at least not in my book….perhaps others do equate a criticism of a composers’ work as a personal attack, to those Goldsmith-fans I may have offended, I apologise. Let me put it this way, if I were an artist, and my paintings were being displayed, and I read a scathing critical attack of my work in the newspaper, or overheard someone commenting “Cunningham’s work is rubbish”, I would be personally hurt….its only natural….so, in many ways an attack on someone’s artistic creation does amount to a ‘personal’ attack. However, if I was merely an admirer of ‘Cunningham’s’ paintings, and on viewing said paintings, overheard someone describing my idol’s work as “Cunningham’s work is rubbish”, I may be a little indignant, but I wouldn’t necessarily take it to heart.

You see, though I am a big fan of Zimmer’s film scores, I have no problem in accepting other peoples’ criticism (including yours Andre Lux). Indeed, such discussion can only broaden my appreciation of his work. Hearing someone denigrate Zimmer’s work doesn’t alter the fact that I appreciate his work, but only stimulates further thought on the merits and drawbacks of his output. I have learnt to appreciate yours and anyone else’s alternative Zimmer viewpoint….that can only be a positive thing….I have learnt a lot in the process.

At the end of the day, Zimmer, Goldsmith, and the rest, are highly paid and very successful professionals at the peak of their profession….and since their work is for public-consumption, they must live with the fact that the paying public should be allowed to comment on their output. For instance, if Goldsmith composed a personal piece of music intended only for his family’s ears, and that piece of music somehow got ‘leaked’ into the public arena, then it may be wrong for an outsider to criticize that piece, since it was never intended for public consumption. All of Goldsmith’s work that I have criticized has been written specifically to be incorporated within a movie that is intended for consumption by the paying public.

Now, once again you misrepresent me. I don’t mind you talking about me, your personal obsessions are your own business, but I must correct you on a few things.

I have said many things I regret (or at least regret HAVING had to say them) at this message board, and at the FSM message board….it’s only natural that one oversteps the line of decent conduct once in a while. However, my early posts at the FSM message were in caps lock, not because I was ‘shouting’, but because I was unaware of message board etiquette….my mistake, and something I quickly rectified.

Many of my posts at the FSM board were rather gauche, and despite my best efforts here, many continue to be, but it is only natural that my approach to posting messages evolves. Though I have no friends here at the message board, to actively alienate would be counter productive….apart from the fact I would (quite rightly) be banned, if no-one responds to anything I post, then I would cease to broaden my own understanding of the film-scoring world. I am sure that many visitors to the board actively avoid what I post anyway, so if you want to reduce the effect of what I write Andre Lux, just ignore what I post…..all you ever seem to do is ‘fan the flames’….I don’t mind, I’ll continue to state my opinions ‘til the cows come home.

Your ‘the Earth is flat’ analogy would be very good, but for the fact that, based on Zimmer’s immense popularity, there seems to be an awful lot of ‘the Earth is flat’ proponents out there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DANIEL2:
Your ‘the Earth is flat’ analogy would be very good, but for the fact that, based on Zimmer’s immense popularity, there seems to be an awful lot of ‘the Earth is flat’ proponents out there.

---

Indeed. Just like in the midle ages, when the "Earth's flat" theory was immensely popular...
And those who didn't agree with it were burned in the stake - the same that happens around here when someone don't agree with the Zimmer worshiping...

Thanks DANIEL.
You just proved my point - once again!!

In the Middle Ages people may have been victimized for voicing an alternative opinion…however, in our enlightened modern society, the ‘alternative opinion’ is welcomed, nay treasured.

OK, OK, vote me off this island.

The question has more to do with what people expect from each other when they get here.

At times I have vehement opinions on subjects that I hold in check because I believe that my comment would (a) be misinterpreted as a flame and engender a flame war, or (b) be offensive.

Obviously, these two things are quite interrelated. I, for example, was recently quite offended by Daniel2's comments on the "Realization of Stupidity" thread. I debated responding to the first one, and decided that if I had to reign in my opinions every time I had them I would get quite frustrated. As a result, I decided that I would post my opinion on what he said. Daniel2, to his credit, took it in his stride. No one else took it as bait, so I guess my judgment proved correct in this case.

I have myself always avoided the threads that looked like they might descend into flame wars. Checking out my posting history, you will find that I basically have three kinds of posts:
a) Recommending or agreeing with someone else's recommendation
b) Participation in humorous threads
c) My serious comments about film music art and theory

I figure, for the most part, if I stick to these, my own opinions get expressed, and I won't have to deal with anything I find personally offensive (Daniel2 did not personally offend me). What this means is that I decide what I will or will not participate in based on whether I have something new to say about the topic or whether I think that it is a thread that will bear fruitful discussion.

I think that a decision like the one above should fall upon the members rather than on the board itself. While I certainly understand the need for a certain amount of restrictions placed on the board, I find that most of them are unnecessary.

Whether one is wearing ‘rose-tinted spectacles’ or is simply viewing the world with a jaundiced eye, Zimmer and Horner’s immense talent, accomplished craftsmanship, and dextrous artistry, is always plainly apparent. One doesn't need to view the world through a fog of Munchkin-land/LAST OF THE MOHICANS/marshmallow-conformity to appreciate their abilities.

Andre Lux and SPOR

I don’t know about Disneyland….I live in England….it’s a small and, these days, insignificant country that has a bit of history behind it. The countryside is green and pleasant, the land is peopled, on the whole, by good, everyday folk. Like anywhere else in the world, children sometimes get murdered, old ladies sometimes get raped, people sometimes have their property stolen or damaged…..so, just like anywhere else in the world there’s good and there’s bad. Likewise, some people support Manchester United Football Club, some support Liverpool FC, some support neither, some don’t have any interest in football in the first place, some prefer rugby union to football, some like rugby and football, and some like neither. People have different opinions on many things…sport, politics, education, social services, transport, law enforcement, etc etc etc. The great thing is, people are allowed to express their own personal opinion without fear of victimization, personal injury or punishment from the state (or, increasingly so, from society as a whole)….oh, that’s where a bit of England’s history comes in. The small matter of the Magna Carta (signed in 1215 AD), a charter that established the fundamental rights and freedoms of an Englishman……a philosophy that has since been embraced by all the free world….for instance, the American Constitution itself, apart from being inspired by the philosophies of a group of Englishmen, most notably John Locke of Wrington, Somerset, England, is based on the Magna Carta…..whole chunks of the Magna Carta also form the American Constitution.

It’s taken all of those 800 years since that document was signed to get to the enlightened and tolerant society we all enjoy today….but of course, there is still much to be done. However, just in my lifetime (I was born in 1932), western society has developed and refined to a far greater degree than in all of the preceding 700 years put together. Just 100 years ago, here in England itself, women were unable to vote, the class system perpetuated the poverty experienced by the majority of the British people (and don’t think it was much different in America…..Victorian America with its Tammany Hall tactics had just as many ‘evils’ as mother-England) and anyone who dared raise his VOICE at the establishment was likely to be punished and victimized by the state. Just 100 years before that, the famed Royal Navy was ensuring Britain’s supremacy of all of the world’s oceans….but boy, what a price to pay…..civil liberties meant absolutely nothing in those days….able-bodied men were press-ganged into the navy, and then had to endure months at sea living under the harshest of conditions….flogging for the most minor misdemeanour, washing one’s clothes in one’s own urine, eating maggot-covered biscuits, etc etc etc.

But nowadays, the bolstering of and the protection of civil liberties is the number one issue in today’s enlightened western societies. Civil liberties manifest themselves in all areas of politics, from home issues to UN intervention overseas. As the great American president Bill Clinton has often said, “Fear of the other is the biggest single evil within society today”. And he’s right, prejudice and bigotry are still there, but now western governments and societies have raised the living standards of their citizens to an acceptable degree, and now the western world is basically at peace, our politicians and our citizens can concentrate on refining and strengthening civil liberties with little distraction.

Political correctness is an important tool by which society can mature further and continue to improve civil liberties. Political correctness allows the so-called minorities within our society to be fully integrated, it allows those people who ‘look different’ or ‘ behave differently’ to be welcomed into society as a whole (not least by those Conservatives and blue-bloods who see themselves as ‘normal’ (WASPs for instance) jettisoning their prejudices and compromising their short-sighted bigotry, and embracing the cultural freedom that is being pursued by society as a whole).

Indeed, political correct encourages the pursuit of the alternative lifestyle and of the alternative opinion…..how else can society progress without having the courage to face up to the alternative point of view? Whilst there is an alternative opinion, and whilst there are people who ‘ignore’ or ‘despise’ that opinion without first understanding it, there is will always be prejudice and bigotry. However, I am not saying that the ‘alternative opinion’ should be understood and then agreed with…no, I am saying that the ‘alternative opinion’ should be understood and then accepted by those in opposition as the rights of another to freedom of choice….the basic rights of an Englishman…..just so long as that opinion, expressed or acted upon, falls within the acceptable framework of societies institutions.

And I must say that if you post another one of these posts you'll convice someone that Earth's indeed flat, that's for sure!!

Are you trying to tell me the Earth ISN’T flat….!?

My only bout with jaundice my good man, followed the prick of a befouled inoculation in grade school. Fortunately, I was born into an age which possessed both the knowledge and the technology to cleanse my blood. If it were not for this favourable circumstance, I would not be living at this moment to recount it.

Relax. SPOR will find out.

Attn: SPOR

When you do...you'll know what to do.

Que nojo...

Anyway, this conversation is highly off-topic.
You guys are warned.

It is comforting to hear how satisfied you are with life….I’m so pleased you are happy with your lot.

If you believe my ‘interpretation’ of history to be ‘misconstrued’, I can only assume you have been taking all of those conformist and politically-correct ‘distortions of history’ movies, such as BRAVEHEART, LAST OF THE MOHICANS, and U-571, too seriously.

You might wanna take off that blindfold SPOR...might give ya a better perspective on things.

From what you say, perhaps there IS a neon light flashing ‘PROGRESS, THIS WAY’……maybe in your eyes it’s flashing over communist North Korea or Tiananmen Square.
To be honest, I am yet to meet the sort of ‘libertarian’ you have in mind who’s worth his weight in ‘expanded polystyrene’.

Anyway, I've saved some ham and eggs I regurgitated earlier….funny, they always taste better the second time round.

Brad Wills

Who actually defines which movies are designed to make money?
What movie isn’t designed to make money? (apart from wartime propaganda movies, maybe)
If a movie that isn’t designed to make money does exist, what is its purpose?
Who is in a position to label a movie ‘historical hokum’ or ‘social commentary’?
If a movie that isn’t designed to make money does exist, who is to say it isn’t historically inaccurate or politically biased?

The fact is, THE DAILY SHOW news program on Comedy Central is specifically designed to amuse….and yet, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone out there does take it seriously. Though Great Britian, as H Rocco recently said, has a reputation for eccentricity (another Hollywood cliché that bears little relation to fact), there are people who follow EASTENDERS (a thrice weekly UK soap opera) and believe the events portrayed are actually happening in the ‘real world’.

Okay, that may be an extreme case, but, although movies such as LAST OF THE MOHICANS and BRAVEHEART are rather amusing on an historically inaccurate basis, they are not specifically designed to amuse…..therefore, there is a stronger likelihood of a certain portion of the audience taking at least part of the movie as gospel.

You see, it’s a gradual thing. Add up all of the bits and pieces of historical (and sometimes contemporary) inaccuracy found in such politically-correct movies as BRAVEHEART, LAST OF THE MOHICANS, RESTORATION, THE PATRIOT, U-571, THE DEVIL’S OWN etc, and you’ve got a pretty strong case against the British….and very little of it justified.

THE DEVIL’S OWN is a prime example of a movie that could potentially influence a portion of the audience (particularly those who are not resident in the UK and have not been exposed to the IRA’s past campaign of vile terrorism in Northern Ireland and on mainland Britain). The story portrayed the IRA terrorists in a glowing light…..as romantic and charming freedom fighters. Such was Pakula’s naïvete, the British, to a man, were portrayed as sadistic and supercilious. This movie could have been construed as an outright insult to the people of Northern Ireland, the victims of IRA terrorism, and the British people as a whole….but, okay, to you and me, it was only a film (and a pretty good one too, only let down by the childish final third of the movie.….absolutely great ‘Celtic’ score from Horner)…however, to someone out there, it may have appeared an accurate reflection of reality…..after all, who is to tell that person otherwise?

PS…you probably weren’t around circa 1940, when a large section of the listening AMERICAN public ran screaming into the streets during a certain Orson Welles radio broadcast……………

I rest my case……for a brief moment.

I believe that it is no coincidence that cinema’s unprecedented growth and further sophistication during the 90’s has coincided with the welcome rapid decline of the so-called ‘message movie’ (and any of its comically naïve offshoots), and now has very little or no part to play in our modern, intelligent, mature and enlightened cinema. Hollywood, and our enlightened society as a whole, has moved on from such primitive and archaic movie-making practices.

I'm a proponent of free speech and freedom of action for individuals in general. The usual opposing force is government, but government isn't the only Big Brother there is. Corporations own most of the media in the US: film studios, newspapers, television news, etc. There is always an editor, a gatekeeper, deciding what people will know or not know. There is an alternative press of course. Here, on the internet, we have a chance to discuss openly in a grassroots/alternative manner free from editing and gatekeeping. And on this site, we get to discuss films and music within that framework. Different people express their opinions differently and for some that means violating the rule against personal attacks. Now perhaps the rude amongst us add nothing to discussions or just plain annoy people, but so what? We can tolerate this. Or are we some kind of wealthy gentleman's private club where old people sit around in overstuffed chairs being served by waiters and demanding absolute silence?

What were to happen if the rude amongst us outnumbered the charitable amongst us? Would the charitable tolerate the annoying, zero-contribution to this place by the naysayers? I don't think so.

And that's who I am. Just a bean counter who's keeping track of the number of rudies and non-rudies.

You know, when I think about things after stepping back, our situation here on this message board is really quite healthy. Because we are talking things over doesn't prove an overwhelming majority of folks aren't happy here. Personally, I like this place. I like how it's evolved (which nearly has nothing to do with my administrative genius as it does all of you here and your personalities and contributions). Occasionally, I have to put up with the guy who's proclaimed himself a non-contributor - a guy who will only post off-topic and rude comments because this is his place for entertainment - but this is to be expected. One in a bunch is but a wart that can be removed.

PeterK

To me, Brad Pitt's character came off as a fanatic willing to do anything for his cause. He would betray if needed and kill as needed. I didn't feel a bit sorry for him or his friends, feeling that they got what they deserved, if only a little too late.

Lou,

I understand what you're saying, but at what point is rudeness too much? I am not talking about brash confrontation over ideas, but just bad manners. You want to present an offensive idea? Go ahead. But what I suggest is that it not be insulting or demeaning to its intended audience. In some ways, it is a really bad strategy. If you want to win someone to your cause, you shouldn't insult them.

How rude would someone have to be before you considered him over the line? Would he merely insult you? Send hate mail directly to you? Hack your system and post your private emails in a public forum. Take every opportunity to belittle or humiliate you? Make disparaging comments about your tastes in music?