rohanaka

Because of the fact that people who have been known to create very unpleasant and very disruptive situations on this message board were "banned"... but not really banned, because they can (and do) just come right back under a new name (and the "proof" for that if anyone cares is that at least a couple of these "banned" individuals have even admitted that they were banned and came back under a new name) then it does create a level of mistrust for those who wish to keep conversations with those people at arms length. For example: if someone were to openly hurl insults at you and verbally assault you and make all sorts of derogatory comments about you and your ancestors too (simply for stating your opinion about something) and then, say for example, this person is later banned and yet still allowed to come back (either openly or in hiding under a new and "improved" more "friendly" identity) where is the protection for the person who was assaulted to be able to avoid this person? Well, the current code of conduct only allows for one remedy at present. The "ignore" feature. And so NOW (as a result) because there is no way to tell who is who and whether or not people really ARE new or just the same old rude, disruptive, impolite, self-centered, meanspirited individual parading around under a new name... some people on here are reluctant to take others at "face value" any more. It hasn't always been that way, and it was a long time coming. But over time, that is the end result for those who have welcomed people in the past (only to get slapped in the face again by the same old "rude and disruptive" person.) So now, some (who have been the victim of that sort or behavior on more than one occassion) feel it is very hard to "get to know" anyone they don't already know (because it might already BE someone they know but would rather not) And THAT is the saddest thing of all. Because I am sure there are real people who get caught in the cross fire. I feel that this is the REAL victory that the above mentioned rude and impolite people have gained here more than any other (by their present ability to manipulate the code of conduct.) They have been able to cause many otherwise friendly people who are not normally so "skeptical" of other people's motives to constantly have to rethink whether or not someone really IS a "new member" or just the same old "rude and impolite person" in disguise. It is truly a shame that this sort of situation has been allowed to go on (and on and on) for so long primarily because there is no rule in the present code of conduct to prevent it. And that is the bottom line for those who wish to see the code of conduct improved. But truthfully, I still am of the opinion that even if it were changed to no longer provide an easy form of manipulation by the above mentioned "impolite people" some of them will still be here... hiding in "plain sight" because this has gone on for so long, it may never be able to be completely corrected. But the one good thing that would happen (if the code of conduct were to be improved by prohibiting the use of multiple names all at once, and banning the "person" and not just the identity) is that at the VERY least SOME of the mess could be cleaned up. And it would give the people who ARE concerned about this issue (and I freely concede that not everyone IS concerned about this issue) some sense of peace that the web administrators truly do understand and are taking our real concerns seriously. And for the record, to anyone who gets "miffed" because their posts go unanswered, I can only say two things about that: First of all, it is a free country and no one is ever under any obligation to answer anyone else.... at all. Everyone is free to post here (so long as they are respectful and do not violate the rules of the code of conduct) but no one here is ever "owed" a reply to anything they say on this message board. And secondly, for anyone "miffed" because their posts go unanswered (and is feeling they are being unfairly ignored), get "miffed" at the people who caused this situation in the first place.. the rude, impolite people (mentioned above) who have created an atmosphere on this message board where possibly innocent people (who really are just regular people and not the above mentioned rude and impolite people in disguise) might occasionally be overlooked by people who are usually not in the habit of ignoring ANYONE but are only trying to defend themselves with the one and only legitimate option left open to them (the option to ignore). And that is the ugly and sad truth of it. And also for the record, it is not a "clique" if a group of people (who feel they have been targeted by the above mentioned rude and impolite" people) only post in a few threads here and remain there simply because they themselves have been made to feel unwelcome to post anywhere else (again by the actions of the above mentioned rude and impolite people) It is a natural thing for people to "stick with" what they know and also WHO they know, especially when they feel threatened. (and again.. that is a direct result of the sort of atmosphere that has been created by the above mentioned rude and impolite people who have been able to manipulate the weak wording in the present code of conduct) I have made some very good friends on this message board. And evidently some really rotten enemies (if the recent spewing fountain of rude insults hurled at me is any indication) If someone feels they are the target of a bully, (who simply waits for the moment to spring up and slap you down for sport) I think it is a natural thing to go looking for a "group" of like minded people to hang out with if only so they feel they can at least still participate on this message board at all. There is strength in numbers. And if that gives the appearance of a "clique" then again, please be sure to thank the rude and impolite people (some of whom readily admit they have been banned and yet were able to come back on this message board under another user name) who continue to manipulate the weak wording in the present code of conduct for sport... because they are the very ones who have created this situation in the first place. Edited by: rohanaka on Jul 17, 2010 5:26 PM

It's all done with just eyes and the director's camera work That is one of my most favorite parts of that film. She really is a completely different "Hannah" by the end of the movie from the one she started out as at the beginning.

> {quote:title=TCMWebAdmin wrote:}{quote} > Please continue your debate in the mature and orderly fashion as it has been posted. Renee, I appreciate your comments and I do understand that your job must be a very difficult one. Edited by: rohanaka on Jul 16, 2010 1:03 PM

Yes, I shall attend some of the Hi-Def scrreenings of Alfred Hitchcock's films at the Symphony Space. I'm sure it will blow my mind. First Mann.. and now Hitchcock.. you are one lucky gal. I hope to read all about it. burning dandelion fields down to the ground Perish the thought. They are my favorite. Almost like a calla lily.. such a strange flower.. and suitable to any occassion.... ha.

Hi there Miss G: Re: Hitch's least favorite blonde.. I wonder if she would look any friendlier with dandelions in her hair??? :-) PS: Miss Maven.. I am with the Grey Dude.. are you GOING??? Inquiring minds wanna know!! (Golly you New York people get all the fun) :-) PS: Hiya Ollie.. re: your thread "ownership" suggestion. I like it. (if only... sigh) :-)

Jackie.. I saw the last 60 seconds of it (in that foggy field) and I even thought to myself then, "Is THIS the movie I THINK it is (because I recognized her face) OH me.. it was pretty amazing ending. But I have no idea if I would like the rest of the story or not. (I bet.. based only on what little I already know and what I saw in the last 60 seconds) that I would imagine (at least) HER part of the story ended to my liking (ha) but then again.. I might be judging it wrong since I don't really know that for sure. And I don't know about the guy w/ her (whether I would feel the same about him or not) But gee.. what a great set up at the end w/ all all the boggy foggy stuff going on. PS: Miss G.. not your fault. ha. I should have checked the schedule myself and reminded you to remind ME. ha. I never look at that thing until it is TOO late to do me any good. As in: I will see something on and wonder what it is.. .and go look it up and say.. DOGGONE, I can't believe I MISSED that. HA. (did I mention I am a dope??) ha. As for the other ones that were on.. I more or less missed them too.. although I DID catch about 30 seconds of one (where these little kids were lost in some sort of woods and a cougar was chasing them (and the little boy unloaded a gun on that cat) OH me.. he just kept firing and firing (all 6 shots) to scare that thing away.. and all I could think of was I hoped that cougar couldn't count. ha. Too scary. I had to turn the channel after that.

Renee, I appreciate your comments and I do understand that your job must be a very difficult one. I think that whatever happens w/ the Code of Conduct... whether it gets changed as we have asked, or whether it remains the same, or something in between... I firmly believe that the problems many of us are concerned about on this message board truly are not going away any time soon. So I guess what I am saying is (with all due respect) that so long as banned people (or multinamed people) are allowed to continue to post on here at will with no recourse offered to those who feel they have been a target of the said "people formerly called trolls" then these sorts of issues are going to continue to give you (what I am sure must be) a really tough time here. You have my sympathy on that. Because I can guarantee you that so long as this sort of "stuff" is allowed in the present code of conduct.. it will flourish and prosper like some sort of ugly garden weed. (forgive the analogy.. but if you could see my flowerbed right now, you'd know where I got that reference, ha) Because even something that LOOKS so pretty and benign as a "dandelion" can turn your entire lawn into an UGLY mess as it blows its fluffy little seeds all over the place and infects your yard. And that is what these multiple identities (with their seemingly benign posts plastered all over the place everywhere) have done... they have turned this message board into one big huge playground covered in seemingly pretty little yellow flowers. But we (who have enjoyed posting here for some time now and attempted to do so honestly w/out trying to deceive and manipulate our fellow posters) still know that these seemingly "pretty" little flowers are really just weeds. And once they move in.. they are nearly impossible to get rid of. So... again.. I appreciate your willingness to allow this thread to continue to at least give us some voice here on this message board... and if the little yellow flowers continue to pop up (even here, in the one place I had hoped we could TRY to remain "weed free") then so be it. At least HERE (in this thread) I can still call a weed a weed. And I guess everywhere else (if I want to continue to post on this board) I will have to get used to all the ugly yellow stains on the bottom of my shoes as I try to step over and around the "pseudo flowers". Thanks again for your attention to this matter. And for your willingness to hear our concerns.

Dadgum, Miss G.. I missed GUN CRAZY. (I forgot to ask my secretaries to check the TCM schedule for me) I am such a dope, BAH. ha.

Beautiful screen caps, Miss G. You really have picked some terrific images to share here. Mary Beecher." There's that name again, Mary! It's a grand old name! (ha) And Beecher (like Harriet Beecher Stowe?) OH, you stole my thought. HA!! I had thought of that (when I was watching the film) but forgot it until you mentioned it here.. I wonder if that IS a reference or not. She bursts at the seams with whatever she's feeling and she really shows appeal and indignation very well "Bursting at the seams" is a great way to describe her. I really have to say that I liked her performance in this film a lot. (I can't say it was GREAT, but it was very good.. and I liked her character a LOT) How supercilious Carleton Young's expression was...how he wagged those Mickey Mouses in poor Constance's face. Man was he ever a bully. And if there is anything I can't abide.. it is a bully. ha. They really get my goat, ha. OH my goodness, what an arrogant chump. He really knew how to twist the truth to his own advantage when he wanted to. GOOD GRAVY, I wanted to kick him in the shins or something. (ha.. I take my movies way to seriously sometimes,ha) He was so annoying it took me a while to figure out where I recognized him from (TMWSLV) ha. I think I like him better as a "legend maker" than a "truth twister" ha.

Hi my little twin. I am sorry to hear you have been under the weather. Hope you are feeling MUCH better soon. (I look forward to your comments on Sgt Rutledge too. Nice to see you stopping by!)

Mr. Bogle.. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion. But so am I. And so are the others who post in this thread that desire to see a change in the code of conduct. Once again.. by arguing your point HERE (in the ONE thread that was started to give a public place to post for those who wish to see the code of conduct changed) you are both A) taking the thread off topic every time you post., and being disrespectful of the rights of others who simply want to discuss this issue without being hounded by those who do not agree. My goodness.. it is a BIG message board. Surely there are other places you could post (about how you feel there should be no change in the present code) without constantly interrupting the folks here. Once again I suggest that if you feel the need to express an opposing point of view.. feel free to start your own thread and leave those of us who do desire a change in the code of conduct the freedom to post in peace. And since you brought up what is "reasonable".... For the record, I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow ONE thread to be set aside for those of us who want to pursue this issue with the moderators to post without constantly being asked to defend our position to those who may disagree with us. And it would be especially polite of you to quit asking for ?proof? from us regarding the serious and valid concerns we have been expressing to the web administrators about this subject. How do you even know if the things you have asked for have not already been discussed (in private) with the web administrators? It is not to you that an answer is owed, so again, if you wish for people to give "proof" here, you are likely barking up the wrong tree. And may I also add that these constant interruptions and demands for ?proof? are not only rude, disruptive, and unnecessary, but also (in my opinion) something along the lines of harassment. I will, however, agree to respond to your question about "how many" socks do I think there are on here ( if only to satisfy your burning curiosity) The truth is, I have no earthly idea. But THAT, dear sir, is the point. I think (if I have read your post correctly) that you are not denying the fact that there are people posting on here under more than one name. (Not that we need YOUR agreement with us to make that true.. but it is at least good to hear you say it) I personally believe (for very valid reasons that I DO NOT have to explain to you) that there are at least a few people on this message board who currently post under more than one name (and do so for less than friendly reasons) And some of these people are likely posting under NUMEROUS names. But really, if even ONE person is actively posting on here using more than one name at a time, they are misleading their fellow posters and practicing deceptive behavior. So while this all might sound (on the surface) as a "molehill being made into a mountain", the bottom line is that ONE "sock" is one too many if it allows a person to mislead others, play one group of people against the other, stir up conversations by making outrageous claims or statements with one identity (and then arguing the opposite side with another) and commit all sorts of other ridiculous and unnecessary distractions and harmful acts on this message board(including stalking and following certain people with whom they hold a grudge). And furthermore, by allowing people to post under more than one identity all at the same time, it makes it entirely too easy for someone who has been banned (for committing some sort of major infraction ) to simply return to the board falsely under their other (or new) name and just pick right up where they left off. As a result, many of us who feel we have been victimized by the deceptive people (formerly called ?trolls?) who have caused trouble on here in the past are then forced to pick and chose who we feel safe to talk to or not. (which truly is a saddest and most unfortunate side effect of this whole thing) If even ONE person can be a sock (because the code of conduct does not prohibit such behavior) then it is pretty much open season for any and all meanspirited and deceptive people to frolic about on here and take advantage of unsuspecting victims at will And I say again, that no one (be they an ant... or any legitimate poster on this board) will be harmed by changing the present code of conduct in an attempt to prevent this sort of behavior (except for the only ones who wish to deceive or to stir up trouble here for sport.) so I have yet to understand why any reasonable person would have an issue with the changes that are being suggested here. Since this is my last comment to you in this thread on this subject, I will speak plainly. Ultimately what I am saying to you is this: you feel one way about all this.. and those of us who desire to see the code of conduct change feel differently. We get it. You've made you point. And so now what is the use of going on and on and on after that? You have not changed our mind.. and we have not changed yours. So I respectfully request that you please quit pounding on the ONE door left open to those of us who truly feel there is a problem here and let us post our public comments (to the web administrators) on this matter in peace. And once again, in the interest of what is reasonable and fair, you should feel free to post your opposing points of view elsewhere if you really have something you want to say. I am simply suggesting that you cease your constant argument HERE in this thread. (the one created as a platform to publicly discuss with the web admins a desire to change the present code of conduct) It would be nice (and VERY refreshing ) for those of us who wish to see a change made in the code of conduct to be able to have at least ONE thread on this whole entire message board to simply express our opinions openly with the web administrators and with each other without all the distractions and interruptions from people who are free (and should be willing) to post their opposing points of view somewhere else . Miss Goddess, please accept my humble apologies for any distractions I may have caused here in this thread regarding the topics you have wished to discuss. And to the Web Administrators (specifically Renee) I will simply say that I do appreciate your efforts to hear our concerns and take the matters mentioned here seriously. And I appreciate your willingness to let us voice these concerns to you here in this thread (and in private as well.) Thank you for your time and consideration. Edited by: rohanaka on Jul 15, 2010 1:47 AM

OH and PS: I have several more posts with visually interesting shots I hope you enjoy Goodie!!! I bet they will be terrific. (if you take requests..ha.. I was not kidding the other day when I said that "darkening" courtroom scene (at the beginning of Constance's testimony) made me sit forward in my seat and catch my breath. It really was something.) :-)

My apologies for the goof. HA!! Miss G... don't feel too bad.. ha. I totally missed the word "blocks" in your post and was seeing the pinks and greens in the smoke (at the train tracks) ha. I thought THAT is what you were referring to. ha. (as for "blocks.. I know little about Hitch.. so I was not even thinking of that so much as the comparison in style.. with regard to the suspense and the "shocker" moments in those caps... first the body.. and then Woody's hand) ha. So.. your original post still made sense to me. ha. I have a long way to go to catch up w/ you in your ability to catch those sorts of things.. so you were impressing the heck out of ME. (even w/out your confessed 'boo boo" HA!) PS: the Forensics team says it does appear that the arrow entered from the front (see the feathers) but it is not a conclusive report yet.. Unfortunately there was no autopsy so we are only working from photographs here, ha) I want to go back and look at that scene again (were there any drag marks.. to indicate he was "placed" there after death? If not... then the "stumble" theory may be where I am leaning.. But I also want to see if there is a door.. or window on the other side of the bed.. because then the arrow COULD have entered from the front w/ him kneeling there... (but then he would have likely fallen backward instead of forward.. so I am not thinking that is the case) Ha.. Ha.. listen to me...I am such a Brenda Leigh Wannabe, I DO have a mouth that just keeps going and going.. and I LOVE her stash of candy too.. ha. But sadly: A) I don't wear lipstick.. and my hair is NO where near as lovely.. and C) Let's don't EVEN begin to compare figures. ha. So that is likely as close as I will ever get to being "The Closer".

OH wow.. Miss G!!!!!! (Woody is welcome to the party anytime, gal) "Startling" is the right word for it too. Those caps are really first rate and you have brought out something about this film that really does stand out a lot in my mind. There were some truly striking and captivating visuals w/ this one. This scene reminded me strongly of Hitchcock, especially with the expressionistic "blocks" of color (pink, green, blue) And THANKS for putting a name to it. (Hitchcock) I see exactly what you are saying.. and YES.. ha... the "praying" man. I thought that was the oddest position for him to be in I had ever seen... but NOW (click) ha.. it makes perfect sense. I bet you are right on the money. Either he was shot while praying.. or maybe shot.. and then stumbled to the bed before dying to pray one last prayer? (because it almost looks like the arrow came in from the front?) Ha. I will have to get out my Brenda Leigh Johnson Jr. Detective kit and check back w/ forensics on that one, HA! Thanks for raising the bar for us, little gal. You have a keen eye. (and I just get more and more appreciative of Pappy and his abilities the longer I hang out here w/ you. You really do seem to "get" him better than most folks I have seen or read.) (I was always a fan... even before I really even knew much about him) but hanging around here with you and others has really shown me how much there is to truly appreciate about the man and his films. Thanks for expanding MY horizons little missy.

Thanks, Ro, for the delicious freezer pops! We really need em out this direction, and I guess you do too in your neck of the woods.... be careful out there, I don't want you getting heat stroke Thanks youngun''. And you are right.. YIKES is it ever hot out here. (MUGGY and oppressive is a better description, ugh) I am ready for the kiddie pool out back any minute now. Thanks to you, my dear friend for creating a haven amongst the sagebrush Well.. I am giving all the credit to our dear Miss G.. I sort of stole her idea and spun it "western", ha. She was good and kind not to call me a copy cat. ha. But it is a fun place to come and chat, so I am glad it has worked out. And I am glad too that you have enjoyed hangin' around these parts with us for a while now. Just THINK of all the new movies you have gotten to watch. (not to mention re-discovering our beloved BEN!! ha) I think Westerns may be one of the more "overlooked" genre's areound (these days) There is a lot more to them than most folks realize. It is good to have you ridin' the range w/ us, little missy. Now how bout another ice pop? It shore does get HOT out in these parts Anything for you, little darlin'. (PS: Miss Maven.. small bites!! That "brain freeze thing is a killer!) ha.

Dear sir or madame Bogle, I believe this thread was started by someone publicly seeking action from the WEB ADMINISTRATORS for a problem that they believe has been going on here on this message board for a very long time. And it is a place where others who share that opinion have also come to publicly address the situation (again with the WEB ADMINISTRATORS) without the need for any distracting back and forth debates in other threads. If you honestly wish to maintain that it is all "peace and harmony" here, and that mountains are being made out of "molehills?, well that is certainly your right. But do not presume to imply (by demanding "proof") that there has not been a long standing issue on this message board concerning the very issues that this thread has raised and that there have not been numerous incidents on this message board that have been stirred up and created again and again by a few mean spirited and clever people using numerous screen names both old and new and seeking to harass others simply for sport. (I will avoid the word trolls since it seems to bother you so much) And as for any"proof" you are seeking... who are you to ask it of anyone? (If you TRULY doubt what is being said here.. go looking on this board for yourself. There is plenty of history here for any reasonably intelligent person such as yourself to find all the "proof' they really want. Feel free to read through all the various threads on here (for the last several years) if you TRULY doubt it. (which I suspect you do not) No one here owes you any explanation for why they believe what they believe. (as you certainly owe no one else the same) If you TRULY believe that there is no need for a change in the code of conduct you are certainly entitled to your opinion but so is everyone else. And since the original poster appears to have intended this thread be used to publicly communicate (to the web administrators) a desire for a change in the code of conduct, I imagine you could better spend your time starting a thread of your own where you could opine your opposing thoughts at will without challenging the thoughts and opinions of others here in this thread and without distracting those of us who might agree with the thoughts of the original poster. That way most of the people who would post there with you (or at least most of the user names that post there) would be more likely to agree with your point of view. (And then those of us who disagree with you might be able to post here in peace and not be so likely to feel as though you are harassing us for speaking our opinions here.. (As in: the thread that was created for those who wish to request a change in the present code of conduct) But since you are persistant in your desire to disagree with us here (in the thread that was created for us to voice our desire to see a change in the code of conduct) I will say that with regard to this demand for "proof" you are making that you may think you are being clever asking for people to "name names" here, but I hope NO one takes your bait, as there was enough trouble earlier this month when a few very discouraged posters (who have had at least as much of all this nonsense as I have ) finally spoke out and did just as you suggested. Names were named, and as a result of all the ?uproar? that followed, a request was made (by the web admins) that all posters should refrain from publicly offering up names in the future. So I am hopeful that my fellow posters in good standing will not be provoked into going against this request, as it will not serve any useful purpose to make things any worse around here by getting into a back and forth mess with those who are crying "prove it". (And PS: Far be it from me to presume to speak in any way for the web administrators at all.. but keep in mind that just because they have requested that names NOT be named publicly.. you should also not presume to speak for them that they are in agreement with YOU and that there are no names to name.) The truth of the matter (as I feel certain you already know) is that those who are exploiting the easy manipulation of the present code of conduct (by coming back again and again after being banned, and by posting under more than one user name at a time) have only been able to successfully do so for so long because so many of us (who simply wish to post w/out all the nonsense going on around us) have not pursued the matter so aggressively until recent months. Gee, it must really be getting to those folks (who have been so successfully devious in the past... and please know that I am in no way saying YOU dear Bogle are among them) But I say this only because some of these "prove it" tactics (and also the frivolous "I am going to report you now" tactics too) are really starting to play like a sad, pathetic, last ditch effort to bully into silence those of us who have requested the code of conduct be improved. How ridiculously tiresome. But I digress. So (to get back to the point) NO, Mr. or Ms. Bogle, out of deference to the request made by the Web Administrators, you will get no "names" from me. But I will say this instead: Who cares if it is a mountain or a molehill? If (as you maintain) there is really no "problem" on this message board, then changing the code of conduct will hurt NO one. Making a rule (that will not be broken... since you seem to be maintaining that no one is using multiple identities on here) is no big deal then, is it?? And then also, forbidding banned members from returning repeatedly will not hurt anyone either.. since you again seem to be maintaining that there are no real "problem makers" who need to be banned. So at worst (as far as you seem to be stating) a change in the code of conduct would just be a waste of time. Big deal. And hey, at least the administrators are getting paid. So it is time they are wasting on the clock. And it is their time, so what is that to you? What is the HARM in making such a change in the rules (especially if it offers more peace of mind to those of us who do not see the message board through those same "rosey" glasses you seem to wear? The bottom line is, if YOU are right (and everything is hunky dory around here) a change in the code of conduct will just be a 'wasted effort" and not really change anything... because no one is causing any problems anyway. So no harm.. no foul. Who cares. The admins are getting paid.. and everybody is happy. But if on the other hand, we (who wish to see multiple user names prohibited.. and a stricter policy on what it means to be "banned" around here) are right then NO one is going to be hurt either. (Oh yeah.. no one except the people who are exploiting the current weakly worded code to their own advantage for sport.) Impovements will be made, and maybe (just maybe) at least there might be a chance that many of the problems some of us are concerned about might finally be addressed. (And again, the admins are getting paid.. woo hoo) So either way.. (if you are right.. or if the folks wanting improvements here are right) everybody wins (oh yeah.. except those supposedly non-existent "people formerly called trolls" but who cares what they think.. since you don't believe they exist anyway) And finally, for the record, I am speaking now (again.. in the thread that was created for the express purpose of publicly requesting a change in the present code of conduct) to anyone who disagrees with me, I freely admit not EVERYONE here will see things my way. But hey, we are all entitled to our own opinion. So please note that I have endeavered to speak with courtesy and respect while posting here in this thread and also note that no where in this thread have I impugned anyone?s character by name, nor have I made any sort of threat, or any sort of harassing statement to anyone of any kind. And my one suggestion that CBogle consider starting a seperate thread to voice opposing points of view is only in the interest of keeping this thread "on topic" because again.. this is the thread for publicly requesting a change in the present code of conduct, and 'back and forth" debates in this thread were really not the apparent intent of the original poster as far as I can tell. So please, no one feel the need to "warn me" that I am to now be ?reported? (as some have resorted to doing in other threads.) My goodness, if you do that, then I would have to turn around and report you for attempting to intimidate me into silence in a thread that was clearly started to be a platform for those who wish to see a change in the code of conduct. And gee, we would just end up going back and forth and back and forth. And golly, I know I have better things to do with my time, don't you? OH me, did I mention ?how ridiculously tiresome?? Oh brother

OH wow.. I just noticed something.. Happy 9000, Miss Favell!!!!!!! Congrats to you, my little OK Kid!!! PS: ordinarily an occassion such as this would call for cake to celebrate.. but it is WAY to hot to bake.. so instead I will just say.. FREEZER POPS FOR EVERYBODY!! Enjoy!

Hello there Miss Maven... Glad to see you enjoyed Sgt Rutledge. And I totally agree.. it is a film that can be "loved" despite all the side issues one might have with it. It is a great story w/ some really fine characters. Nice to see you hanging out on the western side of town lately, youngun. You are really expanding your horizons!! And PS: Thanks for giving me a reference to hang on the Hubble kid. ha. When he comes up to the counter with that huge "Gee whiz" grin on his face.. "Spin and Marty" is PERFECT .ha. (All I could come up w/ was maybe a kinder gentler version of "Eddie Haskell from "Leave it to Beaver" ha)

Out of hundreds of what..... trolls? Maybe not that many trolls... but GEE.. the sock population is sure booming. And for anyone who wants to talk about what is or is not in the best interest of the "majority".. let me first say.. this is not a democracy. Golly.. it is not even a "representative republic". And also, there is a significant number of people who post on this board (under only one user name) that have had significant and legitimate concerns for a long time now, regarding the present code of conduct. So even if it WERE a case of "whoever gets the most votes should get their way kind of thing" (which I still maintain that it is not) the danger of saying anything about how one group's opinion should hold sway over another's (in terms of what the "majority" thinks) is that not all user names are created "equal" here. So even if there WERE a right to vote here, (which there is not) the "voting" process would have a SERIOUS flaw in it as several people here would get more (some of them WAY more) than one VOTE. (Because no matter WHAT anyone thinks about whether there are trolls on this board or not.. almost everyone now knows beyond a shadow of a doubt (and should be willing to admit) that there are several people who post on here that are posing as more than one person.) So who cares about "majority" rule??? Especially if the present code of conduct freely allows for the possibility for someone to "appear" to create their OWN majority.. wow.. talk about your "voter fraud" OH my golly... So... I am hoping that if and when the present administrators are able to review this situation (thank you Renee for your efforts here) that they will give serious consideration to these issues and they will work to insure an atmosphere that is more "people" friendly.. Because after all... "Socks" are NOT "people" too. Edited by: rohanaka on Jul 13, 2010 4:32 PM

Howdy there Mr. Movieman, (boy..ha. I feel like I am playing "catch up' on here. I have been too busy to keep up w/ everyone the way I would like) The one shot where he really defends himself as a soldier and a man is enhanced by the low camera angle making him look bigger and stronger even when his voice breaks. That really was a stand out part for his character. I like how he never once really comes out and says what he didn't do (as in: kill and rape an innocent girl). Instead he tells us (and shows us) the things he DID do... and by that it should be clear (to any reasonable person) that he was NOT the guy they were after. think in some sense this film is more overt about its adherence to the book. "Just like the book say" is repeated often literally and in practice. The frequent referring to the manual for the trial. The letter of the law followed without question even when Rutledge and Cantrell are on the patrol. Skidmore's reference to oath and duty along with the other references all go to something higher than themselves and all willing to abide by their oath. Rutledge says the cavalry is his home he wants nothing to do with disrespecting it. That is a great way to say it, sir. They were all a part of something "bigger" and that is what they respected most.. even more than the "individual" or his rank. There was a willful choice by each man to subject himself to "the book". It was an "honor" thing. One bad shot was the closeup of Lucy dead on the floor, though her eyes are closed you can see them move. I think I saw her breathe too, ha. Oh well.. everyone has an "off day" ha. Even our beloved Mr. Ford, ha. I still crack up every time I think of that scene in The Quiet Man where if you look out the windows.. it is raining on ONE side of the house.. but not the OTHER. ha.

HELLO there Miss G!! What a great job you have done w/ your screen caps, little lady. They are GORGEOUS!. And you have highlighted some really great moments too. think it's important to recognize Rutledge's focus on "someday" is his prime motivation. It's very much a part of why he is so devoted to his duty, not only because being a 9th cavalryman is tied to his personal identity, but because he sees what he and his men do now as the building blocks of a better, prouder future for his whole race. (No Fordian hero is concerned only with self, though many of his protagonists are, to their pain; and Rutledge is a true hero, a myth in the making) I like how you have brought all this out about his motivations. And you are right, he was concerned as much for his men and the regiment (and what would be said about their service to the country) as he was for anything else. (maybe more so) What's interesting about the court martial, is that while the prosecution and judges presume Rutledge guilty from the start because of his race, the evidence, until the end, actually supports their belief I am not sure if I am totally w/ you on all of that kid. (I may need to go back and watch it again) I took the court martial judges to be more open minded than I expected them to be. I think there were two camps of people.. maybe three. The general "people" in the town.. who likely just wanted to lynch him because he was the convenient target to point a finger at. Then there were the people (like the Buffalo soldiers, and Towers and Hunter) who knew him (or at least had first hand experiences with him as Towers did) and saw him for his character and who he really was as a person. And then there were the judges.. and I think they did not want to let race be THE issue. They truly did seem to want to go by the book and follow the evidence rather than just "give him a fair trial before hanging him". At least that is how they seemed to me. They truly did seem to be fair and open minded (generally speaking) throughout and I found that refreshing from the stereotype "bigot" that often gets played in stories like this. But again.. I might be remembering some of this wrong.. ha. I am an old woman and it has been more than a week since I watched it all. ha. Spoiler Alert: One thing that I will also say is I had my suspicions about Hubble all along. (I never really even suspected his son) and I say that because of the one scene in the shop.. where just at the end of it.. as he is looking out the door at the girl.. talking w/ Rutledge.. there was just the TINIEST hint of some sort of look on his face.. and maybe even a bit of music(?) that warned me he was not all he seemed. You get a similar look coming across the face of the son too.. if only for a moment. But it was just not as strong a "vibe" as I got w/ the dad. Anyway.. I am likely stating the obvious.. maybe everyone else saw it too, ha. But for me.. he was always the prime suspect based only that early "vibe" I got from him. (Oh, listen to me.. ha. my Deputy Chief Brenda Leigh Johnson Junior Detective kit is on order, even as we speak, ha.) Ford is going to try to make us believe in Braxton Rutledge's innocence because of the man he is, not just because he'll show us what really happened. It's who people are that are the main concern in Ford's films, not what they do. A man can be a liar, a loafer and a drunkard and still be the purest soul in the Fordian universe. Rutledge, of course, is not so imperfect, but he's striding in mythical shoes for the purpose of this picture, not inhabiting everyday rags of individuality I love the way you have expressed all of that, kid. You do know how to turn a phrase. :-) And you have really honed in on a trait that does seem to stand out in a lot of Fordian films I have seen. You get to really see the "inside" of the people he lifts up for us to examine (not just the heros sometimes the bad guys too) and it is always to help us look DEEPER and not just go by what is shown on the surface. Good catch, kid.

Hello there Mad Hat.. welcome to the Western side of town... Interesting, I liked the twisty curvy road and as I said earlier, it actually helped me hone in on each character. Ordinarily.. I do not mind a few twists and curves. I think the struggles I had mostly were not so much with the twists in the plot and story line, but more with the twist (in mood) from one minute to the next. That really was distracting for me. (ha.. Ok.. this is about the gazillionth time I have used the word "distracting" when talking about this subject. ha. I need a thesaurus. HA!) No I don't think they ever went back to Rutledge after that. I agree with you here. I would have liked something. I particularly would have liked a closing scene with Sergeant Rutledge Well, that makes me feel better, ha. I was hoping it was not just me remembering it wrong. I still need to go back and look at it again, (just to refresh my memory on some of it all) but I am thinking that it would really have been good to at least get SOME sort of "closure" with Rutledge other than just the quick "clip" at the end with him and his men and that happy smile on his face. I said: OH gee... I am so whiny.. ha. YOU said: I agree with you here too To which I now reply: You wound me, sir.. ha. sniff.. sob... boo hoo hoo.. I thought you were my FRIEND!!" But ok.. I confess. ha. I am a whiner.. ha There is just too much evidence against me. HA! (There.. that was a bit less dramatic than the big break down scene you said you did not like in SR. ha. Feel better now??)

Hello there Mr. Grey... I always thought of the humorous sections in The Searchers to be very jarring. It's what I didn't like about the film. It still is. The only places where I really laugh are Laurie Jorgensen (Vera Miles). She makes me feel all over. Oh golly.. ha. We are always going to see that differently. But I do agree w/ you that the bits w/ Laurie are good.. I just think the other portions (with the "brawlin' boys" are too) Fordy Guns did help me come to appreciate the "Look" scenes because Ford ends up making us feel bad for laughing at Look, if we were. Now see.. to me.. the scenes w/ Look are not funny because of HER.. they are funny beause of Marty and how he responds to her. So my conscience is clean, HA! But I honestly did not even think of that part when I was referring to the use of humor by Ford in that film being more effective. Cordelia, on one hand, represents the society woman. All she does is look in the mirror yet she never looks in the mirror, if you know what I mean. Life is one big society ball to Cordelia. She doesn't care that a man's life is hanging in the balance and I'm not sure she fully grasps the reason why he's there. She takes the wrong things seriously. Cordelia also represents us, to a degree, in that we all tend to focus too much on our own views and desires more so than others. "Y'all can think what you want, but I know I'm right." We "incriminate" people every day, in our own ways. We're all our own "judge." Now it is going to sound like I am trying to have it both ways, but I agree with you on everything you are saying about her as a 'character". She is all of that and more. I think where I am disagreeing with you is that I think she was WAY overplayed. She came off goofy instead of someone who we are supposed to look at and see as vain and self absorbed. I think if she had been toned down about half of what she came off as.. she still could have been humorous.. and also be the "lesson" to us as well as to how ignorant and self centered many people of her "type" truly were (or are). I just thought she was too TOO (too) silly to taken seriously and she was too much of distraction for me for film that was so heavy in the various themes it was presenting. But.. that is just "me" I guess. Where I think the Fosgates are very Fordian is that they are a married couple who have their little way of loving each other. Like many guys, Otis is embarrassed and then frustrated by his wife and her "way." Here he has a job to do and she's thinking they're at a social gathering. I actually got the sense the Fosgates were the Fords Again.. I am not disagreeing w/ THAT.. I just thought that the humor was too heavy handed. (oh I am such a whiner, ha... even MOLO thinks so, ha. and I thought HE was my friend.. sniff. ) ha. I really like how Ford depicts marriage and couples. He's arguably the best at it He does have a knack for showing you the "intimacy" of the married relationships... not the 'physical" so much as the "emotional". And he shows the "for better or worse". I like that about him as well.

This should make you feel like the world is in its place, Quiet Gal. I actually LIKED the humor of Sergeant Rutledge Oh thank goodness... you caught me by surprise by getting to this film before I did. I really was beginning to worry it was "world gone mad" ha. Now I can rest easy once again. ha. I thought Cordelia (Billie Burke) was really funny. I also laughed at her husband (Willis Bouchey) and Mulqueen (Judson Pratt). I laughed during this film more than most every Ford film. She was HILARIOUS!! And he was too, for that matter, ha. With a wife like HER, no wonder he was a "water-a-holic" HA!. That whole routine w/ the water pitcher was too funny. It was very "Fordian". But I just found the heavy handed comedy so at odds w/ the heavy themes of the story that it was too distracting. I wish there had been two seperate movies with these characters almost, so I could enjoy the funny parts as they deserved.. and then enjoyed the drama for itself. Again.. that is not to say that a little "mood lightening" was out of place.. just not so MUCH of it all at once. to go back to my earlier example, I love the way Ford used humor in The Searchers (ha.. yes.. the brawlin' boys stuff, etc) it was very much in place w/ the story line and its characters yet not so distractingly over the top and at odds with the entire story. also thought the humor played a serious role in the film Speak to me, Grey Dude.. I want to hear more. Edited by: rohanaka on Jul 11, 2010 6:57 PM

Hiya Miss Favell... I am with you. There were flaws in this film (that frankly were a bit distracting and disappointing) BUT... that is not to say that it kept me from enjoying it. Because I truly did find it a very interesting and thought provoking story. The problem was I just had to keep riding along (on a twisty curvy sort of road) to go with the "flow" of things as the story got told. I was joking a few days ago when I said it was like "a John Ford Cavalry film meets CSI meets Law and Order meets Glory meets... the Andy Griffith Show". BUT.. really that is not too much of a joke, ha. There was a LOT going on. But eventually it did finally come together to get the story told. I too really liked the technique of the flash back. (especially the very first one w/ Constance starting her testimony. WOW, was that ever eye catching. It really drew me in. In fact I remember that I caught my breath and sat forward in my seat, even. But over time, I kept wishing it had not been a "flashback" story and that we really could have followed things as they happened throughout. It might have made it all come together better (at least for me) The "doofy" characters and the whimsical moments were VERY very distracting. I have seen Ford use humor to lighten a serious story VERY effectively (such as some of the amusing characters and moments in The Searchers) but in this film.. it was VERY heavy handed and I truly felt some of the comedy (such as the moments with Burke's character) was so over the top that it was too misleading for such a (dramatic and powerful story) She could have been TONED down a lot... and fit quit nicely into the frame of the story w/out being so absurd. Usually I love those little "homey" touches of silliness from Ford, because I am myself a bit "homey and silly", ha, (hence my Andy Griffith comparison) but this time I was a bit disappointed by it all. But Sgt. Rutledge has something else going on.... there are other forces in action with this movie. That it got made at all, with any vestige of Ford's humanity in it is impressive. I am not blaming the studio for Ford's choices, just wondering what was up? You can almost see the two distinct movies within the one, each vying with the other....and the Rutledge parts of the movie are SO much better than the other sections. I wonder if this was a conscious choice on Ford's part? Maybe he used this device to point up the humanity of Rutledge and his men, compared to the white folks? It is possible. But I am not sure if that is what he had in mind or not. The scene in which Rutledge stands and defends himself was beautiful - as were almost all of the scenes showing the buffalo soldiers themselves. Those were the men I was interested in, and Ford vested them of an inner beauty unmatched by any of the surrounding story In a way it reminded me a bit of the film Glory. The battle scenes out in the desert where you get to see all the men in action (and interacting w/ one another) were terrific. And then, when Rutledge was testifying at one point he says something like he "loves" the 9th(?) Cavalry (not sure if I have the # correct) and I thought of the campfire scene in Glory where Denzel says "I loves the 54th" (we go around our house saying that for no apparent reason all the time, ha) Anyway.. parts of this film reminded me of the other one very much. And I liked the comparisons. I also enjoyed how the bottom line for Rutledge was his military experience. That for him, color meant little, but his honor and military experience were everything. The military was an equalizer for him..... an outlet for his creativity and a way to show his strengths. I am sure that this is what Ford felt, even for himself. If that is not always the case in the real world - in Ford's world, the military should be an equalizer. I like that generally speaking the soldiers received the honor and respect for their service that they deserved. They were not talked down to (by most) and were not belittled (by most) because of their race. They were portrayed as men of honor, serving their country and I liked that about this film a lot. I also liked the "scientific" approach to the investigation too. The doctor explains some of the details of the crime to Hunter's character (hence my CSI comparison) I liked how attention to the evidence was what really gave this trial a chance to be more than just pointing a finger at the convenient target. It gave the defense a place to go other than just relying on the testimony of others. Again, to miss the bigger picture for the small details is a shame. Though I understand the flaws are there, I would rather take a look at the strengths of this film. For an African American man to come out and say "I am a man" in 1960? And then for another to say, the color of a man's skin should not matter... Well, this film deserves some respect when discussing it. THAT is right on the money, little gal. It was a powerful statement being made and I think that is also why I found the distractions in the film so disappointing. Mini spoiler alert: I also was very disappointed by the final scenes (as Rutledge is walking past Hunter and Towers) After the trial is all over.. .and it is OBVIOUS what the truth has been all along... I may need to go back and watch it again... but it ANYTHING ever said to Rutledge again? I dont' think there was. There was nothing said by the people leading the Court Martial.. nothing even said by the Defense attorney.. or even by Ford (as I don't think we even get a shot of the look on Woody's face at the end of it) All we get to see is him restored to his leadership position and walking his men by the two "love birds" I wanted MORE. Some sort of apology to him for all he had to go through.. or SOMETHING. (maybe I am wrong... it has been just over a week since I watched it and I might be forgetting something. I need to go take another look at it to be sure, but that is how I am remembering it all) OH gee... I am so whiny.. ha. The truth is.. the things I disliked about this movie are there.. but the bottom line is.. the things I really LIKED about the story more than made up for it in that it allowed me to really enjoy the good parts of the story and forgive the "distractions". I am glad TCM has been able to show this film a couple of times lately. I hope it gets more attention in the future as I think it is one that not a lot of people may be familiar with... but should be.