Jump to content

Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Winslow_Leach

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. Nope. No overstatement. Not at all. One of the greatest ever. "Competent"? Well...If your eyesight is so occluded, perhaps you should take off the shades, Mr. Blue, and watch again. The "Indianapolis monologue" is brilliant. But it's the little parts of his performance that really give it the nuance that elevate it above the very good. For instance, after Quint destroys the radio like a raving beast, he stands there as Brody berates him as he would a child, and for a second Quint reacts like one, flinching, then standing and scratching at the kerchief around his head as Brody winds down. Brilliant insight into his character. Brilliant.
  2. Don't forget that someone else's name was mentioned as well, someone other than Ben. That alone may have been enough to send the thread to Davey Jones locker.
  3. So... Y'all are shocked when someone in a thread about viewers having an issue with a host's politics actually discusses politics? If there be tips to icebergs in these waters, Jimboy, then they've been standin' longer than I been a-posting.
  4. There is not one thing you have said of any substance that I haven't already addressed from myriad angles. If I could bet on it, I would wager that you haven't actually read the posts I made prior to your involvement in this thread. And then, even from that point, you probably simply skimmed them, looking for some sign of deference upon my part. Then upon not seeing it, decided that I hadn't the simple sense to ken what you were saying. Reply after reply. But the above post took it to a whole 'nuther level. The whole last paragraph in itself is, well, precious... Sepiatone: Maybe I agree with Ben's politics, and maybe I don't. But since I usually only tune in to TCM for the MOVIES, I really don't care WHAT they are, even if I DO agree with them. I'm really beginning to believe the title of this thread should be renamed the "Tempest in a teapot" thread. But maybe I'm just envious that y'all's lives seem to be so devoid of situations that require most of your time and attention be devoted to someone else's well being and comfort that you CAN waste precious time and concern over something that's really not all that important. Back off, Jack. You don't know me. I'm not even sure you know yourself. Maybe that's why you sign every post.
  5. Legendary star of vaudeville, film and radio, George Burns, should not have won the Oscar awarded in 1977 for his work in "The Sunshine Boys". There's nothing wrong with his performance, it's wonderful. But the man that should have won the statuette wasn't even nominated: As Quint in "Jaws", Robert Shaw turned in one of the greatest performances in screen history.
  6. You could have used my post. I would not have been offended. I feel I've already made my point on that front: Express whatever opinion you may have, but don't expect people to treat IT with respect or possessed of value. That's not how opinions work, not now, or ever. I have read enough of your posts to know that you are perfectly capable of "wrapping your head around that concept". So, please, indulge me as I collect every point I tried to make in one reeeaaaallllyy llloooonnnngg post. No one is required to respect anyone's opinion. Sorry, but that's not how opinions work. Please understand that I'm not being adversarial or glib, I'm being realistic I've made my point on employment and opinions as well, but to get specific: Contracts exist that specifically advise employees not to engage in behavior that reflects negatively on the parent company. You and others can deem that a form of censorship, because, well, it is. But it is a fact of business. Corporations that need to maintain public goodwill will limit what they feel is acceptable content for their employees to discuss in a public forum. Prior to social media, this wasn't a very big issue. Someone in Ben's or Curt's position would have to take their opinion to the press and hope they feel it is newsworthy enough to publish (THAT'S a standard that has also eroded) or appear on broadcast media to say something offensive to a large enough segment of the populace to matter one way or another. But now such a worldwide statement is but a click away. And that's why, Sepia, James, and anyone else that has been following this discourse, any such utterances must be judged by degrees of offense. How much of the offense taken is purely a matter of the perspective of the audience member? What part of the offense take can be credited to a truly injurious statement? This is why I pointed out that Schilling's Facebook post was openly judgmental and contemptuous towards a segment of the population. There were ways for him to convey his feelings on the restroom controversy, the best choice perhaps to align his opinion with those of politicians opposing the statute. He took a different tact, and it got him canned. (Again, I need to point out that this was hardly the only time Curt Schilling flirted with audience alienation.) Now, Ben's behavior outside TCM has been likened to Curt Schilling's; in one instance by circumstance, in the initial, by implication. That being the case, we have no choice but to address that reality, not the concept of whether an entertainment or other corporate entity has the right to suppress an employee's personal opinion outside the workplace. That's how this thread began, and James introduced a new facet that was relative to the topic, one that merited exploration. So, what has Ben said that is specifically intolerant, judgemental or hurtful of a segment of the population? Well, he has differed with their opinion over what's best for America. That is true. Is that enough to find him offensive? Is guilt by association enough to tarnish his credibility? And, keeping in mind that part of what Ben does is interpret how cinematic works of art from the past are still relevant to modern day culture and sensibilities, has he said anything that unwarrantedly endorses a "radical leftist" perspective in the course of performing his host duties? Those are the questions that must be answered by any aggrieved party. As I have maintained, I haven't seen Ben say or engage in conduct that reflected poorly on TCM. It is not enough that a man has beliefs that run counter to an audience member. For dog's sake, I wouldn't even be able to WATCH Golden Age classics if I allowed the espoused political views of Eugene Pallette, Walter Brennan, John Wayne, Barbara Stanwyck, Jimmy Stewart, Cyd Charisse, Ginger Rogers, and scores more, to ramp me into a state of obstreperous apoplexy. We adore Ben in this household, and his politics have nothing to do with it. He is very good at his job and doesn't deserve to lose it over political fealty. And now, I will haunt other threads, as my ghost here is plumb worn out...
  7. The stands I worked at as a lad used relish, onion, mustard and occasionally catsup. I'm pretty sure I'm missing something here besides whatever meat product is utilized, but, oh well. Still, no matter what one thinks about Hot Dogs, they're still a more appealing entree than Coney Island Whitefish.
  8. Seducing men. Yes. 1. Why wouldn't we count Nino? 2. Aren't you forgetting MISTER Dietrichson?
  9. James, you made quite a lot of different points and argued from quite a number of perspectives. I understood all of them.
  10. Sepia, James- I understand the point. It's a common trope. "Everyone's entitled to their opinion" doesn't hold much cache with me. It's one of those adages that doesn't really mean anything. As you point out, Sepia, opinions run the gamut. They are expressed upon all manner of things: Inanimate objects like art, washing machines and buildings Concepts that include philosophy, theology and politics Other human beings, how they look, what they wear, their net worth And on and on. Their value? Well, that varies as much as their subjects. But the opinions in question here involve judgment of other human beings. Known cheater and liar (since character is an inherent quality of Gingergirl's grievance, it is my opinion that these facts come into play with James introduction as him as a player in his equivalency) Curt Schilling* went beyond weighing in on a sensitive issue. He took a wrecking ball to one side, humiliating and condemning those that would disagree with his stance. James appears to be equating, or positing the legitimacy of equating Ben's political association to the incidents that led to Curt Schilling's firing. But in order for that equivalence to hold water we need to know what it is Ben is accused of saying. Gingergirl has not returned to cite Ben's exact words. Furthermore, Gingergirl hasn't even shared with us Ben's political injections that supposedly justify his or her accusations. Accusations. Yes. And that's where we need to stop playing games with what constitutes a legitimate opinion and what constitutes a deleterious action. This isn't about opinion, it's about perceived differences and inferred sins of political evangelism, all to the end of getting a good man fired. All else is a rhetorical semantic veil. *Non-coincidentally, in Curt Schilling, James has chosen a well-known Breitbart disciple whose views most likely run to those of Gingergirl's.
  11. I'm sorry, DB. But the Peoria K-Mart has been shuttered. Like the "Blue Light Special" references that they themselves rendered obsolete, K-Mart gags must be reworked to suit modern sensibilities.
  12. So, if someone finds you offensive and comes after your livelihood- or house, or family, or belongings- you should just accept that? Of course what we find offensive is going to be judged, James, especially when someone is set on using their particular diffuse, vague and apparently private gauge of offense as a cudgel- which I happen to find very, very, offensive.
  13. But that's guilt by association. The fact is that if one is going to maintain that someone is offensive, they need to be ready to note exactly what is offensive about them. In the end, it should be noted that since the Fairness Doctrine was struck down, Ben's political fealty shouldn't be an issue. And I have yet to hear him utter misplaced radical leftist dogma in the course of his host segments. I have no patience for small minded political bullies who have to resort to exaggeration and innuendo in order to rob someone of a job for no reason other than that they disagree with his politics. It only interferes with his job because they let it. (PS: The reply you quoted was a question as to how Jimmy the Greek was relevant to this issue.)
  14. Simply brilliant. I can feel you cringing in his stead.
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
  • Create New...