Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

These are the 18 'problematic' classic films TCM will examine in a new series


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Dargo said:

Hey, and speaking of "Trannies"...

Just wanna say here that the 6-speed manual one in the Fiat 124 Spider Abarth I purchased yesterday down in Tucson, shifts like butter.

STILL can't believe 80 percent of 'em in these cars came with freakin' automatics...SACRILEGE!!!

(...oh and btw here TB...sorry dude, but you're way off base regarding your whole "Norman Bates was one", and not of course either an automatic or manual OR a person who desires to be the other gender)

Dargo,

I don't think I am off base in the comments I made about Norman Bates. But my comments were not totally that he was transgender, but that transgender viewers or LGBTQ viewers might understand why TCM included the film and a discussion about the character in the Reframed series. I think you should be able to understand that.

As for your use of the word "trannies" above, it feels a bit derogatory to me. Are you talking about transgender people or transsexuals when you say the word "trannies"...?

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

Dargo,

I don't think I am off base in the comments I made about Norman Bates. But my comments were not totally that he was transgender, but that transgender viewers or LGBTQ viewers might understand why TCM included the film and a discussion about the character in the Reframed series. I think you should be able to understand that.

As for your use of the word "trannies" above, it feels a bit homophobic to me. Are you talking about transgender people or transsexuals when you say the word "trannies"...?

LOL

Yeah, that's ME alright, "homophobic" to the core!

LOL

Well, I guess I can now see why you and your aforementioned departed HollyGolighty got along so famously.

You see, you even said it yourself earlier when you made the following comment about her:

Quote

I think she was a very sensitive soul.

(...btw, I certainly hope you NOW won't ask ME to cease quoting you TOO from now on, and because AND as MissW commented earlier in this thing, you ARE an intelligent man who very often offers up some interesting and insightful thoughts in this website, and so it would be a DAMN shame if I couldn't directly reply to you and quote you in THOSE cases in the future, dude!)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Dargo said:

LOL

Yeah, that's ME alright, "homophobic" to the core!

LOL

Well, I guess I can now see why you and your aforemention departed HollyGolighty got along so famously.

You see, you even said it yourself earlier when you made the following comment about her:

(...btw, I certainly hope you NOW won't ask ME to cease quoting you TOO from now on, and because AND as MissW commented earlier in this thing, you ARE an intelligent man who very often offers up some interesting and insightful thoughts in this website, and so it would be a DAMN shame if I couldn't directly reply to you and quote you in THOSE cases in the future, dude!)

Thanks. While you were replying, I had changed the word 'homophobic' to 'derogatory' in my previous post. I feel the word tranny is derogatory. I realized you do not usually demonstrate any sort of homophobia. 

As for HollyGolightly, I don't think I am as sensitive as she was. And that is not a great legacy, to be remembered more for one's sensitivity than one's insights. Is it? Anyway, it is just weird to have to "defend" or "compare" myself with someone who I suspect died and that is why she no longer posts on the site.

But, for the record...

HollyGolightly was a fan of Audrey Hepburn (I am not...I think Audrey glides by on charm instead of acting ability; plus I have often documented my dislike for her performance in MY FAIR LADY). HollyGolighlty was a fan of BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S (I am not..I think it is a film full of stereotypes). HollyGolightly was a fan of Tim Burton (I feel he is overrated). 

Also HollyGolightly viewed film as a pseudo-religious experience. I view film as a platform for social justice and as a way to provide entertainment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, TopBilled said:But my comments were not totally that he was transgender, but that transgender viewers or LGBTQ viewers might understand why TCM included the film and a discussion about the character in the Reframed series. 

Which indicates you feel the series is a worthwhile endeavor so I’m puzzled by your seemingly dismissive attitude toward the series.  Whether it’s purpose is to fill air time or provoke an honest discussion it has opened up the conversation and that’s a good thing. Important to note that many of the viewers that might find Psycho “problematic” are not themselves LGBTQ, but supportive to the cause. My experience is that it’s the supporters of a cause that are often the most offended. Regardless where you fit in the conversation hopefully the discussion reveals misconceptions that lead one to find problems where none exist.  
 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. TopBilled says:

It's interesting that you mention her. I was thinking about her yesterday when I read misswonderly's posts.

I remember when I started here years ago, I received some private messages from HollywoodGolightly. I think she lived in the Seattle area, because she talked about the weather there and that her favorite director was Tim Burton. She felt bullied and stopped posting about a year or two later.

I think she was a very sensitive soul.

Looking back on it now, I bet she private messaged me in the early days and took me under her wing because she felt I was a kindred soul. And she didn't want me to feel bullied or run off. I've been here about ten years with over 120,000 posts. I would never quit posting because someone else does not know how to communicate a difference opinion as a mature adult. I would only quit posting the day I feel I have run out of things to say about classic film.

Anyway, I had sent a private message to misswonderly and the moderator yesterday, which is why misswonderly came on a short time later to try and justify her behavior. I had asked misswonderly not to quote me anymore or to reference me directly, because I think that kind of nonsense will derail threads where she and I are both posting our views/opinions. My concern with misswonderly's recent behavior is that she does not seem to be content with simple disagreements. She goes out of her way to insult/attack someone whose views differ sharply then her own. In my message to her and the mod I stated that this is a community and we should be supportive of one another. Trying to justify bullying is not acceptable, it is not the solution to anything.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________-

I am not quoting this gentleman, I merely copied and pasted his post.

I will admit, it is hard to resist the temptation to mock far-fetched self-serving theories about films.  But I should know better than to do it with Mr. TB, as this is one of his favourite activities on these boards. (Not mocking.  Positing far-fetched self-serving theories about film.)

If someone were to mock any comments   I  make about films, I would be somewhat flattered (depending on the mockification style) and possibly amused. 

I do not hold with "bullying", however, Mr. TB's definition of the word is different from mine.  I will confess, I have little patience with far-fetched theories, especially when the one holding the theory clings to it despite reasonable rebuttals  (alliteration !)   from others.  

If Mr. TB would like to mock - all in the spirit of good fun - any posts I have made here on this thread, I would not mind at all.   Afterwards we can all sit down to some delicious healthy steamed kale.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this is germane to the Reframed series, any discussion of LGBTQ characters should include a discussion of the word transgender and a discussion of the word transsexual.

My understanding-- I think a transsexual is someone who was and still is transgender, but they have completed the transition process, mostly.

A transgender person may never become a transsexual or even move towards transitioning. In fact I think some transgender people are unconscious of it and it is connected with why people stay in the closet, or remain unaware of their sexual orientation for many years. How can they address or accept the other gender being in them? 

I remember once I had an argument with my bible-thumping bigoted uncle (uncle by marriage not blood). He criticized me for wanting to bake some bread one day. He said 'let your aunt do that, it's what women do.' Implying that because I was a guy I shouldn't want to do woman-like chores in the kitchen. 

I had to remind my uncle that I learned to cook to help my mother, just as I had learned to chop wood to help my father. I didn't see a problem with learning both so-called masculine or feminine chores. I also had to remind him that my grandfather, very masculine acting, was known for his venison stew and that he liked to cook. So what was wrong with me wanting to bake some bread?!

I share this anecdote because I think it's harder for transgender people to come to terms with who they are because we have all these strange codes in our society about how men and women are supposed to act.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Moe Howard said:

Which indicates you feel the series is a worthwhile endeavor so I’m puzzled by your seemingly dismissive attitude toward the series.  Whether it’s purpose is to fill air time or provoke an honest discussion it has opened up the conversation and that’s a good thing. Important to note that many of the viewers that might find Psycho “problematic” are not themselves LGBTQ, but supportive to the cause. My experience is that it’s the supporters of a cause that are often the most offended. Regardless where you fit in the conversation hopefully the discussion reveals misconceptions that lead one to find problems where none exist.  

I like this post because it provokes some thought. But we have to ask why are some people sympathetic to the cause? Are some of those sympathizers in the closet?

Throughout this thread and the copycat threads that have emerged re: the Reframed series I have been careful NOT to fully endorse TCM's series. Mainly because I think TCM is using the series to lecture, to drum up publicity and to justify why they still want to air GONE WITH THE WIND. I cannot be fully on board with that. 

Also, I am a liberal, but I do not like how TCM's Reframed series seems to be attacking conservative viewpoints. I don't think that's helpful to any sort of forward progress for viewers as a whole group.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

 

Also, I am a liberal, but I do not like how TCM's Reframed series seems to be attacking conservative viewpoints. I don't think that's helpful to any sort of forward progress for viewers as a whole group.

What conservative viewpoints does TCM seem to be attacking?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

What conservative viewpoints does TCM seem to be attacking?

To be specific-- the view that there is nothing wrong with a white patriarch presiding over dinner with Sidney Poitier, the view that there is no anti-LGBTQ sentiment in PSYCHO, the view that Japanese viewers should not be offended by breakfast with Tiffany and her motley crew.

These views espoused by those first-time posters who come on to the site to create a thread, angry about the Reframed series.

The series is putting these people off, not reeling them in. If the goal was to educate and enlighten conservative viewers it has failed on all accounts.

It's really an exercise in preaching to the proverbial liberal choir.

I think the reason The View works so well, for so many years, is that while most of the panel on that talk show is liberal, they always make sure to include one conservative host (currently it is Meghan McCain). This way they are not alienating half the audience.

The wraparounds on TCM with Ben and his compadres have been slanted too much in the liberal direction and there is not one host to reel in the conservatives and make them feel as though they are not being lectured or preached to...seriously!

Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW....I knew HollywoodGoLightly off this board. They did not live in Seattle but mid coast CA. Please don't take this post as a correction, just an informed point of view.

86e04fc7cfe6a6daf74b482d2378b266.jpg

I enjoy debate and rarely feel personally insulted when someone has an opposing POV and actually enjoy hearing other opinions, even if they seem far fetched (to me) Try to keep an open mind.

Honestly, be happy everyone doesn't have you on "ignore".

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TikiSoo said:

BTW....I knew HollywoodGoLightly off this board. They did not live in Seattle but mid coast CA. Please don't take this post as a correction, just an informed point of view.

86e04fc7cfe6a6daf74b482d2378b266.jpg

I enjoy debate and rarely feel personally insulted when someone has an opposing POV and actually enjoy hearing other opinions, even if they seem far fetched (to me) Try to keep an open mind.

Honestly, be happy everyone doesn't have you on "ignore".

You say "knew" as in the past tense. Does this mean Holly is no longer living? Also are we supposed to understand the significance of the photo you posted? 

I think HollyGolightly reached out to me because they wanted to make sure I would be successful on this message board. I have tried to pay it forward and often send notes to newbies whose posting style I enjoy, encouraging them stick around and contribute more.

Incidentally I think it's okay if there is a group of people who have you on 'ignore.' It lessens quarreling. 

There will always be new people (people new to classic film) that come on to the site and they have nobody on Ignore!

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

I like this post because it provokes some thought. But we have to ask why are some people sympathetic to the cause? Are some of those sympathizers in the closet?

Who knows, might be some but in general I think it's just as likely white BLM supporters want to be black. So, no. I don't think that's what motivates the straight LGBTQ supporters. Most see it as a worthwhile cause which is commendable. 

45 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

Throughout this thread and the copycat threads that have emerged re: the Reframed series I have been careful NOT to fully endorse TCM's series. Mainly because I think TCM is using the series to lecture, to drum up publicity and to justify why they still want to air GONE WITH THE WIND. I cannot be fully on board with that. 

Fair enough.  Typically a 'problem' requires a solution. Are you saying  not showing Gone With the Wind is an acceptable solution? Because I guarantee TCM could shelve every film the woke-owitzs find objectionable and that vacuum would be filled in short order by some upstart streaming service.

58 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

Also, I am a liberal, but I do not like how TCM's Reframed series seems to be attacking conservative viewpoints. I don't think that's helpful to any sort of forward progress for viewers as a whole group.

I don't see them attacking Conservatism. You might be surprised to hear Conservatives LOVE TCM, and no, not because Gone With the Wind is shown on occasion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Moe Howard said:

Who knows, might be some but in general I think it's just as likely white BLM supporters want to be black. So, no. I don't think that's what motivates the straight LGBTQ supporters. Most see it as a worthwhile cause which is commendable. 

Fair enough.  Typically a 'problem' requires a solution. Are you saying  not showing Gone With the Wind is an acceptable solution? Because I guarantee TCM could shelve every film the woke-owitzs find objectionable and that vacuum would be filled in short order by some upstart streaming service.

I don't see them attacking Conservatism. You might be surprised to hear Conservatives LOVE TCM, and no, not because Gone With the Wind is shown on occasion. 

I don't think you read my comments carefully. Nowhere did I say LGBTQ supporters want to be gay. But I said some sympathizers may be in the closet. I think it's a reasonable thing to say/suggest. Sometimes that is the first step in the coming out process. Your trying to connect this issue with white/black relations is a bit odd.

I don't want GONE WITH THE WIND to be shown. I made that clear in a thread I created almost a year ago. Not because I advocate censorship but because I think it's a film with a troubling narrative that a lot of people today cannot handle. Maybe after the George Floyd trial and other racially divisive incidents have played out. But right now, it's in poor taste to keep pushing this film on viewers. That's my strong opinion and it has not wavered in a year and I do not see myself reversing that opinion any time soon. TCM seems desperate in wanting to keep the film alive. I think it should go on an extended (even if not permanent) hiatus.

I never said conservatives love TCM because TCM plays GONE WITH THE WIND. That would be an insult to conservatives!

Please do not attribute such rubbish to me. Ask me a question and I will clarify a stance or point of view. Do not presume to summarize what I have said when you have a habit of misconstruing what I have written and blowing it wildly out of proportion. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

I don't think you read my comments carefully. Nowhere did I say LGBTQ supporters want to be gay. But I said some sympathizers may be in the closet. I think it's a reasonable thing to say/suggest. Sometimes that is the first step in the coming out process. Your trying to connect this issue with white/black relations is a bit odd.

It's fair to consider one who has yet to come out at least a silent member of the club. We are talking supporters here. Sympathizers, more accurately, activists who are not directly effected by _________ cause/issue. Doesn't matter what the cause is. The activist, armed with the latest slogan or talking point, joins the battle without doing any  research in their pet cause. 

 

1 hour ago, TopBilled said:

I don't want GONE WITH THE WIND to be shown. I made that clear in a thread I created almost a year ago. Not because I advocate censorship but because I think it's a film with a troubling narrative that a lot of people today cannot handle. Maybe after the George Floyd trial and other racially divisive incidents have played out. But right now, it's in poor taste to keep pushing this film on viewers. That's my strong opinion and it has not wavered in a year and I do not see myself reversing that opinion any time soon. TCM seems desperate in wanting to keep the film alive. I think it should go on an extended (even if not permanent) hiatus.

Duly noted.

 

1 hour ago, TopBilled said:

I never said conservatives love TCM because TCM plays GONE WITH THE WIND. That would be an insult to conservatives!

Yes.....Insulting conservatives is a bridge too far for you. Kidding. And I was being preemptive with that comment. Apologies.

 

1 hour ago, TopBilled said:

Please do not attribute such rubbish to me. Ask me a question and I will clarify a stance or point of view. Do not presume to summarize what I have said when you have a habit of misconstruing what I have written and blowing it wildly out of proportion. Thank you.

How am I doing so far here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Moe Howard said:

It's fair to consider one who has yet to come out at least a silent member of the club. We are talking supporters here. Sympathizers, more accurately, activists who are not directly effected by _________ cause/issue. Doesn't matter what the cause is. The activist, armed with the latest slogan or talking point, joins the battle without doing any  research in their pet cause. 

The activist/supporter can still be someone who is straight-identified and in the closet. I think there are a percentage of those, quite frankly. They support the LGBT agenda in the secret hope that it will make it easier for them to come out when they are ready to do so. 

These are the same people that go to gay clubs with their straight partners trying to get comfortable with the coming out process, which they will eventually undergo.

To suggest, as you have, that supporters are not directly affected by the cause/issue seems to be leaving out a group of people who are stuck in between. It's not as cut and dried as LGBT person / LGBT supporter. You don't have to be one or the other. 

I am surprised at the lack of understanding about LGBT issues. We're in 2021 and so many people still don't get it. It's mind-boggling!

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, TopBilled said:

Trying to justify her bullying, by saying mob rule against one person is okay. This needs to stop.

So does Victim Culture.  🙄

Nobody agrees with you, that's called a "discussion".  If we're not joining your march down main street, that's called disagreeing with you, not "socially or intolerantly-motivated persecution", and we're disagreeing with you because your personally motivated argument held less water than a Brillo pad.  

If you hold your credibility as dear as you want to make us think you do, you might want to give in now, before the argument really DOES become All About You, and that wouldn't be our hard work and effort in doing.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

The activist/supporter can still be someone who is straight-identified and in the closet. I think there are a percentage of those, quite frankly.

And what percentage do you hypothesize that to be? 

You seem to be saying that because one might at some point they are now directly effected. Jeez, that could apply to everyone, they just don't know it yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Moe Howard said:

And what percentage do you hypothesize that to be? 

You seem to be saying that because one might at some point they are now directly effected. Jeez, that could apply to everyone, they just don't know it yet.

I don't know what the percentage would be, but there would likely be some percentage of sympathizers that are closeted. Not sure we need to know an exact percentage anyway, so I am baffled you are trying to make an issue of that. Maybe so you can have another meaningless point to argue..?

Again I think you are incorrectly summarizing what I am saying (you'd make a lousy lawyer!). I never said because someone might be gay they are now directly affected by the LGBT crusade. I would never say anyone might be gay. I would say that someone is either straight-identified or not. That's more how I phrase things. So instead of incorrectly summarizing what I have said, ask me to clarify if you do not understand fully. It should not be too hard for you to ask a clarifying question instead of just assuming something.

To be clear, I believe that some who are activists are also gay but afraid to come out. They may currently be straight-identified. 

Anyway I don't want to keep arguing on and on about this. It should be enough for you to accept that some activists are closeted. As I stated in a previous post: "It's not as cut and dried as LGBT person / LGBT supporter. You don't have to be one or the other." That concept should not be difficult to grasp. Unless you just refuse to grasp it and instead choose to spin the discussion off into a series of meaningless arguments to avoid the real issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

I don't know what the percentage would be, but there would likely be some percentage of sympathizers that are closeted. Not sure we need to know an exact percentage anyway, so I am baffled you are trying to make an issue of that.

It's useful to figure the size of the plaintiff pool. 

 

15 minutes ago, TopBilled said:

(you'd make a lousy lawyer!).

And you'd be delicious under cross examination.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Moe Howard said:

It's useful to figure the size of the plaintiff pool. 

 

And you'd be delicious under cross examination.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. 

Confusing comments. Strange comments, actually.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EricJ said:

So does Victim Culture.  🙄

Nobody agrees with you, that's called a "discussion".  If we're not joining your march down main street, that's called disagreeing with you, not "socially or intolerantly-motivated persecution", and we're disagreeing with you because your personally motivated argument held less water than a Brillo pad.  

If you hold your credibility as dear as you want to make us think you do, you might want to give in now, before the argument really DOES become All About You, and that wouldn't be our hard work and effort in doing.

Some of your posts have seemed rather disrespectful, in my opinion. Maybe you're having a bad day or something.

I've never needed anyone to agree with me. Maybe you need people to agree with you, but that kind of mob/crowd validation is not what I seek.

And certainly I would never give in or give up just because someone told me to do so. LOL

It becomes more about having a discussion where people can disagree politely. But maybe that's a foreign concept to you..? 

I dunno! :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TopBilled said:

You say "knew" as in the past tense. Does this mean Holly is no longer living? Also are we supposed to understand the significance of the photo you posted? 

No. I just meant I knew the person when they lived in CA, don't know their whereabouts now.

And yes, the picture of Grady was just a lighthearted joke:

3 hours ago, TikiSoo said:

Please don't take this post as a correction, just an informed point of view.

In attempt to lighten the animosity.

Everyone's entitled to their POV, many react differently to the same movie. I don't think anyone here is "bullying" you, just in this particular case, no one (here) agrees with your angle on PSYCHO.

What's so onerous about that?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TikiSoo said:

No. I just meant I knew the person when they lived in CA, don't know their whereabouts now.

And yes, the picture of Grady was just a lighthearted joke:

In attempt to lighten the animosity.

Everyone's entitled to their POV, many react differently to the same movie. I don't think anyone here is "bullying" you, just in this particular case, no one (here) agrees with your angle on PSYCHO.

What's so onerous about that?

There's nothing onerous about disagreeing. It's how the disagreements were handled, that's where the problem occurred.

I thrive on a healthy exchange of ideas. 

I don't need anyone else to validate what I said about PSYCHO and its inclusion in the Reframed series because I believe in everything I wrote about the film and the character of Norman. I'm okay with seeing it my way, regardless of whether or not anyone else sees it that way.

I don't think there's animosity on the thread. I think there are bad manners being exhibited. 

There was some bullying and I felt I had to be assertive in standing up to it. I wouldn't change my responses on the thread at all.

As for HollyGolightly, there were some ludicrous suggestions earlier in the thread that HollyGolightly and myself are the same person. So I am glad you came along and set the record straight. But it really did not need to be dignified with a response. Those kinds of false claims are hard to prove and disprove, and they just get in the way of a friendly discussion.

Plus this thread is about the Reframed series. But I think on some level, people find me more interesting that the Reframed series. And that is a bit peculiar! :) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Misswonderly wrote this:

I am not quoting this gentleman, I merely copied and pasted his post.

Isn't that like quoting something? :) 

I will admit, it is hard to resist the temptation to mock far-fetched self-serving theories about films.  But I should know better than to do it with Mr. TB, as this is one of his favourite activities on these boards. (Not mocking.  Positing far-fetched self-serving theories about film.)

I think you would actually have to know me as a person to know if any theories serve me or people like me. Now if you had said "mock far-fetched theories" I would cut you some slack on that. But not "mock far-fetched self-serving theories" because you do not know what group I serve or count myself a member of...! But maybe you thought it sounded better to build up my ego so you had a proverbial dragon to slay? I don't know what your actual motivation is except to maybe stir up trouble just for the sake of stirring up trouble, something that seems to be one of your favorite activities...? 

If someone were to mock any comments   I  make about films, I would be somewhat flattered (depending on the mockification style) and possibly amused. 

Why does anyone have to mock anything. If a comment someone else makes seems absurd, then why not ignore it. Why make a federal case out of it? Again, unless your goal is to go for the jugular and stir up trouble...? Only you know what sort of unrest motivates you.

I do not hold with "bullying", however, Mr. TB's definition of the word is different from mine.  I will confess, I have little patience with far-fetched theories, especially when the one holding the theory clings to it despite reasonable rebuttals  (alliteration !)   from others.  

You shouldn't hold with bullying. But if you bully, then be mature and admit it when you're called out on it. It's too convenient for you to have a different definition of the word in order to deflect personal responsibility. That's where I lose respect for you. We've had these kinds of disagreements before, so your approach is all-too-familiar at this point, yeah? If you have little patience with what you deem far-fetched theories, then focus on posts where the theories or positing is more to your liking. I am not going to revise my theories for you, most of them are a work in progress anyway! And I need to be able to continue crafting my points as I continue to understand the films I watch. Surely/Shirley you would not begrudge anyone that!

If Mr. TB would like to mock - all in the spirit of good fun - any posts I have made here on this thread, I would not mind at all.   

I don't see the value in mocking you. It would be disrespectful to you. And if I am to obtain respect from you for what I write, then I have to set the better example for you to hopefully emulate. That's how I see it!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Moe Howard said:

...And you'd be delicious under cross examination.

 

LOL

Why is it I'm now envisioning Humphrey Bogart juggling around a couple of little steel balls in his right hand???

(...hey Moe...you wouldn't happen to look like Jose Ferrer, would ya?)

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...