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

OT: A moment of silence and prayer

Recommended Posts

Pray to an Ancient Alien near you. Elementary my Dear Watson. The dog did not bark. Therefore it was the owner of the dog who did the crime. all you need is some hypnosis, & a good post hypnotic suggestion. & you got yourself an inside fake terror made-for-tv tradegy. They got those news channels chattering like magpies. Now here's a word from our sponsor. RAID... kills little crawling things better or your money back.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Swithin, MY insistance that "this is not the place" means only that I feel this forum isn't the proper place to discuss matters like gun control or the treatment of the mentally ill by official stations. Such discussions will quickly deteriorate into volatile political diatribes that would only result in regretted comments, personal insults and eventually get "locked" anyway.



I see nothing wrong in the discussion of subjects unrelated to film. It gives us a chance to know one another on many levels other than the love of old movies. I for one hope that everyone else's life here constitutes interest in a much wider pallett of issues or topics. And to share some of those interests might be pleasant.



If your 9/11 post contained only your outrage of the occurance, and disgust for the perpetators, of course you wouldn't have been told "this is not the place". But if, so close to the occurance, your post contained a lot of vitriol over the Geopolitical ministrations that may have led UP to it, and attempted to place blame, politically, on any particular party or politicians, THEN the rebuttal would have come up.



I hope this helps clear the air.






Link to post
Share on other sites


Well if one checks out other websites (e.g. CNN forums associated with each newstory), one can see that issues quickly escalate, generally into one of two areas (based on my experience); politics and race, regardless of the newstory topic. The same over the top (to be polite), users just cannot stop themselves from projecting hate. They go to these sites just for that purpose.


Now we don't have those type of users here BUT is that because we all (generally), try to avoid those topics OR is it because we are just more mature, nicer people? I tend to think the former; i.e. if we were told there would be NO moderation of any kind, my gut tells me this forum would end up like those others (to some degree).


FYI: Fox closed down their user forum website because of too much hate, threats of violence and other insane behavior. I know this because those users go to the CNN forum and really lower the level of discussion to a point there really was no discussion.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Just look at the post -1980 movie thread! You don't need a "political" thread for people to go over the top! And I think if enough posters are involved to provide a modicum of civility, it can check and balance the others.


I for one have to control myself, when I see all the revolting over-the-top adulation about a mediocrity like Stanwyck, I could really get crazy and abusive and call people names about that! ]:) But I restrain myself, and try to be moderate in my criticisms.


But I do understand your concern, and Sepia's and others as well. I just don't see the current tragedy as a political issue; maybe I'm naive in thinking it wouldn't escalate into a gun-control argument. But at any rate, the discussion has begun in the wider world, which is a good thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites


I think you controlled yourself very well in that Stanwyck forum and because you did the Stanwyck fans (I'm one), were more open to listen to what you had to say. But yea, that took some guts!


As for this sad event, well one could say that even saying 'I don't see the current tragedy as a political issue' could be interpreted as political commentary since that is the type of statement we are hearing from the NRA. (but I wish to be clear that I'm not implying any intent on your part here).


Anyhow those with a political agenda will see politics in everything and anything.






Link to post
Share on other sites

"Everything is politics" -- Thomas Mann


I had lunch with a friend today who is a rather prolific writer about theater and film. We talked about about Rodgers and Hammerstein and how their musicals are totally political -- about class ( Carousel ), race ( Flower Drum Song, South Pacific ), and party politics ( The Sound of Music ). But delve into any film or play, and you'll find politics there, in some form, if not on the surface, then lurking beneath it.


Whose films are more political than Frank Capra's? (And I don't just mean Mr. Smith...)



Link to post
Share on other sites


Politics isn't just political parties and elections and candidates. It's Lost Horizon, Meet John Doe, etc. It concerns the way people interact. My dictionary gives this as one definition: "The total complex of relations between human beings in society."



Link to post
Share on other sites

> For so God has given you a chance to make the spirit within yourself. And as your father cleans his lamp to have good light, so keep clean your spirit... By prayer, Huw. *And by prayer, I don't mean shouting, mumbling, and wallowing like a hog in religious sentiment. Prayer is only another name for good, clean, direct thinking. When you pray, think. Think well what you're saying. Make your thoughts into things that are solid. In that way, your prayer will have strength, and that strength will become a part of you, body, mind, and spirit.*

-my emphasis

*How Green Was My Valley*


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote}It's funny (funny strange, not funny ha ha) that things go undiscussed for fear that they will escalate. ... I think not to discuss issues because one fears that the discussion will deteriote is to risk never discussing anything at all!

Well said, Swithin.

If "now is not the time" to discuss how and why this terrible thing happened, and how similar massacres can be prevented in the future, then, when is the time?

Why should any conversation around the above be considered "political" ? I don't see it as a "political" issue at all. It's a pretty straight-forward matter, really.

I do not see how talking about the reasons why it was possible for someone to commit this horrific slaughter could be regarded as offensive or disrespectful to the families of the murdered children and adults. If I were one of the bereaved parents, I would want people to discuss how such a thing could have been avoided. Heartbreaking though such a conversation would be, if I thought it could help prevent another parent's little boy or girl from being slain like this, I would want people to talk about it.

And I fail to understand how talking about this can be construed as "forwarding an agenda". Surely everyone has the same "agenda", which is to try and ensure, as much as humanly possible, that a horrific killing like this does not and can not happen again.


Edited by: misswonderly on Dec 17, 2012 8:50 PM

Link to post
Share on other sites

MissW, with all due respect, I'm going to venture a guess here that you might not see anything "politcal" in this primarily because you are Canadian.


You see, this issue, and indeed every time one of these tragedies which involves firearms occur within American borders, it will invariably invite talk of gun control in the U.S. And, because our 2nd Amendment to our Constitution has the underlying intent in the minds of many people in our country(I'm not one of them, just for the record here) that it is there to "ultimately protect us from some possible future 'tyrannical goverment", and that said 2nd Amendment is one of, if not THE primarily "guarantee" for all our so-called American 'freedoms'"(and once again, just for the record, this is not my belief either), well, any discussion about this tragedy OTHER than just again saying something such as "Gee, what a pity!" or something to that effect, would or almost assuredly invite the political aspects of this issue into this discussion, because talk of Constitutional Law is and of itself a "political matter" by nature.


Well, MAYBE other than discussing the issue of Mental Health Care in these United States, but even that would most likely devolve into the political ramifications inherit in that issue.


You see, in essence, "it's a whole different ballgame" in many respects down here south of the 49th.


(...and no, if now anyone might wish to involve me in some debate about what I've just told MissW, you're out of luck)


Edited by: Dargo2 on Dec 18, 2012 12:12 AM

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this political discussion, and it is political because many people are opposed to any infringement of their Second Amendment right and others feel it is necessary to change the present proliferation of

guns in the society, appropriate for a message board that is supposed to be

solely for the discussion of classic movies and issues directly related to Turner Classic Movies?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Raquel and Dargo,


I didn't mean for this to become an unpleasant discussion (and it hasn't, nor is it about politics). I just would like people to actually read the Second Amendment -- it has a preamble part of the sentence which may make the part we are familiar with obsolete. Also, Raquel, may I refer you to the Code of Conduct for this board. My cursory reading of it indicates that the Code says nothing about this board being solely for the discussion of film. The Code is VERY MUCH concerned about copyright infringements. So for those of you who are so concerned about living up to the Code, I would suggest that you express that everytime someone posts a photo. I would guess -- and I'm in the arts business and have had to use alot of photos -- that a majority of the photos put up on the Board are under copyright. That of course is a separate issue and has nothing to do with the present tragedy. But it's potentially a far more serious infringement of the Code than discussing non-film subjects, which may not be an infringement al all!


Link to post
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=RaquelVixen wrote:}{quote}Is this political discussion, and it is political because many people are opposed to any infringement of their Second Amendment right and others feel it is necessary to change the present proliferation of

> guns in the society, appropriate for a message board that is supposed to be

> solely for the discussion of classic movies and issues directly related to Turner Classic Movies?

Ok, I give up After the statement I'm about to make I'll back off. BUT FIRST:

I truly don't understand this American "gun culture" thing.

Let's get real here, I've tried to be discreet, but maybe just ended up sounding vague. This horrible slaughter would not have happened if the killer had not been able to access a certain type of weapon. If the sale of guns to civilians was limited to hand guns and rifles, then even if someone went berserk and decided to rush to a public place and kill as many people as possible, the number of "people possible" would be much lower. You just can't shoot as many human beings with a pistol or rifle as with an assault weapon intended for military use.


Why did this guy's mother have such a weapon in her house? Why do ordinary people need such things? They don't. If they want to have a gun in their house to defend themselves from attackers, fine, I'm not saying don't allow them to have access to a hand gun or even a rifle. But let's be sensible here, there's no way a civilian needs heavy duty arms that carry multiple shooting ability.

I cannot and never will understand the obsession with a "right" to possess such a weapon.


And when that misunderstood and well-beloved "2nd Amendment" was written, the kind of guns people purchase now with almost the same ease as buying a can opener did not exist.


I cannot believe that the majority of Americans believe that "the right to bear arms" - any kind of arms - trumps the rights of ordinary people to just conduct their lives in safety, people buying tickets to a Batman movie, people going about their lives as college students, people who are little kids just being little kids in school.


And yes, something needs to be done to address the mentally ill people who have the potential simmering inside them to feel the need to kill like this. But that is a much more complicated solution that could take a long time to figure out. In the mean time, for God's sake, ban the sale of military class weapons to civilians. Outside of a soldier, only a nut case would have need for such a gun.


C'est tout. If the moderator wants to "ban" me, so be it. I just had to say that.

Link to post
Share on other sites




In my humble opinion, I do not think this is an issue of gun control ONLY, there is so much more to it, big cultural differences that may also explain. I was born and raised in Europe and moved to the US in my early 20s and I could write an essay on this. I'm assuming most people on this Boards have seen Michael Moore's documentary Bowling for Columbine. He can be skewed and opportunistic at times, but, as I learned the news of the shooting, and the disproportionate media coverage, I could not help but remember that documentary because it made excellent points that are relevant to this day.We all agree smarter gun control measures are necessary, but in BfC I learned that Canada has just as many (if not more) guns per inhabitant as the US, and yet they do not have mass shootings like these, so naturally, Moore tried to find out what is it that makes US and Canada be so close and yet be so different in that regard. If you have not seen it, I highly recommend it.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your response, LadyE. Yes, I have seen Bowling for Columbine. I thought it made some very good points, although Michael Moore's credibility has been challenged on a number of issues.


I do agree that the problem is a lot more complicated than just legislating gun control. (And by "gun control" I mean those assault weapons I was talking about, not smaller guns designed for hunting or target practice.)

I am very curious as to where you got your stats from, regarding Canadian gun ownership vs American. I cannot help but question it.

There are a lot of hunters in Canada, and perhaps a good proportion of the gun ownership here is held by them.

I did check out a website that gave figures that do not accord with yours', but who knows? What I read is this: Canadian gun ownership, 22%; American gun ownership, 48%.

With respect, I truly can not believe that Canadians proportionately own more guns than Americans.

Here's the site:




To be fair, Canada has most certainly had its share of people going crazy and committing a mass shooting - several times in schools. And I believe that like the massacres I referred to in my post, these people had military-class weapons to do their evil work.

Of course the ultimate question is what causes people to do this, why do they do it, what has snapped in their minds?


(ps: sorry for the need to ask, but what's "BfC" ?)


Edited by: misswonderly on Dec 18, 2012 11:20 AM

Link to post
Share on other sites

BfC, It's Bowling for Columbie :D


Yep, that's why I said that Michael Moore can be opportunistic, and perhaps his facts about gun ownership were skewed, but having the perspective of knowing two cultures, he really made me think beyond the gun control issue.


But yes, I agree, to me it's a no brainer that strict regulation on military-assault weapons is necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And to dig deeper into the cultural issue, to me the real question IS, 2nd amendment or no 2nd amendment, what compels a 40-something, apparently perfectly sane, middle-class woman to own such weapons...don't you think that's a cultural issue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I just have to respond when someone makes a statement that is so factually incorrect, as in: .


This horrible slaughter would not have happened if the killer had not been able to access a certain type of weapon.


Here is just one example of how the killer using standard non semi-automatic guns, could of killed or harmed just as many; Enter the school with a box of home made fire bombs. OK, maybe not as many would of died but still, killing would NOT of been prevented.


Thus the 'would not have happened' line is just not factual.


PS: I don't own a gun, never have, and never plan too. If people wish to push for more gun control, go for it, but I really don't think it will have much of an impact UNLESS the government was to remove ALL existing guns except single shot type rifles. This 'war on guns' would end up like the war on drugs in that the majority of people attested for violating the law would be citizens that otherwise obey the law.


Edited by: jamesjazzguitar on Dec 18, 2012 12:42 PM

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...