| |
Main
Date: 21 Nov 2006 15:54:51
From: annika1980
Subject: Bad News, Good News
|
The bad news is that FOX has cancelled the big O.J. interview.
Damn, I really wanted to see how he did it, er..... "could have done
it."
The good news is that FOX is replacing that show with their new comedy
special, "Michael Richards at the Apollo." After that one, Kramer will
be appearing on HBO's "Dead Comedy Jam."
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 07:24:26
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote in message
> news:1164382464.555622.138720@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> > I never said it was appropriate and in fact I agree it was uncalled
> > for. I only asked if he was really a racist or just one pissed off guy?
> > I tend to think he was just one pissed off guy... and not really for a
> > very good reason. I'm actually suprised that he got so pissed. Most
> > experienced comedians usually have a way of putting hecklers (or anyone
> > close to the stage that annoys them) in their place in a humerous way.
> > That always makes the hecklers/annoyers out to be the bad guys.
>
>
> I think he certainly has rascist tendencies. Being that pissed off is a lot
> like being drunk: you don't necessarily have good control of what comes out
> of your mouth, but you're also not very good at making things up. The
> things he said were not random. There's a reason he chose racial epitaths
> from all the other insulting lines he might have chosen.
Exactly. I am absolutely certain that if I had been in Richards'
position, I wouldn't have called anybody a n*****r. It wouldn't have
occurred to me that the color of their skin had anything to do with why
they had pissed me off. Racial issues aside, I have no respect
for any entertainer who harrasses people who have paid to see him.
|
| |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 17:14:02
From:
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <1164402091.842637.94050@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
> bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > In article <1164398094.733580.184800@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > > .
> > > > > And do the names Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goldman, and James Chaney
> > > > > mean anything to you?
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I thought not.
> > > > >
> > > > > William Clark
> > > >
> > > > Every time you open your mouth, you're sounding more and more like some
> > > > of the pompous old queens I know. Please tell me you're not a fag on
> > > > top of evrything else. As for Schwerner, Goldman, and Chaney, yes I saw
> > > > the movie.
> > >
> > > Good, and that was considerably less than 50 years ago, wasn't it? Every
> > > time YOU open your mouth you sound more and more like some of the nasty
> > > redneck racist/anti-semitic/homophobes I know.
> > >
> > > William Clark
> >
> > My god, you're sounding more like a stupid broad with every post. By
> > the way they didn't gas those boys, so show some proof of gas chambers
> > in 1956.
>
> Oh, aren't we soooo clever? You are sounding more and more like a
> neo-nazi with every post.
>
> And your attempts to wriggle are simply pathetic.
>
> William Clark
Neo-Nazi? That's sorta repetitious isn't it? I gave you a chance to add
"sexist" to your list. Let's see now according to Billy, I am a "nasty
redneck racist/anti-semitic/homophobe/(insert sexist)/neo-nazi. You are
giving me a headache, but, I can keep on going. Just for my own info,
what do you usually shoot, 90's, 100's, 80's?
|
| | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 21:21:06
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <1164417242.655382.177880@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <1164402091.842637.94050@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
> > bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > > In article <1164398094.733580.184800@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > > > .
> > > > > > And do the names Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goldman, and James
> > > > > > Chaney
> > > > > > mean anything to you?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No, I thought not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > William Clark
> > > > >
> > > > > Every time you open your mouth, you're sounding more and more like
> > > > > some
> > > > > of the pompous old queens I know. Please tell me you're not a fag on
> > > > > top of evrything else. As for Schwerner, Goldman, and Chaney, yes I
> > > > > saw
> > > > > the movie.
> > > >
> > > > Good, and that was considerably less than 50 years ago, wasn't it?
> > > > Every
> > > > time YOU open your mouth you sound more and more like some of the nasty
> > > > redneck racist/anti-semitic/homophobes I know.
> > > >
> > > > William Clark
> > >
> > > My god, you're sounding more like a stupid broad with every post. By
> > > the way they didn't gas those boys, so show some proof of gas chambers
> > > in 1956.
> >
> > Oh, aren't we soooo clever? You are sounding more and more like a
> > neo-nazi with every post.
> >
> > And your attempts to wriggle are simply pathetic.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> Neo-Nazi? That's sorta repetitious isn't it? I gave you a chance to add
> "sexist" to your list. Let's see now according to Billy, I am a "nasty
> redneck racist/anti-semitic/homophobe/(insert sexist)/neo-nazi. You are
> giving me a headache, but, I can keep on going. Just for my own info,
> what do you usually shoot, 90's, 100's, 80's?
Yes, you're about right. And now you can add "killfiled" to that list,
because I have had enough of your puerile drivel.
William Clark
*PLONK*
|
| |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 16:27:55
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote in message
> news:1164382464.555622.138720@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> > I never said it was appropriate and in fact I agree it was uncalled
> > for. I only asked if he was really a racist or just one pissed off guy?
> > I tend to think he was just one pissed off guy... and not really for a
> > very good reason. I'm actually suprised that he got so pissed. Most
> > experienced comedians usually have a way of putting hecklers (or anyone
> > close to the stage that annoys them) in their place in a humerous way.
> > That always makes the hecklers/annoyers out to be the bad guys.
>
>
> I think he certainly has rascist tendencies. Being that pissed off is a lot
> like being drunk: you don't necessarily have good control of what comes out
> of your mouth, but you're also not very good at making things up. The
> things he said were not random. There's a reason he chose racial epitaths
> from all the other insulting lines he might have chosen.
>
> If I'd been in his position and went off into irrational la la land like
> that, I might have said some very silly things in my rage. One of them
> would not be 'n-----'.
There are some rumors too (I think) that he has done similar things
before. He's obvioulsy got problems... of one sort or another.
|
| |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 13:52:01
From:
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
John B. wrote:
> Why waste your time, William? This guy sounds like he's about 14 yrs.
> old.
Are you a sloop?
|
| |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 13:31:07
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
bigoldc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <1164398094.733580.184800@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > .
> > > > And do the names Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goldman, and James Chaney
> > > > mean anything to you?
> > > >
> > > > No, I thought not.
> > > >
> > > > William Clark
> > >
> > > Every time you open your mouth, you're sounding more and more like some
> > > of the pompous old queens I know. Please tell me you're not a fag on
> > > top of evrything else. As for Schwerner, Goldman, and Chaney, yes I saw
> > > the movie.
> >
> > Good, and that was considerably less than 50 years ago, wasn't it? Every
> > time YOU open your mouth you sound more and more like some of the nasty
> > redneck racist/anti-semitic/homophobes I know.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> My god, you're sounding more like a stupid broad with every post. By
> the way they didn't gas those boys, so show some proof of gas chambers
> in 1956.
Why waste your time, William? This guy sounds like he's about 14 yrs.
old.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 16:48:46
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <1164403867.662936.95160@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com >,
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
> bigoldc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > In article <1164398094.733580.184800@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > > bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > > .
> > > > > And do the names Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goldman, and James Chaney
> > > > > mean anything to you?
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I thought not.
> > > > >
> > > > > William Clark
> > > >
> > > > Every time you open your mouth, you're sounding more and more like some
> > > > of the pompous old queens I know. Please tell me you're not a fag on
> > > > top of evrything else. As for Schwerner, Goldman, and Chaney, yes I saw
> > > > the movie.
> > >
> > > Good, and that was considerably less than 50 years ago, wasn't it? Every
> > > time YOU open your mouth you sound more and more like some of the nasty
> > > redneck racist/anti-semitic/homophobes I know.
> > >
> > > William Clark
> >
> > My god, you're sounding more like a stupid broad with every post. By
> > the way they didn't gas those boys, so show some proof of gas chambers
> > in 1956.
>
>
> Why waste your time, William? This guy sounds like he's about 14 yrs.
> old.
You think he's that old? I was thinking more along the lines of an
elementary school dropout.
William Clark
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 17:35:36
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-149172.16484624112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <1164403867.662936.95160@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com>,
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> bigoldc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > William A. T. Clark wrote:
>> > > In article <1164398094.733580.184800@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
>> > > bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > William A. T. Clark wrote:
>> > > > .
>> > > > > And do the names Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goldman, and James
>> > > > > Chaney
>> > > > > mean anything to you?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > No, I thought not.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > William Clark
>> > > >
>> > > > Every time you open your mouth, you're sounding more and more like
>> > > > some
>> > > > of the pompous old queens I know. Please tell me you're not a fag
>> > > > on
>> > > > top of evrything else. As for Schwerner, Goldman, and Chaney, yes I
>> > > > saw
>> > > > the movie.
>> > >
>> > > Good, and that was considerably less than 50 years ago, wasn't it?
>> > > Every
>> > > time YOU open your mouth you sound more and more like some of the
>> > > nasty
>> > > redneck racist/anti-semitic/homophobes I know.
>> > >
>> > > William Clark
>> >
>> > My god, you're sounding more like a stupid broad with every post. By
>> > the way they didn't gas those boys, so show some proof of gas chambers
>> > in 1956.
>>
>>
>> Why waste your time, William? This guy sounds like he's about 14 yrs.
>> old.
>
> You think he's that old? I was thinking more along the lines of an
> elementary school dropout.
>
> William Clark
I'm not sure there is much difference between my own previous rantings,
attacks on character (I forget the latin name) and other things, than what
Michael Richards and the other people at that nightclub did.
|
| |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 13:01:31
From:
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <1164398094.733580.184800@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > .
> > > And do the names Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goldman, and James Chaney
> > > mean anything to you?
> > >
> > > No, I thought not.
> > >
> > > William Clark
> >
> > Every time you open your mouth, you're sounding more and more like some
> > of the pompous old queens I know. Please tell me you're not a fag on
> > top of evrything else. As for Schwerner, Goldman, and Chaney, yes I saw
> > the movie.
>
> Good, and that was considerably less than 50 years ago, wasn't it? Every
> time YOU open your mouth you sound more and more like some of the nasty
> redneck racist/anti-semitic/homophobes I know.
>
> William Clark
My god, you're sounding more like a stupid broad with every post. By
the way they didn't gas those boys, so show some proof of gas chambers
in 1956.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 16:48:03
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <1164402091.842637.94050@14g2000cws.googlegroups.com >,
bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <1164398094.733580.184800@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> > bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > .
> > > > And do the names Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goldman, and James Chaney
> > > > mean anything to you?
> > > >
> > > > No, I thought not.
> > > >
> > > > William Clark
> > >
> > > Every time you open your mouth, you're sounding more and more like some
> > > of the pompous old queens I know. Please tell me you're not a fag on
> > > top of evrything else. As for Schwerner, Goldman, and Chaney, yes I saw
> > > the movie.
> >
> > Good, and that was considerably less than 50 years ago, wasn't it? Every
> > time YOU open your mouth you sound more and more like some of the nasty
> > redneck racist/anti-semitic/homophobes I know.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> My god, you're sounding more like a stupid broad with every post. By
> the way they didn't gas those boys, so show some proof of gas chambers
> in 1956.
Oh, aren't we soooo clever? You are sounding more and more like a
neo-nazi with every post.
And your attempts to wriggle are simply pathetic.
William Clark
|
| |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 11:54:54
From:
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
.
> And do the names Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goldman, and James Chaney
> mean anything to you?
>
> No, I thought not.
>
> William Clark
Every time you open your mouth, you're sounding more and more like some
of the pompous old queens I know. Please tell me you're not a fag on
top of evrything else. As for Schwerner, Goldman, and Chaney, yes I saw
the movie.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 15:26:13
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <1164398094.733580.184800@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> .
> > And do the names Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goldman, and James Chaney
> > mean anything to you?
> >
> > No, I thought not.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> Every time you open your mouth, you're sounding more and more like some
> of the pompous old queens I know. Please tell me you're not a fag on
> top of evrything else. As for Schwerner, Goldman, and Chaney, yes I saw
> the movie.
Good, and that was considerably less than 50 years ago, wasn't it? Every
time YOU open your mouth you sound more and more like some of the nasty
redneck racist/anti-semitic/homophobes I know.
William Clark
|
| |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 08:40:00
From:
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
John B. wrote:
> bigoldc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > John B. wrote:
> >
> > > Southern blacks were being lynched in 1956. You could look it up.
> >
> > I'll take your word for it, they must've done something real bad, huh?
>
> Is that supposed to be funny?
Let me think about it.................yup, it's supposed to be funny.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 13:41:06
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <1164386400.202792.104040@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > bigoldc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > John B. wrote:
> > >
> > > > Southern blacks were being lynched in 1956. You could look it up.
> > >
> > > I'll take your word for it, they must've done something real bad, huh?
> >
> > Is that supposed to be funny?
>
> Let me think about it.................yup, it's supposed to be funny.
Well it isn't - it's just plain ignorant.
William Clark
|
| |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 07:34:24
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <1164345487.800397.119900@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote:
>
> > Head Shot wrote:
> > > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > > Only you would have, pal, only you. Richards' phony apology had more
> > > > to do with future bookings than any deep felt sincerity. He should
> > > > lay off the booze or the drugs, or both.
> > >
> > > Actually; he should also seek counseling to help him overcome his racist
> > > views. Although, most racists do not view themselves as a problem to
> > > humanity.
> >
> > Is he really a racist or was he just saying the right things to really
> > piss of the people he was pissed at?
> > Firing for maximum effect in other words?
>
> I don't think reminding people that 50 years ago they would have been
> lynched is either funny or excusable. Do we find it witty or acceptable
> to tell Jews that 50 years ago they would have been in the gas chambers?
> No.
>
> And there was no "effect" he was firing for.
Yes, there was. He was trying to inflict hurt and pain with words... he
accomplished that.
> He simply lost his cool,
Yes... otherwise he wouldn't have fired for maximum effect (hurt).
> and somehow thought this tirade was either witty or appropriate. Judging
> by the fact that almost the entire audience, black and white, gets up
> and leaves before he's done, he was in a minority of one in believing
> so.
I never said it was appropriate and in fact I agree it was uncalled
for. I only asked if he was really a racist or just one pissed off guy?
I tend to think he was just one pissed off guy... and not really for a
very good reason. I'm actually suprised that he got so pissed. Most
experienced comedians usually have a way of putting hecklers (or anyone
close to the stage that annoys them) in their place in a humerous way.
That always makes the hecklers/annoyers out to be the bad guys.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 22:41:13
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
"dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote in message
news:1164382464.555622.138720@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
> I never said it was appropriate and in fact I agree it was uncalled
> for. I only asked if he was really a racist or just one pissed off guy?
> I tend to think he was just one pissed off guy... and not really for a
> very good reason. I'm actually suprised that he got so pissed. Most
> experienced comedians usually have a way of putting hecklers (or anyone
> close to the stage that annoys them) in their place in a humerous way.
> That always makes the hecklers/annoyers out to be the bad guys.
I think he certainly has rascist tendencies. Being that pissed off is a lot
like being drunk: you don't necessarily have good control of what comes out
of your mouth, but you're also not very good at making things up. The
things he said were not random. There's a reason he chose racial epitaths
from all the other insulting lines he might have chosen.
If I'd been in his position and went off into irrational la la land like
that, I might have said some very silly things in my rage. One of them
would not be 'n-----'.
Scott
|
| |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 07:29:29
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
bigoldc...@yahoo.com wrote:
> John B. wrote:
>
> > Southern blacks were being lynched in 1956. You could look it up.
>
> I'll take your word for it, they must've done something real bad, huh?
Is that supposed to be funny?
|
| |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 07:27:03
From:
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
John B. wrote:
> Southern blacks were being lynched in 1956. You could look it up.
I'll take your word for it, they must've done something real bad, huh?
|
| |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 07:26:58
From:
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
John B. wrote:
> Southern blacks were being lynched in 1956. You could look it up.
I'll take your word for it, they must've done something real bad, huh?
|
| |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 07:10:44
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>
> > I don't think reminding people that 50 years ago they would have been
> > lynched is either funny or excusable. Do we find it witty or acceptable
> > to tell Jews that 50 years ago they would have been in the gas chambers?
> > No.
> >>
> > William Clark
>
> Who was being lynched in 1956? Where were these gas chambers in 1956?
> Apparently the Jewish people find it necessary to constantly remind us
> that they were victimized through out their history.
Southern blacks were being lynched in 1956. You could look it up.
|
| |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 06:46:07
From:
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> I don't think reminding people that 50 years ago they would have been
> lynched is either funny or excusable. Do we find it witty or acceptable
> to tell Jews that 50 years ago they would have been in the gas chambers?
> No.
>>
> William Clark
Who was being lynched in 1956? Where were these gas chambers in 1956?
Apparently the Jewish people find it necessary to constantly remind us
that they were victimized through out their history.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 13:40:31
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <1164379567.256293.266160@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com >,
bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>
> > I don't think reminding people that 50 years ago they would have been
> > lynched is either funny or excusable. Do we find it witty or acceptable
> > to tell Jews that 50 years ago they would have been in the gas chambers?
> > No.
> >>
> > William Clark
>
> Who was being lynched in 1956? Where were these gas chambers in 1956?
> Apparently the Jewish people find it necessary to constantly remind us
> that they were victimized through out their history.
Once again you are revealed by your words for exactly who you are -
another anit-semitic racist hiding behind an anonymous Usenet pseudonym.
And do the names Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goldman, and James Chaney
mean anything to you?
No, I thought not.
William Clark
|
| |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 21:30:23
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <Wed9h.11321$kI3.2814@newsfe06.phx>,
> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>
> > "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1164153291.331485.172050@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > > The bad news is that FOX has cancelled the big O.J. interview.
> > > Damn, I really wanted to see how he did it, er..... "could have done
> > > it."
> > >
> > > The good news is that FOX is replacing that show with their new comedy
> > > special, "Michael Richards at the Apollo." After that one, Kramer will
> > > be appearing on HBO's "Dead Comedy Jam."
> >
> > The lawyer for the kids that got insulted by Richards was something to
> > watch. She suggested that there be a sit down so Richards can apologize in
> > person and she would arrange to have a retired judge there to suggest any
> > penalty that Richards should pay. 5 cents for the best lawyer joke ... Have
> > him call me.
>
> Yes, she was exactly what was needed to defuse the situation, wasn't
> she? Much better if both parties met quietly away from cameras and
> lawyers and sorted their differences out.
>
> It will never happen like that, though.
I don't have much use or Gloria Allred (sp?)...
She's just looking to make a buck anywhere/anyway she can...
|
| |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 21:25:21
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
bill-o wrote:
> On 22-Nov-2006, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
> > Nobody is asking the heckler to apologize for calling Richards an MF
> > Cracker
> > MF'er or an MF White Boy.
>
> Do you really think he should? Richards had no biz being on stage if he
> couldn't handle hecklers.
And hecklers have no business heckling... if they can't handle the
comeback... it's a two way street. They were all wrong...
|
| | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 13:50:19
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
On 23 Nov 2006 21:25:21 -0800, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:
>And hecklers have no business heckling... if they can't handle the
>comeback... it's a two way street. They were all wrong...
Sure, but the hecklers went home - none of us know who they are.
Celebrities don't have that option.
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 13:42:21
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <a3udm25krlsqjhdedf9huh1m10u8dhf6tm@4ax.com >,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net > wrote:
> On 23 Nov 2006 21:25:21 -0800, "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote:
>
> >And hecklers have no business heckling... if they can't handle the
> >comeback... it's a two way street. They were all wrong...
>
> Sure, but the hecklers went home - none of us know who they are.
> Celebrities don't have that option.
Yes we do - they were on the Today Show a couple of days later.
William Clark
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Nov 2006 00:54:57
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 13:42:21 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:
>> >And hecklers have no business heckling... if they can't handle the
>> >comeback... it's a two way street. They were all wrong...
>>
>> Sure, but the hecklers went home - none of us know who they are.
>> Celebrities don't have that option.
>
>Yes we do - they were on the Today Show a couple of days later.
Ahh, they were rewarded for their behavior by our wonderful media.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 21:19:34
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <825fm299pelssrlkkmugbt7l0og4rtcgib@4ax.com >,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net > wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 13:42:21 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> >And hecklers have no business heckling... if they can't handle the
> >> >comeback... it's a two way street. They were all wrong...
> >>
> >> Sure, but the hecklers went home - none of us know who they are.
> >> Celebrities don't have that option.
> >
> >Yes we do - they were on the Today Show a couple of days later.
>
> Ahh, they were rewarded for their behavior by our wonderful media.
Well, I'd be the first to jump on them, but in this case the public were
clearly mislead originally. The impression was given that Richards
tirade was in response to one of these people heckling his act, in which
case they are fair game, up to a point. Not so - what actually happened
was that this group was shown to their table, and then asked for a drink
order, while Richards was on stage. Apparently Richards didn't like the
commotion, and that is what started him off, including the "fork up you
a***" comment. It was not until he had unloaded this and several n words
that they responded, rather mildly I thought, that Richards' rels
were "uncalled for". The he went off again, and the two-way exchange
began.
It seems to me that it is the management's fault if they seat people
while someone is performing, and then ask them for a drink order. It is
not a justification for the kind of rant that Richards went on. That's
why most of the audience walked out before he was finished.
William Clark
|
| | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 08:48:33
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <1164345921.308057.258970@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:
> bill-o wrote:
> > On 22-Nov-2006, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Nobody is asking the heckler to apologize for calling Richards an MF
> > > Cracker
> > > MF'er or an MF White Boy.
> >
> > Do you really think he should? Richards had no biz being on stage if he
> > couldn't handle hecklers.
>
> And hecklers have no business heckling... if they can't handle the
> comeback... it's a two way street. They were all wrong...
Actually it wasn't heckling that started it. This group came in and sat
down during his act, and were ordering drinks. That seems to be a
management problem if they allow that to happen. Anyway, the noise this
made is what ticked Richards off and started his tirade. The "heckling"
only began after he had used the lynching comparison and the "n" word,
and was initially just "that was uncalled for". As Richards continued on
his rant, then the exchange got more heated.
So blaming these people for starting the episode by heckling is just
flat out wrong.
William Clark
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 10:28:49
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-7E51C8.08483324112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <1164345921.308057.258970@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote:
>
>> bill-o wrote:
>> > On 22-Nov-2006, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Nobody is asking the heckler to apologize for calling Richards an MF
>> > > Cracker
>> > > MF'er or an MF White Boy.
>> >
>> > Do you really think he should? Richards had no biz being on stage if he
>> > couldn't handle hecklers.
>>
>> And hecklers have no business heckling... if they can't handle the
>> comeback... it's a two way street. They were all wrong...
>
> Actually it wasn't heckling that started it. This group came in and sat
> down during his act, and were ordering drinks. That seems to be a
> management problem if they allow that to happen. Anyway, the noise this
> made is what ticked Richards off and started his tirade. The "heckling"
> only began after he had used the lynching comparison and the "n" word,
> and was initially just "that was uncalled for". As Richards continued on
> his rant, then the exchange got more heated.
>
> So blaming these people for starting the episode by heckling is just
> flat out wrong.
>
> William Clark
What's honestly scary to me, and I'm sure a lot of other people, is that if
I got pissed off enough, even if it had little or nothing to do with the
person who ended up getting my anger, I could do things like what Michael
Richards did. I can prepare myself now to not do that. But it's like war.
Some people end up killing or hurting women and children, innocent people
because they go crazy. It really is like temporary insanity. I do not know
how racial tension builds up or really why anger is what it is, if it really
is even part of us or something that we learn at an early age and very frew
of us overcome. But mostly it's scary to me to know that I am capable of not
only insulting people but actually, under circumstances like in war, doing
things that would make the rest of my life full of regret. And I don't mean
that what Richards did was just an insult. It was worse.
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 22:46:26
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:LSG9h.29311$UC2.2315@newsfe08.phx...
>
But mostly it's scary to me to know that I am capable of not
> only insulting people but actually, under circumstances like in war, doing
> things that would make the rest of my life full of regret. And I don't
> mean that what Richards did was just an insult. It was worse.
That I don't entirely understand. For me, the desire to humiliate, hurt,
etc. is where all the wrong is done. That it takes the form of racial
epitaths doesn't seem to make it anymore or less harmful or wrong.
Of course, unlike other forms of insult, it does tell us something extra
about the speaker (that they tilt towards rascist on the spectrum of
interracial tolerance).
Scott
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 17:38:35
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
"S McFarlane" <spam@nothanks.com > wrote in message
news:6DK9h.23834$a_2.6437@trnddc01...
>
> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:LSG9h.29311$UC2.2315@newsfe08.phx...
>>
> But mostly it's scary to me to know that I am capable of not
>> only insulting people but actually, under circumstances like in war,
>> doing things that would make the rest of my life full of regret. And I
>> don't mean that what Richards did was just an insult. It was worse.
>
> That I don't entirely understand. For me, the desire to humiliate, hurt,
> etc. is where all the wrong is done. That it takes the form of racial
> epitaths doesn't seem to make it anymore or less harmful or wrong.
>
> Of course, unlike other forms of insult, it does tell us something extra
> about the speaker (that they tilt towards rascist on the spectrum of
> interracial tolerance).
>
> Scott
I'm not sure what it is that I wrote that is unclear. : -)
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 15:29:27
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <LSG9h.29311$UC2.2315@newsfe08.phx >,
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-7E51C8.08483324112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <1164345921.308057.258970@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> bill-o wrote:
> >> > On 22-Nov-2006, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Nobody is asking the heckler to apologize for calling Richards an MF
> >> > > Cracker
> >> > > MF'er or an MF White Boy.
> >> >
> >> > Do you really think he should? Richards had no biz being on stage if he
> >> > couldn't handle hecklers.
> >>
> >> And hecklers have no business heckling... if they can't handle the
> >> comeback... it's a two way street. They were all wrong...
> >
> > Actually it wasn't heckling that started it. This group came in and sat
> > down during his act, and were ordering drinks. That seems to be a
> > management problem if they allow that to happen. Anyway, the noise this
> > made is what ticked Richards off and started his tirade. The "heckling"
> > only began after he had used the lynching comparison and the "n" word,
> > and was initially just "that was uncalled for". As Richards continued on
> > his rant, then the exchange got more heated.
> >
> > So blaming these people for starting the episode by heckling is just
> > flat out wrong.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> What's honestly scary to me, and I'm sure a lot of other people, is that if
> I got pissed off enough, even if it had little or nothing to do with the
> person who ended up getting my anger, I could do things like what Michael
> Richards did. I can prepare myself now to not do that. But it's like war.
> Some people end up killing or hurting women and children, innocent people
> because they go crazy. It really is like temporary insanity. I do not know
> how racial tension builds up or really why anger is what it is, if it really
> is even part of us or something that we learn at an early age and very frew
> of us overcome. But mostly it's scary to me to know that I am capable of not
> only insulting people but actually, under circumstances like in war, doing
> things that would make the rest of my life full of regret. And I don't mean
> that what Richards did was just an insult. It was worse.
I agree with you that we should look in the mirror and ask "what makes
us not do what Richards did"? Avoiding drink and/or drugs is a start,
but there is still some mental safety valve that says to even the
subconscious that certain things are beyond the pale. However, if you do
let go like that in a public forum, phony "mea culpas" carefully staged
on TV are not the answer.
William Clark
|
| |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 21:18:07
From: dsc
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
Head Shot wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > Only you would have, pal, only you. Richards' phony apology had more
> > to do with future bookings than any deep felt sincerity. He should
> > lay off the booze or the drugs, or both.
>
> Actually; he should also seek counseling to help him overcome his racist
> views. Although, most racists do not view themselves as a problem to
> humanity.
Is he really a racist or was he just saying the right things to really
piss of the people he was pissed at?
Firing for maximum effect in other words?
|
| | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 08:53:07
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <1164345487.800397.119900@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"dsc" <Dudley.Cornman@eku.edu > wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
> > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > Only you would have, pal, only you. Richards' phony apology had more
> > > to do with future bookings than any deep felt sincerity. He should
> > > lay off the booze or the drugs, or both.
> >
> > Actually; he should also seek counseling to help him overcome his racist
> > views. Although, most racists do not view themselves as a problem to
> > humanity.
>
> Is he really a racist or was he just saying the right things to really
> piss of the people he was pissed at?
> Firing for maximum effect in other words?
I don't think reminding people that 50 years ago they would have been
lynched is either funny or excusable. Do we find it witty or acceptable
to tell Jews that 50 years ago they would have been in the gas chambers?
No.
And there was no "effect" he was firing for. He simply lost his cool,
and somehow thought this tirade was either witty or appropriate. Judging
by the fact that almost the entire audience, black and white, gets up
and leaves before he's done, he was in a minority of one in believing
so.
William Clark
|
| |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 17:10:59
From:
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> Why don't you poll them and find out?
What would be the point of that?
|
| | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 22:43:18
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <1164330659.069666.15400@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>
> > Why don't you poll them and find out?
>
> What would be the point of that?
You might actually learn something.
|
| |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 11:51:51
From:
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
:
> You can call me what you like - sticks and stones, you know. You still
> look like a racist to me.
>
> (And to most other people, too).
>
> William Clark
Are you speaking for a group now? By the way, I am a huge believer in
sticks and stones.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 18:46:47
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <1164311511.750699.128090@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> :
> > You can call me what you like - sticks and stones, you know. You still
> > look like a racist to me.
> >
> > (And to most other people, too).
> >
> > William Clark
>
> Are you speaking for a group now? By the way, I am a huge believer in
> sticks and stones.
Why don't you poll them and find out?
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 19:08:59
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <1164311511.750699.128090@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> You can call me what you like - sticks and stones, you know. You
>>> still look like a racist to me.
>>>
>>> (And to most other people, too).
>>>
>>> William Clark
>>
>> Are you speaking for a group now? By the way, I am a huge believer in
>> sticks and stones.
>
> Why don't you poll them and find out?
You sure you want him to "pole" the group. Most of us don't swing that
way......
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 08:23:18
From:
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <1164255026.234021.22390@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >
> > > Political correctness? My God, have you actually SEEN the entire tape?
> > > No, I thought not - you are simply white trash that knows how to react
> > > to an uppity black.
> > >
> > > We should have known when you have to post under a pseudonym.
> > >
> > > William Clark
> >
> > May you and your family have a very close encounter with some of those
> > "uppity blacks" this holiday season. Don't you think the "white trash"
> > thing is a bit much?
>
> Not judging by what you wrote. Fair call, I would say, based on that.
>
> William Clark
But Billy, why would you attack me personally for expressing my
opinion? I think I'll call you Kramer from now on. Do you see the
similarities between you and MR? You are sooooo full of shit.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 14:32:23
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <1164298998.501489.59120@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <1164255026.234021.22390@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > > Political correctness? My God, have you actually SEEN the entire tape?
> > > > No, I thought not - you are simply white trash that knows how to react
> > > > to an uppity black.
> > > >
> > > > We should have known when you have to post under a pseudonym.
> > > >
> > > > William Clark
> > >
> > > May you and your family have a very close encounter with some of those
> > > "uppity blacks" this holiday season. Don't you think the "white trash"
> > > thing is a bit much?
> >
> > Not judging by what you wrote. Fair call, I would say, based on that.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> But Billy, why would you attack me personally for expressing my
> opinion? I think I'll call you Kramer from now on. Do you see the
> similarities between you and MR? You are sooooo full of shit.
You can call me what you like - sticks and stones, you know. You still
look like a racist to me.
(And to most other people, too).
William Clark
|
| |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 00:46:38
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1164153291.331485.172050@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> The bad news is that FOX has cancelled the big O.J. interview.
> Damn, I really wanted to see how he did it, er..... "could have done
> it."
>
> The good news is that FOX is replacing that show with their new comedy
> special, "Michael Richards at the Apollo." After that one, Kramer will
> be appearing on HBO's "Dead Comedy Jam."
The lawyer for the kids that got insulted by Richards was something to
watch. She suggested that there be a sit down so Richards can apologize in
person and she would arrange to have a retired judge there to suggest any
penalty that Richards should pay. 5 cents for the best lawyer joke ... Have
him call me.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 09:09:02
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <Wed9h.11321$kI3.2814@newsfe06.phx >,
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
> "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1164153291.331485.172050@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > The bad news is that FOX has cancelled the big O.J. interview.
> > Damn, I really wanted to see how he did it, er..... "could have done
> > it."
> >
> > The good news is that FOX is replacing that show with their new comedy
> > special, "Michael Richards at the Apollo." After that one, Kramer will
> > be appearing on HBO's "Dead Comedy Jam."
>
> The lawyer for the kids that got insulted by Richards was something to
> watch. She suggested that there be a sit down so Richards can apologize in
> person and she would arrange to have a retired judge there to suggest any
> penalty that Richards should pay. 5 cents for the best lawyer joke ... Have
> him call me.
Yes, she was exactly what was needed to defuse the situation, wasn't
she? Much better if both parties met quietly away from cameras and
lawyers and sorted their differences out.
It will never happen like that, though.
William Clark
|
| |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 00:36:27
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1164153291.331485.172050@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> The bad news is that FOX has cancelled the big O.J. interview.
> Damn, I really wanted to see how he did it, er..... "could have done
> it."
>
> The good news is that FOX is replacing that show with their new comedy
> special, "Michael Richards at the Apollo." After that one, Kramer will
> be appearing on HBO's "Dead Comedy Jam."
Have the democrats and republicans decided which will support Richards and
which will attack him? This is definitely a great subject for Hannity and
Combs. I'm just not sure who should be on what side.
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 20:10:26
From:
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> Political correctness? My God, have you actually SEEN the entire tape?
> No, I thought not - you are simply white trash that knows how to react
> to an uppity black.
>
> We should have known when you have to post under a pseudonym.
>
> William Clark
May you and your family have a very close encounter with some of those
"uppity blacks" this holiday season. Don't you think the "white trash"
thing is a bit much?
|
| | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 09:02:27
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <1164255026.234021.22390@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >,
bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>
> > Political correctness? My God, have you actually SEEN the entire tape?
> > No, I thought not - you are simply white trash that knows how to react
> > to an uppity black.
> >
> > We should have known when you have to post under a pseudonym.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> May you and your family have a very close encounter with some of those
> "uppity blacks" this holiday season. Don't you think the "white trash"
> thing is a bit much?
Not judging by what you wrote. Fair call, I would say, based on that.
William Clark
|
| | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 23:27:55
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>
>> Political correctness? My God, have you actually SEEN the entire
>> tape? No, I thought not - you are simply white trash that knows how
>> to react to an uppity black.
>>
>> We should have known when you have to post under a pseudonym.
>>
>> William Clark
>
> May you and your family have a very close encounter with some of those
> "uppity blacks" this holiday season. Don't you think the "white trash"
> thing is a bit much?
When my African American girlfriend gets uppity; should I call you or
Kramer? Tonight I got no good lovin.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 15:59:37
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
On Nov 22, 5:14 pm, bigoldc...@yahoo.com wrote:
>I agree with all you've said Ben, as do everyone I've spoken to about
> this. I'm saddened by this craze of political correctness being carried
> to the fanatical degree. Face it there are niggers in this world and
> you can Oprahcize all you want and it won't change a thing. Watching
> that waste of flesh called Al Sharpton run down Richards today, I could
> only think of two words...Tuwanna Brawley.
Look, dude, let's just call a spade a spade (can I say that?) - Michael
Richards just
made Al Sharpton's Christmas card list. Sharpton needs racial
"controversy" like
I need a Makers on the rocks right about now....cya!
Happy Thanksgiving, Americans...
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 15:14:11
From:
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
Ben. wrote:
> On Nov 22, 10:01 am, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Like Mel Gibson, his career in show business is over. No one will hire
> > him for anything now. Nobody says the kinds of things Richards said
> > and survives. Remember Andrew Dice Clay? Jimmy the Greek?
>
> No one was hiring Richards _before_ the little tirade. This guy is a
> mildly amusing wildman who lucked up and had his wagon hitched to the
> right star at the right time. Dude hadn't worked TV/film in six years,
> and only twice since Seinfeld:
>
> http://imdb.com/name/nm0724245/
>
> And I am in the vast minority here who believes that he is _not_
> actually a racist. He made a horribly regrettable choice in the midst
> of a heated exchange; but despite the tirade, I do believe at heart he
> is not a racist. Just a moron. His apology on Letterman appeared
> canned and self-serving, but keep in mind the venue - he was
> apologizing on a show whose demographics probably couldn't get much
> whiter, and I think he at least has the sts to realize that. If he
> doesn't apologize in a more....black....venue, then there may be some
> merit. I'm not willing to throw the race card on him quite yet.
>
> I also put some stock in Jerry Senifeld, who lists George Wallace (a
> black comedian who occasionally appeared on Seinfeld) as one of his
> best friends. If Jerry felt that Richards was a racist, he wouldn't
> have made the reks he made on Letterman's show about Richards'
> character. They basically breathed the same air for eight years, so I
> would imagine he knows a thing or two about Richards. Not
> coincidentally, I think, no one has come forward with any other
> allegations of racial epithets or actions on the part of Richards.
> Until and unless that happens, I'm erring on the side of stupid guy
> makes dumb rek...
I agree with all you've said Ben, as do everyone I've spoken to about
this. I'm saddened by this craze of political correctness being carried
to the fanatical degree. Face it there are niggers in this world and
you can Oprahcize all you want and it won't change a thing. Watching
that waste of flesh called Al Sharpton run down Richards today, I could
only think of two words...Tuwanna Brawley.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 22:55:19
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <1164237251.077495.261280@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >,
bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> Ben. wrote:
> > On Nov 22, 10:01 am, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Like Mel Gibson, his career in show business is over. No one will hire
> > > him for anything now. Nobody says the kinds of things Richards said
> > > and survives. Remember Andrew Dice Clay? Jimmy the Greek?
> >
> > No one was hiring Richards _before_ the little tirade. This guy is a
> > mildly amusing wildman who lucked up and had his wagon hitched to the
> > right star at the right time. Dude hadn't worked TV/film in six years,
> > and only twice since Seinfeld:
> >
> > http://imdb.com/name/nm0724245/
> >
> > And I am in the vast minority here who believes that he is _not_
> > actually a racist. He made a horribly regrettable choice in the midst
> > of a heated exchange; but despite the tirade, I do believe at heart he
> > is not a racist. Just a moron. His apology on Letterman appeared
> > canned and self-serving, but keep in mind the venue - he was
> > apologizing on a show whose demographics probably couldn't get much
> > whiter, and I think he at least has the sts to realize that. If he
> > doesn't apologize in a more....black....venue, then there may be some
> > merit. I'm not willing to throw the race card on him quite yet.
> >
> > I also put some stock in Jerry Senifeld, who lists George Wallace (a
> > black comedian who occasionally appeared on Seinfeld) as one of his
> > best friends. If Jerry felt that Richards was a racist, he wouldn't
> > have made the reks he made on Letterman's show about Richards'
> > character. They basically breathed the same air for eight years, so I
> > would imagine he knows a thing or two about Richards. Not
> > coincidentally, I think, no one has come forward with any other
> > allegations of racial epithets or actions on the part of Richards.
> > Until and unless that happens, I'm erring on the side of stupid guy
> > makes dumb rek...
>
> I agree with all you've said Ben, as do everyone I've spoken to about
> this. I'm saddened by this craze of political correctness being carried
> to the fanatical degree. Face it there are niggers in this world and
> you can Oprahcize all you want and it won't change a thing. Watching
> that waste of flesh called Al Sharpton run down Richards today, I could
> only think of two words...Tuwanna Brawley.
Political correctness? My God, have you actually SEEN the entire tape?
No, I thought not - you are simply white trash that knows how to react
to an uppity black.
We should have known when you have to post under a pseudonym.
William Clark
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 13:40:38
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
Ben. wrote:
> On Nov 22, 10:01 am, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Like Mel Gibson, his career in show business is over. No one will hire
> > him for anything now. Nobody says the kinds of things Richards said
> > and survives. Remember Andrew Dice Clay? Jimmy the Greek?
>
> No one was hiring Richards _before_ the little tirade. This guy is a
> mildly amusing wildman who lucked up and had his wagon hitched to the
> right star at the right time. Dude hadn't worked TV/film in six years,
> and only twice since Seinfeld:
>
> http://imdb.com/name/nm0724245/
>
> And I am in the vast minority here who believes that he is _not_
> actually a racist. He made a horribly regrettable choice in the midst
> of a heated exchange; but despite the tirade, I do believe at heart he
> is not a racist. Just a moron. His apology on Letterman appeared
> canned and self-serving, but keep in mind the venue - he was
> apologizing on a show whose demographics probably couldn't get much
> whiter, and I think he at least has the sts to realize that. If he
> doesn't apologize in a more....black....venue, then there may be some
> merit. I'm not willing to throw the race card on him quite yet.
>
> I also put some stock in Jerry Senifeld, who lists George Wallace (a
> black comedian who occasionally appeared on Seinfeld) as one of his
> best friends. If Jerry felt that Richards was a racist, he wouldn't
> have made the reks he made on Letterman's show about Richards'
> character. They basically breathed the same air for eight years, so I
> would imagine he knows a thing or two about Richards. Not
> coincidentally, I think, no one has come forward with any other
> allegations of racial epithets or actions on the part of Richards.
> Until and unless that happens, I'm erring on the side of stupid guy
> makes dumb rek...
I agree with you Ben. I think a couple of obnoxious idiots hit his
button and in rage, he expressed the quickest insult he could think
of....typical of a kneejerk reaction. I liken it to the favorite
middle school insult of the 70's, when every 7th grade boy called each
other a "woman."
Believe it or not, I rarely lose my cool, but once this summer I did
while with my family on the boat. The offender was elderly, so
naturally in rage, my unoriginal, profane insult toward him made
references to his age. Had he been black or hispanic, I'm not sure I
would have said it, but I would have thought it. Richards thought it,
then said it.
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 13:29:11
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
On Nov 22, 10:01 am, "John B." <johnb...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Like Mel Gibson, his career in show business is over. No one will hire
> him for anything now. Nobody says the kinds of things Richards said
> and survives. Remember Andrew Dice Clay? Jimmy the Greek?
No one was hiring Richards _before_ the little tirade. This guy is a
mildly amusing wildman who lucked up and had his wagon hitched to the
right star at the right time. Dude hadn't worked TV/film in six years,
and only twice since Seinfeld:
http://imdb.com/name/nm0724245/
And I am in the vast minority here who believes that he is _not_
actually a racist. He made a horribly regrettable choice in the midst
of a heated exchange; but despite the tirade, I do believe at heart he
is not a racist. Just a moron. His apology on Letterman appeared
canned and self-serving, but keep in mind the venue - he was
apologizing on a show whose demographics probably couldn't get much
whiter, and I think he at least has the sts to realize that. If he
doesn't apologize in a more....black....venue, then there may be some
merit. I'm not willing to throw the race card on him quite yet.
I also put some stock in Jerry Senifeld, who lists George Wallace (a
black comedian who occasionally appeared on Seinfeld) as one of his
best friends. If Jerry felt that Richards was a racist, he wouldn't
have made the reks he made on Letterman's show about Richards'
character. They basically breathed the same air for eight years, so I
would imagine he knows a thing or two about Richards. Not
coincidentally, I think, no one has come forward with any other
allegations of racial epithets or actions on the part of Richards.
Until and unless that happens, I'm erring on the side of stupid guy
makes dumb rek...
|
| | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 06:28:55
From:
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <1164363243.967038.20310@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
> bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > In article <1164330659.069666.15400@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why don't you poll them and find out?
> > > >
> > > > What would be the point of that?
> > >
> > > You might actually learn something.
> >
> > Isn't that what life is, an extended learning process? For example,
> > I've learned more than I care to know about you. As for the poll, I'm
> > sure most here would forgive Richards.
>
> Well, there you go - you just disproved your own hypothesis.
>
> Isn't life grand?
>
> William Clark
Your spelling is good, but, do you understand the words?
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 13:41:35
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <1164378535.819779.277140@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <1164363243.967038.20310@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
> > bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > > In article <1164330659.069666.15400@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Why don't you poll them and find out?
> > > > >
> > > > > What would be the point of that?
> > > >
> > > > You might actually learn something.
> > >
> > > Isn't that what life is, an extended learning process? For example,
> > > I've learned more than I care to know about you. As for the poll, I'm
> > > sure most here would forgive Richards.
> >
> > Well, there you go - you just disproved your own hypothesis.
> >
> > Isn't life grand?
> >
> > William Clark
>
> Your spelling is good, but, do you understand the words?
Better than you do, apparently.
William Clark
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 08:19:41
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
Gordo wrote:
> Dene wrote:
> > Bobby Knight wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Wrong. His apology was a weak, stupid, attempt. His demeanor, and
> > > what he said was reprehensible, and low-class. Period.
> >
> > Like any apology he said could possibly satisfy you.
> >
> > Aren't you suppose to be in Vegas. Tons to do there, especially golf,
> > and you're sitting on a computer.
> >
> > What a life.
> >
> > -Greg
>
> Have an absolutely fantastic Thanksgiving Greg!
You too Chris! I'm just hoping there will not be any long term effect
for the gorging I'm planning for. My collection of golf pants and
shorts come only in one waist size.
See you in a few!!!
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 08:17:38
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
> Dene wrote:
> > Bobby Knight wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Wrong. His apology was a weak, stupid, attempt. His demeanor, and
> > > what he said was reprehensible, and low-class. Period.
> >
> > Like any apology he said could possibly satisfy you.
>
> An apology is a process, not an event. Sister Dorthy used
> to explain the steps involved in acknowledging that you have
> sinned against another. It began with acknowledging, to the
> person injured, your error. Such an acknowledgement comes
> with no qualifications nor excuses, merely acknowledging ones
> mistake. The second step is some attempt to "right the wrong".
> This is not always possible. Some broken things can't be
> fixed, some injuries can't heal. The next step is atonement.
> It involves making efforts to improve the world for the better.
> Preferably this is something associated with the person injured.
> But it may be more broad, such as serving the larger community.
> The final step is a commitment to not only change ones behavior
> to avoid every committing the sin again, but to actually become
> a better person.
>
> From the outside it is often hard to see most of these steps.
> Unless it is someone with whom one will have a continuing
> relationship, it will be hard to see. But in many of the cases we've
> seen lately, they all screw up the first step. Their apologies come
> with a wide variety of excuses and explanations as well as the
> occasional attempt to diminish the magnitude of what they did.
> (I was drunk, I went on a rage, I do alot of good for the community,
> I didn't really mean it, I never do things like this, etc.). It all
> suggests
> that they have not yet truly accepted what they did. As we have
> all come to learn, acceptance of our weaknesses is virtually the
> first step in addressing them. When I hear people blow the first
> step so badly, it gives me little hope that they understand any of
> the rest.
Well said. Dr. Laura, whom my wife listens to fervently, defines
reconciliation with the three R's. Responsibility, remorse, and repair
(within your power).
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 08:01:17
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <ZKSdnXKDGoqxzfnYnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@centurytel.net>,
> "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
> > "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:clark.31-A10E96.20445321112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > > In article <1164154784.913668.316990@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > > bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > annika1980 wrote:
> > > > > The bad news is that FOX has cancelled the big O.J. interview.
> > > > > Damn, I really wanted to see how he did it, er..... "could have done
> > > > > it."
> > > > >
> > > > > The good news is that FOX is replacing that show with their new comedy
> > > > > special, "Michael Richards at the Apollo." After that one, Kramer
> > will
> > > > > be appearing on HBO's "Dead Comedy Jam."
> > > >
> > > > I support Michael Richards 100%, he apologized, big fucking deal. If
> > > > he'd said "schvartzes' instead of niggers they'd all laughed.
> > >
> > > Only you would have, pal, only you. Richards' phony apology had more to
> > > do with future bookings than any deep felt sincerity. He should lay off
> > > the booze or the drugs, or both.
> > >
> > > William Clark
> >
> > Nobody is asking the heckler to apologize for calling Richards an MF Cracker
> > MF'er or an MF White Boy.
>
> Yes, well, if you see the whole video, Richards went off on his tirade
> because these people came in as a fairly large group and sat down during
> his "performance". Someone then took drink orders from them, and that
> obviously created some noise, and that's an issue for the management,
> but Richards got irritated first, and started his tirade without any
> additional provocation. Any exchange of reks is clearly in response
> to Richards - not edifying, but certainly not as originally painted, and
> the foul and racist spew that came out of Richards was disgusting and
> inexcusable. I am not one to play the bleeding heart race card, but I
> would be happy to see this moron go the way of OJ. His phony apology
> only made it worse, especially when you see the full context, and you
> could see Jerry Seinfeld counting the lost syndication revenue right
> there.
>
> William Clark
Like Mel Gibson, his career in show business is over. No one will hire
him for anything now. Nobody says the kinds of things Richards said
and survives. Remember Andrew Dice Clay? Jimmy the Greek?
|
| | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 21:02:50
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
John B. wrote:
> Like Mel Gibson, his career in show business is over.
What did Mel Gibson do? BTW; he is working two movies for a 2008
release (one already in production) and was most recently in Complete
Savages in 2005.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 10:30:28
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
On 22 Nov 2006 08:01:17 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>Like Mel Gibson, his career in show business is over. No one will hire
>him for anything now. Nobody says the kinds of things Richards said
>and survives. Remember Andrew Dice Clay? Jimmy the Greek?
Gibson has made too much money for producers (not to mention movies he
produced himself). He has a couple of movies scheduled for 2008.
Every once in a while a celebrity gets away with what others wouldn't.
Accusations about Sir Sean Connery in relation to violence against
women don't seem to have hurt his career significantly.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 14:00:42
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:30:28 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
> Jimmy the Greek?
The funny thing was that what JtG said was in no way racist. It
certainly demonstrated a poor understanding of genetics, but there is
no doubt that slave owners bred their slaves. Perhaps reminding
people of that fact was what did him in, but nothing he said could be
considered racist.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 12:17:00
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
On 22 Nov 2006 08:01:17 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>Like Mel Gibson, his career in show business is over.
Mel Gibson has the money to keep his own career alive. He doesn't
have to worry about the Hollywood establishment because he is a member
of it, whether they like it or not.
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 05:44:22
From: oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
Dene wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
>
> >
> > Wrong. His apology was a weak, stupid, attempt. His demeanor, and
> > what he said was reprehensible, and low-class. Period.
>
> Like any apology he said could possibly satisfy you.
An apology is a process, not an event. Sister Dorthy used
to explain the steps involved in acknowledging that you have
sinned against another. It began with acknowledging, to the
person injured, your error. Such an acknowledgement comes
with no qualifications nor excuses, merely acknowledging ones
mistake. The second step is some attempt to "right the wrong".
This is not always possible. Some broken things can't be
fixed, some injuries can't heal. The next step is atonement.
It involves making efforts to improve the world for the better.
Preferably this is something associated with the person injured.
But it may be more broad, such as serving the larger community.
The final step is a commitment to not only change ones behavior
to avoid every committing the sin again, but to actually become
a better person.
From the outside it is often hard to see most of these steps.
Unless it is someone with whom one will have a continuing
relationship, it will be hard to see. But in many of the cases we've
seen lately, they all screw up the first step. Their apologies come
with a wide variety of excuses and explanations as well as the
occasional attempt to diminish the magnitude of what they did.
(I was drunk, I went on a rage, I do alot of good for the community,
I didn't really mean it, I never do things like this, etc.). It all
suggests
that they have not yet truly accepted what they did. As we have
all come to learn, acceptance of our weaknesses is virtually the
first step in addressing them. When I hear people blow the first
step so badly, it gives me little hope that they understand any of
the rest.
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 05:21:49
From: Gordo
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
Dene wrote:
> Bobby Knight wrote:
>
> >
> > Wrong. His apology was a weak, stupid, attempt. His demeanor, and
> > what he said was reprehensible, and low-class. Period.
>
> Like any apology he said could possibly satisfy you.
>
> Aren't you suppose to be in Vegas. Tons to do there, especially golf,
> and you're sitting on a computer.
>
> What a life.
>
> -Greg
Have an absolutely fantastic Thanksgiving Greg!
|
| |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 02:14:42
From:
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <1164154784.913668.316990@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > annika1980 wrote:
> > > The bad news is that FOX has cancelled the big O.J. interview.
> > > Damn, I really wanted to see how he did it, er..... "could have done
> > > it."
> > >
> > > The good news is that FOX is replacing that show with their new comedy
> > > special, "Michael Richards at the Apollo." After that one, Kramer will
> > > be appearing on HBO's "Dead Comedy Jam."
> >
> > I support Michael Richards 100%, he apologized, big fucking deal. If
> > he'd said "schvartzes' instead of niggers they'd all laughed.
>
> Only you would have, pal, only you. Richards' phony apology had more to
> do with future bookings than any deep felt sincerity. He should lay off
> the booze or the drugs, or both.
>
> William Clark
Is that you Oprah?
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 21:12:38
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
Bobby Knight wrote:
>
> Wrong. His apology was a weak, stupid, attempt. His demeanor, and
> what he said was reprehensible, and low-class. Period.
Like any apology he said could possibly satisfy you.
Aren't you suppose to be in Vegas. Tons to do there, especially golf,
and you're sitting on a computer.
What a life.
-Greg
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 20:03:21
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
>> Indeed, as he said, "I am not a racist". And we all believe it, too.
>
>
Yeah, that ranks right up there on the believability scale along with
Nixon's "I am not a crook!" to O.J.'s "I didn't kill Nicole," to Big
Tex saying, "I am not a drunk."
And for the record, "I did not have sex with that woman."
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 17:51:40
From: Gordo
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > The bad news is that FOX has cancelled the big O.J. interview.
> > Damn, I really wanted to see how he did it, er..... "could have done
> > it."
> >
> > The good news is that FOX is replacing that show with their new comedy
> > special, "Michael Richards at the Apollo." After that one, Kramer will
> > be appearing on HBO's "Dead Comedy Jam."
>
> I support Michael Richards 100%, he apologized, big fucking deal. If
> he'd said "schvartzes' instead of n they'd all laughed.
I saw the incredibly fake apology. Richards is a moron.
|
| |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 16:19:44
From:
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
annika1980 wrote:
> The bad news is that FOX has cancelled the big O.J. interview.
> Damn, I really wanted to see how he did it, er..... "could have done
> it."
>
> The good news is that FOX is replacing that show with their new comedy
> special, "Michael Richards at the Apollo." After that one, Kramer will
> be appearing on HBO's "Dead Comedy Jam."
I support Michael Richards 100%, he apologized, big fucking deal. If
he'd said "schvartzes' instead of niggers they'd all laughed.
|
| | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 05:08:11
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
On 21-Nov-2006, bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> > The good news is that FOX is replacing that show with their new comedy
> > special, "Michael Richards at the Apollo." After that one, Kramer will
> > be appearing on HBO's "Dead Comedy Jam."
>
> I support Michael Richards 100%, he apologized, big fucking deal. If
> he'd said "schvartzes' instead of niggers they'd all laughed.
How the hell can one apologize for what he said? The N-bomb wasn't the worst
of it, the lynching thing was, IMO, the real insult, together I just don't
see how he isn't done.
Freedom of speech is great, but when you exercise it, plan on being held
accountable for your utterances.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 09:09:43
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <45652cb4$0$17421$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com >,
"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote:
> On 21-Nov-2006, bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > The good news is that FOX is replacing that show with their new comedy
> > > special, "Michael Richards at the Apollo." After that one, Kramer will
> > > be appearing on HBO's "Dead Comedy Jam."
> >
> > I support Michael Richards 100%, he apologized, big fucking deal. If
> > he'd said "schvartzes' instead of niggers they'd all laughed.
>
> How the hell can one apologize for what he said? The N-bomb wasn't the worst
> of it, the lynching thing was, IMO, the real insult, together I just don't
> see how he isn't done.
>
> Freedom of speech is great, but when you exercise it, plan on being held
> accountable for your utterances.
Precisely.
William Clark
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 22:27:53
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
On 21 Nov 2006 16:19:44 -0800, bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>annika1980 wrote:
>> The bad news is that FOX has cancelled the big O.J. interview.
>> Damn, I really wanted to see how he did it, er..... "could have done
>> it."
>>
>> The good news is that FOX is replacing that show with their new comedy
>> special, "Michael Richards at the Apollo." After that one, Kramer will
>> be appearing on HBO's "Dead Comedy Jam."
>
>I support Michael Richards 100%, he apologized, big fucking deal. If
>he'd said "schvartzes' instead of niggers they'd all laughed.
Wrong. His apology was a weak, stupid, attempt. His demeanor, and
what he said was reprehensible, and low-class. Period.
___,
\o
|
| | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 20:44:53
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <1164154784.913668.316990@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >,
bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > The bad news is that FOX has cancelled the big O.J. interview.
> > Damn, I really wanted to see how he did it, er..... "could have done
> > it."
> >
> > The good news is that FOX is replacing that show with their new comedy
> > special, "Michael Richards at the Apollo." After that one, Kramer will
> > be appearing on HBO's "Dead Comedy Jam."
>
> I support Michael Richards 100%, he apologized, big fucking deal. If
> he'd said "schvartzes' instead of niggers they'd all laughed.
Only you would have, pal, only you. Richards' phony apology had more to
do with future bookings than any deep felt sincerity. He should lay off
the booze or the drugs, or both.
William Clark
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 07:27:07
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-A10E96.20445321112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <1164154784.913668.316990@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > annika1980 wrote:
> > > The bad news is that FOX has cancelled the big O.J. interview.
> > > Damn, I really wanted to see how he did it, er..... "could have done
> > > it."
> > >
> > > The good news is that FOX is replacing that show with their new comedy
> > > special, "Michael Richards at the Apollo." After that one, Kramer
will
> > > be appearing on HBO's "Dead Comedy Jam."
> >
> > I support Michael Richards 100%, he apologized, big fucking deal. If
> > he'd said "schvartzes' instead of niggers they'd all laughed.
>
> Only you would have, pal, only you. Richards' phony apology had more to
> do with future bookings than any deep felt sincerity. He should lay off
> the booze or the drugs, or both.
>
> William Clark
Nobody is asking the heckler to apologize for calling Richards an MF Cracker
MF'er or an MF White Boy.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 05:09:54
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
On 22-Nov-2006, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
> Nobody is asking the heckler to apologize for calling Richards an MF
> Cracker
> MF'er or an MF White Boy.
Do you really think he should? Richards had no biz being on stage if he
couldn't handle hecklers.
--
bill-o
A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 01:06:54
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
bill-o wrote:
> Do you really think he should? Richards had no biz being on stage if
> he couldn't handle hecklers.
Ewe one o' them anti-hecklers? It starts there, and soon people are
writing songs like "Strange Fruit" about you.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 10:51:52
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <ZKSdnXKDGoqxzfnYnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@centurytel.net >,
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:
> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-A10E96.20445321112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <1164154784.913668.316990@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > annika1980 wrote:
> > > > The bad news is that FOX has cancelled the big O.J. interview.
> > > > Damn, I really wanted to see how he did it, er..... "could have done
> > > > it."
> > > >
> > > > The good news is that FOX is replacing that show with their new comedy
> > > > special, "Michael Richards at the Apollo." After that one, Kramer
> will
> > > > be appearing on HBO's "Dead Comedy Jam."
> > >
> > > I support Michael Richards 100%, he apologized, big fucking deal. If
> > > he'd said "schvartzes' instead of niggers they'd all laughed.
> >
> > Only you would have, pal, only you. Richards' phony apology had more to
> > do with future bookings than any deep felt sincerity. He should lay off
> > the booze or the drugs, or both.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> Nobody is asking the heckler to apologize for calling Richards an MF Cracker
> MF'er or an MF White Boy.
Yes, well, if you see the whole video, Richards went off on his tirade
because these people came in as a fairly large group and sat down during
his "performance". Someone then took drink orders from them, and that
obviously created some noise, and that's an issue for the management,
but Richards got irritated first, and started his tirade without any
additional provocation. Any exchange of reks is clearly in response
to Richards - not edifying, but certainly not as originally painted, and
the foul and racist spew that came out of Richards was disgusting and
inexcusable. I am not one to play the bleeding heart race card, but I
would be happy to see this moron go the way of OJ. His phony apology
only made it worse, especially when you see the full context, and you
could see Jerry Seinfeld counting the lost syndication revenue right
there.
William Clark
|
| | | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 02:14:04
From:
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <1164330659.069666.15400@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >
> > > Why don't you poll them and find out?
> >
> > What would be the point of that?
>
> You might actually learn something.
Isn't that what life is, an extended learning process? For example,
I've learned more than I care to know about you. As for the poll, I'm
sure most here would forgive Richards.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 24 Nov 2006 08:54:06
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <1164363243.967038.20310@45g2000cws.googlegroups.com >,
bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <1164330659.069666.15400@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> > bigoldcat2@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why don't you poll them and find out?
> > >
> > > What would be the point of that?
> >
> > You might actually learn something.
>
> Isn't that what life is, an extended learning process? For example,
> I've learned more than I care to know about you. As for the poll, I'm
> sure most here would forgive Richards.
Well, there you go - you just disproved your own hypothesis.
Isn't life grand?
William Clark
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 20:48:29
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> Only you would have, pal, only you. Richards' phony apology had more
> to do with future bookings than any deep felt sincerity. He should
> lay off the booze or the drugs, or both.
Actually; he should also seek counseling to help him overcome his racist
views. Although, most racists do not view themselves as a problem to
humanity.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 10:53:00
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <A%N8h.4653$k6.112@bignews8.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > Only you would have, pal, only you. Richards' phony apology had more
> > to do with future bookings than any deep felt sincerity. He should
> > lay off the booze or the drugs, or both.
>
> Actually; he should also seek counseling to help him overcome his racist
> views. Although, most racists do not view themselves as a problem to
> humanity.
He probably needs drug and alcohol counseling, too.
William Clark
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 21:04:09
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <A%N8h.4653$k6.112@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> Only you would have, pal, only you. Richards' phony apology had more
>>> to do with future bookings than any deep felt sincerity. He should
>>> lay off the booze or the drugs, or both.
>>
>> Actually; he should also seek counseling to help him overcome his
>> racist views. Although, most racists do not view themselves as a
>> problem to humanity.
>
> He probably needs drug and alcohol counseling, too.
Is there anyone in Hollywood that doesn't?
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 12:06:43
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:53:00 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:
>He probably needs drug and alcohol counseling, too.
>
>William Clark
Or maybe just drugs and alcohol. Seems to me that he needs to mellow
out. The guy is strung tighter than a titanium tennis racquet. In
any case, he has taken the realm of "inappropriate things said by
celebrities" to a new level. I think he also has disproved the old
adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 22 Nov 2006 10:26:53
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 12:06:43 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>Or maybe just drugs and alcohol. Seems to me that he needs to mellow
>out. The guy is strung tighter than a titanium tennis racquet. In
>any case, he has taken the realm of "inappropriate things said by
>celebrities" to a new level. I think he also has disproved the old
>adage that there is no such thing as bad publicity.
Sometimes someone plays a role so long that he can't get away from it.
I get the impression that he put on such a persona, which can be
useful for a comedian - and lost control.
Some Internet trolls are like that too.
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Nov 2006 22:08:47
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <A%N8h.4653$k6.112@bignews8.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > Only you would have, pal, only you. Richards' phony apology had more
> > to do with future bookings than any deep felt sincerity. He should
> > lay off the booze or the drugs, or both.
>
> Actually; he should also seek counseling to help him overcome his racist
> views. Although, most racists do not view themselves as a problem to
> humanity.
Indeed, as he said, "I am not a racist". And we all believe it, too.
William Clark
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 00:39:06
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-AE41C9.22084721112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <A%N8h.4653$k6.112@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>> > Only you would have, pal, only you. Richards' phony apology had more
>> > to do with future bookings than any deep felt sincerity. He should
>> > lay off the booze or the drugs, or both.
>>
>> Actually; he should also seek counseling to help him overcome his racist
>> views. Although, most racists do not view themselves as a problem to
>> humanity.
>
> Indeed, as he said, "I am not a racist". And we all believe it, too.
>
> William Clark
There is a pretty good chance that Richards isn't a racist. The real racists
are pretty cagey and actually do things that hurt people. Feeling racial
tension and venting it in an inapproprite way, that many people think and
feel guilty about thinking too, isn't like someone who denies jobs or
teaches their children to hate. He obviously doesn't have much practice.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 09:07:01
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
In article <S7d9h.11319$kI3.8534@newsfe06.phx >,
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote:
> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-AE41C9.22084721112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <A%N8h.4653$k6.112@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >> > Only you would have, pal, only you. Richards' phony apology had more
> >> > to do with future bookings than any deep felt sincerity. He should
> >> > lay off the booze or the drugs, or both.
> >>
> >> Actually; he should also seek counseling to help him overcome his racist
> >> views. Although, most racists do not view themselves as a problem to
> >> humanity.
> >
> > Indeed, as he said, "I am not a racist". And we all believe it, too.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> There is a pretty good chance that Richards isn't a racist. The real racists
> are pretty cagey and actually do things that hurt people. Feeling racial
> tension and venting it in an inapproprite way, that many people think and
> feel guilty about thinking too, isn't like someone who denies jobs or
> teaches their children to hate. He obviously doesn't have much practice.
He may or not be a racist - I don't think that is the issue here. What
is indisputable is that his tirade was definitely racist, and saying
that he simply vented the tension he feels does not remotely excuse it.
We feel tension when some idiot in an SUV cuts us off on the freeway,
but that does not entitle us to run him off the road. And please do not
try to associate us all with his "inner feelings", as there are many
people who first see through skin color to the persona beneath. There is
simply no valid excuse for what Richards did and said.
William Clark
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 12:39:37
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-418C9A.09070123112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <S7d9h.11319$kI3.8534@newsfe06.phx>,
> "AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com> wrote:
>
>> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:clark.31-AE41C9.22084721112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> > In article <A%N8h.4653$k6.112@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
>> > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>> >> > Only you would have, pal, only you. Richards' phony apology had more
>> >> > to do with future bookings than any deep felt sincerity. He should
>> >> > lay off the booze or the drugs, or both.
>> >>
>> >> Actually; he should also seek counseling to help him overcome his
>> >> racist
>> >> views. Although, most racists do not view themselves as a problem to
>> >> humanity.
>> >
>> > Indeed, as he said, "I am not a racist". And we all believe it, too.
>> >
>> > William Clark
>>
>> There is a pretty good chance that Richards isn't a racist. The real
>> racists
>> are pretty cagey and actually do things that hurt people. Feeling racial
>> tension and venting it in an inapproprite way, that many people think and
>> feel guilty about thinking too, isn't like someone who denies jobs or
>> teaches their children to hate. He obviously doesn't have much practice.
>
> He may or not be a racist - I don't think that is the issue here. What
> is indisputable is that his tirade was definitely racist, and saying
> that he simply vented the tension he feels does not remotely excuse it.
> We feel tension when some idiot in an SUV cuts us off on the freeway,
> but that does not entitle us to run him off the road. And please do not
> try to associate us all with his "inner feelings", as there are many
> people who first see through skin color to the persona beneath. There is
> simply no valid excuse for what Richards did and said.
>
> William Clark
A black guy, a comedian, who might have been working the same nightclub on
that night was interviewed on Hannity and Combs, along with another black
comedian. The one guy said that the tirade did not bother him. He was a lot
stronger about it that that. He said that Hannity was faking when Hannity
said that he had never thought the word or felt like saying it (I think
that's what Hannity said), and that he used the n word himself and wanted to
be free to keep using it and that having the problem in the open, instead of
buried and subject to a state of denial was a lot more healthy and honest
than the latter. I personally, have never called anyone a nigger but if I
were mad and defensive and wanted to strike back or intimidate someone who I
viewed as a threat, I can imagine it. And it does bother me to hear black
people using that word. It's not so much that they can say something that I
can't, but that is part of it, but it seems like keeping the word alive when
so many people no longer want to have anything to do with it, is keeping
wounds from healing.
In any case, I think Richards should get a break, unless, as someone else
said, he has a history of racial problems.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Nov 2006 06:50:06
From: George Hibbard
Subject: Re: Bad News, Good News
|
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:S7d9h.11319$kI3.8534@newsfe06.phx...
>
> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-AE41C9.22084721112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> In article <A%N8h.4653$k6.112@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
>> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>>
>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> > Only you would have, pal, only you. Richards' phony apology had more
>>> > to do with future bookings than any deep felt sincerity. He should
>>> > lay off the booze or the drugs, or both.
>>>
>>> Actually; he should also seek counseling to help him overcome his
>>> racist
>>> views. Although, most racists do not view themselves as a problem to
>>> humanity.
>>
>> Indeed, as he said, "I am not a racist". And we all believe it, too.
>>
>> William Clark
>
> There is a pretty good chance that Richards isn't a racist. The real
> racists are pretty cagey and actually do things that hurt people. Feeling
> racial tension and venting it in an inapproprite way, that many people
> think and feel guilty about thinking too, isn't like someone who denies
> jobs or teaches their children to hate. He obviously doesn't have much
> practice.
>
To "feel" stuff is not the same as being willing to be malicious in action.
My next door neighbor brought up his kids such that by age five they spewed
racial epithets as fluently as ever. But not one of the kids in his life
would EVER treat one of 'those inferiors' badly, from what I could tell.
The seeds were planted early that those other people were sub-human, and the
kids had no defense against having such an attitude planted long before the
age of reason. But at the same time, they were good people in their
behavior.
|
|
