When anger really isn't -- new Franken ad invokes Wellstone, de...

Pragmatist wrote:

<quoted text>So is that Woody Allen quote from before or after he exploited his adopted daughter? Didn't they go on a cruise with Roman Polanski?

1. Love & Death was with Diane Keaton.

2. He married his adopted adult daughter. Their marriage has lasted longer than most Hollywood unions.

3. No.

griddy wrote:

<quoted text>Oh Brother (where art thou?) you idiots really think you've got it all figured out (to the befuddlement of those not so 'gifted'). You get to practice your Wiki words and it's all soooooooooo darned impressive! You're cartoon-like in your revelry but you really de-construct the beast you try soooooo hard to prop up - and keep propped up dammit! Soulless, sarcastic b itches - the lot of ya. Cute, numb and arrogant - but it really must complete you?! Fools. Shallow words from hollow ergonaughts.

Your academic envy is understandable. How sad you must engage in name-calling and insults just to feel better about your own abilities. Your meaningless cry is noted. Now find someone who cares!

Madman wrote:

<quoted text>
1. Love & Death was with Diane Keaton.
2. He married his adopted adult daughter. Their marriage has lasted longer than most Hollywood unions.
3. No.

There is a Charlie Manson bio on and Roman Pulanski was just on. A perverted little guy- liked young girls as I remember.

jcf817 wrote:

I see that you all have drunk plentifully of the Neo-Con Kool-Aid.

They aren't smart enough to be Neo-Cons. These are Hypo-Cons, those who are doctrinally deficient or below-grade.

Just thought you should know with whom you are dealing!

Monk wrote:

<quoted text>
There is a Charlie Manson bio on and Roman Pulanski was just on. A perverted little guy- liked young girls as I remember.

Yes, I remember that he liked 'em young. I am certain you noticed the attempted sly smear on Woody Allen, as well as the rather blatant smear with regard to his current wife.

Seems like even the usually-decent folk can't resist these ad-hominem put-downs while on Topix!

Madman wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, I remember that he liked 'em young. I am certain you noticed the attempted sly smear on Woody Allen, as well as the rather blatant smear with regard to his current wife.
Seems like even the usually-decent folk can't resist these ad-hominem put-downs while on Topix!

I got quite agitated with this Depressed guy and became quite insulting- Mellers calmed me down.
I vowed I would not get caught up in this election mania and there I am attacking this guy- probably a decent sort- maybe a likeable guy,
seemed intelligent.

Monk wrote:

<quoted text>
There is a Charlie Manson bio on and Roman Pulanski was just on. A perverted little guy- liked young girls as I remember.

I'd forgotten how unattractive Manson's women were..

Monk wrote:

<quoted text>
I got quite agitated with this Depressed guy and became quite insulting- Mellers calmed me down.
I vowed I would not get caught up in this election mania and there I am attacking this guy- probably a decent sort- maybe a likeable guy,
seemed intelligent.

What thread was THAT in? There was only this griddy guy here, and nothing from Comrade Mellers.
Nice comeback to him, BTW.

jcf817 wrote:

Exactly...so it's about the individual who either fills out their own or helps someone fill it out.
To rephrase what you said, it's not about the organization (ACORN) but the individuals (ACORN agents, reps, employees, etc.).
Thank you for backing me up.

....."so it's about the individual who either fills out their own or helps someone fill it out.".....

Democrat, If you cannot fill out your own "Registration card"....do your country a favor....DO NOT VOTE!!!!!

That is the problem with ACORN....they do not seek the great imperative to "Vote"...they seek Democrat Voters, to ignorant to be invovled in the process, but useful fools to elect the Puppet.

Madman wrote:

<quoted text>
1. Love & Death was with Diane Keaton.
2. He married his adopted adult daughter. Their marriage has lasted longer than most Hollywood unions.
3. No.

Its just my opinion that Woody is one twisted individual. His live in girlfriend of 12 years, that he adopted 2 children with, he began an affair with her while dating Farrow. Lots of issues with that.

From Wikipedia,

Starting around 1980, Allen began a 12-year relationship with actress Mia Farrow, who had leading roles in several of his movies from 1982 to 1992. Farrow and Allen never married, but they adopted two children together: Dylan Farrow (who changed her name to Eliza and is now known as Malone) and Misha Farrow (now known as Moses); and had one biological child, Satchel Farrow (now known as Ronan Seamus Farrow). Allen did not adopt any of Farrow's other biological and adopted children, including Soon-Yi Farrow Previn (the adopted daughter of Farrow and André Previn, now known as Soon-Yi Previn). Allen and Farrow separated in 1992 after Farrow discovered nude photographs Allen had taken of Soon-Yi. In her autobiography, What Falls Away (New York: Doubleday, 1997), Farrow says Allen admitted to a relationship with Soon-Yi.

After Allen and Farrow separated, a long public legal battle for the custody of their three children began. During the proceedings, Farrow alleged that Allen had sexually molested their adopted daughter Malone, who was then seven years old. The judge eventually concluded that the sex abuse charges were inconclusive,[42] but called Allen's conduct with Malone "grossly inappropriate". She called the report of the team that investigated the issue "sanitized and, therefore, less credible" and said she had "reservations about the reliability of the report". She also called Allen's conduct with Soon-Yi "inappropriate". Farrow ultimately won the custody battle over their children. Allen was denied visitation rights with Malone and could only see Ronan under supervision. Misha, who was then 14, chose not to see his father.

In a 2005 Vanity Fair interview,[43] Allen estimated that, despite the scandal's damage to his reputation, Farrow's discovery of Allen's attraction to Soon-Yi Previn, by accidentally finding nude photographs of her, was "just one of the fortuitous events, one of the great pieces of luck in my life.[...] It was a turning point for the better". Of his relationship with Farrow, he said "I'm sure there are things that I might have done differently.[...] Probably in retrospect I should have bowed out of that relationship much earlier than I did".

He could have went on a cruise with Roman some time.

Just to be clear here, Madman, you have no problem with Woody for starting a relationship with Mia Farrow's adopted minor child?

I'm glad I've learned to ignore and stop feeding trolls.

jcf817 wrote:

I'm glad I've learned to ignore and stop feeding trolls.

You still feed them, I don't know how effective your ignoring them is.......

jcf817 wrote:

I'm glad I've learned to ignore and stop feeding trolls.

Is it me that you are not ignoring as you write your comment about ignoring?
I assume so, since my comment on the issue you "Brought out"....In your infinite wisdom.....Has left you speechless.

Consistent wrote:

<quoted text>
Is it me that you are not ignoring as you write your comment about ignoring?
I assume so, since my comment on the issue you "Brought out"....In your infinite wisdom.....Has left you speechless.

Aren't I great?? Don't you all just love how smart I am and stuff?? Golly!

Pragmatist wrote:

<quoted text>Its just my opinion that Woody is one twisted individual....
Just to be clear here, Madman, you have no problem with Woody for starting a relationship with Mia Farrow's adopted minor child?

I have two problems here.

One, I do think that Woody's relationship with his younger wife's adopted daughter is inappropriate. The fact that they have been married a long time seems to bear out that it works for them.

Two, I think it is inappropriate to delve into the personal life of a great filmmaker to discredit his work. A person's work stands apart from his/her personal life. Just because Socrates had too much fun with the boys doesn't discredit his philosopy! Who knows what Renee DesCartes did with the maid? WHO THE BLANK CARES? Should we stop using Cartesian anaylsis?

Contittent wrote:

<quoted text>
Aren't I great?? Don't you all just love how smart I am and stuff?? Golly!

You are a Legend in your Own Mind!

Madman wrote:

<quoted text>
I have two problems here.
One, I do think that Woody's relationship with his younger wife's adopted daughter is inappropriate. The fact that they have been married a long time seems to bear out that it works for them.
Two, I think it is inappropriate to delve into the personal life of a great filmmaker to discredit his work. A person's work stands apart from his/her personal life. Just because Socrates had too much fun with the boys doesn't discredit his philosopy! Who knows what Renee DesCartes did with the maid? WHO THE BLANK CARES? Should we stop using Cartesian anaylsis?

How about OJ? No issues with OJ Simpson?

Madman wrote:

<quoted text>
I have two problems here.
One, I do think that Woody's relationship with his younger wife's adopted daughter is inappropriate. The fact that they have been married a long time seems to bear out that it works for them.
Two, I think it is inappropriate to delve into the personal life of a great filmmaker to discredit his work. A person's work stands apart from his/her personal life. Just because Socrates had too much fun with the boys doesn't discredit his philosopy! Who knows what Renee DesCartes did with the maid? WHO THE BLANK CARES? Should we stop using Cartesian anaylsis?

So as long as he produces "art" we shouldn't care which social mores or laws he breaks? Personally, I don't find him to be a great filmmaker, or a great clarinetist. Everything you always wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask had a couple of moments, as did crimes and misdemeanors.......but I found a lot of his films a waste of time.

The Last Word wrote:

<quoted text>
How about OJ? No issues with OJ Simpson?

OJ was a great football player. His clueless character in the Police Squad series was so-so. His actions as a husband were deplorable.

Pragmatist wrote:

<quoted text>So as long as he produces "art" we shouldn't care which social mores or laws he breaks? Personally, I don't find him to be a great filmmaker, or a great clarinetist. Everything you always wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask had a couple of moments, as did crimes and misdemeanors.......but I found a lot of his films a waste of time.

This topic could be an entire thread all by itself! I say that a person's work stands apart from his/her misdeeds as a flawed human being. The work has a validity of its own, independent from the person who produced it. We may find those deeds abhorrent, but they do NOT invalidate the work.

Example: We learn something totally disgusting about the Wright Brothers. Is there ANY immorality on their part which would invalidate air flight? Should we all now travel by rail again, because of horrible deeds done a century ago by the inventors of airplanes? Why would any misdeeds by them have ANY relevance to what they invented?

BTW, you simply cannot include "Love & Death" in those films of Woody Allen that you say are a waste of time! It is a hoot!