PDA

View Full Version : Woody Allen's comments on 9/11



savafan
06-28-2005, 12:43 PM
Here is the expert I've been waiting to hear from.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3.htm

Tue Jun 28 2005 09:40:21 ET

Woody Allen says he, as a filmmaker, is not interested in 9/11.

'It's too small, history overwhelms it," Allen reportedly tells DER SPIEGEL.

"The history of the world is like: He kills me, I kill him, only with different cosmetics and different castings. So in 2001, some fanatics killed some Americans, and now some Americans are killing some Iraqis."

Tuesday's NY POST quotes the master director: "And in my childhood, some Nazis killed Jews. And now, some Jewish people and some Palestinians are killing each other. Political questions, if you go back thousands of years, are ephemeral, not important. History is the same thing over and over again."

RedsBaron
06-28-2005, 12:44 PM
I'm pretty sure RFS62 is waiting to hear from Billy Ray Cyrus on this issue.

westofyou
06-28-2005, 12:46 PM
History is the same thing over and over again."

He's right, history is bigger than one day.

Johnny Footstool
06-28-2005, 01:15 PM
He's right, history is bigger than one day.

Yes. Unfortunately, it's impossible to get the proper perspective on an event when it's so fresh in your memory. September 11, 2001 was an important date in history, to be sure. But there are many, many other dates that are more important.

RBA
06-28-2005, 01:19 PM
Yes. Unfortunately, it's impossible to get the proper perspective on an event when it's so fresh in your memory. September 11, 2001 was an important date in history, to be sure. But there are many, many other dates that are more important.

July 4th 1776. It was the birthdate of the Greatest Nation the world has ever known.

registerthis
06-28-2005, 01:19 PM
Very true, but with one significant difference:

For the first time since becoming the single dominant world power, the United States was attacked on its soil. That had never been seen before. Noam Chomsky talks about this significance when discussing the context of 9/11.

RedFanAlways1966
06-28-2005, 01:19 PM
And on to more important issues...

How does Woody feel about old men who shag their teen step-daughter and then divorce their wife to sleep/live/marry step-daughter?

His opinions are real important to me. :devil:

RedFanAlways1966
06-28-2005, 01:27 PM
Very true, but with one significant difference:

For the first time since becoming the single dominant world power, the United States was attacked on its soil. That had never been seen before. Noam Chomsky talks about this significance when discussing the context of 9/11.

I need some clarification on this statement, register. Do we consider flying airplanes into buildings an attack? If so, wouldn't the Oklahoma City bombing also be considered an attack? Or even the Puerto Ricans who attempt to kill Pres. H.S. Truman.

Do we consider plane hijackers members of some sort of enemy army or military? If so, then Timothy McVeigh & Terry Nichols should be considered members of an enemy group.

I guess that Pearl Harbor, since HI was not officially a state yet, does not count either. How about raids made by Pancho Villa and his ragtag bunch into New Mexico?

I could probably think of more. I have not read Chomsky, but I am not sure of his meaning in this regard. I am also not sure I agree with that statement left as-is.

RBA
06-28-2005, 01:35 PM
I think Santa Barbara was torpedoed by Japanese submarines during World War 2. I'll look it up.

CrackerJack
06-28-2005, 01:36 PM
For the first time since becoming the single dominant world power, the United States was attacked on its soil. That had never been seen before.

Um, yes it has. What do you call Timothy McVeigh? The WTC bombings in the early 90's? Foreign nationals who come here and commit crimes? They are all technically "attacks on our soil" just as this was.

This wasn't a government attacking us, but an individual group of people with an agenda not sponsored by any recognized country, nation or land mass, just like Tim McVeigh, a religious motivation and a thirst for revenge...kind of like what we're doing now in Iraq, where many more innocent people will die as a result of our response to it than who died on that day.

Just because they were "Islamic Arabs" I think Americans tend to automatically associate them with Islamic countries and therefore link it to war and a reason to get rid of some more undesireables via major military action...people just waiting for an excuse to use our machines on someone. It's quite sad really, just as sad as 9/11 was.

RBA
06-28-2005, 01:37 PM
California State Military Department
The California State Military Museum
Preserving California's Military Heritage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

California and the Second World War
The Shelling of Ellwood
On 23 February 1942. the Imperial Japanese Navy's submarine I-17, under the command of Commander Nishino Kozo, surfaces shells the oil refinery near Santa Barbara. Before the war, as skipper of an oil tanker, Nishino had refueled there. The shelling does only minor damages to a pier and an oil well derrick, but creates "invasion" fears along the West Coast.

Contemporary newspaper accounts describe the attack as off the Ellwood oil fields 12 miles north of Santa Barbara, and report 16 shells fired, beginning at 7:15 p.m. on the 23rd of February 1942. Three shells struck near the Bankline Co. oil refinery, the apparent target of the shelling. Rigging and pumping equipment at a well about 1,000 yards inland were destroyed but otherwise no damage was caused. One shell overshot the target by three miles and landed on the Tecolote ranch, where it exploded. Another landed on the nearby Staniff ranch, dug a hole five feet deep, but failed to explode. Eleven other shells fell short and dropped into the sea. Description of the attack and damage to the oil refinery was provided by the superindentent, F.W. Borden. The first report of the attack was called in to police by Mrs. George Heaney of San Marcos Pass, who observed the submarine through binoculars and reported it was about a mile offshore. Oil refinery worker Bob Miller also called in a report during the attack. According to the official report of the 11th Naval District, the I-17 surfaced at 7:10 pm, Pacific War Time (2 hours ahead of standard time, so about a half hour after sunset), shortly after President Roosevelt's weekly fireside "chat" began. At 7:15 pm, the submarine began firing from its deck gun at the oil refinery. It ceased firing at 7:35 and departed on the surface; it was observed still on the suface exiting the south end of the Santa Barbara Channel at 8:30.

A 1982 issue of Parade magazine published a possible reason for the attack:

The first Japanese attack on the U.S. mainland, in 1942, was triggered by cactus spines in the rear end of a Japanese naval captain.

In the late 1930s, Kozo Nishino was commander of a Japanese tanker taking on crude oil at the Ellwood oil field. On the way up the path from the beach to a formal ceremony welcoming him and his crew, Nishino slipped and fell into a prickly-pear cactus. Workers on a nearby oil rig broke into guffaws at the sight of the proud commander having cactus spines plucked from his posterior. Then and there, the humiliated Nishino swore to get even.

He had to wait for war between the U.S. and Japan, but on Feb. 23, 1942, he got his revenge. From 7:07 to 7:45 p.m., he directed the shelling of the Ellwood oil field from his submarine, the I-17. Though about 24 shells were fired from a 5.5-inch deck gun, little damage was done. One rig needed a $500 repair job after the shelling, and one man was wounded while trying to defuse an unexploded shell.

U.S. planes gave chase to the sub, but Nishino got away. Thereafter, American coastal defenses were improved, so the mainland suffered only one more submarine attack by the Japanese during the war, at Fort Stevens in Oregon.


Most accounts however have the I-17 firing 16 17 rounds fired from 19:15 to 19:35 hours

RBA
06-28-2005, 01:52 PM
Oh, and wasn't the White House burned down during the War of 1812? I think that qualifies an attack on U.S. soil.

LincolnparkRed
06-28-2005, 02:03 PM
Oh, and wasn't the White House burned down during the War of 1812? I think that qualifies an attack on U.S. soil. and by foreign soldiers no less

Redsfaithful
06-28-2005, 02:13 PM
For those of you talking about things that happened more than twenty years ago:


For the first time since becoming the single dominant world power, the United States was attacked on its soil.

gm
06-28-2005, 02:17 PM
the mainland suffered only one more submarine attack by the Japanese during the war, at Fort Stevens in Oregon

Been there, seen that. The concrete-reinforced batteries are still intact, near Astoria.

http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=7217

Interesting eyewitness story. We report, you decide.

http://www.onalaskalife.com/articles/2005/06/17/features/00attack.txt

RedsBaron
06-28-2005, 02:29 PM
California State Military Department
The California State Military Museum
Preserving California's Military Heritage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

California and the Second World War
The Shelling of Ellwood
On 23 February 1942. the Imperial Japanese Navy's submarine I-17, under the command of Commander Nishino Kozo, surfaces shells the oil refinery near Santa Barbara. Before the war, as skipper of an oil tanker, Nishino had refueled there. The shelling does only minor damages to a pier and an oil well derrick, but creates "invasion" fears along the West Coast.

Contemporary newspaper accounts describe the attack as off the Ellwood oil fields 12 miles north of Santa Barbara, and report 16 shells fired, beginning at 7:15 p.m. on the 23rd of February 1942. Three shells struck near the Bankline Co. oil refinery, the apparent target of the shelling. Rigging and pumping equipment at a well about 1,000 yards inland were destroyed but otherwise no damage was caused. One shell overshot the target by three miles and landed on the Tecolote ranch, where it exploded. Another landed on the nearby Staniff ranch, dug a hole five feet deep, but failed to explode. Eleven other shells fell short and dropped into the sea. Description of the attack and damage to the oil refinery was provided by the superindentent, F.W. Borden. The first report of the attack was called in to police by Mrs. George Heaney of San Marcos Pass, who observed the submarine through binoculars and reported it was about a mile offshore. Oil refinery worker Bob Miller also called in a report during the attack. According to the official report of the 11th Naval District, the I-17 surfaced at 7:10 pm, Pacific War Time (2 hours ahead of standard time, so about a half hour after sunset), shortly after President Roosevelt's weekly fireside "chat" began. At 7:15 pm, the submarine began firing from its deck gun at the oil refinery. It ceased firing at 7:35 and departed on the surface; it was observed still on the suface exiting the south end of the Santa Barbara Channel at 8:30.

A 1982 issue of Parade magazine published a possible reason for the attack:

The first Japanese attack on the U.S. mainland, in 1942, was triggered by cactus spines in the rear end of a Japanese naval captain.

In the late 1930s, Kozo Nishino was commander of a Japanese tanker taking on crude oil at the Ellwood oil field. On the way up the path from the beach to a formal ceremony welcoming him and his crew, Nishino slipped and fell into a prickly-pear cactus. Workers on a nearby oil rig broke into guffaws at the sight of the proud commander having cactus spines plucked from his posterior. Then and there, the humiliated Nishino swore to get even.

He had to wait for war between the U.S. and Japan, but on Feb. 23, 1942, he got his revenge. From 7:07 to 7:45 p.m., he directed the shelling of the Ellwood oil field from his submarine, the I-17. Though about 24 shells were fired from a 5.5-inch deck gun, little damage was done. One rig needed a $500 repair job after the shelling, and one man was wounded while trying to defuse an unexploded shell.

U.S. planes gave chase to the sub, but Nishino got away. Thereafter, American coastal defenses were improved, so the mainland suffered only one more submarine attack by the Japanese during the war, at Fort Stevens in Oregon.


Most accounts however have the I-17 firing 16 17 rounds fired from 19:15 to 19:35 hours
I think this incident helped inspire Spielberg's ill fated comedy "1941", even though the attack occurred in 1942.

registerthis
06-28-2005, 02:34 PM
For those of you talking about things that happened more than twenty years ago:
*ahem* Thank you.

registerthis
06-28-2005, 02:37 PM
I need some clarification on this statement, register. Do we consider flying airplanes into buildings an attack? If so, wouldn't the Oklahoma City bombing also be considered an attack? Or even the Puerto Ricans who attempt to kill Pres. H.S. Truman.

Do we consider plane hijackers members of some sort of enemy army or military? If so, then Timothy McVeigh & Terry Nichols should be considered members of an enemy group.

I guess that Pearl Harbor, since HI was not officially a state yet, does not count either. How about raids made by Pancho Villa and his ragtag bunch into New Mexico?

I could probably think of more. I have not read Chomsky, but I am not sure of his meaning in this regard. I am also not sure I agree with that statement left as-is.
OK, you really mis-read my statement. Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth:


The horrendous terrorist attacks on Tuesday are something quite new in world affairs, not in their scale and character, but in the target. For the US, this is the first time since the War of 1812 that its national territory has been under attack, even threat. Its colonies have been attacked, but not the national territory itself.

During these years the US virtually exterminated the indigenous population, conquered half of Mexico, intervened violently in the surrounding region, conquered Hawaii and the Philippines (killing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos), and in the past half century particularly, extended its resort to force throughout much of the world. The number of victims is colossal. For the first time, the guns have been directed the other way.

The same is true, even more dramatically, of Europe. Europe has suffered murderous destruction, but from internal wars, meanwhile conquering much of the world with extreme brutality. It has not been under attack by its victims outside, with rare exceptions (the IRA in England, for example). It is therefore natural that NATO should rally to the support of the US; hundreds of years of imperial violence have an enormous impact on the
intellectual and moral culture.

registerthis
06-28-2005, 02:37 PM
Just because they were "Islamic Arabs" I think Americans tend to automatically associate them with Islamic countries and therefore link it to war and a reason to get rid of some more undesireables via major military action...people just waiting for an excuse to use our machines on someone. It's quite sad really, just as sad as 9/11 was.
If you read my post above, you'll find that that was not at all what i was implying.

Falls City Beer
06-28-2005, 02:53 PM
Well, the long view is what it is: it flattens every event into the fabric. Which is fine if you feel the need to portray distance or a sense of well-being in the knowledge that everything is part of a continuum. But to say some events, instances, inventions shouldn't grab larger segments of the world's imagination, respect, or fear is to reduce every human behavior to folly and every event to just another turn of the hamster wheel of time. It's an extremism of uniformity. But I believe in a variety and a dynamism to history just as much as I believe there are recurring patterns. And I believe certain events bear higher Geiger readings than others. What I agree with Allen on is the concept that one shouldn't regard the senseless death of American lives as any more a tragedy than the senseless deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians. American lives don't claim primacy on the world stage in my mind.

Johnny Footstool
06-28-2005, 02:59 PM
I think this incident helped inspire Spielberg's ill fated comedy "1941", even though the attack occurred in 1942.

An often-overlooked moment in history becomes an often-overlooked, big-budget box office disaster.

"Hollywood!!!"

guttle11
06-28-2005, 03:18 PM
July 4th 1776. It was the birthdate of the Greatest Nation the world has ever known.



:usa:

Blimpie
06-28-2005, 05:33 PM
An often-overlooked moment in history becomes an often-overlooked, big-budget box office disaster.

"Hollywood!!!"The movie may have been a disaster financially, but parts of it were brilliant.

Can anyone really say that they didn't enjoy the scene where the Japanese sailors forced Slim Pickens to drink prune juice to expedite the "passing" of the secret Cracker Jack compass he had swallowed? :evil:

Johnny Footstool
06-28-2005, 05:46 PM
The movie may have been a disaster financially, but parts of it were brilliant.

I did like parts of it. "Hollywood" was the first "nude" scene I ever saw as a kid. ;)

I was always fascinated by the actual historical events, though. Think about it -- a Japanese sub sailed right up to the American coast and started taking shots. I'm sure the government covered up the incident in order to preserve morale.

alex trevino
06-28-2005, 05:53 PM
his comments were pretty much on target...when compared to some other tragedies (nazism, stalinism, Pol Pot etc.) 9/11 doesn't rank up there...just a big deal to Americans because we tend to be egocentric.

Mutaman
06-28-2005, 11:10 PM
His opinions are real important to me. :devil:

But whether you agree with them or not, they should be important to you. Whatever you think of him personally, I sure you will agree that Allen is an important legitimate artist, maybe one of the most significant of our generation. Does anyone dispute that "Annie Hall" and "Crimes and Misdeameanors" are great Art? And its important for artists to express themselves. Their opinions are important.
Moreover, since one of the main topics of Allen's art are New Yorkers and the City of New York, his opinions about 9/11 are especially important.

RedsBaron
06-29-2005, 06:45 AM
And its important for artists to express themselves. Their opinions are important.

I realize that some people are greatly interested in the opinions of celebrities on world events, but I'm not one of them. Just because a Woody Allen may be a talented film maker does not necessarily mean he has insights into foreign policy that are of particular importance IMO.
Just because a person is talented or has insights in one area of life does not mean that person is master of all he sees and an expert across the board. Tom Cruise certainly knows more about movie making than I do, but I don't look to him for guidance on foreign policy, or what drugs to take, or on which religious faith to follow.
Woody Allen has a right to his opinions regarding the significance of world events, and to express his opinions, but his opinions are no more important than those of anyone else who lacks even expertise or training in the matter.

RFS62
06-29-2005, 06:59 AM
Woody Allen says he, as a filmmaker, is not interested in 9/11.

'It's too small, history overwhelms it," Allen reportedly tells DER SPIEGEL.



Billy Ray Cyrus recently raised a good point regarding this issue.
What exactly was so big in historical scope about any of his other movies?

RedsBaron
06-29-2005, 07:06 AM
I'm pretty sure RFS62 is waiting to hear from Billy Ray Cyrus on this issue.
RFS62, I knew you would be up to date on Billy Ray's opinions. ;)

RedFanAlways1966
06-29-2005, 07:53 AM
I realize that some people are greatly interested in the opinions of celebrities on world events, but I'm not one of them. Just because a Woody Allen may be a talented film maker does not necessarily mean he has insights into foreign policy that are of particular importance IMO.
Just because a person is talented or has insights in one area of life does not mean that person is master of all he sees and an expert across the board. Tom Cruise certainly knows more about movie making than I do, but I don't look to him for guidance on foreign policy, or what drugs to take, or on which religious faith to follow.
Woody Allen has a right to his opinions regarding the significance of world events, and to express his opinions, but his opinions are no more important than those of anyone else who lacks even expertise or training in the matter.

:clap:

Same goes for Barabra Streisand, MICHAEL MOORE, Martin Sheen, Susan Sarandon, Timothy Robbins, the Dixie Chicks... and the majority of "Hollywood types". Their opinion is no more important than mine. Their vote counts the same as mine.

Because someone is talented in some sort of artsy-thing, does not make their political opinions important to me. The same goes for the political opinions of baseball players. As a matter of fact, John Kruk's political opinions mean as much to me as Woody Allen's. Neither is a political expert... just a movie maker/actor & a former MLB player.


Moreover, since one of the main topics of Allen's art are New Yorkers and the City of New York, his opinions about 9/11 are especially important.

Because someone lives in NYC makes their opinion NO MORE important. To suggest that is a very narrow way of thinking. WE ARE ALL AMERICANS. We are not New Yorkers vs. Ohians vs. Californians. When 9-11 happened we were all under attack. The same goes for people at the Pentagon. The same goes for those who perished in a field in PA. Anyone who thinks New Yorkers opinions on 9-11 are more important... well, I'd just assume not hear their opinion. I am an American. I consider all of our citizens Americans. Everyone has opinions... but none are more important than others (unless you can make policies). The guy makes movies. His opinions are as important to me as the homeless guy who lives in the streets of NYC. But I assume that the homeless guy's opinions are just as importnat to you as Woody's... if not more important. B/c he is more in the mainstream of NYC than some multi-millionaire who lives comfortably in his Penthouse (w/ his former-step-daughter/wife) apartment and eats in places with very high prices.

GAC
06-29-2005, 09:04 AM
Very true, but with one significant difference:

For the first time since becoming the single dominant world power, the United States was attacked on its soil.

Who attacked and burned D.C. then during the War of 1812? Must have been an "inside" job. ;)

But I guess we weren't a dominant world power then, so it wouldn't qualify. :lol:

RFS62
06-29-2005, 09:16 AM
You know, I've always liked Woody Allen. Not his decisions in his personal life, but as an artist.

I would have thought his perspective as a New Yorker on one of the most historic events to ever happen to New York could yield some insight that might make for an interesting project.

But if he's not inspired to do it, so what?

It does seem a little odd that he made the comments on the historical nature of the event in regards to his doing a movie. I wasn't aware that historical significance played any part in his body of work.

But really, who cares?

RBA
06-29-2005, 09:19 AM
Who attacked and burned D.C. then during the War of 1812? Must have been an "inside" job. ;)

But I guess we weren't a dominant world power then, so it wouldn't qualify. :lol:

GAC, you made the same mistake I did.



For the first time since becoming the single dominant world power...


;)

GAC
06-29-2005, 09:34 AM
Knowing Woody Allen, the title would probably be... "Everything You Wanted To Know About 9/11 But Were Afraid To Ask". ;)

registerthis
06-29-2005, 09:50 AM
Who attacked and burned D.C. then during the War of 1812? Must have been an "inside" job. ;)

But I guess we weren't a dominant world power then, so it wouldn't qualify. :lol:
Which is why I put the phrase "Since we became a dominant world power" in my post. :rolleyes:

Mutaman
06-29-2005, 12:59 PM
:

Because someone is talented in some sort of artsy-thing, does not make their political opinions important to me. The same goes for the political opinions of baseball players. As a matter of fact, John Kruk's political opinions mean as much to me as Woody Allen's. Neither is a political expert... just a movie maker/actor & a former MLB player.

I'm sure we both agree that everyone has a right to express their opinion, and that its important that we respect everyone's opinion. And I'm sure you understand that when I talk about artists, I'm not talking about "celebrities" or "hollywood types" or "artsy-things", I'm talking about those who create true art. Art is by its nature subjective, and people who create art and whose lives revolve around expressing themselves , should express their thoughts on the world, and we should respect those thoughts. Which is not to say we should agree with them. Moreover I understand that everyone's definition of who is a true artist is subjective. But my point is that if you aren't going to distinguish between the opinion of an artist like Woddy Allen and that of "a homeless person", you're depriving yourself of intellectual stimulation and the chance to perhaps learn something new about the world and about yourself.


[/QUOTE]
Because someone lives in NYC makes their opinion NO MORE important. [/QUOTE]

I don't know how you define "more important" but I'm saying that because of the partcular experiences of New Yorkers regarding 9/11, their opinons are worth paying attention to. When you spend every day for a week smelling bodies burning, you tend to have a unique experience not shared by the rest of America. And, when years later , not a day goes by when something does not trigger thoughts of 9/11, whether its reading about the death of a cop, or passing by a firehouse, seeing a 9/11 tribute in a courthouse, or just experiencing a beautiful sunny day, I submit that this makes those feelings and opinions about the subject of 9/11 worth listening to.

Finally I submit that the fact that New Yorkers spend their lives in a bullseye waiting for the next shoe to drop is not an experience shared by most other people in America, and this unique experince causes their opinions to be unique.

Blimpie
06-29-2005, 02:23 PM
But whether you agree with them or not, they (Allen's opinions) should be important to you. Whatever you think of him personally, I sure you will agree that Allen is an important legitimate artist, maybe one of the most significant of our generation. Does anyone dispute that "Annie Hall" and "Crimes and Misdeameanors" are great Art? And its important for artists to express themselves. Their opinions are important.
Moreover, since one of the main topics of Allen's art are New Yorkers and the City of New York, his opinions about 9/11 are especially important.I should care about the political opinions of a child molester? I guess his opinions should have more creedence with me because he can convince spoiled actors to work for scale. :confused:

Redsfaithful
06-29-2005, 05:26 PM
I should care about the political opinions of a child molester?

Exaggerate much?

Blimpie
06-30-2005, 10:35 AM
Exaggerate much?My trusty Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary does not lend itself much to exaggeration...

child \ n. a: A person not yet of age. b: A son or daughter of human parents. c: One strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs.

mo-lest-er \ n. One who makes annoying sexual advances to

Nope. I think I'll just stand by my previous comments.

Redsfaithful
06-30-2005, 11:08 AM
My trusty Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary does not lend itself much to exaggeration...

child \ n. a: A person not yet of age. b: A son or daughter of human parents. c: One strongly influenced by another or by a place or state of affairs.

mo-lest-er \ n. One who makes annoying sexual advances to

Nope. I think I'll just stand by my previous comments.

Woody Allen isn't a child molestor. He's never been convicted of child molestation. He's never even been charged with child molestation.

If he could have been charged with anything it would have been statutory rape, as Soon-Yi was 17 when he was accused by Mia.

So your first word is wrong, since she was of age in most states (the age of consent is 17 in New York). And the second word is wrong since the advances were clearly not annoying. They did get married after all.

So yeah, keep standing by your comments if you enjoy being completely and utterly wrong.

Blimpie
06-30-2005, 11:25 AM
Woody Allen isn't a child molestor. He's never been convicted of child molestation. He's never even been charged with child molestation.

If he could have been charged with anything it would have been statutory rape, as Soon-Yi was 17 when he was accused by Mia.

So your first word is wrong, since she was of age in most states (the age of consent is 17 in New York). And the second word is wrong since the advances were clearly not annoying. They did get married after all.

So yeah, keep standing by your comments if you enjoy being completely and utterly wrong.Roman Polanski called. He wants to know if you need a roommate.

Redsfaithful
06-30-2005, 11:33 AM
Roman Polanski called. He wants to know if you need a roommate.

Hilarious, really. Polanski certainly was a child molestor, unlike Woody Allen. Keep trying, eventually you'll hit something.

Blimpie
06-30-2005, 11:38 AM
Hilarious, really. Polanski certainly was a child molestor, unlike Woody Allen. Keep trying, eventually you'll hit something.I see, you must be implying that Roman's sexual advances crossed over into the "annoying" category. Whereas, the first time that Woody placed his paws all over his adopted daughter, he was welcomed with open arms.

savafan
06-30-2005, 11:43 AM
Can we all just agree that Woody's a dirty old man?

Blimpie
06-30-2005, 11:47 AM
Can we all just agree that Woody's a dirty old man?Yep. I'd wager that opinions of Woody are directly correlated to one's family status. That said, my two daughters probably impact my posts on matters such as these.

Redsfaithful
06-30-2005, 11:53 AM
I see, you must be implying that Roman's sexual advances crossed over into the "annoying" category. Whereas, the first time that Woody placed his paws all over his adopted daughter, he was welcomed with open arms.

No, I'm not implying anything. I'm stating that Polanski molested a 13 year old girl, which is quite a bit different from what Allen did.

Blimpie
06-30-2005, 12:04 PM
No, I'm not implying anything. I'm stating that Polanski molested a 13 year old girl, which is quite a bit different from what Allen did.You will never convince me--or Mia Farrow--that Woody Allen is anything more than a creepy old man who was so self absorbed that he imploded an entire family unit in order to satisfy his own unnatural carnal desires.

Oh course, in your eyes, he is just a maligned statutory rapist who directs movies and comments openly about the historical impact of 9/11. At this time, I will respectfully jettison this thread.

Redsfaithful
06-30-2005, 12:07 PM
You will never convince me--or Mia Farrow--that Woody Allen is anything more than a creepy old man who was so self absorbed that he imploded and entire family unit in order to satisfy his own unnatural carnal desires.

Oh course, in your eyes, he is just a maligned statutory rapist who directs movies and comments openly about the historical impact of 9/11. At his time, I will respectfully jettison this thread.

You know I agree with everything you said in that first paragraph. It's just helpful to realize that there's a difference between what you said there and calling him a child molestor.

I don't condone what the guy did at all, but I'm not going to toss around a term like child molestor lightly. I don't really think anyone should.