timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

[msommer]

Sorry....I may need glasses. I should have waited 6 months for the iPhone 6. It is almost to the point I can't read the damn iPhone 5.

Get the plus. HTH

 

[msommer]

Joe Flacco and Jay Cutler are the two highest paid quarterbacks in the NFL, and they both suck. How did they get those contracts?

Flacco by winning a ring.

Big Ben has won two of those, and he's never made that much. And I would much rather have him.

The reason why he did not get such a contract (yet) was conduct off the field...

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I don't want to discuss Eminence's racism (hard fore to think of a less interesting topic) but his defense of it, as insipid as it is, does raise a good question, one which I've been grappling with for years: when should we consider somebody racist? When they express thoughts we consider to be racist even if the person in question doesn't consider them to be so? Or does one have to act in a racist manner or declare themselves a racist?

if you have black friends, is that a legitimate defense against the charge that you are anti-black? I don't think so, but it's always the first thing offered in rebuttal.

I'd say it's a spectrum. I guess you're asking where on the scale we draw the line and label someone a racist. An equally interesting thought to ponder on that scale is can anyone really claim to be 100% to the one extreme? i.e not racist at all? Isn't there a little bit of racism in every single one of us?

 

[timschochet]

I think so. I certainly have thought racist thoughts at times, laughed at racist jokes etc. that doesn't make me a racist per se.

Yet I think that when someone attempts to claim that white people in general are smarter than black people, (and that Asians are smarter than white people etc.) as Eminence has done, I think it's okay to regard that person as a racist per se. He doesn't need to burn crosses, and he can have black friends, yet IMO he is a racist and I am not.

But where exactly to draw the line in the spectrum that he crosses over- that I'm not sure about.

 

[jon_mx]

I think so. I certainly have thought racist thoughts at times, laughed at racist jokes etc. that doesn't make me a racist per se.

Yet I think that when someone attempts to claim that white people in general are smarter than black people, (and that Asians are smarter than white people etc.) as Eminence has done, I think it's okay to regard that person as a racist per se. He doesn't need to burn crosses, and he can have black friends, yet IMO he is a racist and I am not.

But where exactly to draw the line in the spectrum that he crosses over- that I'm not sure about.

Exactly, there is no real line. A broad definition of racist would put everyone in the racist camp. I think racism should include some level of hatred. I am not sure Em is there.

 

[timschochet]

I'll give you an example of a racist attitude I may have held that doesn't, at least IMO, define me as a racist:

For years I have been a leasing agent and site selector for a well known pizza restaurant, national chain, for Los Angeles County. This pizzeria is priced slightly higher and a little better quality than other pizza chains. Years ago I put a location in Inglewood and another in North Long Beach on the borders of Compton. The sites were as visible as all the others yet weekly sales weren't good, and this lasted for several years.

I formed a conclusion which I then resisted telling corporate because it sounded racist. Nonetheless I i kept thinking it, and that was this: blacks won't pay more for higher quality pizza. Now of course I am not talking about all blacks. But the decision had to be made a few years back: should more locations be opened in black areas like Compton and South Central? Or should we concentrate on doubling up in whiter areas? I recommended the latter.

Was this a racist decision on my part?

 

[timschochet]

I think so. I certainly have thought racist thoughts at times, laughed at racist jokes etc. that doesn't make me a racist per se.

Yet I think that when someone attempts to claim that white people in general are smarter than black people, (and that Asians are smarter than white people etc.) as Eminence has done, I think it's okay to regard that person as a racist per se. He doesn't need to burn crosses, and he can have black friends, yet IMO he is a racist and I am not.

But where exactly to draw the line in the spectrum that he crosses over- that I'm not sure about.

Exactly, there is no real line. A broad definition of racist would put everyone in the racist camp. I think racism should include some level of hatred. I am not sure Em is there.

i can't agree with your definition. The film Gone With the Wind, for example, bears no hatred toward blacks- in fact most of the black characters are lovable and good natured. But it's depiction is largely paternalistic and therefore it's clearly racist.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I'll give you an example of a racist attitude I may have held that doesn't, at least IMO, define me as a racist:

For years I have been a leasing agent and site selector for a well known pizza restaurant, national chain, for Los Angeles County. This pizzeria is priced slightly higher and a little better quality than other pizza chains. Years ago I put a location in Inglewood and another in North Long Beach on the borders of Compton. The sites were as visible as all the others yet weekly sales weren't good, and this lasted for several years.

I formed a conclusion which I then resisted telling corporate because it sounded racist. Nonetheless I i kept thinking it, and that was this: blacks won't pay more for higher quality pizza. Now of course I am not talking about all blacks. But the decision had to be made a few years back: should more locations be opened in black areas like Compton and South Central? Or should we concentrate on doubling up in whiter areas? I recommended the latter.

Was this a racist decision on my part?

Not at all. Businesses make similar decisions all the time based on the demographics of their target consumer.

 

[jon_mx]

I'll give you an example of a racist attitude I may have held that doesn't, at least IMO, define me as a racist:

For years I have been a leasing agent and site selector for a well known pizza restaurant, national chain, for Los Angeles County. This pizzeria is priced slightly higher and a little better quality than other pizza chains. Years ago I put a location in Inglewood and another in North Long Beach on the borders of Compton. The sites were as visible as all the others yet weekly sales weren't good, and this lasted for several years.

I formed a conclusion which I then resisted telling corporate because it sounded racist. Nonetheless I i kept thinking it, and that was this: blacks won't pay more for higher quality pizza. Now of course I am not talking about all blacks. But the decision had to be made a few years back: should more locations be opened in black areas like Compton and South Central? Or should we concentrate on doubling up in whiter areas? I recommended the latter.

Was this a racist decision on my part?

By the broad definition, that was racist. But it was not done out of hate, it was done on analysis. Races to have different tendencies, but that does not make them inferior or deserving of more or less respect. I think Em is trying to do analysis, but he should refrain. He is not really qualified and people will only see it as racism.

 

[ScottNorwood]

Tim - semi-serious question. What were you expecting to happen in the Lies about Hitler thread?

 

[timschochet]

Tim - semi-serious question. What were you expecting to happen in the Lies about Hitler thread?

certainly not what happened! If you read the first post or so I was trying to make a serious point about people using Hitler to try to justify all sorts of modern day arguments. The biggest culprit IMO is the NRA, which in order to make the absurd point that gun control leads to dictatorship, has been spreading for years the notion that Hitler seized everyone's guns, which is a total falsehood. There are other culprits on the left as well. Thats the sort of thing I was arguing against.

It very quickly turned into a thread for humorous one liners, sort of a more simple version of the way that scene from Downfall is used on YouTube. Which is fine. I enjoy reading it.

 

[krista4]

I'm glad you haven't participated in the officer shooting thread. At first it looked like complete timbait, but the level of discourse in there is lower than any thread I've seen on this board, so I'm glad you saw that and didn't attempt to bring any rationality to it. I enjoyed reading your back-and-forth in here with roboto on it.

 

[timschochet]

Also, shouldn't we be able to agree or disagree whether or not rhetoric is extreme without relying on related extreme action?

For example, if Louis Farrakhan says, "Cops deserve to die!" that should be considered extreme rhetoric and worth condemning even if there is no tangible result of his statement. On the other hand, if Farrakhan says something more mild, such as "We should always distrust cops", no amount of extreme tangible action makes his statement MORE extreme.

And this is the problem when we try to decipher rhetoric and it's effect on what people do. There is no more complicated subject than trying to figure out peoples' motivations, especially when they commit sinister acts. To simplify it, even in part, by blaming rhetoric makes very little sense to me.

Great. I expect you to defend all actions taken in someone's name or religion or political stripe as being completely unmotivated by and disconnected to that persons intentions.

No I would never say that. But like I wrote it's a very complicated subject. I think it's dangerous to make absolute statements one way or the other.

I think it's dangerous to make absolute statements one way or the other.

Isn't that an absolute statement?

it would be except for the first two words.

 

[timschochet]

I'm glad you haven't participated in the officer shooting thread. At first it looked like complete timbait, but the level of discourse in there is lower than any thread I've seen on this board, so I'm glad you saw that and didn't attempt to bring any rationality to it. I enjoyed reading your back-and-forth in here with roboto on it.

yeah it's pretty low. Although at times the threads about Mike Brown and George Zimmerman, both of which I heavily contributed to. Reached the same level. This one however may be a new low...

 

[ScottNorwood]

I'm glad you haven't participated in the officer shooting thread. At first it looked like complete timbait, but the level of discourse in there is lower than any thread I've seen on this board, so I'm glad you saw that and didn't attempt to bring any rationality to it. I enjoyed reading your back-and-forth in here with roboto on it.

yeah it's pretty low. Although at times the threads about Mike Brown and George Zimmerman, both of which I heavily contributed to. Reached the same level. This one however may be a new low...

I heard that Tanner got reported to mods multiple times in that thread

 

[timschochet]

I'm glad you haven't participated in the officer shooting thread. At first it looked like complete timbait, but the level of discourse in there is lower than any thread I've seen on this board, so I'm glad you saw that and didn't attempt to bring any rationality to it. I enjoyed reading your back-and-forth in here with roboto on it.

yeah it's pretty low. Although at times the threads about Mike Brown and George Zimmerman, both of which I heavily contributed to. Reached the same level. This one however may be a new low...

I heard that Tanner got reported to mods multiple times in that thread

i think someone wrote "you seem upset" and got reported.

 

[jon_mx]

I'm glad you haven't participated in the officer shooting thread. At first it looked like complete timbait, but the level of discourse in there is lower than any thread I've seen on this board, so I'm glad you saw that and didn't attempt to bring any rationality to it. I enjoyed reading your back-and-forth in here with roboto on it.

yeah it's pretty low. Although at times the threads about Mike Brown and George Zimmerman, both of which I heavily contributed to. Reached the same level. This one however may be a new low...

I never thought Zimmerman was that bad except for a few like CH and BK.

 

[Reginald Cornsilks]

Tim

Unsolicited opinion and questions: One of my favorite shows is Quantum Leap. I guess it's more of a guilty pleasure because it never gets any love on the top lists.

I noticed it obviously missing from your thread on your favorite shows, but thought for sure this is the type of show you'd love. Have you seen it? Thoughts? Given your love of history and television dramas, i thought this would be a home run for you

That a Columbo are my favorite shows ever but Columbo was always set in your backyard so thought you might be interested in that too. They play it on MeTV every Sunday night.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Timmy, how did you get your own thread?

I am watching "12 Angry Men" right now and I think you can learn something from this movie.

 

[joffer]

Timmy, how did you get your own thread?

I am watching "12 Angry Men" right now and I think you can learn something from this movie.

GREAT movie

 

[flysack]

Someone let me know when this thread takes the "Lies About Hitler" turn.

 

[timschochet]

Tim

Unsolicited opinion and questions: One of my favorite shows is Quantum Leap. I guess it's more of a guilty pleasure because it never gets any love on the top lists.

I noticed it obviously missing from your thread on your favorite shows, but thought for sure this is the type of show you'd love. Have you seen it? Thoughts? Given your love of history and television dramas, i thought this would be a home run for you

That a Columbo are my favorite shows ever but Columbo was always set in your backyard so thought you might be interested in that too. They play it on MeTV every Sunday night.

Yeah I enjoyed Quantum Leap. But it didn't make my list because any show from the 80s, or even early 90s, just doesn't have the quality of the shows of the last decade.

I totally forgot Friday Night Lights- that absolutely deserved to be in my top 5.

 

[timschochet]

Columbo is OK. Never much of a Peter Falk fan- I loved that Wim Wenders movie though.

 

[timschochet]

Timmy, how did you get your own thread?

I am watching "12 Angry Men" right now and I think you can learn something from this movie.

1. I started it.

2. I've seen it about a dozen times in my life. I can quote you whole lines. What exactly did you think I can learn from it?

I like that movie very much, but IMO there are other contemporaneous court movies that are even better:

The Caine Mutiny

Inherit The Wind

Judgment at Nuremberg

 

[timschochet]

And To Kill A Mockingbird, of course.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

And To Kill A Mockingbird, of course.

I was not talking about only good movies. The fact you ask me what you could learn from "12 Angry Men" means you need to watch it a few more times.And when you figure it out, Little Grasshopper, you will not need to create a separate thread for yourself.

 

[timschochet]

And To Kill A Mockingbird, of course.

I was not talking about only good movies. The fact you ask me what you could learn from "12 Angry Men" means you need to watch it a few more times.

I don't need to know what one could learn from that movie. I'm asking you what you believe I could learn from that movie which I don't know right now. The main message of 12 Angry Men is that we shouldn't prejudge things without learning all of the facts. If you think that I have done that in some recent discussion or situation then please state the specific case.

There are also sub-messages in that film as well, one of the most important being that people often form opinions based on emotion first, and then interpret the facts to fit their pre-conceived view of the matter, rather than letting the facts shape their views. This is a point I have been making for years in this forum, and it certainly applies to recent debates we've been having. However, I don't think I'm particularly guilty of it myself. If you think I am, again I challenge you to make your case.

 

[facook]

Tim, I'd just like to give you kudos for this thread. I'm a nobody on this board but I find reading your opinions and the dialogues in this thread 1000X more interesting than in the other threads on the board. I'm realizing that my opinion of you should have been directed more at the folks who trolled you.

Please keep this up. It's made the board far better as a whole imo.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

And To Kill A Mockingbird, of course.

I was not talking about only good movies. The fact you ask me what you could learn from "12 Angry Men" means you need to watch it a few more times.

I don't need to know what one could learn from that movie. I'm asking you what you believe I could learn from that movie which I don't know right now. The main message of 12 Angry Men is that we shouldn't prejudge things without learning all of the facts. If you think that I have done that in some recent discussion or situation then please state the specific case.There are also sub-messages in that film as well, one of the most important being that people often form opinions based on emotion first, and then interpret the facts to fit their pre-conceived view of the matter, rather than letting the facts shape their views. This is a point I have been making for years in this forum, and it certainly applies to recent debates we've been having. However, I don't think I'm particularly guilty of it myself. If you think I am, again I challenge you to make your case.

Timmy, there you go again. I did not say it's all ABOUT YOU. There are more than one actor in the movie.

 

[timschochet]

And To Kill A Mockingbird, of course.

I was not talking about only good movies. The fact you ask me what you could learn from "12 Angry Men" means you need to watch it a few more times.

I don't need to know what one could learn from that movie. I'm asking you what you believe I could learn from that movie which I don't know right now. The main message of 12 Angry Men is that we shouldn't prejudge things without learning all of the facts. If you think that I have done that in some recent discussion or situation then please state the specific case.There are also sub-messages in that film as well, one of the most important being that people often form opinions based on emotion first, and then interpret the facts to fit their pre-conceived view of the matter, rather than letting the facts shape their views. This is a point I have been making for years in this forum, and it certainly applies to recent debates we've been having. However, I don't think I'm particularly guilty of it myself. If you think I am, again I challenge you to make your case.

Timmy, there you go again. I did not say it's all ABOUT YOU. There are more than one actor in the movie.

OK. I apologize, but at this point I have NO idea what it is you're trying to say here. Why don't you spell it out for me?

Honestly I don't get it.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, I'd just like to give you kudos for this thread. I'm a nobody on this board but I find reading your opinions and the dialogues in this thread 1000X more interesting than in the other threads on the board. I'm realizing that my opinion of you should have been directed more at the folks who trolled you.

Please keep this up. It's made the board far better as a whole imo.

Thx. I hope the thread stays interesting.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

And To Kill A Mockingbird, of course.

I was not talking about only good movies. The fact you ask me what you could learn from "12 Angry Men" means you need to watch it a few more times.

I don't need to know what one could learn from that movie. I'm asking you what you believe I could learn from that movie which I don't know right now. The main message of 12 Angry Men is that we shouldn't prejudge things without learning all of the facts. If you think that I have done that in some recent discussion or situation then please state the specific case.There are also sub-messages in that film as well, one of the most important being that people often form opinions based on emotion first, and then interpret the facts to fit their pre-conceived view of the matter, rather than letting the facts shape their views. This is a point I have been making for years in this forum, and it certainly applies to recent debates we've been having. However, I don't think I'm particularly guilty of it myself. If you think I am, again I challenge you to make your case.

Timmy, there you go again. I did not say it's all ABOUT YOU. There are more than one actor in the movie.

OK. I apologize, but at this point I have NO idea what it is you're trying to say here. Why don't you spell it out for me?Honestly I don't get it.

It does not work this way. Watch it again and let us know something NEW you have learned.

 

[timschochet]

And To Kill A Mockingbird, of course.

I was not talking about only good movies. The fact you ask me what you could learn from "12 Angry Men" means you need to watch it a few more times.

I don't need to know what one could learn from that movie. I'm asking you what you believe I could learn from that movie which I don't know right now. The main message of 12 Angry Men is that we shouldn't prejudge things without learning all of the facts. If you think that I have done that in some recent discussion or situation then please state the specific case.There are also sub-messages in that film as well, one of the most important being that people often form opinions based on emotion first, and then interpret the facts to fit their pre-conceived view of the matter, rather than letting the facts shape their views. This is a point I have been making for years in this forum, and it certainly applies to recent debates we've been having. However, I don't think I'm particularly guilty of it myself. If you think I am, again I challenge you to make your case.

Timmy, there you go again. I did not say it's all ABOUT YOU. There are more than one actor in the movie.

OK. I apologize, but at this point I have NO idea what it is you're trying to say here. Why don't you spell it out for me?Honestly I don't get it.

It does not work this way. Watch it again and let us know something NEW you have learned.

No. First off there's no "us". There's just you. And since I still have no idea what you're getting at, we'll leave it at that.

 

[timschochet]

Some talk about Tony Romo being considered for MVP. Not a bad choice IMO, though Murray also on his own team could make a case too. And if you're going to argue for Romo, why not Big Ben, who's had an equally good year or better?

However, if I were able to vote, I'd still have to go with Andrew Luck despite his performance today. I think the Colts are a really awful team. They have a lousy defense, no WRs to speak of, not a very good offensive line, and no running game. It's amazing that they're 10-5 and Luck is basically ALL of the reason. Try to imagine the Colts with Jay Cutler or Joe Flacco as QB- they'd be 3-13.

Luck HAS to be the MVP.

 

[BassNBrew]

I'll give you an example of a racist attitude I may have held that doesn't, at least IMO, define me as a racist:

For years I have been a leasing agent and site selector for a well known pizza restaurant, national chain, for Los Angeles County. This pizzeria is priced slightly higher and a little better quality than other pizza chains. Years ago I put a location in Inglewood and another in North Long Beach on the borders of Compton. The sites were as visible as all the others yet weekly sales weren't good, and this lasted for several years.

I formed a conclusion which I then resisted telling corporate because it sounded racist. Nonetheless I i kept thinking it, and that was this: blacks won't pay more for higher quality pizza. Now of course I am not talking about all blacks. But the decision had to be made a few years back: should more locations be opened in black areas like Compton and South Central? Or should we concentrate on doubling up in whiter areas? I recommended the latter.

Was this a racist decision on my part?

What's interesting is that this isn't consider racist but if you were the leasing agent for a fired chicken company and targeted putting locations in black neighborhoods you would be considered racist.

 

[mr roboto]

I'll give you an example of a racist attitude I may have held that doesn't, at least IMO, define me as a racist:

For years I have been a leasing agent and site selector for a well known pizza restaurant, national chain, for Los Angeles County. This pizzeria is priced slightly higher and a little better quality than other pizza chains. Years ago I put a location in Inglewood and another in North Long Beach on the borders of Compton. The sites were as visible as all the others yet weekly sales weren't good, and this lasted for several years.

I formed a conclusion which I then resisted telling corporate because it sounded racist. Nonetheless I i kept thinking it, and that was this: blacks won't pay more for higher quality pizza. Now of course I am not talking about all blacks. But the decision had to be made a few years back: should more locations be opened in black areas like Compton and South Central? Or should we concentrate on doubling up in whiter areas? I recommended the latter.

Was this a racist decision on my part?

What's interesting is that this isn't consider racist but if you were the leasing agent for a fired chicken company and targeted putting locations in black neighborhoods you would be considered racist.

No you wouldn't. You'd be following corporate orders most likely.

 

[timschochet]

I'll give you an example of a racist attitude I may have held that doesn't, at least IMO, define me as a racist:

For years I have been a leasing agent and site selector for a well known pizza restaurant, national chain, for Los Angeles County. This pizzeria is priced slightly higher and a little better quality than other pizza chains. Years ago I put a location in Inglewood and another in North Long Beach on the borders of Compton. The sites were as visible as all the others yet weekly sales weren't good, and this lasted for several years.

I formed a conclusion which I then resisted telling corporate because it sounded racist. Nonetheless I i kept thinking it, and that was this: blacks won't pay more for higher quality pizza. Now of course I am not talking about all blacks. But the decision had to be made a few years back: should more locations be opened in black areas like Compton and South Central? Or should we concentrate on doubling up in whiter areas? I recommended the latter.

Was this a racist decision on my part?

What's interesting is that this isn't consider racist but if you were the leasing agent for a fired chicken company and targeted putting locations in black neighborhoods you would be considered racist.

Well actually.... although I haven't personally done leasing for them, I know a few leasing agents for fried chicken chains and they DO target black areas. As they should, because sales for fried chicken is generally MUCH higher in black areas. it's not racist to say that (but you're right, you don't want to say it too loudly.)

In Compton, South Central, North Long Beach and Inglewood there are fried chicken stands in nearly every shopping center that has food. There are also, per capita, more liquor stores, more gun stores, more coin laundries, more barber shops, more "You buy We fry" stands, more check cashing. These are facts, and I expect it's the same in most inner cities in this country.

 

[Psychopav]

I hope you stick around tim. you've grown on me, and I think you're smart. Just hope I could get back to maybe discussion in threads that interest me that you haven't taken over with you and your followers. Which is nearly ever major thread here (if you look at post count, you lead the post count in nearly every hotly debated topic that there is by a LOT). I don't know how you have time to take a dump during the day

And it's an onslaught of 12 straight hours almost daily of point-counterpoint. Would love to get involved with some discussions where it's not just flooded between you and your followers back and forth. Maybe stopping in the threads you love once or twice a day instead of just yammering on all day long and burying all other discussions which is what has happened. I loved the thread re: the end of the Cold War, but just didn't want to dare jumping in and engaging you in a 24/7 back and forth along with all of the followers as well. I play the Blues, would have loved to jump in that thread, but really just get discouraged from stating a contrary opinion in any thread that you are peacocking around in.

Stick around, scale it back JUST a little bit and you might even get more opinions would be my only wish. You've got something you love to debate, maybe pop in twice a day, and address anything you'd like instead of the onslaught of stream of consciousness and post after post after post which dims everyone else. Either way, I think you have some impulsion to post/respond here that, from where I sit, seems borderline unhealthy - far be it for me to judge, and sorry if I come off as harsh. I try to level with you more than insult you these days. I will continue to cull any personal criticism I've levied in your direction - I apologize for doing so.

23 3 5 6 4

1 1 1 2 1 1

1

5

6

7

0

00

9

3 3 3 3333 3

LOOK AT ME, I KNOW THE BERGERON-EPSTEIN VARIATION!!!eta: misspelled Bergeron.

 

[timschochet]

That's why I always laughed at the end of "Boyz In the Hood" (an otherwise brilliant movie, BTW) when Lawrence Fishburne complains that all the liquor stores and gun stores are in black areas, and he implies that it's some sort of conspiracy. It's no conspiracy; the liquor stores and gun stores are there because they make money.

 

[timschochet]

I think so. I certainly have thought racist thoughts at times, laughed at racist jokes etc. that doesn't make me a racist per se.

Yet I think that when someone attempts to claim that white people in general are smarter than black people, (and that Asians are smarter than white people etc.) as Eminence has done, I think it's okay to regard that person as a racist per se. He doesn't need to burn crosses, and he can have black friends, yet IMO he is a racist and I am not.

But where exactly to draw the line in the spectrum that he crosses over- that I'm not sure about.

These aren't my thoughts, I'm reading statistics. Quoting statistics doesn't make me racist.

That depends on which ones you choose to quote and in what context you choose to quote them.

I don't want to get into an argument with you in this thread. If you believe that as a general rule, white people have more intellect than black people, or that Asians have more intellect than white people, you're a racist. The statistics you cite are irrelevant, so long as that is your final conclusion.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

And To Kill A Mockingbird, of course.

I was not talking about only good movies. The fact you ask me what you could learn from "12 Angry Men" means you need to watch it a few more times.

I don't need to know what one could learn from that movie. I'm asking you what you believe I could learn from that movie which I don't know right now. The main message of 12 Angry Men is that we shouldn't prejudge things without learning all of the facts. If you think that I have done that in some recent discussion or situation then please state the specific case.There are also sub-messages in that film as well, one of the most important being that people often form opinions based on emotion first, and then interpret the facts to fit their pre-conceived view of the matter, rather than letting the facts shape their views. This is a point I have been making for years in this forum, and it certainly applies to recent debates we've been having. However, I don't think I'm particularly guilty of it myself. If you think I am, again I challenge you to make your case.

Timmy, there you go again. I did not say it's all ABOUT YOU. There are more than one actor in the movie.

OK. I apologize, but at this point I have NO idea what it is you're trying to say here. Why don't you spell it out for me?Honestly I don't get it.

It does not work this way. Watch it again and let us know something NEW you have learned.

No. First off there's no "us". There's just you. And since I still have no idea what you're getting at, we'll leave it at that.

Okay. You said the main message of 12 Angry Men is that we shouldn't prejudge things without learning all of the facts. But 12 guys are no closer to the truth at the end of the movie than at the beginning.

 

[timschochet]

That doesn't matter. They have reasonable doubt, which they didn't before. That's all that is supposed to matter in the case of a jury.

 

[krista4]

Columbo is OK. Never much of a Peter Falk fan- I loved that Wim Wenders movie though.

Tim, I'd just like to give you kudos for this thread. I'm a nobody on this board but I find reading your opinions and the dialogues in this thread 1000X more interesting than in the other threads on the board. I'm realizing that my opinion of you should have been directed more at the folks who trolled you.

Please keep this up. It's made the board far better as a whole imo.

You're not a nobody; glad to see you around.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

That doesn't matter. They have reasonable doubt, which they didn't before. That's all that is supposed to matter in the case of a jury.

That is not why I recommended the movie. The more relevant parts are the group dynamics and the consensus building.

 

[timschochet]

That doesn't matter. They have reasonable doubt, which they didn't before. That's all that is supposed to matter in the case of a jury.

That is not why I recommended the movie. The more relevant parts are the group dynamics and the consensus building.

I see. Well I'm glad you finally answered the question.

Tell me, do you think a discussion board is a good place for consensus building?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

That doesn't matter. They have reasonable doubt, which they didn't before. That's all that is supposed to matter in the case of a jury.

That is not why I recommended the movie. The more relevant parts are the group dynamics and the consensus building.

I see. Well I'm glad you finally answered the question.Tell me, do you think a discussion board is a good place for consensus building?

It's as good a place for concensus building as a separate thread for yourself.

 

[timschochet]

Columbo is OK. Never much of a Peter Falk fan- I loved that Wim Wenders movie though.

Tim, I'd just like to give you kudos for this thread. I'm a nobody on this board but I find reading your opinions and the dialogues in this thread 1000X more interesting than in the other threads on the board. I'm realizing that my opinion of you should have been directed more at the folks who trolled you.

Please keep this up. It's made the board far better as a whole imo.

You're not a nobody; glad to see you around.

Wait- you're saying that I should like Peter Falk more? Or that I shouldn't like Wings of Desire? That was a great movie. Helluva lot better than the American remake.

Why is it that American remakes always seem to suck?

 

[timschochet]

That doesn't matter. They have reasonable doubt, which they didn't before. That's all that is supposed to matter in the case of a jury.

That is not why I recommended the movie. The more relevant parts are the group dynamics and the consensus building.

I see. Well I'm glad you finally answered the question.Tell me, do you think a discussion board is a good place for consensus building?

It's as good a place for concensus building as a separate thread for yourself.

Hmm. Afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.

Also, do you have a problem with this thread?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

That doesn't matter. They have reasonable doubt, which they didn't before. That's all that is supposed to matter in the case of a jury.

That is not why I recommended the movie. The more relevant parts are the group dynamics and the consensus building.

I see. Well I'm glad you finally answered the question.Tell me, do you think a discussion board is a good place for consensus building?

It's as good a place for concensus building as a separate thread for yourself.

Hmm. Afraid we'll have to agree to disagree.Also, do you have a problem with this thread?

Yes.

 

[krista4]

Columbo is OK. Never much of a Peter Falk fan- I loved that Wim Wenders movie though.

Tim, I'd just like to give you kudos for this thread. I'm a nobody on this board but I find reading your opinions and the dialogues in this thread 1000X more interesting than in the other threads on the board. I'm realizing that my opinion of you should have been directed more at the folks who trolled you.

Please keep this up. It's made the board far better as a whole imo.

You're not a nobody; glad to see you around.

Wait- you're saying that I should like Peter Falk more? Or that I shouldn't like Wings of Desire? That was a great movie. Helluva lot better than the American remake.

Why is it that American remakes always seem to suck?

I am over the fact you called my favorite movie "that Wim Wenders movie".

By the way, City of Angels showed up on our Directv guide last night and Mr. krista said, "Oh, City of Angels is on!" knowing that would make me furious.

I'd say that there are very few American remakes that are decent. As much as I loved Infernal Affairs, I thought The Departed was a good remake (though not quite as good as the original). I'm having a hard time coming up with another one...