A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43

On Sep 12, 5:23 pm, precode <michael_schlesin... DeleteThis @spe.sony.com> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 5:01 pm, G-HE... DeleteThis @webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
>
> > DTotheroh wrote:
> > >And that you're dead set against the
> > >illegal, unconstitutional warrantless
> > >searches and seizures undertaken
> > >recently?
>
> > None of which have been ruled
> > illegal or unconstutional.
>
> Well, duh. When those sworn to uphold the law are in fact the ones
> breaking it, the whole thing becomes really rather moot, doesn't it?

Not to mention that George is factually incorrect when he says they
haven't been ruled illegal. There are at least two judgements, still
subject to appeal (so they may be overturned, which is true of ANY
legal judgement) but nonetheless standing judgements, ruling just that.
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

Threads this long usually devolve sooner or later into "It's all
Bush's fault" (whatever the original subject), although in this case I
didn't really think it could be done. But once again I underestimated
the ingenuity and perspicacity of a.m.s. posters. I can just picture
Totheroh hunched over his computer, eagerly scanning this thread for
the first hint of an opening -- then, spotting one, gleefully crying
"Aha!" and springing into action. And I know from years of experience
that Schlesinger starts kicking dogs and barking at old ladies (or is
it the other way around?) if he lets too much time elapse between anti-
Bush, anti-Republican jibes.

Say what you like about a.m.s., it's nothing if not consistent.
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:24:00 -0700, Lloyd Fonvielle
<navigareNOSPAM DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote:

>

>Corporations are only dangerous when they become so powerful that they
>own and control the machinery of government.



You've got this one backwards, Lloyd.


" The most terrifying words in the English language are:

I'm from the government and I'm here to help..."

Ronald Reagan
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

DTotheroh wrote:

>And that you're dead set against the
>illegal, unconstitutional warrantless
>searches and seizures undertaken
>recently?

None of which have been ruled
illegal or unconstutional.
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

navigareNOSPAM RemoveThis @cox.net (Lloyd Fonvielle) wrote:

>>>I'm thrilled that "Die Puppe" is coming
>>>out on DVD, glad to know about it and
>>>entirely unconcerned with who posts
>>>the information.

>>Even if the poster represents---hiss,
>>hiss--a corporation?

>Corporations are only dangerous when
>they become so powerful that they own
>and control the machinery of
>government. Kino has a ways to go in
>that line.

As i remember, you oppose the corporate
business format itself and have claimed
that the Framers also opposed it.
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

George Shelps wrote:

> As i remember, you oppose the corporate
> business format itself and have claimed
> that the Framers also opposed it.

The Framers allowed financial combines for limited terms and purposes.
These limitations were designed to prevent vast and permanent
accumulations of capital and power, which the Framers knew would
eventually bring an end to representative government -- as they more or
less have.


Mar de Cortes Baja

www.mardecortesbaja.com <http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog>
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

michael_schlesinger.DeleteThis@spe.sony.com (precode) wrote:


>>>And that you're dead set against the
>>>illegal, unconstitutional warrantless
>>>searches and seizures undertaken
>>>recently?

>>None of which have been ruled
>>illegal or unconstutional.

>Well, duh. When those sworn to uphold
>the law are in fact the ones breaking it,
>the whole thing becomes really rather
>moot, doesn't it?

Hello? We have a Supreme Court to
rule on the constitutionality of the laws.
(Unless you believe the Justices are
lawless, too...) and so far the terrorist
surveillance law has not be invalidated.
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:23:18 -0700, precode
<michael_schlesinger.DeleteThis@spe.sony.com> wrote:

>On Sep 12, 5:01 pm, G-HE....DeleteThis@webtv.net (George Shelps) wrote:
>> DTotheroh wrote:
>> >And that you're dead set against the
>> >illegal, unconstitutional warrantless
>> >searches and seizures undertaken
>> >recently?
>>
>> None of which have been ruled
>> illegal or unconstutional.
>
>Well, duh. When those sworn to uphold the law are in fact the ones
>breaking it, the whole thing becomes really rather moot, doesn't it?
>
>Mike S.


That depends on what the definition of " is " is.....


(Nothing like a little gasoline on a smouldering arguement )
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

I'm glad you will still be announcing upcoming Kino titles. I'm
especially pleased with the selection and quality of Kino's editions
of German silent films. I would never have dreamed that the more
obscure ones such as Waxworks and Warning Shadows would be available
to US consumers until I've purchased these Kino DVD's. If Von Morgens
bis Mitternachts ever shows up in a future Kino catalogue, I would
very much like to know of it.

James D. Wickson


On Sep 10, 11:54 am, jessica <jros....DeleteThis@kino.com> wrote:
> um I literally missed this whole thing. Been a little busy watching
> the Cubs lose.
> I am amazed that Miss Glamour even ran into me given the relatively
> small time
> I actually spent at the Kino table ( too busy watching movies etc).
> Anyway I appreciate
> the support. I will continue to give updates on Kino silent stuff and
> if you don't want it
> feel free to put me in one of those kill files.
> One thing worth mentioning is that DIE PUPPE which a lot of you
> complained was
> not in the first batch of Lubitsch films will be released in early
> December with a German
> produced doc on Lubitsch ( same disc).
> This note of commercial spam will undoubtedly lead to thousands of
> sales and those
> huge profits we get on silent films.
>
> On Sep 10, 2:04 am, precode <michael_schlesin....DeleteThis@spe.sony.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 9, 5:50 pm, Lloyd Fonvielle <navigareNOS....DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > Ed Hulse wrote:
> > > > On Sep 9, 4:21 pm, Lloyd Fonvielle <navigareNOS....DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > >>I was once told by one of the Cinecon organizers, in public, on this
> > > >>newsgroup, that I would not be welcome at the event.
>
> > > > I don't follow this board as closely as I perhaps should, but I don't
> > > > remember any such post. Can you elucidate?
>
> > > > As to not being welcome: Only once in Cinecon history -- back in 1976
> > > > -- was anybody ever turned away, and even that person eventually got
> > > > in when a member in good standing pleaded with that year's chairman on
> > > > his behalf. Anybody who shows up and behaves him or herself is
> > > > welcome. Hell, Cinecon continues to welcome a few people who
> > > > routinely *don't* behave themselves.
>
> > > Well, I can't remember which organizer it was, and I didn't take the
> > > comment to mean that I would literally be turned away. In fact, I think
> > > the guy said that I would be welcome to buy tickets as long as I didn't
> > > attend any screenings. It was just a mean-spirited gesture to encourage
> > > me to stay away.
>
> > > I sure all are welcome at Cinecon if they keep unconventional opinions
> > > to themselves, but publicly disinviting those who just aren't "the right
> > > sort" struck me as signalling the kind of clubhouse mentality that
> > > marginalizes the silent film community. I think a lot of people who see
> > > themselves as "leaders" of that community are perfectly happy to keep it
> > > marginalized if it means they can go on thinking of themselves as "leaders".
>
> > > Mar de Cortes Baja
>
> > >www.mardecortesbaja.com<http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog>
>
> > Lloyd, as one of the chumps who runs Cinecon, I can tell you with 100%
> > certainty that whoever told you that did so on his own without any
> > permission from the rest of us. You are most certainly welcome at any
> > and all Cinecons, and if this clown ever says anything like this
> > again, tell me and I'll personally deal with it.
>
> > And as for Mr. Shelps' description of my defense of Jessica as "over
> > the top"--yes, maybe it was a bit. But what (s)he said about Jessica
> > was indefensible and warranted a response in kind. That's what real
> > people do when friends are viciously attacked without provocation.
>
> > Mike S.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

navigareNOSPAM RemoveThis @cox.net (Lloyd Fonvielle) wrote:


>>As i remember, you oppose the
>>corporate
>>business format itself and have claimed
>>that the Framers also opposed it.

>The Framers allowed financial combines
>for limited terms and purposes. These
>limitations were designed to prevent vast
>and permanent accumulations of capital
>and power, which the Framers knew
>would eventually bring an end to
>representative government -- as they
>more or less have. |

The Framers were principally concerned
to limit the power of government...and
the rise of the great totalitarian regimes
of the 20th Century bore out their
concern.
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

George Shelps wrote:

> The Framers were principally concerned
> to limit the power of government...and
> the rise of the great totalitarian regimes
> of the 20th Century bore out their
> concern.

Plutocracy is a form of government.



Mar de Cortes Baja

www.mardecortesbaja.com <http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog>
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

"Lloyd Fonvielle" <navigareNOSPAM RemoveThis @cox.net> wrote in message
news:gp3Gi.126256$xx1.51649@newsfe09.phx...
>
> Plutocracy is a form of government.


And Stoopnocracy is Peachy. Neither of these concern films. Please let
this thread die.

Eric Stott
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43 

navigareNOSPAM.TakeThisOut@cox.net (Lloyd Fonvielle) wrote:

>>The Framers were principally\
>>concerned to limit the power of
>>government...and the rise of the great
>>totalitarian regimes of the 20th Century
>>bore out their concern.

>Plutocracy is a form of government.

By your definition, the Framers were
plutocrats.
 >> Stay informed about: A *glamorous* take on Cinecon 43