FIRM Discussions

May 16, 1998 - May 18, 1998



Fuck You All in the MOvie Biz
Joe Goldenberg
3:29 am Saturday May 16, 1998

Hey, fuck you all in the movie biz, I just went out tonight in
public (for the first time in about 5 years) and I basically
surveyed people "on the street."

Every one I talked to about the Hollywood movie business said you
SUCK and they try to keep their kids away from your movies.

They said the stuff Hollywood pumps out is not only totally
discusting half the time, but getting worse, and they have NO
TROUBLE AT ALL believing that a "control group" such as that
which John Cones has reported, exists and that it is totally
messing up their children, so much that many of them even refuse
to HAVE cable TV in their homes for fear that their KIDS will
"sneak" a look at the sick MPAA pictures being splattered all
over domestic America.

So tell me some more horseshit all you control group apologists -
you are such weenies trying to "make it" in the biz yet you don't
even understand the first thing about life - you freaks.

Maybe I AM JEWISH but I'm damn proud of it... but the discusting
pigs in the film biz that CLAIM to be Jewish and are only fucking
up our hard-won image after all these years really make me sick.
Most Jews are damn decent people. They are hard working, moral
people and they have the guts to say what they mean without
tippy-toeing all around the point like the fuckin' Gentiles do
all the time.

There are only 14 million of us on the earth but we get more done
in a single day than practically all the rest of the earth's
fucking population does in a week. So yeah, I'm proud to be
Jewish (and fuck you if you don't like it), but I don't think
this is any excuse for NOT having a few black studio executives
in there calling the shots for Christs sakes. It disgusts me to
think that all my Jewish collegues only have the guts to hire
their Jewish friends into high places. Give me a break - that's
not the tradition.

Joe Goldenberg


Takes One To Know One?
Joe Goldenberg
3:47 am Saturday May 16, 1998

So you think you know, Bob? Well you're actually partly right,
I'm only half Jewish. My father is Jewish and my mother is not.

I have, what is called "an objective POV in the subject." That's
more than I can say for most.

Robert, I personally have nothing against you. You seem like an
intelligent person and a good debater and I would like to be your
friend if at all possible (especially if you are Jewish), but it
just seems to me that you and I are not using our FULL facilities
to objectively look at the movie biz out side of the box.

Let's put a truce to our hostile discussion with each other and
try to put our heads together - I'm not saying that we have to
love each other and agree with evertyhing that Cones is saying,
but let's look at the movie biz in its entirety and at least try
and come up with ways to IMPORVE IT. What do you say?

Joe Goldenberg


Robert's Attitude
Joe Goldenberg
3:59 am Saturday May 16, 1998

:Hey Coney,
:I did not "threaten" that I would not purchase any of your books.
:I stated a FACT that I would not buy any of your books.
:There is a difference, Mr. Wordsmith.

Hey Bobbie Baby - you're being an mean mutha fucka.

Try to lighten up and let's all discuss this in a rational tone of
voice - what do you say?

Joe Goldenberg


Bob's Bad Attitude
Joe Goldenberg
4:13 am Saturday May 16, 1998
:Hey JoeBlow,
:You really are a stupid, racist, fucked-up moron.

BobBaby - you really ARE hurting my feeling now.

Joe Goldenberg


Lowest Form after BobIZOA
Joe Goldenberg
4:17 am Saturday May 16, 1998

That's a good little post there BobBaby. I can't wait to see what
"Coney" has to say.

Joe Goldenberg


Robert's Bad-Mouth-Hernia a Popin'
Joe Goldenberg
4:26 am Saturday May 16, 1998

:This argument that you use right here is your whole fucking

:problem, Jerkoff. It's actually a good thing that you can't see
:this, because now we get to see who you truly are. A RACIST AND A
:BIGOT.

Bob, you're bad-mouth-hernia is poping out.

:Also, if you don't like the movies, DON'T GO TO THEM!! NO ONE IS
:FORCING YOU TO SHELL OUT MONEY TO SEE THEM!! NO ONE IS
PUTTING A
:GUN TO YOUR HEAD TO MAKE YOU WATCH THEM!!

You can't read, can you Robert.
With every word you peck out on your little key board you more
greatly prove that premise.

Joe Goldenberg


Most Don't Complain, to be sure
Joe Goldenberg
4:54 am Saturday May 16, 1998

:I'll bet you've slept with the best, havent' you?

Yep, I think. But then there's still you Sweetheart!

Joe Goldenberg


Robert Tries to Go To Bed
Joe Goldenberg
5:04 am Saturday May 16, 1998

:Of course I don't agree with you JoeBlow.
:I'm glad Litwak did what he did. It may have taken ten years for
:him to see Cones' "spots" (you know...the leopard...spots...)

a... yeah, now I know wat ya mean ... those spots.

:I think Ralph Nader would be proud, JoeBlow.

You HAD to mention names BobbyBaby - you Namewhore, you.
Say, you don't know Jill do you?

Joe Goldengberg


Stars are mostly Pussys
Sara Lilly
5:36 am Saturday May 16, 1998

Absolutely. Everybody in Burbank is so increadihbly paranoid
about their job security there is NO WAY they will even THINK a
cirtical though about their pay-masters.

The "stars" or "name-talent" are the worst of all. These people,
even though some of them get paid tens of millions of dollars, are
the biggest cowards, and hypocrits, in the world. They only care
about their stardom and to hell with the rest of their fans (and
the world). It's all a put-on. When it comes time to actually
useing their stardom for any sort of social good - they consider
whether their studio bosses will approve and if not, they lay low
and get involved with something politicaly safe - like a
restaurant or salad dressing or something.

The only star that has any balls, other than Richard Gere and Glen
Close, is John Travolta. He's out there saying he's a
Scientologist in broad public - and to hell with what the
studio/distributors think. (I hate to think the thought however
that the studio slavemasters only tollerate him as their "mascot"
Scientologist to "prove" to the American people that they are not
bigoted - and that John is not perceiving this covertness
because he's too nice of a guy.)

If the run-of-the-mill star's fans really knew the type of
disgusting, money-grubbing people most of the "stars" were, they
would never buy another ticket as long as they lived.


Why are you so Blind?
Joe Goldenberg
2:04 pm Sunday May 17, 1998

Robert,

I just can't understand why you are so blind to what Cones is
saying. THIS IS NOT ABOUT JEWS. JEWS ARE FINE.

IF THE STUDIOS WERE ENTIRELY RUN BY COCK ROACHES OR GOD'S
VERY OWN
PERSONAL ANGLES, THERE still WOULD NOT BE THE DIVERSITY IN
THERE
IN THE STUDIOS AND THE FILMS WOULD still REFLECT
THIS.

This has nothing to do with Jews who have AS MUCH right running
the film industry as EVERYBODY ELSE DOES.

You guys are stuck in the Holocaust or something and just using
this terrible event to make the world pay ever lasting hommage to
Jews. We don't need that. What we need is industries, not only
the movie business, but all industries, including government, to
open and diversify. This goes for women too. Why the hell is not
Congress 50% women? Last time I looked women make up about 50% of
the world's population. Why are all the women in the film biz
just D-girls and only about two, both Jewish I might add, have
been top executives? That's no DIVERSITY buddy.

DIVERSITY - NOT JEWS - is what I GET CONES IS SAYING. READ.
Understand. Get some glasses. Lay off your myopic and stupid
argument's of "anti-Semitism. If only it were THAT simple.

Joe Goldenberg


Yupity, Yup, Yup, Yup.
Joe Goldenberg
4:00 pm Sunday May 17, 1998

Good come-back BobBaby :)

Joe Goldenberg


Yo, CiaoBaby

Joe Goldenberg
4:10 pm Sunday May 17, 1998

CaioBaby writes:

:Dear Mr. Cones,
:It's very clever of you to deflect the charge of anti-Semitism by
:asking your accusers to prove it. You say, look at your writings
:and prove the anti-Semitism.

Hey, CaioBaby (or do you like BobBaby better), the last time I
looked, we are living in a Democracy - where one is innocent until
proven guilty.

You, and your mind, must be living in a deMOCKracy.

Joe Goldenberg


Mom's Intelligence Quotient
John Cones
6:26 pm Sunday May 17, 1998

Most of us were probably advised by our mothers as we were growing up that the use of
crude language, profanities or name-calling in arguments was a sure sign of lack of
intelligence. To the extent that this motherly advice is true, the following comparison of
this single measure of the intelligence demonstrated by our FIRM site Discussion Forum
participants is provided. It lists the contributors to the FIRM site Discussion Forum
starting with those who have chosen to include the most crude-language, profanities and
name-calling in their submissions, and showing the actual contributions and dates in the
columns on the right. Only those participants providing three or more contributions are
included. On the surface, one would assume that this ranking is in no way related to the
positions taken by the correspondents, but on the other hand, maybe there is a
correlation. Time will tell. Incidentally, not all of these crude, obscene or name-calling
submissions are directed at either of the FIRM founders. Some are exchanges between
visitors to the site. Others are directed at studio executives.

     Name                   Contribution       Date

Robert "anti-Semitic" May 5
Robert "anti-Semitic" May 5
Robert "frickin' amazing" May 6
Robert "victim" May 9
Robert "prejudiced" May 9
Robert "anti-Semitic" May 15
Robert "stupid" May 16
Robert "racist" May 16
Robert "fucked-up moron" May 16
Robert "double-speaking pig fuck" May 16
Robert "jerkoff" May 16
Robert "Jerkoff" May 16
Robert "arrogant" May 16
Robert "ignorant" May 16
Robert "bigot" May 16
Robert "wake the fuck up" May 16
Robert "your whole fucking problem" May 16
Robert "Jerkoff" May 16
Robert "a racist and a bigot" May 16
Robert "fucking lying, asshole" May 16

Joe Goldenberg "a bunch of morons" May 14
Joe Goldenberg "creeps" May 14
Joe Goldenberg "Horseshit!" May 14
Joe Goldenberg "who the fuck I am" May 14
Joe Goldenberg "Horseshit" May 15
Joe Goldenberg "pissed for being screwed" May 15
Joe Goldenberg "pissed for being nuked" May 15
Joe Goldenberg "nobody fucks with them" May 15
Joe Goldenberg "hedonistic" May 15
Joe Goldenberg "secular Hollywood Jews" May 15
Joe Goldenberg "you Namewhore, you" May 16
Joe Goldenberg "mean mutha fucka" May 16
Joe Goldenberg "fuck you all in the movie biz" May 16
Joe Goldenberg "horseshit" May 16
Joe Goldenberg "weenies" May 16
Joe Goldenberg "you freaks" May 16
Joe Goldenberg "pigs in the film biz" May 16
Joe Goldenberg "fuckin' Gentiles" May 16
Joe Goldenberg "fucking population" May 16
Joe Goldenberg "fuck you if you don't like it" May 16

Paul Haggis "moron" May 2
Paul Haggis "put on your hood" May 2
Paul Haggis "poor fat schmuck" May 2
Paul Haggis "KKK" May 2
Paul Haggis "fool" May 2
Paul Haggis "blatantly bigoted" May 2
Paul Haggis "pissing on bigots" May 2

Sara Lilly "cowards and hypocrits" May 16

Sara Lilly "to hell with" May 16
Sara Lilly "has any balls" May 16
Sara Lilly "to hell with" May 16
Sara Lilly "money-grubbing people" May 16

Joshua Moss "conspiracy theorist" April 27
Joshua Moss "racist" April 29
Joshua Moss "crap" April 30
Joshua Moss "anti-Semitic" April 30
Joshua Moss "anti-Semitism" May 2

Stamen Cartley no obscenities; no name-calling


Lowest Form of Human Life
John Cones
6:28 pm Sunday May 17, 1998

I saw a movie a few years back, a major studio release (Columbia--1993), starring one
of my favorite actors, Robert Duvall. The movie was "Geronimo--An American
Legend". Duvall played a Western character who had a run-in with a group of Texans.
After the Texans had departed, Duvall announced to his associates that "Texans are the
lowest form of human life". Now, I ask you, was that funny or offensive? What if the
movie was a different movie about a character who said "African-Americans are the
lowest form of human life? Would that be funny or offensive? What about another
movie in which the character said "Latinos are the lowest form of human life, funny or
offensive? And, what if the movie character said "Jews are the lowest form of human life?
Funny or offensive? Do you feelings differ depending on which group is being defamed?
Should they? Would your feelings differ if you knew that White folks from Texas and
the American South are among at least five distinct populations in our diverse society that
have been consistently portrayed in Hollywood movies in a negative or stereotypical
manner for the last several decades? Would your feelings differ if you realized that the
motion picture is a significant medium for the communication of ideas and that ideas have
always and will always be important factors in influencing human thinking and behavior?
Would your feelings differ if you realized that millions of the people who go into these
darkened theatres and view these powerful movie images are young, not very
sophisticated and in some cases not well educated or even mentally balanced individuals
(i.e., no one stands at the theatre door trying to determine who can effectively separate
reality from fantasy in movies)? If someone like those individuals I've just described,
repeatedly saw a particular group of people consistently portrayed in a negative or
stereotypical manner over the years in a significant number of Hollywood movies, what
are the chances that such portrayals would influence the attitudes of those moviegoers
with respect to those negatively or stereotypically portrayed populations? Probably,
pretty good, wouldn't you say. Our national movie industry has an affirmative obligation
to offer us a more balanced view of the real world and to make the control positions at
the dominant film companies available to a more diverse group of executive
decision-makers, so that movies can mirror the values, interests, cultural perspectives
and prejudices of a more representative group of Americans.


Challenge to the Networks
Joe Goldenberg
6:28 pm Sunday May 17, 1998

I'll tell you what America and Hollywood,

Why don't the networks (ABC, CBS, NBC*) post the URL to this
forum http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/dialogs.htm and/or the URL
to the FIRM site http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM and let's just see
what "ordinary people" out there - the moviegoing public who
should be the studios' bosses - have to say about the mission and
research connected with this film industry reform movement.

I'll tell you, if they say they don't like it or it's bad,
unnecessary, anti-Semitic, or needs a different focus, I for one
will respect that and, either comply with their suggestions, or
shut my fuckin' mouth.

Joe Goldenberg

*The other studio-owned networks should probably not be involved,
as they are part of the problem being discussed. I have never
realy trusted these polls that are splashed all around anyway
because how do you know what opinions, or how many of them, have
been omitted. Control group producers, and their lacky tape
editors (now turned, random-access AVID editors), take 10 or 20
or 30 hours of taped-coverage on ANY subject and carve out of it
13 minutes or so (such as they do on 60-Minutes, according to the
self-documentary ON that show, which aired last week). You can

virtually "say" anything you want with these high-powered editing
technologies and since they are field-perfect (that means to the
nearest 1/60th of a second), a control group, such as the
Hollywood Control Group can do just that - control public
relations, control public opinion and hence public "polls." The
Internet is the almost the only thing, (other than direct mail,
word-of-mouth, phone/fax calls) they cannot control - and it is
driving them wild.

Can you see the Hollywood control group originating the Film
Industry Reform Movement or setting up a poll on it to see if it
is fair, or needed, or what America thinks? Ha.

And whether you like this FIRM site or not and whether you like
what is being discussed here or not - you should be goddamn GLAD
the ability to do it is now present on the Internet - because if
this ability were not present, and does not stay present - you
just MIGHT get another crappy little phenomenon like 'ol Hitler's
regime sooner or later.

The Internet is a civilizing-influence because it allows everyone
to talk-it-out rather than shoot-it-out: as too many of the
Hollywood pictures would have you think is the correct way to do
business. (Sometimes I wonder if the preponderance of violence
in the 60% to 80%, Jewish-controlled movie industry, is a
manifestation of the repressed hate (or frustration) SOME OF
THE CONTROL GROUP may have because they (or their
families/associates, fellows, etc.,), were SO victimized by ol'
Hitler's boys? You almost, that's ALMOST, can't blame them.)

Again, Joe Goldenberg


Robert's Prejudice Against
Southerners
John Cones
6:32 pm Sunday May 17, 1998

In one of his most recent contributions to the FIRM site Discussion Forum, our
anonymous correspondent using the pseudonym "Robert" (for fear that people with little
or no power will do what people in Hollywood with power are already doing to me) has
revealed by his own language that he is prejudice against people from the American
South. First, he points out that "the KKK to this day still has a very large presence in the
South." I have no idea what "very large presence" is, nor does Robert choose to define
it. On the other hand, Leonard Dinnerstein, author of "Anti-Semitism in America" points
out that the Ku Klux Klan has been active in Louisiana, Arkansas, Texas and Oklahoma,
but also in Michigan, Illinois, Oregon, Idaho, Colorado, Indiana, that last five of which
are clearly not part of the South. Dinnerstein, who has studied this problem, does not go
so far as to suggest, as you do, that the "KKK to this day still has a very large presence
in the South". What is your authority for that statement, and what evidence do you have
that the KKK has any influence over the vast majority of good Southern people?

You also go on to say that there are "still huge numbers of very prejudiced people there"
(meaning the South). It may also be true to say that there are "still huge numbers of
prejudice people" everywhere. It does little to support your cause to make such vague
statements. Again, do you have any evidence or authority that tends to show what these
"huge numbers" you refer to are?

Then, you really go off the deep end by saying "it's still worse in the South" meaning that
people in the South or more prejudice than in other regions of the country. I would
suggest that you are merely proving my point that 90 years of Hollywood movies
depicting White Southerners as prejudice has convinced you, and may have convinced
others likewise, but where is your hard evidence in support of such an irresponsible
statement?

Thank you for admitting that "the South still gets made fun of", and I don't disagree that
all peoples from all regions and all backgrounds should be made fun of from time to time.
My complaint is that Hollywood movies have for many years tended to be quite
consistent in their negative and stereotypical portrayals of White Southerners. It would
be easy to enjoy a good joke or two at the expense of White Southerners in movies if
we saw such people portrayed as fully positive characters as often as the other kinds of
portrayals that have been forced on us for years. The same is true of the Hollywood
portrayals of Latinos, Arabs and Arab-Americans, Christians, Muslims, Mormons,
Asians and Asian-Americans, Italians and Italian- Americans and others. When are you
going to wake up Robert and admit to your own prejudices and admit that Hollywood's

prejudices are splattered all over the big screen, and they are obvious to the most casual
observer.

Thanks also for allowing us to see how incredibly inept the workings of your mind are.
You reason that because "the South contains some states that rank lowest in educational
test scores", and since, as you state, "uneducation . . . ignorance, breeds bigotry" the
South therefore must have more bigots and its people must be less tolerant that others.
On the other hand, you have failed to provide any statistical information that supports
your false premise that White Southerners or more bigoted or less tolerant than another
other group of people no matter how defined. On the other hand, many of the people in
high positions in Hollywood are very intelligent, but are still just as bigoted and intolerant
as anybody I've ever met in the South. Evidence of that bigotry and intolerance is on the
screen. So, obviously level of intelligence is not the only factor in determining whether
someone is prejudice.

You go even further, by assuming that the South needs to catch up with other parts of the
country in tolerance, without proving that is the case. Do you feel it is the burden of
Polish people to improve themselves before the rest of the world should stop telling
demeaning Polish jokes? Do you think it is the burden of Catholics to change their ways
before people are obligated to stop making fun of them? Do you think it is appropriate
for people to tell Jewish jokes, whether based on stereotypes or not? Isn't it really true
that stereotypes are nothing more than generalizations, and that generalizations are the
basis of prejudice? Isn't it also true that all forms of prejudice whether directed toward
Jews, Poles, Catholics or White Southerners is equally offensive? That's the way I think.
Obviously, you feel otherwise. As you have expressed, if some people in a community,
like the American South, are not well educated, then you feel it is ok to make fun of all
people from the South, and you feel it is ok to hold all of those people from the South up
to ridicule through the use of a powerful communications medium like feature film which
is seen by millions in this country and around the world. Thank you Robert, for letting us
know who you really are. For my part, I am pointing out to the world why Hollywood's
consistent patterns of bias must be changed for the benefit of all of the groups named
above that have been victimized by Hollywood's prejudice for years.


Out of Context
John Cones
6:34 pm Sunday May 17, 1998

Our FIRM site Discussion Forum participant "Robert" who does not have the courage to
let us know who he really is complains that I have taken his words out of context. What
a silly argument. Of course, I have taken his words out of context. Why should I
respond to the foul language and name-calling (other than the false allegation of
anti-Semitism) that crowds out what may otherwise be reasonable argument? In order
to respond to the few bits and pieces of his comments that may loosely be characterized
as worthy of a response, such words and phrases have to be taken out of context. I will
respond to what I think is worthy of a response. If that bothers you Robert, too bad.
Further, why should I respond to the writings of a man who hides behind anonymity
anyway? Obviously, you are not a very disciplined person. You rattle off your
responses without giving them much thought. You fill them with senseless obscenities
and name-calling. I would assume that some of that would be eliminated if you were
honest about your identity, and I would further assume that you would be more careful
about your arguments. So far, you really haven't contributed much of value to this
discussion.


Out of Context
John Cones
6:34 pm Sunday May 17, 1998

Our FIRM site Discussion Forum participant "Robert" who does not have the courage to
let us know who he really is complains that I have taken his words out of context. What
a silly argument. Of course, I have taken his words out of context. Why should I
respond to the foul language and name-calling (other than the false allegation of
anti-Semitism) that crowds out what may otherwise be reasonable argument? In order
to respond to the few bits and pieces of his comments that may loosely be characterized
as worthy of a response, such words and phrases have to be taken out of context. I will
respond to what I think is worthy of a response. If that bothers you Robert, too bad.

Further, why should I respond to the writings of a man who hides behind anonymity
anyway? Obviously, you are not a very disciplined person. You rattle off your
responses without giving them much thought. You fill them with senseless obscenities
and name-calling. I would assume that some of that would be eliminated if you were
honest about your identity, and I would further assume that you would be more careful
about your arguments. So far, you really haven't contributed much of value to this
discussion.


Hollywood's True Colors
John Cones
6:36 pm Sunday May 17,
1998

In recent weeks we have seen Hollywood's true colors. For a community that constantly
rails about how little tolerance there is in the rest of America (through its films and
benevolent organizations), this appears to be the most intolerant place in the World. Not
only have I been subjected to Hollywood's prejudice, but that prejudice has risen to the
level of actual discriminatory acts: Joshua Moss has falsely and repeatedly accused me of
anti-Semitism, film producer Paul Haggis has done the same, Chris Gore of Film Threat
Weekly has falsely accused my writings of being "heavily anti-Semitic" when they're not.
Charles Fleming of LA Weekly has falsely accused me of blaming "the Jews" for
Hollywood's problems when I haven't. Carlos de Abreau of Hollywood Network online,
has abruptly terminated our two year relationship and valuable Q&A service online
relating to investor financing of independent film. Entertainment attorney Mark Litwak,
has severed our ten year multi-faceted, professional relationship due to pressure from
unnamed "others" in Hollywood. I'm receiving hate mail and crank calls. Others have
promised not to buy any of my books. Why? All because I have exercised by
constitutional right to speak freely and honestly about what's really going on in
Hollywood. This is how Hollywood tolerates dissent. Way to go guys. You are making
all of America proud.


Worse Than McCarthyism
John Cones
6:37 pm Sunday May 17,
1998

You all remember the shameful McCarthy era in our history. There have been several
Hollywood movies presenting the Hollywood perspective of events during that period,
and as you all know, we learn a lot of our history through movies. Senator Joseph
McCarthy and his supporters over-zealously sought to identify Communists within our
midst, particularly in Hollywood, and succeeded in getting others to disassociate from
such persons, leading to the destruction of some of their careers. Today, we have a
similar phenomenon occurring, with some important exceptions. In this instance, the
supporters of Hollywood are wrongfully accusing me of anti-Semitism, and, of course,
no worse label could be attached to a professional working in the Hollywood-based
U.S. film industry. That false accusation is causing people to disassociate from me
because they do not have the courage to stand up to the accusers and tell them they are
wrong, that they have not demonstrated anything in my writings to be anti-Semitic. This
is actually worse than the McCarthyism practiced earlier, since at least Communists had
vowed to use violence to overthrow our government. In my case, I'm not trying to
overthrow the government by any means, and I'm not advocating the use of violence for
any purpose. In fact, all I am doing is exercising my constitutionally protected right of
free speech to urge reform in the way business is conducted in our nation's film industry.
Another of the specific things I am advocating is that government officials should wake
up and recognize that our government is being manipulated by Hollywood.


Foul Language No More
Joe Goldenberg
6:45 pm Sunday May 17, 1998

My mom DID advise me that there WERE some people who do not like,
or cannot handle "foul language," and so, when I am
PERSONALLY around such people - I do not use it unless they use it
first (as Robert did with me) and unless I desire to use it to
express how I feel at times.

The problem is, I have seen so many movies, and this is how most
of them talk in these movies, such as PULP FICTION, I guess I have
just been movie-ized or desensitized to it.

Another thing my mother taught me about the use of bad language
is this: It makes one look weak and stupid to use it and one

should not use it until they have learned all, or almost all, of
the OTHER words in the English language first, then, they may use
whatever fucking language they please because they don't have
to put up any fronts.

But, out of respect for this forum, I have decided that I will no
longer use any "foul language" hereafter and I truly appologize to
any one who I may have offended in any way.

Joe Goldenberg


Litwak's sees spots
Joe Goldenberg
8:16 pm Sunday May 17, 1998

:Of course I don't agree with you JoeBlow.
:I'm glad Litwak did what he did. It may have taken ten years for
:him to see Cones' "spots" (you know...the leopard...spots...),
:but at least he finally saw Cones for what he really is.

So what you're saying is that Mark Litwak is so stupid it
COULD have taken him 10 years to see some "spots," but the fact
that he "saw" them in less time makes you, whew, "glad"? Or, what you are saying is that Cones' arguments are so well
though-out and researched that it COULD have taken even a
brilliant attorney, such as Mark Litwak, 10 years to poke a hold
in them?

Please clarify as I am blinded by your crystal-clear comments.

(Mark and John, I am not trying to imply anything negative here
about either of you, I am just taking another look at Robert's
amazingly intelligent and well-thought-out contributions to this
discussion.)

Joe Goldenberg


Qualification
Joe Goldenberg
8:48 pm Sunday May 17, 1998

My last comment, entitled something like "Hey, F--- you all in the
MOvie business" is ONLY meant for someone who works in the movie
business and does NOT ADMIT (but covertly understands) that
features have a broad influence on people and enough of them (the
features) promoting negativity or stereotypes CAN and/or DO have a
detrimental effect - especially on one of the largest of the two
moviegoing segments, those around 13 to 20 years of age.

These kids are NOT stupid, they are just relatively inexperienced
in life and so movies, can and do, influence them to do negative
things by depicting "film-type" realities that make certain things
look normal or acceptable. (Such as blowing everyone away with
bullet-releasing instruments or having sex with every kid on the
block or only wearing blue-jeans and dressing like a slob in
public to everyone how casual one should be.) To the degree
Hollyood does NOT acknowledge the fashions it fashions, yet
panders to the above age group for ticket-sales, I think is very
naughty (I'm not going to be swearing anymore in this forum - so
you will have to only imagine what I WOULD have said).

The MPAA rating system up there is a joke - too. This is just a
placation of the parents. Any kid can get a hold of a VCR, and an
illegal copy, these days or turn on their friend's cable channel.
If anything, the MPAA rating system acts like the perfect, covert
advertizing scheme for kids to know-at-a-glance what their
parents DON'T WANT THEM TO WATCH.

Gee. Were you ever a kid? Didn't it bother you when your parents
always life-edited what you could experience? I'm NOT saying
parents should NOT edit - I'm asking - "didn't it bother you"?
Don't some kids do something about it more than others?

Joe Goldenberg


Some Increadible Movies
Joe Goldenberg
9:32 pm Sunday May 17, 1998

: And you conveniently leave out the wonderful films "this group"
: has made, and conveniently leave out all the terrible movies
: that :people of other religious backgrounds have made.

As big of an A-hole as your are, CiaoBaby, you ARE right, "this
group" HAS made some wonderful films and I'm sure "Conesy" has
mentioned many of them, but now let's MOVE OVER ROVER, and let
some other folks make some more "wonderful films."

For instance, I wanna see another-make of an AMISTAD by Spike Lee
or John Singleton someday. How 'bout it? Remember how good, and
authentic, BOYZ IN THE HOOD was? It didn't glamorize
bullet-popping at all, and yet we all got the picture - and the
tragedy - and maybe even we are prompted to ask the question: Why
do too many of us sit around wasting so much time watching movies
that are mindless-entertainment, authorized and distributed by the
same people who drink 64% of the carbonated water on the planet?

Joe Goldenberg


re: Stars are mostly Pussys

Robert
1:43 pm Monday May 18, 1998

I assume you mean, Sara, Paul Newman with the comment about salad
dressing. You apparently are a bit ignorant here.

Newman has been and continues to be involved with the nuclear and
nuclear weapons issue. He has in the past gotten a lot of flack
for this. And all the proceeds from his products in the
supermarkets go to organizations and charities.

Now, you're right about a lot of the stars not taking a stand for
anything, but you know what? Whenever they do, the public AND the
press CRUCIFIES them for having a brain.

So it is our fault (and yours!) for not tolerating stars having
opinions and taking stands. Because as soon as one of them takes a
stand that you don't like, you'll quit buying tickets to go see
them!

They're not entirely stupid about keeping their views quiet, you
should realize.


re: Yo, CiaoBaby
Robert
1:49 pm Monday May 18, 1998

Hey JoeBlow,

Are you really THIS STUPID!!?? You really can't see his
bigotry!!?? You are a real moron.


re: Some Increadible Movies
Robert
2:02 pm Monday May 18, 1998
No, JoeBlow, Conesy has NOT mentioned ANY of them. You obviously
have not read his essays in other areas of his web site.

So, you got a problem with a white guy making a "black film"? This
is a bunch of crap. And racist, by the way. If you have a problem
with a white making a black film, do you have a problem with a
black making a white film???

Why does everyone have to stay within racial boundaries?? Only
racists belive that people should, JoeBlow.

The only intelligent thing you've said in 2 weeks (or whatever) is
"maybe even we are prompted to ask the question: Why do too many
of us sit around wasting so much time watching movies that are
mindless-entertainment..."

It is OUR responsibility. We do have choice here about what we pay
money for and what we watch. NOBODY IS A VICTIM. NOBODY, JoeBlow.


Film Industry Reform
Joe Goldenberg
2:53 pm Monday May 18, 1998
I think this discussion in way over due, as I have said before.
The movie industry has been controlled by a handfull of people for
long enough. I am concerned about what children see all the time
in the movies.

And it's pretty sad when talents, independent producers and their
investors have to go so far out of their way to encourage
studio/distributors to stop their "creative accounting" practices
and stop their bombardment of America with one and a half
dimention product.

Joe Goldenberg


re: Why are you so Blind?
Robert
2:57 pm Monday May 18, 1998
Joe,

I AM NOT BLIND.

I am not against there being more diversity in Hollywood and the
movies. NOT AT ALL. So we agree there. Of course there should be
more women at the top. And in government. This world would be a
better place.

You just apparently have not read many of Cones' essays that exist
(unless he's removed them) on this web site. Cones would not be
receiving the criticism that he's getting if he didn't point out
what is wrong with the movies and then imply it's because they're
Jewish. He IMPLIES.

If he just said: A) This is what's wrong and, B) The studios are
dominated by white men -- then I and others wouldn't be saying
Cones is anti-Semitic. But he doesn't do this. He thinks it's
important to point out many of these people's religious
backgrounds. AND FOR WHAT REASON? WHAT BEARING DOES THIS HAVE
ON
ANYTHING? ESPECIALLY WHEN HE GOES ON TO SAY THAT THEY ARE
NOT
VERY RELIGIOUS!!?

Don't you see what he is doing here!? This is bigotry. His
implications are very clear. And if you were really Jewish, you'd
see through his bullshit.

He has, unfortunately, couched a valid idea within racist essays
and rhetoric. Which, by the way, is what most racists do. This is
how they get people to believe and follow them.

On another note, I personally do not harp on the Holocaust, or
that the world owes me anything because I'm Jewish. I am however,
aware of the bigotry and persecution that still goes on in the
world against Jews, and of course, blacks, Muslims, women, and
every other group.

And I have personally been the recipient of bigotry growing up,

and even today come across it every once in a while. I don't like
it. So when it crosses my path, I react.

The reason, perhaps, that Jews don't want the memory of the
Holocaust to die, is because each time the world forgets, it
happens again. The Jews have been persecuted throughout history.
Consistently. When the fuck will it stop? When people wake up and
learn to be tolerant towards all people, and not live in fear of
losing their job because they're not the right color, or religion.

When people can stop living in FEAR. This is when all holocausts
will stop.

Cones' "platform" is not a straighforward one. He has an agenda
that is clearly dishonest. This is the problem, and when you write
something intelligent, Joe, it makes me wonder why you can't see
what is going on. The only explanation I can come up with is that
you're racist too.


re: Robert Tries to Go To Bed
Robert
3:02 pm Monday May 18, 1998
I do know Jill. She was with me when I showed her some of your
rantings.

By the way, you SPELLED YOUR NAME WRONG. Now who did you say you
were??


re: Takes One To Know One?
Robert
3:14 pm Monday May 18, 1998

Okay, Joe, truce. (Although I've called you more names in the
posts responding to your posts up to this point.)

As I said in another post today, Cones has a very good point. It's
just that he is also a racist. Of course the industry could use
more diversity; it's run by white men. Rather than repeat myself
here, just read what I wrote in a post a few minutes earlier than
this one.

Robert


Stars with Brains
Sara Lilly
3:18 pm Monday May 18, 1998

:I assume you mean, Sara, Paul Newman with the comment about salad
:dressing. You apparently are a bit ignorant here.
:Newman has been and continues to be involved with the nuclear and
:nuclear weapons issue. He has in the past gotten a lot of flack
:for this. And all the proceeds from his products in the
:supermarkets go to organizations and charities.

Actually, you are right about Paul Newman and it was not my
intention to imply that I have negative thoughts to voice about
him. I beleive there are other satrs that have also gone into
salad dressing or something similar.

:Now, you're right about a lot of the stars not taking a stand for
:anything, but you know what? Whenever they do, the public AND
:the press CRUCIFIES them for having a brain.

That is too bad - a some stars are very intelligent people. I
could name many - but still they tend to be quiet about their
industry for fear of being black listed. They are not using their
"star-power" where it is needed - to clean up their own house.

:So it is our fault (and yours!) for not tolerating stars having
:opinions and taking stands. Because as soon as one of them takes
:a stand that you don't like, you'll quit buying tickets to go
:see them!

That might be true for almost all issues, unfortunately, but what
I am referring to is that Stars should speak up on film
industry issues. The public and even the press would acknowledge
that they have an intimate and deep view of the movie business,
because they are at one of its summits. Some of their
professionals, (accountants and lawyers) do speak up however and
they should be praised for this, and the star should be praised to
some degree if they condone (or allow) their professionals to
speak up (with or without disclosure of their franchise name or
feelings).

:They're not entirely stupid about keeping their views quiet, you
:should realize.

But again, they should speak out more about the movie industry -
especially the profit situation and the excessive production
budgets - which they in no small part have created because of
their huge up-front salaries in lieu of participation. Don't
stars at least owe their starving film colleges an explaination of
why their percentage draw on gross (which is then considered a
"production expense") can and does make it mathematically
impossible for there to ever be any net profits in many cases?
Read what John Cones is saying in the 338 distribution practices
off the background information page in the FIRM site, I believe
the URL is http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/bginfo.htm.

Why should Clif Robinson and Art Buchwald be the few that all the
contemporary heat?


re: Mom's Intelligence Quotient
Robert
3:35 pm Monday May 18, 1998

Hey Conesy,

Interesting premise you have here. You say: "Most of us were
probably advised by our mothers as we were growing up that the use
of crude language, profanities or name-calling in arguments was a
sure sign of lack of intelligence. To the extent that this
motherly advice is true..."

Well, who says this is really a lack of intelligence? Who says
this is really true? Who can confirm this? Who can confirm this to
be a fact?? "to the extent"?? TO WHAT EXTENT!!?? AND YOU'RE A
LAWYER???

You're making a statement and then IMPLYING that it is true. THIS
IS PRECISELY WHAT YOU DO EVERYWHERE AND WITH ALL YOUR
WRITINGS!!!
WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE?? WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS!!??

YOU ARE A LAME MORON. WHERE THE HELL DID YOUR INTELLIGENCE
GO?
OR DID YOU EVER REALLY POSSESS ANY?


re: Robert's Prejudice Against Southern Americans
Robert
3:56 pm Monday May 18,
1998
Hey Conesy,

If only you put this kind of thought into seeing what your essays
imply about the Jews. You say you are tolerant. Bullshit. You say:
"generalizations are the basis of prejudice." Well, THIS IS
PRECISELY WHAT YOU DO WHAT YOU DO IN YOUR ESSAYS. You
generalize
about the studio heads, claim they're all Jewish, they tell us
what is wrong with the movies and the industry. HELLLLOOOO, IS
THERE ANY INTELLIGENCE HOME???

You defend the white southerner so well. I'm impressed. Now, if
only you really did this for EVERYONE.

:


re: Out of Context
ROBERT
4:14 pm Monday May 18, 1998

On the contrary, Conesy, my earlier postings contained very little
obscenity. I have written much that you could have responded to,
yet, IT DOESN'T SERVE YOUR PURPOSE TO RESPOND TO WHAT YOU
DON'T
HAVE ANY ANSWERS TO. And that is quite a lot.

You have yet to counter any of my arguments. ALL YOU DO, IS TAKE
SOMETHING I HAVE WRITTEN OUT OF CONTEXT, AND WRITE A WHOLE
'NOTHER
ESSAY ABOUT THAT.

You are very clever with choosing what you respond to. You are a
racist. Just admit it. It's really not that hard. Go ahead, you'll
feel better.

On another note, you are attempting to get me to divulge my
identity apparently. Well, as I've said before, you threatened
another participant in this forum with a potential law suit for
defamation if he didn't stop saying you were anti-Semitic, so it
would be really stupid for me to let it be known who I am.

I cannot and will not risk a law suit from you, fuckhead, because
you'd like to shut me up for speaking the truth about you. I do
not want to spend the time or money defending myself. Nor do I
want to give you the publicity that you probably desire.

So fuck you. I'm not telling you who I am. And this does not make
what I have written any less valid.

AND, I have not really asked for you to respond to what I have
written anyways. So if you don't want to respond to someone who
remains anonymous, THEN DON'T! No one is holding a gun to your
head saying, "You have to respond!"

Is this clear!?

:
:
:Our FIRM site Discussion Forum participant "Robert" who does not
have the courage to let us know who he really is complains that I
have taken his words out of context. What a silly argument. Of
course, I have taken his words out of context. Why should I
respond to the foul language and name-calling (other than the
false allegation of anti-Semitism) that crowds out what may
otherwise be reasonable argument? In order to respond to the few
bits and pieces of his comments that may loosely be characterized
as worthy of a response, such words and phrases have to be taken
out of context. I will respond to what I think is worthy of a
response. If that bothers you Robert, too bad. Further, why
should I respond to the writings of a man who hides behind
anonymity anyway? Obviously, you are not a very disciplined
person. You rattle off your responses without giving them much
thought. You fill them with senseless obscenities and name-
calling. I would assume that some of that would be eliminated if
you were honest about your identity, and I would further assume
that you would be more careful about your arguments. So far, you
really haven't contributed much of value to this discussion.

:


Tolerance of Viewpoint
Sara Lilly
4:20 pm Monday May 18, 1998

Okay, Robert,

Let's say, for argument, Cones IS a bigot.

Are you unwilling to tolerate his views about the film industry
or the promulgation of his research?

Sara


re: Film Industry Reform
Sara Lilly
4:33 pm Monday May 18, 1998

I disagree, this discussion has been going on since the early
sixties.


re: Film Industry Reform
Jim Hunter
4:36 pm Monday May 18, 1998
:I disagree, this discussion has been going on since the early
:sixties.

No, I believe you mean 1912 when the independent producers of that
era split for Hollywood to be near Mexico for a quick escape with
their boot-legged cameras.


re: Hollywood's True Colors
Robert
5:13 pm Monday May 18, 1998

Yo, Moron!

You are free to speak your mind "constitutionally" anywhere,
anytime. No one has taken that away from you. But when your speech
contains rascism, anti-Semitism or anything else that is downright
disgusting, then there are sometimes consequences to pay for this
behavior.

You are now paying some of those consequences, and rightly so.

If your appraisal of Hollywood was devoid of prejudiced, anti-
Semitic inferences and implications, then I doubt people would be
reacting the way they are.

Apparently you are in DENIAL about your true feeling and beliefs.

WAKE THE FUCK UP, CONES. AND TAKE OFF YOUR HOOD!

:
:
:In recent weeks we have seen Hollywood's true colors. For a
community that constantly rails about how little tolerance there
is in the rest of America (through its films and benevolent
organizations), this appears to be the most intolerant place in
the World. Not only have I been subjected to Hollywood's
prejudice, but that prejudice has risen to the level of actual
discriminatory acts: Joshua Moss has falsely and repeatedly
accused me of anti-Semitism, film producer Paul Haggis has done
the same, Chris Gore of Film Threat Weekly has falsely accused my
writings of being "heavily anti-Semitic" when they're not. Charles
Fleming of LA Weekly has falsely accused me of blaming "the Jews"
for Hollywood's problems when I haven't. Carlos de Abreau of
Hollywood Network online, has abruptly terminated our two year
relationship and valuable Q&A service online relating to investor
financing of independent film. Entertainment attorney Mark Litwak,
has severed our ten year multi-faceted, professional relationship
due to pressure from unnamed "others" in Hollywood. I'm receiving
hate mail and crank calls. Others have promised not to buy any of
my books. Why? All because I have exercised by constitutional
right to speak freely and honestly about what's really going on in
Hollywood. This is how Hollywood tolerates dissent. Way to go
guys. You are making all of America proud.
:
:


re: Worse Than McCarthyism
ROBERT
5:18 pm Monday May 18, 1998

Yo, Moron!

You are free to speak your mind "constitutionally" anywhere,
anytime. No one has taken that away from you. But when your speech
contains rascism, anti-Semitism or anything else that is downright
disgusting, then there are sometimes consequences to pay for this
behavior.

You are now paying some of those consequences, and rightly so.

If your appraisal of Hollywood was devoid of prejudiced, anti-
Semitic inferences and implications, then I doubt people would be
reacting the way they are.

Apparently you are in DENIAL about your true feeling and beliefs.

WAKE THE FUCK UP, CONES. AND TAKE OFF YOUR HOOD!


re: Out of Context
ROBERT
5:19 pm Monday May 18, 1998

On the contrary, Conesy, my earlier postings contained very little
obscenity. I have written much that you could have responded to,
yet, IT DOESN'T SERVE YOUR PURPOSE TO RESPOND TO WHAT YOU
DON'T
HAVE ANY ANSWERS TO. And that is quite a lot.

You have yet to counter any of my arguments. ALL YOU DO, IS TAKE
SOMETHING I HAVE WRITTEN OUT OF CONTEXT, AND WRITE A WHOLE
'NOTHER
ESSAY ABOUT THAT.

You are very clever with choosing what you respond to. You are a
racist. Just admit it. It's really not that hard. Go ahead, you'll

feel better.

On another note, you are attempting to get me to divulge my
identity apparently. Well, as I've said before, you threatened
another participant in this forum with a potential law suit for
defamation if he didn't stop saying you were anti-Semitic, so it
would be really stupid for me to let it be known who I am.

I cannot and will not risk a law suit from you, fuckhead, because
you'd like to shut me up for speaking the truth about you. I do
not want to spend the time or money defending myself. Nor do I
want to give you the publicity that you probably desire.

So fuck you. I'm not telling you who I am. And this does not make
what I have written any less valid.

AND, I have not really asked for you to respond to what I have
written anyways. So if you don't want to respond to someone who
remains anonymous, THEN DON'T! No one is holding a gun to your
head saying, "You have to respond!"

Is this clear!?


re: Tolerance of Viewpoint
ROBERT
5:40 pm Monday May 18, 1998

Well, Sara,

Some of his research is flawed (i.e., it is subjective research,
not "blind" or "double blind" studies done by people who don't
have an interest in what the results are. There are very specific,
"scientific" criteria used (or that is supposed to be used) when
doing any kind of research/studies, such as the one Cones
SUPPOSEDLY undertook.

His research is not of this quality.

Secondly, I have admitted in previous posts some of my views about
the white male dominated industry. If Coneshead was not a bigot,
he probably would/could gather a great following.

I will NOT within his web site discuss what I believe needs to be
reformed in Hollywood. I will NOT lend any credence or ideas to
HIS forum. Which by the way, contain posts mostly by him.

If you wished to carry on this discussion over another web site
that is in no way connected to Cones, just list the address.

Robert


Can Bigots Tolerate Bigots?
Sara Lilly
6:49 pm Monday May 18, 1998

:Well, Sara,
:I will NOT within his web site discuss what I believe needs to be
:reformed in Hollywood. I will NOT lend any credence or ideas to
:HIS forum. Which by the way, contain posts mostly by him.

So Robert,

It really sounds to me like you WILL NOT tolerate John Cones'
viewpoint because of what ever reason (you say because of the
quality of his research).

Doesn't that really make you kind of a bigot? The fact that you
can't tolerate another's belief that they have done the best work
they can and that they believe in their work. It seems to me that
anyone who points out that another person is a bigot - is really
demonstrating bigotry in themselves.

From what I can read, Cones has never said he does not tolerate
Jews in general. He has only stated the fact that most of the
people who control the studios are white, males of Jewish heritage
and then voiced his opinion that that's not much of a diversity
for a industry with trememdous influence over all people... and
you just can't accept that he is entitled to his opinion without
calling him a bigot. That really makes YOU look like the bigot
Robert. It really does. Even that you brought it up.

Jews are not any more the "chosen people" than anyone else and
they certainly do not have any god-given right to run the studios
over anyone else. And if you, or they, think they do, then you're
ALL bigots because you're intolerant of others opinions and,
again, you were the first to voice this opinion in this discussion
forum, which is supposed to be about film industry reform - not
who you or anyone else believes is a bigot.

After reading all this over, I have to say, I think Mr. Cones has
really hit the nail on the head - you are using the Anti-Semitic
Sword to obfuscate argument about real crimes that are going on in
the film industry.

Sara Lilly


Typewriter Locked in CAP Mode
Joe Goldenberg
9:12 pm Monday May 18, 1998

:Hey Conesy,
:be a fact?? "to the extent"?? TO WHAT EXTENT!!?? AND YOU'RE A
:LAWYER???
:You're making a statement and then IMPLYING that it is true. THIS
:IS PRECISELY WHAT YOU DO EVERYWHERE AND WITH ALL YOUR
WRITINGS!!!
:WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE?? WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS!!??
:YOU ARE A LAME MORON. WHERE THE HELL DID YOUR INTELLIGENCE

GO?
:OR DID YOU EVER REALLY POSSESS ANY?

Boy CiaoBaby,

You sure are into the CAPS today. Your NAME! Your WORDS!! Your
SENTENCES!!! Are you yelling at someone or did you just a raise
or something?

"JoeBlow"




| F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |