FIRM Discussions June 12, 1998 - June 13, 1998
re: Message to Neal Gabler
Gary Pollard
8:17 am Friday June 12, 1998
:Are these LA Weekly quotes accurate, and if so, where in my
:writings do you find anything suggesting that I am "talking about
:the Jews", as opposed to the more narrowly defined Hollywood
:control group which is clearly set out on the FIRM site?
Well John I find it on your own web page. I find it in your long
diatribe on what "Anti-Semitism" and "Semitism" actually means.
The same sentiments that we on this newsgroup have read ALMOST
WORD FOR WORD in posts on this NG by the notorious and sad Flavell
even before your "organization" was set up, the same sentiments
that I have read in other anti-Semitic leaflets to justify their
actions.
You know, the crap along the lines of "You can't call us
anti-Semites because Semites includes the Arab peoples". When you
should also know DAMN WELL that the term has had a specific
meaning for well over a hundred years.
Like Bill you are choosing your sources to suit your own
prejudices
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, anti-Semite goes back
a long way.
anti-'Semite,
one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews;
anti-Se'mitic a.
1881 Athenĉum 3 Sept. 305/2 The author, apparently an anti-Semite.
Ibid., Anti-Semitic literature is very prosperous in Germany.
1882 Athenĉum 11 Feb. 184/1 In these days of anti-Semitism.
1935 Economist 24 Aug. 366/1 The Nazi Party stalwarts..have all
been leading an anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic,
anti-Protestant..crusade.
1941 J. S. Huxley Uniqueness of Man ii. 50 Germanic nationalism on
the one hand and anti-Semitism on the other.
If a writer has a problem with using a word-meaning with a
pedigreee of over a hundred years, he/she isn't going to be left
with many words to use. I'd advise a new encyclopedia.
But then, Bill's attitudes ARE apparent in his posts. He is at
least more upfront about them than some.
By the way, may I ask WHY you e-mailed me in response to a post I
made to Flavell concerning his OWN anti-Semitic views?
I mean this is a "man" (and I use the word loosely) who denies
that the Holocaust actually happened...and has written and
e-mailed flaming anti-Semitic sentiments. Is it your view that
this sad individual is being unfairly labelled an anti-Semite?
This specimen of dreck that wrote to me: "You Jews can have
Hollywwod and the usenet newsgroups, and shove both of them up
your ass."
Can you not see why some might feel the label DOES apply to him?
Gary
re: Houghton Wrong About Cabal
Derek
8:23 am Friday June 12, 1998
No, I wouldn't say Blair Houghton has poor comprehension skills at
all.
I'd say he has you summed up rather well, actually, and the fact
that you have time to participate in pompous semantics on this and
other newsgroups in defence of your one-person crusade would
suggest the FIRM is much less than it's cracked up to be by it's
pontificating founder.
Your rather selective description of what FIRM's aims are further
serve to demonstrate that you are in the business of hoodwinking.
Good luck with your crusade, which incidentally is not welcome
here. Anyone signed up in the last year, by the way?
Derek
re: Houghton Wrong About
Cabal
Blair P. Houghton
8:26 am Friday June 12,
1998
Subject:
John Cones claims that my intimation that he wrongly believes
there is a "cabal" is a "subtle" means of disinformation.
How could it be subtle when it's there in black and white?
(Or phosphor and electron, or reflective and absorbtive,
depending on how you choose to display pixels.) What's
subtle about my stating that he believes there is a cabal?
Nothing. What's subtle is his implication that I am a liar.
What's even more subtle is his implication that I am part of
a larger group that seeks to find fault with him. I do not
seek it. I merely found it.
He strongly implies several times that I am lying, and even
goes so far as to use stupid-writer tricks ("take your pick")
to call me a liar without actually calling me a liar. What's
stupid about it is it doesn't leave the choice up to the
individual reader; it implies that all items on the menu are
likely to be true and relies on the idea that each selection
will be taken by various readers in varying degrees.
And what of our choices in that menu?
There's the libelous "dishonest". I'm sure Cones will want
to retract that one.
There's the infantile "lazy". This after he reads an article
in which I point out that I had to solve a puzzle just to get
around the fact that his webserver is using case-sensitive
URL matching.
And then there's the shining "uninformed." Well, given that
my only information about his views comes from his own website,
I plead guilty and throw myself on the mercy of the kangaroo.
I'll accept that Cones can find the word "cabal" on only two
pages on his site, and those only in denial. But as the web
is not a linear medium, and as the site has no search engine
(if for some reason I decided to cross-check every word in an
expression of the inferences that I made from the pages I did
see), there's no reason for him to expect me or anyone else
to have seen and memorized every word he's written. Unless
he's feeling messianic today.
This does not mean that I now believe that I was wrong in
clearly expressing the opinion that Cones presents an irrational
view of the organization of Hollywood, that being that it is
anything other than a highly competitive, amorphous model of
uncoordinated business dealings conducted by opportunistic
and, occasionally, crooked individuals.
And I do believe, given what I've read on his website, that
his intent is threefold: first, to exact some sort of price
from "Hollywood" for the actions of individuals within it;
second, to aggrandize himself in the best Hollywood style, by
hyping a controversy; and third, to moderate and/or censor
the Jews he sees as being the guiding hands of the biases he
states exist in the movies.
As evidence, I present the first paragraph of the originally
cited webpage, q.v.:
www.homevideo.net/FIRM/15feb98.htm
This isn't someone else's news report about what Cones is
saying, it's his own press release, listing himself as point
of contact (apparently through his partner's email address).
And if the "Hollywood control group" and its "routing of
political contributions" through underlings isn't supposed to
be a clear accusation of cabalistic practices, then Cones
doesn't know the first thing about expressing knowledge in
writing. And that would be very odd, for someone who sells
five (six?) of his own books, one of which is a dictionary.
The next paragraph of the release contains the statement that
it's not just a cabal, it's a Jewish cabal. (Gee, I wonder
how anyone got the impression that you're an anti-semite,
John...)
Below that he implies that this cabal has committed hundreds
of illegal business dealings, or somehow suborned them on the
part of the hundreds of individuals and companies who actually
committed them. (Paradox: John Cones states in his response
to me that there was no conspiracy; John Cones states in his
press release that the "Hollywood control group" committed or
encouraged the commission of "several hundred" different types
of misdeeds.)
The press release then presents his calls for censorship of
this Jewish cabal's ability to express its views on film.
Lest anyone think this is an isolated lapse of semantics, he
repeats it, sans references to Jews, but with a distinctive
reference to the "90-year history of Hollywood":
http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/16apr98.htm
this time as etiology of the juvenile violence being hyped
currently by the media.
(Maybe what you need is a totally separate, other company to do
your PR, John, to avoid this sort of objectionable impression
you give of your own views.)
As to the substantive, non-inflammatory content of those
releases: What the real Supreme Court will say--without being
taken out of context--is that it is not constitutional to
legislate away biases in free speech. This call for "reform"
will fail on those purely legal grounds. If you want to get
your own point across in major motion pictures, you have to
compete. If you run afoul of illegal dealings in the course
of that competition, the existing laws of the US and its States
are there to rectify your specific distress.
(The FTC is on an anti-trust jag this summer, John; why not
try to convince *them* that there's something funny about The
System?
Oh, and BTW, the first release says that you're at
"hollywoodnetwork.net/Cones". Hollywoodnetwork.net is a
nonexistent domain, and hollywoodnetwork.com appears not to
know who you are. So don't call me uninformed without knowing
that you're impeaching yourself.
And don't even think of calling me lazy or dishonest ever again.)
--Blair
"Or is he just (a) a moron,
(b) a nazi, or (c) a big baby?
(Take your pick)."
-That's Satire, Einstein
re: Message to Neal Gabler
Gary Pollard
8:17 am Friday June 12, 1998
:Are these LA Weekly quotes accurate, and if so, where in my
:writings do you find anything suggesting that I am "talking about
:the Jews", as opposed to the more narrowly defined Hollywood
:control group which is clearly set out on the FIRM site?
Well John I find it on your own web page. I find it in your long
diatribe on what "Anti-Semitism" and "Semitism" actually means.
The same sentiments that we on this newsgroup have read ALMOST
WORD FOR WORD in posts on this NG by the notorious and sad Flavell
even before your "organization" was set up, the same sentiments
that I have read in other anti-Semitic leaflets to justify their
actions.
You know, the crap along the lines of "You can't call us
anti-Semites because Semites includes the Arab peoples". When you
should also know DAMN WELL that the term has had a specific
meaning for well over a hundred years.
Like Bill you are choosing your sources to suit your own
prejudices
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, anti-Semite goes back
a long way.
anti-'Semite,
one who is hostile or opposed to the Jews;
anti-Se'mitic a.
1881 Athenĉum 3 Sept. 305/2 The author, apparently an anti-Semite.
Ibid., Anti-Semitic literature is very prosperous in Germany.
1882 Athenĉum 11 Feb. 184/1 In these days of anti-Semitism.
1935 Economist 24 Aug. 366/1 The Nazi Party stalwarts..have all
been leading an anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic,
anti-Protestant..crusade.
1941 J. S. Huxley Uniqueness of Man ii. 50 Germanic nationalism on
the one hand and anti-Semitism on the other.
If a writer has a problem with using a word-meaning with a
pedigreee of over a hundred years, he/she isn't going to be left
with many words to use. I'd advise a new encyclopedia.
But then, Bill's attitudes ARE apparent in his posts. He is at
least more upfront about them than some.
By the way, may I ask WHY you e-mailed me in response to a post I
made to Flavell concerning his OWN anti-Semitic views?
I mean this is a "man" (and I use the word loosely) who denies
that the Holocaust actually happened...and has written and
e-mailed flaming anti-Semitic sentiments. Is it your view that
this sad individual is being unfairly labelled an anti-Semite?
This specimen of dreck that wrote to me: "You Jews can have
Hollywwod and the usenet newsgroups, and shove both of them up
your ass."
Can you not see why some might feel the label DOES apply to him?
Gary
Re: Film Industry Reform
Stephen Gilman
8:10 pm Friday June 12,
1998
"Edward Feit" (efeit@polsci.umass.edu) writes: :Unless you impose censorship, which
violates the Constitution :as well as other rights, there's no way your organization or any
:other can serve your purposes. :Artists, writers, film producers and others have the right
to :paint, write and/or produce whatever they wish whether it :violates anyone's
standards, appears unfair, flawed or whatever. :That's democracy, man! I didn't see any
suggestion of censorship in his posting. What I read from it was that he wants to help out
the people who NOW don't have the opportunity to get their messages out because they
don't fit the Hollywood mould. If you think there is truly a free exchange of ideas then
you are denying the subtle censorship power the mainstream media has. > >In fact, the
very basis of democracy is protecting the rights >of people whose views you *don't* like
or might find offensive. >I may not, for instance, agree with you. But I respect your
>right to your viewpoint. > This is true, but the mainstream DOES censor unpopular
views by not covering them. >If you, or large numbers of others don't like it, there's a
>simple solution: >don't buy! If large groups or many individuals don't like a >painting,
they shouldn't buy it. If they don't like some >writings, don't read them! If you don't like
some movies, don't >buy tickets! If enough stay away, their producers will either go
>broke or change their ways. > The simple flaw of this argument is this: Why should the
protest have to come from a large group of people? Doesn't a small group have the right
to be heard? But a small group can't necessarily get the sufficient money together to be
heard. >Also, you can't expect anyone to produce works that favor >viewpoints harmful
to them. To take an extreme case, you cannot >expect the religious right to produce
pictures that praise >atheism! Yet, if we follow the principles of your presently
>non-existent organization, they would have to do so in the name >of 'fairness'! No, but
when the right suppresses messages they don't appove of THEN you have a problem. --
MediaBoy Productions (Stephen Gilman - Director) Economical Film, Video & New
Media Production. Phone: (613) 825-1771 E-mail: ao668@freenet.carleton.ca Fax:
(613) 722-5612 Web Site: www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ao668
Violence in the Movies
Van Hades
10:40 am Saturday June 13, 1998
Subject:
Because of the movie industry, people are brainwashed
into thinking violence and murder are a viable solution
to their problems.
re: Is Hollywood a Cabal?
Gary Pollard
11:27 am Saturday June 13, 1998
:I don't think Hollywood is a cabal. I do think it is very similar
:to the mafia of the previous generation. This is not
:coincidential since this mafia had very close ties to Hollywood.
:It has never been proven there was some sort of "Syndicate" where
:all the mob big shots got together and governed everything. There
:was a group of people who knew each other, who shared
:connections, who shared ties to corrupt politician, judges and
:law enforcement. These people lived by a code which was almost
:entirely contradictory to the laws of our nation and a direct
:attack on the basis of our nation.
I'd say that the fact that we're so often dealing with
anti-Semites makes anti-Semitism NOT a BS issue. If these people
want to talk about groups with power in ANY area they may make
their case or not. The problem is that these people are telling
stories without a single Jewish influence in sight, and then
somehow believing that the man behind the green curtain is Jewish
anyway.
If you're not anti-Semitic, what does it matter what religious
group the "cabal" belongs to? Why is it even relevant? Why would
they use "Jew" as an all-purpose insult? Their frame of mind
staggers me. Both the infamous Flavell and the gullible Goldenbug
have shown their contempt for this group in their posts and
e-mails. To talk as if they are martyrs to some anti-Semitic
crusade is an absurdity.
To talk as if any wanker embittered because he can't get his
second-rate script produced is somehow a warrior for media freedom
and responsibility is a joke, plain and simple.
Which is Jewish? Ted Turner or Rupert Murdoch? Am I missing
something here?
Gary
Reply to Joe Goldenberg
Bill Flavell
11:33 am Saturday June 13,
1998
Hi, Joe, I sent this via private e-mail, but it was bounced back:
----------------------------------------------------------------- <>
http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/dialogs.htm -------------------------------------- Hi,
Joe, thanks for the response. I'll try to get over there more, but I think I can do more
here in the wide-open global usenet newsgroup forum. I already wrote and told FIRM
that their discussion format is too clunky and that they are going to have to get a real
mailing list server and do it right, if they want to accomplish anything in the long term.
And I didn't get a response back! The discussion boards are fine for new people arriving
at the web site, but you need a conventional mailing list for those who are serious and are
in it for the long haul. As you may have noticed, my specialty is publicity and mailing
lists, so that's where I think I can do the best for the cause. Bill Flavell
| F.I.R.M. Home | Mission | Background Info |
| Dialogs | Discussion Forum & Archives | Press Releases |
| Research | Help F.I.R.M. | Bookstore |