OT anii-gun activist murdrerer

Cinematographer was from Ukraine. Those people make movies with live rounds all the time. They don't know what a blank is. And you don't want to know how they use dynamite, but it gets really close to the players.

John Larkin wrote: ==============

The problem here is that "dummy" rounds and live ones may look just the same.

Film sets are notoriously dangerous places, like construction sites but worse. Everything is done to a tight schedule, safety wastes time and costs money. There is a prevailing " show must go on" reckless mentality. Film people think they are *special* and can break laws at whim to get a needed shot.

Their arrogance is astounding so sometimes " s*it happens " .

...... Phil

It must have been decades since you've been to the movies.

You just contradicted yourself.

I was just being silly.

Or maybe it was a bullet.

John Larkin wrote: ==============

...... Phil

What is extremely negligent is that Baldwin pointed a loaded gun at Hutchins and Souza. It is unknown at this time whether he pulled the trigger or if it discharged spontaneously (which is highly unlikely). Firearm safety training requires you to treat ALL guns as if they are loaded. So if someone handed me a gun and told me that it was "safe" I will check the chamber and magazine for any rounds. Baldwin should have received this training before being allowed to handle operable firearms.

I would not be surprised if Baldwin is charged with negligent homicide.

The US entertainment industry is productive. The Indian entertainment industry is even more productive, but Bollywood is an acquired taste, and while it has more customers, they don't pay as much for their tickets.

F****it snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote: ======================

..... Phil

Not required reading.

No, but randomness does.

Answer WHAT? There's no question presented, after all the snipping. Any 'win' means there's a prize. What's the prize? What kind of contest do you think this is? In discussion, the best prize is always clearly stated. Otherwise, the discussion is worthless to all concerned. Ability, honesty, irrelevance, are mentioned above, with zero context. Randomness, however (my little addition) is evident.

That line was posted by bitrex, not me.

John Doe clearly doesn't think so. There are more rational opinions, but yours won't be one of them.

Phil has some very stupid ideas.

As judged by Phil, who does seem to pick winners by a process that makes him feel good, without paying much attention to reality.

whit3rd wrote: ===============

Or else you ARE one.

...... Phil

F****it Retard Bill Slowman

======================

Another win - this to going fine.

..... Phil

You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

Not really. It was mentioned in the Sydney Morning Herald, and despite your bizarre ideas on the subject, it is totally irrelevant to the point I was making, which does seem to be beyond your feeble comprehension.

You can't read? That makes sense - the claim doesn't.

If you are the judge and the whole of the jury it is pretty easy to decide that you have won. You need a split personality to carry it off, but yours seems to qualify.

In his own idiosyncratic opinion.

Well enough to have you carried away in straight jacket? We can hope that the prize for all this winning is a couple of months of free accomodationat a the funny farm - a more generous prize than you deserve, but it has side-benefits for the rest of us.

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Sat, 23 Oct 2021 05:49:18 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <sl07ot$lpo$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me.

tFJpMVYOWqjs

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Sat, 23 Oct 2021 05:59:35 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <sl08c6$lpo$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me.

sZ1zGO0YDc3x

Only in the sense of being a troll, and one of the skills developed by trolls is the delusion that their responses are entirely reasonable.

This isn't any kind of expertise - more a conditioned reflex or knee-jerk. You have gleefully claimed that you have "destroyed" several user-groups , and that would make you a psychopathic idiot, if it were true. It probably isn't true - you are just irritating and abusive, with an inflated idea of your own effectiveness - bit it is a pretty sick claim to make.

Who would want to watch Hollywood depict sex, anyway?

A good amount has been written about how moving pictures, film and TV, are inherently uninteresting mediums that have to be made interesting with tricks like the most basic one, the jump cut. Violence and anger translate well, other emotional states not so well, the intrinsic "dynamic range" of expression of the medium is limited.

But you find critiques like that in books that the anti-Hollywood types here likely haven't read, either.