Search results

Since the topic has come up, it's as good a time as any to remind members that we have a section on that very topic in our rules:

Attention spans and dedication-to-values for many, these days, seem to be able to fit on the head of a pin.

I dunno. It seems like there's plenty more options. She could get seriously sick--think coma (soap operas LOVE that one ;) ). And leaving open the tiniest crack of a possible return would--seem to me--to be too tempting to remove. Of course, they killed off Goodman's character and he was...

Serious, indeed.

The fact of the matter is...we'll never know. Because they aren't being honest and open about any of their many issues, not even to shareholders. And I guess they don't have to be. But I sure wouldn't be surprised to see some upheaval at the upper ranks of the company in the not-so-distant future.

Ok everybody. I've been a bad moderator. I did exactly what I advise members against on a very regular basis. I stirred the pot...on a topic which involved religion (and in an ancillary way, politics)...hoping that it would not lead to off-topic rants of a political and religious nature...

The "Billy Graham rule."

Huh. I wasn't aware this was even an open question. I guess I should feel good when people consider me mentally ill because of my religious beliefs. Yup. I disagree with what she said. It was repugnant. And nope. Behar wasn't obscene or vulgar. But neither was Barr. And, I agree...

There is a difference between expressing a counter-point to an issue...and disparaging someone. I believe it is also always wrong to attack or disparage a person based on their religious beliefs.

You ever meet any celebrities, Travis? :D The stereotyped sense that they are rude to common folk has been created for a reason. They demand specific treatment because they are important (in their own minds). We're not saying anything all too different from each other. After all, if you...

Is one right and one wrong? Does the circumstances you laid out make one more acceptable?

We have room, I believe, to include in this discussion how religion has been publicly abused by ignorant celebrities. As long as we clearly avoid the discussion of the religious beliefs themselves and only discuss how religion was specifically the subject of the discussion on a particular...

I won't prolong this. But unfortunately for me, I AM going to completely be that cynical based on other recent similar events involving ABC in which they did nothing. While I would love nothing more than to believe that they took action due to some sense of moral indignation/outrage, I can't.

I'd say that's fair (even if I'm not certain it was solely the advertisers which led them to make this decision). It just really burns my hide that people may be under the wrong impression that the ABC suits really cared about the things she wrote and were offended at the ugliness of the words...

I'm going to disagree with you on this, Adam. ABC did not take such strong action because of the contents of the tweet. They made the decision because it was in their best interest financially. They didn't cancel the show because they were offended by her words. ABC has a record of not...

Exactly. But there are many who are lauding ABC for doing the "courageous" thing because it was "the right thing to do" (Bob Iger's words). Yet none of that is really at play here. But the spin artists are hard at work making it seem that way.

It's clear to me that ABC's decision to axe Roseanne was only made because of the financial implications for the network. I cannot believe that it had anything to do with being "the right thing to do." They don't seem to make corporate decisions at ABC based on right and wrong.

Stunning. Stunning that anyone could 1.) think that way, and 2.) think it would be a good idea to put it in the public forum.

Let's not get into the personal politics, people. Things will take a turn...quickly. They always do. Thanks.