Really, Harvey, that's what you've been insinuating here. That's the underlying suggestion: that because Disney can be see to be a bad person, that his work is therefore "bad".
Where have I insinuated that Disney cartoons are bad because Walt is bad?
I don't think I've even mentioned the production aspect other than to say that Walt is "animation history's greatest producer."
Besides, most of the greatness of Disney cartoons was due to the innovations of the artists he'd hired: you know, the people he screamed at and abused, the people he promised to pay and then didn't, the people that were picketing him, the people whose lives he ruined through HUAC.
Where have I insinuated that Disney cartoons are bad because Walt is bad?
I don't think I've even mentioned the production aspect other than to say that Walt is "animation history's greatest producer." Besides, most of the greatness of Disney cartoons was due to the innovations of the artists he'd hired: you know, the people he screamed at and abused, the people he promised to pay and then didn't, the people that were picketing him, the people whose lives he ruined through HUAC.
There's your insinuation again.
Yes, he did these things to people.
If you walk through Disneyland tomorrow, what will you think Harvey-- how nice the park is, or how nasty the man was? That's my point.
And you didn't answer my other, more relevant, questions.
—
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
How is that an insinuation "that because Disney can be see [SIC] to be a bad person, that his work is therefore 'bad'"?
How do you reconcile your accusation that I believe Disney cartoons are bad with the fact that I wrote "the greatness of Disney cartoons" in the very post that you cited as evidence?
Harvey, unbunch the panties, pal. You've posted this topic for a reason.......and you're not being clear about the reason.
Its old news as far as Disney goes--and if you are just discovering the info for the first time, welcome to the club--membership card is in the mail.
Was Disney a bit of a creep at times? Yes.
Beyond that.........what else?
Is it to pick a fight in the boring dog-days of summer, or is there some ulterior message you want to communicate on this?
If you think I'm accusing you of something......get over yourself. Your point is coming across as muddled on this.
Disney's a bad guy to some people..............so what?
Is it just to discuss how much of a creep he's claimed to be?
Again, my questions put to your points remain unanswered...
Why is it worth the bother to drag up this Disney dirt.........yet again?
Punch-line, Harvey......send us the punch-line............please!
—
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
just wait for it Ken...now that you've dared contest his opinion, he'll label you a troll and put you on his blocked list (akin to a child putting his fingers in his ears, shutting his eyes and going "blah blah blah" over the conversation)...and I'm not speaking as just a jilted lover either.
..mother told me there'd be days like this
Oh, I know...........I've heard of this ( and of Harvey) before.
I'm giving him the fair chance to come across differently, just as I would with anyone. All in the interest of fair discussion.
I'll give Harvey enough credit to assume that he's not the run-of-the-mill attention-seeker like we all see across the length and breadth of the internet. He's seems like a pretty smart guy for the most part, so I'm a weeeee bit wary here.
If he's got something to say.....a point to put across, I'll be happy to read what he has to say.
But if that's not what he's lookin' for........well, me barbs o' scorn are always ready and they be plenty pointy.
—
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
just wait for it Ken...now that you've dared contest his opinion, he'll label you a troll and put you on his blocked list (akin to a child putting his fingers in his ears, shutting his eyes and going "blah blah blah" over the conversation)...and I'm not speaking as just a jilted lover either.
..mother told me there'd be days like this
I'm trying to be respectful of the moderator's wish, but this flame-baiter keeps needling me.
Disney's a bad guy to some people..............so what?
Is it just to discuss how much of a creep he's claimed to be?
Again, my questions put to your points remain unanswered...
Why is it worth the bother to drag up this Disney dirt.........yet again?
Hitler was a bad guy that destroyed people lives, but he's not around anymore to defend himself so why don't we just quit beating a dead holocaust horse? Can't we just respect him for the great public speaker and painter that he was?
When you play Wolfenstein 3D, do you think "what a revolutionary and addictive game," or do you insist on dwelling on the sordid, trivial actualities of the real Hilter? Can't you just forget about all that and have fun?
Hitler was a bad guy that destroyed people lives, but he's not around anymore to defend himself so why don't we just quit beating a dead holocaust horse? Can't we just respect him for the great public speaker and painter that he was?
When you play Wolfenstein 3D, do you think "what a revolutionary and addictive game," or do you insist on dwelling on the sordid, trivial actualities of the real Hilter? Can't you just forget about all that and have fun?
Y'know, its when people stop thinking for themselves that forums like these cease being enjoyable. The writings on the cyber-wall here....
—
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
I know what I'm talking about when I tell you that atrocities like the 3rd Reich mustn't be forgotten or regarded as "dead history. It's been a little over sixty years now since the "Reich" offcially "came to an end" and that period of time is, historically speaking - nothing! Many of Hitler's top men were family men and not full-time, soulless architects of the destruction of human lives - yet that doesn't lessen the severity of their negative impact on the history of the country.
Y'know, its when people stop thinking for themselves that forums like these cease being enjoyable. The writings on the cyber-wall here....
Ken, for me they stop being enjoyable when certain people show a distinct lack of a sense of humour...not naming any names here (to respect the Mod's wishes) but SOME folks need to take le cornichon a l'aneth out of their ass and lighten up...if you ever get old enough (and talented enough) to work in a real studio and you walk around with the nose in the air attitude that everything you say is gold and the rest of us humans are all stupid stupid stupid, you will quickly be the target of every caricature artist in the place (and there are plenty)...we've gotten rid of more mama's boys that way.
..now, who wants gum??
tropical pete and his guava five
(now appearing at the El Mocambo)
Hitler was a bad guy that destroyed people lives, but he's not around anymore to defend himself so why don't we just quit beating a dead holocaust horse? Can't we just respect him for the great public speaker and painter that he was?
Y'know, its when people stop thinking for themselves that forums like these cease being enjoyable. The writings on the cyber-wall here....
But then who was thinking for Saj: thisguy?
... check out more of der fuhrer Disney's hilarious (if it weren't so insane) rant ...
Hitler was a bad guy that destroyed people lives, but he's not around anymore to defend himself so why don't we just quit beating a dead holocaust horse? Can't we just respect him for the great public speaker and painter that he was?
Just so I understand - you're now equating Hitler with Disney? The slaughter of millions is somehow roughly equivalent to yelling at employees?
Ken, I'm going to have to assume that since you didn't provide any of my quotes that insinuate that bad Walt equals bad cartoons, that you're retracting that argument, and rightly so.
Your point is coming across as muddled on this.
Why do I have to have a point? Isn't it enough to want to discuss an interesting topic?
If I have a point, that point is "discuss it," contrary to your point, "don't discuss it."
Why is it worth the bother to drag up this Disney dirt.........yet again?
Actually, we haven't yet had a thread that focuses on all of Disney's pro-Nazi and anti-labor activities. Disney at HUAC has been mentioned here and there. One of the first threads I created, when I joined AWN three years ago, listed some of Disney's HUAC quotes. It was the first time Phacker had heard of it and she was shocked, which proves that this isn't readily-available history. The fact that some people will learn something about animation history's most important figure is enough of a reason to bring it up.
Just so I understand - you're now equating Hitler with Disney? The slaughter of millions is somehow roughly equivalent to yelling at employees?
He's not equating. He's comparing: big difference.
If I compare a banana to an apple, that doesn't mean I'm saying a banana is the same thing as an apple.
(P.S. I'm not equating Disney with bananas.)
He's not equating. He's comparing: big difference.
No, what he did was replace Disney with Hitler and animation with public speaking and painting. That's equating.
But how 'bout we let saj answer the question I asked of him? Or are you so desperate for an argument that you've got to shoulder your way into parts of the conversation that don't address you?
No, what he did was replace Disney with Hitler and animation with public speaking and painting. That's equating.
Is this true, Saj? Are you saying that speakingand animation are equal? How could you say something so outrageous? Don't you realize that with speaking you use your mouth and with animationyou use your hands? How can those two things be the same? For shame! :(
LMAO! Poor Harvey; no one's taking his bait, and he's getting desperate...
Funniest thing I've read in a while :D
How 'bout we let saj answer the question I asked of him? Or are you so desperate for an argument that you've got to shoulder your way into parts of the conversation that don't address you?
Ken, I'm going to have to assume that since you didn't provide any of my quotes that insinuate that bad Walt equals bad cartoons, that you're retracting that argument, and rightly so.
Why do I have to have a point? Isn't it enough to want to discuss an interesting topic?
If I have a point, that point is "discuss it," contrary to your point, "don't discuss it."
Actually, we haven't yet had a thread that focuses on all of Disney's pro-Nazi and anti-labor activities. Disney at HUAC has been mentioned here and there. One of the first threads I created, when I joined AWN three years ago, listed some of Disney's HUAC quotes. It was the first time Phacker had heard of it and she was shocked, which proves that this isn't readily-available history. The fact that some people will learn something about animation history's most important figure is enough of a reason to bring it up.
He's not equating. He's comparing: big difference.
If I compare a banana to an apple, that doesn't mean I'm saying a banana is the same thing as an apple.
(P.S. I'm not equating Disney with bananas.)
Harvey, don't dance, man--you are lousy at dancing and I cannot keep up with your feet. Instead of trying to slide around this thing, why not say something conclusively? I ask you to make a point because you come across as making no point at all with this and seem evasive in answering.
Without intending to insult you, this appears to be trolling. Provocation via a controversial topic design to polarize viewpoints. You KNOW there's going to be different camps on this subject--so you know what the outcome is going to be--given the personalities that frequent these forums.
Why would any sensible person enter a community of people and pose a subject that polarizes them without reason for gain to the community?
Why discuss this? Tell us what this will gain the forums?
Look over the 10 pages of this thread and ask yourself that.
If you really wanted to have a topic, why not ask if Disney affiliations with these groups and his actions would taint his life-works if the public at large knew of them? Or does the public care?Use your head, man.
You've gotten 10 pages of some of us saying that we KNOW this is the case with Disney, and we don't care. The rest are people call this "spade" of a thread the other name for shovel and, by crikey, I'm starting to agree with them. I'm not throwing anymore bones your way after this.
—
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
It would probably be better for the thread if I ignored your post, Ken, but - since you're bowing out of the discussion - I'll do you the honor of answering your final questions.
I ask you to make a point because you come across as making no point at all with this and seem evasive in answering.
Ken, we have been over this already: If this thread was about me making a point, I would not have ended the subject title with a question mark. I'm not trying to trick anybody. If I end a subject title with a question mark, it's because I have a question, rather than a point.
example: question:How do you draw? point:This is how you draw.
Besides, you have not answered all of my questions either. If I "seem evasive," you seem equally so.
And as DSB stated a few posts earlier, "I am under no obligation to discuss this topic to anyone's satisfaction beyond my own." Bravo, DSB.
Without intending to insult you, this appears to be trolling. Provocation via a controversial topic design to polarize viewpoints.
Ken, there is no conspiracy. You can rest easy tonight. Soviet troopers will not be parachuting into your backyard.
Why discuss this? Tell us what this will gain the forums?
You tell me. Why do you, Ken, continue to discuss it? How does your participation advance the forums?
If you really wanted to have a topic, why not ask if Disney affiliations with these groups and his actions would taint his life-works if the public at large knew of them? Or does the public care?Use your head, man.
It is not my responsibility to pose every possible debate point and counter-argument for this topic. And why would I ask a question for which the answer is so obvious?
Q: Would it hurt Walt's image if the Disney Company posted Walt's Nazi affiliations in his online bio? A: uhhhhh ...
I'm not throwing anymore bones your way after this.
Two hundred sentences later, you finally have a good idea.
EDIT: Ken, I'm sorry that my discussion with you deteriorated to such a state. I look forward to discussing less passionate subjects with you in the future. best, Harvey :)
Ken,
Two hundred sentences later, you finally have a good idea.
well that's better than the 1,856 postings you've made that havent had any.
I know that APE wont be deleting this because it is no more harmful than HH's comment to Ken..just gentle joshing, a harmless poke in the ribs between old mates, kicking back after a hard day over a couple of root beer floats and some connie francis on the juke box.
Thank you, gramps, and a very special thanks to Animated Ape for making us both see the error of our ways. :o
Isn't it great that we can finally put aside our differences and behave like gentlemen?
I think we've all learned a very, very, very, very, very valuable lesson tonight. :)
Well, I guess since your attacks are now completely ineffectual, I can finally put you on ignore. Thanks for the memories, la-da-de-da-de-da, de-da-de-da-de-da (you know the rest) *mute button*
don't worry folks..his ego wont let him go away without checking back from time to time to see what we're saying (his history here at AWN proves that)..
...now let's go catch some fireflies in a jar!
I don't post much on here anymore ,especially, since the last outing with Harv. I do read though and find this thread quite entertaining. I find it entertaining because I said last time that this is what Harvey has done ever since he joined the boards. I feel bad for half the people he responds to since it's mostly to cause waves, correct or just belittle someone. I've had him on ignore but ,unfortunately, it only seems to work 10% of the time.
I will say if you keep it up you can be the owner of a nifty little intellectual kid song about you.
Saj, I would have to say that if I took your approach I'd be in a cave. I wonder how many businesses have done something wrong or illegal.
It would probably be better for the thread if I ignored your post, Ken, but - since you're bowing out of the discussion - I'll do you the honor of answering your final questions.
Ken, we have been over this already: If this thread was about me making a point, I would not have ended the subject title with a question mark. I'm not trying to trick anybody. If I end a subject title with a question mark, it's because I have a question, rather than a point.
example: question:How do you draw? point:This is how you draw.
Besides, you have not answered all of my questions either. If I "seem evasive," you seem equally so.
And as DSB stated a few posts earlier, "I am under no obligation to discuss this topic to anyone's satisfaction beyond my own." Bravo, DSB.
Ken, there is no conspiracy. You can rest easy tonight. Soviet troopers will not be parachuting into your backyard.
You tell me. Why do you, Ken, continue to discuss it? How does your participation advance the forums?
It is not my responsibility to pose every possible debate point and counter-argument for this topic. And why would I ask a question for which the answer is so obvious?
Q: Would it hurt Walt's image if the Disney Company posted Walt's Nazi affiliations in his online bio? A: uhhhhh ...
Two hundred sentences later, you finally have a good idea.
EDIT: Ken, I'm sorry that my discussion with you deteriorated to such a state. I look forward to discussing less passionate subjects with you in the future. best, Harvey :)
Harvey, I think I've gotten the gist of who you are and what you are all about now. Don't have to worry about any more discussions though--its pretty clear none of us are at your level.
—
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
Harvey, I think I've gotten the gist of who you are and what you are all about now. Don't have to worry about any more discussions though--its pretty clear none of us are at your level.
I don't know, Ken.
You seem to be the real debate master in this case.
After all, you grilled me over several posts.
I answered all of your questions.
You answered very few of mine.
With those coercion skills, you should be a professional interrogator.
In this discussion, I've resisted comparing Disney to others because I knew I'd get this type of dishonest response that Saj is receiving.
I've wanted to compare Disney to Michael Eisner, Pat Sullivan, T.S.Eliot, Andrew Jackson, and Richard Wagner among others, but I knew I'd receive that same type of outrage: "How dare you equate Disney with Pat Sullivan! Sullivan was a drunk and statutory rapist! Disney seldom drank and blah blah blah" Yeah, whavever.
The point is not whether Disney did things that were as bad as other people. The point is that some on this forum are going to make exceptions for Disney that they wouldn't make for other historical figures, and ignore Disney's faults and attack those who discuss his faults. Because those people are so emotionally entangled in the "Uncle Walt" myth and Disney culture, they view any criticism of Disney as a personal attack on them.
The point is that some on this forum are going to make exceptions for Disney that they wouldn't make for other historical figures, and ignore Disney's faults and attack those who discuss his faults.
So that's your point? That human beings are inconsistent in their behavior and show favoritism based on personal preference? Stop the presses!
Seriously, why does it matter to you what anyone else thinks about anyone? How does that impact your life in any way?
This is far sadder than what I had imagined was your motivation.
To clarify, I already specified the "point" of the thread which is simply to discuss and learn.
What you have quoted there is a sub-point in response to the ideas that we can't compare Disney to any other historical figure, and that we shouldn't even be discussing this topic.
I'm sorry that wasn't clearer in post #57.
Seriously, why does it matter to you what anyone else thinks about anyone? How does that impact your life in any way?
The purpose behind many threads is to share ideas about various topics to expand our consciousness. This also happens to be one of the main reasons we have discussions in coffee houses, bars, etc.
DSB, you seem to be saying that you don't care what other people think.
I don't understand what someone who doesn't care about other people's opinions would be doing in a forum in the first place.
Is it simply to pontificate?
I don't understand what someone who doesn't care about other people's opinions would be doing in a forum in the first place.
Is it simply to pontificate?
[quote=Harvey Human]I don't understand what someone who doesn't care about other people's opinions would be doing in a forum in the first place. Is it simply to pontificate?
ahh, straight from the horse's mouth...or should I say straight from the north end of a south bound horse?[/quote] [B]NO
PERSONAL
ATTACKS[/B]
Personally, I think Walt was a ruthless businessman and an opportunist. Antisemitism and the HUAC were bandwagons he jumped on because they seemed like a handy way to eliminate the opposition. I do find the squeaky-clean persona he tried to project irritating, all things considered. And the compulsive cuteness of the Disney features is like pornography for six-year olds. After all, what target audience is more exploitable than little children?
But look at Bill Tytla's "Night On Bald Mountain" sequence in Fantasia. It's brilliantly executed soft-core pornography (and one of my all-time favorite pieces of animation)! And listen to the spoken intro to the "Rite of Spring" sequence. Stating that evolution is not theory but hard fact was probably pretty damn controversial at the time. And the sequence starts out amazingly strong. And then, for me, falls on its face when the dinosaurs start acting like cutesy cartoon characters. Totally gratouitous junk.
But Disney Studios were booming during the depression, which had to take some kind of savvy. The man personally is an interesting and kind of amoral enigma. But that's true of a lot of my favorite directors from John Huston to Russ Meyer. I love watching their movies, but probably wouldn't have wanted to meet them personally. I don't see any contradiction.
The point is that some on this forum are going to make exceptions for Disney that they wouldn't make for other historical figures, and ignore Disney's faults and attack those who discuss his faults. Because those people are so emotionally entangled in the "Uncle Walt" myth and Disney culture, they view any criticism of Disney as a personal attack on them.
First off, the quote above is exactly what I see going on here.
Nextly, I'll respond to the call that I somehow clarify the idea behind my last post by saying that I find it, frankly, embarrasing that someone (DSB) would pretend that he didn't understand the point of the post in order to purposefully complicate the discussion. You're better than that, so why did you do it?
Regardless, Harvey's quote above is a stripped-down, eco-friendly and sanitized-for-your-protection version of the same idea: for what reason is critique of Walt Disney's ethical violations and downright assitude forbidden (or at least "unimportant") to you? It's easier to criticize Bill Clinton, Ken Lay, Robert Tipton or Hitler because they didn't make beloved cartoons.
If you still haven't a clue as to why this is a viable and relevant topic, I'll give you just one starter point to help you along:
If Disney's entertainment empire was built on practices that included union busting, homophobia, xenophobia, "burn-the-witch"-mentalities and outright unpatriotism against fellow countrymen all in the guise of a family-centric and wholesome facade, how does this history impact the legacy of the Disney empire and it's grip on global culture?
Wow - Harvey and Sajera seem to think they know exactly what I think and believe. So let me make sure I understand - because I don't automatically jump on the "Disney was evil" bandwagon, that somehow makes me a standard bearer for the "he can do no wrong" camp?
It's ironic that Harvey chose to include a picture of Joe McCarthy in the first post. It's exactly how he's behaving.
Just so you mindreaders get it right - I'm no Disney apologist. The man was far from perfect. He was also far from the evil despot you are attempting to portray him as. It's not my job or my goal to make excuses for him, but I will point out when factual inaccuracies are presented as "truth," as any intellectually honest person should.
I will point out when factual inaccuracies are presented as "truth," as any intellectually honest person should.
In the interest of "intellectual honesty," once again, the "factual inaccuracy" you pointed out was from a quote that I hadn't even included in post #1.
You failed to actually find anything inaccurate within post #1.
In other words, you weren't debating the topic I had presented. You created a strawman (a false opposition) that you could easily knock down.
After all, nobody thinks Disney is or isn't a scumbag based on the date he was born. :rolleyes:
It's ironic that Harvey chose to include a picture of Joe McCarthy in the first post. It's exactly how he's behaving.
So that's "exactly" how I'm behaving?
Did I drag you before a committee and force you to answer questions about your past activities?
Am I ruining your life by accusing you of being a communist?
Am I claiming that your rants are harmful to America?
That is a disgusting personal attack by someone who is consistently unable to back up his accusations or defend his arguments. You should really be ashamed of yourself, DSB.
If you are going to scream "WITCHHUNT!" when someone challenges one of your positions, maybe you shouldn't be engaging in any debate whatsoever.
Maybe you should stick to answering the "how do I draw" threads.
So that's "exactly" how I'm behaving?
Did I drag you before a committee and force you to answer questions about your past activities?
Am I ruining your life by accusing you of being a communist?
Am I claiming that your rants are harmful to America?
That is a disgusting personal attack by someone who is consistently unable to back up his accusations or defend his arguments.
Once again, the classic Harvey literalist response. I'm surprised you didn't include a dictionary definition of "exactly". You know full well what I'm saying, yet you choose to deflect my point with literalism. And I'm the one avoiding the subject? I guess everything's going to be a personal attack now, eh? :rolleyes:
Methinks you doth protest too much. What's wrong Harv; getting frustrated because no one's rising to take your bait?
From what I can see, nobody's refuting the information itself, just the manner in which it's being presented, so... the whole debate idea began to crumble from the get-go.
This information would have been better laid out as a statement of interest rather than fuel for discussion. And at this point, the topic has been lost, vague as it was in the first place.
Where have I insinuated that Disney cartoons are bad because Walt is bad?
I don't think I've even mentioned the production aspect other than to say that Walt is "animation history's greatest producer."
Besides, most of the greatness of Disney cartoons was due to the innovations of the artists he'd hired: you know, the people he screamed at and abused, the people he promised to pay and then didn't, the people that were picketing him, the people whose lives he ruined through HUAC.
There's your insinuation again.
Yes, he did these things to people.
If you walk through Disneyland tomorrow, what will you think Harvey-- how nice the park is, or how nasty the man was? That's my point.
And you didn't answer my other, more relevant, questions.
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
How is that an insinuation "that because Disney can be see [SIC] to be a bad person, that his work is therefore 'bad'"?
How do you reconcile your accusation that I believe Disney cartoons are bad with the fact that I wrote "the greatness of Disney cartoons" in the very post that you cited as evidence?
Harvey, unbunch the panties, pal. You've posted this topic for a reason.......and you're not being clear about the reason.
Its old news as far as Disney goes--and if you are just discovering the info for the first time, welcome to the club--membership card is in the mail.
Was Disney a bit of a creep at times? Yes.
Beyond that.........what else?
Is it to pick a fight in the boring dog-days of summer, or is there some ulterior message you want to communicate on this?
If you think I'm accusing you of something......get over yourself. Your point is coming across as muddled on this.
Disney's a bad guy to some people..............so what?
Is it just to discuss how much of a creep he's claimed to be?
Again, my questions put to your points remain unanswered...
Why is it worth the bother to drag up this Disney dirt.........yet again?
Punch-line, Harvey......send us the punch-line............please!
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
*edited for personal attack
Oh, I know...........I've heard of this ( and of Harvey) before.
I'm giving him the fair chance to come across differently, just as I would with anyone. All in the interest of fair discussion.
I'll give Harvey enough credit to assume that he's not the run-of-the-mill attention-seeker like we all see across the length and breadth of the internet. He's seems like a pretty smart guy for the most part, so I'm a weeeee bit wary here.
If he's got something to say.....a point to put across, I'll be happy to read what he has to say.
But if that's not what he's lookin' for........well, me barbs o' scorn are always ready and they be plenty pointy.
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
I'm trying to be respectful of the moderator's wish, but this flame-baiter keeps needling me.
*edited
Harvey, just put him on Ignore and proceed. Makes your life simpler that way.
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
It's becoming immensely clear why Meriwether was banned from the Animation Nation forums *edited
Hitler was a bad guy that destroyed people lives, but he's not around anymore to defend himself so why don't we just quit beating a dead holocaust horse? Can't we just respect him for the great public speaker and painter that he was?
When you play Wolfenstein 3D, do you think "what a revolutionary and addictive game," or do you insist on dwelling on the sordid, trivial actualities of the real Hilter? Can't you just forget about all that and have fun?
Y'know, its when people stop thinking for themselves that forums like these cease being enjoyable. The writings on the cyber-wall here....
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
I know what I'm talking about when I tell you that atrocities like the 3rd Reich mustn't be forgotten or regarded as "dead history. It's been a little over sixty years now since the "Reich" offcially "came to an end" and that period of time is, historically speaking - nothing! Many of Hitler's top men were family men and not full-time, soulless architects of the destruction of human lives - yet that doesn't lessen the severity of their negative impact on the history of the country.
Ken, for me they stop being enjoyable when certain people show a distinct lack of a sense of humour...not naming any names here (to respect the Mod's wishes) but SOME folks need to take le cornichon a l'aneth out of their ass and lighten up...if you ever get old enough (and talented enough) to work in a real studio and you walk around with the nose in the air attitude that everything you say is gold and the rest of us humans are all stupid stupid stupid, you will quickly be the target of every caricature artist in the place (and there are plenty)...we've gotten rid of more mama's boys that way.
..now, who wants gum??
tropical pete and his guava five
(now appearing at the El Mocambo)
Mmmm - gum...
But then who was thinking for Saj: this guy?
Just so I understand - you're now equating Hitler with Disney? The slaughter of millions is somehow roughly equivalent to yelling at employees?
Sheesh
Ken, I'm going to have to assume that since you didn't provide any of my quotes that insinuate that bad Walt equals bad cartoons, that you're retracting that argument, and rightly so.
Why do I have to have a point? Isn't it enough to want to discuss an interesting topic?
If I have a point, that point is "discuss it," contrary to your point, "don't discuss it."
Actually, we haven't yet had a thread that focuses on all of Disney's pro-Nazi and anti-labor activities. Disney at HUAC has been mentioned here and there. One of the first threads I created, when I joined AWN three years ago, listed some of Disney's HUAC quotes. It was the first time Phacker had heard of it and she was shocked, which proves that this isn't readily-available history. The fact that some people will learn something about animation history's most important figure is enough of a reason to bring it up.
He's not equating. He's comparing: big difference.
If I compare a banana to an apple, that doesn't mean I'm saying a banana is the same thing as an apple.
(P.S. I'm not equating Disney with bananas.)
No, what he did was replace Disney with Hitler and animation with public speaking and painting. That's equating.
But how 'bout we let saj answer the question I asked of him? Or are you so desperate for an argument that you've got to shoulder your way into parts of the conversation that don't address you?
Is this true, Saj? Are you saying that speaking and animation are equal? How could you say something so outrageous? Don't you realize that with speaking you use your mouth and with animation you use your hands? How can those two things be the same? For shame! :(
LMAO! Poor Harvey; no one's taking his bait, and he's getting desperate...
Funniest thing I've read in a while :D
How 'bout we let saj answer the question I asked of him? Or are you so desperate for an argument that you've got to shoulder your way into parts of the conversation that don't address you?
BWAHAHAHAHA! Oh, my sides!! :D
Harvey, don't dance, man--you are lousy at dancing and I cannot keep up with your feet. Instead of trying to slide around this thing, why not say something conclusively? I ask you to make a point because you come across as making no point at all with this and seem evasive in answering.
Without intending to insult you, this appears to be trolling. Provocation via a controversial topic design to polarize viewpoints. You KNOW there's going to be different camps on this subject--so you know what the outcome is going to be--given the personalities that frequent these forums.
Why would any sensible person enter a community of people and pose a subject that polarizes them without reason for gain to the community?
Why discuss this? Tell us what this will gain the forums?
Look over the 10 pages of this thread and ask yourself that.
If you really wanted to have a topic, why not ask if Disney affiliations with these groups and his actions would taint his life-works if the public at large knew of them? Or does the public care?Use your head, man.
You've gotten 10 pages of some of us saying that we KNOW this is the case with Disney, and we don't care. The rest are people call this "spade" of a thread the other name for shovel and, by crikey, I'm starting to agree with them. I'm not throwing anymore bones your way after this.
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
It would probably be better for the thread if I ignored your post, Ken, but - since you're bowing out of the discussion - I'll do you the honor of answering your final questions.
Ken, we have been over this already: If this thread was about me making a point, I would not have ended the subject title with a question mark. I'm not trying to trick anybody. If I end a subject title with a question mark, it's because I have a question, rather than a point.
example:
question: How do you draw?
point: This is how you draw.
Besides, you have not answered all of my questions either. If I "seem evasive," you seem equally so.
And as DSB stated a few posts earlier, "I am under no obligation to discuss this topic to anyone's satisfaction beyond my own." Bravo, DSB.
Ken, there is no conspiracy. You can rest easy tonight. Soviet troopers will not be parachuting into your backyard.
You tell me. Why do you, Ken, continue to discuss it? How does your participation advance the forums?
It is not my responsibility to pose every possible debate point and counter-argument for this topic. And why would I ask a question for which the answer is so obvious?
Q: Would it hurt Walt's image if the Disney Company posted Walt's Nazi affiliations in his online bio?
A: uhhhhh ...
Two hundred sentences later, you finally have a good idea.
EDIT: Ken, I'm sorry that my discussion with you deteriorated to such a state. I look forward to discussing less passionate subjects with you in the future. best, Harvey :)
well that's better than the 1,856 postings you've made that havent had any.
I know that APE wont be deleting this because it is no more harmful than HH's comment to Ken..just gentle joshing, a harmless poke in the ribs between old mates, kicking back after a hard day over a couple of root beer floats and some connie francis on the juke box.
You misspelled "original."
"original"???.....another gaff from HH!!...good work sonny, you're on a roll tonight
(and by the way, "hamful" works just as well in this situation)
Thank you, gramps, and a very special thanks to Animated Ape for making us both see the error of our ways. :o
Isn't it great that we can finally put aside our differences and behave like gentlemen?
I think we've all learned a very, very, very, very, very valuable lesson tonight. :)
Well, I guess since your attacks are now completely ineffectual, I can finally put you on ignore.
Thanks for the memories, la-da-de-da-de-da, de-da-de-da-de-da (you know the rest) *mute button*
aaahhhhhhhh
don't worry folks..his ego wont let him go away without checking back from time to time to see what we're saying (his history here at AWN proves that)..
...now let's go catch some fireflies in a jar!
I don't post much on here anymore ,especially, since the last outing with Harv. I do read though and find this thread quite entertaining. I find it entertaining because I said last time that this is what Harvey has done ever since he joined the boards. I feel bad for half the people he responds to since it's mostly to cause waves, correct or just belittle someone. I've had him on ignore but ,unfortunately, it only seems to work 10% of the time.
I will say if you keep it up you can be the owner of a nifty little intellectual kid song about you.
Saj, I would have to say that if I took your approach I'd be in a cave. I wonder how many businesses have done something wrong or illegal.
Thanks, dude. That means a lot to me. :)
Thank you also for not merely attacking me, but also contributing to the discussion with your last sentence. :)
No problem
Harvey, I think I've gotten the gist of who you are and what you are all about now. Don't have to worry about any more discussions though--its pretty clear none of us are at your level.
"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)
I don't know, Ken.
You seem to be the real debate master in this case.
After all, you grilled me over several posts.
I answered all of your questions.
You answered very few of mine.
With those coercion skills, you should be a professional interrogator.
Wow - Ronald Regan also testified before HUAC? Didn't know that.
So where exactly do you stand Harvey old friend? What would make you happy? I'd love to see a smile on your face.
Let's see one of the famous Disney smiles.
Pat
Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.
In this discussion, I've resisted comparing Disney to others because I knew I'd get this type of dishonest response that Saj is receiving.
I've wanted to compare Disney to Michael Eisner, Pat Sullivan, T.S.Eliot, Andrew Jackson, and Richard Wagner among others, but I knew I'd receive that same type of outrage: "How dare you equate Disney with Pat Sullivan! Sullivan was a drunk and statutory rapist! Disney seldom drank and blah blah blah" Yeah, whavever.
The point is not whether Disney did things that were as bad as other people. The point is that some on this forum are going to make exceptions for Disney that they wouldn't make for other historical figures, and ignore Disney's faults and attack those who discuss his faults. Because those people are so emotionally entangled in the "Uncle Walt" myth and Disney culture, they view any criticism of Disney as a personal attack on them.
So that's your point? That human beings are inconsistent in their behavior and show favoritism based on personal preference? Stop the presses!
Seriously, why does it matter to you what anyone else thinks about anyone? How does that impact your life in any way?
This is far sadder than what I had imagined was your motivation.
To clarify, I already specified the "point" of the thread which is simply to discuss and learn.
What you have quoted there is a sub-point in response to the ideas that we can't compare Disney to any other historical figure, and that we shouldn't even be discussing this topic.
I'm sorry that wasn't clearer in post #57.
The purpose behind many threads is to share ideas about various topics to expand our consciousness. This also happens to be one of the main reasons we have discussions in coffee houses, bars, etc.
DSB, you seem to be saying that you don't care what other people think.
I don't understand what someone who doesn't care about other people's opinions would be doing in a forum in the first place.
Is it simply to pontificate?
ahh, straight from the horse's mouth. *edited*
ahh, straight from the horse's mouth...or should I say straight from the north end of a south bound horse?[/quote] [B]NO
PERSONAL
ATTACKS[/B]
Personally, I think Walt was a ruthless businessman and an opportunist. Antisemitism and the HUAC were bandwagons he jumped on because they seemed like a handy way to eliminate the opposition. I do find the squeaky-clean persona he tried to project irritating, all things considered. And the compulsive cuteness of the Disney features is like pornography for six-year olds. After all, what target audience is more exploitable than little children?
But look at Bill Tytla's "Night On Bald Mountain" sequence in Fantasia. It's brilliantly executed soft-core pornography (and one of my all-time favorite pieces of animation)! And listen to the spoken intro to the "Rite of Spring" sequence. Stating that evolution is not theory but hard fact was probably pretty damn controversial at the time. And the sequence starts out amazingly strong. And then, for me, falls on its face when the dinosaurs start acting like cutesy cartoon characters. Totally gratouitous junk.
But Disney Studios were booming during the depression, which had to take some kind of savvy. The man personally is an interesting and kind of amoral enigma. But that's true of a lot of my favorite directors from John Huston to Russ Meyer. I love watching their movies, but probably wouldn't have wanted to meet them personally. I don't see any contradiction.
Not what I said at all, although I'm not surprised at the twist you put on it. I'm not going to bother re-hashing it, because it would be pointless.
I looked really hard and can't find the twist, although I'm not surprised that you would back away from defending that statement.
Oh well, let's move on, shall we?
First off, the quote above is exactly what I see going on here.
Nextly, I'll respond to the call that I somehow clarify the idea behind my last post by saying that I find it, frankly, embarrasing that someone (DSB) would pretend that he didn't understand the point of the post in order to purposefully complicate the discussion. You're better than that, so why did you do it?
Regardless, Harvey's quote above is a stripped-down, eco-friendly and sanitized-for-your-protection version of the same idea: for what reason is critique of Walt Disney's ethical violations and downright assitude forbidden (or at least "unimportant") to you? It's easier to criticize Bill Clinton, Ken Lay, Robert Tipton or Hitler because they didn't make beloved cartoons.
If you still haven't a clue as to why this is a viable and relevant topic, I'll give you just one starter point to help you along:
If Disney's entertainment empire was built on practices that included union busting, homophobia, xenophobia, "burn-the-witch"-mentalities and outright unpatriotism against fellow countrymen all in the guise of a family-centric and wholesome facade, how does this history impact the legacy of the Disney empire and it's grip on global culture?
Discuss.:rolleyes:
Wow - Harvey and Sajera seem to think they know exactly what I think and believe. So let me make sure I understand - because I don't automatically jump on the "Disney was evil" bandwagon, that somehow makes me a standard bearer for the "he can do no wrong" camp?
It's ironic that Harvey chose to include a picture of Joe McCarthy in the first post. It's exactly how he's behaving.
Just so you mindreaders get it right - I'm no Disney apologist. The man was far from perfect. He was also far from the evil despot you are attempting to portray him as. It's not my job or my goal to make excuses for him, but I will point out when factual inaccuracies are presented as "truth," as any intellectually honest person should.
In the interest of "intellectual honesty," once again, the "factual inaccuracy" you pointed out was from a quote that I hadn't even included in post #1.
You failed to actually find anything inaccurate within post #1.
In other words, you weren't debating the topic I had presented. You created a strawman (a false opposition) that you could easily knock down.
After all, nobody thinks Disney is or isn't a scumbag based on the date he was born. :rolleyes:
So that's "exactly" how I'm behaving?
Did I drag you before a committee and force you to answer questions about your past activities?
Am I ruining your life by accusing you of being a communist?
Am I claiming that your rants are harmful to America?
That is a disgusting personal attack by someone who is consistently unable to back up his accusations or defend his arguments. You should really be ashamed of yourself, DSB.
If you are going to scream "WITCHHUNT!" when someone challenges one of your positions, maybe you shouldn't be engaging in any debate whatsoever.
Maybe you should stick to answering the "how do I draw" threads.
Once again, the classic Harvey literalist response. I'm surprised you didn't include a dictionary definition of "exactly". You know full well what I'm saying, yet you choose to deflect my point with literalism. And I'm the one avoiding the subject? I guess everything's going to be a personal attack now, eh? :rolleyes:
Methinks you doth protest too much. What's wrong Harv; getting frustrated because no one's rising to take your bait?
From what I can see, nobody's refuting the information itself, just the manner in which it's being presented, so... the whole debate idea began to crumble from the get-go.
This information would have been better laid out as a statement of interest rather than fuel for discussion. And at this point, the topic has been lost, vague as it was in the first place.
Shrug.
Pages