Layman

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vorkosigan
[B]She does? According to her, who gave the ad-hoc committee the manuscript?


She provides no foundation for your conclusions. She doesn't seem to know where the script came from. And she doesn't say that Gibson or Icon made them promise confidentiality. Fisher did. And Fisher is just as vague about where the script came from as she is.

That's a flat-out lie Vork. You are libelling the man. Where does anyone claim that Fulco gave the ad-hoc committee the script?

Ha. You are the one slandering Falco. The script was stolen.

None of which bears any resemblence to "scholarly reserve and restraint."


I'm shocked out how you invent things to justify your own prejudices.

Dodge. Wishing the wrath of God on someone for the film they are making is not scholarly reserve and restraint. It's completely uncalled for.

I would expect you too.

What is your evidence that Gibson let them have the manuscript? Who says that? And who fingers Falco? You are making crap up.

They were caught red-handed. They won't say where they got the manuscript from. No one is claiming that Falco gave it to them. Perhaps you should provide evidence for that which no one has alleged.

No set up at all. Gibson never game them the script. You are dreaming all this up.

Icon did not get them to agree to confidentiality. Where did Paula say she had a confidentaility agreement with Icon? And if Gibson is now claiming its stolen, he's already breached the agreement and they would be free to tell the press anything they wanted. Again, you are making things up out of thin air.

To protect the Jews against a surge in anti-semitism, of course. It's apparently their unique moral duty to do so.

Paula is only speculating that Gibson knew they had the script.

No, the UCCSB did not steal them. But they got it from someone who did.

This is irrelevant unless it's proven that Gibson knew that they had the manuscript all along.

What's your point? That Gibson took his time to respond? A few weeks? That's hardly an undue delay in such legal matters. They probably tried to figure out where the script had come from.

I'm so interested because I know you are flat wrong. And yes, Fredriksen's fears are unreasonable. As are her hopes for godly retribution.

Layman

Lies. Fredriksen has no confidentiality agreement with Icon. If so, let her show it to us and explain how she got the manuscript. And if there had been a confidentiality agreement with Icon is would be voided by Icon's allegations of theft.

Gibson did not provide the manuscript to the ad-hoc committee.

There is no confidentiality agreement between Icon/Gibson and the members of the ad-hoc committee. Apparently, Fisher insisted that the committee keep it hush hush for his own reasons, one of which was probably because they had a stolen manuscript.

Besides, if you read the April 22, 2003 article in the Los Angeles Times, Korn was complaining that Gibson and Icon had refused to provide a copy of the manuscript.

And why did the NCCB return its copies of the manuscript if it had an agreement with Gibson for them to review it?

If I were their lawyers, I'd be running to the Court room with my libel and slander complaints ready for filing. They have failed to do so. Instead, the NCCB gave in.

Layman

http://www.dickstaub.com/links_view.php?record_id=3238

Toto

originally posted by Layman
Oh come on, Layman. Someone in Gibson's organization could have <wink wink> taken it upon himself or herself to "help things out" by leaking a copy of the script. That would allow Gibson to maintain plausible deniability, while getting the desired reaction and the desired publicity. That's how the White House does it.

In that case, calling it "stolen" is just misdirection.

And the NCCB may just not be as litigious as you think they could be. There are a number of possible reasons for that other than thinking they didn't have a case.

Layman

What is your evidence for this? Just about anything is plausible. But Gibson is expending considerable resources in tracking down the theft. And has publically stated that the script the leak was not authorized. And no one on the other side is coming forward and saying, yeah, one of Gibson's guys gave it to us. If that where the case, they could clear this up right away.

And the Anti-Defamation League?

And where is the evidence for those confidentiality agreements Vork is so adamant about?

Vorkosigan

What is your evidence for this? Just about anything is plausible. But Gibson is expending considerable resources in tracking down the theft. And has publically stated that the script the leak was not authorized. And no one on the other side is coming forward and saying, yeah, one of Gibson's guys gave it to us. If that where the case, they could clear this up right away.

Why do you keep ignoring facts? The participants in the review all said it was not stolen. They all said the gave a good-faith review of a document forwarded to them from higher-ups. ICon and Gibson now claim it was stolen, but not do so until after the review was negative. It is a scam, Layman, which they can't clear up because they can't "prove a negative." It is up to Icon to show that (1) the script was stolen and (2) the profs were not acting in good faith. So far we have seen no evidence from you in the form of police reports or filed charges that the document in question was actually stolen. This lack of legal action suggests that in fact Gibson had no case. Let us know what evidence you have from PRIOR to the review that Icon thought the script was stolen.

Vorkosigan

Layman

I'm not ignoring facts. It is a fact that they are generally saying its not stolen. It's does not make it so. Especially since they refuse to identify where they got it from.

Gibson and Icon responded when they learned about the stolen manuscript. This all happened in only a matter of days.

There is no evidence it is a scam. You are making it up. No one is asking them to prove a negative. They are being asked to identify the source of the manuscript.

There has been plenty of legal action Vork. Which is why the offenders have returned the stolen property. Their argeement to do so headed off certain legal action.

Icon was refusing to give them the script well prior to the review. A spokesman for the ad-hoc committee admitted this in an April 22, 2003 article in the L.A. Times and complained that Icon had refused to give them a script to review. Things happened very quickly after that.

Where are those confidentiality agreements Vork?

Where is the evidence that Falco gave the ad-hoc committee the script?

Where has anyone claimed that Gibson or Icon or someone on their behalf provided them with the script? There have been none. And such silence is itself an indictment given their intererst in "clearing" their names.

You made all these allegations. I called you on it. And you bailed. There is no indication whatsoever that anyone from Icon was authorized to release that script.

Toto

I still say it looks like someone connected to Gibson gave a copy of a script to someone connected to the group of scholars. He probably let the scholars think that he was legit and was going to convey their criticisms to Gibson; but Gibson retained deniability, and is using the whole thing to build up media attention.

In any case, leaking a document like this is not usually described as "stealing." It's not a state secret, it's not really a trade secret, Gibson was not deprived of property, the scholars are not competing with Gibson. When he releases the film, everyone will see or hear the results of the script in any case. The scholars just got advance notice.

Fredriksen does not write like a thief. She writes like a concerned citizen of the world. Instead of addressing her concerns, you are throwing up a smokescreen of inflammatory language, mischaracterizing her as calling for the wrath of God to descend on Gibson. Earlier you sneered, when asked why the scholars did what the did,

Well, no, it is everyone's duty, but some people are dodging their part.

Layman

This is horse puckey. If the scholars thought they got the script from a legit source they would have said so. They've dodged the issue, publically at least, at every turn.

The scholars already had a contact person they were dealing with to rely criticisms to Gibson--Falco. And although Volk is accusing Falco of leaking the script he pulled that out of nowhere and can't give a shred of evidence to back it up. And, as late as April 22 (or thereabouts), a representative of the ad hoc committee as complaining to the LA Times that Gibson was refusing to give them a script.

He was deprived of tangible property--the script itself. And it's likely that the terms of employment for all those working on the film was confidentiality. So we could have inducement of brearch and interference with contractual relations as well.

What really ticks me off is their self-righteousness. They are scholars you see, mere theft and intentional torts can't stand in the way of their superior outlook.

I have not presumed to accuse her of stealing anything. Nor has anyone else.

Where do I sign up to be a "citizen of the world."

She did hope for the wrath of God on Gibson. Very far from being "scholarly reserve and restraint." This thread wasn't started to address her concerns. It was regarding censorship and the issue of the stolen manuscript.

Besides, you don't really know what her criticisms are Toto, all you have is her screed about the purported chain of events. The specific points were made in the Report.

Right, showing that his Messiah was a devout Jew is anti-semitic. Showing that all the apostles were devout Jews is anti-semitic. Gotcha. Gibson has been clear in his public pronouncements that the Jews are not "christ-killers" and there is no racial guilt for anything portrayed in his film.

Toto

Presumably, the scholars got a copy of a script, which did not deprive Gibson of anything.

You - get ticked off at their self-righteousness? Okay. Sure.

I thought that they got that attitude because they are religious. It's the sort of attitude that you see in a lot of Christians and Jews. They spend a lot of time thinking about morality and then trying to explain why people should do things they wouldn't do otherwise. I don't think it has a lot to do with scholarship per se.

You have accused her of being in receipt of stolen property. I thought before that she was being accused of extortion.

In the article linked above, she did not call for the wrath of god to fall on Gibson. She said he might bear some moral responsibility for stirring up anti-Semitism, for which he might have to answer to his maker, but that is not the same as calling on God to strike him with boils or bad box office receipts. If you are going to keep claiming that she called for the wrath of god to be visited on Gibson, please come up with some of her language that means anything close to that.

The thread was started by Vorkosigan about the controversy. He threw in censorship to try to fit it into CSSSA, but now it's here in BCH. You injected the issue of the allegedly stolen manuscript into it.

Then why doesn't Gibson arrange a screening for these scholars and ADL representatives so they can see for themselves? That would settle it. He'd rather drag out the controversy.

We've already had a thread on this film here where a poster said:

I'm just pointing this out as the reaction of someone - and his immediate reaction was to assume that the film was factual and to blame religion, and the only religion involved here was Judaism. What will happen when this film is shown in Eastern Europe?