Raf

Spoiler alert? Speed Force Nora.

Not enjoying the Evil Nora storyline in last year's Flash season. Doesn't take the whole year, does it?

The Name that Flick jogged my memory of this movie. I couldn't tell you who the actor was in both versions. "An engaged couple through most ot the movie" means a wedding either takes place or is thwarted. Once I got wedding and Steve Martin in my head, the rest felt obvious.

Ok, so this certainly IS Father of the Bride. Steve Martin is the bathrobe guy [allusion is to The Jerk]. However, the original DID spawn a sequel called Father's Little Dividend. Still, sticking with my answer. Steve Martin and Kimberly Williams: Father of the Bride

Father of the Bride ?

That was fast. Yeah, three great names, and none were the main character.

Sean Penn Giancarlo Esposito Tom Cruise

We have managed to discuss the public health issues without bringing politics into it. Personally, I think your post and mine settled it: let people make up their own minds. But I guess there's a need to continue exploring it. We can do that without evoking the bogeyman of cancel culture or our distaste for politically appointed credentialed scientists and the politicians who do or do not heed their advice. Leave politics out of it.

Or this one... https://www.npr.org/2021/09/18/1037975289/unvaccinated-covid-19-vaccine-refuse-nurses-heath-care-workers Honestly, the "why hasn't anyone asked these people" narrative is either misinformed or a flat out lie. But if you want to keep discussing it, maybe get the other side of the story from the 90+% of health care workers and nurses who have supported and taken the vaccines while holding the hands of dying patients who dismissed the severity of this disease until it was too late.

Or this one https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-mandates-idUSKBN2GT07F

I'm always amazed at people who answer questions nobody asks. Like, why isn't anyone asking this question that got answered despite no one asking thousands of people? https://www.crainsdetroit.com/health-care/why-are-some-health-care-workers-refusing-covid-vaccine

That's not what he said, Galen.

We pride ourselves on telling the other side of the story ABOUT TWI. Not "the other side of the story" about the shape of the earth. Not "the other side of the story" about the moon landing. Not "the other side of the story" about whether Sandy Hook or Parkland happened. On the legacy thread, if you want to defend the misinformation that prematurely killed John Lynn, NO ONE HAS STOPPED YOU FROM DOING SO,. On this thread it is out of place and you know it. Why don't you just admit that this thread was never about what's "cool" or about showing sensitivity for the grieving? It has always been about defending the anti-vax, anti-mask position from the role it played in John's death.

You said it well

I actually think TWI got Biblical abortion right. Whether they did it with a sincere motive is highly questionable. But the only scripture that specifically deals with abortion, explicitly, tells you how to perform one. It's bull**** of course, but still. It's hard to argue the God of the OT is a pro-lifer when he tells his clergy how to perform a ritual that results in the miscarriage of a baby conceived in adultery. Numbers 5.

"Strummin my pain with his fingers..."

Come on Baby Light My Fire

Now. I am not going to spend my entire Sunday defending science and public health against a crackpot fringe that wants to turn those things into political issues when they are not. If you want to honor JAL's legacy, there are two threads where that is fair game. If you want to complain about TWI character assassinations, feel free. But if you want to casually equate the two, pushback is fair game. Decide how you want to spend your Sunday.

But instead of discussing his legacy on the thread about his legacy, you started a whole new thread comparing people who discuss that one part of his legacy to THE WORST of TWI, then have a massive case of the vapors when it's pointed out, on topic, they are not the same thing. Top it off with the snti-vax viewpoint you just could not contain. Let's get this straight: there is a JAL legacy thread, and no one is stopping anyone from commenting on any aspect of his legacy. YOU chose to start this thread to rsk-tsk those who made a perfectly valid observation. No one made you do that, and to blame us for derailing the thread when you're the one who laid the tracks is disingenuous at best.

Well THAT didn't take long. This has nothing to do with respecting JAL's legacy and everything to do with stifling the observation that he spread the kind of misinformation that killed him. Wow.

1. No. That discussion fits perfectly fine on the legacy thread and here, for the reasons outlined. It really seems you want to have it both ways, indirectly criticizing what happened on the first thread by comparing it to the character assassination carried out in and by TWI. It is perfectly "on topic" to demonstrate how what happened on the legacy thread does NOT match the distasteful conduct described in the opening post. 2. Allan's post, for anyone reading, is deadly misinformation of the sort that encourages the spread of COVID, filling hospital beds and funeral homes across the country. JAL died spreading it. Masks work. Allan posted a link defending his view. Here's my link supporting mine. This thread is not about masks, but it was a fair response to the discussion. That sub-subject is now closed.

Not for a moment do I think it's fair game to go after grieving family members.

The discussions are inextricably linked. Generally speaking, if a person is going to make a public figure of himself [a term that has different meanings in different contexts], then we are talking about different standards for "privacy."

Also, let me follow up on something WW said: The misinformation he spread was NOT HARMLESS. Not harmless to the public in general and not harmless to JAL in particular. Let his legacy on that point be a warning.

I'll just say here what I said there: if be had promoted cigarettes and dismissed studies showing a link to disease and then died of lung cancer or COPD, the point would have been raised and there would not be a shred of controversy about it. In OUR community, JAL counts as a public figure. He's not being interviewed in that video because he was such a private fellow. Further, we are not debating or discussing his life choices. Had he kept them to himself, it would have been distasteful. JAL had a platform few of us have, and he used it to spread the kind of misinformation that is of a particular health risk to people in his medical situation. I cannot think of a set of circumstances that would make a public discussion of his *public* stance on this PUBLIC HEALTH issue MORE fair for comment here. He didn't keep his misinformation to himself. The fact that he mocked legitimate efforts to control the spread of an illness whose threat he minimized, AND that illness contributed to his premature death, is absolutely positively fair game. Let his legacy be a warning.