Dear Hunter Foster, Meredith Patterson, Chris Sieber and Anyone Else With Internet Access- Page 19

[Jupiter2]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 3:45pm

Ghostlight, I will defintely give u that the rhetoric here has gotten over the top. However, I sometimes think the anonymity here can actually lead to a more truthful discussion, as it seemed like a lot of the rhetoric on that Group's page was public support for the sake of public support. (Go Hunter! Loved u in Urinetown!) And I know there have been deletions here, but the difference is that a) nobody is denying those deletions, and b) nobody is getting on anybody's case for being negative when they themselves are being negative, as Jen, Hunter, and Patterson clearly did. That's why I called them hypocritical liars, and I think the evidence proves that categorically.

[tazber]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 4:27pm

Sanctimony is on display in equal parts both here and on FB.

No one's apologizing and I doubt most even realize that they have anything to apologize for (in either group).

The difference is that the people on FB have careers that are possibly being damaged by their remarks as well as fans who now realize how misplaced their admiration was.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 5:26pm

I stopped reading awhile ago - did she really say this?
"No, she didn't, Q, as Phyllis' screen capture plainly demonstrates. That's what Jen Cody said - bad enough, but someone has to make it even worse, adding name-calling, things she never said, and getting the event wrong in the process? These whole thing has been blown ridiculously out or proportion - it's like a really bad game of telephone."

Or someone was being completely facetious in their response to songanddanceman to point out the absurdity his statement. I wasn't blowing things out of proportion, you just didn't read the sarcasm. I don't believe I ever posted personal insults towards the actors involved the whole time; I don't appreciate being used as your scapegoat.

Updated On: 7/1/10 at 05:26 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 5:27pm

As others have pointed out- we don't know who is actually behind the comments posted on here. On Facebook, people have the benefit or drawback of having their name, photo, and personal information. Insults being fired off here can be written off as being from faceless idiot- on Facebook, the idiots have faces, names, and reputations.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 5:32pm

This thread has made me figure out several people's real names comparing comments on this site and Facebook. Actually, my real name was quoted somewhere in this thread. Shrug.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 5:43pm

I am ok with people being called out on statements that make them seem foolish or idiotic. I am ok with people being told they "sound like a moron." I don't like (and don't think it's even relevant) when people refer to Cody as a troll, hobbit, Cuddles, oompah loompah or Hunter looking like a lez, or Chris Seiber being a fattie, etc. Just because someone makes foolish statements, I don't think its right to attack their physicality. That's mean and that is high school.

And while Jill is in high school, I am in Brooklyn trying to makes ends meet in this economy! :)

EDIT: Although there are many posts on BWW that I won't delete where I call Patti LuPone frumpy and I am really sorry and I'm trying to be more positive.

Updated On: 7/1/10 at 05:43 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 5:49pm

What if you like fat guys? Then it's not pejorative.

What was offensive about Cuddles?

And I said he looked like a lesbian. To me, the word lez is offensive.

But yeah, I agree Jenn shouldn't have been called a bitch.

[Jupiter2]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 5:50pm

Bettyboy, I agree with everything you said, except...
What is wrong with cuddles?!

[ljay889]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 5:50pm

Cody's snotty comments painted her as a bitch. I said it, and I don't care, and I'm not sorry.
Updated On: 7/1/10 at 05:50 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 5:52pm

Chris is fat. And sexy.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 5:55pm

I agree with Betty. I couldn't figure out what Chris Sieber's weight had to do with anything he said. I still think he looks great, but he's acting like a sh*thead.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 5:56pm

Why is Jen called Cuddles to begin with? I have no idea. It sounded derogatory. My post was only half serious. I hate that postings have no affect.

Sorry I offended you with lez Phyllis. I won't use that again. I'm gay so I tend say whatever gay terms I like and don't often think of their impact.

Also, in my experience Phyll, if someone likes a man of size they call him a "bear" or something endearing like a "big daddy" or the like. They don't say his looks are shot, he's just upset because he got huge, or call him a fat a@# which is what I've seen written in places

Updated On: 7/1/10 at 05:56 PM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 6:30pm

"Chris is fat. And sexy."

Betcher ass, Phyl.

"Or someone was being completely facetious in their response to songanddanceman to point out the absurdity his statement. I wasn't blowing things out of proportion, you just didn't read the sarcasm. I don't believe I ever posted personal insults towards the actors involved the whole time; I don't appreciate being used as your scapegoat."

Well, sue me and Q for not getting your sarcasm, then, 'skittles. I didn't even know it was you who had said it - in fact, I even read through this whole thread to find it, but apparently lost it in the morass. As a result, I have clearly never accused you of posting personal insults - though if I'd known it was you Q had quoted, I would have called you on misrepresenting Cody's words. Surely you can understand how that might confuse the issue? BTW, when I said "These [sic] whole thing has been blown ridiculously out or proportion", I wasn't referring to you - I was referring to the whole backlash.

I do agree, 'skittles, that songanddanceman had any number of absurdities to account for, and find it amusing that he's using this tempest in a teapot to tout his blog - sorry, his national column. Sorry you feel I marked you as a scapegoat, but as this entire situation proves, you're going to be judged by the words you post. I'm sure that many on that group don't appreciate being scapegoats, either, or having their words twisted, paraphrased or taken out of context.

"To be fair, I think just about anything Hunter offers at this point is going to be met with scorn and derision by a fair amount of people. It's the hole he and the others dug for themselves when they began this misguided quest".

Don't know if I agree it was misguided, Phyl, but it was certainly mishandled. I don't think the nude flying folk from Vegas have any business in Broadway Bares, either. Really. I feel strongly about that, but there they are, year after year. I'd rather see, y'know, bare Broadway people (especially Chris), but what are you gonna do? I do agree the group is mostly a moot point by now. The damage, real or imagined, is irreversible.

So some actors used a poor forum to bitch about something they feel strongly about, and a handful of them said a few stupid things when they thought nobody was looking. I don't think it warrants nearly twenty pages of discussion including a lot of vicious invective.

"Cody's snotty comments painted her as a bitch. I said it, and I don't care, and I'm not sorry."

Well, okay then, ljay.

[Q]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 6:45pm

I will say one thing - the boards (both Main and Off-Topic) have been really slow of late, and this whole situation has certainly caused a lot of activity!

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 7:07pm

Also, in my experience Phyll, if someone likes a man of size they call him a "bear" or something endearing like a "big daddy" or the like. They don't say his looks are shot, he's just upset because he got huge, or call him a fat a@# which is what I've seen written in places

See, now, I agree that that's just mean. I normally wouldn't say "fat" outright, either, but I was just pointing out that for me, it's not a bad thing. When I think "bear," I think someone more burly. Maybe we can just agree he's chubby?

As for lez, I just find that as a gay man I can say what words I want about gay men, but I let the women dictate which words they don't like for themselves. Once I affectionately used (or rather, meant to use affectionately) dyke and got a stern talking to, so I've tried since then to think about what I say. I don't always succeed, though. Perhaps lez isn't as bad, but to me, it just reads derogatorily (and I know that you didn't mean it that way).

All that said, it's still our Broadway buddies who have been the most insane, and I think - for the most part - the most mean and cruel.

Don't know if I agree it was misguided, Phyl, but it was certainly mishandled.

I agree with this as well. Misguided wasn't the best choice of words. Mishandled, it was. So very very mishandled.

Did Chris Sieber get naked at BWW bares? I'm sorry I missed it if he did. If not, he can get naked for me any time.

Updated On: 7/1/10 at 07:07 PM

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 7:08pm

Dude. It's summer. What else are we going to talk about?

[Jupiter2]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 7:08pm

Also, Ghostlight, I think a reason this thing keeps going on is that those people keep saying dumber and dumber things. I mean, when Patterson went on that board and denied she said anything nasty, then told someone they were flagging their comment (that quoted what she said!) for abuse? And then said "behave with love"? That's worth at least two pages of mockery. Hunter continually denying that he'd ever posted anything negative about CZJ? And then each squirmy dodge ("i meant in public." "I meant on THIS site." "I'm not saying she didn't deserve her award." "I was trying to be nice to her by lying about it.") I mean, each of those deserves at least a third of a page. And you've gotta admit, every rancorous thing that was uncovered from Ms. Cody's voluminous facebook works (while she was still accusing people of "hating on her") deserved at least a couple of pages. This has been the gift that keeps giving.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 7:14pm

"And I know there have been deletions here, but the difference is that a) nobody is denying those deletions, and b) nobody is getting on anybody's case for being negative when they themselves are being negative, as Jen, Hunter, and Patterson clearly did."

Well, jupiter2, a) no one here has been specifically called out on their deletions or revisions and so have no reason to deny it, and b) many people here are getting on people's cases there for being negative while being negative themselves. The evidence is in this thread, so I don't get your point.

I don't understand why those of you who have "lost respect" for various people had any respect for them to begin with. They're actors, not heroes or role models. I always felt that respect needed to be earned. I also don't think this will have any repercussions whatsoever on anyone's career. It's far too silly and unimportant for that.

[Jupiter2]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 7:54pm

Ghostlight, I think u misunderstood my point about "getting on people's cases for being negative THERE while being NEGATIVE here." I don't think anyone is saying we're not being negative here. In fact, I think we're being quite open about being negative. I'm saying that those eh 'em, "stars" are saying that they are NOT being negative (and have even said they have never BEEN negative - and then quickly made some ridiculously insulting to anyone's intelligence dodges (that I detailed in my last post) to try to weasel their way out of it.) I know that people have gotten on Sieber's case (and I do think it was incredibly nasty what he said) but I still think he's not as bad as the others, as at least hasn't been lying through his teeth about it, or having the gall, after saying it, to rail at someone or "hating on him." I'm not saying these people should be heroes, I'm just saying that they should not be ABOVE doing what normal human beings are expected to do. You know, tell the truth, and that sort of thing. I don't know if it will affect their careers. I just think it has made them look terrible. Literally, with EVERY thing they say, they look worse.

[wonderwaiter]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 8:22pm

That was the most galling part for me. Anything they said was "expressing an opinion", but when anyone responded they were just "hating".

I can't say that I "lost respect" for anyone, but I will say that I went from being only marginally familiar with their names to thinking they were an aisle of douches as the whole thing went on.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 8:53pm

"you've gotta admit, every rancorous thing that was uncovered from Ms. Cody's voluminous facebook works (while she was still accusing people of "hating on her") deserved at least a couple of pages. This has been the gift that keeps giving."

Yeah, no, I really don't have to admit that. You and I have very different ideas about gifts. Chacon a son gout and all that, but I don't enjoy watching people make fools of themselves, and I don't enjoy taunting people and making fun of them.

So this is what Sieber said?

""Here's the deal....when you receive an award that is purchased for you...does it mean anything?! CZJ?! A big booooooooooo! But,congrats to the other winners.... "

That's it? That's nasty? A big boooooo! is incredibly nasty? The (probably accurate) suggestion that her award was bought is nasty? Just like the Oscars, campaigns are mounted for the Tonys to garner votes, and it's safe to say CZJ wanted that Tony and had a LOT of money behind that campaign. Did that make it a certainty? Of course not - but it sure didn't hurt. Some of you, like Phyl and Sueleen, are mostly just having fun with this, but there's a lot of people here who are taking this (IMHO) far too seriously.

[Jupiter2]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 9:48pm

Well, I think what I meant by "gifts" is that the more they posted, the more objectionable material there was on display. It's just an expression. But yes, I think people who are starting a public campaign, and thrilled to give interviews to various news organizations, should be held accountable.  Especially when their campaign is based on different motivations and mission statements than they were letting on. Which it's pretty clear now that it was. I mean this is, again, a public (relatively high profile) "movement". Honestly, what I kind of saw going on with this 
board (not to be too grandiose) was almost a kind of investigative journalism. The people in that group, objective observers, and the 
organizations they were trying to lobby deserve to know the full story behind 
everyone's motivation. I know that personally, I wasn't "having fun." I sincerely disagreed with them and if anything, was exasperated. And I think, as PRS said she posted on that group's wall, she probably was as well. 
In regard to Sieber, I defended him on here before, as some people were calling it libel, etc. But yeah, I think for a high profile Broadway (and television) actor to post that on a public board is nasty. And he knew that, as he deleted it. (But at least didn't lie about it.) And like I said, at least Seiber wasn't then going to start some "movement" and say "I think she deserved her Tony. I've never said anything bad about her." 
But yes, I honestly do think that these people were trying to incite some kind of cyber mob for their own petty and selfish reasons. I didn't post here to ridicule them. I posted here because people (including, apparently, them) were reading it. And people made excellent points here. 

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 10:54pm

"I mean this is, again, a public (relatively high profile) "movement". Honestly, what I kind of saw going on with this board (not to be too grandiose) was almost a kind of investigative journalism. The people in that group, objective observers, and the organizations they were trying to lobby deserve to know the full story behind
everyone's motivation."

Oy. Talk about taking this too seriously. "Investigative journalism"? "...high profile movement?" Aside from a blip or two on the radar, and a few theater geeks, no one outside of this board and ATC know a damn thing about this "movement".

"...not to be too grandiose", indeed.

"I honestly do think that these people were trying to incite some kind of cyber mob for their own petty and selfish reasons."

"Cyber mob", eh? The simple fact is, you really don't know what their motivation was. It's all supposition and projection, and the whole "movement" would have died a quick and merciful death if people here hadn't kept it (them) going.

'skittles, I finally found your entire post, and apologies, reading the whole quote in context, it is clear to me you were being sarcastic. Kinda makes my point though, about how easily misunderstandings can happen when quotes are truncated or passed on by someone else. I was just answering Q's direct question, and going off of the partial quote of yours that s/he provided.

[Jupiter2]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 11:20pm

Well it WAS written about in Playbill, the NYT, NYP, WSJ, and the Boston Herald. I'd say that's pretty high profile. And the only thing that turned it private and made the creators admit some mistakes were the people on this board. Plus, I know people personally who got off of it once all of the deletions and whatnot came to light. And yeah, it's pretty clear when you look at all of the deleted posts (and deleted mission statements) what the motivations were. And Hunter Foster himself kept calling it this "movement." I don't really know what you're getting at, Ghostlight? If you're trying to make people on this board feel ashamed or something, it doesn't seem to be working. The only real thing I can agree with u about is that people who called someone "a bitch" was inappropriate. You yourself admitted Mr. & Mrs. Foster looked pretty foolish, but I think the reason this went on so long is because they didn't feel foolish, and kept fighting back (and spinning more and more) before locking the group down. I don't think you're gonna get many people here to feel ashamed about calling out some pretty arrogant people who were clearly lying about things. And yes, if people want to have a little fun (like PRS) while doing it, why not? The organizers of that group seemed to have a fun time mocking the Tony winners that they didn't agree with, so why shouldn't the people on this board. Plus, again, the people on this board didn't have the arrogance to think they could get away with denying something they posted. Like I said, you don't seem to have a lot of takers with the argument that it was unseemly for people on this board to take joy in people making fools of themselves, but hey, if you want to keep debating the point, I'm sure we can push this thread (that you think has gone on too long already) another twenty pages! :)

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 11:26pm

Thank you, ghostlight. I thought that in context, my comment was over-the-top enough that it would be interpreted as sarcasm. When Q (he) didn't get it, I thought Phyllis posting the original comment was enough and didn't bother to explain myself. Perhaps I should have for clarity sake, but I didn't think further explanation was germane to the discussion. I apologize for my harsh reaction.

""Here's the deal....when you receive an award that is purchased for you...does it mean anything?! CZJ?! A big booooooooooo! But,congrats to the other winners.... "

That's it? That's nasty? A big boooooo! is incredibly nasty? The (probably accurate) suggestion that her award was bought is nasty?

To be fair, his comment was kind of used as a launching point for Jen Cody's comment which Phyllis posted on the last page, and the comment where someone said CZJ slept with so many people to get the Tony that she couldn't close her legs anymore. Those were nasty. Chris's was just petty.

I don't understand why those of you who have "lost respect" for various people had any respect for them to begin with. They're actors, not heroes or role models. I always felt that respect needed to be earned.

I don't think you have to elevate someone into the position of a role model just to expect people to behave professionally in their semi-public commentary. I mean, I can't say I'm surprised, but you'd think in a community as incestuous as Broadway, they would use a bit more discretion.

*Oops, removed bold

Updated On: 7/1/10 at 11:26 PM