Dear Hunter Foster, Meredith Patterson, Chris Sieber and Anyone Else With Internet Access- Page 20

[ljay889]

Posted: 7/1/10 at 11:31pm

Just like the Oscars, campaigns are mounted for the Tonys to garner votes,

Sounds like what Broadway's Harvey Fierstein did to win his Tony for Hairspray. Did actors crucify him for that?

[Jupiter2]

Posted: 7/2/10 at 12:25am

True, ljay. In fact, I remember a Riedel column from way back during the Millie season when he discussed that Sutton Foster made sure to sing at every benefit, shake every hand, and campaign with the best of them. (I recall him writing about some party for some influential producer she sang at where she sang "Jimmy" from Millie and substituted the producer's name.) I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that at all. But it does seem along the lines of Oscar type politicing that ghostlight is referring to, and I imagine Hunter's group would not object to. Btw, Ghostlight, and I don't mean to be combative with this, but I notice you've entered this thread a little late. Have you seen all of the evidence (deleted fb posts, etc.) that those on this board have referred to? I only ask as it was deleted from not only the facebook pages in question but also from this board itself (Mr. Foster admitted he contacted BWW to do so.) Because I assure you, if you did, you would not think that people questioning these people's motivations were "speculations." They were there in black and white. Again, I don't mean to be combative. But I really can't imagine a fair and impartial reading of all of that deleted material could lead anyone to a conclusion of anything else but that that group was based on a lot of rancor, envy, and pettiness. And then had the gall to masquerade itself as altruistic.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/2/10 at 1:11am

The only reason I came to the thread late was because I was hoping it would die and I could stay out of it. Yes, I've read this and all the other threads on this subject, looked at the links, screencaps, etc, provided.

"But I really can't imagine a fair and impartial reading of all of that deleted material could lead anyone to a conclusion of anything else but that that group was based on a lot of rancor, envy, and pettiness

Then you lack imagination. You are painting all 9,000 plus people in that group with the same brush over the comments of a very few. That is neither fair nor impartial.

"Well it WAS written about in Playbill, the NYT, NYP, WSJ, and the Boston Herald. I'd say that's pretty high profile."

A paragraph or two here and there. A scattering of page filler on a slow news day. No one (except maybe here) will be talking about this in another couple weeks, because either no one will be able to access the site, they'll shut it down, or people will get bored with this non-story. Many already are. It's much ado about very little, but as Borstalboy says, it's summertime - what else are you going to talk about?

"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. "

Again with the supposition. Nope, not trying to make anyone here feel ashamed, as if that would even be possible. Just pointing out that the behavior here is no better than the behavior there, which you yourself have admitted. Speaking of, if the name-calling is all you agree with me on, are you now saying that you don't think the rhetoric here is over the top? Because you did agree with that awhile ago. In fact, those were your words.

"You yourself admitted Mr. & Mrs. Foster looked pretty foolish"

I did? Where did I do that?

"And yes, if people want to have a little fun (like PRS) while doing it, why not?"

What makes you think I have a problem with PRS having fun with them? On the contrary, I completely understand that - it's the ones taking this so seriously that I don't get. I mean really...comparing what is going on here to investigative journalism? C'mon. I don't think you're going to get any takers even here on that one.

"I apologize for my harsh reaction."

No need, 'skittles, but I'll accept it anyway. I really did try to find the original quote, but I guess my eyes got crossed somewhere along the line. I will say I don't think it's fair to lay the blame of the really nasty comments at Sieber's feet. I think they would have come up with that kind of thing all on their own - and truthfully, I really don't have a huge problem with what he said. Do I think he would have said it if he thought it was going to get repeated all over the place? Nah, but I think, as Phyl said, that he mistakenly thought he was on a private-enough forum.

"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."

Oh, I agree. I was speaking strictly about those people who have literally said that they have "lost respect" for someone they didn't even know.

"Sounds like what Broadway's Harvey Fierstein did to win his Tony for Hairspray. Did actors crucify him for that?"

Of course Harvey did that, ljay. That's almost exactly what I said. You even quoted me. But crucify? Seriously? Isn't that just a little dramatic? Nobody's been crucified. So Sieber actually wrote about CZJ what people in the business said about Harvey when he won. It just didn't get published anywhere. No, it wasn't particularly nice of him to say, but really, what is the big deal about that? Now the sorts of things that 'skittles was talking about are way off-base and uncalled-for. I didn't see the sexual allegations that 'skittles referred to,. Something like that is patently absurd and outrageously indefensible. Was it an actor who said that?



Updated On: 7/2/10 at 01:11 AM

[Jupiter2]

Posted: 7/2/10 at 1:53am

"But I don't enjoy watching people make fools of themselves." - ghostlight2
I would say that is an admission of yours that these people are making themselves look foolish, as to your question of when you said that. Alas, I'm sure you'll try to weasel your way out of that one as well.
And in regard to the "intentions" (meaning what the group was based on - i.e., its mission statement by Hunter.) I obviously do not mean the 9000 people, and you know that. I mean the people who BEGAN it, thus the INTENTIONS of FORMING the group. Which was obviously not done by the 9000 people but the "few" that you referred to that FORMED THE GROUP.
Honestly, ghostlight, I can't believe that you are an ignorant person. Unlike yourself (who apparently sees no need to respect someone off the bat - and please, don't make me look through this thread to find that quote as well) you seem someone who is worthy of respect. Yet your arguments and distortions of quotes (by this group and myself) are just sophmoric.
For example, being talked of (even in a few paragraphs) in all of those respected publications makes that group reasonably high profile. Certainly in regards to the Tony Awards, which seem to be established as not high profile at all! Give me another topic which was written about in that many publications which could not be described as reasonably high profile.
And, I defy you to name me one publication where it was given "a paragraph or two here and there" - again, a distortion. All of them were more than two paragraphs. It seems by these distortions you have agenda here, ghostlight. You know that ALL of those stories were more than a paragraph or two. Why would you categorize it as such? I dare ask... what is your view on the subject at hand? i.e., "Give The Tonys Back To Broadway!!" Do you agree? If so, that's great. Let's hash it out. And I only ask as it seems like anyone who would so willingly distort someone else's position either must have an agenda or must be quite ignorant. I assume you are the former.
But let's not hide behind distortions of the sort of "oh, it's a paragraph or two." Again, that's insulting. As it wasn't. And you know it. That's the kind of bull**** rhetoric ("I never said anything against CZJ. She deserved her award") that the people on this board were correct in calling out from that ridiculous group.
And perhaps we have a difference of opinion of what constitues making people "ashamed" of what they've posted here, but "it's absurd and over the top, this backlash... at least they're using their real names" fits into that category for me. Those were your words.
Like I've said, if you want to debate the issue of the Tony Awards, that's great. But your distortions of the arguments made here (time and time again - I tire of constantly pointing out each and every fudge, but I will, just like I did that ludicrous group's) is insulting. Dare I say (as a poster here suggested of Hunter's group) - man up. Say what you believe. As your lukeworm and facile distortions and disagreements are just blatantly weak. And insulting. Before you raised your condescending head, we were able to speak somewhat frankly here about this subject. (And many people disagreed with this or that post. They just didn't distort the post to prove their point.) We left the bull**** and spinning to Mr. Foster's group. I look forward to hearing your thoughts ON THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT. I.e., the Tony Awards. As your attempt to split hairs on the arguments is, again, kind of insulting in it's transparency.

[whiteshirtsmom]

Posted: 7/2/10 at 2:16am

Oh my, maybe a switch to decaf.
here here

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/2/10 at 3:03am

"I dare ask... what is your view on the subject at hand? i.e., "Give The Tonys Back To Broadway!!"

"I look forward to hearing your thoughts ON THE ORIGINAL SUBJECT. I.e., the Tony Awards."

Actually, the subject at hand, in this thread, the only related thread I've posted in, is Dear Hunter Foster, Meredith Patterson, Chris Sieber and Anyone Else With Internet Access, a plea for them to back away from their computers, one that I whole-heartedly support. In fact, I plan to do so myself, at least until tomorrow, in another moment.

"And perhaps we have a difference of opinion of what constitues making people "ashamed" of what they've posted here, but "it's absurd and over the top, this backlash... at least they're using their real names" fits into that category for me. Those were your words."

Of course those were my words, and nowhere in there will you see the word "ashamed" - and not for nothing, you pretty much agreed, as you said yourself that the rhetoric here was over the top, and that the name-calling was unnecessary. Yes, I think the response is over the top, yes, silly, yes - but this subject isn't nearly important enough IMHO for anyone to be "ashamed" of, and I'd appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth, especially in quotes.

I see you're not slacking on the mud-slinging, using loaded words like "weasel" "sophmoric" "lukewarm" "facile" "weak" "insulting" and "condescending". Oh, and my rhetoric is bull**** and if I don't have an agenda, then I must be ignorant. That kind of either/or is disingenuous. And of course, your oh-so-pointedly not calling me ignorant twice is a bit like Alice saying "I'm not going to say 'fag' ". All due respect, if anyone should be insulted, it should be me. Oddly, I'm not.

"Dare I say (as a poster here suggested of Hunter's group) - man up. Say what you believe."

That would have been Phyl, and I agree. As for me, I have said what I believe. If you'd like me to "man up" and say it again for some reason, here it is. I think this has been blown out of proportion. I think some people here are behaving no better than some people there. I think the name-calling is out of line, and several people, including you, have agreed with me. I think this is largely a non-story. I don't think it's that important. I did want to add my opinion, and I have done so.

Why in the world you would find that so insulting is beyond me, and I don't understand why you think my dissenting opinion somehow keeps you from speaking frankly. This isn't worth your getting all wound up about. God knows I'm not.

On that note, I bid you a gentle goodnight.

[Jupiter2]

Posted: 7/2/10 at 9:01am

Did you really just compare me saying that "anyone who is so willfully and wildly distorting my arguments (which you did again in your last post) must either have an agenda here or be ignorant" to Ms. Ripley's recently not-to-disguised homophobic slur? That's just crazy. I think you should have gone to bed a little earlier last night, footlights. As that's pretty embarrassing.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 7/2/10 at 10:44am

For someone who isn't looking to be combative you're failing spectacularly, Jupiter.

Yes, I really did make that comparison. It's the act of calling someone by a pejorative (in my case, "ignorant" - twice) while saying you're not going to call them that that's the same, not the words.

"Honestly, ghostlight, I can't believe that you are an ignorant person."

"And I only ask as it seems like anyone who would so willingly distort someone else's position either must have an agenda or must be quite ignorant."

"I'm not going to say 'fag' " - AR

See how that works, your calling me ignorant without actually calling me ignorant? The comparison is apt. By your logic, if I don't have an agenda (and I don't) then I must be quite ignorant. And now, as you're calling me crazy and suggesting that I - wait for it - should be embarrassed (inducing shame, the very thing you've accused me of), I'll bow out. It's a bit pointless to attempt to have any kind of useful discourse with someone who's stooped to the level of dismissive nicknames. "footlights"? Really? That's the best you can do? Don't worry, I ain't mad or even insulted, despite your best efforts. I'm just concerned for your blood pressure. I can't be angry with someone who is way too invested in such a trivial discussion. Besides, I've already said my piece. At least twice, thanks to you.

" I think you should have gone to bed a little earlier last night, footlights"

And I think maybe you should switch to decaf. Relax, Jupiter. You'll live longer.

Oh, one more thing - clear paragraph breaks. They're really useful in delineating huge blocks of text and making your points easier to understand.

Have a nice life

Updated On: 7/2/10 at 10:44 AM

[Jupiter2]

Posted: 7/2/10 at 2:41pm

Actually, ghostlight, footlight was an inadvertent mistake. Although you thinking that was me trying to insult you (along with your ridiculous Alice Ripley analogy - "fag" is a pejorative. Ingnorant is not. Had I said "retard" or some such pejorative, your argument could make some rational sense.) However, u are quite right. You are not ignorant, nor do u have an agenda.

You are just crazy.

And if there's one thing I've learned, you can't argue with crazy.

Cheers. Updated On: 7/2/10 at 02:41 PM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 6/6/13 at 5:23pm

Hey, here's another example of a thread about stupid things celebrities have said that might not be beaten to death yet! Let's switch back to this one for awhile -or maybe we could just drop the Pascal one as well.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 6/6/13 at 5:25pm

Aw, memories. Remember when Catherine looked at Michael after show won, PROVING that he bought her that Tony?

[broadway guy]

Posted: 6/6/13 at 5:32pm

AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAAHAH a mess!

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 6/6/13 at 5:34pm

I agree 110% with the OP.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 6/6/13 at 5:34pm

Without looking through 20 pages, what did Christopher Sieber saY?

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 6/6/13 at 5:41pm

You actually would have only had to go back one page, RippedMan. Seiber said, on his (obviously-not-so) private FB page:

"""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.... "

And for that he was castigated, called fat and all other sorts of things.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 6/6/13 at 6:11pm

He shouldn't have been shamed for being fat, but it was a really stupid thing for him to say. I forgot how far the "she bought that Tony" conspiracy went!

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 6/6/13 at 6:23pm

I agree it wasn't a wise thing to say, even on his own, semi-private FB page, but it, like so many other things on this thread, got blown WAY out of proportion.

It was pretty much true, however. Tonys rarely go to the best performance. They go to whoever spends the most money and campaigns the most.

eta: I totally agree with the OP as well, Jordan
Updated On: 6/6/13 at 06:23 PM

[binau]

Posted: 6/6/13 at 6:30pm

"Rarely"? Going back ten years in most cases I'd say the consensus is that those actresses gave the best performance..

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 6/6/13 at 6:33pm

Oh, I get what you're saying, ghostlight. But his comment seemed to imply that save for the award given to Catherine Zeta Jones, the Tonys are only award by merit and never have anything to do with politics. If taken like that, it's no different than the comments we always see on here that boil down "the Tonys are unfair and political except when the person I wanted to win wins!"

But even so, since Seiber was joining on a bandwagon that included people like Meredith Patterson saying that because Catherine Zeta Jones looked at her husband when her name was called, that was some kind of smoking gun proving her award was bought, I tend to think he comments were less a commentary on politics than they were indicting Catherine Zeta Jones in some phony conspiracy.

Updated On: 6/6/13 at 06:33 PM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 6/6/13 at 6:35pm

Whatever happened to Meredith Patterson?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 6/6/13 at 6:44pm

She's doing certified holistic health coaching.

Merie Updated On: 6/6/13 at 06:44 PM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 6/6/13 at 7:27pm

Actually, Phyl, I think Sieber may well have said it first - and to be fair to him, he didn't delete or deny it - but he also wisely never said anything else, I don't think.

I saw the very, very beginnings of that group. They had a valid point. That year, like no other I had seen before, had an awful lot of performances that were not Broadway oriented. A LOT. Many people objected to that. Most of them were smart enough not to join Hunter's group, because the foolish comments of a few quickly made the whole thing spiral out of control and somehow turned into a "Broadway people vs Hollywood/TV people". Now, the Tonys are showing cruise ship shows, shows from other years, etc. Personally, I haven't watched for years.

"Going back ten years in most cases I'd say the consensus is that those actresses gave the best performance."

In CZJ's case, I would have voted for any of the other actresses in her category (including Scarlett Johansson) - but maybe I caught her on a (very) off night.



Updated On: 6/6/13 at 07:27 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 6/6/13 at 7:40pm

in CZJ's case, I would have voted for any of the other actresses in her category (including Scarlett Johansson) - but maybe I caught her on a (very) off night.

Am I missing something? Scarlett wasn't in that category.

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 6/6/13 at 7:51pm

No you are not, sorry, ljay. My mistake - I conflated best actress with best featured.

For the record , if wiki is to be believed: it was:

Catherine Zeta-Jones – A Little Night Music as Desiree Armfeldt
Kate Baldwin – Finian's Rainbow as Sharon McLonergan
Montego Glover – Memphis as Felicia Farrell
Christiane Noll – Ragtime as Mother
Sherie Rene Scott – Everyday Rapture as Herself

And I would still have voted for anyone else. I thought CZJ was miscast, and did not enjoy her performance.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 6/6/13 at 8:17pm

In show business, isn't best to just be gracious and talk behind people's backs at the after parties-not post your ramblings on Twitter.