#151
Posted: 1/13/15 at 3:23pm
Carlos didn't suppress, either. The BWW mods did, technically. They can remove posts rather than entire threads...
Norm Lewis Replacement? — Page 7
#153
Posted: 1/13/15 at 3:47pm
It's probably too much, but I feel like a statement within the last couple years about HOW he's supposedly "learned his lesson" would have helped situations like this. I think the outcry from the community wouldn't be as big if he could at least say, "yeah it happened/again I'm very sorry/I've learned" or whatever. Unless, he's legally not allowed to, but I haven't heard anything like that.
The most confusing thing is still why they cast him. They got all this positive coverage on Norm's casting, and followed up with Barbour? It's not like we only have a handful of fair actors with great voices or that there's some amazing draw that comes with his name. It's just odd to me.
The most confusing thing is still why they cast him. They got all this positive coverage on Norm's casting, and followed up with Barbour? It's not like we only have a handful of fair actors with great voices or that there's some amazing draw that comes with his name. It's just odd to me.
I am big. It’s the REVIVALS that got small.
#154
Posted: 1/13/15 at 3:56pm
Well; maybe it is coming. I can't wait for the Paul Wontoreck or Richie Ridge interview. Things will only get creepier. 
HUSSY POWER!
------ HUSSY POWER!
#155
Posted: 1/13/15 at 3:58pm
You really don't care for Richie Ridge now do you DAME?
#156
Posted: 1/13/15 at 4:00pm
I actually don't mind him at all. He is just fluff. Paul W on the other hand...
HUSSY POWER!
------ HUSSY POWER!
#157
Posted: 1/13/15 at 4:04pm
You don't like Paul Wontoreck?!!!
It's the hair, right?
It's the hair, right?
#158
Posted: 1/13/15 at 4:08pm
Watch some of his interviews.. you will see what I mean. And I wouldn't say I don't like him. He is just creepy.
HUSSY POWER!
------ HUSSY POWER!
#159
Posted: 1/13/15 at 4:08pm
You guys really need to get a room.
"...everyone finally shut up, and the audience could enjoy the beginning of the Anatevka Pogram in peace."
#161
Posted: 1/13/15 at 4:10pm
You guys really need to get a room.
Only if you join us...
Only if you join us...
#163
Posted: 1/13/15 at 4:13pm
Yeah I've seen many of his Broadway.com interviews. What I find funny about him is that with every guest he has a tendency to "dream cast" them in one role or another and the interviewees sure do love him.
He's harmless really....but THE HAIR!!
He's harmless really....but THE HAIR!!
Updated On: 1/13/15 at 04:13 PM
#164
Posted: 1/13/15 at 4:14pm
Okay DAME..don't get mad. You don't have to share me...
#165
Posted: 1/13/15 at 4:15pm
Watch the Kyle Dean interview. Where he goes on about his shirtless picture. All creepy in a fun way.
HUSSY POWER!
------ HUSSY POWER!
Updated On: 1/13/15 at 04:15 PM
#166
Posted: 1/13/15 at 4:18pm
He did that with Jeremy Jordan as well. He was going on and on about the pic Jordan posed for with the wine coolers obscuring his man candy. I was like: "Girl...can you be anymore obvious with your drool?"
Yeah...it was creepy.
Yeah...it was creepy.
#168
Posted: 1/13/15 at 4:19pm
I need to watch that one. Maybe he should be the one to do a James Barbour explain yourself interview.
HUSSY POWER!
------ HUSSY POWER!
#169
Posted: 1/13/15 at 4:20pm
I don't thing Wontoreck is capable of going that deep...
...in his interviews.
...in his interviews.
#170
Posted: 1/13/15 at 4:21pm
Maybe Corine?
HUSSY POWER!
------ HUSSY POWER!
#171
Posted: 1/13/15 at 4:24pm
Oh no girl now I just had to close my office door so my whole team would not here me laughing my ass off!!!
#172
Posted: 1/13/15 at 4:26pm
That makes me happy.
HUSSY POWER!
------ HUSSY POWER!
#173
Posted: 1/14/15 at 3:42am
Here is a link to a NY Times article about Mr. Barbour's guilty plea and sentencing:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/nyregion/04actor.html?_r=0
A few of my observations, as an attorney who never worked on such cases, but am familiar with them:
Mr. Barbour is NOT a rapist, because he was not convicted of statutory rape (a felony), and was only convicted of misdemeanor charges. OTOH, his excuse that he thought she was 16 is not particularly exculpatory -- in many states, the age of consent is no longer 16, but 18.
A so-called "Alford plea" is becoming quite common in these cases. Such a plea is NOT equivalent to a plea of "no contest." Instead, it is a true guilty plea, in which someone effectively says, "I didn't do it, but I acknowledge that the prosecution's evidence is sufficient for me to be convicted."
The terms of Mr. Barbour's plea deal strike me as quite harsh in a case in which there was no actual intercourse. Therefore, Mr. Barbour's attorney's spin that the prosecution didn't have a good case is probably inaccurate.
Cases such as Mr. Barbour's and Stephen Collins's are troubling for lots of reasons. First, of course, is the damage to the victim. OTOH, in many states, statutes of limitations for similar offenses are getting longer and longer, and, in some cases, there are none. Therefore, an offender may be convicted of an offense that happened decades before. Sometimes he (usually, such offenders are male) has completely changed his ways -- contrary to popular belief, not everyone who has committed child molestation is a "pedophile." Instead, many, if not most, offenders commit the offense because of issues in their lives at the moment, and not because they are generally attracted to children. This does not excuse the offense, but it does diminish the likelihood of repetition years later.
Finally, unlike for many other offenses, offenders can experience repercussions years later, either because of a draconian sex offender registration law or because the Internet acts as a de facto offender list. These repercussions make it difficult for the offender to move past an offense, even where the individual is no longer dangerous. In some such cases, an offender's young children or new spouse can become additional victims to an extent not likely for other crimes. As a result, such a perpetrator is never given the opportunity for a fresh start. In some cases, offenders face such strict limits on where they may live that they wind up homeless, where no one can easily track them.
I have no answers to unfairness in the laws, but I am concerned that society not rush forward with ever stricter statutes that make it impossible for an offender to pay his debt to society and move on.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/nyregion/04actor.html?_r=0
A few of my observations, as an attorney who never worked on such cases, but am familiar with them:
Mr. Barbour is NOT a rapist, because he was not convicted of statutory rape (a felony), and was only convicted of misdemeanor charges. OTOH, his excuse that he thought she was 16 is not particularly exculpatory -- in many states, the age of consent is no longer 16, but 18.
A so-called "Alford plea" is becoming quite common in these cases. Such a plea is NOT equivalent to a plea of "no contest." Instead, it is a true guilty plea, in which someone effectively says, "I didn't do it, but I acknowledge that the prosecution's evidence is sufficient for me to be convicted."
The terms of Mr. Barbour's plea deal strike me as quite harsh in a case in which there was no actual intercourse. Therefore, Mr. Barbour's attorney's spin that the prosecution didn't have a good case is probably inaccurate.
Cases such as Mr. Barbour's and Stephen Collins's are troubling for lots of reasons. First, of course, is the damage to the victim. OTOH, in many states, statutes of limitations for similar offenses are getting longer and longer, and, in some cases, there are none. Therefore, an offender may be convicted of an offense that happened decades before. Sometimes he (usually, such offenders are male) has completely changed his ways -- contrary to popular belief, not everyone who has committed child molestation is a "pedophile." Instead, many, if not most, offenders commit the offense because of issues in their lives at the moment, and not because they are generally attracted to children. This does not excuse the offense, but it does diminish the likelihood of repetition years later.
Finally, unlike for many other offenses, offenders can experience repercussions years later, either because of a draconian sex offender registration law or because the Internet acts as a de facto offender list. These repercussions make it difficult for the offender to move past an offense, even where the individual is no longer dangerous. In some such cases, an offender's young children or new spouse can become additional victims to an extent not likely for other crimes. As a result, such a perpetrator is never given the opportunity for a fresh start. In some cases, offenders face such strict limits on where they may live that they wind up homeless, where no one can easily track them.
I have no answers to unfairness in the laws, but I am concerned that society not rush forward with ever stricter statutes that make it impossible for an offender to pay his debt to society and move on.
Audrey, the Phantom Phanatic, who nonetheless would rather be Jean Valjean, who knew how to make lemonade out of lemons.
Updated On: 1/14/15 at 03:42 AM
#174
Posted: 1/14/15 at 6:43am
...that make it impossible for an offender to pay his debt to society and move on.
And that's just it isn't it? Not only the laws but we as a society.
And it's an interesting point you make:
...an offender may be convicted of an offense that happened decades before. Sometimes he (usually, such offenders are male) has completely changed his ways - This does not excuse the offense, but it does diminish the likelihood of repetition years later.
When the offender has paid their debt to society, learned from their mistakes, has changed their ways, no longer poses a threat and wants to move on with their lives in a positive way is it really fair to continue to put this person "on trial" so to speak, which ultimately prohibits the offender from moving on with their life?
Don't we all, as human beings deserve a second chance especially when one has acknowledged the wrong doing and as paid their debt?
And that's just it isn't it? Not only the laws but we as a society.
And it's an interesting point you make:
...an offender may be convicted of an offense that happened decades before. Sometimes he (usually, such offenders are male) has completely changed his ways - This does not excuse the offense, but it does diminish the likelihood of repetition years later.
When the offender has paid their debt to society, learned from their mistakes, has changed their ways, no longer poses a threat and wants to move on with their lives in a positive way is it really fair to continue to put this person "on trial" so to speak, which ultimately prohibits the offender from moving on with their life?
Don't we all, as human beings deserve a second chance especially when one has acknowledged the wrong doing and as paid their debt?
#175
Posted: 1/14/15 at 12:35pm
Oh okay, you see I didn't catch most of that, but yet you know I was blamed for it for being deleted anyway. Haters gonna hate.
