West Side Story revival? — Page 13

How many people did Charles Manson personally murder?

How many of the photos of naked minors that were found in his possession did Jared Fogel personally take?

Ramasar's involvement is clearly spelled out in the suit, and no, it does not absolve him in any way of any wrong doing just because he didn't take the pictures and none of the women in the ones he shared back have accused him of doing so without their consent (yet). If Chase Finley is found guilty by the courts at the conclusion of the trial it makes Ramasar, at the very least, an accessory to the crime for not immediately reporting it.

joevitus said: "Maybe lack of empathy forme.

I myself have tons of empathy to anyone abused or attacked, and if he took pics without permission or assaulted anyone, I'd say ban him for life. Heck, put him in jail.But as there is zero evidence he did either thing, I have to say "He's a jerk, life goes on." That's called being an adult.

If he never gets work in the theater, and no girl will ever date him again, let alone share a pic of herself, unless he apologizes, I think that's fine. Or am I not showing empathy again?"

I am very much someone who rolls his eyes at some of the Woke nonsense i read online, and I actually *do* think our society has gone wayyyy too far with the notion that we "believe women" as a substitute for "we take women seriously and investigate their allegations as the law requires."

And i say this because despite my not-woke-enough perspective (I thought Aziz Ansari got an insanely raw deal, should have sued- and was called a "rape apologist" on Facebook), what you are saying here is truly revolting. You keep bobbing and weaving away from whatever points are made, to double down on simply repugnant viewpoints. The notion that you only have empathy for someone who is "abused or attacked" is your way of saying "this girl took those pictures willingly, so who is she to complain?" Lets get that out there: you think she got what she deserved for taking the pictures in the first place (even though its pretty clear she had no idea, but thats a pesky fact you continue to ignore).

Whether or not she consented to being filmed nude, its patently sickening to then trade those images (TRADE, you understand, means the parties EXCHANGED PICTURES)-- not of random strangers on the internet, not of random "conquests" from Tinder or wherever, but of your CO WORKERS whom you are meant to respect as human beings. To engage in this (and the language they used to describe it) it disgusting. It shows the kind of person someone is. Thats not a reason to be put in jail, and it SURE is a reason that maybe high profile, high paying, plum Broadway roles alongside dozens of young women is not for you.

You sound an awful lot like those who defended Brett Kavanaugh-they couldn't with a straight face insist that his accuser was lying, and they couldn't get around the fact that his "alibi" plainly implicated him- so they went on and on about the statute of limitations, a sure legal defense that would unquestionably prevent Kavanaugh from ever being convicted-- TOTALLY irrelevant to the objection, which was that he is unfit to sit on the Court, even if he isnt currently liable to be put in jail. In other words, you sound like a Trump supporter. That, or you sound like Ramasar himself. Either way, you've disqualified yourself.

Sally Durant Plummer said: "What is with Rudin’s new Desire to re-orchestrate all these classic shows? He gave Carousel a huge orchestra but rearranged it - it’s odd, especially when West Side Story’s orchestrations are iconic and have been part of concert repertoire for over half a century."

Carousel was odd...his charts were nice, but they didn't really improve anything. I get the need for an orchestrator when there are new Dance Arrangements (as was the case with Carousel), but his re-orchestration seemed like overkill. He's doing Music Man, too.

I'm curious what his work will be on the brilliant West Side charts (co-orchestrated by Lenny B). Nobody was credited as Arranger in the press release. For all we know, he could just be reducing it to fit the house minimum (~18); or, he could be retooling things to fit the new concept/choreography.

LuPita2 said: "GeorgeandDot,

Only with toxic males who contributeto rape culture (they don't matter). Everyone else has been pretty supportive of the victims involved."

I agree with you, not Joe, on the substance of this debate. However, if you're implying that Joe himself is a toxic male contributing to rape culture because of his spirited but civil disagreement with your judgments on this matter (and mine), then I can't agree with that. I think that's a ridiculous thing to say.

kdogg36 said: "LuPita2 said: "GeorgeandDot,

Only with toxic males who contributeto rape culture (they don't matter). Everyone else has been pretty supportive of the victims involved."

I agree with you, not Joe, on the substance of this debate. However, if you're implying that Joe himself is a toxic male contributing to rape culture because of his spirited but civil disagreement with your judgments on this matter (and mine), then I can't agree with that. I think that's a ridiculous thing to say."

Thank you so much. I have zero tolerance for rape or abuse. That is not where I'm coming from in this discussion. That this person has to go for a personal attack in an attempt to make a point, to me shows the weakness of their argument.

The responses comparing this to murder and to Manson are just bizarre: loss of life, and violent death compared to some pictures (no physical assault of any kind, and only psychological assault if one has a Victorian attitude towards nude imagery).

To the people telling me they hope I never have a daughter--I hope they never have one, themselves, as they seem intent on never instilling any sense of personal responsibility and an adoption of a lifelong "Everyone must protect me from my choices, and I am a perpetual victim" mentality. I shudder to think what their poor daughters will end up experiencing, as they think there is an inviolable wall of protection around them no matter what choices they make, and will lack any ability to summon the strength to get through the suffering and cruel experiences that, unfortunately, all human beings encounter one way or the other. We used to tell people "Beware your choices. You are free do do as you like, but watch out for the repercussions."

The sexual revolution used to at least trying to give women the strength to face this sort of situation and say "Sc--w the guy who did this to me. He's a jerk. He's not humiliating me because I won't give him this emotional power." Now everyone is supposed to curl up in a ball and say "I'm a victim, I had no control--and he's a threat" even though, if they'd thought their choices through, maybe they wouldn't allow such jerks access to private images (let alone sex with them) in the first place.

Updated On: 7/12/19 at 09:34 AM

It's great that you've come to terms with it, but that doesn't mean everyone has. Nor should they have to, when instead of going "oh well, some people are just jerks" we could actually expect people to behave better and even have them face consequences when they don't.

I personally think that the Me Too movement is about, hey, maybe instead of questioning why the woman did something, we put the onus on the man to do the right thing?

"By reason of the foregoing carelessness and negligence of the defendants AMAR RAMASAR and ZACHARY CATAZARO, plaintiff ALEXANDRA WATERBURY sustained serious and severe psychological and emotional distress. mental anguish, embarrassment, and humiliation, and upon information and belief these injuries arc of a permanent and lasting nature; that said plaintiff was confined to her bed, home, and/or various medical institutions as a result thereof"

I implore some of the people in this thread to gain some empathy. Women were hurt in this case, concern for the cast of WSS is valid. The fact you continue to post in this thread to double down on your nasty obtuse behavior when people have spelled out their reasons for being upset with evidence provided from articles and court documents on this case is damning.

bk said: "Perhaps the Tunick involvement is that the band will be smaller than the original brilliant orchestrations - if that's the case, then someone has to do that reduction and bring whatever he/she brings to the table.

As to all the outrage here and calling for firing - tenpeople on a message board is not going to make that happen, sorry. Rudin and Hove obviously felt comfortable casting him. I don't know his work at all and therefore cannot offer an opinion. I can say that it is repugnant to share such photos - I don't think there's been a single person on either side of this issue that hasn't said that. And again, no one knows whether this person has apologized or if he's being advised by his lawyers to say nothing at this time, which is pretty standard. But as far as I can tell, the masses aren't calling for anything. Not a fan of the director so I'll be interested to hear what this actually ends up being."

Do you go on twitter? The outrage is not just on this board...

Reminder that yesterday this user was trying to insinuate Ramasar didn't do anything wrong. https://imgur.com/a/YqH5VRd

I've explained my reason for being upset, you can either choose to respect that or continue moaning about it. It will only give me the platform to continue coming back to this thread to speak out against Ramasar and this casting.

Once again, notice you are trying to smear my character as the only way to make your point. When you're desperate enough to resort to that, it's pretty solid evidence your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. And everyone can see it.

Updated On: 7/12/19 at 12:03 PM