Disney may block anti-Bush film - this thread will get political fast... beware!

[stellar]

Disney may block anti-Bush film

http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/05/news/fortune500/disney_moore.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes

Report: Media company attempts to stop Miramax from releasing Moore documentary.
May 5, 2004: 6:45 AM EDT

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore's documentary linking President Bush with powerful Saudi families, including that of Osama bin Laden, is stirring up controversy even before its release.

That's if it even gets released.

Hollywood trade paper Daily Variety said in its Wednesday edition that Walt Disney Co. (DIS: Research, Estimates) has moved to prevent its Miramax Films unit from distributing "Fahrenheit 911."

The Disney edict could herald the bloodiest political battle yet between Miramax's feisty co-chairman Harvey Weinstein and Disney CEO Michael Eisner, who oversaw the purchase of Miramax a decade ago, Daily Variety said.

"Fahrenheit 911," Moore's follow-up to his Academy Award-winning film "Bowling for Columbine," will still premiere in competition at the Cannes Film Festival in France later this month. Rumors had been circulating of a July release date in North America, but the film does not appear on Miramax's summer schedule, the paper said.

It quoted a Miramax spokesman as saying that the company was "looking forward to resolving this amicably."

Officials from Miramax and Disney were not immediately available for comment on the report.

"Looking forward to resolving this amicably"? I'm still waiting for Song Of The South to come out on VHS!!!

[tribsaint]

I read in the paper today that Disney had definetely blocked the release of this movie and, although Moore has been trying to fight it, it doesn't seem likely that Disney will back down.

Although what I had read was just a small blurb, so who knows.

[vhsiv]

Oy! This is a bit surprising - I haven't clicked through the link, yet, but I find it astonishing that Eisner would allow his personal opinion to interfere with a quick buck.

Miramax is Harvey's beast, and 'edgy' and independent is it's nature. Eisner knew that when he bought them. If that was a problem for him then, he should have never let that particular scorpion crawl onto his back. I can only see Eisner taking *MORE* heat from this... He's supposed to be the CEO, not the Chief Executive Censor, Spinmeister, or whatever.

And Michael Moore *WILL* bite him in the @ss, if he refuses to release his movie. And I'm sure that there would be more than a few other studios willing to distribute this new film, considering THE LAST ONE got him an Oscar.

I guess Eisner just wants to prove he's an @ss...

[Lord Loser]

No-win for Eisner. He releases the film, conservatives protest Disney. If he doesn't, he's part of a cover-up/censorship conspiracy and a Bush toadie.

Then again, it may be a devious plot to stir up controversy (a la "the Passion") and make the film more desireable to watch by their core/target audience.

[stellar]

That would suggest foresight on Michael Eisner's part, which, as has been demonstrated, he has none of.

[Antrobus]

But the story has become more complicated since it appears they (Disney/Eisner) don't want to inflame Jeb Bush and lose their BIG tax breaks in Florida. So is the story on CNN this morning.

[grinner]

Moore is an ass... that said... if the Weinstein's what to release the film... let them.

[La Bomba]

One more step towards the fall of Eisner's evil empire. And I agree, grinner. Moore's an ass.

[Darth Buddha]

Moore is an ass... that said... if the Weinstein's what to release the film... let them.And yet the personal ties of the Bush clan to various Saudi families is entirely legit.

Moore is an ass, and doubtless he will stretch and distort the facts in a fashion that would make Rush Limbaugh proud, but if there is a central truth to what he is saying?

But I'd guess that the fear here is the same as the fear that lead CBS to move their documentary about Ronald Reagan to Showtime.

Didn't the Nazi's perform a lot of their control of the press in the early days by intimidation?

[grinner]

uh... did you understand what I said? I said that Miramax should release the film. Not attacking you Buddha... but damn... chill

[ctheokas]

The Bush family ties to the Saudi government and even the bin Laden family are important, because those ties probably color how the war on terror is fought, and how Bush I and II run the country. Moore might distort the truth to some degree, but if you do some digging on your own (OK, probably a lot of digging), you could find out that there is more than just a kernel of truth to what Moore is saying about the president.

For one thing, a lot of Saudis, not just bin Laden family members, were air lifted out of the US in the days immediately after 9-11, during a time when no one else was allowed in the air. The official story is that they were taken out of the country for their own protection, which actually makes sense seeing as 15 out of the 19 highjackers were Saudis.

Anyway, yeah, Moore is an ass, blah blah blah. That's the easy way out of the argument. He's an ass. So what?

The real reason behind Disney holding the film back is because of tax breaks. It's about money. In the end, that's what makes the world go round (though I wish it was love instead of money). If someone else picks up the movie - a company outside of Florida, that is - then we'll see the movie in time for the election. Otherwise, we'll never get to see it at all.

But once we get to see it, then the debate should really begin.

[La Bomba]

And yet the personal ties of the Bush clan to various Saudi families is entirely legit.

Moore is an ass, and doubtless he will stretch and distort the facts in a fashion that would make Rush Limbaugh proud, but if there is a central truth to what he is saying?

Didn't the Nazi's perform a lot of their control of the press in the early days by intimidation?

I usually stay out of this stuff, and I'm sure I'll go back to the shallow end of the pool soon, but:

Moore is going to get more press, attention, and discussion about Bush's ties to the Saudi's out of this ban than if the film had been released with no controversy. Unfortunately. Nothing is being kept from the American people. The press, if anything, will be more out of control than usual over this.

[stellar]

Anybody else wish that the ban on Song of the South be lifted?

[BaseLine]

Anybody else wish that the ban on Song of the South be lifted?

Yes, 59,304 (http://www.uncleremuspages.com/dpp.html) other people.

[DRD2001]

Don't worry Stellar, you can buy "questionable" copies at flea markets, and the best part is, Disney gets no revenue from those sales. :D

But I think everyone is agreed, Moore is an ass.

[La Bomba]

Yes, 59,304 (http://www.uncleremuspages.com/dpp.html) other people.

I just made it 59,305. :sing:Zippity-do-dah, zippity-ay!

[La Bomba]

Don't worry Stellar, you can buy "questionable" copies at flea markets, and the best part is, Disney gets no revenue from those sales. :D

Good point. I'm going garage sale-ing!

[stellar]

But I think everyone is agreed, Moore is an ass.

I think he's an ass in public, but I've enjoyed all of his documentries.

[BaseLine]

I think he's an ass in public, but I've enjoyed all of his documentries.

I agree with that. I also liked his movie "Canadian Bacon". I did find "The Awful Truth" sometimes a bit over the edge.

[Darth Buddha]

uh... did you understand what I said? I said that Miramax should release the film. Not attacking you Buddha... but damn... chillSorry, g-man, I was dissing the Disney decision, Moore (for being an ass), and the fact that a lot of stuff seems to get stopped due to politial concerns.

I agree, if Miramax wants to run it, they should go ahead.

I'm just irritated by the hard ball intimidation tactics that get used these days...

A failed attempt to charge former Treasury Secretary O'Neill with stealing classified documents after he wrote a book the Executive didn't like.

A failed attempt to find factual changes in Clarke's testimony because of his less than flattering book about the Executive.

An illegal outing of a CIA undercover agent when her husband presented the LACK of uranium evidence.

This is even worse than the CLINTION administration and their shenanigans!

I just thought intimidation through fraudulent charges (filed or unfiled), governmental control of media by corporate intimidation, and the like went out with Watergate. If there is the willingness to do that, I believe that punitive action on the business level where it is even harder to prove is a certainty.

[Paul Cousins]

This is even worse than the CLINTION administration and their shenanigans!

Actually, the Clinton Administration is still worse because they had their dogs in the media/press demonize anyone they didn't like; IE the Clinton's used the media/press as an instrument of terror against the law-abiding citizens of this country.

Realistically, considering Einser and his board has angered the Disney shareholders, fired those that cared about the Walt Disney Company, sent Disney's revenue down the toilet, destroyed Disney's once world renowned Animation Studios and burned the fanbase; releasing Moore's movie might the final nail in the coffin of Einser and his board's careers.

[stellar]

The Bushes just use government agencies as instruments of terror against those who speak against them.

I think the Alamo is the final nail for Eisner... ironic if you think about it. :)

[grinner]

Besides... the Clinton's STILL haven't given back the FBI files they stole

[stellar]

The Clintons this... the Bushes that... blah, blah, blah, blah pitter pat.

[Darth Buddha]

Besides... the Clinton's STILL haven't given back the FBI files they stoleI agree. Abuse of privelege seems to be running pretty high. I wonder if we'd even be outraged by a Watergate like event these days?

Media abuses seem to run both ways nowadays too... as we have Fox News Network which does character assassinations for the Neo-Cons as well.

[grinner]

okay, here is a question... when was the last time that Song of the South was shown/aired in theaters. I remember seeing it years and years ago at a school function when I was in grade school... but I don't remember when that was.

[La Bomba]

I, too, remember seeing it as a child. And like every other child who saw it, the questionable racial overtones went right over my head. It was just a fun musical.

[grinner]

When I saw it... it had to have been the mid to late 70's.

[La Bomba]

Same here. I had to have been bewteen 6 and 10, which puts it somewhere between 1976 and 1980.

[generic_screenname]

okay, here is a question... when was the last time that Song of the South was shown/aired in theaters. I remember seeing it years and years ago at a school function when I was in grade school... but I don't remember when that was.

I don't know the year, but I remember seeing it in the theater when I was little, and that would have been when you were in grade school. It came out in 1946, so I'd guess it was re-released on it's anniversary in 1986.

[BlackThorn]

I remember seeing it a couple times when I was a young child (early 80's), but it wasn't at a theater. It was at home. Can't remember whether it was one of the bootlegged tapes I sometimes got to watch when I was a kid or whether it was on something like the Wonderful World of Walt Disney.

[grinner]

I know it wasn't as late as 1986... as I was in High School then. The 1975 to 1980 sounds more likely. But that wouldn't work for g_s as he was born in 1979...

[BaseLine]

G_S is right. It was re-released in 1986 for a theater run. And according to this (http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1946/0SOTS.html) also in 1980.

[BlackThorn]

The more I think it about it, the more I'm sure it was a bootleg vhs copy I watched somewhere around '84.

[grinner]

G_S is right. It was re-released in 1986 for a theater run. And according to this (http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/1946/0SOTS.html) also in 1980.
I was remarking about how I knew that it wasn't 1986 when I saw it because by then I was in High School.

[BaseLine]

Sorry, misunderstood.

[generic_screenname]

Re-released in 1980 and 1986. Then never again...

[DRD2001]

There is information on Snopes about Song of the South.

[grinner]

http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/sots.htm

[Kalliope]

I'll definitely go and see "Fahrenheit 9/11" when it's released in Poland and I hope it is released.

[VBKatLou]

Well here's what Michael Moore has to say about it:

http://www.michaelmoore.com

Wednesday, May 5th, 2004
Disney Has Blocked the Distribution of My New Film... by Michael Moore

Friends,

I would have hoped by now that I would be able to put my work out to the public without having to experience the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter.

Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." The reason? According to today's (May 5) New York Times, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will "anger" the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush. The story is on page one of the Times and you can read it here (Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush).

The whole story behind this (and other attempts) to kill our movie will be told in more detail as the days and weeks go on. For nearly a year, this struggle has been a lesson in just how difficult it is in this country to create a piece of art that might upset those in charge (well, OK, sorry -- it WILL upset them...big time. Did I mention it's a comedy?). All I can say is, thank God for Harvey Weinstein and Miramax who have stood by me during the entire production of this movie.

There is much more to tell, but right now I am in the lab working on the print to take to the Cannes Film Festival next week (we have been chosen as one of the 18 films in competition). I will tell you this: Some people may be afraid of this movie because of what it will show. But there's nothing they can do about it now because it's done, it's awesome, and if I have anything to say about it, you'll see it this summer -- because, after all, it is a free country.


Can Disney block him from getting another distributer? I'm not real sure of the business relationship between Disney/Mirimax.

[grinner]

What happened to my post. I posted something and on the main forum page, it moved this thread to the top of the list with my name as the last poster, but the post's not here.

????
this post?
Well here's what Michael Moore has to say about it:

http://www.michaelmoore.com
:
Wednesday, May 5th, 2004
Disney Has Blocked the Distribution of My New Film... by Michael Moore

Friends,

I would have hoped by now that I would be able to put my work out to the public without having to experience the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter.

Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." The reason? According to today's (May 5) New York Times, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will "anger" the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush. The story is on page one of the Times and you can read it here (Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush).

The whole story behind this (and other attempts) to kill our movie will be told in more detail as the days and weeks go on. For nearly a year, this struggle has been a lesson in just how difficult it is in this country to create a piece of art that might upset those in charge (well, OK, sorry -- it WILL upset them...big time. Did I mention it's a comedy?). All I can say is, thank God for Harvey Weinstein and Miramax who have stood by me during the entire production of this movie.

There is much more to tell, but right now I am in the lab working on the print to take to the Cannes Film Festival next week (we have been chosen as one of the 18 films in competition). I will tell you this: Some people may be afraid of this movie because of what it will show. But there's nothing they can do about it now because it's done, it's awesome, and if I have anything to say about it, you'll see it this summer -- because, after all, it is a free country.

Can Disney block him from getting another distributer? I'm not real sure of the business relationship between Disney/Mirimax.

[VBKatLou]

I think I know what happened. I'm set up to see 40 posts per page. That post was number 40. It wasn't on the first page, but there was no page 2 icon showing. Then when I made the next post (41), then I saw the icon for page 2 appeared.

[generic_screenname]

What happened to my post. I posted something and on the main forum page, it moved this thread to the top of the list with my name as the last poster, but the post's not here.

????
Maybe Michael Eisner is trying to prevent you from posting it...man, Disney is everywhere!

[divinedaydreams]

SaveDisney.com has jumped all over this, they even have a link to a petition showing their displeasure.

http://democrats.com/elandslide/petition.cfm?campaign=disney

[divinedaydreams]

Oops sorry its a boycott call, I need to read.

[divinedaydreams]

Just another tidbit that could seal Eisner's fate after this.

MEL, THE MAN FOR THE MOUSE?

GOODBYE, Michael Eisner! Hello . . . Mel Gibson? A consortium of mysterious European investors has approached Gibson about a possible takeover of Disney now that Comcast has thrown in the towel, sources told PAGE SIX. "We were very impressed with the way Gibson handled 'The Passion of the Christ,' " one insider said. The group was especially motivated after "The Passion," made for $25 million, raked in almost $600 million. "Gibson has the sensibilities Hollywood needs," says a source close to the star. "He has the right insight to lead a studio. Look at those numbers! Now, that is how to make movies - none of this $120 million nonsense." The backers would want Gibson to kick in a few hundred million of his own money and want him to run Disney if the takeover succeeded. So far, Gibson has kept his cards close to his vest. "He hasn't said yes, and he hasn't said no," said the source. But there is always hope - Gibson is "always looking for something new and interesting to do." However, one person close to Gibson said: "The discussions have not gone anywhere . . . yet." A rep for the "Mad Max" star didn't return calls.

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix_u.htm

Its down the page some.

[stellar]

I know it wasn't as late as 1986... as I was in High School then. The 1975 to 1980 sounds more likely. But that wouldn't work for g_s as he was born in 1979...

I remember it as the first movie I saw in a theater. It was the late 70s... maybe 80, because I also remember ET as being the first movie. It was a while back. Ths bluebird song was huge then.

[VBKatLou]

The first movie I remember seeing in a theater was Mary Poppins. God, I'm old. :rollin:

[Antrobus]

Can Disney block him from getting another distributer?

I think the answer to that is "no they can't". I read something about a couple of other Miramax films that were distributed by someone else in a similar scenario to this one. One of the films mentioned was "Dogma".
So I would place a bet that we'll see this film somewhere, somehow.

GOODBYE, Michael Eisner! Hello . . . Mel Gibson?
Mel Gibson!!?? That would be a real hoot!!

[Third EYe]

I heard that Moore is an ass.

Have I got it right so far?

Disney still sucks, in case you're curious. I can't prove it, but it does.

[Scarran Raptor]

Mel gibson running disney? great, now the Jews will be blamed for the death of Mufasa *rimshot*

anywhoo, yeah Michael Moore's an ass, Anne Coulter's an ass, you name me one liberal @$$hole pundit and I'll name you an equally bad neo-con @$$hole pundit, unfortunately when it comes to politics we're surrounded by @$$holes
and as for Eisner, just release the movie, the more you stonewall the more press he gets, sure you'll take heat from the neo-cons later but I figure they'll go soft what with you being a fellow corporate crook and all and just for the record, I hate bush not so much for his fundamentalist leanings or his supreme idiocy or his creepy cabinet, I hate the blind obedience that lot are trying to encourage, the stifling of dissent, basically what's going on here, not that the liberal ultra-PC-ness was any better, any kind of blind obedience is a bad thing, there's as much liberal fascism as there is conservative fascism

[mfa96]

Mel gibson running disney? great, now the Jews will be blamed for the death of Mufasa *rimshot*

:spew: :rollin:


I don't think Moore's an ass. His movies are great- I loved Bowling for Columbine, and can't wait to see Farenheit 9/11! For more on the Bush/Saud connection, try here:

http://houseofbush.com/

"The Awful Truth" was funny and biting as well. Anyone see it? It was hilarious when he ran a ficus for congress in NJ- since the incumbent was running unopposed- and how is there democracy with no choice?. He even made a commmercial with the tagline, "*Representative's name.* He doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground. Ficus. His ass is a hole in the ground." Great stuff.

[Third EYe]

If moore is not an ass, what other politically correct term can we can a liar?

[mfa96]

If moore is not an ass, what other politically correct term can we can a liar?


President?

[Third EYe]

Why can't you guys leave Clinton alone? He just wanted a woman in his life.

[grinner]

Moore's movies are full of inaccuracies and mis-information... entire books have been written about the errors of his films.

[mfa96]

Was that a sublimble joke?

[mfa96]

What errors are those?

[grinner]

where do you want to begin? How about the fact that he splices together entirely different conversations... in order to make the interviews go the way he wants them to... or he leaves sections out to change the tone of the interviews.

There are a bunch of documented inaccuracies in the way he portrays Charlton Heston's speechs in Bowling for Columbine. A little bit of research will bring them up.

[divinedaydreams]

Sounds like any reality show to me. Wonder when he'll put out one of those.

[mfa96]

And Moore has a team of lawyers and fact checkers who went over the movie to make sure everything was accuratel portrayed. After all, if anything was wrong, wouldn't he have been sued?

[Paul Cousins]

President?

We did that for 8 years, between 1993 to 2000, so many times to the point where it was cliche.

[mfa96]

Nice to know the tradition ha continued then....

[Third EYe]

And Moore has a team of lawyers and fact checkers who went over the movie to make sure everything was accuratel portrayed. After all, if anything was wrong, wouldn't he have been sued?


No

[grinner]

By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles

07 May 2004

Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it.

The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore's claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.

Instead, it lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing a controversy to help publicise the film, a full-bore attack on the Bush administration and its handling of national security since the attacks of 11 September 2001.

In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax.

But in the CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."

Nobody in Hollywood doubts Fahrenheit 911 will find a US distributor. His last documentary, Bowling for Columbine , made for $3m (£1.7m), pulled in $22m at the US box office.

But Moore's publicity stunt, if that is what is, appears to be working. A front-page news piece in The New York Times was followed yesterday by an editorial denouncing Disney for censorship and denial of Moore's right to free expression.

Moore told CNN that Disney had "signed a contract to distribute this [film]" but got cold feet. But Disney executives insists there was never any contract. And a source close to Miramax said that the only deal there was for financing, not for distribution.
> link (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=518901)

[La Bomba]

Now THAT is exactly what I was talking about. I almost added the idea that Moore might be setting this whole thing up for publicity in my original post, but thought I would be ridiculed for being a 'conspiracy theorist'.

No surprise here.

[stellar]

"Almost a year ago, after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."

Who would have thought a year ago that Michael Eisner would still be the Chairman of Disney today? Not me. And yet he's still here. Even after the Alamo... he's still here.

[Darth Buddha]

Who would have thought a year ago that Michael Eisner would still be the Chairman of Disney today? Not me. And yet he's still here. Even after the Alamo... he's still here.Yeah, but Papillon he is NOT.

[mfa96]

Yeah, but Papillon he is NOT.



:rollin:

Would that make Mickey Squinter?

[waltersgirl]

And Moore has a team of lawyers and fact checkers who went over the movie to make sure everything was accuratel portrayed.

i suggest you take Grinner's advice and do some research. you can find original source material online that was later altered and spliced to serve Moore's purpose.

[Mike0812]

Disney and Michael Moore
By MICHAEL EISNER

Freedom of Speech and Expression

To the Editor:

You accuse the Walt Disney Company of cowardice and censorship because of its decision a year ago not to distribute Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11" (editorial, May 6). In fact, the cowardly thing would have been to be intimidated into distributing the film. We did not block its distribution. There are many avenues for Mr. Moore to pursue to get his film distributed.

Your accusations of stifling free expression are misplaced. The First Amendment does not say that The New York Times must print every article presented to it or that the Walt Disney Company must distribute every movie. If a government entity had blocked Mr. Moore's film from being released, that would have violated the First Amendment, and we would have quickly signed up to join any protest.

In the case of "Fahrenheit 9/11," we chose a path that was right for the company and its stakeholders.

The creation of intellectual product rises and falls on similar judgments by creative people and executives across America. We would hope that The Times would recognize that the Walt Disney Company has the same right of freedom of expression that it is advocating for Mr. Moore.

MICHAEL D. EISNER
Chief Exec., Walt Disney Company
Burbank, Calif., May 7, 2004

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/10/opinion/L10DISN.html)

[Scarran Raptor]

this reminds me I just picked up a hilarious book by the writers of http://www.whitehouse.org called "The White House Inc. Employee Handbook" arguably the best Bush-whacking since the ill-fated "That's my Bush" sitcom

[divinedaydreams]

OT but I have to say I love Mike0812's avatar. I never laughed so hard over an Angel episode. You just made my day.

[Browncoat Serenity]

You know I'd respond, but a person with his/her narrow poltical view might not like what I've to say

[buggabboo]

ok. you've been warned. cut it out.

[Browncoat Serenity]

Was that a response to me..Warned about what ?

this ???

http://www.watchfarscape.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29123

As you can see I've left out the controversial topics

-Abortion
-Iraq

If you bothered to read the thread you would have seen it was principally about the large Media Lobby which plans to broadcast a smear campaign on the Democrat candidate, calling Kerry a Traitor

However this is another thread, so let's get back to Disney shall we ?

[buggabboo]

right now, i'm letting you know that if you continue posting and or bumping threads that are inflamatory, that we will follow through on what the rest of Red's post says.

this week is going to be stressfull and hectic enough, and we've finally gotten some sense of equalibrium in the OT forum. bumping old threads where there were massive arguments, is going to be taken as inflamatory.

We will define board disruption as behavior that seeks to disrupt the environment of the board or the flow of conversation for the sole purpose of being inflammatory. This can include intentionally inflammatory posts, threads, or signatures. This will also include carrying personal fights, or issues between board members, from forum to forum or thread to thread. You have private messages for a reason. If you must bicker with a fellow board member, do it off board in email or PM. No more picking fights just for the fun of it.

i'm closing this thread now.