 | | "Fictitious Presidency"? How about "Fictitious Oscar"?
|
|
The consequences for Tim Robbins' recent unpopular ramblings are miniscule compared to the potential humiliation MM faces if the Academy is convinced that his "documentary" Bowling For Columbine is in fact not eligible under its own rules for (...) (22 years ago, 23-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Fictitious Presidency"? How about "Fictitious Oscar"?
|
|
(...) ROFL! Humiliation? Don't you think he'd enjoy the publicity? Cheers Richie (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Fictitious Presidency"? How about "Fictitious Oscar"?
|
|
(...) That's the downside of this, yes, but preventing future budding Moores from winning might be worth the cost. (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Fictitious Presidency"? How about "Fictitious Oscar"?
|
|
(...) He is so far removed from reality that he probably would. I believe that a normal person, having some semblance of dignity and pride, would be horrified were it to happen to them. But the fact would remain that we would be laughing *at* him, (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Fictitious Presidency"? How about "Fictitious Oscar"?
|
|
(...) We? No. I'd be laughing with him. So, do you reckon this is coming from his political targets or his rival documentary makers? It's certainly not coming from the Academy. What would be interesting is what the 'second placed' documentary maker (...) (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "Fictitious Presidency"? How about "Fictitious Oscar"?
|
|
(...) Uh, I meant the "royal we";-) (...) Definitely political (adversaries). (...) I wonder how the second place documentary maker looked in a swimsuit;-D JOHN (22 years ago, 24-Apr-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
