Well It Was No Cherry Pie...

[brodski]

1) What is 'non-violent' intervention?

Attempst to restrain, without teh intnention of causing actual physical harm to the assailent.

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by aerocontrols:

1) What is 'non-violent' intervention?

brodski is correct.

I used to be a trainer for non-violent intervention. It is not always appropriate and does not always work, but against a pie-thrower whose only intent is probably escape and not injury it most likely would.

Originally posted by aerocontrols:

2) If a security detail allows someone to throw something at the person they are protecting, and afterwards they have no good answer* for the question "How did you know it was a pie, and not a grenade?" then they should be fired and replaced with a security detail that will stop the security breach.

Possibly, but this is another question altogether.

Originally posted by aerocontrols:

If the bodyguards restrain themselves because what looked like it might be 'only salad dressing' from a right-wing nutball turns out to be acid from a fundamentalist islamic nutball who objects to Fonda's fitness/beauty past, then restraint is going to look pretty stupid in hindsight.

Yet in my experience, restraining before the fact for what is probably just salad dressing is legally discouraged.

It comes down to risk assessment and formulation of responses to threats based on their likelihood.

Originally posted by aerocontrols:

*A good answer might be "He wasn't carrying anything, spitting was a completely unexpected assault"

Yes.

 

[varwoche]

"I'm not aware of that latter claim. Of course, even if true, one can't dismiss every aspect of the woman's efforts. Unless one has a hard-on for her to begin with."

What a beautiful example of the mentality of the religious right.

Jane is now a born again Christian, so all you have to do is stick your fingers in your ears, and close your eyes, and you aren't 'aware' of any claims....
Which even if they did exist, probably aren't true, and even if they are true, she isn't responsible for them.


Keep on goosestepping Nick.

Pardon me for flogging this, but your posts are so antithetical to skepticism and reasoned debate that it's positively mind-boggling.

You could do the skeptical movement a big favor by not claiming to be part of it.

Based on past performance, can we expect you to ditch this thread now that you've made a public buffoon of yourself?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Pardon me for flogging this, but your posts are so antithetical to skepticism and reasoned debate that it's positively mind-boggling.

You could do the skeptical movement a big favor by not claiming to be part of it.

Based on past performance, can we expect you to ditch this thread now that you've made a public buffoon of yourself?

The gentleman/lady posted this, in response to another, in the "Police handcuffing 5-year old" thread:

...Thanks for addressing the issues here with some actual information...as noted, that sort of contribution to the discourse is becoming rare around here, and yours is appreciated...

Naturally, I got a kick out it.

 

[crimresearch]

You know Nick, your citing a thoroughly discredited stalker who is outraged that I dared to contradict his imaginary expertise with links to factual references, doesn't do much to strengthen your position, or to repair your reputation..

If you want evidence, don't play Varwoche's slimy game of fabricating out of context misquotes, and don't expect me to play keyboard commando with you.


If you have an honest question, ask it.

If you have factual evidence refuting what I actually said, cough it up.

Show us something to refute the assertion that Jane Fonda is born again Christian...

Show us something to refute the assertion that Jane Fonda herself does feels conflicted over the fact that women buying her tapes thought they could look like her without binging and purging.

Come back with some facts and honest logic, in place of puerile name calling, projection, and high school debate club tricks (like proclaiming what you can't find, and what you don't know, as though *that* were proof), and you might actually get to see how discourse works.

Not that I'm holding my breath.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

You know Nick, your citing a thoroughly discredited stalker who is outraged that I dared to contradict his imaginary expertise with links to factual references, doesn't do much to strengthen your position, or to repair your reputation..

What are you talking about? What "thoroughly discredited stalker" have I cited?

And how is my reputation in need of "repair?" You are the one who has gone off on a rant vis-a-vis Jane Fonda. I merely questioned your assertions, yet you responded with more vitriol at her as well as me.

ETA: By the way, I don't have a "position" on this matter as of yet (other than a basic belief in fair play). I joined the discussion out of interest in having you detail yours.

If you want evidence, don't play Varwoche's slimy game of fabricating out of context misquotes, and don't expect me to play keyboard commando with you.

You're welcome to show me where I've "fabricat[ed] out of context misquotes."

If you have an honest question, ask it.

I'll wait for you to address my earlier responses to your posts before proceeding.

If you have factual evidence refuting what I actually said, cough it up.

It's up to you to support your assertions. You may first begin with the one where you state that Jane Fonda is "complicit in the deaths of thousands of women."

Show us something to refute the assertion that Jane Fonda is born again Christian...

I don't care whether she is or isn't since it has no bearing on your assertions.

Show us something to refute the assertion that Jane Fonda herself does feels conflicted over the fact that women buying her tapes thought they could look like her without binging and purging.

You have yet to prove this. Just saying so doesn't make it so. Never mind your line of reasoning is a bit daft.

Come back with some facts and honest logic, in place of puerile name calling, projection, and high school debate club tricks (like proclaiming what you can't find, and what you don't know, as though *that* were proof), and you might actually get to see how discourse works.

What "puerile name calling?" What "projection?" In any event, again, it is not up to me to disprove something you have yet to prove.

And by the way, the last segment of yours quoted above qualifies you for the Ironic Post of the Day Award. Congrats!

Not that I'm holding my breath.

Better you not attack someone's character--that is, Ms. Fonda's--without justifiable and evidentiary support.

 

[crimresearch]

Uh-huh



You came into a thread that *I* started, in which I asked why people were not criticising the spitting attack on Fonda with the same alacrity as they criticized the recent pie et al. attacks on other celebrities.

If you are too lazy or dishonest to scroll up, here is the entire, unedited first post:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well It Was No Cherry Pie...
In the interests of being fair and balanced, shouldn't this incident be held in the same light as recent pie throwing assaults?

"A man spit tobacco juice into the face of actress Jane Fonda after waiting in line to have her sign her new book, police said.

The man ran off but was quickly caught by police Tuesday night and charged with disorderly conduct.

Fonda has been on tour and doing interviews to promote her just-published memoir, "My Life So Far."...."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...t/fonda_spitter
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Then I posted (Again, unedited):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, before this thread gets moved to Humor by some puritanical mod, where are the limits on honest disagreement?

In the Commentary forum, I defended the right to be 'rude' to someone by refusing to shake their hand, just as I defended Randi's right to use the Benjamin Franklin quote about lying.

And I fully condone, and have taken part in less passive protests, such as marches, attempting to deliver a petition directly to the Governor's house, picketing, and boycotts.
All of those were calculated to bring attention to our cause, and specificaly, unfavorable attention to our opponents.

Giant papier mache caricatures of people are certainly not calculated to make friends with the targets.

And neither are spitting, pie throwing, or escalation to more aggressive acts.

But I have a hard time justifying the latter examples in the current context.

I find Jane Fonda thoroughly despicable for reasons that have nothing to do with her Vietnam activities, and I abhor her cynical arrogance in delivering a self-serving apology to keep her talentless career in the headlines.

And in a face to face situation, I would never shake her hand, and if prodded, would be delighted to tell her and everyone in earshot what I think about her, probably (no, certainly) resorting to such hyperbole as 'complicit in the deaths of thousands of women'...

But it would never occur to me to get physical about it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Notice that you insinuated that I was lying about my stated reasons for my opinion of Jane Fonda, claiming that I had it in for her for other reasons...and we are still waiting for you to provide any evidence to support that insinuation.

So your current claim that I should go first is more dishonesty on your part.

The fac that you refuse to see Jane Fonda's own words on things like being conflicted about leading millions of women to think that they could look like her by using her tapes, , or her own words on being a born again Christian, are in no way proof that she didn't say them.

On the other hand, the transcripts of her saying exactly that will pass as proof in the absence of refuataion.., your professed ignorance of the quotes not withstanding.

Basically, you shot off yuor mouth without evidence, and are desperately creating a smoke screen to hide behind.

 

[varwoche]

Crimresearch, need I point out this is a forum that places a high value on evidence? Disjointed, emotionally charged vitriol is no substitute for evidence.

It's a simple request: Will you provide evidence that Jane Fonda was complicit in the death of thousands of women? If not, don't expect to be taken seriously.

But that's not all. I would also like to understand how it is that when a member merely asks you to provide evidence, that member somehow deserves to be called a nazi. ("keep on goosestepping")

Truly bizarre.

You say that I've misquoted you. Please provide a specific so that I can correct the record. I can't correct the record based on a vague assertion.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Uh-huh

"Uh-huh?" That's your response? (And thanks for the rolleyes smilie; I suspected you'd remain true to form.)

You came into a thread that *I* started, in which I asked why people were not criticising the spitting attack on Fonda with the same alacrity as they criticized the recent pie et al. attacks on other celebrities.

If you are too lazy or dishonest to scroll up, here is the entire, unedited first post...

Bully for you for starting a thread. Pats on the back all around. However, the original point you were trying to make did not and does not interest me at the moment. Rather, I questioned other remarks you've made further along the thread -- questions you continue to ignore.

Now your defense seems to be that I have taken something out of context. Nonsense. And you know it. This portion of your post:

I find Jane Fonda thoroughly despicable for reasons that have nothing to do with her Vietnam activities, and I abhor her cynical arrogance in delivering a self-serving apology to keep her talentless career in the headlines.

And in a face to face situation, I would never shake her hand, and if prodded, would be delighted to tell her and everyone in earshot what I think about her, probably (no, certainly) resorting to such hyperbole as 'complicit in the deaths of thousands of women'...

...stands on its own. There is no alternate take that your "context" provides.

Notice that you insinuated that I was lying about my stated reasons for my opinion of Jane Fonda, claiming that I had it in for her for other reasons...and we are still waiting for you to provide any evidence to support that insinuation.

Really, you're dancing perilously close to incoherence. But I'll attempt to take things one at a time.

I did not "insinuate" anything; I have been asking that you support your statements. And you've yet to comply. Now yes, I gathered that you "had it in for [Ms. Fonda] for other reasons." Why? Because you say so:

...I find Jane Fonda thoroughly despicable for reasons that have nothing to do with her Vietnam activities...

Reasons, plural. Since you eliminate her Viet Nam activities from the equation yet still use the plural, that indicates to me that, along with her fitness industry, there are at least three reasonS for your ire.

Your wily little insinuation that I have yet to provide evidence gave me a jolly laugh. It's been right there from the start in your own words!

So your current claim that I should go first is more dishonesty on your part.

I almost feel sorry for you, wiggling on the hook as you are. Look, you initiated a statement or a claim, then I called you on it. The next step is for you to provide evidence for your statement or claim, not for me to debate points you've not made to any sufficient degree. An illustration:

Mr. A: Mustangs get lousy mileage.

Mr. B: Really? Which model/engine are you referring to? Which year? And can you provide the mileage figure under discussion?

Mr. A: Prove they don't!

You see, we're still at the "Mr. B" stage. You have not addressed the basic questions, instead muddying the waters further by such tactics as evasion and off-topic (born-again Christian?) ramblings.

The fac that you refuse to see Jane Fonda's own words on things like being conflicted about leading millions of women to think that they could look like her by using her tapes, , or her own words on being a born again Christian, are in no way proof that she didn't say them.

The "fac" is that you have not provided quote one from Jane Fonda in regard to whatever offense you have charged her with. So you see, I can't "refuse" to see something I haven't seen nor was even aware of in the first place.

First, you have to support your assertion(s). Then we can debate the claim(s). Simple.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...But that's not all. I would also like to understand how it is that when a member merely asks you to provide evidence, that member somehow deserves to be called a nazi. ("keep on goosestepping")

Truly bizarre...

Or by asking the poster to support his/her allegations against Ms. Fonda I'm suddenly an apologist for the woman.

Yep, bizarre.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

My response to your latest neglected to deal with this last portion:

On the other hand, the transcripts of her saying exactly that will pass as proof in the absence of refuataion.., your professed ignorance of the quotes not withstanding.

What transcripts?! You haven't provided any!

I'll guess it feels all warm and fuzzy to make me out to be a liar when I state I haven't seen nor heard anything on the matter ("professed ignorance of the quotes"), but you are in error.

Basically, you shot off yuor mouth without evidence, and are desperately creating a smoke screen to hide behind.

I'm not "desperately" trying to do anything. Well, apart from nailing you down on your own claims.

 

[bigred]

Can you guys get a room

Fonda, tobaccy juice, and vietnam vets, remember? Who gives a flip about her religion?

 

[crimresearch]

Now yes, I gathered that you "had it in for [Ms. Fonda] for other reasons." Why? Because you say so:

You are losing it..I use the standard figure of speech, and from that you are suddenly a mind reader?

What are you going to spend Randi's million on?

Reasons, plural. Since you eliminate her Viet Nam activities from the equation yet still use the plural, that indicates to me that, along with her fitness industry, there are at least three reasonS for your ire.

Actually, your nitpicking at one letter in a standard figure of speech indicates a severe problem on your end...and requires no 'evidence' from me...
Figures of speech are not neccessarily assertions...even less neccessarily, when filtered though your irrationality.

If that is what you have based all of your rehtoric on, you lost this one before you started it...
'Reasons other than' in no way, shape, or form requires me to follow your bizzare train of logic that I must have meant any specific number...

Now, once more, while you wait for the foaming in your mouth to subside...

'Figure....Of....Speech...'

Got it?

 

[varwoche]

I'm still not quite clear.

complicit in the deaths of thousands of women

Was this comment about Fonda a figure of speech, as opposed to a claim that you intend to support? If it's a figure of speech I will drop my inquiry. A simple yes/no will suffice.

And regarding your post addressed to a fellow forum member who asked you to provide evidence:

Keep on goosestepping

Obviously that was a figure of speech, as I can't imagine you are making a serious assertion that RK is a nazi. (Are you?) Ignoring the civility aspect, can you explain how this figure of speech makes even the vaguest sense in context? Is asking for evidence somehow nazi-like?

Maybe there's a bug in the forum software that is causing posts from unrelated threads to bleed over into this thread.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I'm still waiting for you to address any number of questions regarding your assertions, crimresearch, your comical arrogance notwithstanding. See, you "foam[ed] in the mouth" [sic] in the first place (and continue to spew forth); I've simply been asking you to clarify, or, if unable to, be a man and retract your statements.

Shall I list the items for you in one nice, neat little bundle?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, crimresearch, it seems you've decided to abandon this thread (considering my observation of your contributions elsewhere in this forum of late). However, I'll make one last valiant attempt to get you to address these:

I find Jane Fonda thoroughly despicable for reasons that have nothing to do with her Vietnam activities...

What other reasons, aside from her Vietnam "activities" make her "thoroughly despicable?" (If it is only one other reason, please take note that there is a difference between the word 'reasons' and 'reason.')

...and I abhor her cynical arrogance in delivering a self-serving apology to keep her talentless career in the headlines...

Please reveal how you are able to ascertain that anyone's apology is either cynical, arrogant, or both.

Additionally, how is it that you are able to ascertain the woman's motive in apologizing, regardless of whether the apology is sincere or not?

...to keep her talentless career in the headlines...

You are aware, perhaps, of Ms. Fonda's two Acadamy Awards for Best Performance by an Actress? They were for Klute and Coming Home. She has also been nominated five other times: in the Best Actress category for They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, Julia, The China Syndrome, and The Morning After, and as Best Supporting Actress for On Golden Pond.

Ms. Fonda is also a Golden Globe and Emmy Award winner.

And in a face to face situation, I would never shake her hand, and if prodded, would be delighted to tell her and everyone in earshot what I think about her, probably (no, certainly) resorting to such hyperbole as 'complicit in the deaths of thousands of women'...

Please provide support for your assertion that Jane Fonda is "complicit in the deaths of thousands of women."

I guess that she won't be accused of making this up down the road a few years.

What does the cryptic statement above refer to? If another allegation, please provide supporting evidence.

I was thinking more of her bogus health and fitness industry...

For purposes of discussion, please define "bogus" and how the term relates to her efforts, including 1982's Jane Fonda Workout, the highest-grossing home video in history.

I myself find anorexia, bulimia, obesity, body image disorders and so forth to NOT be a source of amusement....

Please provide supporting evidence for how the maladies you list relate to Jane Fonda and her efforts in the health and fitness industry. You may also wish to demonstrate how she is responsible for the independant actions of others.

The only difference between her and faith healers IMHO, is that she used the celebrity of her family name to peddle her quack books and videos, and to sell the false hope to sick people that they too could look just like her, while she knew that her physique was the result of binging and purging.

I note the IMHO portion of your post. Considering the earlier evidence I posted indicating that there was at least one eminently qualified advisor to the "Jane Fonda Workout" efforts (Daniel Kosich, Ph.D.), would you care to withdraw your claim that her products were "quack books and videos?" If not, will you please provide evidence to support your assertion that they are (that is, were)?

Just out of curiosity, what exactly *would* Fonda have to do before you would stop being her apologist?

Please demonstrate where or how I have revealed myself to be an apologist for Ms. Fonda.

What a beautiful example of the mentality of the religious right.

Jane is now a born again Christian, so all you have to do is stick your fingers in your ears, and close your eyes, and you aren't 'aware' of any claims.... Which even if they did exist, probably aren't true, and even if they are true, she isn't responsible for them.

I originally stated that I was not aware of your claim that her "physique was the result of binging and purging." You responded with the above post. You seem to be insinuating that I was not telling the truth. Please clarify or retract your statement.

Additionally, are you referring to me as a member of the so-called "religious right?" Or are you suggesting that they and I share similar "mentality?" Please clarify your line of reasoning.

Keep on goosestepping Nick.

In the absence of evidence, why would you choose to cast aspersions on another's reputation? That being said, would you care to apologize for your choice of terminology?

You know Nick, your citing a thoroughly discredited stalker who is outraged that I dared to contradict his imaginary expertise with links to factual references, doesn't do much to strengthen your position, or to repair your reputation...

Insofar as my only citing was of the Ph.D. advisor to the "Jane Fonda Workout," I am confused. Please clarify.

Also, please demonstrate how asking you to provide supporting information for allegations or statements does harm to my "reputation."

If you want evidence, don't play Varwoche's slimy game of fabricating out of context misquotes, and don't expect me to play keyboard commando with you.

Please show where I have "fabricat[ed] out of context misquotes."

If you have an honest question, ask it.

I have been asking since I joined this discussion. Here, in this post, I am asking once again.

If you have factual evidence refuting what I actually said, cough it up.

Show us something to refute the assertion that Jane Fonda is born again Christian...

Show us something to refute the assertion that Jane Fonda herself does feels conflicted over the fact that women buying her tapes thought they could look like her without binging and purging.

I have already briefly addressed these points. To expand: I cannot respond until you support your allegations and demonstrate your line of reasoning.

Come back with some facts and honest logic, in place of puerile name calling, projection, and high school debate club tricks (like proclaiming what you can't find, and what you don't know, as though *that* were proof), and you might actually get to see how discourse works.

I have already addressed these points. Again, the onus is on you to first support your assertions. Then a discussion may take place.

Also, would you indicate where I have engaged in "name calling [and] projection?" Moreover, please show where I claimed that my lack of knowledge on any matter constituted proof on the matter.

Notice that you insinuated that I was lying about my stated reasons for my opinion of Jane Fonda, claiming that I had it in for her for other reasons...and we are still waiting for you to provide any evidence to support that insinuation.

So your current claim that I should go first is more dishonesty on your part.

I have, elsewhere, clearly and simply--using your own words--responded to the above. Your subsequent response (that you were only using a figure of speech) I believe is debatable. However, I will not quibble at this time.

The fac that you refuse to see Jane Fonda's own words on things like being conflicted about leading millions of women to think that they could look like her by using her tapes, , or her own words on being a born again Christian, are in no way proof that she didn't say them.

Again, please provide evidence regarding your claim. Please also demonstrate how it is germane to the discussion.

On the other hand, the transcripts of her saying exactly that will pass as proof in the absence of refuataion.., your professed ignorance of the quotes not withstanding.

You may wish to provide, for the first time in this discussion, whatever transcripts you deem relevant. Please also demonstrate their relevancy.

Following my claim that I do not know anything about quotes of Jane Fonda's you allude to, you insinuate that I "profess... ignorance." I would like you to apologize for the statement.

Basically, you shot off yuor mouth without evidence, and are desperately creating a smoke screen to hide behind.

As stated previously, I have requested that you provide evidence to support your assertions; there is no smoke screen. Until you respond with evidence to support your assertions we cannot continue.

Please provide evidence to support your assertions. Please clarify your line(s) of reasoning. Please retract your misstatements.

 

[varwoche]

Well, crimresearch, it seems you've decided to abandon this thread

The direction this thread has taken is familiar. That's because one day -- in a thread about John Kerry and the swiftboat veterans -- I too commiited the cardinal sin of asking for evidence. (I'd speculate there is a vietnam protester theme, except there are so many topics that set crim off that it's hard to tell.)

In case you're feeling special RK, you join a long list of jref members who have been labeled as hatemongers, racists, and nazis for reasons no less surreal than what you have witnessed here. The only thing that distinguishes me is I'm the one who documented it.

Noxious individuals are a dime a dozen on the internet; crim is garden variety. What's not garden variety is an argumentation on a skeptical forum this blatantly disconnected from reality -- he doesn't even put up much of a facade. Odd.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Wow.

Thanks for the link, varwouche.

Remarkable.

 

[crimresearch]

What other reasons, aside from her Vietnam "activities" make her "thoroughly despicable?" (If it is only one other reason, please take note that there is a difference between the word 'reasons' and 'reason.')

The multiple other reasons which I clearly stated right here in this very thread. The ones that no one else seems to be having any trouble seeing.

The ones you have to keep pretending don't exist, so that you can base your trollage on my saying 'reasons', and your phony pretense that I only have one reason.

More than one reason IS plural...get over it.
You lost this one before you started, because you chose to base it on a transparent lie.

Once more for the cheap seats....the fact that you *claim* to be unable to see the other reasons I posted, isn't my problem, it is yours. It makes you dishonest, not clever.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The multiple other reasons which I clearly stated right here in this very thread. The ones that no one else seems to be having any trouble seeing.

Then humor me and list them. Please.

The ones you have to keep pretending don't exist, so that you can base your trollage on my saying 'reasons', and your phony pretense that I only have one reason.

More than one reason IS plural...get over it.

Judging by your responses here and in the 'handcuffed 5-year-old' thread, you seem to believe you've really got me dead to rights -- that is, in regard to this point. So here, once more, yet again, is your original quote:

I find Jane Fonda thoroughly despicable for reasons that have nothing to do with her Vietnam activities...

Since you say that there are other reasons beside her "Vietnam activities," there must be at least two others for the statement to be valid. Yet you have only listed her efforts in the health and fitness industries.

That, by my count, is one other reason.

You did not say, "I find Jane Fonda thoroughly despicable for a reason other than her Vietnam activities." You wrote the word "reasons." That suggests to me that, wait for it, there are other reasons -- that is, at least two more beside the Vietnam business. All I see is one: health and fitness.

Frankly this is such an inconsequential matter weighed against the other portions of your posts (questions of which you are thunderingly silent on, I note), but I don't mind. See, the reality where I come from maintains that words mean something. Perhaps it's different where you exist.

You lost this one before you started, because you chose to base it on a transparent lie.

I'll thank you to retract that.

Once more for the cheap seats....the fact that you *claim* to be unable to see the other reasons I posted, isn't my problem, it is yours. It makes you dishonest, not clever.

It should be a simple cut-n-paste job for you to quote the earlier words you claim to have posted in this thread. Please do.