Posts by ironseal10

Dennis Myers6 said:Quick Change (1990) "Flowers for the dead!"
🙂

It's like I held him right there next to Mel Gibson—those big tough guys in forest boots... Antonio Banderas.
You're totally killing me here... ever since I started watching movies in reverse, like those Memento types, my brain just can't quite hold onto it all through the smoke and haze.

🤣🤣🤣 Honestly, just seeing his face sends me into hysterics. To me, picturing him as one of the most famous presidents in the US is just completely impossible.🤣

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP-u6...8E9FF16B68153F

I am honestly laughing so hard I’m tearing up over here. I'll attach a video where Bill Murray is hanging out and chatting with GZA and RZA.🤣🤣 🤣

GZA, RZA, and Bill Murray: Coffee and Cigarettes

silentcanyon58 said:See, that's actually the whole point. I don't know enough about Roosevelt to really draw any meaningful parallels there—but looking at what I've read about the film, it seems like Roger Michell is opting for a comedic angle, which honestly works perfectly for Bill Murray. 🙂

🙂 Yeah, it definitely leans into being an erotic comedy. The thing is, based on the other movies I've seen him in, I just can't quite picture him as some big, smooth seducer. 🙂
From the reviews I've been checking out, it sounds like a pretty ironic and superficial flick. Personally, I think I'll have a much better time with this than with the Oscar-winning Happiness Therapy. 🙂

silentcanyon58 said:I don't really see the need for such a long explanation—it's honestly not a big deal, just a minor thing. Besides, if it wasn't me, someone else definitely would have pointed out the English title of the movie. 🙂

Moving back to the topic: even though I'm a fan of the actor—especially since I'm not usually a huge comedy buff, and people mostly associate Bill Murray with that genre (though, of course, we all know he can handle serious dramas just fine)—the actual premise of this film doesn't really grab me. I'll probably skip it, or maybe catch it if my wife ends up being interested. To be clear, that has absolutely nothing to do with whether the movie is actually good; it's purely just my take on the story. 🙂

I'm curious about one thing—how do you envision him playing Roosevelt? I haven't seen him in a while and I'm not sure if his look has changed much. Honestly, Roosevelt was such a massive figure, so trying to picture Bill Murray stepping into those shoes is a bit hard for me to wrap my head around.🙂

silentcanyon58 said:Personally, I think you could start a whole discussion about Bill Murray on pretty much any subforum. Bill Murray is God. 🙂

But honestly? I had a bit of a struggle tracking down the details on this film—my French skills aren't exactly top-tier, and IMDb—which is a total mess online—keeps giving me the wrong info.

Anyway, we're talking about

Hyde Park, New York (2012)

Thanks so much. Since I don't know the original titles, whenever I search, I tend to type them in French and end up with these weird results.
Sorry about that, but I really couldn't find the English title. Now, I'm not sure if he's actually God or not, but he's certainly great in my book. I haven't seen the movie yet since it comes out today, but I'll try to catch it as soon as I can. I just hope it isn't some hollow marketing gimmick.
Roger Michell already won me over—I absolutely loved his work in Notting Hill.

Presidential vibes.
Bill Murray is easily one of my absolute favorite actors. He just filmed a new comedy where he plays President Roosevelt. According to various critics, Roger Michell wasn't really looking to make some heavy historical saga to teach the younger generation about history—instead, he wanted to make a comedy where Bill plays Roosevelt. I’m curious to hear what you all think—how do you picture Bill Murray as a president, or even a big-time charmer?
In case some of you aren't familiar with who Bill Murray is, let me tell you—he's one of the guys who starred in Ghostbusters.
,
http://www.allocine.fr/film/fichefil...lm=195038.html

I honestly have no idea if I'm allowed to start a thread like this here. If not, I'll leave it to the moderators to decide where this should actually go.
Since I'm still getting the hang of navigating this forum, I'll take this chance to ask the moderators: why isn't there a dedicated thread where newbies like me can ask questions about the site? If such a thing already exists, I'd be so grateful if you could point me in the right direction!

That being said, I'll write a quick little synopsis just to give everyone a better idea of what this is about. I won't copy anything word-for-word, but I'll explain the setup in my own way.
So, the story takes place back in 1939 in Hyde Park, New York. President Roosevelt is basically stuck in the middle of his mother and his wife—kind of like being the meat in a sandwich—while trying to deal with the rise of Nazism in Europe and his own health struggles. For those who might not know, Roosevelt dealt with polio, which left him with paralyzed legs.
Into his frantic little world comes this old acquaintance—a long-forgotten relative played by Laura Linney. Pretty soon, she's going to be discovering all sorts of things while hanging out with our President Roosevelt.

Nancy Reyes20 said:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUeUuRKMcFw
that opening scene... man, it changes everything...

Wow—David Lynch. Honestly, I'm a bit puzzled since this doesn't seem to have anything to do with the topic at hand—but over the years, I've come to realize how much things have shifted.
There was a time when we went to the theater specifically for the actors—then we started going for the directors—and now, it feels like it’s all about the production value.
I used to fall in love with whoever played the lead role after every single movie—I'd go out and collect their posters and memorabilia—but nowadays, everything feels so fleeting, and there are just so many movies coming out that I can hardly keep track anymore.

It feels more like a factory designed to churn out content—much like any other industry—where we aren't really talking about "art" anymore, just straight-up commercial products.😕

My mom was the one who first got me hooked on movies. Since I used to work so much and almost never had a free weekend, I spent my Sunday evenings catching the absolute best show on TV—it was called *Midnight Cinema*. I’ve watched countless cycles of film history through those broadcasts. I started out with the silent era, where Greta Garbo was my ultimate definition of beauty, and then I went through a phase where I tried to channel Louise Brooks with my hair. From there, I moved into the era of "talkies" and fell in love with *Gone with the Wind*. Honestly, since then, I haven't been able to shake the obsession.

@Henry Kim3,
Look, let me be real with you—I’m still on probation here, and I have zero desire to post something reckless that lands me in ban jail. And if we’re being honest, I think you should probably dial it back a notch instead of pushing such extreme ideas. We’re all just hanging out on a general interest forum where we can express ourselves without all that stifling stuffiness. Honestly, everything you just laid out is pretty irritating to people, which is totally understandable. Most folks here would much rather stick to something simple, like picking up some fruit at a local grocery store. Knowing your intellectual capacity, I’m certain you’re more than capable of sharing your views without coming off as an extremist or exhausting everyone who is just here to unwind and have a good time. For my sake, please—show the whole forum, and the entire LJES, what kind of wood you're actually carved from.
You can definitely do better than dustyranger64. I had no idea you had Canadian blood in you; I always thought it was just those hot-headed types from the South.😍

Henry Kim3 said:

Go ahead, keep making jokes... 😁 😁 😁

There is absolutely no way they’d let me back onto LJES...

Maybe if you just slit your wrists, perhaps out of some weird sense of nostalgia,

they might finally allow it... 😁 😁 😁

Dammit, what am I supposed to do now...!

What's all this talk about extreme measures? 😲 Just try asking them nicely—without that usual arrogance and that stubborn streak of yours. They might actually listen. Since they were willing to meet me halfway and lift my ban, I don't see why they wouldn't do the same for you, especially since you're one of the most active members on this entire forum!

Just be charming for once, and everything should work out fine. You've got a lovely female admin here—use all that charm of yours and win over rustydrifter10.🤣

Henry Kim3, who do you think is actually allowed to mess with you? Just give me a name—I’ll go handle it myself—and let me know when my profile is cleared so I can get back to teasing you on LJES. Honestly, without you around, LJES just isn't nearly as much fun.🙂🙂🙂

I honestly think we’re overcomplicating this—it really isn't that deep if you just look at the facts. People love to get caught up in the drama, but when you strip away all the noise, the core issue remains exactly the same. It’s pretty straightforward—certain things just work better than others, and that's a reality we have to accept. I've always believed that once you stop looking for excuses, the answer becomes obvious—and in this case, it definitely does. Let's just keep things simple and move forward.

I honestly think we need to stop overcomplicating this—it’s really quite straightforward if you look at the bigger picture. I was chatting with Jason Clark7 about this the other day, and we both felt that people tend to get bogged down in the minor details instead of seeing the core issue. It’s like when people argue over small policy tweaks in DC when the entire foundation of the system is what actually needs attention—you know? Anyway, I’ve been following what ironseal10 has been saying, and while there's some merit there, I still lean toward the idea that we need more stability before making any big moves. We have to be careful not to let our own ego drive these decisions—that’s how things usually go sideways. Let's just stay focused and see how things unfold!

Susan Price30 said:@ ironseal10, just so you know—Morgan Rodriguez57 was actually a moderator for the literature section, and he was a really solid, easygoing mod. Plus, I’ve moderated both Religion and Literature on two different forums, so all this talk about someone being "intolerant" or acting with "papal arrogance" just doesn't hold up...

And another thing: I don't think being tolerant or open minded means just backing up people who agree with you—it's more about how you argue your own point or (without getting insulting or mocking) accepting a perspective that's different from yours, right?

I'm sorry, I didn't see this yesterday! I know Morgan Rodriguez57 better than anyone.🙂 Do you want me to send you his playlist?😍 He taught me so much.😍
As for now, I can't really get involved in moderating ego since I don't follow him and I don't visit the religion section anymore.
Honestly, you guys are the ones who drove me away from the religion board—you just can't have a serious discussion there. You turn Religion into a joke and a battlefield, so no tolerant person is going to hang out there.
To be fair, I really don't know how he treats other users. If he's behaving the way you described in this post, then of course his behavior is inappropriate and not allowed.
I was only referring to one specific post, and I only jumped in here because of that one single comment—nothing more.

Jason Clark7 said:there's a massive difference between having an opinion and being a moderator for the Religion subforum—I mean, seriously? 😵

Look, you're totally entitled to be pissed off at football or the players—it’s fine to feel frustrated or even a little salty about those insane salaries they pull in—but taking that public and trying to judge the Champions League final like that? Come on... 😍

I honestly thought since it was Sepp Blatter, anything went?🤣

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:I’m still just as much of a deviant as ever—nothing has changed... 😉 😍

🤣I know. Honestly, I haven't changed much either—I still have a huge thing for guys exactly like you.🤣

😘

Morgan Rodriguez57 said:It feels like some people's thoughts and feelings carry way more weight than everyone else's around here... if Morgan Rodriguez57 tried to express anything even remotely similar, they'd be banned instantly. But then, when Morgan Rodriguez57 lays out actual facts and evidence to back up their stance—boom—their posts get wiped and they get slapped with a massive fifty-point penalty.

Well, I told you so—turns out I was right after all. Honestly, you guys could really use to pick up some gear if you want to actually stand a chance, especially since you're all basically admitting how unprepared you are... 😲 🙏

You really don't get it... take Morgan Rodriguez57, for instance—they actually proved through their work moderating Ljes exactly how they view this forum and the whole idea of democracy. Believe it or not, it was pretty eye-opening. I could have come up with plenty of other things to nitpick, but censorship and bans? Never once. ☕

Go ahead and point out just one single insult in his post—just quote one! And please, stop playing the victim. You aren't anyone's victim, and you’re a former moderator now. Nobody is being tolerant of you anymore—it's just not happening. Do you even realize that Strikalica and promatrac were the ones who gave them to me? $333 Is this really all because of that one single link—and what I sent to Seratorka via both her TV and her private messages?
Look, she’s a professional news anchor on a major network—I’m just an average user. That’s the reality of it. So if you want to sit there complaining and playing the victim after being part of this community for ten years, that's on you. 😍
It looks like nobody else is willing to step up and take charge except you and Susan Price30. Honestly, people like the two of you are exactly why half the country ends up being misled—it all comes down to that blind faith. You used to be Ljes's moderator, and now you’re suddenly trying to lecture us on morality? It’s pretty clear you haven't learned a single thing during your ten years on this forum—if anything, you've just completely changed your tune.😍So, tell me—since when exactly did you become censored? 🙂

Susan Price30 said:Maybe you missed the point—because the point isn't really about who someone believes in or represents (whether in real life or just in this digital space), as long as they actually practice and show tolerance for diversity. (In other words, a person's views only become an issue the moment they suggest intolerance; otherwise, it's just their own private business.)

So, one could be a religious person and still believe that everyone else (the others) has every right to be exactly who they are or whoever they want to be—take a Muslim, for example, who doesn't impose his beliefs on anyone or start personal wars with people; he keeps to himself and respects others. I’d say that’s a pretty ideal attitude for any moderator, especially in a forum dedicated to Religion.

On the flip side, if a moderator lacks even the most basic tolerance for diversity—or worse, if they're acting out of some personal grudge and being outright ANTAGONISTIC—well, you have to wonder what on earth someone like that is doing in a moderator position in the first place.

* Regarding the problem you're bringing up here: of course—if one side is aggressively attacking using every means at their disposal, then the other side is going to defend themselves just as fiercely. That's exactly why we need a moderator who stays level-headed and cool, 😉rather than someone who just ends up adding fuel to the fire.

Just let me explain briefly why I'm jumping into this thread. I was referring to a specific post or link that you saw yourself, and that's what I was reacting to.

I'm quoting this so it makes sense to everyone else:

I'm not fueled by hate; I'm angry. I'm angry because since I was a kid, I've felt this constant pressure to "fit in with the herd." I'm angry because I've been discriminated against my whole life due to my beliefs. I'm angry because thanks to a government that has basically handed over control to Vatican dictators, no one has ever even tried to offer me any protection. I'm angry because, from the pulpit, I'm constantly branded as immoral or a potential criminal, and my lifestyle is judged even though I've never harmed a soul—all while they try to shut me up by labeling me a purveyor of hate. I'm angry because they seize every opportunity to turn their worldview into federal law, forcing me to dance to their tune whether I like it or not. I'm angry for my friends who struggle well into adulthood with feelings of fear and shame instilled in them during childhood, and for those who were stoned, cast out, and harassed because of their sexual orientation—all while receiving applause from the pulpit and comments saying they deserved it. I'm angry because they are parasitizing the taxpayers' money. I'm furious when they try to explain to me how my wife's role is "predestined" to be a housewife and that she shouldn't selfishly pursue a career instead of staying home to raise kids.

And no, there is no "cure" for me. There's nothing that will calm me down or silence me as long as the Church keeps reaching its tentacles into both society and my private life. Who knows? Maybe all of us are feeling more angry these days, and maybe I'll live long enough to finally feel a little peace...


I don't see anything—absolutely nothing—repressive in this statement. I completely agree with his stance and I find myself in his words.
I truly think that with this statement, ego isn't threatening anyone; if anything, he's creating space for everyone, both in person and online.
Why not just let him express his feelings instead of judging him for them? Isn't it better for him to write down what he feels rather than picking up a weapon and attacking innocent people? He isn't suggesting any intolerance; on the contrary, he's just venting everything that frustrates so many of us, and I tip my hat to him for having the courage to say what he feels. Honestly, I think he has more tolerance for diversity than you and Morgan Rodriguez57 combined.
Kudos to the forum staff for posting this in such a sensitive space—it’s clearly a spot for people who feel things deeply. If you had tagged Morgan Rodriguez57 and you, we all know exactly how much drama this would have stirred up.
Susan Price30, I’ve known you for years, and I’ve known Morgan Rodriguez57 just as long. Honestly, I can't even quote you two anymore because you both just get under my skin. Let me be blunt here—no sugarcoating—you two are really testing my patience. It's not that ego isn't being friendly; he's just expressing an opinion that actually resonates with me—which is a far cry from you and Morgan Rodriguez57, who seem hell-bent on sterilizing this forum until it feels like some bland, sanitized ivory tower. I don't particularly care how you perceive one particular moderator or what kind of feelings you hold toward him. What I care about is what a moderator thinks and how they choose to express those thoughts.
In this specific instance, if you ask me, ego is simply voicing what a lot of people are feeling—not everyone, obviously, but many. And I honestly don't see why you and Morgan Rodriguez57 are so determined to strip away his right to speak his mind at any cost.

I’m jumping in here just to show my support for the moderator. Honestly—if I were the one posting this, I’d likely say something very similar. But I really need to weigh in on these various zealots who are becoming more than just annoying; they’re actually becoming a threat to our collective mental stability.
Behind all those religious folks and their deep-seated biases toward a single faith, there are some pretty dangerous derivatives at play.

Historically speaking, every religion has shown a tendency to act quite dictatorial—trying to force a single viewpoint on everyone else.

When secularism vanishes from a society, we all know where that leads—it ripples through the entire community. It shows up in how a society starts stripping away freedoms, including artistic expression.

Do you seriously want to ban people from having a critical perspective? What’s the endgame here—forcing church bells to ring in the middle of every small town? Are you trying to erase fifty years of history belonging to our grandparents and parents?

Are you looking to drag us back to the old days, where everything was about racial purity and everyone attended the exact same church? Or maybe you want to force others to carry symbols from the past?

I am honestly exhausted by listening to your fanaticism—the endless quotes filled with untruths and total garbage cluttering these pages. And on top of all that, you think we should just shut up and hand over more territory to you under your constant pressure?
You certainly have persistence, I'll give you that—constantly writing and trying to brainwash people by repeating the same litany day after day.

Under the shadow of the church and your unlawful condemnation of anyone who disagrees with you, you’re going to destroy everything.
You’ll turn this country into an extreme, ultra-patriotic dictatorship if you haven't already—and then because of people like you, we're supposed to replace a smart moderator who actually uses his head?
I’ll read just about anything in here. Pretty soon, the church will be deciding which music we listen to, what movies we watch, and what kind of art artists are allowed to display.
And then, you mock Muslims or Islamic nations. Truthfully, you’re either much more backward than them, or you’re exactly the same.
If I look at your social media feeds—where it’s basically just three topics: scantily clad women, the church, and politics—I find myself asking, "Where am I living?" What kind of society is this?!
You haven't even been out of the cradle yet, and you're already trying to build a new dictatorship.
It’s because of people like those writing about religion that we’ve seen wars break out. Given the way things are heading, it won't be enough for you to just pin a little star on everyone's lapel during a global crisis like this.
Everyone should be ashamed of those who write about religion this way.

Maybe the moguls can help Gugi find a fitting nickname so people finally stop picking on him. How about calling them slaves?
In her book Alcestis on The Poetry Circuit, Erica Jong says that you don't need to beat a good servant—they just end up whipping themselves with the lash of their own tongue. Honestly, what kind of insult could those women possibly throw at him that would be any worse than the ones they deal to themselves?

So, yeah—Rob seems like the perfect name. 🙂

Arthur Ward said:Luckily I wasn't—though I have been—so I definitely get where you're coming from, but I just don't see the point in venting here

No, I'm not some designated critic 🙄

And Happy Easter if you're celebrating!

Thanks, I did celebrate—sort of—with my online family. 😍 And I'm not complaining! I'm just looking for an online friend who’s actually in the same boat as me.

I've signed up for every single platform out there meant for people facing similar struggles.
I think I might be on the wrong site, though. I doubt I'll find a kindred spirit on this particular forum. 🤷