JESUS - Is This SUPPOSED 2-B-A Comedy?

You know, the HeadRAZZBerry alerted enough of the membership to Dirty Love so that movie went on to sweep the Razzies.  C Me Dance may have left the theatres so quickly he couldn't arrange a Razzies get together in some theatre to be tortured by, er, to watch it, but there may be some other way of getting the word out.  Maybe have a Netflix/Razzies mailer to the membership encouraging them to burn out their eyes, er, to watch it? . . .

Otherwise, it will possibly be this year's Strange Wilderness, well-deserving of a nom if not a win, but never making the ballot because no one saw it.

I still wish people would have rented Chevy Chase's Funny Money to see just how howlingly bad that movie was.

If a gun is sitting on a table, and someone who doesn't like you much is five steps closer to it than you are, the gun becomes a pretty powerful thing in and of itself.

Actually, I even have the Supreme Court on my side on this one, at the point where they ruled that the First Amendment doesn't give anyone the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Yes, words DO have power in their own right, and they should.

But actually saying it is the point of communication. If you don't believe there IS power within the word, I propose an experiment...Go into a crowded theater; for our purposes, we'd have to exclude ANY movie that is directed by Uwe Boll obviously...I'm not sure Hannah Montana is going to qualify either...but let's say you can actually find one...

So, you go into this theater and shout, "BANANAS!" In that action, I guarantee the reaction will not be anywhere close to the reaction you will get from "FIRE!" If you wish to do the comparison for yourself, I promise that we'll do what we can to take up a collection to bail you out when you carry out the second half of the experiment.

I'd be willing to bet that as a published author, Head Razz can also attest to the fact that phrasing ideas in certain ways can provide signficantly more impact than others, yet another demonstration of the inherent power of words.

Further, that power isn't necessarily invested in individuals. If Peewee Herman shouts fire in a crowded theater, the reaction probably won't be signficantly different than it would be coming from James Earl Jones.

My final comment is simply this: I do understand the point you are attempting to make, but here is where your argument fails: A person with a pea shooter simply doesn't present the same threat as a person yielding a loaded A.K. 47. You may correctly argue that words are tools, but not all tools are created equal, just as not all words have the same potential impact due to their inherent meaning and perception of threat, which is the base of their potential power.

Similarly, not all of the potential is invested in the individual yielding the tool. A sharpshooter with a gun can do a lot more damage than a guy who is nearly blind and has never picked up a gun. Similarly, the mute who walks into a theater probably won't have much impact walking into the crowded theater and attempting to convey his message.