In article <GNWdnc6wgaIkw5vbnZ2dnUVZ_h7inZ2d@rcn.net>,
Dan Kimmel <daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote:
"Seth Breidbart" <sethb@panix.com> wrote in message
news:eu4t4d$9uc$1@reader2.panix.com...
In article <d-ydnTUeg4eAe3PYnZ2dnUVZ_uiknZ2d@rcn.net>,
Dan Kimmel <daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote:

You are WOEFULLY misinformed on this. In fact the studios were the ones
who, in November 1947, made it clear they would fire anyone who did clear
themselves of the charge of being a Communist.

So if they cleared themselves, the studios would fire them.

If they did not clear themselves, the government would prevent them
from working.

Or did you leave out a "not"?

Seth, it was a typo. Anyone who did NOT clear themselves was fired.

So why did the studios do that?

If the studios hated Communism, the studios could have demanded that
their employees prove, directly to the studios, that they weren't
Communists, or fired them for failing to do so. But the studios
didn't do that, did they? They didn't act at all on any employees who
weren't investigated by Congress.

The makes it appear that the studios were firing people because
Congress wanted them to (I don't know under what form of
incentive/coercion), not that they were acting of their own
initiative.

"mike weber" <fairportfan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i01j03tbjn6hhp3uie4klhq9hu52pc3963@4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:01:52 -0500, "Dan Kimmel"
daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote:

That's because you know nothing of the history of how the blacklist
actually
worked. If X took the Fifth before HUAC, *all* the studios agreed they
would no longer employ that person.

"Agreed". You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you
think it means.

The word you're struggling for is "conspiracy."

In article <a_6dneMBCIGaRJTbnZ2dnUVZ_uHin...@rcn.net>,
"Dan Kimmel" <daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:

"mike weber" <fairport...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i01j03tbjn6hhp3uie4klhq9hu52pc3963@4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:01:52 -0500, "Dan Kimmel"
daniel.kim...@rcn.com> wrote:

That's because you know nothing of the history of how the blacklist
actually
worked. If X took the Fifth before HUAC, *all* the studios agreed they
would no longer employ that person.

"Agreed". You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you
think it means.

The word you're struggling for is "conspiracy."

Which equally describes the sort of boycott you would approve of.

--

The claim that this was "voluntary" could only be made by someone who
doesn't know what actually went on.

You mean that the studios really, really disn't want to do it and some

No, Seth, it doesn't. The studios, in effect, conspired to to blacklist
anyone who could not clear themselves of the accusation of being "red."
This could happen due to HUAC investigations, state investigations, or
private accusations by the American Legion or others.

"mike weber" <fairportfan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i01j03tbjn6hhp3uie4klhq9hu52pc3963@4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:01:52 -0500, "Dan Kimmel"
daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote:

That's because you know nothing of the history of how the blacklist
actually
worked. If X took the Fifth before HUAC, *all* the studios agreed they
would no longer employ that person.

"Agreed". You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you
think it means.

The word you're struggling for is "conspiracy."

Und zo? Were they forced into this "conspiracy"? Was it even

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:44:37 -0500, "Dan Kimmel"
daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote:

No, Seth, it doesn't. The studios, in effect, conspired to to blacklist
anyone who could not clear themselves of the accusation of being "red."
This could happen due to HUAC investigations, state investigations, or
private accusations by the American Legion or others.

And in what way was this anything other than a voluntary action on the
part of the studios?

Supply some evidence that the studios were compelled to do it against
their will, and you have gone a good way toward disproving that it
was "voluntary".

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:41:00 -0500, "Dan Kimmel"
daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote:


"mike weber" <fairportfan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i01j03tbjn6hhp3uie4klhq9hu52pc3963@4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:01:52 -0500, "Dan Kimmel"
daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote:

That's because you know nothing of the history of how the blacklist
actually
worked. If X took the Fifth before HUAC, *all* the studios agreed
they
would no longer employ that person.

"Agreed". You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you
think it means.

The word you're struggling for is "conspiracy."

Und zo? Were they forced into this "conspiracy"? Was it even
illegal?

"Voluntary" means you did it and nobody forced you to.

If the targeted person actually was a Dirty Pinko, what law did that
break? Was that a tort? Did it violate any individual or union
contract? You, and maybe even I, might think that was cruel or stupid
behavior, especially if the person in question was being excluded for
a youthful dalliance with Stalinism, but how was it beyond the rights
of the studio owners?

"Voluntary" means you did it and nobody forced you to.

You seem to think you're making an important point here.

Now you seem to think whether or not it was "voluntary" is the key issue.
It's not. In fact, it's largely irrelevant.

"Kevrob" <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1175052376.017935.124320@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
If the targeted person actually was a Dirty Pinko, what law did that
break? Was that a tort? Did it violate any individual or union
contract? You, and maybe even I, might think that was cruel or stupid
behavior, especially if the person in question was being excluded for
a youthful dalliance with Stalinism, but how was it beyond the rights
of the studio owners?

I'm at the end of the discussion. I see no need to come up with
rationalizations for an industrywide conspiracy to destroy the lives of
people who had broken no laws for reasons having nothing to do with their
employment.

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:40:36 -0500, "Dan Kimmel"
daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote:


The claim that this was "voluntary" could only be made by someone who
doesn't know what actually went on.

You mean that the studios really, really disn't want to do it and some
Bad Person *made* them do it?

Or perhaps you mean that they were ordered to do it by J.Edgar Hoover
or Joe McCarthy?

The studios *chose* to do this. The *decided* and *agreed* to do it.

They were not - directly or overtly - compelled (though there would
certainly have been implicit threats at the time).

That is the definition of "voluntary".

Show me that the studios *didn't* want to do it, and were *forced* to,
and then you'll have proved it wasn't "voluntary".

But you haven't, and apparently can't, evinced any evidence that it
was anything other than a semi-official association of studios (and
members of the various unions and guilds).

All you have done, and, i'm sure, will continue to do, is to repeat
more loudly and forcefully, that you're right and everybody else is
wrong.

Some actual evidence would be nice.

"mike weber" <fairportfan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7k9k03ta6g85dthrmm8u9pij9c3ku5220l@4ax.com...
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 22:44:37 -0500, "Dan Kimmel"
daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote:

No, Seth, it doesn't. The studios, in effect, conspired to to blacklist
anyone who could not clear themselves of the accusation of being "red."
This could happen due to HUAC investigations, state investigations, or
private accusations by the American Legion or others.

And in what way was this anything other than a voluntary action on the
part of the studios?

Supply some evidence that the studios were compelled to do it against
their will, and you have gone a good way toward disproving that it
was "voluntary".

It's wholly besides the point. I was answering initial claims that they
were forced to do it by the government. They were not.

Dictionaries can sometimes be unsubtle.

"Nlacklist" carries a sense of being something imposed by those in power
(and in the context of blacklisting spam addresses, the person using the
blacklist software has the power).

"Boycott" is more something done collectively by those with little
individual power.

"mike weber" <fairportfan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:k29l03d2m3vthpfc03njkg42ooses0uue6@4ax.com...
The whole discussion was irrelevant to the original topic, but you
insisted on raving about it, and got yourself into a semantic muddle
that some people have been enjoying watching you thrash around in.

Yes, in some alternate reality I'm sure you believe that's what happened.

"David Harmon" <source@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:466bb471.397843375@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:20:54 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "Dan Kimmel"
daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote,
"Voluntary" means you did it and nobody forced you to.

You seem to think you're making an important point here.

Not just an important point, _the_ important point.

Actually, not important at all. Largely BESIDE the point.

Yup. Not only is everyone but Dan wrong about what "blacklist" means,

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:20:54 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "Dan Kimmel"
daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote,
"Voluntary" means you did it and nobody forced you to.

You seem to think you're making an important point here.

Not just an important point, _the_ important point.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:22:10 -0500, "Dan Kimmel"
daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote:

Now you seem to think whether or not it was "voluntary" is the key issue.
It's not. In fact, it's largely irrelevant.

The whole discussion was irrelevant to the original topic, but you
insisted on raving about it, and got yourself into a semantic muddle
that some people have been enjoying watching you thrash around in.

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:18:26 -0500, "Dan Kimmel"
daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote:


"David Harmon" <source@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:466bb471.397843375@news.west.earthlink.net...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:20:54 -0500 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "Dan Kimmel"
daniel.kimmel@rcn.com> wrote,
"Voluntary" means you did it and nobody forced you to.

You seem to think you're making an important point here.

Not just an important point, _the_ important point.

Actually, not important at all. Largely BESIDE the point.

Yup. Not only is everyone but Dan wrong about what "blacklist" means,
everyone but Dan is wrong about how important it is to use words to
mean what they mean.