(02-01-2023, 02:26 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: (Some guys don't have extended mags . . . just sayin')

Are you yapping about trump again?

(02-01-2023, 02:39 PM)cannongal Wrote:

(02-01-2023, 02:26 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: (Some guys don't have extended mags . . . just sayin')

Are you yapping about trump again?

Now I see Baldwin, while doing his Trump imitation, squeezing the trigger!

Then, still as Trump,  doing an interview with 60 Minutes, saying  "I did everything perfect that day!  And I don't have small hands . . . my fingers are perfect, too!"

(02-01-2023, 02:18 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: In case they didn't, let's look at an article from the BBC, dated  . . . YESTERDAY!

I heard some of this on the news earlier.

So I'm wrong in thinking the buck stops with the armorer?

Short answer:  Yes.

(02-01-2023, 02:51 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: Short answer:  Yes.

She's wrong most of the time, anyway

(02-01-2023, 02:51 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: Short answer:  Yes.

Why would an actor have the added responsibility of doing the job of someone hired specifically for that?

He probably hired her.

(02-01-2023, 06:25 AM)Duchess Wrote: That's why film sets have armorers, to ensure nothing like that happens. Oopsie.

I don't see this case against Alec Baldwin going anywhere.

Obviously, the prosecutors see it differently and have a better understanding of all the factors that pertain to negligence. An armorer doesn't negate the need for excercising responsible handling of a firearm.

(02-01-2023, 03:03 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(02-01-2023, 02:51 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: Short answer:  Yes.

Why would an actor have the added responsibility of doing the job of someone hired specifically for that?

It's not added responsibility. The armorer isn't responsible for safe handling after they've provided training. Baldwin is responsible for acting in accordance with that training.

(02-01-2023, 03:03 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(02-01-2023, 02:51 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: Short answer:  Yes.

Why would an actor have the added responsibility of doing the job of someone hired specifically for that?

You raise a great point.  As an actor, he is merely an employee. His job is to follow direction(s) and deliver a performance.  An actor is not responsible for the hundreds of tasks and services that are listed in the credits of a film.  If that is your position, it's damned-near "bulletproof" and I then, would whole heartily . . .  and without hesitation . . . withdraw my previous statement and agree, with you.

Many employees (in any given vocation) never give a thought to anything beyond what is required to do their job and trust in those who are tasked -or- hired, to allow them to accomplish their duties.  A cashier, at a retail store, is not responsible for a price, incorrectly entered into their system.  Not her job.  A Postal Carrier delivering a parcel, to a specified and yet incorrect address?  Not his problem it was delivered to the unintended recipient.  You get my point without having to go on, and on, and on . . . 

But I have always seen you as a person of faith. . . . not in the religious sense . . .  but in one who doesn't readily "put their faith (or trust)", blindly or without question or examination . . . in any person, institution or event.  That was the basis for my response.

Baldwin was more than just a "hired-gun" actor.  And this was not his first rodeo.

He is also a member of a guild/union that exists expressly for the protection of actors from those who hire them.  They, like other unions, have rules to ensure that their members are not subjected unsafe or exploitive behaviors, by an employer . . . namely studios and producers.

You see where I'm going with this . . .  

(02-01-2023, 05:25 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:  If that is your position, it damned-near "bulletproof" and I then, would whole heartily . . .  and without hesitation . . . withdraw my previous statement and agree, with you.

The moment I read that I knew so much more was coming.  

(02-01-2023, 05:25 PM)BlueTiki Wrote:

(02-01-2023, 03:03 PM)Duchess Wrote:

(02-01-2023, 02:51 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: Short answer:  Yes.

Why would an actor have the added responsibility of doing the job of someone hired specifically for that?

You raise a great point.  As an actor, he is merely an employee. His job is to follow direction(s) and deliver a performance.  An actor is not responsible for the hundreds of tasks and services that are listed in the credits of a film.  If that is your position, it's damned-near "bulletproof" and I then, would whole heartily . . .  and without hesitation . . . withdraw my previous statement and agree, with you.

Many employees (in any given vocation) never give a thought to anything beyond what is required to do their job and trust in those who are tasked -or- hired, to allow them to accomplish their duties.  A cashier, at a retail store, is not responsible for a price, incorrectly entered into their system.  Not her job.  A Postal Carrier delivering a parcel, to a specified and yet incorrect address?  Not his problem it was delivered to the unintended recipient.  You get my point without having to go on, and on, and on . . . 

But I have always seen you as a person of faith. . . . not in the religious sense . . .  but in one who doesn't readily "put their faith (or trust)", blindly or without question or examination . . . in any person, institution or event.  That was the basis for my response.

Baldwin was more than just a "hired-gun" actor.  And this was not his first rodeo.

He is also a member of a guild/union that exists expressly for the protection of actors from those who hire them.  They, like other unions, have rules to ensure that their members are not subjected unsafe or exploitive behaviors, by an employer . . . namely studios and producers.

You see where I'm going with this . . .  

Dale Carnegie, much?

**  SHIT!  **

Too obvious AND too much . . . wasn't it?  

**  heavy sigh  **

Alec Baldwin, you either love him or hate him. I’ve never cared for him. 

(02-01-2023, 09:37 PM)BlueTiki Wrote: **  SHIT!  **

Too obvious AND too much . . . wasn't it?  

**  heavy sigh  **

'Tis in the eye of the beholder.

A thought occured to me in all this, as it was originally coming out: notwithstanding the apparent recklessness and cavalier safety procedures on set, IF I was a person who had been repeatedly mocked by a certain actor, and IF I was known as a retaliatory fighter with legions of willing flunkies to do my bidding, and IF I wanted said actor to "go thru some things" as payback for my fragile ego...quietly planting half a dozen live rounds into the prop gun storage areas might be a good way to do it.

(02-02-2023, 10:13 AM)Donovan Wrote: A thought occured to me in all this, as it was originally coming out: notwithstanding the apparent recklessness and cavalier safety procedures on set, IF I was a person who had been repeatedly mocked by a certain actor, and IF I was known as a retaliatory fighter with legions of willing flunkies to do my bidding, and IF I wanted said actor to "go thru some things" as payback for my fragile ego...quietly planting half a dozen live rounds into the prop gun storage areas might be a good way to do it.

Solid pitch for film or premise for mystery novel!

so it was trumps fault lol.

(02-02-2023, 05:26 PM)BigMark Wrote: so it was trumps fault lol.

That's where you want it go!  Oh, yeah!

Lead the audience (or reader) throughout the entire drama . . . throwing everything at them to convince them that he IS the one responsible for the horror!

Ending scene . . .  flash to Hillary Clinton in bed with Baldwin . . . Basic Instinct style . . . with a box of shells underneath the bed . . . AND a Credit Card receipt belonging to Stephen Baldwin!

With a cast of Mueller like detectives trying to solve the case!

Maybe we can get the widower to act as executive producer?

Start the casting call!

We need a Godwin's law for Trump.