Still don't get it do you, and now the headline has scrolled off of Big Hollywood. You may not be aware of it but there are several Big web sites, and often they reference each other stories. Sometimes someone will see one of the abbreviated headlines on one of the other Big sites, like say maybe Big Hollywood, and will have a reaction to the abbreviated headline. Oddly enough though that reaction might be based just on that headline because the person has not yet gone to the other web site. Some of us have this small disability you see, we can't tell what something on a web site says until we go to it, but when we see something quoted from it we might actually have a thought related to the story based on the quote, not the actual content of the story. So if somebody writes a story about, say, "Bono wins lifetime award for musical contributions" some people might think about the pompous Bono that is still alive, some people might think about Bono from Sonny and Cher (okay, that's a stretch, a dead Bono probably wouldn't be winning awards). I know it's not likely that you will be able to put two and two together here and come up with four, so far you've not been able to read for comprehension and check references but what the heck, I've always liked challenges and getting you to understand simple concepts has been quite a challenge. But just for fun you might go back to the original posting, try to understand the site originally reference was Big Hollywood and not Big Journalism so the information presented on two different sites might be somewhat different. then further reading might lead you to conclude that the entire point of the post is the anything that sean penn thinks is entirely irrelevant to anything else in the universe and that was the point. Doesn't much matter what piers morgan wrings out of a nobody hollywood hack and besides piers morgan is another hollywood hack anyway. If you can't grasp how that's on point then have a nice life and try to not fall into too many manholes, but if you do make sure you fall on your head.

Okay, here's the missing link. I explicitly said I saw the headline over at Big Hollywood. If you click over to Big Hollywood you will see the headline reads, "PENN: "Tea Party Wants to Lynch N-Word in White House"". Does that make it a bit clearer? The whole point I was making was that my first thought was Penn Teller. When I see the name in print Penn, that's who I think of because I pretty much never think of Sean Penn in any context or any way.

I commented on exactly what happened when I read the headline over at Big Hollywood. When I thought Penn Teller was claiming Tea Partiers were calling for lynching because it would have surprised me and I would have cared somewhat since I respect Penn Teller, even when I don't agree with him. When I discovered it was sean penn my reaction was so what. What else would one expect from an ignorant cypher like sean penn except an idiotic statement like that. There is really no reason to get particularly exercised about sean penn being sean penn. The poor guy has to be himself, that's plenty of punishment. Now as to your comments, either you are slow or obtuse. In neither case is it incumbent on me to enlighten you. My original comment stands and fairly makes the point. If that's not good enough for you then so be it. Your demands that my comment meet your standard is you taking yourself too seriously. BTW, please reply to this to make the last comment as I'm sure that would be important to you and I am tired of attempting to engage on the subject.

LOL, take yourself too seriously much?

OH THANK GOD!

When I saw the headline at Big Hollywood my first thought was Penn Teller had said this (after all, who the hell ever thinks of sean penn?) and was crushed. I don't always agree with Penn Teller but never thought he would say such patently retarded things, glad to see I wasn't wrong.

Seriously? There really are enough people out there that like gang (not in the bad sense) movie watching. Heck when I see the people that are going in the movies when I am it's often couples or families with a certain number of groups of kids/youngsters. Most often when it's families of 4 or more it's pretty questionable if everyone wanted to see that movie. Seriously, there really is only one demographic that this idea really targets; early teen to prepubescent girls that travel in herds...maybe that's enough if they figure out how to get the money. How many times will mom and dad get stiffed for the $60 VOD and the kids don't pay up before they lock out the VOD feature.

LOL, got me :)

Actually that is not even close to true, statistically. The overwhelming majority of people are average. Don't cause trouble don't generally hurt people on purpose. Don't generally revolutionize any industries. Etc. Look around you. Pick the first 10 people you can think of and try not to include just your friends. Of that 10 most likely all 10 of them will be just average Joe's. The percentage of people that are truly bad, as you list above is somewhere less than 10%. The number of true innovators is probably in the same ballpark. But here is the kicker. The overwhelming number of people are reasonably kind in their environment. Usually are not cruel without provocation. Usually will help someone out if the cost to themselves is not too great (I know this first hand I was in a motorcycle accident on the highway this week and there were a slew of people that got out of their cars to help me...people tend to good, if given the chance). Then beyond that, the overwhelming number of jobs in the country (70%) are in small business. This means a person or couple or family trying to do something new, trying to serve a customer base, trying to satisfy a clientele, all of which amounts to being good, even if just to the minor degree of customer pleasing. These people are not Steve Jobs, but they are contributors, makers, creators to some degree or other. The percentage of people that are truly a "drain" or worse is smaller than you believe.

Son, you are way too young to be so cynical (and I don't care how old you are it's still true).

Seriously? Have you lost your mind as much as the imbeciles in the studios? My purpose in life is not to be the studios replacement for theaters where I will round up enough people to make viewing a movie, any movie, on demand at a rate of $59.99 or even $29.99 a reasonable cost/benefit. I wouldn't even BUY any movie for $59.99 these days and $29.99 is a stretch. Sorry, this whole pay idiotic amounts of money for same or near same day VOD idea is a complete non-started except maybe for insiders like yourself. Same goes for the pay a subscription fee to each content provider for their content. These idiots need to figure out that their product isn't worth what they would like to charge for it. The only long term strategy that will be successful is content being leased by aggregators in the Netflix model so that consumers can have a single payment point to subscribe to content. I've been experiencing this phenomenon for quite some time with web sites. The free beer and ice cream phase was great but as everyone is trying to monetize their content I can't afford to pay for all of them. PJTV want's this much, Glenn Beck wants that much, Rush Limbaugh want another chunk, etc. This costs have to come WAY down for me to be willing to pay for more than one or two of them. Same thing for entertainment content (which I guess political content is too :).

Sure, keep dissing Netflix and when the studios and other content providers gin up their own services just smile about how much better it is now that Netflix has no content and we all have to pay for each and every view. Or maybe the studios will give in to the consumer and relent from their dreams of every view being paid for and start up subscription services. Oh, but you'll have to subscribe to each content provider and $30/month to get their content. There's dark days coming folks as the content providers do their best to rape and pillage and tearing down company's like Netflix that are just trying to charge what their expenses are with bit of profit isn't helping the cause of the consumer. Netflix costs were always a steal in comparison to what the content providers have been trying to charge us.