Jim March just finished Filming "the debate show"

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK. You go into an ice cream shop. You buy lime sherbert ice cream. Or at least, you THINK you do. They neglected to tell you it was spiked with antifreeze. But you have no right to complain, because you were WILLINGLY buying ice cream and you neglected to ask about used automotive fluids, so it's your fault?
Click to expand...

Yes thats exactly what its like. :rolleyes:

You were invited to be on a show and you accepted. Turns out you got pranked because it wasnt exactly what you thought it would be. The bottom line is when you flip your ???? and go sue crazy everyone who hears about it goes "Wow, that guy is a lunatic". So this show is in no way harming your reputation. This freakout over getting pranked is though.

Had you laughed it off and accepted it people would see the show and laugh at the comedians. But now they get to read about you going nuts and getting into a war with this show and everyone is going to be lauging at you. So the bottom line is in this whole thing YOU are harming your reputation far more than Viacom ever could.

Besides, how can they possibly hurt your reputation anyway? Did this guy out fox you in an argument? Did he prove you wrong in some way? Did the editors make it look like you are for gun control or represent something you dont? No. Because thats not the point of the show. The point is just to see if you get pissed off. Everything else is your ego over not wanting to be part of a joke.

Like I've said, the bottom line is if this whole thing went down quietly and you laughed it off people would watch and go "Wow that Matt Besser is goofy!" and thats it. Now thanks to the lawsuit and you're freakout they are saying "Damn, Jim Marsh is a lunatic!" So who is hurting your reputation more?
 
Ransom - I think if you'd take the time to actually read the replies so far, you'd see that all but a newbie few have universally agreed with Jim, to the extent that many of us have offered financial support.

And it DOES make a difference that Jim is a professional, paid political spokesperson for gun rights in Sacramento and elsewhere. He got that job by being a long time, DEAD SERIOUS proponent of RKBA and gun owners' rights. The producers who invited him KNEW THAT. He is not some unpaid volunteer - his livelihood and career depend on his being taken ABSOLUTELY SERIOUSLY by those he deals with on a daily basis.

He accepted an invitation (for which he had applied, in response to what was advertised as a serious debate show) to participate in a serious forum from the MTV people. The implication was that this would be serious, like their 'Rock The Vote" shows. Humor is fine, but there was to be nitty gritty serious discussion of the issues.

He was blindsided. And if you think that's acceptable, I suggest you think of some issue to which you have (or would) devote your life and career (if you HAVE any principles that important) and have your personal integrity and the importance of the issue lampooned and ridiculed on nationwide television by buffons - "for a laugh."

Perhaps nothing IS that important to you. Some things ARE, to most of us here.
 
Guys, I finally "got it." Ransom actually believes that what was done to Jim is OK. Ransom sees no problem with the lying, misrepresentation, and attempted humiliation. Ransom thinks that trying to make a public mockery of other people is entertaining.
 
And it DOES make a difference that Jim is a professional, paid political spokesperson for gun rights in Sacramento and elsewhere. He got that job by being a long time, DEAD SERIOUS proponent of RKBA and gun owners' rights. The producers who invited him KNEW THAT. He is not some unpaid volunteer - his livelihood and career depend on his being taken ABSOLUTELY SERIOUSLY by those he deals with on a daily basis.
Click to expand...

Had he gone on the show and rolled his eyes at the insane points of view and called the guy crazy no one would think any less of him and his reputation wouldnt be hurt at all. However when he freaks out and sues everyone because he was part of a practical joke everyone looks at it and says he's a lunatic.

That hurts his reputation far more. Plus it gives opponents of gun rights more ammo to call him a nut. So not only is he hurting his own reputation but he's hurting the things he stands for because he is turning into a laughing stock because he cant take a joke.



Look, I dont care either way. But the bottom line is youre are making yourself look far more foolish than this show ever could. You were pranked. Either laugh it off and use it as a tool to further educate people, especially young people who would watch this show. Or you could freak out and sue and be laughed at by everyone who hears about it.
 
The trouble is that no one would take the truth seriously, whereas the young generation that watches the show would take the tripe the actors were espousing as the golden truth.

Especially after his being on that show with the way they treated him.
Click to expand...

The whole point of the show is its comedians taking a fake stance. No one thinks what Besser said is real. No one believes there is a College Professor teaching kids that The Real Cancoon is a better film than Casablanca.

In fact, one major point of the show is the experts are actually making good solid points. Its just funny when the person they are arguing agianst makes some nonsensical retort. So in reality the show would help the cause of gun owners because people would take what Jim said seriously and laugh at the comedian.


Out of curiosity how many of the people making comments have actually seen the show?
 
I'd sue for wasting my time. If I'm a professional lobbyist, my job is to benefit my cause. If getting ridiculed and harrased doesn't cover that, they've wasted my time, and that deserves compensation, especially as they're looking to make money with the show.

Also, I wouldn't be a good lobbyist if I were just prone to saying 'you're crazy'. That's insulting, and not very good for swaying people's opinions. Now if he had figured out just what was going on earlier, yes, he could have either left or played with them. On the other hand, alot of what they were making fun of him for is actually not too crazy for some of the anti-gunners! :eek:

Says something about the anti's positions when a comic trying to lampoon a gunnie ends up being so like some true anti's that the gunnie can't tell!
 
con·tract n. - An agreement between two or more parties, especially one that is written and enforceable by law.

tort n. - Damage, injury, or a wrongful act done willfully, negligently, or in circumstances involving strict liability, but not involving breach of contract, for which a civil suit can be brought.

"Frivolous Lawsuits" almost always involve tort law -- one without a contract. Hence the term "tort reform". I'm sure many here would agree that tort-based lawsuits have gotten out of control.

Ransom - Jim's lawsuit involves a contract that was disingenuous at best and outright fraud at worst. Are you suggesting that we should just "laugh it off" when someone breaks the terms of contracts or writes fraudulent contracts?

Imagine that you are hired as an expert in your chosen profession to discuss your industry. The organization hiring you poses as a news show that covers your field and has you sign a contract as such. In reality, the organization is your strongest competitor masquerading as a media organization.

Pretty funny huh?

What if this competitor is a company that makes billions? And you're a little company struggling to get by?

I'm busting a gut here.

What if you are a little 3-person software shop with a great new idea and this competitor is Microsoft trying to make you look bad?

R.O.T.F.L.

Now imagine that this large competitor is dedicated to taking away your Constitutional right to defend yourself and your family. They are using you to further this cause.

I've stopped laughing.
 
Forget just armed with a gun... what if one of the women only looked like a helpless sheep? There are many, many ways to 'neutralize' an attacker that rely only on the will to defend yourself.
Click to expand...

True 'nuff, but in MA they still had better odds of getting sheep than in just about any other state.
 
Man, some people are just not firing on all cylinders. There was a breech of contract. I doubt the suit would even get near terms like libel or slander. (if' it's on TV, which is it, and what about if it is captioned ;) ) I could think of a number of parallels where this would be worth suing over in many professions. If you work ina field that isn't small and tight knit, or where your personal reputation isn't critical, I can see why you might not understand, but it doesn't make you correct. Just because you can't see the value of what is at stake. I'm sure if comedy central produced a settlement contract saying that footage of jim march would never air on any viacom station, everyone likely would go home happy without any lawsuits.

If one was going to criticize jim's behavior, it would make a heck of a lot mre sense to wonder why he didn't just get up and say something like "excuse me, I'm not going to participate in this idiocy" after a few seconds. Maybe being around politicians makes you too tolerant of idiots.. who knows.
 
Ransom

Out of curiosity how many of the people making comments have actually seen the show?
Click to expand...

This will be my first comment in this thread. I saw the show on tv the other day, and made it a point to swtich the channel, without looking at it.

I don't care if its funny or not, i will not support others who treat people that way.

:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:
 
Just because you can't see the value of what is at stake.
Click to expand...

Scenario 1: Jim goes on the show, makes his case, the other guy acts like an idiot and its over. Jim finds out its a prank and laughs it off. The show airs to a national audience of young people who will understand Jim's standpoint because the opposition is so stupid.

Scenario 2: Jim decides to sue to try and keep the show from airing. This becomes fairly big news and Jim and his beliefs are lampooned by everyone who hears about it because now he is considered a "gun nut who cant take a joke without suing someone".

When you hear two points of view and one is a silly exaggeration it makes you automatically agree with the normal person. So if and when this episode airs an awful lot of people who watch will be agreeing with what he has to say. Most of those being young people who probably are either anti or on the fence about gun rights.

So in reality, him going on this show and making his case is far better for gun owners rights than making a huge scene and bring a lawsuit agianst them for hurting his feelings.

Not only is this tantrum hurting his reputation its hurting the cause he believes in and thereby making us all look bad.
 
Not only is this tantrum hurting his reputation its hurting the cause he believes in and thereby making us all look bad.
Click to expand...

Ransom,

With all due respect, I think you’re missing the main point. It’s not what Jim has done AFTER the show that counts – it’s the fact that he was suckered into appearing at all.

Mr. March, like many of us here, is in a profession where his reputation, his personal capitol, is critically important. He would not have consented to appear on this type of show. He was contracted for a serious debate.

They lied. They suckered him. They shouldn’t be allowed to profit from what is essentially a fraudulent deceit.

Lets put this into a more emotional, more personal context and see if it becomes clearer…

Someone you love gets assaulted and raped. Later she becomes a well-known and respected victim advocate. One day she’s contracted to appear on a serious debate show; however once there she’s ridiculed, phallic objects are used as props suggesting she actually must have enjoyed the experience, and she walks away feeling like she just got raped again.

Same situation - different players. Would you still be laughing? Would it seem like a small thing then? “Oh honey, it’s ok – they were only joking. The viewing audience will understand.â

Yeah. Right.
 
Ransom:

Go do some research on Matt Besser. This guy has been doing improv comedy on stage of this same basic type (including the exact format of this show as a regular "uprightcitizensbrigade" live act feature) for years.

Ya got that? HE wasn't a newbie.

Second, the guy is hardcore anti-gun to the hilt - "Crossball's" producers admitted that to me after the fact.

Third, he knew what was going on, I didn't.

JUST BASED ON THAT, how well would YOU HAVE DONE?

And that's without factoring in post-production editing.

I'm sorry but, *Nobody* would have come out unscathed from something like this. You're blathering on about "oh, well so they looked like idiots and Jim didn't so what's the problem" and...gawd almighty, I wanna....ARG. Never mind. Thank GOD, it ain't up to you.

But...THINK, willya?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
*Nobody* would have come out unscathed from something like this. You're blathering on about "oh, well so they looked like idiots and Jim didn't so what's the problem" and...gawd almighty, I wanna....ARG. Never mind. Thank GOD, it ain't up to you.
Click to expand...

I saw an episode the other day where the "real people" came across very intelligent and made a lot of very good points. THEY walked away unscathed. I think if anyone here hasn't seen the show and is spouting off, they need to shut it. Always know thy enemy. keep your friends close, enemies closer. so if you want to say something, be educated about it and watch an episode or two. get your heads out of the dirt and look at the other side. I for one think Jim has built this up way bigger than it really is, and how can anyone know for sure unless they see for themselves what he was "up against."
 
The only person I've heard of who was treated anywhere near as brutally as I was, was a lady connected with the Orange County sheriff's office in some sort of anti-drug educational campaign. Second-hand info on my part, but according to a reporter she was considering suing.

Folks, they didn't treat everybody the same. Some, like Susan Marie Weber (electronic voting), they treated with kid gloves.

Me, they went completely gonzo.
 
The bottom line is this show cant make you look any worse than you are doing yourself. Outside of THR bubble antis, people on the fence, and even gun owners are seeing a gun rights advocate who got pranked and cant handle it.

Youre hurting yourself and youre hurting what you stand for. I'm sorry you cant see that.



I've made my case. I'm done.
 
Jim I think you're right on the money.

I think very few thinking adults consider a persons professional reputation as something to just dismiss when publically smeared.
 
That and the fact that these people are exploiting another person's embarrassment for money. Had Mr. March known what the deal was going in, he would have had the opportunity to partake or not. And come up with some witty retorts. Remember, the actors were scripted and prepared... The problem is, he was clearly blindsided.

That, as I see it, is the principal objection.

The other objection is: most of the folk here do not view public embarrassment as "good" entertainment. I have viewed this show and others (for as long as I could stand) and felt as though I just witnessed some kids in 8th grade PE class pulling some other poor kid's gym shorts down for a laugh. If you think that sort of thing is funny, then by all means, keep watching.

I suspect others here would prefer that this "trend" in "entertainment programming" will die a much needed death.
 
The bottom line is this show cant make you look any worse than you are doing yourself. Outside of THR bubble antis, people on the fence, and even gun owners are seeing a gun rights advocate who got pranked and cant handle it.

Youre hurting yourself and youre hurting what you stand for. I'm sorry you cant see that.
Click to expand...

Ransom-

I often do freelance work with a film/video production house. As such, I am around people who do post-production video work for a living. Given one AVID video editing workstation and a diligent editor bent on making someone look a certain way, it wouldn't be hard to edit an interview, let alone an entire debate, to completely slant it one way or the other. Regardless of how erudite Jim was on the show, it doesn't take much work to slice and dice video and audio comments completely out of context to make him look like an idiot.

For further examples of this please reference every movie and/or tv series Michael Moore has made.

Sorry, but unless the show was a live broadcast, there's no way that someone on the show would have a snowball's chance of appearing in any context except that which the producers/directors/editors want them to appear.
 
I watched an episode of this show tonight, I want my IQ points back. To the point, coming back from commercial they had their own little intro commercial. They said"let's see what our guests have to say about Crossballs". Well, unless I'm blind they showed Jim saying something to the effect of "It got really ugly in there" Jim was that you? Did you do an aftershow interview?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
Jim March makes USA Today
Replies
23
Views
2K
Tharg
T
R
  • Locked
Jim Scoutten E-mail --> Shooting USA Debuts Tomorrow Night
Replies
19
Views
1K
vapor22
V
W
  • Locked
Wayne La Pierre and Janalee Tobias on Jim Dexter radio Show (UTAH)
Replies
7
Views
682
WAGCEVP
W
F
  • Locked
Gun shows to gunbelt leather
Replies
0
Views
405
funnybone
F
K
  • Locked
If you like to talk guns, this is the radio show for you! Tune in/listen via podcast
Replies
5
Views
715
KnightOfTheOldeCode
K
Back
Top