MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

I Removed A Comment

I am now wasting time, which I hate, on some form of idiocy which I feel compelled to police.
As many of you know, my policy is not to remove comments and I have never banned anyone from this blog.
Tonight, I came home to an entry that claimed that Roger Friedman’s e-mail had been hacked and that there was some absurd crap about me, Sharon Waxman, and others in some alleged e-mail gossip session he had with some guy.
I removed the comment for two reasons. 1) The attack on me is so factually inaccurate on its face – forget the insane, libelous part – that allowing myself to be in a position to somehow defend a charge like this is insane. 2) I have no idea whether these e-mails really are Roger Friedman’s and if they are not, they are a form of libel against him… also unacceptable.
I have sent a note to the poster and will eventually find out whether the e-mail he is registered under is real or not. And I will have to waste more time trying to find out where this alleged set of e-mails came from and may be published.
In addition, if the e-mails are real, the apparent rumor about me is so absurd that even Roger wouldn’t make that up… but there is someone who might have. And that makes me heartsick. And it’s not Jeffrey Wells, who spins reality, but doesn’t tend to lie about other people.
There is another professional gossip who has overtly lied about me and my behavior in the past. Ah, to live a life of getting restraining orders. Not a life I want to be living. But it certainly makes me more and more sympathetic to the actual public figures who live with this every day.
More as it develops…

Be Sociable, Share!

17 Responses to “I Removed A Comment”

  1. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Some people need a large dose of cancer to drop into their petty little lives to remind them just what is what.
    You never apologize for any editing on your own damn blog DP.

  2. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    (that is) You should never have to apologize for any editing on your own damn blog DP.

  3. Can you say whether it was a regular poster? The bit about the e-mail address being real or not makes me thing no.

  4. Joe Leydon says:

    But what’s the rumor? Are they still spinning those stories about how you used to make porno movies under the name Buster Hymen? And that you starred in the X-rated Western trilogy Hard Rider, The Ramrod and — always my favorite — Sex Shooter?

  5. IOIOIOI says:

    Cancer? Nah. Too much suffering. Something like this deserves quick retribution via a swift kick to the ass. Nevertheless; I do agree that Heat never has to apologize or give an explanation for removing any heinous comments that specifically deal with him.

  6. anghus says:

    i heard about this on another message board. somone claimed it was on TMZ.com and then preceded to post the emails back and forth in their entirety.
    but the link to the story they posted went to a story about Brad Pitt and a Pit Bull.
    It’s a head scratcher, that’s for sure.

  7. Noah says:

    Childish rumors like that one are the reason why people like Peter Bart don’t take blogs (and its commenters) seriously. All of us, not just the person who runs the site, should hold ourselves to higher standards of conduct. Those who want to keep their anonymity can, but that shouldn’t give them an excuse to spread vicious lies.

  8. hendhogan says:

    i saw it in the peter bart thread yesterday. didn’t recognized the name of the poster, but don’t remember it either. didn’t really give it much weight

  9. seenmyverite? says:

    absolutely right, JBD.
    and DP – hope you don’t let the turkeys get you down.

  10. Eric says:

    DP, I’ve given you a hard time in the past for writing about and being involved in this sort of thing, but it sounds like in this case you’re going about things with some class and restraint. Kudos.

  11. TMJ says:

    Does the scandalous rumor help explain why Pete Hammond is considered a “guru” of gold?!
    Yikes.

  12. David Poland says:

    The reason Pete is a Guru o’ Gold and would be in any group of the top 5 people who were “gurus” is that he will spend the next four months in front of guild and academy voters almost every day, hosting q&as and the like.
    Whatever you think of Pete’s opinions or reviews or quotes, he has the most access to voters of any journalists in the business. We can argue about how he converts that input… but he has it, undeniably.

  13. TMJ says:

    I have no reason to doubt Hammond’s access, DP. I guess it saddens me that he has earned such status.

  14. Was it Hammond who was making all those ridiculous predictions last year. Like, the really freakin’ absurd predictions that had no possible chance of happening? Or was that someone else?

  15. Joe Leydon says:

    Hammond should realize that with great power comes great responsibility.

  16. David Poland says:

    Pretty sure that it was someone else, Kami… we have had a couple of Gurus who have lived off the reservation early in the seasons… not usually Pete…

  17. I think it might’ve been Peter Howell, judging from the first gurus of gold entry a few pages over.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon