Backwoods Hillbilly Removed From Show About Backwoods Hillbillies For Being A Backwoods Hillbilly.

[snrjefe]

"Cave?" What part of indefinite hiatus means that when they offer to bring him back means they caved. It's all a bunch of hooey. A&E and GQ likely know exactly what they are doing in an effort to drum up merchandise sales and advertising dollars. Unthinking people on both sides of the issue are being conned. Phil supporters will go buy stuff to show their support and Phil detractors will tune in to Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow to indulge in some confirmation bias. Now lean forward in your seat, get worked up and enjoy the show. Don't forget to bring cash.

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/39-duck-dynasty-39-hometown-local-loyalty-prevails-010818052.html

"The Robertsons not only own a large gift store and warehouse where they sell everything from branded body wash to "Bearded Blend" coffee to a camouflage recliner, but they have opened Willie's Duck Diner and a women's boutique called Duck and Dressing.

There are self-guided tour maps, so fans can visit places seen on the show — the church, hardware store and doughnut shop are on the tour — and people say that West Monroe, and the Robertsons, are popular because it's all a throwback to small-town America."

[Berzerker]

Eh, we really don't. I post about sports at another forum. Poly's sports forum basically posts about American football and mostly Chicago Bears football at that.

I dont belong to any sports forums but Poly is the best civ-related site for fantasy sports edging out FFZ/USScaleModel. We got 3 football leagues and might be adding a roto league next year and that doesn't include the various pick ems, salcap and survivor spin offs. We've had 2 baseball leagues up until last year, and I keep seeing soccer threads. Hell, we had 14 people in our golf league last year (the most yet) and got 10 now for the 2014 season starting a few days after New Years. Poly may be losing activity but the sports section hasn't. Losing it will be a shame

[Ben Kenobi]

As usual, you response has nothing to do with the actual point.
A&E would NOT lose a lawsuit filed by him...
PUT UP OR SHUT UP!

Steyn eventually won his lawsuit vs section 13. Steyn's also in litigation, once again over his 'inflammatory' comments. He'll eventually prevail there too. Like I said, there's precedence with respect to religious expression to side on the side of those who were denied employment. I've also mentioned the Kempling case, where he was eventually restored, but lost the initial case.

That's two examples where religious freedom prevailed. I'm not sure why I would put money on an intial case.

You moron, not EVERYTHING HE SAID was a quote from the bible. So YES, IT CAN BE DONE!

A+E isn't making that distinction. Why are you making an argument no one is making? A+E has chosen the battlefield here and not elsewhere.

Now he's a household name. No he's not.

Yes, yes, he is. He was somewhat famous before. Now he's a household name. All A+E has done is strengthened his bargaining position. It happens, A+E called a bluff with weak cards, and the River isn't bailing them out. A+E's choices are to fold early and cut their losses now or to play to the bitter end and see what the River brings.

You say "they" more to another network... THEY can't... THEY are still under contract. Only He was "suspended"

Can you say, "Breach of contract". Yes. You. Can. They've already agreed to run through the final season on contract. As I predicted would happen. Duck ain't going anywhere.

No, he wouldn't, and that's the opinion of leading Media Lawyers, not some smuck that doesn't have a law degree.

Steyn's lawyer has already written on the case and speculated that Phil had a case should litigation proceed, but he doubted it would happen for the same reason I said - Robertson has nothing to gain through litigation.

Again, you moron... he isn't getting nailed for quoting the bible. He's getting nailed for other comments.

A+E isn't drawing a distinction. No one's making this argument, Ming. A+E chose to fight his comments in the interview TOTAL, not in part. A poor strategic choice. They've gained nothing from the conflict. They've given Phil free bids from other networks and reinforced his bargaining position. They've cost themselves a considerable amount of money. They've antagonized their flagship show. For what?

No it wouldn't have significant consequences except for the lawyers making money, because he wouldn't win.

Again, legal opinion on this is mixed. Phil's got a case because of what his job is, and what his job is asking him to do. You can't fire someone for doing their job. If you're dumb enough to pay a bayou boy megabucks to be on your show so you can have your giggles at the backwater hicks, hey, that's your money. Well, you can, but then you get to pay up for breach of contract. Even if they reinstate him - Phil could still file for restitution. A+E is in a no-win situation.

And as usual, your comments have absolutely NOTHING to do with this case here.

It's absolutely devastating to your case, which is why you're dismissing it. Got anymore Carrey impressions?

[Ben Kenobi]

If by all the cards you mean 'The Robertsons will either fulfil their contracts or be sued into bankruptcy', then yes I'm sure they hold all the cards.

Sweet jesus, have any of you ***** ever actually seen a contract before?

A+E has already broken the contract. You can't suspend someone and then sue them when they don't show up for work for 'breach of contract'. Well you can, but then you open your ass to a countersuit. You really think lawyers won't be lining up around the block to take that case?

[Ben Kenobi]

They may threaten breach of contract but it would be an outlandishly stupid move on A&E's part to prosecute it.

Exactly. Ming's right here. Nobody's going anywhere. I would be shocked to see A+E be retarded enough to fire them.

[Ming]

Steyn eventually won his lawsuit vs section 13. Steyn's also in litigation, once again over his 'inflammatory' comments. He'll eventually prevail there too. Like I said, there's precedence with respect to religious expression to side on the side of those who were denied employment. I've also mentioned the Kempling case, where he was eventually restored, but lost the initial case.

That's two examples where religious freedom prevailed. I'm not sure why I would put money on an intial case.

First, the strawman you are putting up isn't even close to this case...
Second, That's Canada, Not the US.

As usual, you keep pulling meaningless crap out of your ass to avoid reality.

A+E isn't making that distinction. Why are you making an argument no one is making? A+E has chosen the battlefield here and not elsewhere.

Please find me a quote ANYWHERE, that A&E is suspending him because he quoted the bible.
While he did quote the bible, he said MANY other things that were NOT quotes from the bible. You are the one trying to make stuff up and claim it's all about his bible quotes, when in reality, it has NOTHING to do with the bible quotes.

Yes, yes, he is. He was somewhat famous before. Now he's a household name. All A+E has done is strengthened his bargaining position. It happens, A+E called a bluff with weak cards, and the River isn't bailing them out. A+E's choices are to fold early and cut their losses now or to play to the bitter end and see what the River brings.

They have not strengthened or weakened his bargaining position... it is what it is. He's the star of their Number One program. He knows it and they know it. This has everything to do with money and advertisers. And I have no doubt they will fold early, and have never said or implied otherwise.

Steyn's lawyer has already written on the case and speculated that Phil had a case should litigation proceed, but he doubted it would happen for the same reason I said - Robertson has nothing to gain through litigation.

He's in a minority... Every opinion I've been able to find from American Legal Experts versed in Media Contracts say he doesn't have a case.

A+E isn't drawing a distinction. No one's making this argument, Ming. A+E chose to fight his comments in the interview TOTAL, not in part. A poor strategic choice. They've gained nothing from the conflict. They've given Phil free bids from other networks and reinforced his bargaining position. They've cost themselves a considerable amount of money. They've antagonized their flagship show. For what?

Again, you are just making crap up. Please show me a quote where A&E claims that it is the "TOTAL" interview. Good luck with that...
What they are trying to do is minimize the impact on THEIR REVENUE... you know, HOW THEY MAKE MONEY. Even if the show had ratings equal to the Super Bowl, they don't make a dime if ADVERTISERS DON'T GIVE THEM MONEY. This is all a ploy to keep advertisers spending, because without it, they don't have a show.

Again, legal opinion on this is mixed. Phil's got a case because of what his job is, and what his job is asking him to do. You can't fire someone for doing their job. If you're dumb enough to pay a bayou boy megabucks to be on your show so you can have your giggles at the backwater hicks, hey, that's your money. Well, you can, but then you get to pay up for breach of contract. Even if they reinstate him - Phil could still file for restitution. A+E is in a no-win situation.

Your lack of legal expertise continues to show. In your mind, legal opinion is mixed. The majority disagree with you, and nobody has won a case against the standard network morals clause in the US to date.

It's absolutely devastating to your case, which is why you're dismissing it. Got anymore Carrey impressions?

Ben Land must be a fun place... because all everybody see's here is yet another example of you making crap up and making more mistakes.

[Dr Strangelove]

It is their number one show.

That is the most pathetic thing I've ever heard. Phil Robertson should sue, win and put them out of their misery.

[Ben Kenobi]

First, the strawman you are putting up isn't even close to this case...
Second, That's Canada, Not the US.

Umm, Steyn just won a case here in the good ol' US of A. The usual global warming fanatics trying to shut him down. He won, case dismissed after lower court ruling was tossed.

As usual, you keep pulling meaningless crap out of your ass to avoid reality.

I raise the same question I did way back when. Would it be legal to draft up a contract barring the Robertson's from attending their church? If not, why not? I see no difference here.

Please find me a quote ANYWHERE, that A&E is suspending him because he quoted the bible.

A+E is suspending him for the interview which included a biblical citation of 1 Corinthians 9. Please find me a quote where A+E qualifies their statement by saying they are only upset about part of the interview. I see no evidence of it.

Show me, Ming. You said A+E are dividing between the 1 Corinthians 9 part and the rest of the interview. Show me.

You are the one trying to make stuff up and claim it's all about his bible quotes

Did nothing of the sort. A+E said that they were suspending him over the interview. Full stop. Did they qualify to exclude the 1 Corinthians 9 part which is protected speech via the first? No?

Gosh, that's kind of a stupid legal position to put yourself in.

, when in reality, it has NOTHING to do with the bible quotes.

Show me evidence of A+E saying this, please.

Every opinion I've been able to find from American Legal Experts versed in Media Contracts say he doesn't have a case.

Well then. This isn't going to litigation, no way it gets that far. I can see them losing in lower court and winning on appeal to constitutional free speech issues a la Steyn. So in that case, both lawyers are correct. He will lose and he will win.

This is all a ploy to keep advertisers spending, because without it, they don't have a show.

Then it's a terrible business decision because it's a high risk play for small, marginal gains. It's like benching Manning to start Tannehill. Sure, maybe 1 week out of 16 he'll slightly edge out Manning, but that's such a low percentage play it's just not worth it. Why do it when you can cash in on just rolling Manning every week.

Your lack of legal expertise continues to show. In your mind, legal opinion is mixed. The majority disagree with you, and nobody has won a case against the standard network morals clause in the US to date.

If someone suspends me, and I take it to court, and I get restored, generally restitution is included in that, if judge finds that the suspension was unwarranted. If you suspend someone for failure to perform and they are able to prove that yes, they actually did they work - your ass is in the sling.

[DirtyMartini]

That is the most pathetic thing I've ever heard.

Why? Have you watched it? I hate reality TV and I find it entertaining. It is so obviously completely scripted and these guys are so obviously playing caricatures of themselves that it becomes good old dumb fun. The only part I don't like is the prayer and lesson at the end.

The fact that the patriarch is an unreconstructed homophobe makes it somewhat less fun, but still....

[molly bloom]

The fact that I'm so prominent here is evidence of it's decline.

The incorrect use of the possessive apostrophe is evidence of your's.

[molly bloom]

Tertullian is a moron?

Was he there at the supposed birth ?

If not, how is he meant to know when or where Yeshua was born ?

Are you suggesting there's a holy birth certificate lying about somewhere ?


Surely some cash poor church would have snapped it up along with Veronica's veil, the holy foreskin and some of Mary's milk.

[Dr Strangelove]

Why? Have you watched it? I hate reality TV and I find it entertaining. It is so obviously completely scripted and these guys are so obviously playing caricatures of themselves that it becomes good old dumb fun. The only part I don't like is the prayer and lesson at the end.

The fact that the patriarch is an unreconstructed homophobe makes it somewhat less fun, but still....

Maybe they should just drop "Arts" from their name.
The ScyFy channel should just drop the "Scy" part.

[Ming]

Umm, Steyn just won a case here in the good ol' US of A. The usual global warming fanatics trying to shut him down. He won, case dismissed after lower court ruling was tossed.

And this has what to do with Networks Morals clauses???????
Oh that's right... NOTHING. I hear somebody beat a drunken driving charge because the officer was also drunk... So I guess in your world that means that he can win this case too.

I raise the same question I did way back when. Would it be legal to draft up a contract barring the Robertson's from attending their church? If not, why not? I see no difference here.

Strawman yet again... this has nothing to do with him attending a church. Big difference in the real world, but I guess not in Ben Land.

A+E is suspending him for the interview which included a biblical citation of 1 Corinthians 9. Please find me a quote where A+E qualifies their statement by saying they are only upset about part of the interview. I see no evidence of it.

Sure they are upset about the the parts of the interview where he is anti gay. But nowhere does it say they are suspending him for "quoting the bible"
As usual, you are trying to limit the case to a single issue to suit your warped views, which is stupid on your part. If the WHOLE interview were bible quotes, you might have a case, but it isn't.

Show me evidence of A+E saying this, please.

Again, show me where they saying they are suspending him for simply quoting the bible.

Well then. This isn't going to litigation, no way it gets that far. I can see them losing in lower court and winning on appeal to constitutional free speech issues a la Steyn. So in that case, both lawyers are correct. He will lose and he will win.

You are wrong yet again... Please show me somebody that has won a media morals clause lawsuit. And don't bother trying to bring up yet another non relevant case.

Then it's a terrible business decision because it's a high risk play for small, marginal gains. It's like benching Manning to start Tannehill. Sure, maybe 1 week out of 16 he'll slightly edge out Manning, but that's such a low percentage play it's just not worth it. Why do it when you can cash in on just rolling Manning every week.

HUH... what don't you understand. If advertisers won't support the program at the needed levels, there is no show, even if it is high rated.
Who do you think pays for their salaries, production costs, and generates profits. It's the advertisers. The high risk would be not saying anything, let it be business as normal, than have the bulk of their advertisers stop advertising. After the interview became public, the advertisers started complaining to A&E.
They made the smart play by doing something. Again, it will be interesting to see how long this actually goes on. Probably just long enough for the sales force to smooth things out with the big money people.

If someone suspends me, and I take it to court, and I get restored, generally restitution is included in that, if judge finds that the suspension was unwarranted. If you suspend someone for failure to perform and they are able to prove that yes, they actually did they work - your ass is in the sling.

Again, not relevant. This isn't about performance. Nobody is saying he didn't do the work. They are saying he violated his (very open ended) morals clause, which is defined by the network.

[DirtyMartini]

Maybe they should just drop "Arts" from their name.
The ScyFy channel should just drop the "Scy" part. That's fair -- truth in advertising and all that.

That's fair -- truth in advertising

Are they really still calling themselves "Arts and Entertainment Network" or have they gone the way of TLC, which is now just TLC, full stop, and no longer an acronym for "The Learning Channel".

[Ben Kenobi]

And this has what to do with Networks Morals clauses???????

The fact that his editor was on the other side and has written trying to get him sacked?

Strawman yet again... this has nothing to do with him attending a church. Big difference in the real world, but I guess not in Ben Land.

You're saying there's a difference that one is protected by the First and the other is not. Why? How are they different, Ming?

Sure they are upset about the the parts of the interview where he is anti gay.

Where does A+E distinguish between those parts and 1 Corinthians 9?

As usual, you are trying to limit the case to a single issue to suit your warped views

I see no evidence for A+E making your argument. Ergo, as you have failed to cite A+E distinguishing between 1 Corinthians 9 and the remainder of the interview, I can only conclude that there is no evidence to support your position.

If the WHOLE interview were bible quotes, you might have a case, but it isn't.

Did A+E say that 'certain parts of the interview were offensive, but not the part citing 1 Corinthians 9?'

If so, I'd like to see evidence of this.

Again, show me where they saying they are suspending him for simply quoting the bible.

So you have no evidence for your position and are just pulling it out of your ass? Wow. That's sad, Ming. Surely if there were evidence for your position, you would have already presented it.

Please show me somebody that has won a media morals clause lawsuit. And don't bother trying to bring up yet another non relevant case.

I cited Steyn already. Just because the case destroys yours doesn't make it 'irrelevent'. Well, I suppose that's a convenient way to argue.

HUH... what don't you understand. If advertisers won't support the program at the needed levels, there is no show, even if it is high rated.

Where is there evidence that advertisers are pulling out? Cracker Barrel tried and have come back in. If anything, there's a massive backlash against A+E, and the advertisers who pull out rather than those who stay in.

The high risk would be not saying anything

You're a terrible businessman Ming. You actually think that starting a war and suspending Phil was good business, as opposed to shutting up and just raking in the cash. I suppose you saw the fairy tale of the Goose laying Golden eggs as model practice for proper business expansion!