Raf

Not for a moment do I think it's fair game to go after grieving family members.

The discussions are inextricably linked. Generally speaking, if a person is going to make a public figure of himself [a term that has different meanings in different contexts], then we are talking about different standards for "privacy."

Also, let me follow up on something WW said: The misinformation he spread was NOT HARMLESS. Not harmless to the public in general and not harmless to JAL in particular. Let his legacy on that point be a warning.

I'll just say here what I said there: if be had promoted cigarettes and dismissed studies showing a link to disease and then died of lung cancer or COPD, the point would have been raised and there would not be a shred of controversy about it. In OUR community, JAL counts as a public figure. He's not being interviewed in that video because he was such a private fellow. Further, we are not debating or discussing his life choices. Had he kept them to himself, it would have been distasteful. JAL had a platform few of us have, and he used it to spread the kind of misinformation that is of a particular health risk to people in his medical situation. I cannot think of a set of circumstances that would make a public discussion of his *public* stance on this PUBLIC HEALTH issue MORE fair for comment here. He didn't keep his misinformation to himself. The fact that he mocked legitimate efforts to control the spread of an illness whose threat he minimized, AND that illness contributed to his premature death, is absolutely positively fair game. Let his legacy be a warning.

Finally catching up on Flash post-crisis season 6 and into season 7. Nice work. Haven't even started Stargirl

Hi Mike. Sorry I didn't see this sooner, but welcome!

The video demonstrates that John really did preach against masks, vaccines and social distancing. Assuming COVID did indeed contribute to his death, that would probably fall under irony. If I am going to be consistent, I have to say it's fair game for discussion. This is tricky, because for whatever reason, COVID has intersected with politics. We can't discuss one without discussing the other, and here at GSC we avoid political discussions. So how do we do it? JAL used his platform to spread misinformation. I'm sorry if that offends your politics, but it is reality. Masks work. Social distancing works. Vaccines work. John didn't believe that, and the disease killed him. I will consult with the other moderators about the extent to which we will permit GSC to be used to spread medical misinformation. In the past, we've debated such issues to the point of exhaustion. But this is not the same as a discussion over the health benefits of superoxygenated water, which is harmless. Misinformation about COVID kills people. Until the moderators reach a decision, comments on this thread will be approved before posting. After review, we're going to leave this thread up and allow people to discuss any aspect of JAL's legacy. This is not merely a memorial page. There is one that was set up in the proper forum. This thread will be renamed to reflect its "open" intent.

Or you could, you know, just ask him to correct his spelling. :)

BB King and Dan Aykroyd And John... Goodman, but not Belushi? Gotta be... Blues Brothers 2000

Ok, NOW I'm comfortable. But two more are forming. Somehow less worried, but that's premature.

Like how snuck "come home" in there? :)

Yes, laddie, the suspense is driving me barking mad.

Do we need to hound you for more clues? Well, after work tomorrow, when I come home, if no one else has guessed it, I might have an idea.

For those following along...

Oh man, Sam making a beeline for Bermuda. Yikes.

This thread is what you guys will make it. It was deliberately left open and we very deliberately chose not to read the riot act before it started. Keeping it uplifting and constructive is the mature thing to do. I tried to express my thoughts without getting insensitive [insofar as his faith gave way to stubbornness, let his legacy be a warning]. Others, trying to do the same, drew the line in a different place. There was no rule against that, but as a community, GSC seems to be coming together to say, as one of you put it, "not cool." John put himself out there as a public figure. You do that, you take the hits. He knew that better than anybody. I've disagreed with him to his face, and we were still cool with each other in the short time we knew each other. How "cool" we keep this thread is up to us. I admired his dedication, his wit and his teaching style. I didn't admire everything he said about God or politics or public health. But I will say without hesitation that he did everything in his power to serve and promote the God he worshipped. Whether he did it wisely or perfectly or even well is not for me to judge.

Let's do this: Since we do not have direct evidence that John avoided masks or the vaccine, and we don't have evidence of why, let's avoid the topic. BUT If he died of lung cancer and continued smoking while preaching about how smoking has never been linked to cancer except by anti-freedom junk scientists, we would mention it and it would not be controversial. You would be offended if I tried to stop the discussion. So the topic is not off limits. But evidence, please, or let's just not go there. Some people are turning every possible subject into politics. Let's not. We'll make mistakes as we try to navigate this, but let's start with something we can agree on: no hearsay. If you didn't hear him say it, or have it on "tape," leave it off GSC.

This is a rough one.

A. A complicated man with a complicated legacy. In many ways, the embodiment of my post-TWI determination not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. He truly believed, as many of us once did, that we were privileged with something extraordinary but imperfect, and he dedicated his life to improving it. Along the way he embraced and promoted some indefensible stuff, and he defended it with a stubborn passion that would be admirable in the service of a more worthy cause. When he met me, I felt broken. He did his best to heal my heart, to restore the sense of spiritual family I lost at a time of personal crisis. He refused to judge me or condemn me. I admire his dedication. As it gave way to stubbornness... let his legacy be a warning.

The familiar clue was John Forsythe refusing to allow his character to commit adultery.

Yes

Yes, Sam. I know he bears a resemblance to Rudy the same way Gomez Addams bears a striking resemblance to the guy who subbed for The Riddler in those two Batman episodes. But that is Samwise Gamgee, not Rudy. Sam. Anyway, until that cone is pointed straight north, I'm a gonna stay worrieded.

Nope. The women on this show never wore the same outfit twice.