#Thomas Hearns

[canmking]

T h o m a s H e a r n

[mosleyboxing]

Barkley vs Hearns 1 - HEARNS Highlights & BARKLEY Highlights

[dannycardfan824]

LEAF 2023 REIMAGINED

THOMAS HEARNS #RI-TH1 8/83 AUTOGRAPH CSG GRADED 9

[frontproofmedia]

Black History Month Tribute - Sugar Ray Leonard

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

By Sina Latif

Follow @Frontproofmedia!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id))(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');

Published: February 11, 2023

Ray Charles Leonard, otherwise known to boxing fans as Sugar Ray Leonard, was always destined for greatness. Named after iconic singer Ray Charles and incorporating the great Sugar Ray Robinson moniker, Leonard lived up to the hefty billing.

Leonard’s boyhood idol, Sugar Ray Robinson, was a truly magnificent fighter. If one wished to adopt the “Sugar Ray” moniker, they had to be worthy. Many have tried, but have not lived up to the representation and greatness of the name. Sugar Ray Leonard did. The only other true Sugar Ray.

Ray won a Gold medal as part of the great 1976 US Olympic boxing squad at light welterweight, launching his career in becoming one of the greatest fighters in the history of boxing, a five-weight division champion from welterweight to light-heavyweight, a three-weight lineal champion and undisputed welterweight champion.

In a decade that featured the prime years of Marvelous Marvin Hagler, Julio Cesar Chavez, Larry Holmes, and Mike Tyson, the man named fighter of the decade for the 1980s was Leonard.

Leonard flicked a switch once he entered the ring. In a book named SuperFight by Brian Doogan, detailing the historic showdown between Leonard and Hagler, Tyson starts by stating: “Don’t ever be fooled by the pretty face. Ray Leonard was a pit bull with a pretty face. Outside the ring, he was cute, articulate, smart, great looking, but deep down inside he was a vicious animal. When it comes to this fighting thing, he’s like a monster.”

Many of the greats have one thing in common, which is toughness, and Leonard had that in abundance. Ray took big shots from the likes of Thomas Hearns, Roberto Duran, and Hagler, all devastating punchers, and never succumbed. Leonard was also perhaps the greatest finisher of all time. Once Ray smelt blood in the water, even if it was in the late championship rounds against all-time elites, he had a special reserve of energy to savagely finish off his beaten opponent.

Alongside his immense toughness and vicious killer’s instinct, he had two-fisted power, the ability to fight equally as effectively on the inside and outside, IQ, reflexes, balance, blinding hand speed, great foot movement, and an innate ability to take advantage of an opponent’s weaknesses like no other. Leonard was one of the greatest all-rounders in boxing history.

Ray was a man who performed his craft with grace but also had the brutishness to seriously hurt opponents and end fights instantly. The perfect blend of grace and savagery.

One does not need to look any further than the brutal stoppages of Andy ‘Hawk’ Price and Davey ‘Boy’ Green to see how savage Leonard really was.

History dictates that a fighter will not be judged solely based on their own ability, but on the ability of the competition they face.

Leonard would have fit into any era and been a stand-out prizefighter, but the stars truly aligned for him to be afforded the opportunity to go toe-to-toe with dance partners such as Duran, Hearns, and Hagler.

These men, the legendary ‘Fabulous Four,’ produced breathtaking, historic nights between them. All four were amongst the greatest fighters of all time and would have held their own in any era in history, but together they immortalized one another. Also, not to mention the criminally underrated and fellow great, essentially the fifth king, Wilfredo “El Radar” Benitez.

The only man to hold a victory over all of the others… Leonard.

Leonard’s greatness did not just shine through beating his fellow greats that he did, but the electrifying fashion in which he did so.

His first title shot against Benitez in November 1979 marked Leonard’s arrival as more than just a media creation and marketable Olympic champion. Benitez was special, the man known as the “Bible of Boxing,” the youngest ever world champion at 17 after defeating long-reigning champion Antonio Cervantes. At the time of this fight, Benitez was 21, undefeated, and at the peak of his powers. He was 38–0 with 1 draw and a two-weight division champion. Benitez was one of the most naturally gifted boxers ever, one of the greatest defensive fighters of all time, and a magnificent counter-puncher. Leonard out-boxed and out-fought Benitez and got the stoppage in the 15th and final round, six seconds from the final bell.

Ray’s first professional defeat came against Duran at the Olympic Stadium in Montreal in June 1980, in the same arena where Leonard had won Olympic gold.

Leonard lost to a legend who had the best night of his life with one of the greatest triumphs in boxing history. Duran was a killer with a record of 71–1, and Leonard fought Duran’s fight, going toe-to-toe on the inside against one of the greatest in-fighters of all time, and lost a razor-close decision. Even in defeat, the ‘Golden Boy’ showed that he was more than just a slick boxer with marketable looks. He was a real fighter who possessed immense toughness.

The infamous ‘No Mas’ fight came just five short months later. When Leonard usually fought, he wore red, white, and blue trunks and had tassels on his shoes, but for the rematch, Leonard wore black trunks, black socks, and no tassels. In his Autobiography, “The Big Fight,” Leonard stated, “I would have put on black gloves if they had let me. It was not the time for any more showbiz. There was a title to win back.” Prior to leaving his dressing room, Leonard asked his adviser Mike Trainer: “How do I look?” Trainer responded: “You look like a mix of the Grim Reaper and an assassin,” to which Leonard responded to in his Autobiography, “Exactly.”

Since becoming champion, Duran had partied vigorously for months, and it was clear who the more focused and in-shape fighter was on fight night. Leonard masterfully out-boxed Duran, then started clowning and humiliating Duran, much to the Panamanian’s irritation. In the eighth round, Duran’s pride could take no more, and he turned his back on Leonard and waved the fight off to the referee. The man famed for his machismo and incredible will to win turned human and wanted no more, and Leonard was crowned champion once again.

When Ray faced Hearns in September 1981, the tall, lean, and explosively powerful “Hitman” was 22 and undefeated, boasting a record of 32 wins with 30 knockouts. Against a monster in Hearns while fighting for the undisputed welterweight championship, Leonard out-fought Hearns and came from behind on the scorecards to mount a furious assault in the 14th round and stop the fearsome knockout artist. This fight was a perfect demonstration of a peak Leonard, young and hungry, showing heart and a doggedness that completely defied his pleasant nature away from the ring to turn the tide of a grueling, losing fight to stop Hearns. Ray showed a quality that is rare on such grand occasions and points to greatness. This was a real historic, legacy-defining fight. Sugar Ray’s sweetest victory and Hearns’ first loss.

Leonard got these career-defining victories before the age of 26, and in the space of a 22-month period. The epitome of greatness.

Leonard was subsequently forced into retirement in 1982 due to a partially detached retina, so his physical prime was cut short. He made a brief return in 1984 against Kevin Howard, suffering the first knockdown of his professional career before prevailing with a vicious barrage of head blows later in the fight. Ray subsequently ‘officially retired’… until 1987.

In April 1987, Leonard faced one of the greatest middleweights of all time in Hagler and, against all odds, prevailed as the victor via a split decision. However debatable the result, Leonard fought the undisputed middleweight champion of over six years, with 12 title defenses, in his first fight in three years, having never competed at middleweight before. With no tune-ups, Ray was fighting the pound-for-pound best fighter on the planet. The fight was awarded “Upset of the Year” by The Ring. For Leonard to be so competitive against one of the most dangerous and dominant middleweight champions of all time after such prolonged inactivity was a sensational achievement.

Subsequently, past his prime competing against WBC light-heavyweight champion Donny Lalonde, Leonard showed heart, chin, power, and ferocious killer instinct when stopping a substantially naturally bigger man.

Leonard was arguably the most complete fighter since the days of Ray Robinson, and there has arguably not been as complete a prizefighter since Leonard.

Leonard filled the void left by Muhammad Ali’s retirement as boxing’s main attraction, and not only followed Ali in keeping boxing in the public’s interest, but followed Ali in being a real once-in-a-generation fighter, somebody who must be mentioned when discussing the finest fighters ever to lace a pair of gloves.

(Featured Photo: John W. McDonough/Icon Sportswire)

[white-cat-of-doom]

A few more performance photos from Cast 14 of the Oasis of the Seas this past weekend; 16/17 February 2024.

(Source)

With Thomas Alsop as Skimbleshanks, Jaime Mollineaux as Jennyanydots, Jamie Armour as Pouncival, Ben Reynolds as Munkustrap, Martha-Frances Henry as Grizabella, Dena Philpott as Tantomile, Adam Hearn as Coricopat, DevinRe Lewis Adams as Rum Tum Tugger, Rina Punwani as Rumpleteazer, and Peter James Lake as Old Deuteronomy.

[jacquesbonhomie]

Thomas Hearne

‘A River Gorge at Downton, Salop’

[cryptidvoidwritings]

A couple more snaps of Thomas Alsop as Gus and Adam Hearn as Skimbleshanks (plus Matthew Tratch as Tumblebrutus)

instagram story: Dec 9, 2023

[richmond-rex]

Hi! This is a kinda random question, but I'm getting a little confused about the various contemporary and most contemporary chroniclers of the Wars of the Roses so I figured I should ask.

I know the basic gist and background of Crowland, Mancini and Vergil's accounts, but I'm a very confused with Thomas More and Edward Hall. When exactly were their accounts written and published respectively? And was there an overlap between them - I remember reading somewhere that Hall borrowed quite a bit from More's account when writing about what happened before Henry VII's ascension, particularly for Edward IV and Richard III's reigns. I think some sentences are pretty much word-for-word the same. But I read this a while ago so I may he mistaken.

And did Grafton publish his own Chronicle, or did he compile and print other historians' chronicles?

ALSO (sorry) do we know when the Hearne's Fragement was originally written? I was reading "Later Plantagenet and Wars of the Roses Consorts" and Joanna Laynesmith, when writing about he excerpt pertaining to Edward and Elizabeth's marriage, writes that it was written "decades later" by "a servant of thr Howard family who had been are court in the late 1460s". Is that the generally accepted consensus?

again, sorry if this seems super random

Hi! Sorry for taking so long to reply. Thomas More never wrote a whole account of the Wars of the Roses, focusing instead on Richard III (his work is called, after all, History of King Richard III). He began writing in the early 1510s but his manuscript was never finished and was printed incomplete only in 1543. More had served in Bishop Morton's household so he had access to witnesses that had lived through Richard's reign, but even then, his account is very much not a chronicle in the same sense that Croyland's, The Great London's, Fabyan's, etc, were. More wrote a commentary on tyranny, and it's likely that he meant it as a kind of manual, a warning against the negative example of a bad prince in the mould of certain classical writers (the account's structure is borrowed from Tacitus and the style inspired by Suetonius).

Edward Hall began writing his "The Union of the Two Noble and Illustre Families of Lancastre and Yorke" during Henry VIII's reign but it was only published in 1548, a year after Hall's own death. From what I've read, Hall borrowed both from Vergil's account and More's. Even then, according to Charles Ross, 'Hall is acknowledged to have information on the battles of this period not found elsewhere'. Richard Grafton in turn was actually the one who published Edward Hall's chronicle. As far as I know, Grafton was primarily a printer so he published and compiled other people's works.

The information about Hearne's Fragment being written decades later after the events that he narrates is given by the author himself. He refers to Thomas Howard as Lord Treasurer so his account could only have been written between 1500 and 1522, the period when the Duke of Norfolk held that office. It's generally accepted that if he wasn't a servant of the Howard family at that time, he must have been residing with them in the period that he wrote his chronicle. The author himself says that he had been a servant of Edward IV:

My purpose is, and shall be, to write and shew those and such things, the which I have heard of his [Edward IV's] own mouth. And also in part of such things, in the which I have been personally present, as well within the realm as without, during a certain space, most especially from the year of our Lord 1468 unto the year of our Lord 1482, in the which the forenamed King Edward departed from this present life. And in witness whereof the Right Illustrious Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, Treasurer of England, as most personally present [for the most part of his flourishing age] in the house of the said right noble prince continually conversant, can more clearly certify the truth of such acts and things, notable of memory, the which fell in his time.

It's such a shame only a fragment of this account survives! The surviving fragment goes only so far as September 1470.

Hopefully, this belated answer can help you. Again, sorry for taking so long to reply! 🌹x

[marsmarvel02]

William D Conignsby Came out of Brittany With his wife Tiffany And his maid Manfas And his dog Hardigras

And this piece of poetry Transcribed by Hearne comma T Reached across the centuries To frustrate Grey of CGP

[world4]

Stirling Castle, Scotland.

The south-west aspect of Stirling Castle in the Year 1778. Stirling Castle is situated above the old town of Stirling on Castle Hill, a steeply rising hill of volcanic origin. The castle played an important role in Scotland’s history due to its strategic location on the River Forth and was besieged or attacked at least sixteen times. Three battles took place in the immediate vicinity and a…

[transmutationisms]

I was reading your porn addiction post, and I just wondering what you consider addiction if not some sort of disease? I also think porn addiction and stuff in that vein is fake but I also can’t think that addiction is just people choosing to be that way even though they hate it. I say this as someone who was actually addicted to substances like I feel like there was something going on there that can’t be explained by the idea that addicts just choose to be like that. (I don’t think you think addicts just choose to be like that I just don’t really know any alternative schools of thought lol) I don’t mean this in an accusatory way I’m sorry if it comes off that way, I am genuinely curious what you think cause your posts are always so enlightening.

first of all you have to keep in mind that 'addiction' has no singular meaning. even if we confine ourselves to talking about psychoactive substances, 'addiction' can range from the 'classic' case of increasing, compulsive, self-destructive use, to cases where a person's usage may actually be stable in the long term but they're chemically dependent on the substance (think: the way doctors talk about chronic pain patients who are dependent on opioid painkillers; then compare to how they talk about psychiatric patients who are dependent on SSRIs. for example). you can get dx'd with a 'substance use disorder' purely on the basis of how much you take/consume, even if you don't feel it's causing impairment in your life, particularly if you let slip that someone else in your life has expressed concern or tried to stop you. race and class contribute to distinctions here as well, where certain people have leeway to be seen (even in a psychiatric setting!) as 'experimenting' with substances, or using them 'recreationally', where the same usage pattern in a person who's otherwise marginalised might be flagged as 'addictive' and in need of intervention. all of this gets even messier when psychiatrists and physicians try to justify applying discourses of 'addiction' to eating, gambling, sex, social media, and so forth. recall that 'addiction' in the roman republic and middle ages had contested legal and augural meanings that could be positive as well as negative, and that by the seventeenth century it was largely used as a reflexive verb with a predominantly positive meaning—as in, "we sincerely addict ourselves to almighty god" (thomas fuller, 1655) or, of plato, "he addicted himself to the discipline of pythagoras" (thomas hearne, 1698). it was not until the twentieth century that "addict" came to be widely used as a noun defining people who were passively suffering on a medical model.

i don't mean to be evasive here but to point out that asking "how do we define addiction besides a disease model?" presumes already that the disease model is the singular and inescapable way of understanding addiction in the first place—this is not true historically or presently. addiction is a muddled concept and has always involved moral discourses; attempts to present it as a 'pure' or 'objective' medico-scientific judgment are in fact recent and still unstable.

to the extent that it is useful to talk about addiction as a disease—that is, as a state of suffering that is imposed upon the sufferer, that is a disruption of a desired state of health and well-being—i think it is critical to keep in mind that such a disease is social as much as biological. you can start here by pointing out that substance use is often precipitated by the necessity of withstanding miserable life conditions (ranging from extreme poverty, domestic abuse, social marginalisation, &c, to the 'standard', inherently alienating and miserable conditions anyone endures in capitalist society). but there are other social factors that contribute to the presentation of substance use as compulsive, escalating, and self-endangering. eg, lack of a safe, steady supply is a huge factor here! when people are forced to rely on inconsistent, unregulated supplies to get high, this contributes greatly to drug 'binge' behaviours and endangers users. there is also the fact that drug users are often already marginalised (esp along lines of race, class, ability, &c) and are then further marginalised on the basis of being drug users. what would substance use look like in a society where using didn't relegate people to the social margins, or render them socially disposable? what if people had social supports, and weren't forced to toil away their entire lives at jobs that make them miserable for pay that's barely enough to live on? what sorts of patterns of substance use would we see then? so then, is it the drugs themselves that are the problem here, purely neurobiologically? or is there a larger story to tell about how people come to exist in such a state where substance use is increasingly hard for them to engage in with safeguards; where being a substance user causes them to lose whatever degree of social connection and support they may have had, which was often insufficient already; where they are often unable to integrate substance use into a full and connected life because they are told they must either give up enjoyment of a substance entirely, or be continually branded 'relapsing', 'non-compliant', 'dangerous', &c &c.....?

at the end of the day i don't think it's helpful or accurate to talk about addiction as a disease because it decontextualises drug use from all of these factors: why people do it, why it becomes harmful for some, why it's assumed we must simply 'stop' and 'resist' in order to 'get better'. disease explanations blame the substances themselves on a reductive bio-mechanical level (& again, this becomes especially untenable philosophically when we think at all about 'behavioural addictions'). the point here isn't to say that addicts are just blithely waltzing into addiction—or, indeed, to say that drug use is intrinsically a bad thing that should be avoided! it's a pretty typical feature of human existence that many of us enjoy consuming substances that alter our mental and physical states, and that's not inherently bad. when i push back against a disease model of addiction, i'm not invoking a model of personal responsibility or individual choice. i'm asking how we can understand drug use within a much broader social and historically contextualised frame, and how that can help people who are in many different states wrt drugs, from 'currently engaging in patterns of usage that feel compulsive and terrible' to 'never done a drug in their life'.

[mosleyboxing]

#shorts Based Iran BARKLEY - Going ALL OUT #beastmode #boxing

[ernestinee]

Lectures 2024

A lire

L'assassin royal - Époque 1, Robin Hobb

Jusqu'au bout de la peur, Geoffrey Moorhouse

Batman, Année un, Frank Miller, David Mazzucchelli

La Passe-miroir, Livre 1, Christelle Dabos

Petit traité des grandes vertus, André Comte-Sponville

Le clan des Otori, tomes 4 et 5, Lian Hearn

La patience des traces, Jeanne Benameur

Arbos Anima 3,4 et 5

Donjon

Kafka sur le rivage, Murakami

Chroniques de l'oiseau à ressort, Murakami

1q84, tomes 2 et 3, Haruki Murakami

La danse des damnées, Kiran milwood hargrave

Rocky, dernier rivage, Thomas Gunzig

Les déraisons, Odile d'Outremont

Envol, Kathleen Jennings

Fables livre 1, Bill Willingham et Mark Buckingham

Un apprentissage ou le livre des plaisirs

La belle famille, Laure de Rivières

Le fardeau tranquille des choses, Ruth L. Ozeki

L'été où tout a fondu, Tiffany Mc Daniel

Et toujours les forêts, Sandrine Collette

Une bête au paradis, Cécile Coulon

Le livre d'Eve, Meg Clothier

L'heure du retour. Christopher M. Hood

La femme gelée, Annie Ernaux

Lus: (les tags ci dessous pour retrouver mon petit mot pour chaque livre)

1. Tant que le café est encore chaud, Toshikazu Kawaguchi ⭐⭐⭐⭐ - 01/01

2. Prométhée et la boîte de Pandore, Luc Ferry (BD) ⭐⭐ - 17/01

3. La maison aux sortilèges, Emilia Hart. ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - 21/01

4. Le chant d'Achille, Madeline Miller. ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - 25/02

5. Accident de personne, Florence Mendez. ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - 27/02

6. L'été de la sorcière, Nashiki Kaho ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - 08/03

7. 10000 litres d'horreur pure, Thomas Gunzig ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - 09/03

8. Les jolis garçons, Delphine de Vigan ⭐⭐⭐⭐ - 14/03

9. Là où les arbres rencontrent les étoiles, Glendy Vanderah ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - 24/03

10. Patients, Grand Corps Malade. ⭐⭐⭐⭐ - 20/04

11. Le passage de la nuit, Murakami ⭐⭐⭐⭐ - 29/04

12. Un miracle, Victoria Mas ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - 12/05

13. Le dernier jour d'un condamné, Victor Hugo ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - 20/05

14. Acide sulfurique, Amélie Nothomb ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - 30/05

15. Croire aux fauves, Nastassja Martin ⭐⭐⭐⭐ - 31/05

16. La clarté de la Lune, Lian Hearn ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ - 02/07

17. Mon mari, Maud Ventura. ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - 21/07

18. J'étais là avant, Katherine Pancol ⭐⭐⭐⭐ - 31/07

19. Au prochain arrêt, Hiro Arikawa ⭐⭐⭐⭐ - 04/08

20. Réparer les vivants, Maylis de Kerangal ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐- 24/08

21. Les papillons, Barcella. ⭐⭐⭐- 01/09

22. L'homme coquillage, Asli Erdogan ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - 12/09

23. Autopsy, Sophie Buyse. ⭐⭐⭐ - 17/10

24. Morphine, Mikhaïl Boulgakov. ⭐⭐⭐⭐ - 19/10

25. Le jeune homme, Annie Ernaux ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ - 20/10

26. Tout le bleu du ciel, Roman graphique d'après le roman de Melissa da Costa ⭐⭐⭐⭐ - 20/10

[white-cat-of-doom]

A two show day for Cast 14 of the Oasis of the Seas yesterday (08 December 2023), and we have a new cover debut!

Thomas Alsop made his cover debut as Asparagus, with Adam Hearn taking on the role of Skimbleshanks from his usual Coricopat.

With Matthew Tratch as Tumblebrutus.

@the-cat-at-the-theatre-door

The Asparagus, Skimbleshanks, and Tumblebrutus photo is just for you ;).

[pop-pop-pop-popculture]

I finished watching Quiet on the Set: The Dark Side of Kids TV around 12:30 AM, and I am absolutely speechless and mortified. The amount of sexual innuendo these minors were scripted to do under Dan Schneider's orders is beyond disgusting! Example: Ariana [Grande] was trying to squeeze a potato, which clearly looked sexual, and then lied upside down on a bed pouring water on herself while squealing and moaning. “Mmm, I’m thirsty!”, she said in a youthful yet slightly seductive tone. Another example: Jamie [Lynn Spears] had goo-like substance accidentally squirted on her face by her costar Alexa Nikolas (who's character, by the way, was heavily sexualized alongside Jamie and her character). Given how disgusting of a man Dan was, the substance intentionally looked like c*m. It was supposed to be a comical moment, but Spears clearly looked uncomfortable. Some other points:

The unsetting things the cast members from All That were put through, such as Bryan Hearne. He portrayed a rapper named Lil' Fetus. That alone is just racist. The costume and position he was forced to wear and be in... WOW. I have no words.

I vividly remember the kid version of 'Fear Factor' on Nickelodeon, but I never really watched it. Seeing some of the dares the kids had to do, such as put a live scorpion in your mouth or get peanut butter licked off your bare body by dogs, looked absolutely terrifying and, for some, traumatizing.

Drake [Bell]. WOW. Everything Brian [Peck] did to him at age 15...

"I was sleeping on the couch where I would usually sleep and I woke up to him, I opened my eyes, I woke up and he was sexually assaulting me, and I froze and in complete shock and had no idea what to do or how to react, and I had no idea how to get out of the situation. What? Am I going to call my mom and be like, ‘Hey, this just happened. Can you come pick me up? I’ll just sit here and wait.’ I had no car, I didn’t drive. I was 15 at this time."

There were 41 people that wrote their letter of support to Brian.

"His entire side of the courtroom was full. FULL. There were definitely some recognizable faces on that side of the room, and my side was, uh, me, my mom, and my brother. Brian had been convicted, but getting all this support from a lot of people in the industry and... yeah ... I was pretty shocked. My mom got up, she had a statement. I wasn't going to address Brian. There was no... no reason to.”

Brian pleaded no contest for two charges of child sexual abuse: "lewd or lascivious act" and "oral copulation" to a child under 16 years-old. 'No contest', man, seriously????

He literally only got sentenced 16 months in prison and had to register himself as a sex offender. That's it. What the fuck?! Oh, yeah, and then he ended up working on the Disney Channel show The Suite Life of Zack & Cody some time after his sentence was up. Again, what the actual fuck?!

A few of the petitioners that were stated are James Marsden (not Prince Edward from Enchanted!), Taran Killam (I only know him from SNL, but this still stunned me!), Alan Thicke, Thomas DeSanto, Ron Melendez, Rider Strong, and Will Friedle.

The amount of sexual references is ridiculous and, now, as an adult, uncomfortable to watch. I can't believe all of those [sexual references] went over my head as a kid! Dan said he knew kids watching these actions would find them funny, so that's why he made these minors do them.

The entire incident involving 12-year-old Brandi and former production assistant Jason Handy. Her mother, who was a legal assistant for Hollywood, said she didn't know if she should call the police or not after he emailed 12-year-old Brandi a nude picture (who, by the way, immediately ran to her room while screaming and then crying). She decided to not call the police because she didn't want to be seen as a "bad parent".

(previous bullet point continued) That is your DAUGHTER. I hope Brandi doesn't talk to her mother to this day.

Jason literally had a journal where he wrote about his feelings towards children, especially little girls. He admitted (in writing) that he wanted to go as far as to “r*pe” little girls too…

Penelope Taynt. I loved this character, and The Amanda Show! Please go research what a "taint" is...

Don't get me started on Amanda Bynes and everything that happened to her and her career, and what all happened between her and Dan. He got way too close to her...!

There's a lot more, but I'll end the bullet points here. I recommend watching this horrifying documentary. Dan was a misogynist, racist, egoistical, and disgusting man who had too much power. The more famous he became, the more powerful and rude he was to the cast (most all of who were minors) and crew.

🌷 March 20, 2024 🌷

[cryptidvoidwritings]

Congratulations and Happy Closing to Cast 14 of Oasis of the Seas!

source

source

instagram story: April 8, 2024