Posted on 04/04/2013 12:45:37 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Roger Ebert, the longtime film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times, passed away Thursday, the newspaper reported. His passing comes just one day after publishing a note on his website that he would be scaling back work as he continued his battle with cancer. He was 70 years old.
Ebert was hospitalized last fall with a broken hip, of which his wife tweeted was caused by "tricky disco dance moves." Last May he unveiled plans to reinvent "Roger Ebert Presents at The Movies" on PBS, and Tuesday he said he will launch a fundraising campaign via Kickstarter in the next couple weeks.
Ebert left the show in 2006 when he was diagnosed with throat cancer, which cost him the use of his voice.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcchicago.com ...
This sounds pretty peaceful...
“‘Kindness’ covers all of my political beliefs,” he wrote, at the end of his memoirs. “No need to spell them out. I believe that if, at the end, according to our abilities, we have done something to make others a little happier, and something to make ourselves a little happier, that is about the best we can do. To make others less happy is a crime. To make ourselves unhappy is where all crime starts. We must try to contribute joy to the world. That is true no matter what our problems, our health, our circumstances. We must try. I didn’t always know this and am happy I lived long enough to find it out.”
He sounds like the typical lost soul.
He spent his life trying to invent his own way, rather than going Yahova’s way.
That is losing defined.
Belief in Yeshua is the only way to eternal life. He created us; he should know.
Siskel was SOOOOOOOOO much better than Ebert. I miss Siskel more to this day than I will ever miss Ebert.
Some of the things I have seen posted about Roger has been pretty pathetic. And some downright despicable.
This guy was not Hugo Chavez, is not Fidel Castro, or Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama, or anyone else who walks around with blood on his hands and doesn't care.
Roger Ebert was first and foremost a film critic. Yeah, he leaned to the left and, yeah, he expressed opinions that reflected that. But so what? Why is that an excuse to kick around a dead man? If a differing opinion is enough for you to sport a seething, aggressive hatred for someone, then you must live very lonely lives.
You guys need to freakin' chill and remember Roger the way he should be remembered: He changed the way we look at movies.
No. It was not cancer. It was a brain tumor, and complications created by an effort to remove it. Specific details, however, were kept from the public and even his closest friends, including Roger, as he stated in an essay commemorating Gene’s passing in 2009.
OK. If it wasn't cancer that caused Siskel's tumor, then what was it?
Specific details, however, were kept from the public and even his closest friends, including Roger, as he stated in an essay commemorating Gene’s passing in 2009.
Got a link for that? Details, please. What was the deep, dark secret?
There is this remembrance by Ebert, dated February 17, 2009 8:24 PM. It's worth a read on general principles, but it doesn't mention hidden details concerning Siskel's cause of death being withheld.
Read the latter part. It answers your questions.
However, you need links, quotes, and explanations. You have to make a case and support it. Else, you are just a drive-by poster.
I have already read the thing. Didn't bother with the comments.
I do not need anything. You are the one who said Gene died from cancer, not me. I said what it was he died from and the lack of known details, referring to the very essay you linked.
And I am not a "drive-by poster." Try clicking on my name and having a gander at my comments.
I accept your apology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.