Replies

I'm sorry, you misunderstood me. I'm not asking you to NOT VOTE for Arnold.

I was saying that I would not vote for him based on an incident I was told about several years ago while I saw with my own eyes another married leading actor trying to hook-up with a close female friend of mine during a Hollywood production. When she turned down this actor's repeated attempts to go party with him at the end of the day, she than told me about her encounter of about 10-years ago with Arnold.

Also the fact that I've seen with my own eyes several different women (willingly) being escorted by Arnold's assistants to wait inside Arnold's trailer on various sets, moments before Arnold also entered the same trailer alone, while we waited sometimes hours to set-up the next scene for shooting.

Again, I don't want to attack Arnold (or anyone else), but Arnold's sexist behavior is well known in the tight knit film industry.

Now, you have the LA Times (and Bob Mulholland) trying to exploit this election with some tales from a half dozen other women that Arnold may have sexually harrassed.

Please don't vote based on the LA Times, nor based on a comment I made on FR and buried in one of many discussion topics, since deleted.

And finally, if I never knew about my friends incident with Arnold, I would vote for him on the election day and pray for the best of luck on California's future.

In any case, I will still be praying for the ousting of Gray Davis and hoping to oust Barbara Boxer next.

I don't know you, but you don't present your comments in an offensive manner, so I'm going to respond in kind. Here is what I see in your post.

You stated, "Again, I don't want to attack Arnold (or anyone else), but Arnold's sexist behavior is well known in the tight knit film industry."

Not only does this statement alone provide an attack you say you don't want to make, but the other information you reveal is quite damning.

In light of this, why wouldn't you want to attack Arnold? You related to me an incident that supposedly took place with your friend and other actions that took place under your observation and reportedly impacted the working conditions of whole crews. Again, why wouldn't you want to take a person who did this stuff to task?

Your comments don't impress me as being reasonable, by way of seeming to avoid what would be a normal reaction, anger at the behavior of this man.

I strikes me that you have presented this information in a manner that is the least offensive you could so that it would be judged much more credible. In fact, it seems to me that you have gone so far overboard to do so, that normal human reactions have been sanitized out of it. This has resulted in me questioning if your accounts are real or not.

A sexual assault took place. While this married man entertained women in his trailer whole crews waited for hours. Still, you tell me you don't really want to attack him. Why not? My only reaction is that if these things had happened to my friend, or in my presence, I'd be more than happy to attack him.

Then you tell me that it's not your intent to keep me from voting for him. Does all this sound like a credible presentation to you?