1 They're remaking the Ten Commandments? Why? What's wrong with the original?

2 It's funny. Fox News has a 2 minute segment suggesting that Disney Radio was wrong for removing the word "God" from the advertisement, and less then 10 minutes later a commercial on Fox News for that very movie does not mention the word God! Funny, huh. Maybe you should boycott Fox News as well.

3 Scott -- show me where Fox DEMANDED the removal of the reference to God and I will begin such a boycott.

4 Who cares if they demanded its removal, the word wasn't there in final product (are you privy to the behind the scenes dealings?). Apparently the word God wasn't necessary for the ad, or else it would have been in the TV ad as well. Besides, if Fox News found it important to report such trivial, and might I say stupid, non-news, then perhaps they should be willing to air a version of the advertisement that they claim was ruined by Disney. Otherwise, they are accusing Disney of doing something wrong, while reaping the benefits of an advertisment similar to the one approved by Disney.

5 Actually, Scott, it makes all the difference in the world. My objection is to the demand from RadioDisney that the word "God" be removed from the ad, not the lack of the word "God" in the ad. You do see the difference, don't you? And until and unless you can provide evidence (as in proof) that Fox refused to run an ad with the word "God" in it, your comparison fails miserably because the two situations cease to be comparable.

6 I guess Fox News was just lucky, or from your point of view, unlucky to not have been provided with an adverstisement that had the phrase "chosen by God" or the word God in it. Otherwise, I'm certain they would have done exactly as you say, and run the adverstisement with the word God in it. But, alas, they were given the easy way out by the movie company who for some odd reason gave Disney Radio one ad, and Fox News another ad. Even more odd, is the fact that Fox News got the advertisement without the word God, when the news report made it very clear that Fox News wanted the word God (or phrase "chosen by God") in Disney Radio's adverstisement. Very odd if you ask me. And yes, you are right, they are not exact parallels. In light of your need for exact parallels to stage a boycott, I take it that your criteria for boycotting is that a company must demand the removal of the word God (although a more precise criteria would be the removal of the phrase "Chosen by God") from an advertisement for a movie about the Ten Commandments. Fair enough. But pretty narrow criteria if you ask me. Originally I was just trying to point out the obsurdity of boycott Disney based on a news story by Fox News, but I guess I should have also pointed out the obsurdity in the news story itself. You see, the idea that the removal of the word God was demanded is not exactly the truth, but rather a nice and alarmist headline. Disney simply asked for a version of the ad without the phrase "Chosen by God" which Disney found oddly placed in the script. This is hardly a demand, but rather an editing decision. Let's take a closer look. The placement of the phrase comes immediately after a list of actors, making it appear that the actors were chosen by God. However, by replacing that phrase with the name of the studio, the adverstisement actually makes more sense. Simple editing if you ask me. Here is the text of the original script (look it up on the fox news website if you don't believe me): Narrator: One of the greatest stories of all time is now an animated movie event for the entire family ... "The Ten Commandments." God: Moses, give them my message and they will follow you out of Egypt. Narrator: An ordinary man, an extraordinary calling. Moses: Let my people go! Narrator: With Ben Kingsley, Christian Slater, Alfred Molina and Elliott Gould. ... chosen by God. Moses: On to the promised land! Narrator: 'The Ten Commandments,' Rated G. Now in theaters. Check your local listings. So boycott Disney all you want. But come on, don't be so dishonest to think that Fox News is innocent here and just trying to report the facts. They clearly have an agenda and are spinning things in a particular way to get people all hot and bothered about a non-issue. Oddly enough the controversy is creating publicity for the movie. Isn't this standard Hollywood procedure?

7 Yeah -- it's not like there is documentary proof of the RD demand. Oh, wait -- there is documentary proof! I'm still waiting for you to come up with some proof of your charge. (By the way, I agree with you about the edited ad making more sense. But again, that is irrelevant -- Disney stated that the problem was the use of "God" in the ad being in violation of their policies.)

8 Do you read my posts? When I claimed that Fox News demanded the removal of the word God from the ad I was being facetious. ha ha, get it? My point was that when they take a moral stance on an issue, they should probably back it up with their actions. And by airing an ad that was very similar to the one they claim wronged the movie company (as the following quote from the article suggests: "In connection with the Ten Commandments, I did find it offensive," said Promenade president and Chief Operating Officer Cindy Bond. "God in our movie is the main character. You rip the whole guts out of the piece."), they are clearly not taking a moral stance on an issue they claim is important. While they might not be ripping the whole guts out of the piece, they are clearly promoting the piece without any guts. Now, you have your facts wrong. Read the entire article on fox news and you will see that even Fox News claims that using the word God is NOT against Disney policy! The Disney policy is that the name of the Studio must be mentioned! The only conclusion, and one which you have already agreed to, is that the removal of the phrase was an editing decision. Here's a quote from the article on Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,302746,00.html): "Radio Disney has said in other media reports that it made the request because its policies require mention of the studio in its commercials and it decided to replace the "chosen by God" phrase with "from Promenade Pictures" because the original script made it sound as though the actors were chosen by God, not Moses, as was the intended meaning. Mention of God isn't prohibited in the company's standards and procedures, according to Radio Disney." Now, it is your turn to prove to me where Disney demanded that the word "God" be removed from the script because it is Disney policy. (and please don't provide the Fox News Headline as proof. As I have just shown you, the content of the article clearly refutes the claim in the headline.) Otherwise, just as you won't boycott Fox News, your own criteria for staging boycotts should force you to end your boycott of Disney.

9 All of which is true -- but for the fact that you have ignored this minor detail. "Our BS&P [Broadcast Standards and Procedures] said Both scripts need to include the studio mention and omit the following line: CHOSEN BY GOD.... Please let me know if you have any questions," reads the e-mail, sent Oct. 2 to Promenade media buyer Casey Baker by Radio Disney Network sales associate Jason Atkinson. Sounds like a statement in writing that they require the omission of the reference to God to me. Of course, I quoted that in the post above, and you chose to ignore that -- so I think our discussion is at an end due to your utter lack of intellectual honesty.

10 I didn't ignore it. You read it and understood it as a demand (I see how you might construe the phrase "need to include" and the word "omit" as a demand). Me, on the other hand, read it along with the quote I provided that said that using the word God was not against Disney policy and understood it as an editing decision (I see the phrase "need to include" and the word "omit" as being typical editing terms. For example, "you need to include page numbers and omit the paragraph that I circled, which makes absolutely no sense."). You, as a history teacher, should know that documentary evidence can be read in any number of ways, especially when only a portion of the original document is available (oh, those pesky ellipses). But, you are free to interpret the isolated quote from the email any way you decide. And, yes, you are free to boycott any company you want for any reason. Unfortunately, your efforts are being wasted on such trivial matters when they could be used to boycott companies that are really doing something wrong, like mistreating employees, or using cheap overseas labor to avoid hiring Americans, or something that actually hurts people instead of offending you for some trivial reason (I thought it was the Democrats who were accused of being so easily offended?). Another thing, I just don't see how this simple editing decision (my interpretation) is anti-God (your interpretation). If anything, the ad is dishonest and is tricking people into seeing a movie that appears to have nothing to do with God! It's funny how Disney is anti-God in the advertisment but has no problem promoting the movie itself. Wait, you're right. Boycott Disney! They trick people into seeing movies about God!