# MSNBC "plastically correct"



## docplastic (May 10, 2003)

MSNBC has announced that this month it will feature model builders and their models during half-hour segments on their popular Saturday program "American Lifestyles."

In order to encourage conservation of the nation's fossil fuel reserves, featured modelers will be allowed to display only aircraft models of 1/72 scale or smaller, armor of 1/48 scale or smaller, and cars of 1/32 scale or smaller. Only models of cars rated by the EPA at 34 miles-per-gallon or better will be shown. 

Last night Fox network's Sean Hannity ridiculed the MSNBC model program, calling it "plastically correct" and declaring that patriotic Americans only build models out of balsa wood and tissue paper. He declared that models of subjects such as covered wagons and steamboats would promote traditional American values.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Good lord. :freak:

EDIT: oh, wait.... :lol:


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Hey, could I send them photos of a Frankenstein kit? He was made with clean energy and serves as an excellent example of recycling.


----------



## DCH10664 (Jul 16, 2012)

While Sean Hannity is entitled to his opinion. It is just his opinion. And I give very little weight to a persons opinion when that person is being paid for their opinion.
I've known two Vietnam Veterans that enjoyed putting together models. One had a very large collection of models. And I'm sure Sean wouldn't want to tell him he was unpatriotic !!!

And what he calls patriotic or unpatriotic is also just his opinion. As is what he thinks "traditional" American values are.

And it's just my little old opinion that Hannity must be desperate for subjects to talk about. When he can find nothing better to whine about than a hobby that has been enjoyed by many people for generations.


----------



## Johnnycrash (May 28, 2002)

DCH10664 said:


> While Sean Hannity is entitled to his opinion.


I didn't see what he said... But I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. And I think it was funny. He was making fun of MSNBC for being Plastically Correct, and about the oil reserve issues by suggesting making models out of wood.


----------



## DCH10664 (Jul 16, 2012)

Johnnycrash said:


> I didn't see what he said... But I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic. And I think it was funny. He was making fun of MSNBC for being Plastically Correct, and about the oil reserve issues by suggesting making models out of wood.


I didn't hear what he said either. So maybe he was just being sarcastic. And now that I really think about it. I hope he was being sarcastic. Because those were some pretty silly comments.


----------



## Dr. Brad (Oct 5, 1999)

Ummm, you guys do know what day this is.....


----------



## DCH10664 (Jul 16, 2012)

Oh well. If it is a joke. I have had the wife pull better April fools jokes on me than this. And I don't mind a good laugh. Even if I have to laugh at myself. :tongue:


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

DCH10664 said:


> I didn't hear what he said either. So maybe he was just being sarcastic. And now that I really think about it. I hope he was being sarcastic. Because those were some pretty silly comments.


_Yes, he was being sarcastic_! Why not when someone starts in about plastic models vs the environment!

What I'm afraid this might bring up that styrene models are an enemy and should be scrutinized closer! Then we might have to go to old school wood and paper models again!

Unfortunately this is a very real scenario. Tick, tick, tick....

_Rules do not allow me to elaborate any further!_

Carl-


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

Of course Sean Hannity was being sarcastic- and he was taking the economy argument to the absurd level to illustrate how politically correct it was to have MSNBC restrict the model kits shown to only subjects which have a certain fuel economy.

This may be an April Fools prank, or it could be totally serious- these days I assume nothing when it comes to MSNBC.


----------



## Buc (Jan 20, 1999)

wow!! you folks really do scare me!!

('it's what plants crave' time!!)


----------



## Frankie Boy (Feb 28, 2002)

DCH10664 said:


> ... I give very little weight to a persons opinion when that person is being paid for their opinion.


What?? That then would disqualify doctors, law enforcement officials, university professors, politicians, scientists, religious figures, economists, newspaper columnists, lawyers, judges, analysts of any sort, etc, etc, since they would all be getting paid for their opinions.


----------



## mcdougall (Oct 28, 2007)

IT'S APRIL WHAT ?:thumbsup:
MCDEE


----------



## iamweasel (Aug 14, 2000)

Some folks need to walk away from the glue or open up some more windows.


----------



## markcan (Jan 28, 2013)

I believe the correct response is laughter. :jest:


----------



## aurora fan (Jan 18, 1999)

This was my favorite prank of the Day! Thanks for the great laugh, Doc!


----------



## Rob P. (Jan 26, 2004)

Mark McGovern said:


> Hey, could I send them photos of a Frankenstein kit? He was made with clean energy and serves as an excellent example of recycling.


Although this thread was a prank, I have to say this was my favorite response. 

Rob


----------



## Cro-Magnon Man (Jun 11, 2001)

It should be photos of the Mummy you send them, Mark - he should be the mascot of this plastically correct campaign. He comes from a pre-fossil fuel society and therefore has a zero carbon footprint; he wears simple, environmentally sustainable home-spun clothing; he doesn't live in a fashionable, energy-wasting residence but makes do with a tumble-down dwelling; and he's proof of the powers of traditional holistic medicines that allow him to live for ever, or at least to come back from the dead.


----------



## Mark McGovern (Apr 25, 1999)

Thanks Rob, it was my favorite response, too. :hat:

Cro, too bad this was a prank, it'd have been interesting to see how MSNBC would have responded to Frankenstein and the Mummy. Would Franky not be PC because he violated the rights of others? And the Mummy - a stereotype that offends Egyptians? :dude:


----------



## septimuspretori (Jan 26, 2011)

Does all this mean we have to call the model kit of Victor Hugo's character "The Handi-capable, vertically challenged person of Notre Dame?



Ben


----------



## Frankie Boy (Feb 28, 2002)

septimuspretori said:


> Does all this mean we have to call the model kit of Victor Hugo's character "The Handi-capable, vertically challenged person of Notre Dame?


I have a hunch that's probably not gonna work.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

septimuspretori said:


> Does all this mean we have to call the model kit of Victor Hugo's character "The Handi-capable, vertically challenged person of Notre Dame?
> 
> 
> 
> Ben


Nah, Polar Lights already set the precedence by calling him The Bellringer.


----------



## Cro-Magnon Man (Jun 11, 2001)

septimuspretori said:


> Does all this mean we have to call the model kit of Victor Hugo's character "The Handi-capable, vertically challenged person of Notre Dame?
> 
> 
> 
> Ben


I don't know: perhaps in order to ensure that the character is plastically correct he should be called the Handi-capable, vertically challenged and oppressed person of Our Legendary Significant Person of Non-specific Gender.


----------



## Spockr (Sep 14, 2009)

Cro-Magnon Man said:


> I don't know: perhaps in order to ensure that the character is plastically correct he should be called the Handi-capable, vertically challenged and oppressed person of Our Legendary Significant Person of Non-specific Gender.


Wait a second, according to Elsa, Charles Laughton was a Bellringer...


----------



## ChrisW (Jan 1, 1970)

Zombie_61 said:


> Nah, Polar Lights already set the precedence by calling him The Bellringer.


Touche!


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

Spockr said:


> Wait a second, according to Elsa, Charles Laughton was a Bellringer...




Wait, what? Maurine O'Hara thought Charles Laughton was a bellringer or Elsa thought Quasimodo was? Elsa, being a fictional character could not, in this universe, think a real person, Charles Laughton, was anything.

On the other hand Maurine O'Hara couldn't think a fictional character, Quasimodo, was anything either. But, I suppose, being The Hunchback of Notre Dom was a work of fiction then, in that premise, yes, Maurine O'Hara as herself or as the fictional character Elsa, and Charles Laughton as a fictional character or not could be considered one or the other. Or, the other as either....

So what say you Spoker? Real to fictional or fictional to real or fictional to fictional? :freak:

Carl-


----------



## DCH10664 (Jul 16, 2012)

Frankie Boy said:


> What?? That then would disqualify doctors, law enforcement officials, university professors, politicians, scientists, religious figures, economists, newspaper columnists, lawyers, judges, analysts of any sort, etc, etc, since they would all be getting paid for their opinions.


I wouldn't go as far as to say totally "disqualify" their opinions. But a lot of the people you have listed, IMO :tongue: , have questionable opinions. Doctors, I quite often question their opinions. Politicians and Lawyers are just professional liars. So their opinions really carry no weight. And scientists are constantly proving each others opinions wrong all the time.
I would give more weight to your opinion than I would some of these people :wave:


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

hal9001 said:


> ...Elsa, being a fictional character...


Elsa Lanchester was a fictional character? Funny, she sure _looked_ real in all of those movies...


----------



## Spockr (Sep 14, 2009)

hal9001 said:


> Wait, what? Maurine O'Hara thought Charles Laughton was a bellringer or Elsa thought Quasimodo was? Elsa, being a fictional character could not, in this universe, think a real person, Charles Laughton, was anything.
> 
> Carl-


Maureen O'Hara portrayed Esmeralda in The Hunchback of Notre Dame starring Charles Laughton as Quasimodo. 

Elsa Lanchester was the real life wife of Charles Laughton who portrayed a Bellringer on screen an apparently was one in real life...

Hope that clears things up :wave:


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

Spockr said:


> Maureen O'Hara portrayed Esmeralda in The Hunchback of Notre Dame starring Charles Laughton as Quasimodo.
> 
> Elsa Lanchester was the real life wife of Charles Laughton who portrayed a Bellringer on screen an apparently was one in real life...
> 
> Hope that clears things up :wave:


Well crap, never mind what I said!(even though it didn't make sense) Didn't even catch the Elsa/Esmeralda thing. Sorry, I'll try to be more of a readin' person next time.

Now I get it! _*Doh*_...

Carl-:drunk:


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

Zombie_61 said:


> Elsa Lanchester was a fictional character? Funny, she sure _looked_ real in all of those movies...


_Yeah, I'm an idiot!_

Carl-


----------



## Frankie Boy (Feb 28, 2002)

DCH10664 said:


> I wouldn't go as far as to say totally "disqualify" their opinions. But a lot of the people you have listed, IMO :tongue: , have questionable opinions. Doctors, I quite often question their opinions. Politicians and Lawyers are just professional liars. So their opinions really carry no weight. And scientists are constantly proving each others opinions wrong all the time.
> I would give more weight to your opinion than I would some of these people :wave:


For those professionals who would have "questionable opinions", who then would you turn to for a less questionable or an unquestionable opinion? You say you question doctors "quite often". Seeking a second medical opinion is not a bad thing, but who would you then turn to for that second opinion?. It can't be another doctor because he too would be getting paid for his opinion. In the professional liar category, I might be inclined to agree somewhat with your inclusion of politicians in that bunch, but saying the same thing about lawyers is ridiculous on the face of it. I assume you've heard of the word "perjury". As for scientists, "proving each others opinions wrong all the time" is the name of the game when new (contradictory) evidence comes to light, as it would be foolish to maintain the same opinion in the face of contradictory evidence — certainly in the face of other scientists. But again I ask, when it comes to a scientific issue, who then would you look to for another opinion? It can't be another scientist because, like a doctor, he too would getting paid for his opinion. And why would you give more weight to my opinion (on whatever)? Would you not have to know something of my qualifications before deciding if my opinion was of any merit, depending on the subject or topic at hand? But since you _would_ give more weight to my opinion, I'm sure you'll now see the folly of your original statement where you said you don't give much weight to people who get paid for their opinion, because I'm not getting paid in offering you mine.


----------



## DCH10664 (Jul 16, 2012)

Frankie Boy said:


> For those professionals who would have "questionable opinions", who then would you turn to for a less questionable or an unquestionable opinion? You say you question doctors "quite often". Seeking a second medical opinion is not a bad thing, but who would you then turn to for that second opinion?. It can't be another doctor because he too would be getting paid for his opinion. In the professional liar category, I might be inclined to agree somewhat with your inclusion of politicians in that bunch, but saying the same thing about lawyers is ridiculous on the face of it. I assume you've heard of the word "perjury". As for scientists, "proving each others opinions wrong all the time" is the name of the game when new (contradictory) evidence comes to light, as it would be foolish to maintain the same opinion in the face of contradictory evidence — certainly in the face of other scientists. But again I ask, when it comes to a scientific issue, who then would you look to for another opinion? It can't be another scientist because, like a doctor, he too would getting paid for his opinion. And why would you give more weight to my opinion (on whatever)? Would you not have to know something of my qualifications before deciding if my opinion was of any merit, depending on the subject or topic at hand? But since you _would_ give more weight to my opinion, I'm sure you'll now see the folly of your original statement where you said you don't give much weight to people who get paid for their opinion, because I'm not getting paid in offering you mine.


My response was truly meant to be more on the light hearted side of things. And as I stated before, "I wouldn't go as far as to say totally "disqualify" their opinions." But if you wish to have the more serious side of it. Then yes, I have learned to get 2nd, 3rd, and sometimes 4th opinions when it comes to doctors. And I've learned to do my own research on certain matters. As to not be totally in the dark on some subjects.

Having had a wife that developed one of the top ten worst documented cases of the orphan disease C.M.T. I learned quickly that doctors are more than willing to use people as guinea pigs. And in several cases, we sought out different opinions. And then weighed the pros and cons.
And all to often we see doctors and drug companies pushing new pills on people for various things. Yet within a year or so we see law suites where the drug has done terrible damage. Or even death.

As for lawyers, they tend to twist a story and try to shine a light on it that favors their client. How much can you twist the truth before it becomes a lie ???
Not trying to be harsh or rude. But I see no "folly" in be cautious about a persons opinion. And no "folly" in taking into account what a persons agenda may or may not be. Or if they have an agenda at all.
You may think this is foolish. But that's your opinion and you are entitled to it. But I guess this is just one subject where we will have to agree to disagree. But even if we do disagree, that doesn't make us enemies. So have a nice day. :wave:


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

hal9001 said:


> Well crap, never mind what I said!(even though it didn't make sense) Didn't even catch the Elsa/Esmeralda thing.


This should help clear up any confusion. That's Elsa on the left, Esmeralda on the right.


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

scotpens said:


> This should help clear up any confusion. That's Elsa on the left, Esmeralda on the right.


Nahhh, you can't fool me. That's Kirk Douglas on the right.


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

scotpens said:


> This should help clear up any confusion. That's Elsa on the left, Esmeralda on the right.


OK, OK, rub it in! But I know for a fact Kirk Douglas played Quasimodo! :freak: :lol:

But for the life of me I don't recall him having a pet cat....

Carl-


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Sorry, did someone mention Maureen O'Hara? _Jane?_ :thumbsup:


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Glad to know I'm not the only one who occasionally gets Maureen O'Sullivan and Maureen O'Hara confused. (The former died in 1998; the latter is still alive at 94!)


----------

