
As media in America fall all over themselves with glee at the thought of the Global Warmingist-in-Chief winning a Nobel Peace Prize, Wednesday's findings by a British judge that Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" contained nine material falsehoods has prompted a request to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to strip the movie's producers of the Oscars they received in February for "Best Documentary."
How delicious.
As reported by The West Australian Friday:
A conservative think-tank in New Zealand has written to the president of the America's Academy Awards asking that the Oscar awarded to the director of an Inconvenient Truth be taken back.
Former New Zealand MP Dr Muriel Newman, director of web-based think-tank the New Zealand Centre for Political Research, said she had taken the measure in response to a British High Court ruling Thursday.
This is her actual press release (emphasis added):
"With the release of the British High Court judgement overnight that found that ‘An Inconvenient Truth' was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, it is clear that Al Gore embellished the truth to create dramatic effect (more details).
"Given that the Oscar Award was presented in the documentary category and not the drama category, the only appropriate action now is for the Academy to rescind the Award as it was clearly inappropriately classed as a documentary.
"The truth, as inconvenient as it is to Al Gore, is that his so-called documentary contained critical distortions that are quite contrary to the principles of good documentary journalism. Good documentaries should be factually correct. Clearly this documentary is not.
"This situation is not unlike that confronting sports bodies, when their sports "stars" are found to be drug cheats. In such cases, the sportsmen and women are stripped of their medals and titles, with the next-place getter elevated. While this is an extremely unpleasant duty, it is necessary if the integrity of competitive sport is to be protected.
"Just this week Olympic gold medal winner Marion Jones has been stripped of her titles and medals.
"If the integrity of the Academy Awards is to remain intact, is wholly appropriate that Al Gore be stripped of his ‘Best Documentary' film Oscar.
"If the Academy wishes to acknowledge the work of people like Al Gore they should form a new category of film called ‘Political Drama'. That's how ‘An Inconvenient Truth' should be categorised", Dr Newman said.
Obviously, I couldn't agree more.
As a sidebar, since the British court announcement Wednesday, only Investor's Business Daily and the Washington Times reported the errors in Gore's film to American print readers.
Shockingly, the Associated Press published a piece on this judge's ruling at 4:07PM EST Thursday. It will be interesting to see how many newspapers cover it in their print editions Friday.
As for television news outlets, only Fox News found this judge's decision newsworthy. Not one word from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, or NBC.
Color me unsurprised.
Update 10-12 14:28 | Matthew Sheffield. NewsBusters has forwarded this request to various people within the Academy of Motion Pictures. We're not exactly holding our breath, but we'll see.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Aussie! Aussie! Aussie!
October 11, 2007 - 21:53 ET by dervishOy! Oy! Oy!
Gee Noel, I think this is
October 11, 2007 - 21:54 ET by BlondeGee Noel,
I think this is "delicious" squared.
Political Drama...The Oscar category in which MM & the Goracle compete....to see who looks fattest on stage.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Actually, Blonde,
October 12, 2007 - 04:37 ET by motherbeltActually, Blonde, considering "Farenheit 911" won too, maybe "Political Drama" as a category is not so far-fetched.
Or maybe "Quasi-documentary." LOL
it's "propaganda"
October 12, 2007 - 05:45 ET by LighthouseJI think the adjective that would best describe F9/11 and The Goreacles films would be "propaganda".
Goebbels would be proud with Moore and Gore.
"Boats are safe in the harbor, but that's not what they're made for." -- Maritime quote
Noel -
October 11, 2007 - 21:59 ET by drillanwr"Delicious" with sugar on top!
Kind of like Florida 2000 all over again ...
didn't these oscars
October 12, 2007 - 23:16 ET by TruthMongerdidn't these oscars "vindicate" Gore back then too?
does this un-vindicate him then?
will he have to return the Nobel prize too?
and will that re-un-vindicate him yet again?
so hard to follow these days
A service of the new NB respect police
Shockingly beautiful. I must
October 11, 2007 - 21:59 ET by Gary HallShockingly beautiful. I must now turn off everything, and retire. Ah.. A night of sleep on a very comforting note.
Thanks NS - somehow.. you did help in this. (;~>
Simply beautiful. Quo
October 11, 2007 - 22:01 ET by Lord ElicaniSimply beautiful.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?
Gore's Irresponsibility
October 11, 2007 - 22:02 ET by SeptemberShout it from the moutaintops! Take the Oscar away from him!
Won't happen unless hell freezes over proving once and for all that there is no significant/anthropogenic warming in the troposphere or the underworld.
But it's a delicious article, anyway. She's right. Gore is a bad, bad documentarian.
Not gonna happen
October 11, 2007 - 22:07 ET by raiderdavIf embellishments and lies aren't allowed in the Documentary category, then Michael Moore would have had to give back his Oscar for Bowling for Columbine. Nice thought, but no chance.
Do Over
October 11, 2007 - 22:10 ET by BarkerI demand a recount of the lies. And I don't think all the lies were counted anyway...
I Love It
October 11, 2007 - 22:13 ET by Free StinkerNoel,
This is just great! Thanks for all your efforts!
MMMMM...
October 11, 2007 - 22:17 ET by ReformedLib Re-FormedConMore delicious than a high-carb day!
Sadly, I am sure the Academy will find a way to let him keep it- or just not acknowledge that this ever came up.
ReformedLib
October 11, 2007 - 22:51 ET by Cool ArrowYou had me scratching my armpits til I reread your post.
That's high carb.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
academy
October 11, 2007 - 23:32 ET by jrock81the title here is a little misleading, perhaps you should change it. the academy hasn't asked them to return the award, someone has asked the academy to ask them to return the award. just a note, you wouldn't want to be accused of bias.
Will the Nobel Peace
October 12, 2007 - 06:41 ET by Senior ChiefWill the Nobel Peace organizer also ask Al to return (or not award at all) the prize he won? If he does, will Rush get it? Now, that's political dilemma...
WOW that's embarrassing.
October 11, 2007 - 22:21 ET by balboaWOW that's embarrassing.
Just the tip of the AGW iceberg melting down...
October 11, 2007 - 23:04 ET by Army BratThe truth doesn't always get out, but it looks like it got outta the bag this time...finally. Watch the rest of the AGW alarmists go down in flames soon. Ahhhhh.... I LOVE being vindicated.
Happy Trails...
}}---> More Gore
October 11, 2007 - 23:12 ET by Cool ArrowLet's see? Does this qualify as just another case of AlGore committing election fraud?
Will we see the crosseyed troll divining the chad again?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
CA
October 11, 2007 - 23:42 ET by Barker"Will we see the crosseyed troll divining the chad again?"
Oh man, that's funny!
Barker
October 11, 2007 - 23:46 ET by BlondeIt's only funny for those of you who don't live here in Broward County....where we had the Trolls divining the Chads.....
Alas, woe is me! A never-ending source of embarassment. I just have to pawn it off on idiot New Yawkas who moved here in the 90's. Or somesuch.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Blonde
October 12, 2007 - 00:03 ET by BarkerI feel your pain. ;^(
Come on, Blonde ... Buck up!
October 12, 2007 - 00:08 ET by drillanwrCome on, Blonde ... Buck up! Think of yourself as a righteous Hobbit that saved Middle Earth from the Gorc ...
Funny, you two.
October 12, 2007 - 00:17 ET by BlondeBut seriously....Broward County...home of the hangin' chads. How embarassing is that?
Oh, how I'd love to save this place from the libs....it's a done deal, tho.....too many from too many other places. It's a fiasco!
I keep my head down....and drive really, really carefully....LOL!
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Delicious The Rocky
October 12, 2007 - 00:31 ET by wiwfDelicious
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
wiwf...
October 12, 2007 - 00:34 ET by BlondeBoulder?
Colorado...nice place to visit...but alot of libs there.....
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Do they use nooses to had
October 12, 2007 - 08:50 ET by Dan The Man 2Do they use nooses to had them chads, its a hate crime now to hang a noose around. No more Clint Eastwood Hang em High....sigh.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Blonde -
October 12, 2007 - 09:38 ET by drillanwrIt wasn't so much the hanging chads that bugged the crap out of me ...
It most assuredly was the pregnant ones, whether they were in their first, second, or third trimester, or at the moment of (mis)conception ...
I do believe it was the only time in history the democrat party was completely and totally against abortion ...
Local
October 12, 2007 - 01:39 ET by acadia1755OH is this not soooo beautiful! :-0
**Psst! Coming soon from the AGW Gorolites "the Hockey Stick did not have the MWP and the LIA on the Graph because those two Climates were Local not Global"
http://www.friendsof...
If the LIA and MWP didn't
October 12, 2007 - 08:31 ET by danboIf the LIA and MWP didn't count because they were local rather than global. You have to toss out the so called warm period of the last 20 years. It's starting to look like the LIA and MWP covered more of the earth than the present warm period.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
According to
October 12, 2007 - 07:48 ET by MivvisThe text a request was made to stip the awards to the academy. Will it be complied with is the question....
This is wonderful....But...
October 12, 2007 - 08:02 ET by JayTeeThe Damage of showing this film to Schools, etc...has been done, and can only be Undone by giving it some MSM exposure.....
The MSM submarine will Run silent, Run Deep on this one.
Web.....spread the word !
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Noel
October 12, 2007 - 08:09 ET by misterbillPer CNN at 9AM---2500 scientists agree--GW is manmade. The few who disagree are being supported by grants from fossil fuel comapnaies.
God save us!!!
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
Author:
2500 Scientists??
October 12, 2007 - 08:52 ET by kdoliverYou are telling me that there are only a little more than 2500 Scientists in the whoooole world? Don't you love the manipulation of numbers (even when telling the truth). Use a big number that is somewhat shocking. If they started using percents, you could have a much bigger impact. But that doesn't play to the point they are making.
http://thelazytriathlete.blogspot.com/
So far over 19,000 American
October 12, 2007 - 09:15 ET by danboSo far over 19,000 American scientist have signed the OISM petition. Even if you toss out half of the signers which is what warmers try to do. That's almost 10,000 who disagree with AGW. Last time I looked 10,00 was slightly more than 2,500.
But then, I don't use warmer adjusted math.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Where did CNN find 2500
October 12, 2007 - 19:35 ET by NL207Where did CNN find 2500 scientists who agree that GW is 100% man-made? I doubt seriously they can find 2500 scientists who agree that GW is more than 50% man-made.
The IPCC, often quoted by the "progressive" press as a body of 2000+ scientists is largely nmade up of lawyers, press agents, publicists, politicians and editorialists. There probably aren't more than 200 to 250 actual, practicing scientists at the core of that state sponsored behemoth. There were more Spartans at Thermopylae. They are a drop in the bucket compared to the body of scientists who are skeptical of that august body's claims.
Oscar
October 12, 2007 - 08:15 ET by DanoAl has his oscar locked up in Tipper's walk in jewelry safe...................
Unfortunately a
October 12, 2007 - 08:20 ET by danboUnfortunately a " Documentary" in hollyweed, doesn't seem to have anything to do with being factual. It has to do only with political correctness.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
shock of shocks! a
October 12, 2007 - 09:26 ET by crsheddshock of shocks!
a conservative think tank wants the prize returned. as i am always told on this site, consider the source.
No refuting their reasons for returning the prize,crshed?
October 12, 2007 - 09:54 ET by RJ"shock of shocks!"
yeah, it's call a political
October 12, 2007 - 15:28 ET by crsheddyeah, it's called a political move. 'let's just slam progressives any chance we can.'
notice how conservative arguments have gone from 'not even' to 'no proof it is man-made...'?
Nice, crshedd
October 12, 2007 - 15:36 ET by RJJust the one catch-all "th-th-that's a political move."
So, I ask again: no refutation of their reasons?
And it's been "no proof that it's man-made" for a long, long time. You must not have been paying attention.....shock of shocks... :^)
New Zealand Centre for
October 12, 2007 - 16:23 ET by crsheddNew Zealand Centre for Political Research reason #1:
'...so-called documentary contained critical distortions ...'
judge's ruling (http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html: (paragraph 17) "I turn to AIT (an inconvienent truth), the film. The following is clear:
i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme." ( my emphasis, substantially probably means more fact than not)
How Convenient...
October 12, 2007 - 09:34 ET by Chicagoray40..that the MSM leaves the truth in the hallway or out at the curb more and moe each day tossing their credibility out the window with works like this and Michael Moore's wide body of lies and inaccuracies.
Nice work here on this one Noel, as the blogs are left to disseminate the truth nowadays without a doubt.
Wrong!
October 12, 2007 - 11:32 ET by ding7777A British judge did NOT state that Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" contained nine material falsehoods.
The Judge ruled that only 9 issues from the Claiment's long list of alleged/exaggerated "errors" deviated from the IPCC report (i,e. they became a political issue), therefore an "opposing view" should be presented concerning these 9 issues.
The Judge's ruling
Ding, learn to read. The
October 12, 2007 - 11:44 ET by bassndudeDing, learn to read. The court in its decision, not the published reports in the news, said specifically some of the "facts" were false. Even went so far as to say one was completely made up. The whole movie is a lie.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bassndude,
October 12, 2007 - 12:08 ET by ding7777The link to the Judges ruling. Please show where the Judge "said specifically some of the "facts" were false. Even went so far as to say one was completely made up."
Thats what the Judge said
October 12, 2007 - 12:11 ET by bassndudeThats what the Judge said in court, sitting on the bench, not in his written opinion. He listed "errors" in his opinion, judgement.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bass... An error to a
October 12, 2007 - 12:15 ET by bigtimerbass...
An error to a leftist is just a little snafu....
Just ask Clinton and the msm...they loved it when he used the word for an explanation for another one of his lying whoppers...who can keep up anymore?
you are funny, bassndude
October 12, 2007 - 12:40 ET by ding77771st you say the Judge said in his "court in its decision, not the published reports"
Now you say he said it while "sitting on the bench", and not his "written opinion"
So how do you know what he said "sitting on the bench" (if indeed he said anything while "sitting on the bench" ) if not from published reports?
From your link...
October 12, 2007 - 11:44 ET by MightyMouthThe weight of scientific evidence set out by the IPCC confirms that
most of the global average warming over the last 50 years is now
regarded as "very likely" to be attributable to man-made greenhouse gas
emissions."
Wow "very likely", much stronger than just "likely" or "possibly". But not quite a "scientific certainty" is it?
Looks like the debate is NOT over.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
right again,
October 12, 2007 - 16:46 ET by crsheddright again, mightymouth.
it isn't a scientic certainty, at least in my mind, but 'very likely' means it is probably more true than not.
Ding, did you even bother reading the link?
October 12, 2007 - 11:56 ET by RJThe judge said "there are errors and omissions in the film to which I shall refer."
He then went on to make a list, and he labeled each item with the bold heading "Error."
Wrong AGAIN, ding! Haven't you learned yet that your talking points are always going to be exposed for the ridiculous things they are?
RJ
October 12, 2007 - 12:15 ET by ding7777The "errors" that the Judge is refering to are the 9 "errors" from the long list of Claiment's alleged or exaggerated "errors". That's why the word "error' is in quotes throughout the ruling.
Wrong AGAIN ding
October 12, 2007 - 12:25 ET by RJThe judge (not the claimant) said
"The following is clear: There are errors and omissions in the film to which I shall refer."
And no quotes around the words error OR omission.
RJ
October 12, 2007 - 13:01 ET by ding7777I was refering to your "He then went on to make a list, and he labeled each item with the bold heading "Error." which indeed is how the Claiment's notated each issue - hence the quotation marks.
There are errors and omissions in the film which depart from the IPCC reports. And when you read the Judges rulings regarding the 9 issues of differences between what Gore said and what the IPCC reports are minimal and that the Judge requires only that teachers present Gore's version with a Guidence Note
Except, ding, you cherry-picked part of my post,
October 12, 2007 - 13:06 ET by RJwhile ignoring (twice now!) the judge's clearly stated opinion that there are errors and omissions....with no quotes around the words.
:( Nope Ding read you
October 12, 2007 - 13:10 ET by Leon:(
Nope Ding read you right. You're backpeddling.
Ding is spot on.
Except, ding, you cherry-picked part of my post
October 12, 2007 - 13:30 ET by RJwhile ignoring (twice now!) the judge's clearly stated opinion that there are errors and omissions....with no quotes around the words.
No, RJ
October 12, 2007 - 14:13 ET by ding7777You wrote:
You clearly conflated the Judge's partial quote with "label[ing] each item with the bold heading "Error." as if the Judge himself was identifying each item as an "error" - and I corrected you that it was the Claiment's notation, not the Judge's.
Ding, you're trying too hard
October 12, 2007 - 14:24 ET by RJto "prove" the unprovable.
No matter how you twist and turn, the judge made a clear and unambiguous statement that was separate from the word error. My post kept them separate.
It's you who are trying to "conflate" them, not me.
I have no idea why the judge put the words in quotes when he used them as headings...and neither do you.....unless you've suddenly become an expert on the vagaries of the British judicial system.
they were put into quotes
October 12, 2007 - 16:35 ET by crsheddthey were put into quotes because that is how the complaint addressed them. it is a typical grammatical rule to put something in quotes when quoting something.
Still ignoring the judges clear and unambiguous statement
October 12, 2007 - 16:46 ET by RJ...to the surprise of no one at all....
'No matter how you twist
October 12, 2007 - 17:10 ET by crshedd'No matter how you twist and turn,' i was just stating something that you claimed not to know ('I have no idea why the judge put the words in quotes when he used them as headings...')
and you are right about the '...judges clear and unambiguous statement...."
"I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
(http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html )
I already pointed out that this agrees with me, crshedd.
October 12, 2007 - 17:21 ET by RJ;^)
this is what i
October 12, 2007 - 15:56 ET by crsheddthis is what i read:
"It was essential to appreciate that the hearing before me did not relate to an analysis of the scientific questions, but to an assessment of whether the 'errors' in question, set out in the context of a political film, informed the argument on ss406 and 407. All these 9 'errors' that I now address are not put in the context of the evidence of Professor Carter and the Claimant's case, but by reference to the IPCC report and the evidence of Dr Stott." (Paragraph 23, my emphasis, there were at least 18 'errors' presented to the court)
so, the judgement stated that, the secretary of state education, not this film, violated the ipcc (international panel on climate control), a united nations agency via the teacher resource the department issued. we all know how conservatives feel about the u.n.
sorry, crshedd. Your interpretation of that passage is faulty.
October 12, 2007 - 16:12 ET by RJThe ability of the judge to recognize the errors and omissions wasn't predicated on whether or not there was "an analysis of the scientific questions." In fact, the judge even went on to describe each error in detail, and why it was an error.
He later said, "The following is clear: There are errors and omissions in the film to which I shall refer."
Hard to be more specific than that, cr. He didn't say educational errors, instructional errors, political errors, argumentative errors, etc, he said errors and omissions, period.
the judge also stated in
October 12, 2007 - 16:33 ET by crsheddthe judge also stated in paragraph 17:
"I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
(http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
i, also, refer you to paragraphs 42-46. his judgement was against the 'guidance note' issued by the secretary of education and skills. as that 'note' was amended, it is now okay to show the film.
Well, we seem to be reaching agreement, crshedd
October 12, 2007 - 16:43 ET by RJUm, "probably means more fact than not?" So you're admitting that there are "not facts" (errors, omissions, and/or lies) in the movie.
Again, the judge clearly stated that there were errors and omissions in the film. He enumerated them with specifics. Now, you agree, leaving all the rest of the left's (quite silly) attempt to defend Algore's shlockumentary is a smoke screen.
show me ANY documentary
October 12, 2007 - 17:16 ET by crsheddshow me ANY documentary that doesn't have 'errors, omissions', maybe even outright lies. you will NOT be able to.
that being said, i will repeat what the judge wrote:
"I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
(http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html )
You sure are being narrow
October 12, 2007 - 17:18 ET by Clear thinkerYou sure are being narrow minded about this!
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Well, the Democrat symbol is the stubborn
October 12, 2007 - 17:24 ET by RJdonkey.... :^)
P.S. Ding. Error is the
October 12, 2007 - 11:56 ET by bassndudeP.S. Ding. Error is the polite legal term for lie. To present a lie is to present a falsehood. To tell people in a film it is a fact, is a blatant lie.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bassndude
October 12, 2007 - 12:18 ET by ding7777Read the ruling. The "errors" are in quotes because that is what the Claiment used to describe each issue in his long list of exaggerated/alleged claims
bla
October 12, 2007 - 12:37 ET by Free Stinkerbla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla.
. . . and no matter how horrific the terrorist attack, it's conducted by losers. Winners don't need to hijack airplanes. Winners have an Air Force. --P.J. O'Rourke
. . . and no matter how Trollish the Talking Points, they are used by losers. Winners don't need to use talking points. Winners have facts. --Free Stinker
and your reply is full of
October 12, 2007 - 15:58 ET by crsheddand your reply is full of 'facts'.
Ding do the math
October 12, 2007 - 12:57 ET by Airforce_5_OOkay ding let me break it down for you.
“Issues” in the context that means “problems”.
Let’s define Problem. A source of perplexity, distress, or vexation. How about that. It confuses people. Why you may ask my liberal friend?
BECAUSE THERE ARE 9 ERRORS IN IT!!!!!!!!
Does that help?
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
Airforce_5_O
October 12, 2007 - 14:22 ET by ding7777Maybe you missed this:
The Judge reviewed whether the film differed from an IPCC report. Period.
ditto. see my post of
October 12, 2007 - 16:42 ET by crsheddditto.
see my post of October 12, 2007 - 17:33 ET by crshedd
I have yet to see this in
October 12, 2007 - 18:17 ET by BlackwaterI have yet to see this in the news. Yet I see Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize all over the place....>_>
Integrity?
October 12, 2007 - 22:43 ET by pbthinkerWhen did the academy awards get integrity? I can't think of the last "best picture" that I thought was worthy of my hard earned dollar.
Democrats: Specializing in "high tech lynching" since 1987.
Really? The Departed, LOTR
October 12, 2007 - 22:52 ET by balboaReally? The Departed, LOTR - The Return of the King, A Beautiful Mind, Gladiator, American Beauty, Braveheart, Forrest Gump, Schindler's List...those are pretty good, IMO.
B
October 12, 2007 - 23:15 ET by Noel SheppardB,
You had me until Forrest Gump. C'mon. That might be the most overrated film in history!
Of course, Shakespeare in Love beating out Saving Private Ryan is another recent Oscar disgrace. But don't get me started. Been a long day.
BTW: Did you catch me on Miller's show today? Now THAT's entertainment!!! :-) ns