Quote:

And, yet, any time spent reading about Fox, and his current acting gigs, knows that he can only film so many shots at a time without jerking, as well, as the fact that the crew shoot around his visual availability. Why wasn't the same done for the "commercial"? What's the point of being the poster boy for the disease, if you have to hide it while trying to make a point about it? That doesn't seem logical to me.



I'm sure you have no problem with shelling out for sympathy, but I would want my favorite actors or politicians to make a coherent point without the use of exaggeration. If Paris Hilton was going to give a lecture on the dangers of herpes, would you really want to see her in an outbreak of disgusting sores while she talked to you about it? Or worse, what if she tried to hammer the point home by showing how damaging it is elsewhere.

Quote:

Then, if it's all the more promising, why isn't it given more support? What would be the point of even bothering with embryonic research? Could it be that the results from testings are incomplete? Or that it's only in theoretical stages, and thus, would set back the research decades? Curious.



The entire debate over stem cells evolved from scientific value to moral justification a long time ago. Since embryonic research has fallen flat while use of dead adults and umbilical cords has proven many times more successful, the embryo-exploitation camp is too embarressed to admit defeat.

Quote:

Where did he say Talent was wanting to "criminalize" anything?



Did you even watch the commercial?

Quote:

If they had a spokesperson for the disease that didn't even HAVE the disease, how on Earth would that be effective by any stretch?



.......Are you serious?