I didn't articulate well on that one. (Also, the thought was half-baked.) John Cleese was honestly a good man with good intentions, quite progressive a short

I didn't articulate well on that one. (Also, the thought was half-baked.) John Cleese was honestly a good man with good intentions, quite progressive a short while back. But time progressed in a way a little different than his ideas, and today he's sometimes blasted by those to the left of him. Weinstein was a different kind of change story. He was running in circles that purported (at least publicly) to be 'pro women', even providing strong backing for a female US politician. Of course his private actions were 100% out of alignment with the spin being thrown to the viewing audience, something that caused collateral damage to some others in his one-time sphere. Sorry for the mishandling of that response on my part. I have no excuse, not my best contributions to HN conversation.