RIP - Robert Redford

[kphoger]

A few examples of a better way to start one of these threads are such as these, all of which were about people I'd never heard of before the RIP thread:

|OCGuy81| — Paul Reubens — told us in both the thread title and OP who he was and how he died

|Henry| — David Sanborn — gave us plenty of info about who he was

|Hot Rod Hootenanny| — Steve Sobol — gave us details about who he was and how he died

|LilianaUwU| — Jonathan Joss — told us why someone might have heard of him, plus something about his death

[Henry]

RIP Roy Hobbs (I'm going to watch The Natural on DVD in his honor)

[SEWIGuy]

Why would OP provide additional information when the link provided the explanation? I don't care if you're too lazy to click on it or not.

No, the link did not provide an explanation.  The OP of the thread says "RIP", so it's obvious from the get-to that someone named Robert Redford died.  But the link doesn't say anything else beyond that other than "movies".  So who is this dead person named Robert Redford? some b-movie actor? a famous producer? a character in a movie series that gets killed off in an upcoming release? the head of an animation studio?  Unless you already know who Robert Redford was, the single word "movies" does not tell you why his death is noteworthy.

When you click on the link, the headline tells you exactly who he is. Stop being lazy.

[DTComposer]

If someone takes the time to type "who?" but doesn't want to take a similar amount of time to type the name into the Google box, it comes across to me as wannabe-edgy.

That said, the OP should provide more context, and absolutely a link to an article.

It works both ways - people here who have recently said they hadn't heard of Taylor Swift or Charlie Kirk kinda give the same energy.

I agree that all the RIPs should go into one thread per year - the forum equivalent of the "In Memoriam" segment.

[SEWIGuy]

If someone takes the time to type "who?" but doesn't want to take a similar amount of time to type the name into the Google box, it comes across to me as wannabe-edgy.

And/or someone who wants to draw attention to themselves.

[DTComposer]

Why would OP provide additional information when the link provided the explanation? I don't care if you're too lazy to click on it or not.

No, the link did not provide an explanation.  The OP of the thread says "RIP", so it's obvious from the get-to that someone named Robert Redford died.  But the link doesn't say anything else beyond that other than "movies".  So who is this dead person named Robert Redford? some b-movie actor? a famous producer? a character in a movie series that gets killed off in an upcoming release? the head of an animation studio?  Unless you already know who Robert Redford was, the single word "movies" does not tell you why his death is noteworthy.

I say this with seriousness: who's to say what the demarcation point is for giving additional context to the name? We've seen here recently that people one might think are universally known (even vaguely) are not.

Should there be a mandate or at least a strong suggestion that these threads contain an obituary-style headline?

Robert Redford, Oscar-winning actor and director, founder of Sundance film festival, dead at 89

Queen Elizabeth II, Britain's longest-serving monarch, dead at 96

Ozzy Osbourne, singer, reality TV star, and bat-eater, dead at 76

[webny99]

If someone takes the time to type "who?" but doesn't want to take a similar amount of time to type the name into the Google box, it comes across to me as wannabe-edgy.

And/or someone who wants to draw attention to themselves.

Normally, this would be where I'd insert the "Stop, he's already dead!" meme, but considering the subject matter that seems a little too on the nose.

[SEWIGuy]

Why would OP provide additional information when the link provided the explanation? I don't care if you're too lazy to click on it or not.

No, the link did not provide an explanation.  The OP of the thread says "RIP", so it's obvious from the get-to that someone named Robert Redford died.  But the link doesn't say anything else beyond that other than "movies".  So who is this dead person named Robert Redford? some b-movie actor? a famous producer? a character in a movie series that gets killed off in an upcoming release? the head of an animation studio?  Unless you already know who Robert Redford was, the single word "movies" does not tell you why his death is noteworthy.

I say this with seriousness: who's to say what the demarcation point is for giving additional context to the name? We've seen here recently that people one might think are universally known (even vaguely) are not.

Should there be a mandate or at least a strong suggestion that these threads contain an obituary-style headline?

Robert Redford, Oscar-winning actor and director, founder of Sundance film festival, dead at 89

Queen Elizabeth II, Britain's longest-serving monarch, dead at 96

Ozzy Osbourne, singer, reality TV star, and bat-eater, dead at 76

Not to mention there are all sorts of inside jokes posted here, that unless someone has a deep and vast knowledge of AARoads, will leave a user with no idea what they are talking about.

To complain about something that can't be easily Googled or by clicking a link is silly.

[kphoger]

Yeah, it would be nice if people could explain who they are

OP provided a link.

With no context as to why anybody would want to click on it.

Why would OP provide additional information when the link provided the explanation?

No, the link did not provide an explanation.

When you click on the link, the headline tells you exactly who he is.

Well, at least now you agree that the link doesn't explain who he is.  The headline of the article that the link goes to does.  Here's your argument so far:

— If you look at the article, then it will explain to you why you should look at the article.

I say this with seriousness: who's to say what the demarcation point is for giving additional context to the name? We've seen here recently that people one might think are universally known (even vaguely) are not.

Should there be a mandate or at least a strong suggestion that these threads contain an obituary-style headline?

Robert Redford, Oscar-winning actor and director, founder of Sundance film festival, dead at 89

Queen Elizabeth II, Britain's longest-serving monarch, dead at 96

Ozzy Osbourne, singer, reality TV star, and bat-eater, dead at 76

With the exception of someone like the Pope or the Queen of England (or obvious a US President if it ever came to that), I'd say people should assume that at least some forum members won't have heard of whomever it is that died.

And, for what it's worth, the OP in the "Queen Elizabeth II dies at age 96" thread gave some explanation of who she was.  And even the "RIP Pope Francis" thread included the word "Catholics" in the OP.

[SEWIGuy]

Well, at least now you agree that the link doesn't explain who he is.  The headline of the article that the link goes to does.  Here's your argument so far:

— If you look at the article, then it will explain to you why you should look at the article.

Man, how pedantic can one get... Just because you're too damn lazy to click a link.

[kphoger]

lazy

All because people are too lazy to type a sentence about why we should click a link in the first place.

[Max Rockatansky]

I wonder what Robert Redford would think of us discussing his post-mortem status like this on a road forum?

[Molandfreak]

I just don't understand what is so hard about opening up a new tab and googling a name you haven't heard of. It isn't difficult even in KaiOS, which is the operating system most feature phones use these days. Not sure what type of phone kphoger uses, so it could be different, but that's really the only "issue" I could see somebody having.

Still, I don't think there are many zoomers using dumb phones in 2025.

[ClassicHasClass]

My voice is my passport. Verify me.

[DTComposer]

I say this with seriousness: who's to say what the demarcation point is for giving additional context to the name? We've seen here recently that people one might think are universally known (even vaguely) are not.

Should there be a mandate or at least a strong suggestion that these threads contain an obituary-style headline?

Robert Redford, Oscar-winning actor and director, founder of Sundance film festival, dead at 89

Queen Elizabeth II, Britain's longest-serving monarch, dead at 96

Ozzy Osbourne, singer, reality TV star, and bat-eater, dead at 76

With the exception of someone like the Pope or the Queen of England (or obvious a US President if it ever came to that), I'd say people should assume that at least some forum members won't have heard of whomever it is that died.

And, for what it's worth, the OP in the "Queen Elizabeth II dies at age 96" thread gave some explanation of who she was.  And even the "RIP Pope Francis" thread included the word "Catholics" in the OP.

I'm being pedantic, but isn't "people should assume" the point of discussion here? While I agree that someone on the level of the Queen or the Pope would likely be universally known, can I say that with 100% confidence? (It should be noted that, since they have their title/honorific in their "name," there's already some context provided, so even if they didn't know it was Francis, they knew it was "The Pope")

Yes, as a U.S.-centric forum, a president shouldn't need context - for example, Jimmy Carter - but can I also say that with 100% confidence? What about other world leaders? It could be argued that Angela Merkel is one of the most influential world leaders of the last quarter-century, but she'd likely need context for some people. What if it was the PM of Canada? Would it make a difference if they died while in office? What about lower-level governmental figures - did Ruth Bader Ginsburg need context? Would Nancy Pelosi, or Mitch McConnell? Would Gavin Newsom or Greg Abbott be less likely to need context than the than JB Pritzker or Josh Shapiro?

It continues to get murkier when you go to celebrities. Would Oprah need context? Did Michael Jackson? Robert Redford needed context for younger people, so would Timotheé Chalamet need context for older people? What about Leo DiCaprio? Meryl Streep? Natalie Portman? Samuel L. Jackson? Would LeBron James need context for non-sports fans? Did Kobe Bryant? What about Patrick Mahomes? Caitlin Clark?

My point is, while there may be an upper echelon of universally-known people, the line demarcating those people is not well-defined, and I would argue that it's easier to provide context for everyone, even if it might seem silly. This is why the newspaper headline reads "Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United States, dead at 100" as opposed to "RIP Jimmy Carter."

[kphoger]

Not sure what type of phone kphoger uses, so it could be different, but that's really the only "issue" I could see somebody having.

Still, I don't think there are many zoomers using dumb phones in 2025.

1.  I'm not a zoomer.
2.  I have a dumb phone.
3.  I browse this forum on a computer, not a phone.

It just annoys me when someone starts a topic about something, and all it is is a link to something else.  I don't just assume that what you have to share will interest me.  I'm not going to click on a link just to find out if it's something I'm interested in reading or not.  By that point, I'm already reading it.  In the case of someone's death, the bare minimum would be a little explanation of why anybody should care the person has died—which could be what they were famous for or the circumstances of their death.

[Molandfreak]

Not sure what type of phone kphoger uses, so it could be different, but that's really the only "issue" I could see somebody having.

Still, I don't think there are many zoomers using dumb phones in 2025.

1.  I'm not a zoomer.
2.  I have a dumb phone.
3.  I browse this forum on a computer, not a phone.

Point 2 is the entire point of mentioning you in the comment. I wasn't aware of point 3. Point 1 is only in relation to the forum members who haven't heard of Redford before today.

Edit: for clarification, you were only mentioned as an example of a user who doesn't use a smartphone. I'm not aware of any other users who use feature phones, so that was the entire reason for your mention.

[Roadgeekteen]

If you can browse the forum you can use google. And there is no need for having a celebrity death megathread. If you don't care about the person who died you can just not post in that thread.

Edit: or click on a link lol

[kphoger]

If you don't care about the person who died you can just not post in that thread.

Edit: or click on a link lol

The thing is, though, there are people whose deaths I actually end up being interested to know about, even though I didn't know their name before the thread.  For example, if |TheHighwayMan3561| hadn't included the phrases "early roadgeek" and "photos have been such a huge trove of historical knowledge", then I wouldn't have recognized the name.  (Ironically, the RIP thread referred to a Facebook post, not a hyperlink to a news article.)  It was only because of the OP's information that I started learning about Michael.

[Hot Rod Hootenanny]

I thought I would get grief from folks not getting past the NY Times paywall, at which point others would chime in.
I didn't realize I was going to start another AAroads culture skirmish instead. 
Anyways, here is Robert Redford pretending to be a roadgeek, 33 years ago.

[Molandfreak]

I thought I would get grief from folks not getting past the NY Times paywall, at which point others would chime in.
I didn't realize I was going to start another AAroads culture skirmish instead.

That would have just incited another skirmish, with me ranting about how the internet was better before it became over-commercialized and someone else quoting me to explain how that's actually a good thing.

[Rothman]

The romantic b#$tard...

[vdeane]

Why would OP provide additional information when the link provided the explanation? I don't care if you're too lazy to click on it or not.

Why should one have to open a link to see if they want to open the link and read the article?  Believe it or not, most of us don't click on every link we encounter on the forum.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  I'd never have time to read as much on this forum as I do if I did.

I thought I would get grief from folks not getting past the NY Times paywall, at which point others would chime in.

In this case, there's that too (although there are ways around it).

If you don't care about the person who died you can just not post in that thread.

Edit: or click on a link lol

The thing is, though, there are people whose deaths I actually end up being interested to know about, even though I didn't know their name before the thread.  For example, if |TheHighwayMan3561| hadn't included the phrases "early roadgeek" and "photos have been such a huge trove of historical knowledge", then I wouldn't have recognized the name.  (Ironically, the RIP thread referred to a Facebook post, not a hyperlink to a news article.)  It was only because of the OP's information that I started learning about Michael.

Indeed.  I click on the death threads at least once (at least outside of Sports), even if I have no idea who they are, just to find out.

[Scott5114]

I don't care if you're too lazy to click on it or not.

I hate to break this to you, but this place isn't just about you. There are many here who know don't know what the link is. Your apathy doesn't preclude others from discussing.

[Molandfreak]

Still, why even post if you aren't going to do the bare minimum level of research? It's not like Redford only appeared in a couple obscure indie films 50 years ago and quickly stepped out of the public eye. And even if somebody posted a thread about somebody where that was the case, I certainly wouldn't post "who?" I would at least google the name, and if I wasn't interested, I would simply not post in the thread.