Lost: talking points
JT
curmudgeons that seem to be disproportionately represented on Usenet, and
since PuddinTame - the latest and most prolific of these - has suggested a
defense of Lost, why not indulge?
As anyone with a reasonably advanced sense of logic and debate would agree,
an important aspect of defending an argument is quantifiable data. Since
Lost is consistently one of the most watched shows on TV, drawing about 1 in
5 active viewers when it airs, it's hard to say that the market is
frustrated or disinterested in the show. But that's beside the point -
facts apparently have no bearing on this ongoing debate. Rather, opinions
are the ammunition in this battle - the more pompous and self-righteous, the
better.
I have to start by saying that Lost is a network TV drama. As good as it
is, there is a whole body of literature out there that blows *anything* on
TV away, as far as the quality of storytelling. Network TV is heavily
restricted by what the FCC will allow us to see, as well as the necessity
for TPTB to dumb everything down enough to capture the average slack-jaw who
makes up the bulk of our society. I would alter H.L Mencken by saying
"nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence and sophistication
of the American public - but plenty have lost it all by overestimating it."
The first strength that most people will point out with Lost is the writing.
In a dramatic series, it's impossible to make conversations entirely
realistic, as most "realistic" people are boring, unintelligent, and
generally unfit to be the subjects of a TV show (reality TV doesn't count,
because those people are just acting like characters in an unscripted drama,
and are often more over-the-top than in a scripted show). Lost has always
been guilty of some loaded dialogue (Locke and Jack's faith vs. science
debate, for example), but for the most part the characters speak to each
other in ways consistent with their established personalities. There's a
subtle but important distinction between characters acting as mouthpieces
for furthering a plot (the most common paradigm - just watch nearly
everything else on primetime), and the dialogue coming from deep characters
in the face of the plot. When characters have to launch into some kind of
soliloquy for dramatic reasons, others react realistically (Jack and Hurley
discussing Hurley's past, for example), rather than responding as if they
know the importance of the speech to some overall story. If you don't see
or appreciate those differences between Lost and much of what else is on TV,
I guess you're better off being able to watch plenty of other shows without
wanting to stick needles into your eyes. All I can say is that the number
of times I cringe at dialogue watching Lost is low enough that I continue to
watch eagerly - most other shows lose me by the first commercial break.
The second major "talking point" in favor of Lost is the character
development. The show itself is essentially a menagerie of character
sketches done on the background of a seemingly impossible plane crash on a
seemingly magical island. The premise falls apart if the plot becomes the
focus, rather than developing characters within an unusual setting. There
are hundreds of shows that take basic character templates and put them into
different plot arcs - look at all the procedurals out there. Lost, on the
other hand, takes time to flesh out the characters as people, rather than
archetypes who will do things to make the story more exciting. Some
characters are annoying, but at least they're made out to be real people.
Little things, like Locke being hesitant to hold Aaron even though he knows
more about parenting than Claire, resonate with me. I don't like holding
babies because they're too fragile and nobody wants to drop one - seeing
that Locke, in all his wisdom and outward confidence, is still a little
nervous to hold a baby goes a long way. Again, it's a subtle thing, but
little snippets like that go a long way towards making things seem more
authentic. I barely notice all the little facets of each character when
they're shown, but I definitely notice when they aren't there. It's like
the difference between a carefully flavored dish and one with just a bunch
of Mrs. Dash, or a microbrewed beer and Budweiser. Some people don't
notice/care about the distinction, but it's important to me.
The final one of the major benefits of Lost is the novelty of the
storytelling. It's hard to find a truly unique way to tell a story -
someone's generally 'done it that way before' - but Lost doesn't follow the
same derivative formula that guides so many competing shows. Some people
can't stand the slow pacing, repeated flashbacks, and 'big picture seen
through a keyhole' framing. I love it. I figured out the standard sit-com
/ hour long drama plot arcs long ago, and they simply don't interest me.
The show starts, a secondary conflict arises, then a primary conflict, then
they're both resolved, the good guys win and everyone's happy (ocassionally
they lose after a noble fight during sweeps just to keep things
interesting). I loved the replay of the bunker scene early this season - I
enjoy seeing the same bit of action from different angles and different
perspectives. I like knowing what was happening off-camera. I like having
storylines introduced by circumstances and then dropped for awhile - life is
not linear, and you can often see how a seemingly isolated event was in fact
the seed of a future occurance when it flowers down the road. Lost is not
predictable, even to those of us who spend hours every week picking it
apart. Nobody knows where the story arc is going - when we spoil something,
it's inconsequential in the overall scheme of things. I enjoy the fact that
TPTB mix up their style and go outside the box in how they make Lost. I'm
not the type who can consume the same thing again and again - I need things
to be fresh an unique.
Some people happily watch their procedurals every night, seeing the same old
plot arcs, the same old stories rehashed by different cardboard cutouts, and
the same old trite, dime-novel dialogue. I'm not one of them. Normally,
I'd be siding with the folks who post the occasional anti-TV rant. Yet I'm
an avid fan of Lost - that's not to say that my taste is highly evolved and
only Lost satisfies my superior palate; rather, it signifies that Lost is
*different* enough that it doesn't get filed away in the generic "mass
audience appeal TV" bin. The things that set Lost apart are the things I
love about it. I can understand someone disliking those same aspects of the
show, and that's where the opinion comes in.
If you don't like Lost, fine. I expect everything I like to have
detractors - afterall, I despise so much of what's "popular" that I can't
well expect others to love everything that does it for me. Just don't try
to tell me that there's something wrong with the show - your opinion of it
reflects nothing more than your sensibilities.
--
"To see things in the seed, that is genius."
--Lao-Tzu
rob...@bestweb.net
> In a dramatic series, it's impossible to make conversations entirely
> realistic, as most "realistic" people are boring, unintelligent, and
> generally unfit to be the subjects of a TV show
Last Sunday night I turned on the TV and shared an experience many had
of thinking we were seeing a candidates' debate until we recognized one
of the "candidates" as Alan Alda playing a part. And, like others
who've remarked similarly online, I thought the Alan Alda character
presented a better example, and was portrayed more sympathetically, and
to a wider audience, than any of the people I know who've been trying
to do that for real. Then I found out it was an installment of a TV
series, and that regular viewers (and critics) of the series found the
episode boring because it was too realistic.
Robert
Ed Stasiak
>
> The second major "talking point" in favor of Lost is the character
> development. The show itself is essentially a menagerie of character
> sketches done on the background of a seemingly impossible plane
> crash on a seemingly magical island. The premise falls apart if the
> plot becomes the focus, rather than developing characters within
> an unusual setting.
And the third "talking point" is the plot. A good show must
find a balance between the character development and the plot.
Character development alone (especially within the restrictions
of broadcast TV, as you mentioned) is monumentally boring if
the characters are developed within a thin/crappy plot.
With "Lost", it seems to me that the writers either have no idea
what the plot is and are just winging it week to week, or are
simply padding out the show with character development to get
20-some episodes per season (i.e. $$$).
I'm hoping it's just a case of milking the cash cow, thou if
the writers string the viewers along too much, (thru excessive
character development at the expense of plot) the show may
end up going the route of "The X-Files"
> Some people happily watch their procedurals every night, seeing
> the same old plot arcs, the same old stories rehashed by different
> cardboard cutouts, and the same old trite, dime-novel dialogue.
And some people happily watch the same soap opera year after
year, as the same old characters walk thru one ridiculous off the
cuff plot after another, simply because they like that character.
"To know the future is to be trapped by it... A universe
of surprises, that is what I pray for."
-- Leto II "Children of Dune" --
PuddinTame
JT wrote:
> As anyone with a reasonably advanced sense of logic and debate would agree,
> an important aspect of defending an argument is quantifiable data.
Ah yes, i think most art critics would agree. (<<sarcasm)
>Since
> Lost is consistently one of the most watched shows on TV, drawing about 1 in
> 5 active viewers when it airs, it's hard to say that the market is
> frustrated or disinterested in the show.
Ah yes, the old "if a lot of people watch it, it must be good" theory.
>But that's beside the point -
> facts apparently have no bearing on this ongoing debate. Rather, opinions
> are the ammunition in this battle - the more pompous and self-righteous, the
> better.
"pompous and self righteous"...translation: opinions you disagree with.
By the way, how do you feel you come of...humble and deferential? LOL
Trying reading your post out loud (but not loud enough to make the
neighbors cry)
> as well as the necessity
> for TPTB to dumb everything down enough to capture the average slack-jaw who
> makes up the bulk of our society.
In other words, you are more intelligent than most people. Why then
don't your posts reflect this?
> The first strength that most people will point out with Lost is the writing.
well, it USED to be a strength. That's what a lot of the debate is
about on this newsgroup in case you haven't noticed.
> In a dramatic series, it's impossible to make conversations entirely
> realistic
If you say so.
> most other shows lose me by the first commercial break.
Nice to see that you give these other shows a chance- by watching 5
minutes' worth.
> It's like
> the difference between a carefully flavored dish and one with just a bunch
> of Mrs. Dash, or a microbrewed beer and Budweiser. Some people don't
> notice/care about the distinction, but it's important to me.
Yes, we know...you are more sophisticated than most people.
> Some people happily watch their procedurals every night, seeing the same old
> plot arcs, the same old stories rehashed by different cardboard cutouts, and
> the same old trite, dime-novel dialogue. I'm not one of them.
I think you've made that point already. You are smarter than the
average bear.
> your opinion of it
> reflects nothing more than your sensibilities.
Does someone pay you each time you say that?
Dude, I'm telling you- either change your prescription or your dosage.
PuddinTame
Ed Stasiak wrote:
> Character development alone (especially within the restrictions
> of broadcast TV, as you mentioned) is monumentally boring if
> the characters are developed within a thin/crappy plot.
>
> With "Lost", it seems to me that the writers either have no idea
> what the plot is and are just winging it week to week, or are
> simply padding out the show with character development to get
> 20-some episodes per season (i.e. $$$).
>
> I'm hoping it's just a case of milking the cash cow, thou if
> the writers string the viewers along too much, (thru excessive
> character development at the expense of plot) the show may
> end up going the route of "The X-Files"
I agree.
Joanne Marinelli
From: "JT" <noaddre...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.tv.lost
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 5:01 PM
Subject: Lost: talking points
> Since this forum is being overrun by the ever-present captious, caviling
> curmudgeons that seem to be disproportionately represented on Usenet, and
> since PuddinTame - the latest and most prolific of these - has suggested a
> defense of Lost, why not indulge?
>
> As anyone with a reasonably advanced sense of logic and debate would
agree,
> an important aspect of defending an argument is quantifiable data. Since
> Lost is consistently one of the most watched shows on TV, drawing about 1
in
> 5 active viewers when it airs, it's hard to say that the market is
> frustrated or disinterested in the show. But that's beside the point -
> facts apparently have no bearing on this ongoing debate.
As my mentor Dr. Clark used to say when I inveighed about Charles Dickens,
(as I am an elitist who isn't smart enough quite to stand on my own against
Jamesian scholars) "Shakespeare appealed to all audiences." So it is
important that Lost is popular--but it is also smart.
Rather, opinions
> are the ammunition in this battle - the more pompous and self-righteous,
the
> better.
>
We all have opinions. What you are objecting to is how some frame those
opinions.
(occasionally
> they lose after a noble fight during sweeps just to keep things
> interesting). I loved the replay of the bunker scene early this season -
I
> enjoy seeing the same bit of action from different angles and different
> perspectives. I like knowing what was happening off-camera. I like
having
> storylines introduced by circumstances and then dropped for awhile - life
is
> not linear, and you can often see how a seemingly isolated event was in
fact
> the seed of a future occurrence when it flowers down the road. Lost is
not
> predictable, even to those of us who spend hours every week picking it
> apart. Nobody knows where the story arc is going - when we spoil
something,
> it's inconsequential in the overall scheme of things. I enjoy the fact
that
> TPTB mix up their style and go outside the box in how they make Lost. I'm
> not the type who can consume the same thing again and again - I need
things
> to be fresh an unique.
>
I agree with all of this, but will add a few more items:
I think the best network show before Lost was Attanasio's Homicide. Yes, it
was a police procedural, but it advanced the genre a few light years ahead
of the game, integrating street realism, excellent character development
incorporated *into* the cases being pursued, much better than what Wolf
manages with L&O.
What bothers me most about Lost is that it has too much of a Disney feel to
it, and I believe it could benefit on occasion from Homicide's main
strength, a documentary realism--although I will concede its vacuous magical
realism is also one of its strengths.
Some of the acting is impressive, especially O'Quinn. He is, thus far, like
Fox, a lynchpin character, and I believe much of the show's success can be
put at this man's door. Naveen Andrews also carried some weight S1 in a
similar vein.
Another thing which TPTB have taken and made their own is playing with
television conventions and literary allusions. It works, and appeals to both
the baby boomers who grew up on 60's television, and contemporary viewers
who like the modern gaming shows like Survivor. I don't like Survivor, but
it goes to show why acting is actually a profession--with a slight twist you
can take crap concepts and make them dance.
Joanne
Steven L.
>>JT wrote
>>
>>The second major "talking point" in favor of Lost is the character
>>development. The show itself is essentially a menagerie of character
>>sketches done on the background of a seemingly impossible plane
>>crash on a seemingly magical island. The premise falls apart if the
>>plot becomes the focus, rather than developing characters within
>>an unusual setting.
>
>
> And the third "talking point" is the plot. A good show must
> find a balance between the character development and the plot.
>
> Character development alone (especially within the restrictions
> of broadcast TV, as you mentioned) is monumentally boring if
> the characters are developed within a thin/crappy plot.
The thinness of the plot relative to the size of the cast is a problem.
What plot there is, does appear to be well thought out (at least for a
half season in advance). But there just isn't enough plot for all the
characters we have.
In Season One, we had an ensemble cast of 14 main characters on just
three subplots: Claire's pregnancy, the hatch, and the raft. Shannon
fell by the wayside because she wasn't involved in any of those three
subplots. Hurley and Sun weren't involved much either.
Now, in Season Two, the cast has grown to what, 18 main characters? For
an ensemble cast that large, you need a very rich, complex plot to
involve all characters, so that more characters don't fall by the
wayside. The downside is that the more complex the plot, the harder it
will be to understand and the slower it will move because you can only
do so much per episode.
--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Joanne Marinelli
"Steven L." <sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:Hxcdf.672$104...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Ed Stasiak wrote:
>
> >>JT wrote
> >>
> >>The second major "talking point" in favor of Lost is the character
> >>development. The show itself is essentially a menagerie of character
> >>sketches done on the background of a seemingly impossible plane
> >>crash on a seemingly magical island. The premise falls apart if the
> >>plot becomes the focus, rather than developing characters within
> >>an unusual setting.
> >
> >
> > And the third "talking point" is the plot. A good show must
> > find a balance between the character development and the plot.
> >
> > Character development alone (especially within the restrictions
> > of broadcast TV, as you mentioned) is monumentally boring if
> > the characters are developed within a thin/crappy plot.
>
> The thinness of the plot relative to the size of the cast is a problem.
I don't think the plot is too thin by a long shot and have to disagree with
this, unless we have different definitions of what constitutes plot. We
have:
The numbers.
The Others.
The Dharma Initiative.
Walt the super dark kid.
Aaron the baby who has to be kept safe.
Why the crash occurred.
The flashbacks incorporated to cue in on the contemporary island time line.
I don't really think too much more could be packed in.
Joanne
PuddinTame
Steven L. wrote:
> The thinness of the plot relative to the size of the cast is a problem.
> What plot there is, does appear to be well thought out (at least for a
> half season in advance). But there just isn't enough plot for all the
> characters we have.
Why not? Don't all the characters have the same goals? Don't they all
want to figure out whats going on and get back home? Go watch "The
Poseidon Adventure"- a large cast of characters and they could tell the
whole story in under two hours.
> In Season One... >
> Now, in Season Two...
Tut tut. Let us not discuss this in terms of "seasons." This is a
serial. Let's discuss it in terms of episodes. We are up to what
now..like the 27th? 28th? Something like that?
> the cast has grown to what, 18 main characters? For
> an ensemble cast that large, you need a very rich, complex plot to
> involve all characters,
I don;t agree that a lot of characters necessitates a complex plot. I
refer to "The Poseidon Adventure" again. The plot was dead simple.
I haven't seen anything to disbause me of the notion that "Lost" has
basically a b-movie sci-fi plot but that it is being stretched out so
thin that its become ridiculous.
> The downside is that the more complex the plot, the harder it
> will be to understand and the slower it will move because you can only
> do so much per episode.
If this is true then how many seasons do you think it will take to
resolve the story? 10? 15?
Steven L.
"Keeping Aaron safe" isn't an island subplot in itself because you
mentioned The Others already.
"Why the crash occurred" isn't an island subplot; it's a backstory.
Of the remaining subplots you listed, the following characters don't fit
any of those subplots:
Sawyer, Sun, Ana-Lucia, Rose, Bernard, Libby, Cindy and Mr. Eko
rilynil
pleasure to read. We need more like this.
PuddinTame
JT, disguising himself as rilynil wrote:
> This was a great, well thought-out, well stated post, JT. It was a
> pleasure to read. We need more like this.
Interesting that you have nothing to say about any of the other posts
in this thread.
I guess the writings of a schizophrenic CAN be fascinating.
Quite frankly, I found your...er...I mean...JT's post to
be..."captious" LOL
Which part did u like best- the part where you..er..I mean "he"..
decries pompous self righteous people and then out pompouses them all?
Or the part where you...er..I mean "he" equates the popularity of a
show with quality and then goes on to dismiss CSI?
Check the meds, JT! Check the meds!
Keep trying. Keep finding SAT words like "captious"...keep trying to
put them into coherent sentences. Keep trying to put those sentences
into coherent paragraphs. Your efforts may someday pay off!
But thats just my empty opinion and not an objective fact.
rilynil
> JT, disguising himself as rilynil wrote:
> > This was a great, well thought-out, well stated post, JT. It was a
> > pleasure to read. We need more like this.
>
> Interesting that you have nothing to say about any of the other posts
> in this thread.
Yes, you are correct. Should I respond to every post in a thread?
>
> I guess the writings of a schizophrenic CAN be fascinating.
>
> Quite frankly, I found your...er...I mean...JT's post to
> be..."captious" LOL
>
Do you really think I'm the same person as JT? It wouldn't be hard to
find out that I'm not. Odd.
PuddinTame
rilynil wrote:
> Do you really think I'm the same person as JT?
Nah, you're his "Harriet Meiers"
> Odd.
Now THAT'S an appropriate reaction to one of JT's posts. :-D
rwgibson13
Steven L. wrote:
> Ed Stasiak wrote:
>
> >>JT wrote
> >>
> >>The second major "talking point" in favor of Lost is the character
> >>development. The show itself is essentially a menagerie of character
> >>sketches done on the background of a seemingly impossible plane
> >>crash on a seemingly magical island. The premise falls apart if the
> >>plot becomes the focus, rather than developing characters within
> >>an unusual setting.
> >
> >
> > And the third "talking point" is the plot. A good show must
> > find a balance between the character development and the plot.
> >
> > Character development alone (especially within the restrictions
> > of broadcast TV, as you mentioned) is monumentally boring if
> > the characters are developed within a thin/crappy plot.
>
> The thinness of the plot relative to the size of the cast is a problem.
> What plot there is, does appear to be well thought out (at least for a
> half season in advance). But there just isn't enough plot for all the
> characters we have.
This was the main reason for the insertion of the Tail Section
passengers this season IMO. Last year really wasn't about sheer
survival and exploration as much as the next few will be. I think the
danger level has been upped a bit now and that's something all of 'em
are going to have to deal with.
RWG (now that the group will get a feel for how dangerous the island
really can be)
PuddinTame
rwgibson13 wrote:
> This was the main reason for the insertion of the Tail Section
> passengers this season IMO.
I wonder if the survivors from the front section will be introduced
next year?
Steven L.
Another way to go is if the Lostaways & Tailees stage a raid on The
Others' camp, defeat them and rescue their captives. Then we can
introduce Alex and whoever else they've been holding prisoner.
Steven L.
An action-adventure plot of the sort you're describing, doesn't seem to
provide any opportunities for the Sun and Charlie characters. And
Claire remains nothing more than a prize to be protected from The Others
by the Lostaways.
(In real life, YunJin Kim is an expert at Tae Kwon Do and is
accomplished at swordplay too; but the writers didn't write Sun that way)
rwgibson13
Might seem that way, but you never know what ordinarily "weak" folk are
capable of doing when placed in unnusual circumstances. They have a
way of surprising people...
> (In real life, YunJin Kim is an expert at Tae Kwon Do and is
> accomplished at swordplay too; but the writers didn't write Sun that way)
Or at least we've not seen that part of her back story yet :-)
RWG (never knew she spoke English until midway through last season
either)
Mark Anderson
The Harlem Globetrotters will crash land on the island next year.
PuddinTame
Mark Anderson wrote:
> The Harlem Globetrotters will crash land on the island next year.
Please...don't tease!
PuddinTame
PuddinTame wrote:
> Why not? Don't all the characters have the same goals? Don't they all
> want to figure out whats going on and get back home? Go watch "The
> Poseidon Adventure"- a large cast of characters and they could tell the
> whole story in under two hours.
Speak of the devil! I was watching TV tonight and they advertised a
remake of "The Poseidon Adventure" which will be on next week!
Melroseman
> PuddinTame wrote:
>
>> rwgibson13 wrote:
>>
>>> This was the main reason for the insertion of the Tail Section
>>> passengers this season IMO.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wonder if the survivors from the front section will be introduced
>> next year?
>
>
> Another way to go is if the Lostaways & Tailees stage a raid on The
> Others' camp, defeat them and rescue their captives. Then we can
> introduce Alex and whoever else they've been holding prisoner.
Doesn't it seem like that's where they are headed? If one gun and one
bullet won't stop "them" then maybe a whole arsenal from munitions
magnate Mr. Hanso will. Perhaps after the big blowup, they will
eventually make some sort of plan... the season finale.
--
New to alt.tv.lost? Please read the FAQ before posting:
http://www.geocities.com/alt_tv_lost/
Steven L.
> Steven L. wrote:
>
>>The thinness of the plot relative to the size of the cast is a problem.
>> What plot there is, does appear to be well thought out (at least for a
>>half season in advance). But there just isn't enough plot for all the
>>characters we have.
>
>
> Why not? Don't all the characters have the same goals? Don't they all
> want to figure out whats going on and get back home?
Definitely. And that's why it took the Lostaways several weeks, using
all their ingenuity and resources, to construct a raft to attempt to
sail away and contact rescuers. Along came The Others with their
powered boat and weapons, and blew the raft to bits.
What do you suggest the Lostaways do now?
>>the cast has grown to what, 18 main characters? For
>>an ensemble cast that large, you need a very rich, complex plot to
>>involve all characters,
>
>
> I don;t agree that a lot of characters necessitates a complex plot. I
> refer to "The Poseidon Adventure" again. The plot was dead simple.
The plot of "The Poseidon Adventure" was stupid and boring. And unlike
"Lost," there was an obvious escape route in the S.S. Poseidon, and the
entire movie was about going thru it. It's not clear there is any
escape route out of Lost Island that works.
A better analogy might be "The Great Escape," which was a much better
escape-type movie. Do you remember how that movie ended?
Lost is not about how the Lostaways escape from the island. It's about
how the Lostaways cope with the fact that there may be no escape.
PuddinTame
Steven L. wrote:
> PuddinTame wrote:
> Definitely. And that's why it took the Lostaways several weeks, using
> all their ingenuity and resources, to construct a raft to attempt to
> sail away and contact rescuers.
And now when they find a power source and spare electronic components,
instead of trying to contact the outside world the apparently say" Oh
fug it."
> What do you suggest the Lostaways do now?
Um...try to build/boost the power on a transmitter?
>The plot of "The Poseidon Adventure" was stupid and boring.
And the plot of "Lost?" heh heh
Sorry, you asked for it- those are fighting words- "The Poseidon
Adventure" is my favorite 70s disaster film. And you know, we found
out Ernest borgnine was a cop and his wife was an ex-prostitute without
going into any 20 minute flashback sequence? :)
> A better analogy might be "The Great Escape," which was a much better
> escape-type movie. Do you remember how that movie ended?
Yes. "Any resemblance to actual persons is purely coincidental. Color
by Technicolor"
Ryan Robbins
"PuddinTame" <Puddi...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1132001018.6...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Steven L. wrote:
>> PuddinTame wrote:
>
>> Definitely. And that's why it took the Lostaways several weeks, using
>> all their ingenuity and resources, to construct a raft to attempt to
>> sail away and contact rescuers.
>
> And now when they find a power source and spare electronic components,
> instead of trying to contact the outside world the apparently say" Oh
> fug it."
How do you suppose they try to contact the outside world at this point? So
there is a computer. Before they can think of transmitting something, they
need to find something to transmit with. It is odd that they haven't pressed
Danielle to tell them exactly where the transmitter of her distress call is.
PuddinTame
Ryan Robbins wrote:
> How do you suppose they try to contact the outside world at this point?
Who am I- one of the writers? I'm not even Sayid! I'm not even the
Professor from Gilligan's Island!
I'm not even saying the might succeed- but why aren't they trying?
rwgibson13
Same reason they never went back to the cockpit section (more
electronic equipment there than Sayid could carry back) which they've
known about since the >pilot< episode.
RWG (it would make far too much sense :-)
PuddinTame
rwgibson13 wrote:
> Same reason they never went back to the cockpit section (more
> electronic equipment there than Sayid could carry back) which they've
> known about since the >pilot< episode.
>
> RWG (it would make far too much sense :-)
But somewhere along the line didn't someone say that Rousseu's
transmission was so powerful it was blocking their own? If that's the
case the power source in the bunker might solve that problem.
Also there is the possibility that Hanso had the computer hooked up to
the forerunner of the internet, the ARPANET. It's too bad that
possibility has not been mentioned. The DeGroot's University of
Michigan was involved in the development of this network.
Steven L.
I don't think it would make all that much sense.
A Boeing 777 has a state-of-the-art glass cockpit--all-digital computer
controls. Trying to cannibalize and reuse those parts is a little bit
like trying to convert your laptop into a shortwave radio. If the
writers did write such a scene, I would find it really straining my
credibility--like the way that Wesley kid always invented some
ultra-high-tech device to save the day in the nick of time in Star Trek:
The Next Generation.
Sayid did cannibalize the radar out of the Beechcraft, because that's
older generation technology and more easily reusable by
do-it-yourselfers. The technology in a Boeing 777 cockpit is probably
way ahead of what Sayid is familiar with.
Steven L.
THEY ARE, DAMMIT.
How many times do I have to explain this to you? This is the last time
and then you're killfile bait, honey:
It took THREE WEEKS to put a raft together. It took a dozen Lostaways
to launch it. That raft is their best hope. In island time, it was
launched only a week ago so it might take time to reach a passing ship.
Most of the Lostaways don't know the raft was sunk by The Others--Sun
buried the bottle to avoid dashing their hopes. Jack, Locke, Hurley,
etc., all think the raft is sailing merrily along, and will eventually
reach the shipping lanes and be picked up by a passing ship. So they're
being patient and waiting for the raft to contact civilization. They
don't know that it never will.
Maybe if they knew the raft was sunk, they might try something else.
Blame Sun. She's decided not to tell them.
Steven L.
> Steven L. wrote:
>
>>PuddinTame wrote:
>
>
>>Definitely. And that's why it took the Lostaways several weeks, using
>>all their ingenuity and resources, to construct a raft to attempt to
>>sail away and contact rescuers.
>
>
> And now when they find a power source and spare electronic components,
> instead of trying to contact the outside world the apparently say" Oh
> fug it."
There already is a radio transmitter, remember? Danielle's distress
call has been broadcast steadily now for 16 years. NOBODY HAS ANSWERED IT.
Now you could say that maybe it's broadcasting on the wrong frequency.
But changing the frequency band of a transmitter is way harder than
changing the frequency of a receiver. So the Lostaways might have to
build a whole new one, like they built a new raft.
There does not appear to be anything resembling a radio or radio gear in
the bunker. Why don't you ask some of your more computer-literate
friends if it's possible to convert a mainframe computer into a
shortwave radio?
You also tend to forget how slowly time is passing on the island. In
terms of island time, they only opened the hatch a few days ago and are
still investigating the bunker. A good rule of thumb is that one Lost
episode equals about 36 hours of island time. Without Desmond, a
thorough survey of everything in the bunker (which hopefully includes
more detailed technical manuals than the Orientation film) might take
another week or so at least. That represents 3-4 episodes of Lost.
Maybe they'll get around to it--once they learn that the raft was sunk.
They don't know that yet, remember? Sun buried the bottle so they
wouldn't find out.
>>A better analogy might be "The Great Escape," which was a much better
>>escape-type movie. Do you remember how that movie ended?
>
>
> Yes. "Any resemblance to actual persons is purely coincidental. Color
> by Technicolor"
In that movie, some 76 POWs managed to escape from the POW camp. Do you
remember what happened to them in the end?
PuddinTame
Steven L. wrote:
> THEY ARE, DAMMIT.
You wanna calm down?
> How many times do I have to explain this to you? This is the last time
> and then you're killfile bait, honey:
Life goes on.
> It took THREE WEEKS to put a raft together. It took a dozen Lostaways
> to launch it. That raft is their best hope.
So, no need to see if the computer is hooked up to the arpanet and try
to contact someone? (Yawn) (Stretch) "No need..we got a raft out there"
> Most of the Lostaways don't know the raft was sunk by The Others
> Maybe if they knew the raft was sunk, they might try something else.
You are saying they are depending solely on the raft. That they have
put all their eggs in one basket. Why would they do that? Why not try
as many methods as they have at their disposal?
> Blame Sun. She's decided not to tell them.
I'd rather blame you. :-D
PuddinTame
Steven L. wrote:
> There already is a radio transmitter, remember? Danielle's distress
> call has been broadcast steadily now for 16 years.
Maybe they would have a better chnace with a transmission in English.
>NOBODY HAS ANSWERED IT.
You wanna calm down?
> There does not appear to be anything resembling a radio or radio gear in
> the bunker. Why don't you ask some of your more computer-literate
> friends if it's possible to convert a mainframe computer into a
> shortwave radio?
Because that conversation might too much strain on our hearts!
In 1967 at the University of Michigan there was a meeting to discuss
planning of the ARPANET. Yes! The same school the DeGroots went to!
(Ask your computer literate friends!)
Why don't they check to see if the computer is tied into the network
and try to contact someone? I'll leave that up to Sayid, not to our
computer literate friends.
> You also tend to forget how slowly time is passing on the island.
Oh no I'm not. We are all aware of how slow time is passing on the
island. Painfully aware of how slow time is passing on the island.
> terms of island time, they only opened the hatch a few days ago
People stay up 24 hours mastering a new video game. Suddenly they
discover a shelter filled with technology and ..they what..blow off
expoloiting it for a few days? I think not!
> Maybe they'll get around to it--once they learn that the raft was sunk.
I didn't realize everyone on the island decided the raft was their one
and only hope of rescue. So..how long do you think they decided they'd
wait for help to arrive? A couple of weeks? A month?
> They don't know that yet, remember? Sun buried the bottle so they
> wouldn't find out.
Okay you have this raft-is-their-only-hope mindset which you can't seem
to shake. I think it's ridiculous not to explore every option. They
didn't know about the bunker until after the raft launched. Are you
saying they've decided "Oh wow- if we only knew about this bunker we
wouldn;t have launched the raft. But since we've already gone to the
trouble of launching the raft, let's just sit around with our thumbs up
our butts until help arrives"?
> In that movie, some 76 POWs managed to escape from the POW camp. Do you
> remember what happened to them in the end?
They all learned how to play the trombone?
Fred Ellis
>
> (Snipped)
>
> In 1967 at the University of Michigan there was a meeting to discuss
> planning of the ARPANET. Yes! The same school the DeGroots went to!
> (Ask your computer literate friends!)
>
> Why don't they check to see if the computer is tied into the network
> and try to contact someone? I'll leave that up to Sayid, not to our
> computer literate friends.
>
For a computer to be tied in to the ARPANET there has to be a telephone
line. Are you saying the island has telephone service? If the computer
is connected to the ARPANET system then there should be a telephone in
the bunker. If that is the case then why didn't Desmond use the phone
to make a call for help.
Everytime I read one of your posts I get the impression you have a very
limited knowledge of what goes on in the real world.
Fred Ellis
--
Who do you serve. . . . And who do you trust?
(To e-mail me, remove the X from my address)
rwgibson13
Oh, quit making excuses :-) Most of the internal communication systems
in a modern aircraft aren't digital, nor are the emergency systems,
refrigeration and heating units for the stewarding facilities, not to
mention common sense items like flare guns, fire extinguishers,
emergency floatation devices, and all the additional meds, clothing,
laptops, spare batteries etc. from the front section passengers, and
last, but certainly not least, all the really GOOD booze is in first
class :-)
RWG (and since first class was full - Boone and Shannon couldn't get
seats - that means even MORE good stuff to scavenge :-)
PuddinTame
Fred Ellis wrote:
> For a computer to be tied in to the ARPANET there has to be a telephone
> line. Are you saying the island has telephone service?
Are you saying it doesn't? That it's not a possibility? If I had
suggested there was a washer/dryer on the island a few months ago would
you had the same reaction?
> If the computer
> is connected to the ARPANET system then there should be a telephone in
> the bunker.
I have a dialup connection and there is no telphone in this room. Just
a jack.
>If that is the case then why didn't Desmond use the phone
> to make a call for help.
I didn't say there was a phone. You did. I have no clue how
technically savvy/computer literate Desmond is.
> Everytime I read one of your posts I get the impression you have a very
> limited knowledge of what goes on in the real world.
I find your fascination of me flatterring and a little disturbing.
Now go take your smug pills. :)
JT
>> pleasure to read. We need more like this.
>
> Interesting that you have nothing to say about any of the other posts
> in this thread.
>
>
> Quite frankly, I found your...er...I mean...JT's post to
> be..."captious" LOL
>
> decries pompous self righteous people and then out pompouses them all?
>
> Or the part where you...er..I mean "he" equates the popularity of a
> show with quality and then goes on to dismiss CSI?
>
> Check the meds, JT! Check the meds!
>
> Keep trying. Keep finding SAT words like "captious"...keep trying to
> put them into coherent sentences. Keep trying to put those sentences
> into coherent paragraphs. Your efforts may someday pay off!
>
>But thats just my empty opinion and not an objective fact.
LMAO!!! It's killing you! I can just see your face turning beat red as
your fingers trip over each other trying to type your incredulous reply . .
. How could someone agree with me and . . . god forbid . . . pay me a
compliment!! This can't be happening!!! It must be HIM, *pretending* to be
someone else!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
You're alright, PuddinTame.
rwgibson13
It's either that or "You must be one of the writers."
RWG (kind of wonder how he explains the other 20+ million folks who
tune in each week)
PuddinTame
JT wrote:
> . How could someone agree with me and . . . god forbid . . . pay me a
> compliment!!
We couldn't expect anything less from your grandma.
Now give the old broad her medication back.
PuddinTame
rwgibson13 wrote:
> It's either that or "You must be one of the writers."
Hey, butt out why don't ya? You don't think JT can stick up for
himself?
> RWG (kind of wonder how he explains the other 20+ million folks who
> tune in each week)
To what? "CSI?" "Baywatch" reruns? There's no accounting for taste!
rwgibson13
PuddinTame wrote:
> rwgibson13 wrote:
> > It's either that or "You must be one of the writers."
>
> Hey, butt out why don't ya? You don't think JT can stick up for
> himself?
You don't, obviously, if you think his grandma has to do it for him :-)
>
> > RWG (kind of wonder how he explains the other 20+ million folks who
> > tune in each week)
>
> To what? "CSI?" "Baywatch" reruns? There's no accounting for taste!
Yeah, right, show me a Baywatch rerun that drew anywhere near 20
million viewers.
RWG (CSI reruns don't draw that many either, though sometimes it seems
like it :-)
JT
LOL, boy, you're really gettin' steamed now . . . takin' shots at grandma!
Unfortunately, such gibes are empty if not offered in a situation where the
cost for such insolence could well be a busted jaw. Then again, if not for
the miles of electric cables separating all of us, Usenet would surely be a
more cordial place all around.
But hey, you defied me to explain why I thought Lost was good . . . which I
did. Surprisingly, you didn't do what I expected, which was to baselessly
gainsay every point I made ("the writing is good" / "no it's not"; "the
characters are deep" / "no they're not"). Instead, you pointed out my
pompous, elitist bent (which was never a secret to begin with) and basically
ridiculed the tone and word choices of my post, without having much to say
regarding the content.
It's okay though - I know it's much more fun to exchange childish insults
and witty barbs than engage in a pointless battle between entrenched
opposing viewpoints. No matter what I say, you won't quit with the inane
bitching about your perceived faults in Lost. No matter what you say, I
won't concede that the show is substanively different from last season, nor
will I back down on my assertion that it's one of the best shows currently
on TV.
As long as I enjoy Lost each week for the reasons I outlined, I will be a
"Lost fanboy" (or whatever clever pejorative you cook up out of
frustration). If/when Lost ceases to be worth the time, I'll stop watching
(and you won't catch me whining about the show's decline on Usenet).
Steven L.
> PuddinTame wrote:
>
>>rwgibson13 wrote:
>>
>>>It's either that or "You must be one of the writers."
>>
>>Hey, butt out why don't ya? You don't think JT can stick up for
>>himself?
>
>
> You don't, obviously, if you think his grandma has to do it for him :-)
>
>
>>>RWG (kind of wonder how he explains the other 20+ million folks who
>>>tune in each week)
>>
>>To what? "CSI?" "Baywatch" reruns? There's no accounting for taste!
>
>
> Yeah, right, show me a Baywatch rerun that drew anywhere near 20
> million viewers.
If you include foreign countries, then Baywatch is the most popular
syndicated American TV series ever. It has been syndicated to 142
countries with a total estimated viewing audience of 1.1 BILLION
viewers. That's right, one out of every six people on Earth has watched
the show.
PuddinTame
JT wrote:
> Unfortunately, such gibes are empty if not offered in a situation where the
> cost for such insolence could well be a busted jaw.
You must regail us with tails of your bareknuckle days some time.
> But hey, you defied me to explain why I thought Lost was good . . . which I
> did. Surprisingly, you didn't do what I expected, which was to baselessly
> gainsay every point I made
You're right. I forgot!
>("the writing is good"
No it's not.
> characters are deep"
No they're not.
Phew! That was close!
> Instead, you pointed out my
> pompous, elitist bent (which was never a secret to begin with) and basically
> ridiculed the tone and word choices of my post, without having much to say
> regarding the content.
Actually I also pointed out that you dismisss everyone else's "empty
opinion" because they are not "objective facts" while clearly
demonstrating that this rule does not apply to you!
Anyone who used the word "captious" is trying a WEE bit too hard to
prove they are intellectual.
"captious" geez I had to get out my Funk and Wagnalls for that one!
> It's okay though - I know it's much more fun to exchange childish insults
> and witty barbs than engage in a pointless battle between entrenched
> opposing viewpoints.
Yes, I already know you think that's more fun. All I have to do is
read your posts. Tell me something I don't already know.
> No matter what I say, you won't quit with the inane
> bitching about your perceived faults in Lost.
Hmm I bet you classify them as empty opinions and not objective facts
and, therefore, not discussing.
> nor
> will I back down on my assertion that it's one of the best shows currently
> on TV.
You're a mensch.
> If/when Lost ceases to be worth the time, I'll stop watching
> (and you won't catch me whining about the show's decline on Usenet).
And there will be much rejoicing.
Steven L.
I think "PuddinTame" was referring to devising some means to contact the
outside world. I don't think that is possible, though there may well be
useful supplies of the type you mention.
BTW, if the writers wanted our Lostaways to have laptops, GPS receivers,
or portable shortwave radio receivers, they could have already done so
with the mid-section luggage. It's hard to believe that the only
passengers with such gear were in the front section. (I would have
assumed that a crippled Locke would go on his Walkabout with a GPS
receiver.)
bkl...@yahoo.com
Steven L. wrote:
> If you include foreign countries, then Baywatch is the most popular
> syndicated American TV series ever. It has been syndicated to 142
> countries with a total estimated viewing audience of 1.1 BILLION
> viewers. That's right, one out of every six people on Earth has watched
> the show.
I'm guessing it's because one need not speak english to follow the
basic plot of every episode (buxum women running down a beach)?
JT
>> the
>> cost for such insolence could well be a busted jaw.
>
> You must regail us with tails of your bareknuckle days some time.
>
>> But hey, you defied me to explain why I thought Lost was good . . . which
>> I
>> did. Surprisingly, you didn't do what I expected, which was to
>> baselessly
>> gainsay every point I made
>
> You're right. I forgot!
>
>>("the writing is good"
>
> No it's not.
>
>> characters are deep"
>
> No they're not.
>
> Phew! That was close!
Atta boy! Wouldn't want to shock me with a coherent post containing an
actual *argument*, with *point* about why Lost is so bad - I might have a
heart attack.
>> Instead, you pointed out my
>> pompous, elitist bent (which was never a secret to begin with) and
>> basically
>> ridiculed the tone and word choices of my post, without having much to
>> say
>> regarding the content.
>
> Actually I also pointed out that you dismisss everyone else's "empty
> opinion" because they are not "objective facts" while clearly
> demonstrating that this rule does not apply to you!
No, I've been very careful to point out the difference between *stating* an
opinion and using it as the basis of a larger, ostensibly factual argument.
I point out why *I* like Lost, in contrast to you claiming that Lost sucks
because you happen to think so. There are plenty of shows that I think are
garbage, but millions watch them happily, so apparently my opinion is
overruled by popular sentiment. Whose to say which sense of taste is
"right?" But then, it's quite apparent that such details are beyond the
scope of your mental resolution.
> Anyone who used the word "captious" is trying a WEE bit too hard to
> prove they are intellectual.
>
> "captious" geez I had to get out my Funk and Wagnalls for that one!
LOL - glad to help you expand your vocabulary. One ought to know the
meaning of captious before ever logging on to Usenet, so they have the
perfect word to describe posts like yours. Now you can impress all your
friends with your new word: "When I post messages about how much Lost sucks,
I come off like a captious prick!"
>> It's okay though - I know it's much more fun to exchange childish insults
>> and witty barbs than engage in a pointless battle between entrenched
>> opposing viewpoints.
>
> Yes, I already know you think that's more fun. All I have to do is
> read your posts. Tell me something I don't already know.
Well I sure hope all of the potshots *you* take are in good fun. Otherwise,
people might get the idea that you resort to such pettiness not as a matter
of amusement, but because you can't think of anything else to say.
>> No matter what I say, you won't quit with the inane
>> bitching about your perceived faults in Lost.
>
> Hmm I bet you classify them as empty opinions and not objective facts
> and, therefore, not discussing.
No, I said exactly what I meant: "inane bitching about your perceived faults
in Lost."
>> nor
>> will I back down on my assertion that it's one of the best shows
>> currently
>> on TV.
>
> You're a mensch.
>
>> If/when Lost ceases to be worth the time, I'll stop watching
>> (and you won't catch me whining about the show's decline on Usenet).
>
> And there will be much rejoicing.
Exactly. The whole group would rejoice at the absence grumpy,
hypercritical, loudmouth who can't keep his petty complaints to himself . .
. hint, hint.
PuddinTame
JT wrote:
> Atta boy! Wouldn't want to shock me with a coherent post containing an
> actual *argument*, with *point* about why Lost is so bad -
I've already tried that. Doesn't work with you or your ilk. (Do you
like the word "ilk?" It's not quite as good as "captious" but not bad,
yeah?)
>I might have a
> heart attack.
(stroking my chin) Hmm...heart attack, eh?
> No, I've been very careful to point out the difference between *stating* an
> opinion and using it as the basis of a larger, ostensibly factual argument.
Pointing this out is irrelevant. These newsgroups are all about
posting opinions, not compiling objective facts. Why do I even bother
trying to point this out to you for the umpteenth time?
> I point out why *I* like Lost, in contrast to you claiming that Lost sucks
> because you happen to think so.
Do you think if you say this often enough it will become true?
I have specified what my problems with the show is.
Don't rewrite history.
Play nice.
> There are plenty of shows that I think are
> garbage, but millions watch them happily, so apparently my opinion is
> overruled by popular sentiment.
What happened to your appreciation of qualitative measurements? :)
> But then, it's quite apparent that such details are beyond the
> scope of your mental resolution.
Hmm..."mental resolution" eh? Well, let me know what meds you are on
and maybe I can con my doctor into prescribing some.
> One ought to know the
> meaning of captious before ever logging on to Usenet, so they have the
> perfect word to describe posts like yours.
Yours, mine, ours.
> Now you can impress all your
> friends with your new word: "When I post messages about how much Lost sucks,
> I come off like a captious prick!"
Anyone who uses the word "captious" around me and my crew ends up in
the trunk of a car on the Belt Parkway.
> Well I sure hope all of the potshots *you* take are in good fun.
well, they may not be as mean-spirited as yours but i'm trying.
> Otherwise,
> people might get the idea that you resort to such pettiness not as a matter
> of amusement, but because you can't think of anything else to say.
I know you are but what am I?
> No, I said exactly what I meant: "inane bitching about your perceived faults
> in Lost."
Ah yes, I see what you're saying. Maybe I should talk more about my
UNperceived faults in "Lost"
> Exactly. The whole group would rejoice at the absence grumpy,
> hypercritical, loudmouth who can't keep his petty complaints to himself . .
> . hint, hint.
Yes, let's just think happy thoughts arounnd here from now on. Let's
only say good things about the show.
That oughta cut down on the posts big time. :)
Joanne Marinelli
"JT" <noaddre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:437a5772$0$1656$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
> >> If/when Lost ceases to be worth the time, I'll stop watching
> >> (and you won't catch me whining about the show's decline on Usenet).
> >
> > And there will be much rejoicing.
>
> Exactly. The whole group would rejoice at the absence grumpy,
> hypercritical, loudmouth who can't keep his petty complaints to himself .
.
> . hint, hint.
>
And yet, you and BM and Steven take a good deal of effort to keep feeding
PuddinTame, but then hey, Joanne, who stupidly uses her real name in the
Usenet universe, and attempts to treat your sound arguments with due
deference, and occasionally offers alternatives, i.e., crash-as-allegory as
opposed to crash-as-realistically-feasible, rarely gets any engagement when
I want to discuss Lost with like-minded viewers.
This silly shit with you and the trolls, or the conspiracy theorists, begins
to get boring JT. I cannot deny you're clever, but I wonder if you have a
superiority complex, since your give and take with the more mature viewers
(few and far they may be but I have a sense of who they are) is limited.
Joanne
PuddinTame
> And yet, you and BM
huh huh she said "BM"
>and Steven take a good deal of effort to keep feeding
> PuddinTame, but then hey, Joanne, who stupidly uses her real name in the
> Usenet universe, and attempts to treat your sound arguments with due
> deference, and occasionally offers alternatives, i.e., crash-as-allegory as
> opposed to crash-as-realistically-feasible, rarely gets any engagement when
> I want to discuss Lost with like-minded viewers.
Sounds like you want to use this newsgroup as your own little soap
opera.
> This silly sh** with you and the trolls
And the hags! er.. hag anyway. :)
What's with you and profanity all the time. This is not where they hold
auditions for "Deadwood" and they already have someone playing Calamity
Jane.
> or the conspiracy theorists, begins
> to get boring JT. I cannot deny you're clever, but I wonder if you have a
> superiority complex, since your give and take with the more mature viewers
> (few and far they may be but I have a sense of who they are) is limited.
JT... I think she likes you (wink). OH YES...
angelsabove
>>
>> "captious" geez I had to get out my Funk and Wagnalls for that one!
>
> LOL - glad to help you expand your vocabulary. One ought to know the
> meaning of captious before ever logging on to Usenet, so they have the
> perfect word to describe posts like yours. Now you can impress all your
> friends with your new word: "When I post messages about how much Lost
> sucks, I come off like a captious prick!"
>
Hey JT how about doing a new word of the day post. Seems like you know all
the good words. You could enlighten us all.
AA
PuddinTame
angelsabove wrote:
> Hey JT how about doing a new word of the day post. Seems like you know all
> the good words. You could enlighten us all.
Please don't encourage him.
I will provide the word for today anyway with JT in mind:
defenestration
JT
God forbid I bore you, Joanne :) (and at this point, I'm suprised you're
still *wondering* if I have a superiority complex . . . ).
Unfortunately, the erstwhile interesting and intellectually stimulating
discussion in this NG has been hijacked by bitching trolls like PT. I
enjoyed some of the old threads about particular aspects of Lost (my
favorites are the arguments about what's "possible" vs. "impossible" and the
concepts of fate/determinism vs. statistical probability/random luck).
The problem is that the people who are capable of having such discussions
have already had them, and none of the newcomers like PuddinTame want to do
anything but troll or point out old news / fake websites / supposed
spoilers. I always prefer the broad conceptual and philosophical arguments,
but I haven't seen many lately.
I see what you're saying about the deterioration of this NG's discussions,
but I gotta kill time somehow, and I honestly get a kick out of the
bombastic tit-for-tat bullshit now and then.
JT
>> actual *argument*, with *point* about why Lost is so bad -
>
> I've already tried that. Doesn't work with you or your ilk. (Do you
> like the word "ilk?" It's not quite as good as "captious" but not bad,
> yeah?)
Congratulations. It's a good effort, I agree.
>>I might have a
>> heart attack.
>
> (stroking my chin) Hmm...heart attack, eh?
>
>> No, I've been very careful to point out the difference between *stating*
>> an
>> opinion and using it as the basis of a larger, ostensibly factual
>> argument.
>
> Pointing this out is irrelevant. These newsgroups are all about
> posting opinions, not compiling objective facts. Why do I even bother
> trying to point this out to you for the umpteenth time?
I guess I hope maybe you'll understand when I point it out for the umpteen +
1 nth time. And here I thought newsgroups were all about getting into
ridiculous arguments with anonymous strangers over trivial things like
whether or not a TV show is any good. Hah! shows what I know.
>> I point out why *I* like Lost, in contrast to you claiming that Lost
>> sucks
>> because you happen to think so.
>
> Do you think if you say this often enough it will become true?
> I have specified what my problems with the show is.
> Don't rewrite history.
> Play nice.
This goes back to the use of "captious" - why didn't Michael, Jin, and
Sawyer run off the investigate the bunker? That's bad writing? Come on
now - that's just inventing issues to have something negative to say. And
even then, the fact that you maybe would have done things a bit differently
doesn't imply that Lost has gone down the tubes.
I can't imagine your complaints about something like CSI - or is *that* good
TV in your eyes?
>> There are plenty of shows that I think are
>> garbage, but millions watch them happily, so apparently my opinion is
>> overruled by popular sentiment.
>
> What happened to your appreciation of qualitative measurements? :)
"quantitative"
>> But then, it's quite apparent that such details are beyond the
>> scope of your mental resolution.
>
> Hmm..."mental resolution" eh? Well, let me know what meds you are on
> and maybe I can con my doctor into prescribing some.
It's illegal for doctors to prescribe it (except in California, I think).
>> One ought to know the
>> meaning of captious before ever logging on to Usenet, so they have the
>> perfect word to describe posts like yours.
>
> Yours, mine, ours.
In other words "captious" is a perfectly appropriate word to know in the
Usenet universe.
>> Now you can impress all your
>> friends with your new word: "When I post messages about how much Lost
>> sucks,
>> I come off like a captious prick!"
>
> Anyone who uses the word "captious" around me and my crew ends up in
> the trunk of a car on the Belt Parkway.
LOL. You guys need some anger management training.
>> Well I sure hope all of the potshots *you* take are in good fun.
>
> well, they may not be as mean-spirited as yours but i'm trying.
I prefer "acerbic" to "mean-spirited" (http://dictionary.reference.com/) if
you need to look it up).
>> Otherwise,
>> people might get the idea that you resort to such pettiness not as a
>> matter
>> of amusement, but because you can't think of anything else to say.
>
> I know you are but what am I?
>
>> No, I said exactly what I meant: "inane bitching about your perceived
>> faults
>> in Lost."
>
> Ah yes, I see what you're saying. Maybe I should talk more about my
> UNperceived faults in "Lost"
Maybe you should appreciate the fact that your perceived faults exist only
in your own perceptions, and do not serve as objective evidence that Lost
"sucks." You say lost sucks because you don't like something that happened,
I say Lost is sweet and what you didn't like is not a big deal.
And we find ourselves here.
>> Exactly. The whole group would rejoice at the absence grumpy,
>> hypercritical, loudmouth who can't keep his petty complaints to himself .
>> .
>> . hint, hint.
>
> Yes, let's just think happy thoughts arounnd here from now on. Let's
> only say good things about the show.
Even better, let's pay attention to tone and spirit of our posts. Criticism
is always welcome, if it's done with some tact and under the auspices of
fostering discussion. [Multiple] posts proclaiming the death of Lost
(alongside a pet theory, no less) will always draw the ire of people like
me, who can't abide pointless whining.
JT
LOL. See how easy it is to hit up dictionary.com to learn a new word? I'd
be careful using that one around your buddies. I can see a bunch of puzzled
looks being exchanged between them while you stand there with a dopey
aren't-you-proud-of-me grin, followed by them shrugging their shoulders and
stuffing you in the trunk. "Wait guys! I don't even know what it means! I
was just screwing around! It's not even a word! GUYS!!!"
rwgibson13
RWG ("now and then??!!!!" :-)
JT
--
"To see things in the seed, that is genius."
--Lao-Tzu
"rwgibson13" <rwgib...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132158298....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I suppose it all depends on your definitions of "now" and "then." Maybe
even "and," I dunno.
PuddinTame
JT wrote:
> Unfortunately, the erstwhile interesting and intellectually stimulating
> discussion in this NG has been hijacked by bitching trolls like PT.
Not sure what you mean by "hijacked." Am I having this newsgroup flown
to Cuba?
Or are newcomers simply not welcome to what you and Joanne consider
your clique. That wouldbe SO high school and sort of sad.
At least I never stoop to using terms like "bitching troll"
(Why people wear their geekiness on their sleeve by using terms like
this is beyond me.)
Were you beaten up a lot as in your younger days and this is some sort
of late-in-life vicarious revenge?
> enjoyed some of the old threads about particular aspects of Lost (my
> favorites are the arguments about what's "possible" vs. "impossible" and the
> concepts of fate/determinism vs. statistical probability/random luck).
Darn! I missed out on the "fate/determinism vs. statistical
probability/random luck" discussion! Darn! Darn! Darn!
Just my random luck. :-\
> The problem is that the people who are capable of having such discussions
> have already had them, and none of the newcomers like PuddinTame want to do
> anything but troll or point out old news / fake websites / supposed
> spoilers.
I forget when I did any of these things. Feel free to refresh my
memory. I'm sure you would never just make this stuff up. :)
I suppose I may have, somewhere along the line, committed the
absolutely unforgivable act of bringing up something which has already
been discussed but I don't ever recall pointing out fake web sites or
spoilers.
>I always prefer the broad conceptual and philosophical arguments,
> but I haven't seen many lately.
Did you check under the sofa cushions?
No?
What about up your butt?
> I see what you're saying about the deterioration of this NG's discussions
There goes the neighborhood!
Who let riff raff like me in?
Steven L.
> "JT" <noaddre...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:437a5772$0$1656$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>
>>>> If/when Lost ceases to be worth the time, I'll stop watching
>>>>(and you won't catch me whining about the show's decline on Usenet).
>>>
>>>And there will be much rejoicing.
>>
>>Exactly. The whole group would rejoice at the absence grumpy,
>>hypercritical, loudmouth who can't keep his petty complaints to himself .
>
> .
>
>>. hint, hint.
>>
>
> And yet, you and BM and Steven take a good deal of effort to keep feeding
> PuddinTame, but then hey, Joanne, who stupidly uses her real name in the
> Usenet universe, and attempts to treat your sound arguments with due
> deference, and occasionally offers alternatives, i.e., crash-as-allegory as
> opposed to crash-as-realistically-feasible, rarely gets any engagement when
> I want to discuss Lost with like-minded viewers.
And I'm concerned. Because I've seen other Usenet groups get totally
wrecked by trolls in the past, by chasing away all the sincere posters
and ending all informed discussion.
Fortunately we're not there yet.
I've cut back my replies to PuddinTame. But there comes a point when
you just have to give up on a poster altogether. I rarely ever do that
unless the poster is abusive or threatening. But with PuddinTame, I'm
very close to that point now.
PuddinTame
JT wrote:
> I guess I hope maybe you'll understand when I point it out for the umpteen +
> 1 nth time. And here I thought newsgroups were all about getting into
> ridiculous arguments with anonymous strangers over trivial things like
> whether or not a TV show is any good. Hah! shows what I know.
Maybe you should make a list of what tyes of posts are acceptable.
> This goes back to the use of "captious" - why didn't Michael, Jin, and
> Sawyer run off the investigate the bunker? That's bad writing?
No- Michael, Jin, and Sawyer showing NO REACTION to the discovery of a
manmade structure on the island is bad writing. It's worse than bad.
It's unforgivably pathetic unless our heroes are later revealed to be
androids.
> I can't imagine your complaints about something like CSI - or is *that* good
> TV in your eyes?
I don't know. I don't watch "CSI." I watched one episode and decided
it was too much flash over substance for me. Other people are free to
enjoy it if the like. That's why they have 31 flavors at the ice cream
store.
> > What happened to your appreciation of qualitative measurements? :)
>
> "quantitative"
I satnd corrected. well, what did happen to those?
> It's illegal for doctors to prescribe it (except in California, I think).
Dude, you're definitely not smoking enough of it!
> In other words "captious" is a perfectly appropriate word to know in the
> Usenet universe.
Only if you're trying to prove something to someone.
> LOL. You guys need some anger management training.
Do you even OWN a mirror?
> I prefer "acerbic" to "mean-spirited"
I'm sure you do. You wouldn't want to be caught talking like a normal
human being. You probably say "kudos" a lot too.
> Maybe you should appreciate the fact that your perceived faults exist only
> in your own perceptions, and do not serve as objective evidence that Lost
> "sucks."
Ah, ther you go again. Your favorite record. (btw it's cracked)
>
You say lost sucks because you don't like something that happened,
> I say Lost is sweet and what you didn't like is not a big deal.
Hey, if you enjoy it, I envy you. You obviously come away from the
show with something which eludes me.
Feel free to enjoy it. I'm not stopping you. Maybe if you stopped
viewing my opinions on the show as some sort of attack on your own
tastse, you'd calm down a little.
> Even better, let's pay attention to tone and spirit of our posts.
Sure- mine are pretty straightforward; yours are condescendinf and
insulting.
>Criticism
> is always welcome, if it's done with some tact and under the auspices of
> fostering discussion.
Im;pying I lack tact and don't wish to foster discussion. Hey, I'm not
the one who launches into personal attacks in lieu of a discussion. Go
ahead...go through the posts, see how you have replied to them.
I'll wait.
See? I told you so!
>[Multiple] posts proclaiming the death of Lost
> (alongside a pet theory, no less) will always draw the ire of people like
> me, who can't abide pointless whining.
People like you? How many outpatients are posting to this group
anyway?
My whining is only pointless if no one takes notice that some of my
gripes are valid and the show continues to keep making the same
mistakes.
Oh, yes..and before you say it...these mistakes are my own personal
perceptions, not objective facts. There are others who do share my
opinion however. Who's to say you;re right and we're wrong?
Oh, that's right. I forgot. You're the one to say that. :)
John A. Bailo
> The final one of the major benefits of Lost is the novelty of the
> storytelling. It's hard to find a truly unique way to tell a story -
> someone's generally 'done it that way before' - but Lost doesn't follow
> the same derivative formula that guides so many competing shows. Some
> people can't stand the slow pacing, repeated flashbacks, and 'big
> picture seen through a keyhole' framing.
Lost is simply a novel in the old form: delivered as /serialized/
chapters, week to week. They way Dickens wrote his novels.
PuddinTame
No! If Dickens offered installmants like "...And Found" "Everybody
hates Hurley" and "Abandoned" he would have had to switch to selling
fish and chips for a living!
Lost: Never have so many hours of television been spent conveying so
little story.
Joanne Marinelli
"John A. Bailo" <jab...@texeme.com> wrote in message
news:438266D...@texeme.com...
No it isn't. Dickens told his stories in linear sequential fashion, even in
the case of A Christmas Carol, which, by virtue of its subject matter, is
early Gothic fantasy, simply tells Scrooge's story from the end of the
character's life to the beginning of that life through flashbacks. Lost is
not Victorian melodrama, nor 19th century realism.
It's *conventions* adhere more closely to magical realism, as eschewed in
films like Vanilla Sky, which itself is a remake of the Spanish version,
Open Your Eyes. Compare the eye shots of Cruise in VS with the eye shots in
Lost.
Forget about apples and oranges. You're not even dealing with the fruit
family.
Joanne
PuddinTame
Joanne Marinelli wrote:
> Lost is
> not Victorian melodrama
This is the type of insight I like to see in a newsgroup.
> It's *conventions* adhere more closely to magical realism, as eschewed in
> films like Vanilla Sky
Did you ask JT what "eschew" means?
> Forget about apples and oranges. You're not even dealing with the fruit
> family.
Oh no?