Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Isn't it about time...
70 views
Skip to first unread message
Bill Taylor
Jul 29, 2012, 7:13:22 AM7/29/12
to
...that someone mocked the last series of Lost again?
Especially the ending?
But then I guess that's a bit like stealing old ladies' handbags...
-- bill
Especially the ending?
But then I guess that's a bit like stealing old ladies' handbags...
-- bill
doc...@gmail.com
Aug 1, 2012, 7:10:57 PM8/1/12
to
I'm still trying to figure anything the clues from "Tales of Terror and Mystery" could be pointing to, other than a Big Mouth solution as per "The Lost Special". There seems no other way to resolve it, and they were continuing to point that way in the final series. I just hope we don't have to wait until 2016.
Still seems to me "The Lost Special" is the key, and that the allusions to other stories in this Doyle collection were a way of saying that if you found them, you knew you were on the right track, heh. At least it explains what Kate meant when she told Aaron that if Mr. Choo-Choo went in that tunnel, he'd never come out, and why they featured the cover of Mystery Tales #40 among the items presented to the supposed young John Locke.
So the basic plot of "Lost" is that someone had a BIG HONKIN' SECRET, and that an intricate plot was devised to make that person disappear without inviting investig'n. So a substitute was put in that person's place, but to do the switch, that person had to temporarily be made to disappear by "accident", and then to make an amazing "reappearance" -- and to make it look good, several others of the disappeared had to be made to "reappear" as well. Along the way, those responsible for this hocus-pocus experimented with the alternative method of rewriting people's memories electromagnetically rather than putting doubles in their place.
Bobbo in the Bronxo
Still seems to me "The Lost Special" is the key, and that the allusions to other stories in this Doyle collection were a way of saying that if you found them, you knew you were on the right track, heh. At least it explains what Kate meant when she told Aaron that if Mr. Choo-Choo went in that tunnel, he'd never come out, and why they featured the cover of Mystery Tales #40 among the items presented to the supposed young John Locke.
So the basic plot of "Lost" is that someone had a BIG HONKIN' SECRET, and that an intricate plot was devised to make that person disappear without inviting investig'n. So a substitute was put in that person's place, but to do the switch, that person had to temporarily be made to disappear by "accident", and then to make an amazing "reappearance" -- and to make it look good, several others of the disappeared had to be made to "reappear" as well. Along the way, those responsible for this hocus-pocus experimented with the alternative method of rewriting people's memories electromagnetically rather than putting doubles in their place.
Bobbo in the Bronxo
Jim G.
Aug 3, 2012, 3:47:47 PM8/3/12
to
rob...@bestweb.net sent the following on Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:10:57 -0700
(PDT):
needed a group hug in an it-takes-a-village sort of way so that they
could then meet up in a chapel, sing "Kumbaya" and walk into the light.
THE END
--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI
"You will create an evil of your own making." -- Knights Templar Grandmaster Data
(PDT):
> So the basic plot of "Lost" is that someone had a BIG HONKIN' SECRET,
No, the basic plot of LOST was that a group of people had challenges and
needed a group hug in an it-takes-a-village sort of way so that they
could then meet up in a chapel, sing "Kumbaya" and walk into the light.
THE END
--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI
"You will create an evil of your own making." -- Knights Templar Grandmaster Data
doc...@gmail.com
Aug 3, 2012, 11:04:32 PM8/3/12
to
On Friday, August 3, 2012 3:47:47 PM UTC-4, Jim G. wrote:
> rob...@bestweb.net sent the following on Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:10:57 -0700
>
> (PDT):
>
> > So the basic plot of "Lost" is that someone had a BIG HONKIN' SECRET,
>
>
>
> No, the basic plot of LOST was that a group of people had challenges and
> needed a group hug in an it-takes-a-village sort of way so that they
> could then meet up in a chapel, sing "Kumbaya" and walk into the light.
>
> THE END
> --
Who would make a TV show that bad? Let alone air it?
> rob...@bestweb.net sent the following on Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:10:57 -0700
>
> (PDT):
>
> > So the basic plot of "Lost" is that someone had a BIG HONKIN' SECRET,
>
>
>
> No, the basic plot of LOST was that a group of people had challenges and
> needed a group hug in an it-takes-a-village sort of way so that they
> could then meet up in a chapel, sing "Kumbaya" and walk into the light.
>
> THE END
> --
Did you ever notice that Christian told this guy the things that happened to him on the island were real, but never told him that anything that happened to him BEFORE that was real? Such an omission would be appropriate if, as we were told, they're not the survivors. They're NOT the survivors. THEY'RE NOT THE SURVIVORS. They thought they were.
Bobbo in the Bronxo
Jim G.
Aug 7, 2012, 5:01:45 PM8/7/12
to
rob...@bestweb.net sent the following on Fri, 3 Aug 2012 20:04:32 -0700
(PDT):
here now that the show has ended, but you're welcome to stay for as long
as you like.
(PDT):
> On Friday, August 3, 2012 3:47:47 PM UTC-4, Jim G. wrote:
>
> > rob...@bestweb.net sent the following on Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:10:57 -0700
> >
> > (PDT):
> >
> > > So the basic plot of "Lost" is that someone had a BIG HONKIN' SECRET,
> >
> >
> >
> > No, the basic plot of LOST was that a group of people had challenges and
> > needed a group hug in an it-takes-a-village sort of way so that they
> > could then meet up in a chapel, sing "Kumbaya" and walk into the light.
> >
> > THE END
> >
>
> > rob...@bestweb.net sent the following on Wed, 1 Aug 2012 16:10:57 -0700
> >
> > (PDT):
> >
> > > So the basic plot of "Lost" is that someone had a BIG HONKIN' SECRET,
> >
> >
> >
> > No, the basic plot of LOST was that a group of people had challenges and
> > needed a group hug in an it-takes-a-village sort of way so that they
> > could then meet up in a chapel, sing "Kumbaya" and walk into the light.
> >
> > THE END
> >
> Who would make a TV show that bad? Let alone air it?
Are you new here? Welcome to alt.tv.lost! Things are pretty quiet around
here now that the show has ended, but you're welcome to stay for as long
as you like.
doc...@gmail.com
Aug 7, 2012, 10:24:18 PM8/7/12
to
On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 5:01:45 PM UTC-4, Jim G. wrote:
> > > No, the basic plot of LOST was that a group of people had challenges and
> > > needed a group hug in an it-takes-a-village sort of way so that they
> > > could then meet up in a chapel, sing "Kumbaya" and walk into the light.
>
> > > THE END
>
> > Who would make a TV show that bad? Let alone air it?
>
> Are you new here? Welcome to alt.tv.lost! Things are pretty quiet around
> here now that the show has ended, but you're welcome to stay for as long
> as you like.
Lost your sense of irony, Jim?
> > > No, the basic plot of LOST was that a group of people had challenges and
> > > needed a group hug in an it-takes-a-village sort of way so that they
> > > could then meet up in a chapel, sing "Kumbaya" and walk into the light.
>
> > > THE END
>
> > Who would make a TV show that bad? Let alone air it?
>
> Are you new here? Welcome to alt.tv.lost! Things are pretty quiet around
> here now that the show has ended, but you're welcome to stay for as long
> as you like.
What I'm saying is that an apparent blunder as bad as the ostensible conclusion of "Lost" points to something else. I'm confident now that this was deliberate.
The funny thing is that when I bring up "Lost" to new acquaintances, they say, approximately, "Oh, yeah, the show with that dumb ending where it turned out they were all dead." This was the interpret'n which was explicitly disclaimed by the makers of the show -- and yet, in a way, I now think it was correct. Not correct in the way the people who say it think, however. What I think is that there was a flight 815, but that those on board it did die in it, and that the people we saw on the island were their doubles, very much alive. Some of those doubles had been subjected to mind control so that they actually thought they were survivors of a crash. That's what the Faraday experiments were about; meanwhile others were working on deprogramming (or some competing technology) as shown in Room 23.
Bobbo in the Bronxo
tenworld
Aug 8, 2012, 7:19:08 PM8/8/12
to
On Aug 7, 7:24 pm, "robg...@bestweb.net" <docs...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
And what was the point of brainwashing them to think they survived? To
prove that the Faraday technique worked? But then there should have
been some scary scene at the end where we see the technique about to
be used on congress or the miltary or somewhere. Now that would have
been an ending to write home about.
...
>
> What I'm saying is that an apparent blunder as bad as the ostensible conclusion of "Lost" points to something else. I'm confident now that this was deliberate.
>
> The funny thing is that when I bring up "Lost" to new acquaintances, they say, approximately, "Oh, yeah, the show with that dumb ending where it turned out they were all dead." This was the interpret'n which was explicitly disclaimed by the makers of the show -- and yet, in a way, I now think it was correct. Not correct in the way the people who say it think, however. What I think is that there was a flight 815, but that those on board it did die in it, and that the people we saw on the island were their doubles, very much alive. Some of those doubles had been subjected to mind control so that they actually thought they were survivors of a crash. That's what the Faraday experiments were about; meanwhile others were working on deprogramming (or some competing technology) as shown in Room 23.
>
so who were the people in the chapel, the dead people or the doubles?
> What I'm saying is that an apparent blunder as bad as the ostensible conclusion of "Lost" points to something else. I'm confident now that this was deliberate.
>
> The funny thing is that when I bring up "Lost" to new acquaintances, they say, approximately, "Oh, yeah, the show with that dumb ending where it turned out they were all dead." This was the interpret'n which was explicitly disclaimed by the makers of the show -- and yet, in a way, I now think it was correct. Not correct in the way the people who say it think, however. What I think is that there was a flight 815, but that those on board it did die in it, and that the people we saw on the island were their doubles, very much alive. Some of those doubles had been subjected to mind control so that they actually thought they were survivors of a crash. That's what the Faraday experiments were about; meanwhile others were working on deprogramming (or some competing technology) as shown in Room 23.
>
And what was the point of brainwashing them to think they survived? To
prove that the Faraday technique worked? But then there should have
been some scary scene at the end where we see the technique about to
be used on congress or the miltary or somewhere. Now that would have
been an ending to write home about.
doc...@gmail.com
Aug 8, 2012, 10:14:13 PM8/8/12
to
On Wednesday, August 8, 2012 7:19:08 PM UTC-4, tenworld wrote:
> so who were the people in the chapel, the dead people or the doubles?
Doubles. The dead people didn't neeed talking to.
> so who were the people in the chapel, the dead people or the doubles?
> And what was the point of brainwashing them to think they survived? To
> prove that the Faraday technique worked?
Bobbo in the Bronxo
Jim G.
Aug 9, 2012, 3:21:29 PM8/9/12
to
rob...@bestweb.net sent the following on Tue, 7 Aug 2012 19:24:18 -0700
(PDT):
> What I'm saying is that an apparent blunder as bad as the ostensible conclusion of "Lost" points to something else.
Yes. Bad writing by a bunch of liars.
> I'm confident now that this was deliberate.
Well, the lying was certainly deliberate, but I'm not sure if any of
them *asked* to be given little actual talent.
> The funny thing is that when I bring up "Lost" to new acquaintances, they say, approximately, "Oh, yeah, the show with that dumb ending where it turned out they were all dead." This was the interpret'n which was explicitly disclaimed by the makers of the show -- and yet, in a way, I now think it was correct. Not correct in the way the people who say it think, however. What I think is that there was a flight 815, but that those on board it did die in it, and that the people we saw on the island were their doubles, very much alive.
Of course you think that. And of course you're wrong. Again. Still.
Whatever. :)
> Some of those doubles had been subjected to mind control so that they actually thought they were survivors of a crash. That's what the Faraday experiments were about; meanwhile others were working on deprogramming (or some competing technology) as shown in Room 23.
Look, I'll admit that I'd take your interpretation over what the writers
intended, but your insistence on insisting (heh) that the writers
essentially didn't know what they were talking about is what has put you
in "batshit crazy" territory on a regular basis in the past.
(PDT):
> On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 5:01:45 PM UTC-4, Jim G. wrote:
>
> > > > No, the basic plot of LOST was that a group of people had challenges and
> > > > needed a group hug in an it-takes-a-village sort of way so that they
> > > > could then meet up in a chapel, sing "Kumbaya" and walk into the light.
> >
> > > > THE END
> >
> > > Who would make a TV show that bad? Let alone air it?
> >
> > Are you new here? Welcome to alt.tv.lost! Things are pretty quiet around
> > here now that the show has ended, but you're welcome to stay for as long
> > as you like.
>
> Lost your sense of irony, Jim?
Not at all.
>
> > > > No, the basic plot of LOST was that a group of people had challenges and
> > > > needed a group hug in an it-takes-a-village sort of way so that they
> > > > could then meet up in a chapel, sing "Kumbaya" and walk into the light.
> >
> > > > THE END
> >
> > > Who would make a TV show that bad? Let alone air it?
> >
> > Are you new here? Welcome to alt.tv.lost! Things are pretty quiet around
> > here now that the show has ended, but you're welcome to stay for as long
> > as you like.
>
> Lost your sense of irony, Jim?
> What I'm saying is that an apparent blunder as bad as the ostensible conclusion of "Lost" points to something else.
> I'm confident now that this was deliberate.
them *asked* to be given little actual talent.
> The funny thing is that when I bring up "Lost" to new acquaintances, they say, approximately, "Oh, yeah, the show with that dumb ending where it turned out they were all dead." This was the interpret'n which was explicitly disclaimed by the makers of the show -- and yet, in a way, I now think it was correct. Not correct in the way the people who say it think, however. What I think is that there was a flight 815, but that those on board it did die in it, and that the people we saw on the island were their doubles, very much alive.
Whatever. :)
> Some of those doubles had been subjected to mind control so that they actually thought they were survivors of a crash. That's what the Faraday experiments were about; meanwhile others were working on deprogramming (or some competing technology) as shown in Room 23.
intended, but your insistence on insisting (heh) that the writers
essentially didn't know what they were talking about is what has put you
in "batshit crazy" territory on a regular basis in the past.
doc...@gmail.com
Aug 10, 2012, 12:53:27 AM8/10/12
to
> Look, I'll admit that I'd take your interpretation over what the writers
> intended, but your insistence on insisting (heh) that the writers
> essentially didn't know what they were talking about is what has put you
> in "batshit crazy" territory on a regular basis in the past.
> --
> Jim G. | Waukesha, WI
If it wasn't what they intended, then why, from the beginning, did they have the ostensible plane crash occur on Sept. 22, and to flight 815? It's inconceivable that so many cx to "Tales of Terror and Mystery" and especially "The Lost Special", including its historic antecedent, would be there unintentionally.
> intended, but your insistence on insisting (heh) that the writers
> essentially didn't know what they were talking about is what has put you
> in "batshit crazy" territory on a regular basis in the past.
> --
> Jim G. | Waukesha, WI
Bobbo in the Bronxo
Jim G.
Aug 10, 2012, 3:35:12 PM8/10/12
to
rob...@bestweb.net sent the following on Wed, 8 Aug 2012 19:14:13 -0700
(PDT):
You're nothing if not consistent. I'll grant you that much. :)
(PDT):
Jim G.
Aug 11, 2012, 2:49:50 PM8/11/12
to
rob...@bestweb.net sent the following on Thu, 9 Aug 2012 21:53:27 -0700
(PDT):
Because they intended the whole thing to be limbo from the very start
and didn't realize that their viewers weren't complete morons. So once
their oh-so-original-and-clever plans were dashed, they punted. And
shanked it big time.
--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI
(PDT):
and didn't realize that their viewers weren't complete morons. So once
their oh-so-original-and-clever plans were dashed, they punted. And
shanked it big time.
--
Jim G. | Waukesha, WI
doc...@gmail.com
Aug 12, 2012, 2:21:07 AM8/12/12
to
On Saturday, August 11, 2012 2:49:50 PM UTC-4, Jim G. wrote:
> rob...@bestweb.net sent the following on Thu, 9 Aug 2012 21:53:27 -0700
>
> (PDT):
>
> > > Look, I'll admit that I'd take your interpretation over what the writers
> > > intended, but your insistence on insisting (heh) that the writers
> > > essentially didn't know what they were talking about is what has put you
> > > in "batshit crazy" territory on a regular basis in the past.
> > > --
>
> rob...@bestweb.net sent the following on Thu, 9 Aug 2012 21:53:27 -0700
>
> (PDT):
>
> > > Look, I'll admit that I'd take your interpretation over what the writers
> > > intended, but your insistence on insisting (heh) that the writers
> > > essentially didn't know what they were talking about is what has put you
> > > in "batshit crazy" territory on a regular basis in the past.
> > > --
>
> > If it wasn't what they intended, then why, from the beginning, did they have the ostensible plane crash occur on Sept. 22, and to flight 815? It's inconceivable that so many cx to "Tales of Terror and Mystery" and especially "The Lost Special", including its historic antecedent, would be there unintentionally.
>
> Because they intended the whole thing to be limbo from the very start
> and didn't realize that their viewers weren't complete morons. So once
> their oh-so-original-and-clever plans were dashed, they punted. And
> shanked it big time.
> --
How do the A.C. Doyle references point to limbo? Why did they say they picked the date 9/22 to mean something, when it would seem no date particularly has to do with limbo? Why did they perseverate, season after season, on the theme of substitution and/or usurpation, which doesn't have anything to do with limbo?
>
> Because they intended the whole thing to be limbo from the very start
> and didn't realize that their viewers weren't complete morons. So once
> their oh-so-original-and-clever plans were dashed, they punted. And
> shanked it big time.
> --
Bobbo in the Bronxo
doc...@gmail.com
Aug 12, 2012, 2:59:34 PM8/12/12
to
If you think I'm straining to see resemblances, here's one that's unmistakable: The blast door said, "Stated goal, repatriation, accelerated de-territorialization of Ursus maritimus through gene therapy and extreme climate change." One of the Tales of Terror said, "It seems that the acclimatization of foreign creatures was one of his hobbies...." In Doyle's story it was a large and deadly Brazilian cat with black fur from a tropical climate, while on "Lost" it was large and deadly polar bears with white fur from a polar climate. If that wasn't the makers of "Lost" telling us that we're looking in the right place if we find that Doyle collection, what was their purpose?
In each case, the animal was let loose on a character who wound up surviving the encounter. Since in "The Brazilian Cat" it was an attempt by an heir to kill a competing heir and make it look like an accident, I'd expect the motiv'n on "Lost" was similar. In "The Brazilian Cat", we find out at the end that it was the culmination of a project that involved the acquisition of a large location and a bunch of exotic animals, all ostensibly for another purpose over a long period of time, but all to set up this particular "accident" at a crucial time, and that's basically how I've always understood the plot of "Lost", i.e. that it was a very involved and long term setup made to look like something else entirely in the service of an attempted (probably successful) usurpation of some sort -- a big house grift.
Bobbo in the Bronxo
In each case, the animal was let loose on a character who wound up surviving the encounter. Since in "The Brazilian Cat" it was an attempt by an heir to kill a competing heir and make it look like an accident, I'd expect the motiv'n on "Lost" was similar. In "The Brazilian Cat", we find out at the end that it was the culmination of a project that involved the acquisition of a large location and a bunch of exotic animals, all ostensibly for another purpose over a long period of time, but all to set up this particular "accident" at a crucial time, and that's basically how I've always understood the plot of "Lost", i.e. that it was a very involved and long term setup made to look like something else entirely in the service of an attempted (probably successful) usurpation of some sort -- a big house grift.
Bobbo in the Bronxo
Jim G.
Aug 14, 2012, 3:02:52 PM8/14/12
to
rob...@bestweb.net sent the following on Sun, 12 Aug 2012 11:59:34
-0700 (PDT):
Cool? moments. None of them mattered in the end. It was just crap thrown
against the wall that ultimately had no meaning or relevance, because
the writers and producers didn't put a tenth of the effort into their
own creation as the fans did.
> In each case, the animal was let loose on a character who wound up surviving the encounter. Since in "The Brazilian Cat" it was an attempt by an heir to kill a competing heir and make it look like an accident, I'd expect the motiv'n on "Lost" was similar. In "The Brazilian Cat", we find out at the end that it was the culmination of a project that involved the acquisition of a large location and a bunch of exotic animals, all ostensibly for another purpose over a long period of time, but all to set up this particular "accident" at a crucial time, and that's basically how I've always understood the plot of "Lost", i.e. that it was a very involved and long term setup made to look like something else entirely in the service of an attempted (probably successful) usurpation of some sort -- a big house grift.
And you've always understood incorrectly. But like the person who is
convinced that we never really landed on the moon, you're proving to be
remarkably resistant to reality in this regard.
-0700 (PDT):
> If you think I'm straining to see resemblances, here's one that's unmistakable: The blast door said, "Stated goal, repatriation, accelerated de-territorialization of Ursus maritimus through gene therapy and extreme climate change." One of the Tales of Terror said, "It seems that the acclimatization of foreign creatures was one of his hobbies...." In Doyle's story it was a large and deadly Brazilian cat with black fur from a tropical climate, while on "Lost" it was large and deadly polar bears with white fur from a polar climate. If that wasn't the makers of "Lost" telling us that we're looking in the right place if we find that Doyle collection, what was their purpose?
Seriously? You still don't get it? Those were all just Wouldn't It Be
Cool? moments. None of them mattered in the end. It was just crap thrown
against the wall that ultimately had no meaning or relevance, because
the writers and producers didn't put a tenth of the effort into their
own creation as the fans did.
> In each case, the animal was let loose on a character who wound up surviving the encounter. Since in "The Brazilian Cat" it was an attempt by an heir to kill a competing heir and make it look like an accident, I'd expect the motiv'n on "Lost" was similar. In "The Brazilian Cat", we find out at the end that it was the culmination of a project that involved the acquisition of a large location and a bunch of exotic animals, all ostensibly for another purpose over a long period of time, but all to set up this particular "accident" at a crucial time, and that's basically how I've always understood the plot of "Lost", i.e. that it was a very involved and long term setup made to look like something else entirely in the service of an attempted (probably successful) usurpation of some sort -- a big house grift.
convinced that we never really landed on the moon, you're proving to be
remarkably resistant to reality in this regard.
doc...@gmail.com
Aug 14, 2012, 9:12:50 PM8/14/12
to
On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:02:52 PM UTC-4, Jim G. wrote:
> > If you think I'm straining to see resemblances, here's one that's unmistakable: The blast door said, "Stated goal, repatriation, accelerated de-territorialization of Ursus maritimus through gene therapy and extreme climate change." One of the Tales of Terror said, "It seems that the acclimatization of foreign creatures was one of his hobbies...." In Doyle's story it was a large and deadly Brazilian cat with black fur from a tropical climate, while on "Lost" it was large and deadly polar bears with white fur from a polar climate. If that wasn't the makers of "Lost" telling us that we're looking in the right place if we find that Doyle collection, what was their purpose?
> Seriously? You still don't get it? Those were all just Wouldn't It Be
> Cool? moments.
You mean as in, "Wouldn't it be cool to get some people in the audience, or maybe just one of my and my father's smart friends, to think the story is modeled after `The Lost Special', by giving them all these false clues?"
> > If you think I'm straining to see resemblances, here's one that's unmistakable: The blast door said, "Stated goal, repatriation, accelerated de-territorialization of Ursus maritimus through gene therapy and extreme climate change." One of the Tales of Terror said, "It seems that the acclimatization of foreign creatures was one of his hobbies...." In Doyle's story it was a large and deadly Brazilian cat with black fur from a tropical climate, while on "Lost" it was large and deadly polar bears with white fur from a polar climate. If that wasn't the makers of "Lost" telling us that we're looking in the right place if we find that Doyle collection, what was their purpose?
> Seriously? You still don't get it? Those were all just Wouldn't It Be
> Cool? moments.
Bobbo in the Bronxo
Jim G.
Aug 16, 2012, 2:01:48 PM8/16/12
to
rob...@bestweb.net sent the following on Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:12:50
-0700 (PDT):
Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing that I'm talking about.
-0700 (PDT):
doc...@gmail.com
Aug 16, 2012, 7:41:37 PM8/16/12
to
Jim G.
Aug 18, 2012, 2:59:30 PM8/18/12
to
rob...@bestweb.net sent the following on Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:41:37
-0700 (PDT):
nice if this had been about x" versus "it was about x."
-0700 (PDT):
> Then at least it's fun figuring out what it wasn't about that we were supposed to be fooled into thinking it was about.
As long as "we" understand the difference between "it would have been
nice if this had been about x" versus "it was about x."
doc...@gmail.com
Aug 19, 2012, 6:29:03 PM8/19/12
to
On Saturday, August 18, 2012 2:59:30 PM UTC-4, Jim G. wrote:
> As long as "we" understand the difference between "it would have been
> nice if this had been about x" versus "it was about x."
> --
No, I think it WAS about x, but that they decided to annul it. Like if "The Thin Man" had ended by Nick saying, "Now that I'm feeling better, I've decided to forget about this whole thing." And then the young lady who brought the matter to his att'n got eaten by a wolf.
> As long as "we" understand the difference between "it would have been
> nice if this had been about x" versus "it was about x."
> --
Bobbo in the Bronxo
Bill Taylor
Aug 20, 2012, 12:23:47 AM8/20/12
to
On Aug 20, 10:29 am, "robg...@bestweb.net" <docs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > As long as "we" understand the difference between "it would have been
> > nice if this had been about x" versus "it was about x."
>
> > As long as "we" understand the difference between "it would have been
> > nice if this had been about x" versus "it was about x."
>
> No, I think it WAS about x, but that they decided to annul it.
Yes, but you fellows keep forgetting what x really was.
I told you before.
They moved season 1 toward a "Forbidden Planet" scenario.
This is so obvious that I can't see why you fellows are objecting.
-- Brainstorming Bill
Jim G.
Aug 21, 2012, 3:24:35 PM8/21/12
to
Bill Taylor sent the following on Sun, 19 Aug 2012 21:23:47 -0700 (PDT):
As I just pointed out to Rob and as you point out here, we're talking
about the *first season* here. The same arguments and beliefs about
season one simply can't be applied to the rest of the series.
about the *first season* here. The same arguments and beliefs about
season one simply can't be applied to the rest of the series.
Jim G.
Aug 21, 2012, 3:24:35 PM8/21/12
to
rob...@bestweb.net sent the following on Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:29:03
-0700 (PDT):
so that doesn't explain or justify anything that took place in the
subsequent five.
-0700 (PDT):
> On Saturday, August 18, 2012 2:59:30 PM UTC-4, Jim G. wrote:
>
> > As long as "we" understand the difference between "it would have been
> > nice if this had been about x" versus "it was about x."
> > --
> No, I think it WAS about x, but that they decided to annul it.
And you're right. But that annulment took place in the *first season*,
>
> > As long as "we" understand the difference between "it would have been
> > nice if this had been about x" versus "it was about x."
> > --
> No, I think it WAS about x, but that they decided to annul it.
so that doesn't explain or justify anything that took place in the
subsequent five.
doc...@gmail.com
Aug 22, 2012, 12:20:42 AM8/22/12
to
On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 3:24:35 PM UTC-4, Jim G. wrote:
> rob...@bestweb.net sent the following on Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:29:03
>
> -0700 (PDT):
>
> > On Saturday, August 18, 2012 2:59:30 PM UTC-4, Jim G. wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > As long as "we" understand the difference between "it would have been
>
> > > nice if this had been about x" versus "it was about x."
>
> > > --
>
> > No, I think it WAS about x, but that they decided to annul it.
>
>
>
> And you're right. But that annulment took place in the *first season*,
>
> so that doesn't explain or justify anything that took place in the
>
> subsequent five.
>
>
>
> --
If the annulment took place then, it was a very dishonest one, because seasons 5 & 6 still alluded to "The Lost Special". See "Kate convinced me."
> rob...@bestweb.net sent the following on Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:29:03
>
> -0700 (PDT):
>
> > On Saturday, August 18, 2012 2:59:30 PM UTC-4, Jim G. wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > As long as "we" understand the difference between "it would have been
>
> > > nice if this had been about x" versus "it was about x."
>
> > > --
>
> > No, I think it WAS about x, but that they decided to annul it.
>
>
>
> And you're right. But that annulment took place in the *first season*,
>
> so that doesn't explain or justify anything that took place in the
>
> subsequent five.
>
>
>
> --
sdf
Aug 23, 2012, 6:46:43 AM8/23/12
to
Keshav Prasad- Indian idol 4th sings "ae mere watan k logo"
on 66th Independence day gives a tribute to the Soldiers of India.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd-xrhoa9G4&feature=plcp
subscribe for more footages on Keshav Prasad.
Jim G.
Aug 23, 2012, 3:05:58 PM8/23/12
to
rob...@bestweb.net sent the following on Tue, 21 Aug 2012 21:20:42
-0700 (PDT):
-0700 (PDT):
> On Tuesday, August 21, 2012 3:24:35 PM UTC-4, Jim G. wrote:
>
> > rob...@bestweb.net sent the following on Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:29:03
> >
> > -0700 (PDT):
> >
> > > On Saturday, August 18, 2012 2:59:30 PM UTC-4, Jim G. wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > As long as "we" understand the difference between "it would have been
> >
> > > > nice if this had been about x" versus "it was about x."
> >
> > > > --
> >
> > > No, I think it WAS about x, but that they decided to annul it.
> >
> >
> >
> > And you're right. But that annulment took place in the *first season*,
> >
> > so that doesn't explain or justify anything that took place in the
> >
> > subsequent five.
> >
> >
>
> > rob...@bestweb.net sent the following on Sun, 19 Aug 2012 15:29:03
> >
> > -0700 (PDT):
> >
> > > On Saturday, August 18, 2012 2:59:30 PM UTC-4, Jim G. wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > > As long as "we" understand the difference between "it would have been
> >
> > > > nice if this had been about x" versus "it was about x."
> >
> > > > --
> >
> > > No, I think it WAS about x, but that they decided to annul it.
> >
> >
> >
> > And you're right. But that annulment took place in the *first season*,
> >
> > so that doesn't explain or justify anything that took place in the
> >
> > subsequent five.
> >
> >
> If the annulment took place then, it was a very dishonest one,
You're *finally* catching on.
0 new messages