X-No-Archive:yes
Also announced on the Nightly News with Brian Williams. Hard to
believe although I felt that Leo had aged on TWW. Always seemed like a
nice guy - someone you would like to know. Condolences to his family
and co-workers.
Yep. I was aware of him only on LA LAW and THE WEST WING, but his
congeniality always showed through his characters' crustiness.
I was noticing how frail he looked on last Sunday's episode. He
appeared much older than his 58 years.
--
Go to http://MarcDashevsky.com to send me e-mail.
Nicole
It will be interesting to see reactions from people in public life. When the
fictional character "Mrs. Dolores Landingham" died on the show, it brought
reactions in real-life editorial columns and even in a speech on the floor
of the California Legislature. You'd think a real person had died, even
though the actress Kathryn Joosten was and reamains alive and well.
This time it's different. Leo McGarry is dead because John Spencer isn't
alive to play him. Both men will be missed.
> This time it's different. Leo McGarry is dead because John Spencer
> isn't
> alive to play him. Both men will be missed.
That remains to be seen. Not all unseen characters are automatically dead.
RichC
Yes, the running mate can just wander off and nobody will notice.
How many times have you seen Bush and Cheney together in the same place? If
they have a story they want to tell about the campaign process and the
transfer of power, it could be a legitimate choice to not be forced to tell
a different story (what happens when the VP candidate dies) instead.
Not that I really believe they have a plan. But they could.
There have been several episodes this season where Spencer didn't appear, or
was peripheral. That didn't mean Leo was dead. And nobody thought he'd
wandered off, either.
The character isn't dead until the writers kill him.
RichC
>
>"David Johnston" <rgo...@block.net> wrote in message
>news:43a44ac5...@news.telusplanet.net...
>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:30:55 -0500, "Rich Clark"
>> <rdclar...@TRAPcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"EGTea" <EG...@spamless.com> wrote in message
>>>news:InYof.37361$6e....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>>
>>>> This time it's different. Leo McGarry is dead because John Spencer
>>>> isn't
>>>> alive to play him. Both men will be missed.
>>>
>>>That remains to be seen. Not all unseen characters are automatically dead.
>>
>> Yes, the running mate can just wander off and nobody will notice.
>
>How many times have you seen Bush and Cheney together in the same place? If
>they have a story they want to tell about the campaign process and the
>transfer of power, it could be a legitimate choice to not be forced to tell
>a different story (what happens when the VP candidate dies) instead.
>
>Not that I really believe they have a plan. But they could.
They could except for two episodes, the election and the inauguration.
Of course, the last episode they showed was all about how Leo was gonna take
over the campaign. I'm not sure how many they have in the can, but it would
be even harder to write him out given his new position.
>
> RichC
>
>
--
You Can't Stop the Signal
SERENITY on DVD December 20th
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BW7QWW
New position? Josh is still campaign manager. Leo declined to replace him
and went on to tell Santos that Josh had taken Santos as far as he could and
it would be up to Santos to reach voters in the final six weeks before
Election Day.
Actually, they showed him refusing to take over the campaign.
And not matter what his position, it would be very easy to write the
character out of the show: he dies. Art imitates life. I think it would
be very interesting to see how the show deals with the death of the VP
candidate only a few weeks before the election.
I'm a big fan of Spencer's, and I was very sorry to hear the news. I
think he was a fantastic actor who brought a lot of complexity and
depth to his characters. Barlett once said of McGarry, "He has a face
like a map of the world." It was a great description of John Spencer.
>
>ANIM8Rfsk wrote:
>>
>> Of course, the last episode they showed was all about how Leo was gonna take
>> over the campaign. I'm not sure how many they have in the can, but it would
>> be even harder to write him out given his new position.
>
>Actually, they showed him refusing to take over the campaign.
>
>And not matter what his position, it would be very easy to write the
>character out of the show: he dies.
Yes but there's a minority who are offended by the idea that the
character can die when the actor dies.
Right, Leo the wise told Matt that it was too late for
any of the staffers to matter. It is Matt that matters.
Time to step up.
--
Pat
Did you mean CAN die or CAN'T? I think more people would be offended by
carrying on a charactor after an actor's demise. I'm sure they don't
have that many episodes left to film, that they could make references
to Leo campaigning in another state and have it believeable.
But killing McGarry off would bring a lot of drama to the last few
episodes.
>
>David Johnston wrote:
>> On 18 Dec 2005 01:03:20 -0800, "The Watch Dog" <tir...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >ANIM8Rfsk wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Of course, the last episode they showed was all about how Leo was gonna take
>> >> over the campaign. I'm not sure how many they have in the can, but it would
>> >> be even harder to write him out given his new position.
>> >
>> >Actually, they showed him refusing to take over the campaign.
>> >
>> >And not matter what his position, it would be very easy to write the
>> >character out of the show: he dies.
>>
>> Yes but there's a minority who are offended by the idea that the
>> character can die when the actor dies.
>
>
>Did you mean CAN die or CAN'T?
I mean can die. Same thing happened with Ritter.
and don't forget Will Geer (Grandpa Walton) they wrote him out as dying
after the actor died in real life.
I'm not offended in the least.....death happens...to me, recasting the role
after a death makes me feel the writers or PTB think the viewers stupid that
we wouldn't "notice" a change of acting style, etc.
Cyn
********************************************
"Even the smallest person can change the course of the future."
- Galadriel, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
And this seems more offensive to the actor, in my mind, as though the
actor brought so little to the role that anyone could do it. Dallas
found that wasn't the case when they re-cast Miss Ellie. Even as played
by the beloved Donna Reed fans just missed Barbara Bel Geddes all the
more.
Not that either way to go is an especially BIG deal.
>>>> Yes but there's a minority who are offended by the idea that the
>>>> character can die when the actor dies.
>>>
>>>
>>> Did you mean CAN die or CAN'T?
>>
>> I mean can die. Same thing happened with Ritter.
>
> and don't forget Will Geer (Grandpa Walton) they wrote him out as dying
> after the actor died in real life.
> I'm not offended in the least.....death happens...to me, recasting the role
> after a death makes me feel the writers or PTB think the viewers stupid that
> we wouldn't "notice" a change of acting style, etc.
That depends entirely on the role. For instance, you pretty much have to
recast Darren on Bewitched, or the series premise is out the window
(although some would argue that would have been better than what did happen
there).
Or John-Boy -- you couldn't kill off JB, since the whole series is a
flashback told by him as an old man.
In the case of Leo, the big question is, have the future flashback episodes
told us he's still alive?
>>>> Yes but there's a minority who are offended by the idea that the
>>>> character can die when the actor dies.
>>>
>>>
>>>Did you mean CAN die or CAN'T?
>>
>> I mean can die. Same thing happened with Ritter.
>
>and don't forget Will Geer (Grandpa Walton) they wrote him out as dying
>after the actor died in real life.
>I'm not offended in the least.....death happens...to me, recasting the role
>after a death makes me feel the writers or PTB think the viewers stupid that
>we wouldn't "notice" a change of acting style, etc.
They could do it, TV's done it before...
>
>Cyn
>
>
>********************************************
>"Even the smallest person can change the course of the future."
>- Galadriel, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
>
--
Fudd's First Law of Opposition: If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.
>> I'm not offended in the least.....death happens...to me, recasting the role
>> after a death makes me feel the writers or PTB think the viewers stupid that
>> we wouldn't "notice" a change of acting style, etc.
>
>That depends entirely on the role. For instance, you pretty much have to
>recast Darren on Bewitched, or the series premise is out the window
>(although some would argue that would have been better than what did happen
>there).
In Bewitched's defense, the somewhat surrealistic nature of the show
actually supported recasting any part except Samantha and Endora at
will without explanation. Moreover, by the time the Darren switch had
happened, they'd already recast Mrs. Kravitz, so it's not like the
precedent hadn't already been set in that series. Charmed would
probably also be able to get away with such recasting with nary a
twitch of the nose, too.
But I think the people who are quite misguidedly suggesting that
Spencer could be recast are forgetting is that prime time shows are
held to a *much* more IMO rigorous standard by both the makers of the
show and by the audiences than soap operas are regarding recasting. In
prime-time, particularly in the one-hour dramas, where the mode is far
more realistic (even in the one-hour dramedies) than either sitcoms
(which, Bewitched notwithstanding, also don't weather recasting well)
or soap operas (which have turned recasting into near-science), for
all intents and purposes, the character *is* that actor -- audiences
invest in that character being played by that actor. Recasting will
jerk the audience out of the show, so it's just *not* ever done in any
show done in a realistic mode after the first episode has aired. I
say that in the sense that it's a rule of thumb, (a very strong
thumb), not absolute fact.
But even in soap operas, they can only go so far with the recasting --
recasting iconic characters and/or iconic actors is pretty much
verboten. Why, for instance, DOOL ever thought it was wise to recast
either Bo or Hope even at the time confounded a lot of the people I
know that have followed that soap for decades. Conversely, Roman
Brady has been recast so many times and for so many stupid in-story
and out-story reasons that he's pretty much meaningless as a
character.
IMO, the solution for TWW is simple: have Leo pass away with Spencer
(that part is IMO a given) and reshoot and/or recontextualize the
season premiere's flash-forward (maybe even as a dream sequence) for
the repeats and the DVDs to account for his passing. Spencer's Leo is
a *huge* part of the show and just writing around him, as if Leo is
simply never in the room, would insult the viewers' intelligence. IMO,
Fans and other viewers of the show are going to understand and,
moreover, embrace a graceful in-story acknowledgment of his passing,
even if they have to change something in an already-aired episode to
make it work artfully.
-- Rob
--
LORELAI: In the movie, only boy hobbits travel to Mount
Doom, but that's only because the girls went to do something
even more dangerous.
GIRL: What?
LORELAI: Have you ever heard of a Brazilian Bikini Wax?
| IMO, the solution for TWW is simple: have Leo pass away with Spencer
| (that part is IMO a given) and reshoot and/or recontextualize the
| season premiere's flash-forward (maybe even as a dream sequence) for
| the repeats and the DVDs to account for his passing. Spencer's Leo is
| a *huge* part of the show and just writing around him, as if Leo is
| simply never in the room, would insult the viewers' intelligence. IMO,
| Fans and other viewers of the show are going to understand and,
| moreover, embrace a graceful in-story acknowledgment of his passing,
| even if they have to change something in an already-aired episode to
| make it work artfully.
With five unaired episodes of TWW supposedly "in the can," we can probably
expect to see more of Leo. I doubt producers would be willing to junk complete
episodes and go to the expense of making new ones for a series that is already
suffering in the ratings. Of course, some judicious editing may be possible
along with a few new scenes being shot to fill in here and there. But if Leo
has a lot of front and center time in those existing episodes, it would be very
hard — and probably too expensive — to show any major change in his status
before those episodes have been aired.
One upcoming episode definitely shows a lot of Leo since it will evidently
involve the debate between candidates for vice president. I guess there would
be some TWW staffers about ready to join John if they had planned to do that
episode "live" as they did the presidential candidates debate.
Larc
§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§
I doubt they'd junk the episode either. It seems kind of sad anyway,
what actor would want his scenes cut after his death? Isn't the point
of pursuing fame the idea of "living forever?"
The easiest solution would be to have art imitate life and have Leo
suffer a fatal heart attack also. It's already set up he has a heart
condition. It would add some amazing drama to the storylline as well,
watching Josh & Santos scramble to keep it together at the last minute.
Dude, of *course* they aren't going to junk five full episodes -- IMO,
all they have to do is either reshoot or recontextualize the season
premiere's flash-forward, plus a scene or two here or there that may
need to be tweaked, then let Leo pass away be the main subject of the
next episode to be shot and finally let the various lead characters
coping with Leo's passing be one of the recurring themes of the
remainder of the episodes.
They can still air all the episodes in the can, including the upcoming
Leo-centric VP-debate storyline and *still* have Leo pass away before
the election. Leo's previous heart attack allows them to do so
relatively seamlessly (other than whatever issues the flash-forward
might have brought up, which is a simple one-scene reshoot or redub).
Having Leo pass away will be IMO the best kind of "Hanging a Lantern"
on the situation for the show and for the viewers.
_- Rob
You don't mean can die. You mean MUST die.
I don't think recasting is an option. But depending on how much of the
season has been filmed and where the storylines are going, it may be
entirely possible to conclude the season with the character of Leo kept
off-screen. And there seems to be a very good chance that concluding
this season would amount to concluding the series.
Of course, there's really one person who should make the decision of how
to deal with the situation. "Aaron will know what to do." I was already
hoping he could be persuaded to write the series finale; now, even more so.
>tan...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>>>>Yes but there's a minority who are offended by the idea that the
>>>>>character can die when the actor dies.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Did you mean CAN die or CAN'T?
>>>
>>>I mean can die. Same thing happened with Ritter.
>>
>>
>> and don't forget Will Geer (Grandpa Walton) they wrote him out as dying
>> after the actor died in real life.
>> I'm not offended in the least.....death happens...to me, recasting the role
>> after a death makes me feel the writers or PTB think the viewers stupid that
>> we wouldn't "notice" a change of acting style, etc.
>
>I don't think recasting is an option. But depending on how much of the
>season has been filmed and where the storylines are going, it may be
>entirely possible to conclude the season with the character of Leo kept
>off-screen. And there seems to be a very good chance that concluding
>this season would amount to concluding the series.
If they wanted to keep the character alive, there would be a way to
do it and explain why he's not at functions he normally would attend.
At some point during the campaign, we hear that Leo has done a Jerry
Ford going down the steps from the campaign plane. He suffers a
broken leg, which requires surgery. Given Leo's fairly precarious
health, this might require quite a long recuperation away from the
campaign. This leaves us with a live Leo, who physically can't be
places he would be expected to be (for example, don't candidates and
their VP's to be often make a joint appearance on election night?)
I'm not saying that's what I want to happen--I'm just saying that
would be one possible way to keep the character alive, and plausibly
explain why he's not out on the hustings.
>Of course, there's really one person who should make the decision of how
>to deal with the situation. "Aaron will know what to do." I was already
>hoping he could be persuaded to write the series finale; now, even more so.
Agreed.
take car,e
Scott
They said on the news tonight that Leo was SHOWN in the '3 years into the
future' episode. I don't recall that, but if he was, they're sorta stuck.
--
You Can't Stop the Signal
SERENITY on DVD TOMORROW!!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000BW7QWW/tvshowsondvdcom
Nah. Three years hence that could be Leo's brother, or
cousin, or even a nephew. These are TWW writers, after all,
who just "Mandy" out any ol' notion that seems objectionable
and won't be missed too much.
I mean, these guys don't even care about the number of
troops in a battalion, which evidently is a real crisis to
many viewers. So you think they give a fig about Leo coming
back from the dead?
I know: That man three years hence is Leo's love child, now
all grown up, from his tour of duty in Vietnam.
These people offed the most evil character in "ER" by
dropping a helicopter on him. We've had a record number of
murders, attempted murders, and kidnappings in Bartlet's
eight years as President. Come on now... Anything goes.
>>>Did you mean CAN die or CAN'T?
>>
>>
>> I mean can die. Same thing happened with Ritter.
>
>You don't mean can die. You mean MUST die.
If you're going to get it wrong, don't tell me what I mean.
Possible, perhaps, but personally, I think it would be disrespectful.
>Of course, there's really one person who should make the decision of how
>to deal with the situation. "Aaron will know what to do."
I had the exact same thought a couple of days ago. I hope the show's
current producers are thinking the same thing.
Patty
--
========= pa...@wintertime.com ===== N6BIS ===== Sunnyvale, Calif. ========
"Too expensive for the Army?" "I don't think they ever tried to
market it to the billionaire base-jumping, spelunking market."
===========================================================================
>They said on the news tonight that Leo was SHOWN in the '3 years into the
>future' episode. I don't recall that, but if he was, they're sorta stuck.
Not if they reshoot the scene to account for his passing or
recontextualize it with a new voiceover to make it a dream sequence.
Seinfeld did quite a bit of redubbing and even a bit of reshooting for
the syndication package, particularly (but not only) in regards to
replacing with Wayne Knight's voice the offstage v/o's of Newman that
were shot using some other actor's voice before Knight was cast in the
role.
-- Rob
> If they wanted to keep the character alive, there would be a way to
>do it and explain why he's not at functions he normally would attend.
Theoretically, yes. But in reality, this is known as talking around
the 800 lb. elephant in the middle of the room -- it's avoiding the
issue, not embracing it. It's the exact antithesis of "hanging a
lantern on it."
Yes, they should absolutely air all the eps in the can--I'm
sure if they consult with Spencer's family they would
agree...they would want his last performances to be seen as
would Spencer I'm sure. The next ep would have him die
suddenly off-stage with the attendant shock and grief his
friends know in real life. The ensuing eps would be riveting
and fascinating since this situation has, to my knowledge,
has never occurred in real life. I for one will be glad to
see WW continue on in memory of John's life and will be
watching all future eps. May John RIP! ...tonyC
Santos had Spencer offed in real-life because he wants the sympathy
votes. Apparently, they are going to hold some kind of "real"
election for this and it really is him against Alda. Who do you
suppose would win if that is the case? :) Smits doesn't want to
lose the tv job!
I apologize for thinking that you understood what you were talking about.
If you meant "can die", you didn't. No one on the thread said that they
couldn't have Leo die, just that they had the option of doing otherwise.
Why?
>>Of course, there's really one person who should make the decision of how
>>to deal with the situation. "Aaron will know what to do." I was already
>>hoping he could be persuaded to write the series finale; now, even more so.
>
>
> They said on the news tonight that Leo was SHOWN in the '3 years into the
> future' episode. I don't recall that, but if he was, they're sorta stuck.
There's a wire servive story that says this, but it's incorrect. He
wasn't in the scene.
>On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:30:51 GMT, almostf...@UCKSAY.comcast.net
>(Scott Stevenson) wrote:
>
>> If they wanted to keep the character alive, there would be a way to
>>do it and explain why he's not at functions he normally would attend.
>
>Theoretically, yes. But in reality, this is known as talking around
>the 800 lb. elephant in the middle of the room -- it's avoiding the
>issue, not embracing it. It's the exact antithesis of "hanging a
>lantern on it."
Agreed, and remember that I said it wasn't what I would hope for,
but it is a theoretical possibility. Personally, I think they should
let the character pass away, just like the actor.
take care,
Scott
Okay. I didn't recall him, and couldn't figure out HOW we'd see him without
it giving away who won. But did they mention him? Anything like "I talked
to Leo earlier"?
--
You Can't Stop the Signal
SERENITY on DVD TODAY!!
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000BW7QWW/tvshowsondvdcom
>
>If you meant "can die", you didn't. No one on the thread said that they
>couldn't have Leo die,
I wasn't talking about this thread in particular. But people have
popped up objecting to the idea of killing Leo because that would be
"profitting from Spencer's death".
>>> They said on the news tonight that Leo was SHOWN in the '3 years into the
>>> future' episode. I don't recall that, but if he was, they're sorta stuck.
>>
>> There's a wire servive story that says this, but it's incorrect. He
>> wasn't in the scene.
>
>Okay. I didn't recall him, and couldn't figure out HOW we'd see him without
>it giving away who won. But did they mention him? Anything like "I talked
>to Leo earlier"?
No, nothing like that. Leo was neither shown nor mentioned in any
way. The problematic bit was the "retrospective" which showed Leo
being interviewed. Then again, that's the same one that said CJ Craig
served two full terms as press secretary so I blame hypertime.
That makes you feel big, doesn't it, DaMN?
Good lord you are an embarrassment to the law, your parents,
your alma mater...
>Patty Winter wrote:
>> In article <dtadnacPbMI...@rcn.net>,
>> Brett A. Pasternack <bret...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I don't think recasting is an option. But depending on how much of the
>>>season has been filmed and where the storylines are going, it may be
>>>entirely possible to conclude the season with the character of Leo kept
>>>off-screen.
>>
>>
>> Possible, perhaps, but personally, I think it would be disrespectful.
>
>Why?
Because of all the characters on the show, Leo and Josh are the two
most important ones to the meaning of it. Therefore, simply ignoring
the character would be disrespectful to both the actor and the
audience that's invested a lot in the character and want to say a
proper goodbye to both the actor and the character within the context
of the show's story itself.
Ultimately, ignoring Leo/writing around Spencer's passing is thwarted
catharsis/closure.
-- Rob
In theory, yes, they do, but in practice, no, they don't.
Short of some kind of poll, you have no proof whatsoever of
exactly what way "the audience" wishes to say "a proper
goodbye" to Mr. Spencer or the fictional Leo. Some people
simply object to exploiting a person's death, regardless of
who has passed.
Don't use "therefore." It implies a logical thought.
> Ultimately, ignoring Leo/writing around Spencer's passing
is thwarted
> catharsis/closure.
Speak for yourself.
>On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 22:24:06 -0700, ANIM8Rfsk <ANIM...@cox.net>
Wasn't that 'interview' supposed to have taken place during
the Bartlett administration, but held for broadcast until after the
security concerns were past?
--
Fudd's First Law of Opposition: If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.
Still sniping from behind your kill filters Elle? You
pathetic softball cheat you...
>Short of some kind of poll, you have no proof whatsoever of
>exactly what way "the audience" wishes to say "a proper
>goodbye" to Mr. Spencer or the fictional Leo. Some people
>simply object to exploiting a person's death, regardless of
>who has passed.
>
>Don't use "therefore." It implies a logical thought.
I use "therefore" whenever and however I damn well please. FTR, I am a
stage manager and dramaturg -- and have the degree to prove it -- so I
am, in fact, qualified to evaluate how audiences generally wish to
regard the passing of an actor. If you think that it is not logical,
then you are, in fact, not logical. And a jerk. FOAD.
Uh huh.
> FTR, I am a
> stage manager and dramaturg -- and have the degree to
prove it -- so I
> am, in fact, qualified
Nope. More bad logic.
You get /a/ vote. period.
You know Elle, for a chain smoking blob in a muu-muu who
cheats at softball, you sure are a judgmental prig.
Why a NJ lawyer would be taking middle-school-aged snippets at someone
he's never met or been professionally affected by before, is somewhat
odd.
(but then I'm not privvy to NJ bar associations or their connections)
> Good lord you are an embarrassment to the law, your parents,
> your alma mater...
By now, we can all be sure that that's his goal.
(self-defacing)
You're too nice. It's pathological.
What I like most is that he is helping humiliate every other
lawyer on the planet with his rants and harassment.
> (but then I'm not privvy to NJ bar associations or their
connections)
>
> > Good lord you are an embarrassment to the law, your
parents,
> > your alma mater...
>
> By now, we can all be sure that that's his goal.
lol
> No, nothing like that. Leo was neither shown nor mentioned in any
> way. The problematic bit was the "retrospective" which showed Leo
> being interviewed. Then again, that's the same one that said CJ
> Craig served two full terms as press secretary so I blame hypertime.
Naw, you can blame that one sloppy research by a lazy press.
<g>
(Or maybe CJ will screw up so bad she'll be fired from the COS
job and resume her duties as press secretary...)
HR
You think it's a snipe that he doesn't think that what you say is what
"people" say?
How many people do you think you are, exactly?
> > > That makes you feel big, doesn't it, DaMN?
>>Why a NJ lawyer would be taking middle-school-aged
>snippets at someone
>>he's never met or been professionally affected by before,
>is somewhat
>> odd.
>You're too nice.
Oh Tess, I know.
I'm too proper. I just sit back all my life and just "hope" and "wait"
for things to just "happen", I guess. I'm too overly mannerly, too
caring for everyone and I've just been way, way too friendly and too
"giving" all my life. I've never been rash and I never take any bold
initiative to really go out and really do anything. I'm just not enough
of a "bad boy". That's why I always sleep alone. Its totally hopeless.
I'm just too nice.
Nice folk never go anywhere. Tell your sons never, ever to always be
nice. Always tell them to run at top speed with the pack of wolves,
because that's the only thing that's gonna do it, lady.
(Mr Nice Guy just won't cut it)
>>You're too nice.
>
>
> Oh Tess, I know.
>
> I'm too proper. I just sit back all my life and just "hope" and "wait"
> for things to just "happen", I guess. I'm too overly mannerly, too
> caring for everyone and I've just been way, way too friendly and too
> "giving" all my life. I've never been rash and I never take any bold
> initiative to really go out and really do anything. I'm just not enough
> of a "bad boy". That's why I always sleep alone. Its totally hopeless.
> I'm just too nice.
>
> Nice folk never go anywhere. Tell your sons never, ever to always be
> nice. Always tell them to run at top speed with the pack of wolves,
> because that's the only thing that's gonna do it, lady.
>
> (Mr Nice Guy just won't cut it)
TZ, two years ago, I would have agreed with everything you said. (Heck,
I said some pretty similar things in a thread here, the one that led to
Toniann's "recommendation" letter.)
Little did I know that a couple of months later, I'd offer an online
flirt at post from someone named Dawnie, and that she'd already been
reading my posts here and been impressed, and that she would turn out to
be my dream come true.
I slept alone way too much before that, but in the end, this nice guy
finished first. Don't give up.
Thanks. Although, I must admit (for what its worth) that before I wrote
the above, I did have a few drinks.
Can you read minds ?? How do you know I thought that ??
This lawyer calls people names. That's taking middle-school-aged
snippets at people.
> How many people do you think you are, exactly?
One, I guess. How many did you think I was ??
This is why I killfile Brett: Guy rarely has anything to say
that logically follows or is meaningful.
Haha, well. I try to struggle through everything. Thanks.
>
>Can you read minds ?? How do you know I thought that ??
>
>This lawyer calls people names.
Just you. And you richly deserve them.
(Well, I see you're in awfully good Christmas spirits)
Moooo, anyone?
DJ joins the herd lol.
> (Well, I see you're in awfully good Christmas spirits)
It's commendable that TZ doesn't return name calling with
name calling. Or join herds.
Either way, DaMN still has brains like giraffe's snot.
>"Transition Zone" <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> David Johnston wrote:
>> > On 26 Dec 2005 04:57:16 -0800, "Transition Zone"
><mog...@hotmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >Can you read minds ?? How do you know I thought that ??
>> > >
>> > >This lawyer calls people names.
>> >
>> > Just you. And you richly deserve them.
>
>Moooo, anyone?
>
>DJ joins the herd lol.
TZ has made a career out of being obnoxious. I'm tired of him.
Well, you know, it's what you said.
> This lawyer calls people names. That's taking middle-school-aged
> snippets at people.
What name did he call anyone. He said that it wasn't "people" who were
saying that TWW would be profiting from Spencer's desk, it was just you.
That is, it wasn't people, it was one person.
>>How many people do you think you are, exactly?
>
>
> One, I guess. How many did you think I was ??
So if you're one person, you're not "people", which is what David Marc
was saying.
This is why you killfile me: Because I'm always logical and meaningful,
and you can't handle it. It's why, in fact, you killfile every
intelligent poster on this group, at least some of the time.
Which is why you have to hide behind that killfile and throw out your
baseless insults. Say what you will about me, but when I say something,
I hear the other person out when they respond.
>"Transition Zone" <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> David Johnston wrote:
>> > On 26 Dec 2005 04:57:16 -0800, "Transition Zone"
><mog...@hotmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > >Can you read minds ?? How do you know I thought that ??
>> > >
>> > >This lawyer calls people names.
>> >
>> > Just you. And you richly deserve them.
>
>Moooo, anyone?
If' you're going to Mooo Elle, at least have the common
decency to chew your cud with your mouth closed.
>
>DJ joins the herd lol.
>
>> (Well, I see you're in awfully good Christmas spirits)
>
>It's commendable that TZ doesn't return name calling with
>name calling. Or join herds.
>
>Either way, DaMN still has brains like giraffe's snot.
Yet bitchslaps you at every turn. Odd that.
> > This is why I killfile Brett: Guy rarely has anything to say
> > that logically follows or is meaningful.
Oh, please. I rarely agree with Brett but he's still one of the more
thoughtful and articulate people I've encountered on any newsgroup.
You, on the other hand, consistently show yourself to be treading a thin
line between simple irrationality and dangerous obsession.
David Marc Nieporent wrote:
"Emphasis added. Learn to read, jackass. [...] ADHERING. Look up the
word. Then look it up again. Then shove it up your ass, you stupid
jackass."
The NJ Bar would be proud. So would the Alumni.
Awww, Tess. Let's both cry for David, awwwww. Boo-hooo !!!
lol
DJ, we all make our Usenet careers. Second, "obnoxious" is
in the eye of the beholder. Ya don't like someone's posts,
killfile him/her. But leave them be. If ya harass someone
who stays generally on topic and doesn't try to drive people
away, then you're way lower.
Okay, stays generally on topic and doesn't try to drive people
away describes DMN.
It is an occasional descriptor for TZ, but not the usual one.
>
>DJ, we all make our Usenet careers. Second, "obnoxious" is
>in the eye of the beholder.
Yes. People behave loathesomely and then when they received loathing
from all sides then that's just everyone else being a "herd".
And there's a big load of "do as I say, not as I do".
Thanks, BTR. Always nice to hear.
It's good to be reminded that people of intelligence know that
Caroline's full of garbage.
So you're tired of me, huh Dave ?? Did it ever occur to you that I'm
also tired of you using the same name as that NY Times staffwriter ??
If you need reminders and encouragement of certain thoughts, then those
thought's are likely not true.
(the guilty speak up)
Claims that the loathing is coming from "all sides" (when in
fact it is absolutely not) are just another hallmark of
someone eager to belong to a herd.
Why can't you just killfile him? Wouldn't that solve all
your problems? Unless one of your problems is you take a
sort of pathological pleasure in abusing those in a minority
and so definitionally weak. You like beating up on Down's
Syndrome kids, too, David, do you?
Have you yourself initiated a new thread lately? Or are you
just here to complain and whine? Talk about loathsome,
superfluous Usenet voices...
> So you're tired of me, huh Dave ?? Did it ever occur to
you that I'm
> also tired of you using the same name as that NY Times
staffwriter ??
God forbid he actually is that Times staff writer.
For my part, I think he's just a busybody Canadian who
really should put a disclaimer in every damn post he makes
here, to save people time in educating him about U.S.
government.
You'd think he could at least be a bit happier about
being in his stupid little middle school clique.
> Why can't you just killfile him?
Maybe because others would still be looking at what I'm writing.
David and his little friends seem to have their own idea about what
discussion matter people in the group should see. Perhaps that's why
this little mob is carrying on so much instead of simply killfiltering
me and then focusing on group content.
> Wouldn't that solve all
> your problems? Unless one of your problems is you take a
> sort of pathological pleasure in abusing those in a minority
> and so definitionally weak. You like beating up on Down's
> Syndrome kids, too, David, do you?
That's also true. People with weaknesses go around looking for dinky
little groups to find a belonging with (to fill a void, maybe). Once
this is found ?? They get their jollies off on attacking those who
obviously
can't, don't or won't fit.
> Have you yourself initiated a new thread lately? Or are you
> just here to complain and whine?
He's probably just like Jim and the rest. Pure reactionaries. They
offer
nothing new. They're just fundies. They just attack, attack, attack.
> Talk about loathsome,
> superfluous Usenet voices...
>
> > So you're tired of me, huh Dave ?? Did it ever occur to
> you that I'm
> > also tired of you using the same name as that NY Times
> staffwriter ??
>
> God forbid he actually is that Times staff writer.
Who knows ??
> For my part, I think he's just a busybody Canadian who
> really should put a disclaimer in every damn post he makes
> here, to save people time in educating him about U.S.
> government.
Being here to learn is one thing. Being here to mindlessly condemn is
another.
Since when?
Yes. It's a study in herd mentalities, inter alia, though.
;-)
So fling the mudballs, David. Doesn't raise you any higher
in any adult's esteem. <shrug>
>"Transition Zone" <mog...@hotmail.com> wrote
>> David Johnston wrote:
>> > On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:16:41 GMT, "Tess Millay"
>> > <elle_n...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >DJ, we all make our Usenet careers. Second, "obnoxious"
>is
>> > >in the eye of the beholder.
>> >
>> > Yes. People behave loathesomely
>> > and then when they received loathing
>> > from all sides then that's just everyone else being a
>"herd".
>
>Claims that the loathing is coming from "all sides" (when in
>fact it is absolutely not)
Where's the side it isn't coming from? Is there anyone who doesn't
think TZ is an asshole except you?
Not surprising at all that only you and Jim call me that.
>>
>> Where's the side it isn't coming from? Is there anyone who doesn't
>> think TZ is an asshole except you?
>
>Not surprising at all that only you and Jim call me that.
Oh really? Do I actually strike you as right wing? The truth is, on
the occasions when you decide to speak comprehensibly about politics,
I usually agree with you. That's why it is so troublesome to me that
you cast discredit upon my politics by sharing them and behaving as
you do.
>
You seem to prefer to rant and rave, so why don't you do a
head count of everyone who has posted here in the last week
and see?
This will surely prove who is the real arse.
He's not bothering you. You choose to read his posts as well
as others who respond to him. So live and let live. Or
don't.
> Not surprising at all that only you and Jim call me that.
I think DJ's having a bad winter holiday. He's not usually
quite such a jackass.
Nonsense.
> (the guilty speak up)
Nice that you know that you're guilty. Now try changing your behavior so
you won't be.
So...the best you can come up with is that over a year ago DMN
called someone a jackass?
Wow.
You really proved YOUR point.
Asked and answered.
Yeah. Really.
> Do I actually strike you as right wing?
You've never "struck" me.
So I don't know.
> The truth is, on the occasions when you decide to speak comprehensibly about politics,
Or maybe just when you decide to actually read what I say.
> I usually agree with you.
That's fine.
> That's why it is so troublesome to me that
> you cast discredit upon my politics by sharing them and behaving as
> you do.
Precisely who's politics do you suggest I share, then ?? C'mon. Tell us
once and for all Dave: exactly how do you think I should behave.
Not about nearly.
> > (the guilty speak up)
>
> Nice that you know that you're guilty.
Me ??
> Now try changing your behavior
To what ??
[...]
>>>> This lawyer calls people names. That's taking middle-school-aged
>>>> snippets at people.
>>> What name did he call anyone.
>> David Marc Nieporent wrote:
>>
>> "Emphasis added. Learn to read, jackass. [...] ADHERING. Look up the
>> word. Then look it up again. Then shove it up your ass, you stupid
>> jackass."
>>
>> The NJ Bar would be proud. So would the Alumni.
> So...the best you can come up with is that over a year ago DMN called
> someone a jackass?
> Wow.
> You really proved YOUR point.
Do you think he saved that post for a full year, just waiting for a chance
to bring it up? Printed it out, taped it to his computer monitor?
--
David Marc Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Jumping To Conclusions: http://www.oobleck.com/tollbooth
Do you seriously deny extensive proof of your juvenile
behavior does not exist?
Get out of here, you racist boob, and learn what it means to
be a true professional--someone who doesn't post
prolifically to Usenet.
As long as she wears her hat, no one will see her point.
--
Fudd's First Law of Opposition: If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.
> exquisite witch peachy wrote:
>
>> Transition Zone wrote:
>>
>>> Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
>>>
>>>> Transition Zone wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>>>>> This lawyer calls people names. That's taking middle-school-aged
>>>>> snippets at people.
>
>
>>>> What name did he call anyone.
>
>
>>> David Marc Nieporent wrote:
>>>
>>> "Emphasis added. Learn to read, jackass. [...] ADHERING. Look up the
>>> word. Then look it up again. Then shove it up your ass, you stupid
>>> jackass."
>>>
>>> The NJ Bar would be proud. So would the Alumni.
>
>
>> So...the best you can come up with is that over a year ago DMN
>> called someone a jackass?
>> Wow.
>> You really proved YOUR point.
>
>
> Do you think he saved that post for a full year, just waiting for a
> chance to bring it up? Printed it out, taped it to his computer monitor?
>
You know, I really don't.
I think he had nothing at all to go on, and hunted up something
after the fact that would at least partially back up the statement
that you engage in name calling.
I think that "Tess"'s ludicrous vendetta against you is fueling
him, and I've wondered at least once if the real TZ has vanished and
Elle is using the name as a sock puppet.
I have to wonder why it never occurred to me to wonder before,
and if the real TZ ever was anything but a figment of Elle's
imagination.
Quite the Freudian slip there.
No, it's not about "nearly". It's about what you posted, and how it's
nonsense.
>
>>>(the guilty speak up)
>>
>>Nice that you know that you're guilty.
>
>
> Me ??
Yes. When you said "the guilty speak up", surely you didn't think I was
guilty of something, did you? If so, of what?
>>Now try changing your behavior
>
>
> To what ??
To something that won't make you feel guilty. To being a responsible
newsgroup citizen.
> I think that "Tess"'s ludicrous vendetta against you is fueling him,
> and I've wondered at least once if the real TZ has vanished and Elle is
> using the name as a sock puppet.
>
> I have to wonder why it never occurred to me to wonder before, and if
> the real TZ ever was anything but a figment of Elle's imagination.
I don't think someone like Caroline, who is clearly capable of writing a
decent sentence, could be capable of faking the incoherence of TZ on a
regular basis. (Sorry, TZ, but that's the way it is.)