Prime show rescheduling on account of storm?

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

Much of the NE US is being hammered by Hurricane Sandy. They expect
considerable considerable areas to be without power as a result of
very hard rain and high winds (thousands already are without power).
Also, regular progrmaming has been pre-empted for news coverage of the
storm.

In situations like this, will prime time TV shows be re-aired so those
who missed them could see them? Thanks.

For instance, 2 Broke Girls isn't on "On Demand".

[Dano]

wrote in message
news:038565da-ad7e-4910...@m4g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

=================================

Wow. That would be a real tragedy to miss an ep of that one.

And this is coming from one who actually watches it.

[Obveeus]

<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> Much of the NE US is being hammered by Hurricane Sandy.

The effects are already being felt in New York Harbor:
http://instagram.com/p/RYVbChSfkB/

> They expect
> considerable considerable areas to be without power as a result of
> very hard rain and high winds (thousands already are without power).
> Also, regular progrmaming has been pre-empted for news coverage of the
> storm.
>
> In situations like this, will prime time TV shows be re-aired so those
> who missed them could see them? Thanks.

Cancelling the first run shows in favor of reruns is a good solution. The
networks all show lots of reruns during the season, so why not try to aim
those reruns onto night's when the TV viewership will be low anyway.

[David]

On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:56:02 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:

>Cancelling the first run shows in favor of reruns is a good solution. The
>networks all show lots of reruns during the season, so why not try to aim
>those reruns onto night's when the TV viewership will be low anyway.

Plus it hammers home that if something is happening in New York
everyone has to feel it.

[Obveeus]

Well, New York or New Orleans.

[David]

Primetime didn't stop for New Orleans. And what better demonstration
of the chain of command than a certain someone in San Diego being
denied a new "Gossip Girl" because of a storm in the Northeast.

[suzeeq]

Fox is airing reruns anyway because they didn't figure the Tigers would
get beat in 4 games straight...

[Obveeus]

"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:19:45 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:56:02 -0400, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Cancelling the first run shows in favor of reruns is a good solution.
>>>>The
>>>>networks all show lots of reruns during the season, so why not try to
>>>>aim
>>>>those reruns onto night's when the TV viewership will be low anyway.
>>>
>>> Plus it hammers home that if something is happening in New York
>>> everyone has to feel it.
>>
>>Well, New York or New Orleans.
>
> Primetime didn't stop for New Orleans.

Are you positive about that? It sure seemed like there was nothing else on
TV for days. maybe it just wasn't as big of a deal for interruption since
it happened during the Summer instead of the real TV season?

> And what better demonstration
> of the chain of command than a certain someone in San Diego being
> denied a new "Gossip Girl" because of a storm in the Northeast.

He will be entirely consumed with ALIEN SURFER GIRLS tonight, though, so he
might not even go into withdrawal about GOSSIP GIRL until mid-day tomorrow.

[Adam H. Kerman]

On CBS, a rerun of Mike & Molly, and Hawai'i 5.1 was pre-empted by a
"news" special, making correspondents stand outside in the rain.

Of course, my listings were incorrect, so I reset the DVR to record
duplicates.

[KoshN]

CBS ran reruns of How I Met Your Mother, 2 Broke Girls, Mike & Molly and probably their other sitcom in the East (Pittsburgh, PA). H50v2 didn't air.

KoshN

[anim8rFSK]

In article <k6ng74$com$1...@news.albasani.net>,

No H5.1 (which I'd have actually watched); I saw enough of Revolution to
see that it was a new ep and a stupid ep, and settled for a new CASTLE.

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

[Professor Bubba]

In article <ee10f2cd-567f-4d12...@googlegroups.com>,

KoshN <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> CBS ran reruns of How I Met Your Mother, 2 Broke Girls, Mike & Molly and
> probably their other sitcom in the East (Pittsburgh, PA). H50v2 didn't air.

The New York market alone is about 18% of the national audience. Much
of the area was without power because of Sandy, and many viewers who
still had power were more interested in news than entertainment
tonight. Some stations ran continuous coverage on their primary
channel and put their regular schedule on a subchannel, while others
did the opposite. I'm not surprised the nets didn't waste fresh
material tonight. I expect that Nielsen will adjust the sweeps period
to account for Sandy.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <301020120117032104%bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid>,

Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:

> In article <ee10f2cd-567f-4d12...@googlegroups.com>,
> KoshN <macthe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> did the opposite. I'm not surprised the nets didn't waste fresh
> material tonight.

Not "the nets" -- just one net: CBS. ABC and NBC aired their planned
episodes, although with occasional storm coverage interruptions. Fox
didn't have new shows scheduled in the first place, because of the
expectation of a World Series game. No idea about CW, I consider their
Monday schedule irrelevant.

Comedy Central didn't tape new episodes of TDS and TCR, but Letterman
did. But there was no one in the studio audience -- he told all the
monologue jokes to Paul and the band.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>No H5.1 (which I'd have actually watched); I saw enough of Revolution to
>see that it was a new ep and a stupid ep, and settled for a new CASTLE.

There are two kinds of Revolution episodes? Huh.

[Ubiquitous]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

>In situations like this, will prime time TV shows be re-aired so those
>who missed them could see them? Thanks.
>
>For instance, 2 Broke Girls isn't on "On Demand".

It was a rerun last night.

--
"Re-electing Obama is like backing The Titanic up and hitting the
iceberg a second time."

[Obveeus]

"Professor Bubba" <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
> I expect that Nielsen will adjust the sweeps period
> to account for Sandy.

I doubt that very much. Networks can spin all they want to the advertisers
about why the numbers don't mean what they say. Nielsen's job is simply to
report the numbers.

[Ian J. Ball]

In article <anim8rfsk-15E06...@news.easynews.com>,

anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> No H5.1 (which I'd have actually watched); I saw enough of Revolution to
> see that it was a new ep and a stupid ep, and settled for a new CASTLE.

But you missed the Charley bubble bath-rubber ducky episode!!! :(

--
"Surf-crazed aliens... Of course." - Amber, "Alien Surf Girls",
Episode #1.1, "Wipeout".
Wait a minute... "Of course"?! "*Of course*"?!! Did I miss a step here??!!

[Obveeus]

"Ian J. Ball" <ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote:
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> No H5.1 (which I'd have actually watched); I saw enough of Revolution to
>> see that it was a new ep and a stupid ep, and settled for a new CASTLE.
>
> But you missed the Charley bubble bath-rubber ducky episode!!! :(

I was really pissed off that they edited out the rubber duck just because it
wasn't wearing any pants.

[KoshN]

On Tuesday, October 30, 2012 1:23:20 AM UTC-4, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <301020120117032104%bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid>,
>
> Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <ee10f2cd-567f-4d12...@googlegroups.com>,
>

> > KoshN <macthevorlon@> wrote:
>
> > did the opposite. I'm not surprised the nets didn't waste fresh
>
> > material tonight.
>
>
>
> Not "the nets" -- just one net: CBS. ABC and NBC aired their planned
>
> episodes, although with occasional storm coverage interruptions.

CBS aired reruns here in the Pittsburgh, PA market, NOT the planned new episodes that Zap2It had listed that were supposed to be run. During the airing of those reruns, Zap2It STILL had the new episodes listed. However, now, after the fact, Zap2It lists the reruns.

I wasn't surprised at the change, given the storm. Since, I was home, I didn't bother recording anything, and spent the evening watching select bits of Top Gear (UK) Series 1 thru 9, online. God, that show's addictive and fun! I would've watched Castle, except that now, after having dropped cable and gone OTA, I can't (yet) get the ABC channel. [shrug] I buy Castle on DVD anyway, and that's how I prefer to watch shows (in marathon sessons). :D

KoshN

[anim8rFSK]

In article
<ijball-NO_SPAM-47E...@news.eternal-september.org>,

"Ian J. Ball" <ijball-...@mac.invalid> wrote:

> In article <anim8rfsk-15E06...@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > No H5.1 (which I'd have actually watched); I saw enough of Revolution to
> > see that it was a new ep and a stupid ep, and settled for a new CASTLE.
>
> But you missed the Charley bubble bath-rubber ducky episode!!! :(

I actually downloaded the NBC iPad app which screams FULL EPISODES OF
REVOLUTION except, you know, for the part where they don't have any.

[BTR1701]

In article <301020120117032104%bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid>,
Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:

How long will it be before Sandy is declared Bush's fault?

[anim8rFSK]

In article <atropos-F52F53...@news-europe.giganews.com>,

It's already being blamed on Global Warming; Bush and Kyoto are implicit.

[Obveeus]

"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>> How long will it be before Sandy is declared Bush's fault?
>
> It's already being blamed on Global Warming; Bush and Kyoto are implicit.

You are both being foolish. Didn't you watch as Sandy took a 90 degree turn
and headed straight towards Atlantic City? Clearly, Sandy was drawn in by
the giant sucking vortex of Donald Trump's mouth.

[Jim G.]

Obveeus sent the following on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:51:05 -0400:

Speaking of giant sucking vortices, hasn't Kim Kardashian been in New
York all week? Of course, in her case, we wouldn't be talking about her
mouth...

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I'm really ready for this day to be over." -- Duke Crocker, HAVEN

[Obveeus]

"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:fgk0989diag0nefjo...@4ax.com...

> Obveeus sent the following on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:51:05 -0400:
>>
>> "anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>> >> How long will it be before Sandy is declared Bush's fault?
>> >
>> > It's already being blamed on Global Warming; Bush and Kyoto are
>> > implicit.
>>
>> You are both being foolish. Didn't you watch as Sandy took a 90 degree
>> turn
>> and headed straight towards Atlantic City? Clearly, Sandy was drawn in
>> by
>> the giant sucking vortex of Donald Trump's mouth.
>
> Speaking of giant sucking vortices, hasn't Kim Kardashian been in New
> York all week? Of course, in her case, we wouldn't be talking about her
> mouth...

The picture on the right?
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/celebrity/news/prevent-a-clothing-mishap

[anim8rFSK]

In article <fgk0989diag0nefjo...@4ax.com>,

Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> Obveeus sent the following on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:51:05 -0400:
> >
> > "anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > >> How long will it be before Sandy is declared Bush's fault?
> > >
> > > It's already being blamed on Global Warming; Bush and Kyoto are implicit.
> >
> > You are both being foolish. Didn't you watch as Sandy took a 90 degree
> > turn
> > and headed straight towards Atlantic City? Clearly, Sandy was drawn in by
> > the giant sucking vortex of Donald Trump's mouth.
>
> Speaking of giant sucking vortices, hasn't Kim Kardashian been in New
> York all week? Of course, in her case, we wouldn't be talking about her
> mouth...

And in a bizarre cross over, today, Jessica Green of ALIEN SURF GIRLS
tweeted that she got a job modeling Kim Kardashian bras and loves them.

[Obveeus]

"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Speaking of giant sucking vortices, hasn't Kim Kardashian been in New
>> York all week? Of course, in her case, we wouldn't be talking about her
>> mouth...
>
> And in a bizarre cross over, today, Jessica Green of ALIEN SURF GIRLS
> tweeted that she got a job modeling Kim Kardashian bras and loves them.

Is she using one as an umbrella for her and a friend?

[anim8rFSK]

In article <k6q3c5$nh0$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

Jessica has bigger boobs than KK; the difference is, hers aren't
attached to a rancid sack of blubber.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Oct 30, 1:17 am, Professor Bubba <bu...@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote:

> The New York market alone is about 18% of the national audience.

Considering that in many areas of the NY market 90% of the people were
without power, that is significant.

But NY wasn't the only market without power, much of the Phila market
and other sections along the NE US were (or still are) without power
as well.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

But reporting numbers with a bad foundation is not a good way to go.

Historically, local stations would rerun pre-empted prime-time network
shows at off times, such as weekend mornings or afternoon.

With the majority of the country (70%?) still able to watch, it makes
sense for the networks to still air prime-time shows. But for the 30%
of viewers who couldn't watch, alternative air times, as was done in
the past, would be nice.

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:31:56 -0700:

The fact that anyone would pay more than necessary for a bra so that KK
has extra partying cash is just beyond stupid on so many levels.

[Jim G.]

Obveeus sent the following on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:32:44 -0400:

Kim Kardashian + giant sucking vortex + "clothing mishap" = a link that
Mama Gysin's boy is *not* going to be clicking on anytime soon.

[Joan in GB-W]

"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote in message

news:0se598phegu7247m8...@4ax.com...

>>
>> And in a bizarre cross over, today, Jessica Green of ALIEN SURF GIRLS
>> tweeted that she got a job modeling Kim Kardashian bras and loves them.
>
> The fact that anyone would pay more than necessary for a bra so that KK
> has extra partying cash is just beyond stupid on so many levels.
>
> --
> Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
> "I'm really ready for this day to be over." -- Duke Crocker, HAVEN

That Kim Kardashian even has a following on TV "is just beyond stupid on so
many levels."

Joan

[anim8rFSK]

In article <0se598phegu7247m8...@4ax.com>,

Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> anim8rFSK sent the following on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:31:56 -0700:
> > In article <fgk0989diag0nefjo...@4ax.com>,
> > Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > Obveeus sent the following on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 15:51:05 -0400:
> > > >
> > > > "anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> > > > >> How long will it be before Sandy is declared Bush's fault?
> > > > >
> > > > > It's already being blamed on Global Warming; Bush and Kyoto are
> > > > > implicit.
> > > >
> > > > You are both being foolish. Didn't you watch as Sandy took a 90 degree
> > > > turn
> > > > and headed straight towards Atlantic City? Clearly, Sandy was drawn in
> > > > by
> > > > the giant sucking vortex of Donald Trump's mouth.
> > >
> > > Speaking of giant sucking vortices, hasn't Kim Kardashian been in New
> > > York all week? Of course, in her case, we wouldn't be talking about her
> > > mouth...
> >
> > And in a bizarre cross over, today, Jessica Green of ALIEN SURF GIRLS
> > tweeted that she got a job modeling Kim Kardashian bras and loves them.
>
> The fact that anyone would pay more than necessary for a bra so that KK
> has extra partying cash is just beyond stupid on so many levels.

LOL, yeah, but at least KK is paying Jessica, not the other way 'round.

[Robin Miller]

It wasn't just the areas that lost power. Where I was, in southern New
Jersey, didn't lose power, but the local stations (mostly from Philly)
broadcast continuous storm coverage rather than showing the network's
shows. I suspect that was true throughout the affected states. So there
was probably very little, if any, broadcasting of network programming on
Monday night in Delaware, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

--Robin

[Jim G.]

Joan in GB-W sent the following on Thu, 1 Nov 2012 16:29:15 -0500:

That, too. :)

When I hear about the number of people following the likes of KK and
Paris Hilton and the like (and sports jocks, for that matter) on Twitter
and then compare it to the number of people following good authors and
interesting scientists and the like, it's just another source of
depression for me. It's as if I have absolutely nothing in common with
millions and millions of my fellow Americans.

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:56:28 -0700:

And bra buyers are willing to pay them both, apparently. But it's no
different than the young idiot who's willing to spend $150 on a pair of
$10 sneakers so that D-Rose can make another payment on his Ferrari, or
whatnot.

[Remysun]

On Nov 1, 2:07 pm, Jim G. <jimgy...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> The fact that anyone would pay more than necessary for a bra so that KK
> has extra partying cash is just beyond stupid on so many levels.

Not really. If it's all about having the biggest boobs around, what
better way to prove it than by wearing something only the biggest
boobs around wear?

[Mason Barge]

On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:56:02 -0600, Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid>

Well, at least I can conceive that Kim K. knows some stuff about bras.

[Jim G.]

Mason Barge sent the following on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 19:14:56 -0500:

With "ease of removal" undoubtedly being at the top of the list. :)

[anim8rFSK]

In article <ml9l985b7t6n6jn96...@4ax.com>,

Oh, God, no. I want KK's undies to be self cleaning and soldered in
place.

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:13:41 -0700:

Where KK is concerned, don't assume a garment not in evidence. And
definitely don't get me thinking about said garment *sticking* to her in
any way, shape or form.

And besides, we were talking about bras, not drawers. :)

[anim8rFSK]

In article <dbtn98dr5cqdps9j3...@4ax.com>,

I've seen her braless. It's not an experience I wish to repeat.

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 16:41:38 -0700:

By choice?

> It's not an experience I wish to repeat.

In addition to the whole brain-dead, self-absorbed skank bit, she's just
not that attractive to me physically, either. So I had no interest in
seeing her sex tape when it was making the rounds.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <n5g2a8hvnrf4q43tq...@4ax.com>,

That's where I saw her braless (although IIRC mostly she left it on,
while filming a sex tape), so I guess it was intentional, although at
the time of the viewing I'd never heard of her before.

Aside from being physically unattractive, she's the most boring woman in
bed I've ever seen - I'd have asked for my money back.

I watched a couple minutes and fast forwarded through a couple more to
see it it got any better (it didn't) and quit watching and tossed the
files.

Something that amazes me is that I'm constantly seeing ads for Playboy
online, trying to get you to sign up, promising pictures of KK. Really?
That's the best Playboy has to offer these days??

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on Mon, 12 Nov 2012 14:55:56 -0700:

> In article <n5g2a8hvnrf4q43tq...@4ax.com>,
> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > anim8rFSK sent the following on Thu, 08 Nov 2012 16:41:38 -0700:
> > > In article <dbtn98dr5cqdps9j3...@4ax.com>,
> > > Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > anim8rFSK sent the following on Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:13:41 -0700:
> > > > > In article <ml9l985b7t6n6jn96...@4ax.com>,
> > > > > Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Mason Barge sent the following on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 19:14:56 -0500:
> > > > > > > On Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:56:02 -0600, Jim G.
> > > > > > > <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >anim8rFSK sent the following on Thu, 01 Nov 2012 16:56:28 -0700:
> > > > > > > >> In article <0se598phegu7247m8...@4ax.com>,
> > > > > > > >> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> > anim8rFSK sent the following on Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:31:56
> > > > > > > >> > -0700:
> > > > > > > >> > >

Heh. Yeah, I've heard that her performance was ... uninspired.

> Something that amazes me is that I'm constantly seeing ads for Playboy
> online, trying to get you to sign up, promising pictures of KK. Really?
> That's the best Playboy has to offer these days??

Snarky reply: You see ads online?

Serious reply: Frankly, I'm surprised that *any* of the traditional pr0n
sites are surviving, given the ready availability of everything under
the sun for free. Maybe their appeal is to guys our age who want to
revisit the playmates of their youth, or something.

[Mason Barge]

I goggled "Kim Kardashian nude" to see the pix, and she looks very
fetching, IMO.

Of course, I am not vexed by seeing her in almost any other context. The
occasional magazine cover in the supermarket checkout line.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <4n45a8tjipkdchacd...@4ax.com>,

Yeah, but then you'd think that's what they'd be pushing ... SEE CLAUDIA
JENNINGS or something.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <fti5a89mal7un175a...@4ax.com>,

Airbrushed into unrecognizability. At one point she was squeezing
photos of herself vertically to try to look less bovine but sticking her
arms out the wrong way so they looked like midget limbs.

In video she's covered with rancid blubber, like flesh colored cottage
cheese.

>
> Of course, I am not vexed by seeing her in almost any other context. The
> occasional magazine cover in the supermarket checkout line.

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:29:43 -0700:

Fair point. Overall, I think that the Playboy audience has shifted in
both directions. The more normal types are reading the likes of Maxim
while the lonely pr0n addicts continue to buy lotion while they get
their fix online.

Back in the day, I remember wishing that Playboy would come out with a
PG-rated version of the magazine, with the stories and the interviews
and the articles about fashion and movies and cool toys and whatnot, but
without the skin. Basically, a Maxim type of thing, but maybe a bit less
immature. I would have subscribed in a heartbeat, as I really did enjoy
the mix of stuff that they covered, but I was also in no hurry to be
caught reading the magazine, given the rest of the picture, so to speak.
Which is why I was never a subscriber.

And all of which makes me wish (for about the 18,243rd time) that Omni
Magazine would see a rebirth...

[Mason Barge]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:42:45 -0600, Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid>

I can remember when Esquire was a fantastic magazine, back when it came in
the large format. They did the light stuff, they did fashion, they did
the scantily-clad girls, but they also had a really good literary heritage
and would run great fiction and nonfiction articles. I remember John
Updike was a big contributor. Plus, they had great covers.

http://www.esquire.com/cover-detail?year=1969&month=10#img
http://www.esquire.com/cover-detail?year=1969&month=4#img

Then they dropped it down to the current size and got a PC editorial
staff, basically turning into a men's magazine for women. And, at the
same time, abandoned the field of the serious article and short story to
the New Yorker.

[Mason Barge]

You make that sound like a bad thing.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <l7pfa8lpoghkuv9vn...@4ax.com>,

If I were going to make my own Britt Ekland, she certainly wouldn't be a
brunette!

She'd also have the tush of her stunt double from Wicker Man ...

[Michael Black]

On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Jim G. wrote:


> Back in the day, I remember wishing that Playboy would come out with a
> PG-rated version of the magazine, with the stories and the interviews
> and the articles about fashion and movies and cool toys and whatnot, but
> without the skin. Basically, a Maxim type of thing, but maybe a bit less
> immature. I would have subscribed in a heartbeat, as I really did enjoy
> the mix of stuff that they covered, but I was also in no hurry to be
> caught reading the magazine, given the rest of the picture, so to speak.
> Which is why I was never a subscriber.
>

I bought a used copy of Playboy from 1976 last month, for a specific
interview. It's interesting how light the nudity is. It's there, but not
all that explicit (of course I realize back then it was a different
reference point). It was almost a disappointment.

I'd much rather see the nudity than the Maxim type "they're naked but it's
legit since you don't see anything". Maxim and those types have
legitimized something yet without the actual nudity. There's a lot like
that going on, "new burlesque" and things like "suicide girls" and
"Nerve", all claiming to be different yet I'm not so sure. Once you get
to a certain level of commercial success, I'm not sure anything but money
really drives it.

And looking at that 1976 issue of Playboy, it's an odd thing. The whole
"Playboy Philosophy", the right liquor, the right stereo system, get those
gadgets. It's not that different today, yet the whole tone is different.
On one hand from this distance it's intriguing, yet it's also just another
form of "follow this and you'll be cool".

Michael

[Adam H. Kerman]

Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

>I bought a used copy of Playboy from 1976 last month, for a specific
>interview. It's interesting how light the nudity is. It's there, but not
>all that explicit (of course I realize back then it was a different
>reference point). It was almost a disappointment.

'70's eroticism can be hotter than pr0n. When an issue during that era
was good (they weren't always), there was a certain ease about the nudity
and the women seemed less posed. It was pretty and natural and, gosh,
even pure at times, which made it wonderful. Playboy was rather different
in the '80's, oddly around the time they went to perfect binding (losing
the staple through the navel).

I guess it depends on what you grew up with. Kids today have no idea that
girls grow any pubic hair; shudder. I suppose girls today have no idea
that boys didn't used to wax their chests.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Nov 17, 6:40 pm, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> And looking at that 1976 issue of Playboy, it's an odd thing.  The whole
> "Playboy Philosophy", the right liquor, the right stereo system, get those
> gadgets.  It's not that different today, yet the whole tone is different.
> On one hand from this distance it's intriguing, yet it's also just another
> form of "follow this and you'll be cool".

Per their memoirs, on the Brady Bunch, when Barry Williams turned 18
he got his own dressing room and was able to decorate it in "bachelor
pad" style. He following the Playboy recipe and style of the time--
shag carpet, massive stereo, etc. How effective that was is tough to
say, he never could land Maureen, although meddling parents and
producers didn't help matters.

Williams also said the two middle kids (Plumb and Knight) went out
parking in a fancy van, but the cops intervened.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,

Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Jim G. wrote:
>
>
> > Back in the day, I remember wishing that Playboy would come out with a
> > PG-rated version of the magazine, with the stories and the interviews
> > and the articles about fashion and movies and cool toys and whatnot, but
> > without the skin. Basically, a Maxim type of thing, but maybe a bit less
> > immature. I would have subscribed in a heartbeat, as I really did enjoy
> > the mix of stuff that they covered, but I was also in no hurry to be
> > caught reading the magazine, given the rest of the picture, so to speak.
> > Which is why I was never a subscriber.
> >
> I bought a used copy of Playboy from 1976 last month, for a specific

What month?

> interview. It's interesting how light the nudity is. It's there, but not
> all that explicit (of course I realize back then it was a different
> reference point). It was almost a disappointment.
>
> I'd much rather see the nudity than the Maxim type "they're naked but it's
> legit since you don't see anything". Maxim and those types have
> legitimized something yet without the actual nudity. There's a lot like

Yvonne Strahotski is doing that this season on Dexter, and it's
annoying. Either get nekkid or don't bother us with the sex scenes.

To compensate, they go to a strip club a lot.

> that going on, "new burlesque" and things like "suicide girls" and
> "Nerve", all claiming to be different yet I'm not so sure. Once you get
> to a certain level of commercial success, I'm not sure anything but money
> really drives it.
>
> And looking at that 1976 issue of Playboy, it's an odd thing. The whole
> "Playboy Philosophy", the right liquor, the right stereo system, get those
> gadgets. It's not that different today, yet the whole tone is different.
> On one hand from this distance it's intriguing, yet it's also just another
> form of "follow this and you'll be cool".
>
> Michael

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

>>interview. It's interesting how light the nudity is. It's there, but not
>>all that explicit (of course I realize back then it was a different
>>reference point). It was almost a disappointment.

>>I'd much rather see the nudity than the Maxim type "they're naked but it's
>>legit since you don't see anything". Maxim and those types have
>>legitimized something yet without the actual nudity. There's a lot like

>Yvonne Strahotski is doing that this season on Dexter, and it's
>annoying. Either get nekkid or don't bother us with the sex scenes.

Some Yvonne is better than no Yvonne.

>To compensate, they go to a strip club a lot.

It really doesn't.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <k89pkh$fic$1...@news.albasani.net>,

At least we actually got the main girl nekkid this last ep and not just
the extras ...

[Obveeus]

"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> >

>> I bought a used copy of Playboy from 1976 last month, for a specific

>> interview.

> What month?

January: Elton John
February: James Kaan
March: Norman Lear
April: Jerry Brown
May: Abbie Hoffman
June: Sara Jane Moore
July: Karl Hess
August: Robert Altman
September: David Bowie
October: Roone Arledge
November: Jimmy Carter
December: O.J. Simpson

I had to look up Sara Jane Moore (should have known since she had a middle
name) and Roone Arledge as I had no recollection of who they were.

[Michael Black]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Obveeus wrote:

>
> "anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>> I bought a used copy of Playboy from 1976 last month, for a specific
>>> interview.
>
>> What month?
>
> January: Elton John

Musician
> February: James Kaan
Isn't that James Cann, the famous actor? He wa at the time.
> March: Norman Lear
TV producer
> April: Jerry Brown
governor of California, about the time he was seeing Linda Ronstadt
> May: Abbie Hoffman
That was it, he was underground at the time, and when the issue came
out, or shortly afterwards, he was hiding out here in Montreal.
Seeing the issue caused him to freak out.
> June: Sara Jane Moore
Tried to kill Gerald Ford?
> July: Karl Hess
Speechwriter for a Republican, I think GOldwater, then became a
liberterian
> August: Robert Altman
movie producer/director, was it "Nashville" that year/
> September: David Bowie
musician
> October: Roone Arledge
a big name in TV newscasts
> November: Jimmy Carter
Got elected president of the US that year, so maybe this was the
interview where he said he'd lusted in his heart?
> December: O.J. Simpson
some former football player, then movie star, I guess Cassandra
Crossing was his recent film at the time, "Capricorn One" didn't
appear until 1978.

[anim8rFSK]

In article <k8avhq$6bs$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

I had to think about SJM but came up with 'presidential assassin'
without cheating, but I admit that I'm blank on "James Kaan" :)

[anim8rFSK]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Obveeus wrote:
>
> >
> > "anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>> I bought a used copy of Playboy from 1976 last month, for a specific
> >>> interview.
> >
> >> What month?
> >
> > January: Elton John
> Musician
> > February: James Kaan
> Isn't that James Cann, the famous actor? He wa at the time.
> > March: Norman Lear
> TV producer
> > April: Jerry Brown
> governor of California, about the time he was seeing Linda Ronstadt
> > May: Abbie Hoffman
> That was it

LOL, so, I googled to see what all was in it, and my first hit was a
downloadable PDF of the issue. Turned out to be truncated though; just
the visual stuff, art and photos, no 'text only' pages. So it's got
probably my second least favorite Playmate, and Barbara Parkins who I
should love but have inexplicably always found unappealing, and Suze
Randall, who never did anything for me, and a BUNCH of B Kliban
cartoons, and a Gahan Wilson ... I don't even like the cover. Looks
like next to the cartoons the interview is the best thing in it. Oh
well ...

[Professor Bubba]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Obveeus wrote:

> > November: Jimmy Carter
> Got elected president of the US that year, so maybe this was the
> interview where he said he'd lusted in his heart?

Yes.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Lousy cover? There were issues of Playboy with mediocre pictorials with
fantastic covers, because they made the cover from an unrelated photo
shoot. That extremely famous picture of the model in the exercize suit
that if she moved at all would have exposed everything was a fantastic
cover on a mediocre issue.

I'm spacing out on who the model was.

Highly erotic photography need not be explicit. On the other hand, actual
pr0n can still be lit well with excellent color saturation of the model's
skin. It depends on the photographer.

Another thing about the 1970's: No photoshop. Yeah, they had airbrushing
and printing tricks to change the model's figure and skin color, but it
didn't seem like there was the same constant touching up like today.
If I notice the photoshopping, it's probably made the image worse than
not touching it up at all.

[Professor Bubba]

In article <anim8rfsk-17829...@news.easynews.com>,

anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Obveeus wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>> I bought a used copy of Playboy from 1976 last month, for a specific
> > >>> interview.
> > >
> > >> What month?
> > >
> > > January: Elton John
> > Musician
> > > February: James Kaan
> > Isn't that James Cann, the famous actor? He wa at the time.
> > > March: Norman Lear
> > TV producer
> > > April: Jerry Brown
> > governor of California, about the time he was seeing Linda Ronstadt
> > > May: Abbie Hoffman
> > That was it
>
> LOL, so, I googled to see what all was in it, and my first hit was a
> downloadable PDF of the issue. Turned out to be truncated though; just
> the visual stuff, art and photos, no 'text only' pages. So it's got
> probably my second least favorite Playmate

Sure plays a mean pinball, though.

[William December Starr]

In article <jp3da896u3bk54jko...@4ax.com>,

Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> said:

> Back in the day, I remember wishing that Playboy would come out
> with a PG-rated version of the magazine, with the stories and the
> interviews and the articles about fashion and movies and cool toys
> and whatnot, but without the skin.

Well they _do_ put out a Braille edition. :-)

(Or at least they used to; I've no idea if it's still produced.)

-- wds

[Professor Bubba]

In article <k8blj1$dcu$1...@panix2.panix.com>, William December Starr

It is. Interesting blog post here:

<http://blog.archive.org/2011/08/17/scanning-a-braille-playboy/>

They only feel it for the cartoons.

[Obveeus]

"Michael Black" <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Nov 2012, Obveeus wrote:
>
>>
>> "anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> I bought a used copy of Playboy from 1976 last month, for a specific
>>>> interview.
>>
>>> What month?
>>
>> January: Elton John
> Musician
>> February: James Kaan
> Isn't that James Cann, the famous actor? He wa at the time.

How about we split the difference and spell his name accurately as James
Caan?

[Mason Barge]

I got close. I had her as a Manson family member.

Roone Arledge - that must be a matter of age. Wide World of Sports was a
huge breakthrough at the time, although it's almost forgotten now.

[Obveeus]

All I remember of it was that 'agony of defeat' skier wiping out just before
going off the jump. Nothing like making your career off of other people's
suffering.

[Michael Black]

So I was kind of off, unless "sports" falls under "news". But I seem to
recall there's an award or something named after him, I know I've come
across his name in recent years.

The only part of Wide World of Sports that I watched was the opening
sequence, but that was interesting.

Michael

[Michael Black]

Was it on ABC? I can't remember, but if so, it might explain "America's
Funniest Home Videos".

Michael

[Obveeus]

"Michael Black" <et...@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org...

Yes, it was this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKEDD1i4oGk

Used by ABC Wide World Of Sports to promote their show for a decade or more
like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7eN7RKJgyo


> Michael
>

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Nov 18, 2:58 pm, "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> Another thing about the 1970's: No photoshop. Yeah, they had airbrushing
> and printing tricks to change the model's figure and skin color, but it
> didn't seem like there was the same constant touching up like today.
> If I notice the photoshopping, it's probably made the image worse than

> not touching it up at all.-

Before the shoot, professional staff could fix a multitude of
'defects' using lighting angles and diffusion, filters, and makeup.
Likewise, professional staff working with medium format negatives
could do a lot with printing tricks and air-brushing. The big thing
about Photoshop is that it's easier and faster to do those things
today.

Some of the Kodak professional guidebooks from that era touch on those
techniques. Kodak professional films were designed for retouching.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Nov 19, 10:36 am, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> > Roone Arledge - that must be a matter of age. Wide World of Sports was a
> > huge breakthrough at the time, although it's almost forgotten now.
>
> So I was kind of off, unless "sports" falls under "news".  But I seem to
> recall there's an award or something named after him, I know I've come
> across his name in recent years.

Returning to television, sort of, there was just an article in the
paper that sports channels represent a big chunk of one's cable TV
bill, whether one is interested in sports or not. Sports are big
business.

This isn't anything new; CBS commentator Eric Severaid wrote about big
sports and its bad influence on college education in the late 1940s.

[Professor Bubba]

In article <alpine.LNX.2.02.1...@darkstar.example.org>,
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

Roone Arledge was president of ABC News from 1977 to 1998 and was
president of ABC Sports from 1968 to 1986, so he was actually head of
both for a while. He died in 2002.

[Jim G.]

Mason Barge sent the following on Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:36:32 -0500:

> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 14:42:45 -0600, Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> >

> >Back in the day, I remember wishing that Playboy would come out with a
> >PG-rated version of the magazine, with the stories and the interviews
> >and the articles about fashion and movies and cool toys and whatnot, but

> >without the skin. Basically, a Maxim type of thing, but maybe a bit less
> >immature. I would have subscribed in a heartbeat, as I really did enjoy
> >the mix of stuff that they covered, but I was also in no hurry to be
> >caught reading the magazine, given the rest of the picture, so to speak.
> >Which is why I was never a subscriber.
> >

> >And all of which makes me wish (for about the 18,243rd time) that Omni
> >Magazine would see a rebirth...
>
> I can remember when Esquire was a fantastic magazine, back when it came in
> the large format. They did the light stuff, they did fashion, they did
> the scantily-clad girls, but they also had a really good literary heritage
> and would run great fiction and nonfiction articles. I remember John
> Updike was a big contributor. Plus, they had great covers.
>
> http://www.esquire.com/cover-detail?year=1969&month=10#img
> http://www.esquire.com/cover-detail?year=1969&month=4#img
>

> Then they dropped it down to the current size and got a PC editorial
> staff, basically turning into a men's magazine for women. And, at the
> same time, abandoned the field of the serious article and short story to
> the New Yorker.

GQ has gone through a similar downward spiral, IMO. Unfortunately, pubs
like The New Yorker and The Atlantic don't cover *everything* that these
others used to cover in their heydays. (Although The Atlantic's annual
short fiction issue is maybe the only thing I'll buy at a newsstand
anymore.)

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"I'm really ready for this day to be over." -- Duke Crocker, HAVEN

[Jim G.]

Michael Black sent the following on Sat, 17 Nov 2012 18:43:22 -0500:

> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Jim G. wrote:
>
>
> > Back in the day, I remember wishing that Playboy would come out with a
> > PG-rated version of the magazine, with the stories and the interviews
> > and the articles about fashion and movies and cool toys and whatnot, but
> > without the skin. Basically, a Maxim type of thing, but maybe a bit less
> > immature. I would have subscribed in a heartbeat, as I really did enjoy
> > the mix of stuff that they covered, but I was also in no hurry to be
> > caught reading the magazine, given the rest of the picture, so to speak.
> > Which is why I was never a subscriber.
> >
> I bought a used copy of Playboy from 1976 last month, for a specific
> interview. It's interesting how light the nudity is.

But it shouldn't be surprising to anyone familiar with slippery slopes.
Or to anyone familiar with the mindset that thinks that if some of
something is good, then *more* is gonna be better.

> It's there, but not
> all that explicit (of course I realize back then it was a different
> reference point). It was almost a disappointment.

Yeah, it was mostly boobs and a flash (if that) of shrubbery in those
days. Certainly not a "spread 'em if you've got 'em" time.

> I'd much rather see the nudity than the Maxim type "they're naked but it's
> legit since you don't see anything". Maxim and those types have
> legitimized something yet without the actual nudity. There's a lot like
> that going on, "new burlesque" and things like "suicide girls" and
> "Nerve", all claiming to be different yet I'm not so sure. Once you get
> to a certain level of commercial success, I'm not sure anything but money
> really drives it.

Often (and not just in the magazine field), you reach a certain level of
success and then get bought out, with the new owners putting much more
of an emphasis on the money side of the equation.

> And looking at that 1976 issue of Playboy, it's an odd thing. The whole
> "Playboy Philosophy", the right liquor, the right stereo system, get those
> gadgets. It's not that different today, yet the whole tone is different.
> On one hand from this distance it's intriguing, yet it's also just another
> form of "follow this and you'll be cool".

My own sense is that guys used to appreciate these finer things for
their own sake (indicating a degree of coolness), whereas now, as you
suggest, it's more a case of wanting to impress others (indicating a
degree of insecurity).

[Obveeus]

"anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <k8avhq$6bs$1...@dont-email.me>, "Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "anim8rFSK" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> I bought a used copy of Playboy from 1976 last month, for a specific
>> >> interview.
>>
>> > What month?

>> June: Sara Jane Moore

>> I had to look up Sara Jane Moore (should have known since she had a
>> middle
>> name) and Roone Arledge as I had no recollection of who they were.
>
> I had to think about SJM but came up with 'presidential assassin'
> without cheating, but I admit that I'm blank on "James Kaan" :)

In other Playboy related TV news, Scott Speedman (second in command on LAST
RESORT) is listed as being next month's 20 Questions interview. It seems
that his show didn't even last as long as the lag time to get an issue of
Playboy to print.
Side note: this month's 20 Questions is with Padma Lakshmi (TOP CHEF
judge).

[Obveeus]

"Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Michael Black sent the following on Sat, 17 Nov 2012 18:43:22 -0500:

>> And looking at that 1976 issue of Playboy, it's an odd thing. The whole
>> "Playboy Philosophy", the right liquor, the right stereo system, get
>> those
>> gadgets. It's not that different today, yet the whole tone is different.
>> On one hand from this distance it's intriguing, yet it's also just
>> another
>> form of "follow this and you'll be cool".
>
> My own sense is that guys used to appreciate these finer things for
> their own sake (indicating a degree of coolness), whereas now, as you
> suggest, it's more a case of wanting to impress others (indicating a
> degree of insecurity).

Hence the reason people purchase THE ROBB REPORT...the only magazine I've
seen with advertising for people that want to buy their own helicopter.

[Michael Black]

Andre Burgher was on of the morning talk shows last week, I think doing
some Thanksgiving cooking. I suspect he knew the gig was up at that point
(I can't remember which day) but of course his appearance was probably
scheduled weeks back.

Michael

[Mason Barge]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2012 15:06:10 -0600, Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid>

Yeah, tv did away with the short story almost completely.

[Mason Barge]

Wow. A noticeable drop in quality compared to the original list.

[Obveeus]

20 Questions is not the same as the Interview. This month's Interview is
Quentin Tarantino. Last month was Stephen Colbert.

[Jim G.]

Mason Barge sent the following on Wed, 21 Nov 2012 14:49:52 -0500:

Along with the old radio shows, which I would love to see go through a
revival. I have a bunch of radio episodes of The Shadow on my iPod and
love to kick back in my comfy chair, close my eyes, listen to a story
and let my own mind provide the visuals. I keep meaning to add more "old
time radio" stuff to my collection, but then I get sidetracked again.
Oh, look! A squirrel!

[Jim G.]

Obveeus sent the following on Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:20:09 -0500:

When it comes to separating the decent people from the riffraff, the
ability to use your Amex card to buy a chopper is as good a method as
any.

[Jim G.]

William December Starr sent the following on 18 Nov 2012 16:56:49 -0500:

In a lot of ways, that would seem to be right up there with having
Braille at ATM drive-thrus and the like. But at least with Playboy, no
one would think that you were lying when you said that you were only
reading it for the articles. :)

[William December Starr]

In article <l1h7b8du231o3lci0...@4ax.com>,

Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> said:

> In a lot of ways, that would seem to be right up there with having
> Braille at ATM drive-thrus and the like. But at least with
> Playboy, no one would think that you were lying when you said that
> you were only reading it for the articles. :)

Seriously, I believe that the ATM manufacturers decided that it was
cheaper to just make every machine (of a given model) identical than
to keep track of whether or not to slap a Braille-instructions plate
onto each individual one.

(Also, I suspect that you occasionally get sight-impaired people
who hire a taxi to drive them around, and possibly end up using
drive-thru ATM from the back seat.)

-- wds

[anim8rFSK]

In article <k9bntk$jm0$1...@panix2.panix.com>,

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/946/why-is-there-braille-on-driv
e-up-teller-machines

--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:31:44 -0700:

Yeah, I hadn't considered the .000000000000001% of ATM users who arrive
via cab. I was thinking of a blind person out with a friend and having
to climb into the back seat so that he can climb across and access the
machine from the back seat.

And props to the straightdope people for (as far as I can tell from
brief a scan of the article) avoiding the whole "ATM machine" problem.
The Department of Redundancy Department would be proud. :)

[anim8rFSK]

In article <lv6qb851abs6ia04b...@4ax.com>,

Our local fish place, which only takes cash, just put in their own ATM...

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on Mon, 03 Dec 2012 19:26:10 -0700:

A fish place? So the machine only dispenses sea notes?

Yeah, yeah. I'm here all week, try the veal, tip your waitress, and all
that. :)

[anim8rFSK]

In article <nlvub8p264el0raie...@4ax.com>,

snicker!

I can't imagine trying to break a sea note at
http://www.petesfishandchips.com
unless you were trying to buy, you know, 60 monster burgers or something.