Boy Meets Boy Poll
Dennis Lewis
>
>Tomorrow the straight mate is revealed.
>
>My predictions:
>
>James picks: Wes
>Straight guy: Brian
>
>My favorite all along has been Franklin, hands down.
I sat through Bravo's marathon recap this afternoon of episodes to
date, and I noticed some interesting dialogue in the early episodes
concerning the final three.
First, and probably the most inconsequential, on the day "the mates"
went out to the ghost town to learn dirty line dancing, there was a
scene of Wes and Robb at a bedroom closet. Wes pulled a black
western-style shirt with white trim out of the closet, held it up in
front of him and drawled, "Hi there, I'm Tex." Robb, passing by,
interjected "Yes you are." Wes: "And I'm a heterosexual." Robb: "Yes
you are."
Second, I was mistaken about Brian being the one who got Dan to press
his buns against the shower door -- it was Robb, though Brian
certainly appeared to be enjoying the show.
Then there was a scene of Robb, Brian and Wes in their respective bunk
beds, chatting after lights out. Wes asked Brian if he has a crush on
Dan. "I'll admit now that I have a crush on Dan," Brian replies. Robb:
"This is scandalous. I love it!" Brian: "I have two guys that I like a
lot," referring to Dan and James.
In the next episode, "the mates" learn that Michael isn't 100% gay.
Michael asks Wes: "You only date men?" Wes replies in a joking manner:
"No, her name was Susan. She was great -- she had huge tits." Michael
tells the group he's attracted to both sexes. Robb: "Wow!" Michael: "I
just recognize beauty in both sexes." Brian: "I'm just going to
basically say we (referring to everyone else in the group) are all
gay."
(Incidentally, in this week's National Enquirer there's an interview
with Michael -- which I read only because the checkout line at Food
Lion was rather long -- in which Michael said he initially went along
with the deception but began to feel guilty about misleading James.)
Later "the mates" bring up the subject of which one is the most
feminine or most masculine. Michael says he and Franklin are the most
masculine. Brian: "I've seen Franklin nelly out quite a few times
around the pool -- I've never seen Sean do that." (Sean subsequently
was eliminated, and we learned that he was straight, remember.)
One episode showed Franklin expressing extreme shock or disbelief when
he saw a kiss between James and Darren. Later, Franklin told the
camera: "When I see Darren and James kiss, a little bit of jealousy
went through my mind because they must have had a fantastic
one-on-one."
There's also a poignant interaction between James and Andra, which
didn't leave much of an impression when I saw the episode but which
has taken on new significance in light of Andra's blow-up in last
week's episode. This exchange, remember, takes place before James
learns one of "the mates" is straight. His sole concern is finding
someone with whom he's compatible.
James tells Andra: "A part of me is welling up with fear. What if,
after all is said and done, I pick somebody who is playing a game?
What if I make a horribly, horribly wrong choice? I don't know what
that would do to me emotionally. I really hope that my faith in the
goodness of people wins out."
Andra replies: "I would bet everything I've got that you can trust
every single one of them."
And finally, after watching the recap of all five episodes
sequentially, I've come to the conclusion that Robb would have been
the best choice for James.
nospa...@nospampanix.com
Dennis Lewis <d...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>(Incidentally, in this week's National Enquirer there's an interview
>with Michael -- which I read only because the checkout line at Food
>Lion was rather long -- in which Michael said he initially went along
>with the deception but began to feel guilty about misleading James.)
That goes along with Michael's parting comment about James making
the right decision because of what might have happened. Nice to
see someone with a conscience, albeit perhaps a bit belated. I
wonder how much the other straight guys really thought it through.
The amazing thing is that Franklin and Wes were both sensitive
enough people to choke up at the parting notes from Sean and Robb
- how could either of them be coldhearted enough to manipulate
James's feelings like that? I suppose that points to Brian - but
would he then be bold enough to be hosting a viewing party at the
WeHo bar where he works tomorrow night? Would he be _proud_ of what
he did on this program?
I guess I just can't get myself into the head of whoever the straight
guy is (much less the producers); not because of his orientation,
but because of his sociopathology.
Hell, maybe they're fooling us and they're all gay after all. That'd
be a twist...
>And finally, after watching the recap of all five episodes
>sequentially, I've come to the conclusion that Robb would have been
>the best choice for James.
Matt - the only one who explicitly put James's well-being ahead of
his own position in the 'game'. I gather that the reason he wasn't
really that enthusiastic about the whole thing is that he suffered
a death in his family only a few weeks earlier.
Clay Colwell
> Matt - the only one who explicitly put James's well-being ahead of
> his own position in the 'game'. I gather that the reason he wasn't
> really that enthusiastic about the whole thing is that he suffered
> a death in his family only a few weeks earlier.
Well, Marc also was upfront about there not being a mutual "spark"
between him and James, and he also expressed hope that James find
someone to suit him.
PAH
Dennis Lewis
>
>...I hope James picks a gay guy... but I hope the gay guy he
>picks isn't Wes.
I've finally realized that James really*is* a sweet, sincere
individual who's yet to become jaded by the gay dating scene -- who
still believes that one day his prince will come and all dogs go to
heaven. Honestly, if I was 10 years younger and he was 5 inches
shorter, I'd call up Andra and offer to take him out.
David W. Fenton
<3f53ca16...@news.1stconnect.com>:
>Tomorrow the straight mate is revealed.
>
>My predictions:
>
>James picks: Wes
>Straight guy: Brian
>
>My favorite all along has been Franklin, hands down.
>
>Anyone else?
I've only watched on episode, the very last one, and got major gay
vibes from all three of them.
However, I got less of a vibe from Franklin.
I got major vibes from Brian, but that may be because I think he's
way cute.
Wes is a psycho killer and seems majorly fucked up to me. He
appeared to me to be manipulative and scheming and not at all
upfront and honest.
If I were James I'd choose Brain and think that Wes was the
straight one.
But I expect James to choose Franklin.
And given that it's *my* gaydar involved, I'm sure that me having
the hots for Brian is the kiss of death, and that he's straight as
the day is long.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Michael Sarris
> Tomorrow the straight mate is revealed.
>
> My predictions:
>
> James picks: Wes
> Straight guy: Brian
>
> My favorite all along has been Franklin, hands down.
>
> Anyone else?
James picks: Wes
Straight guy : Wes
You can analyze what we've been shown on the show, but it
won't provide an answer. It's been too carefully edited,
showing just enough to provide evidence and suspicion
for each of the guys.
So I thought about it from the other direction : how
will it end? What do the creators of this show want
to accomplish?
I think what the producers want more than anything is to
shock and surprise the audience, and to drive home their
pet message that you just can't tell the difference.
If the straight guy is Franklin, no one will be terribly
surprised. "He's the most masculine" we've been told.
That's too easy. It's not a challenge to the audience.
So he's out (so to speak).
If the straight guy is Brian, no one will be awake. Brian
comes across as the most boring of the three (and I don't
mean to be disrespectful to him, but the camera just doesn't
love him in the same way that it does some of the more
magnetic personalities). While the producers would get
message points for having someone fly under the radar,
boring is not challenging.
If the straight guy is Wes, people will be talking about
it. "I thought he was totally gay." "No way." "He's gotta
be at least bi." "He's gay and he doesn't know it yet." Etc.
Stereotypes are demolished and everyone goes home with new
appreciation for what it means to be straight or gay.
That's what they want. And I'm sure that seeding the groups
with straight guys was not the only trick -- if I wanted
to send The Message, I'd look for straight-appearing gay
guys and straight guys who could act convincingly gay.
Would they even want to include someone who was obviously
gay and a good match for James?
Hopefully, if it is Wes, then James will pick Franklin or
Brian. I "feel" like James will pick Wes, but I don't trust
that feeling because I don't trust what I've seen. I also
hope that if James picks the straight guy that they'll have
the decency and sense to give him his prizes anyway. Not that
it makes it all better, but the alternative is just too
awful to contemplate.
So, Wes. Not because I'm listening to my gaydar, but it's
what I'd do if I wanted to make Must See Teevee.
Michael, who hopes he's wrong and will be glad when it's over
--
Michael Sarris -- mund...@hotmail.com
"Whatever happened to fair dealing?
And pure ethics? And nice manners?
Why is it everyone now is a pain in the ass?
Whatever happened to class?"
-- Chicago, "Class"
Michael Sarris
> Stace (st...@no.spam.com) wrote in
> <3f53ca16...@news.1stconnect.com>:
>
>
>>Tomorrow the straight mate is revealed.
>>
>>My predictions:
>>
>>James picks: Wes
>>Straight guy: Brian
>>
>>My favorite all along has been Franklin, hands down.
>>
>>Anyone else?
>
>
> I've only watched on episode, the very last one, and got major gay
> vibes from all three of them.
>
> However, I got less of a vibe from Franklin.
>
> I got major vibes from Brian, but that may be because I think he's
> way cute.
>
> Wes is a psycho killer and seems majorly fucked up to me. He
> appeared to me to be manipulative and scheming and not at all
> upfront and honest.
>
> If I were James I'd choose Brain
Are you pondering what I'm pondering?
Michael, I think so Brain, but this time you wear the tutu
--
Michael Sarris -- mund...@hotmail.com
"Schubert broke my brain to start with"
-- Rufus Wainwright, "Imaginary Love"
Kevin Michael Vail
Michael Sarris <mund...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> So, Wes. Not because I'm listening to my gaydar, but it's
> what I'd do if I wanted to make Must See Teevee.
Yes, but that *hair*.
--
Kevin Michael Vail | Dogbert: That's circular reasoning.
ke...@vaildc.net | Dilbert: I prefer to think of it as no loose ends.
http://www.vaildc.net/kevin/
Kevin Michael Vail
> James picks: Wes
> Straight guy : Wes
Well, it looks like Franklin is the straight guy.
Now for the finale...
Brian Kane
>David Fenton:
>>If I were James I'd choose Brain
>
>Are you pondering what I'm pondering?
>
>Michael, I think so Brain, but this time you wear the tutu
You'd be surprised how often Brians get spelled "Brain."
Astro- "and it doesn't help when the last name rhymes" -boy
--
Brian Kane (Washington, DC) | Sad-eyed baby I'm not that kind of girl
astroplace.com/brian.asp | When the dice stop rolling, there's no
>bri...@SPAMastroplace.com<| more to the game :::: Stephin Merritt
Brian Kane
>PS: Anyone who combs their hair like a Gerber baby is an idiot.
The Tin Tin look is "way hot" now.
For what it's worth.
Edwin Smith
> Stace (st...@no.spam.com) wrote in
> <3f53ca16...@news.1stconnect.com>:
>
> >Tomorrow the straight mate is revealed.
> >
> >My predictions:
> >
> >James picks: Wes
> >Straight guy: Brian
> >
> >My favorite all along has been Franklin, hands down.
> >
> >Anyone else?
>
> I've only watched on episode, the very last one, and got major gay
> vibes from all three of them.
>
> However, I got less of a vibe from Franklin.
>
> I got major vibes from Brian, but that may be because I think he's
> way cute.
>
> Wes is a psycho killer and seems majorly fucked up to me. He
> appeared to me to be manipulative and scheming and not at all
> upfront and honest.
>
> If I were James I'd choose Brain and think that Wes was the
> straight one.
>
> But I expect James to choose Franklin.
>
> And given that it's *my* gaydar involved, I'm sure that me having
> the hots for Brian is the kiss of death, and that he's straight as
> the day is long.
That was my problem. I was smitten by Franklin and was heartbroken
when he turned out to be the straight one.
I have to say, though, I was totally disgusted when James got all
preachy with him saying, "Oh, I wish this is just about love." I mean,
give me a break! He's on television agreeing to make his life with one
of the pretty boys that the producers decide he should choose from?
Like he's not in this primarily for the attention?
Oh well.
Ed Smith
Michael Thomas
> In article <mL95b.205$fA1...@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com>,
> Michael Sarris <mund...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So, Wes. Not because I'm listening to my gaydar, but it's
> > what I'd do if I wanted to make Must See Teevee.
>
> Yes, but that *hair*.
One of the 16 and 1/2 Christophers I know -- yet another
hair hopper no less -- swears he will cut not one more of
these idiotic fauxhawks. They're out before they're in,
I'm afraid.
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
It's ironic: these old people are being kept alive by the
organs of the people they run over.
*Chief Wiggums* <-- Hi Alex!
David Kaye
> I sat through Bravo's marathon recap this afternoon of episodes to
> date, and I noticed some interesting dialogue in the early episodes
> concerning the final three.
I was visiting and the TV was on and for the first time I saw what
everyone seems to be talking about. My observations:
(1) I wouldn't walk across the street for *any* of them unless I could
rub some mud in their faces, douse their hairdos with a bucket of
water, and tear the buttons off their precious clothes. These guys
are walking Abercrombie ads, and that is *not* a good sign.
(2) The melodramatic ending was right out of a soap opera writer's wet
dream. Franklin (the straight one) goes on and on about how he wanted
to "break stereotypes" and show the world that everybody is just nice
as pie. Why can't we all just get along... (pardon me while I cough
up a fur ball).
(3) This "reality" show has come straight out of William Morris. If I
were a gambler I'd say that the show put out a cattle call for actors
who looked gay to play the parts of people in a reality show. I mean,
heck, I know that a lot of gay men have vacuous lives, but really,
nobody could be as vapid as what I saw on TV last night.
I'd think if this were *really* a reality show, the guys wouldn't have
been Pepsodent-pure and ready for those Abercrombie ads. And why
would Bravo want to take a risk and have a "reality" show where a
bunch of ordinary fags got together? And how is it that there just
*had* to be a straight guy in the final episode? Doesn't this smell
like a fix?
The Macho Milquetoast
news:3f53ca16...@news.1stconnect.com...
> Tomorrow the straight mate is revealed.
>
> My predictions:
>
> James picks: Wes
> Straight guy: Brian
>
> My favorite all along has been Franklin, hands down.
>
> Anyone else?
Yes, my favorite was Franklin. I picked Wes as the straight guy because he
seemed to try to hard to win James' affection. - Did you see how James swung
in his boxers? Wes is going to be a happy husband!
Also, when Andra learned of the twist I thought it was hilarious when she
took the "blame" for shoving the boys down James' throat. I thought - as if
I were him, "No, they're doing it voluntarily!" ;>)
James
Clay Colwell
> d...@sprynet.com (Dennis Lewis) wrote:
>
> > I sat through Bravo's marathon recap this afternoon of episodes to
> > date, and I noticed some interesting dialogue in the early episodes
> > concerning the final three.
>
> I was visiting and the TV was on and for the first time I saw what
> everyone seems to be talking about. My observations:
>
> (1) I wouldn't walk across the street for *any* of them unless I could
> rub some mud in their faces, douse their hairdos with a bucket of
> water, and tear the buttons off their precious clothes. These guys
> are walking Abercrombie ads, and that is *not* a good sign.
This particular bit of information is useless without context.
You do realize that there was an initial crop of 15, right? Trust
me on this: they were not all A&F ads.
> (2) The melodramatic ending was right out of a soap opera writer's wet
> dream. Franklin (the straight one) goes on and on about how he wanted
> to "break stereotypes" and show the world that everybody is just nice
> as pie. Why can't we all just get along... (pardon me while I cough
> up a fur ball).
I can't argue with you on that one. Such melodrama is the stuff
(and nonsense) of (Un)Reality TV.
> (3) This "reality" show has come straight out of William Morris. If I
> were a gambler I'd say that the show put out a cattle call for actors
> who looked gay to play the parts of people in a reality show. I mean,
> heck, I know that a lot of gay men have vacuous lives, but really,
> nobody could be as vapid as what I saw on TV last night.
>
> I'd think if this were *really* a reality show, the guys wouldn't have
> been Pepsodent-pure and ready for those Abercrombie ads.
Pray tell -- exactly which of the "reality shows" is remotely
close to a "reality" show? I think it's clear to most that
the Camera (and the producers) skews all.
> And why
> would Bravo want to take a risk and have a "reality" show where a
> bunch of ordinary fags got together? And how is it that there just
> *had* to be a straight guy in the final episode? Doesn't this smell
> like a fix?
Ummmmm, that's what the majority of folks have been saying about
this from nigh the beginning. How else can you have a Final Twist
without engineering such from the start?
Clay Colwell
> Kevin Michael Vail <ke...@vaildc.net> writes:
> > In article <mL95b.205$fA1...@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com>,
> > Michael Sarris <mund...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > So, Wes. Not because I'm listening to my gaydar, but it's
> > > what I'd do if I wanted to make Must See Teevee.
> >
> > Yes, but that *hair*.
>
> One of the 16 and 1/2 Christophers I know -- yet another
> hair hopper no less -- swears he will cut not one more of
> these idiotic fauxhawks. They're out before they're in,
> I'm afraid.
I just hope that Wes doesn't go swimming too often in New
Zealand; someone might mistake him for a shark and harpoon
the poor sod.
Clay Colwell
> st...@no.spam.com wrote:
> > Tomorrow the straight mate is revealed.
> >
> > My predictions:
> >
> > James picks: Wes
> > Straight guy: Brian
> >
> > My favorite all along has been Franklin, hands down.
> >
> > Anyone else?
>
> James picks: Wes
> Straight guy : Wes
>
> You can analyze what we've been shown on the show, but it
> won't provide an answer. It's been too carefully edited,
> showing just enough to provide evidence and suspicion
> for each of the guys.
Nanny nanny boo boo! I *told*ja the straight guy'd be
Franklin.
Now if only they'd kept the camera rolling when James
told Andra that Franklin was straight; I'd love to have
seen her storm off to tell him a thing or three.
By the way, was their last encounter not unlike a really
bad scene from an Ayn Rand novel? The dialogue -- so
stilted. Everyone so painfully proper. I confess that here
I was really hoping for a Jerry Springer moment with hair-
pulling and chair-tossing. (Naw, that would have been too
childish. But fun.)
> So I thought about it from the other direction : how
> will it end? What do the creators of this show want
> to accomplish?
They wanted to grab a gay audience to watch targetted
commercials and be Better Consumers.
> I think what the producers want more than anything is to
> shock and surprise the audience, and to drive home their
> pet message that you just can't tell the difference.
As I told you once before: you give them too much credit.
> If the straight guy is Franklin, no one will be terribly
> surprised. "He's the most masculine" we've been told.
> That's too easy. It's not a challenge to the audience.
> So he's out (so to speak).
Assuming your premise.
> If the straight guy is Brian, no one will be awake. Brian
> comes across as the most boring of the three (and I don't
> mean to be disrespectful to him, but the camera just doesn't
> love him in the same way that it does some of the more
> magnetic personalities). While the producers would get
> message points for having someone fly under the radar,
> boring is not challenging.
You say "boring", I say "endearing". Then again, I had
the hots for the dude, so I know I'm biased.
He did come off as a rather introverted individual, to be
sure, though.
> If the straight guy is Wes, people will be talking about
> it. "I thought he was totally gay." "No way." "He's gotta
> be at least bi." "He's gay and he doesn't know it yet." Etc.
> Stereotypes are demolished and everyone goes home with new
> appreciation for what it means to be straight or gay.
Well, yeah, but he was just so *gay*! (Heh heh heh.)
Actually, if he were the straight guy, the reaction would
not be shock and amazement about how You Can't Tell The Diff-
erence -- it would be shock and disgust at the playing of James.
Remember, they still tried to sell us on the notion that Twhoo
Wuv was involved here (which, I'll admit, I buy into).
> That's what they want. And I'm sure that seeding the groups
> with straight guys was not the only trick -- if I wanted
> to send The Message, I'd look for straight-appearing gay
> guys and straight guys who could act convincingly gay.
And one military guy, to be booted summarily. (I still boggle
over that one -- did the guy do it purposefully to sabotage his
military career?)
> Would they even want to include someone who was obviously
> gay and a good match for James?
Define "obviously gay". I thought that both Brian and Wes
made a great case for being "obviously gay", short of humping
each other in the dormitory.
> Hopefully, if it is Wes, then James will pick Franklin or
> Brian. I "feel" like James will pick Wes, but I don't trust
> that feeling because I don't trust what I've seen.
I don't think it's a matter of trusting, _per se_, as it is
a matter of realizing that editing has occurred, and how
that might color what perceptions the producers are trying to
invoke.
For my part, I had little doubt that Wes would be the one picked.
My doubt was that James would think that Brian was straight.
> I also
> hope that if James picks the straight guy that they'll have
> the decency and sense to give him his prizes anyway. Not that
> it makes it all better, but the alternative is just too
> awful to contemplate.
I disagree. Even if James had picked the straight guy, he could
have given him a few choice Fuck Yous, and then gone to one of the
two remaining guys and ask them out, outside of the show context.
> So, Wes. Not because I'm listening to my gaydar, but it's
> what I'd do if I wanted to make Must See Teevee.
But you should have factored the LCD effect, and the less-than-
brilliance involved in hamhanded emotional manipulation.
Nospa...@nospampanix.com
st...@nospam.com <Stace> wrote:
>
>Can't believe Bravo made it so easy to guess. Pairing him up with Sean
>was a no-brainer... I thought for sure that had to mean he wasn't the
>one!
>
I do wonder if the average viewer bothered with even that level
of analysis.
It was actually a mildly pleasant surprise to me that they didn't
try to spring a surprise ending - from a narrative standpoint, the
finish was the logical conclusion of the story that they had been
telling all along (via the editing): James meets Wes. Were the
'twist' not itself so cynical, one could refer to it as a post-cynical
romantic ending. And it would have been kind of pleasant melodrama
if everyone had been an actor including James and Andra. But these
were not 'characters'; they are real people (I got to meet James
and Andra briefly at the viewing party in WeHo last night: both
_very_ gracious, but understandably looking pretty tired). Of
course, the mere existence of the party, with many of the 'mates'
present (including three of the straight mates) was pretty much a
guarantee of a "happy ending."
As much as I admire the goal, quite successfully accomplished, of
showing a broad television audience the folly of holding to
stereotypes of gay and straight people, I still cannot easily
forgive the producers for setting J&A up like this -- even if J&A
have. I was actually rather shocked that the producers received
a fair bit of applause when they were introduced at the party. I
guess for many gay guys the 'message' of the show outweighs the
unethical and cruel way in which it was achieved.
>He didn't win any points in his little speech at the end either. And
>unlike another poster here, I was happy James told him what he thought
>about his choice to participate. Franklin didn't think up the show,
>but he agreed to do it, and he played it to the hilt to the last
>possible second. Pooh on him.
Indeed. His contrite speech was more about his own fears than
about any regret for working so hard to set James up for a deeply
hurtful moment. Yes, his situation was somewhat analogous to the
way that many gay people have to live in the closet; but unlike
gayfolk, he was only doing so in the pursuit of a big check, and
unlike gayfolk, he could have gotten out of the uncomfortable
situation at any time of his choosing. If he had had an attack of
inconvenient conscience at any time, he could have sabotaged his
chances by suddenly holding back on the attempts at flattery and
affection; if he guessed that James was aware of the twist, he
could simply have whispered, 'I'm so sorry; forgive me' to him on
their last date. But even on the last day, he was still hoping
that James would pick him, and damn the consequences.
I certainly hope that, for some time to come, Franklin hears the
words, "How can I trust anything you tell me?" from every new
prospective girlfriend he meets.
Ken Rudolph
> sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote in message news:<6b49c602.03090...@posting.google.com>...
>>And why
>>would Bravo want to take a risk and have a "reality" show where a
>>bunch of ordinary fags got together? And how is it that there just
>>*had* to be a straight guy in the final episode? Doesn't this smell
>>like a fix?
>
>
> Ummmmm, that's what the majority of folks have been saying about
> this from nigh the beginning. How else can you have a Final Twist
> without engineering such from the start?
But a "fix" implies that James was somehow complicit in the choosing
of one str8 guy. Yes, the producers manipulated the panel by
carefully grouping the prospective candidates into threes (and then
twos, when only two str8 guys remained). I wondered the first time
why they were doing it this way...then it became obvious when Sean
turned out to be str8 and paired with Franklin. From that point on
there was never a doubt in my mind that the str8 guy was Franklin.
The people who were hoping for some extra level of subtlety by the
producers were not taking into account the basic necessities of
reality tv from the point of view of the shows' creators.
I didn't go back and watch all the old episodes (once is more than
enough!); but I'd be surprised if in each one there wasn't a trio
comprised only of str8 guys, to assure the final melodrama.
--Ken Rudolph
Robert S. Coren
Pardon my ignorance, but what's half a Christopher?
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"If you're efficient, you can do an entire room in two minutes."
--Leith Chu
Chris Ambidge
>>Are you pondering what I'm pondering?
>>
>>Michael, I think so Brain, but this time you wear the tutu
[astorboy]
>You'd be surprised how often Brians get spelled "Brain."
>
>Astro- "and it doesn't help when the last name rhymes" -boy
brain, chirs, ambdige -- have keyboard, will fubble
manly panda
wondering if mikey will get jealous of astroboy in the tutu
Lee Rudolph
>In article <v73cfeb...@fasolt.mtcc.com>,
>Michael Thomas <mi...@mtcc.com> wrote:
>>
>> One of the 16 and 1/2 Christophers I know
>
>Pardon my ignorance, but what's half a Christopher?
Twenty-five dollars, same as in town.
Lee Rudolph
Timothy Dransfield
> I didn't go back and watch all the old episodes (once is more than
> enough!); but I'd be surprised if in each one there wasn't a trio
> comprised only of str8 guys, to assure the final melodrama.
I picked up on "the fix" when they first made their groups of 4, and it's
definitely been true every week - there's one group of 4 straights, then 3 the
next week, then Sean and Franklin last week. Coupled with the fact that James
*clearly* wanted to eliminate Dan the first week, but somehow changed his mind
off camera, I think it was pretty obvious that the producers got exactly the
results they were looking for.
Mind you, James did a really good job of "picking" the straight guys out of the
groups where he actually had a choice. Which is good, or the end could have
been disastrous.
TJD
nospa...@nospampanix.com
st...@nospam.com <Stace> wrote:
>>Of
>>course, the mere existence of the party, with many of the 'mates'
>>present (including three of the straight mates) was pretty much a
>>guarantee of a "happy ending."
>
>Where *is* the WeHo (like in relation to Rage)... is it on SM Blvd?
Not 'the' WeHo; WeHo (heard in Darren's limerick) is West Hollywood.
The party was at the "Here Lounge", on Robertson just south of SM,
which is where Brian works as a bartender. Needless to say, Brian
got the lion's share of crowd applause and of course a big 'awwwwww'
(and 'booo') when he was passed over.
Ellen Evans
<Nospa...@nospamPanix.com> wrote:
[]
>I still cannot easily
>forgive the producers for setting J&A up like this
I came in late on all this, so who is Audra, again?
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@panix.com New York Times, 7/14/96
Get your Ellenwear at http://www.cafeshops.com/ellexia
All the cool kids are doing it.
Mike McKinley
Darling, I'd love to see him in a tutu. It reminds me of one of the
many apochryphal Trock auditions: A young male hopeful walks into a
motel room. The person observing the audition is in bed, covers pulled
up so that only the eyes are visible and tells the young hopeful, "Take
off all your clothes and just do your favorite steps."
--
¿...qué podemos saber las mujeres sino las filosofías de cocina? Bien dijo Lupercio Leonardo, que bien se puede filosofar y aderezar la cena. Y yo suelo decir viendo estas cosillas: Si Aristóteles hubiera guisado, mucho más hubiera escrito."
("...what can we women know, save philosophies of the kitchen? It was well put by Lupercio Leonardo that one can philosophize quite well while preparing supper. I often say, when I make these little observations, "Had Aristotle cooked, he would have written a great deal more.")
Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, La Respuesta
Chris Ambidge
>>> One of the 16 and 1/2 Christophers I know
[robert]
>>Pardon my ignorance, but what's half a Christopher?
[lee]
>Twenty-five dollars, same as in town.
oh you ARE behind the times, m'dear -- either that or you're
living in an economically depressed area where the relentless
rules of supply and demand have driven the local Christophers
to cutting their fees.
Speaking as a half-Christopher, I can assure you the going rate
is MUCH more than that.
I'm reminded of one of The Divine Miss M's concerts (Live at Last,
or Divine Madness, can't recall at the moment, I watched both
on a Labour-day-weekend Bette-a-thon); "the girls really get down
in this number. *I* of course, *never* get down. I told you,
I have eschewed that. Well, maybe I occasionally get down, but
only for VAST sums of money." (hi Clay!)
ailuropoda melanoleuca torontonensis
deutschmarks^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Heuros or dollars / american express
will do nicely thank you
David W. Fenton
<5a9a11ef.03090...@posting.google.com>:
>I have to say, though, I was totally disgusted when James got all
>preachy with him saying, "Oh, I wish this is just about love." I
>mean, give me a break! He's on television agreeing to make his
>life with one of the pretty boys that the producers decide he
>should choose from? Like he's not in this primarily for the
>attention?
Actually, I found the whole self-congratulatory tone of the end
completely disgusting. In order to explain away the guilt of the
producers in creating this serial gay bashing, they had to put
forth the bogus assertion that who you sleep with doesn't make you
different from anyone else, that liking men or liking women is not
fundamental to who you are. BLLEEECCHHH!!!
If they wanted to really do something for gay people, that was just
about the last thing that was going to help.
Did anyone else think that James's comments to Brian suggest that
he's going to go on the trip with Wes, fuck his brains out, discard
him, get home to LA, call up Brian and say "Now, let's fall in
love, baby!"? That's the only way I could get a sincere reading out
of "I didn't choose you in order not to hurt you."
David W. Fenton
<f415da82.0309...@posting.google.com>:
>Even if James had picked the straight guy, he could
>have given him a few choice Fuck Yous, and then gone to one of the
>two remaining guys and ask them out, outside of the show context.
Am I the only one who thought that was exactly what was in his mind
when he told Brian he wasn't choosing him in order not to hurt him?
like this helps
st...@nospam.com <Stace> wrote:
>
>Damn! I live in the South Bay and haven't been up there since the
>parade a few months ago. I'm really bummed I missed it. (If you don't
>mind one more question, which mates exactly were there?)
I don't mind - but you know you could send me email.
I am perhaps forgetting one or more: Wes, Brian, Robb, Darren, Mark;
and Dan, Michael, and Franklin.
Dennis Lewis
Fenton) wrote:
>
>Did anyone else think that James's comments to Brian suggest that
>he's going to go on the trip with Wes, fuck his brains out, discard
>him, get home to LA, call up Brian and say "Now, let's fall in
>love, baby!"?
Ironically, James will make that call to Brian's cellphone just as
Brian is ringing Dan's doorbell.
Or better yet, James will make that call right when Brian walks in on
Dan and me in their room at the Parliament House: "WHAT THE HELL DO
YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING WITH YOUR FACE BETWEEN MY BOYFRIEND'S CHEEKS!?
Oh wait, I've got a call coming in on my cellphone..."
Richard Jasper
> Michael Sarris:
> >David Fenton:
> >>If I were James I'd choose Brain
> >
> >Are you pondering what I'm pondering?
> >
> >Michael, I think so Brain, but this time you wear the tutu
>
> You'd be surprised how often Brians get spelled "Brain."
>
> Astro- "and it doesn't help when the last name rhymes" -boy
Then there's that fellow named "Dane Bramage." I *hope* that he made
it up and that his momma and daddy didn't GIVE him that name.
rpj
Dennis Lewis
helps) wrote:
>
>I am perhaps forgetting one or more: Wes, Brian, Robb, Darren, Mark;
>and Dan, Michael, and Franklin.
No Paul?
Dennis Lewis
wrote:
>
>I was visiting and the TV was on and for the first time I saw what
>everyone seems to be talking about. My observations:
>
>(1) I wouldn't walk across the street for *any* of them
Evidently you were out of the room when they showed the recap of
Paul's segments, then.
http://www.bravotv.com/Boy_Meets_Boy/bios/paul.shtml
>unless I could rub some mud in their faces,
No! Not my little Paulie!
>douse their hairdos with a bucket of water,
No! Not my little Paulie!
>and tear the buttons off their precious clothes.
No! Not my little -- hey, that's not such a bad idea...
Dennis Lewis
>
>I disagree. Even if James had picked the straight guy, he could
>have given him a few choice Fuck Yous, and then gone to one of the
>two remaining guys and ask them out, outside of the show context.
Yes, but the straight guy would be $25,000 richer.
Of course, if I was in James' place with the same choice of "mates," I
wouldn't release a volley of "Fuck You"s because I would be so
overjoyed about Paul getting a $25,000 nest egg to help him get
started on his singing career. (With much eye rolling from viewers in
this group, I'm sure.)
Things might get a mite awkward afterward, though:
"OK, Dan, I guess it's you and me then. What? _You're straight,_ too?
Well, then...BRIAN?"
"I'm not straight, but don't even think I'd settle for being your
third choice, mister..."
Dennis Lewis
<dra...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
>Mind you, James did a really good job of "picking" the straight guys out of the
>groups where he actually had a choice. Which is good, or the end could have
>been disastrous.
I find it somewhat interesting that the gay finalists were both born
under the astrological sign of cancer, as was James. I'd begun to
suspect that James was a fellow cancerian, based on his demeanor, and
today I got a chance to check his bio on the "Boy Meets Boy" site and
confirm my hunch.
http://www.bravotv.com/Boy_Meets_Boy/bios/james.shtml
I was somewhat surprised to learn that both Wes and Brian are also
cancerians, but now it makes sense. That's probably why James felt so
comfortable with Wes (and vice versa). We cancerians get along great
with each other, though it seems like we drive non-cancerians batty at
times. And remember Wes getting so excited about serving James
breakfast in bed? The hearth-and-home aspect of the cancer sign...
And Brian -- no wonder his theme song should be "Torn Between Two
Lovers." When we cancerians fall for someone, we fall hard -- even if
we just fell hard for someone else 24 hours earlier.
The UK's Daily Mirror last week posted excerpts from Adele Lang and
Susi Rajah's book "How To Spot A Bastard By His Star Sign," and I love
their entry for "The Cancer Bastard":
The First Date: He'll invite you round to his house and cook for you.
It's cheaper than going out. (Yes, that hits home for me -- and may I
remind you of Wes's thrill at being able to prepare breakfast in bed.)
When To Bed Him: When he declares his undying love, which will be very
quickly. (Ain't that the truth -- no sooner had Paul appeared on the
screen than the little cupids began circling my head.) He's a hopeless
romantic. Just don't be surprised when he takes it back next morning.
(Ain't that the truth -- no sooner had Dan pressed his butt against
the shower door than...well, you get my drift.)
Oh, and regarding Paul's sign, "The Leo Bastard":
Vain, vain, vain. For the Leo bastard, nothing is important unless he
is part of it -- and that includes you. For this self-obsessed
creature you play a supporting role in the intriguing story that is
his fantastic life. (Remember Paul expressing his extreme
disappointment over being "rejected" by James, even though he's
straight?)
The First Date: It will be quite entertaining because you haven't
heard all the stories about himself. The tales are even bearable on
the second date. When To Take Him To Bed: On the third date ... you'll
be sick of his stories by then.
(And this line from Paul's bio: "He likes being the center of
attention but not for the wrong reasons." I tell you, people, some
matches would just be made in heaven -- were it not for little details
like generation gaps and gender gaps.)
Dennis Lewis
<jwa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>... Did you see how James swung
>in his boxers? Wes is going to be a happy husband! ...
No, but I noticed how well they framed his muscular buns. (And based
on that, I'd agree that Wes is in for a memorable vacation.)
tmac
helps) wrote:
Someone asked this earlier, and I don't think it was answered - do
James and Wes appear to be together still?
tmac
Alan Batie
>But a "fix" implies that James was somehow complicit in the choosing
>of one str8 guy.
I envision something like Wait Wait or Whadda ya Know on NPR: well, I'm
leaning towards Brian.... Are you sure? Or maybe Wes? It's your decision
think hard. But Franklin's been this or that. Mmmmm, could be. Wink Wink.
--
Alan Batie ______ alan.batie.org Me
alan at batie.org \ / www.qrd.org The Triangle
PGPFP DE 3C 29 17 C0 49 7A \ / www.pgpi.com The Weird Numbers
27 40 A5 3C 37 4A DA 52 B9 \/ spamassassin.taint.org NO SPAM!
Alan Batie
>And one military guy, to be booted summarily. (I still boggle
>over that one -- did the guy do it purposefully to sabotage his
>military career?)
In the article I read about him, sort of --- he knew he would get kicked
out, and in fact the producers asked him if he was sure he wanted to do it.
He said something about wanted to make a statement about equal rights...
Alan Batie
>Did anyone else think that James's comments to Brian suggest that
>he's going to go on the trip with Wes, fuck his brains out, discard
>him, get home to LA, call up Brian and say "Now, let's fall in
>love, baby!"? That's the only way I could get a sincere reading out
>of "I didn't choose you in order not to hurt you."
The only thing I could come up with is a lame attempt at trying to make
the rejection easier to take. I mean not too many people would take
kindly to a potential boyfriend saying "hang on, I wanna fuck this guy
good and then come back to date you". OK, I do know a few I could see
doing that ;-)
David Kaye
> This particular bit of information is useless without context.
> You do realize that there was an initial crop of 15, right? Trust
> me on this: they were not all A&F ads.
Okay. I had no idea that the others were ordinary people, having only
seen the last episode. That said, one has to wonder about the star's
taste in men if he rounds the choices down to bimbos, including a
straight bimbo.
> Pray tell -- exactly which of the "reality shows" is remotely
> close to a "reality" show? I think it's clear to most that
> the Camera (and the producers) skews all.
There really is such a thing as a real reality show. If you've ever
had a chance to see a video of a series PBS did in the early 1970s,
"An American Family", it's clear as the series goes on that the Loud
family becomes less and less aware of the camera -- to the point where
the mother and father argue, and finally break up on TV. I believe
that the dad (I forget his name) once said that he wished he could
take back things he said.
> Ummmmm, that's what the majority of folks have been saying about
> this from nigh the beginning. How else can you have a Final Twist
> without engineering such from the start?
Not easily.
However, I was rewarded with a chance to see that other show, "Queer
Eye for the Straight Guy", which was actually quite good. Though the
gay makeover artists were purposely dishing for the camera, it seemed
that they enjoyed what they were doing and were truly interested in
making the straight subject happy with his change of clothes,
grooming, and home furnishings.
While BMB was a wasted hour, QE was well worth the time for me.
David Kaye
> This particular bit of information is useless without context.
> You do realize that there was an initial crop of 15, right? Trust
> me on this: they were not all A&F ads.
I posted my reply before seeing the website, which someone kindly
posted here to show off Paul. Looking at the thumbnails on the right
side of the page, it's hard to call any of them average. Except for
the black ones, they could ALL be Abercrombie ads.
(Someday I'm going to prank at our local Abercrombie store in the SF
Shopping Centre, perhaps paper a slogan over one of those
oh-so-adorable photos, "For Filipinos who want to be white". Yes, it
seems from observation that the majority of A&F shoppers are Filipinos
and other Pacific Islanders.)
Clay Colwell
> In article <bj4rfl$a92$1...@panix5.panix.com>,
> <Nospa...@nospamPanix.com> wrote:
>
> []
>
> >I still cannot easily
> >forgive the producers for setting J&A up like this
>
> I came in late on all this, so who is Audra, again?
Andra is the Grace to James' Will.
Timothy Dransfield
>> This particular bit of information is useless without context.
>> You do realize that there was an initial crop of 15, right? Trust
>> me on this: they were not all A&F ads.
> Okay. I had no idea that the others were ordinary people, having only
> seen the last episode. That said, one has to wonder about the star's
> taste in men if he rounds the choices down to bimbos, including a
> straight bimbo.
Again, in his defense, the show was cleverly contrived such that he HAD to have
a straight man in his final three. Nonetheless, there was at least one straight
non-bimbo he could have chosen (Sean), and he didn't, so the taste question
remains.
TJD
Clay Colwell
> er...@io.com (Clay Colwell) wrote:
>
> > This particular bit of information is useless without context.
> > You do realize that there was an initial crop of 15, right? Trust
> > me on this: they were not all A&F ads.
>
> Okay. I had no idea that the others were ordinary people, having only
> seen the last episode. That said, one has to wonder about the star's
> taste in men if he rounds the choices down to bimbos, including a
> straight bimbo.
Well, frankly, that's not for me to say, nor would I pawn them
off as "bimbos". (Well, perhaps I would if I judged them solely
on looks. Well, probably not even then.)
> > Pray tell -- exactly which of the "reality shows" is remotely
> > close to a "reality" show? I think it's clear to most that
> > the Camera (and the producers) skews all.
>
> There really is such a thing as a real reality show. If you've ever
> had a chance to see a video of a series PBS did in the early 1970s,
> "An American Family", it's clear as the series goes on that the Loud
> family becomes less and less aware of the camera -- to the point where
> the mother and father argue, and finally break up on TV. I believe
> that the dad (I forget his name) once said that he wished he could
> take back things he said.
And that was an experiment, arguably the first of its kind, and
without "contestants". The current game-oriented (un)"reality"
shows are far different. I'm also not thrilled with the popularity
of their cutthroatedness. The thing that's always ticked me about
_Survivor_ and games shows like _Greed_ or _The Weakest Link_ is
that merit is *not* rewarded, and, indeed, is often punished.
And to make a game out of the seeking of love relationships --
well, I realize that that began with _The Dating Game_, but the
current trends are troubling at best and (dare I say it) at worst
chewing holes in the fabric of romance.
> > Ummmmm, that's what the majority of folks have been saying about
> > this from nigh the beginning. How else can you have a Final Twist
> > without engineering such from the start?
>
> Not easily.
>
> However, I was rewarded with a chance to see that other show, "Queer
> Eye for the Straight Guy", which was actually quite good. Though the
> gay makeover artists were purposely dishing for the camera, it seemed
> that they enjoyed what they were doing and were truly interested in
> making the straight subject happy with his change of clothes,
> grooming, and home furnishings.
>
> While BMB was a wasted hour, QE was well worth the time for me.
My friends were not very taken with the latest episode. I don't
know how much staying power the show will have.
Clay Colwell
> Things might get a mite awkward afterward, though:
>
> "OK, Dan, I guess it's you and me then. What? _You're straight,_ too?
> Well, then...BRIAN?"
>
> "I'm not straight, but don't even think I'd settle for being your
> third choice, mister..."
I'm still wondering how I'd feel if I were in a group of three men,
thinking that a fourth guy was fantastic, and wanting a romantic
relationship with him, and knowing that the fourth was really keen
on all three of us, and watching him pick, first one, then the second,
and then me. Yeah, hurt would be involved, but would not being the
1st Choice really be That Important? I realize that all sorts of
context^3 comes into play, but I find it an interesting thought
experiment.
Clay Colwell
> er...@io.com (Clay Colwell) wrote in
> <f415da82.0309...@posting.google.com>:
>
> >Even if James had picked the straight guy, he could
> >have given him a few choice Fuck Yous, and then gone to one of the
> >two remaining guys and ask them out, outside of the show context.
>
> Am I the only one who thought that was exactly what was in his mind
> when he told Brian he wasn't choosing him in order not to hurt him?
I honestly don't know, but I can see a scenario where James *does*
feel something strong for Brian, yet it's also uncertain enough
that he doesn't want to risk taking Brian for a test run only to
find that the feelings weren't strong enough to support a full-
fledged romantic relationship.
Robert S. Coren
Clay Colwell <er...@io.com> wrote:
>sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote in message news:<6b49c602.0309...@posting.google.com>...
>> er...@io.com (Clay Colwell) wrote:
>>
>> > This particular bit of information is useless without context.
>> > You do realize that there was an initial crop of 15, right? Trust
>> > me on this: they were not all A&F ads.
>>
>> Okay. I had no idea that the others were ordinary people, having only
>> seen the last episode. That said, one has to wonder about the star's
>> taste in men if he rounds the choices down to bimbos, including a
>> straight bimbo.
>
>Well, frankly, that's not for me to say, nor would I pawn them
>off as "bimbos". (Well, perhaps I would if I judged them solely
>on looks. Well, probably not even then.)
>
>> > Pray tell -- exactly which of the "reality shows" is remotely
>> > close to a "reality" show? I think it's clear to most that
>> > the Camera (and the producers) skews all.
>>
>> There really is such a thing as a real reality show. If you've ever
>> had a chance to see a video of a series PBS did in the early 1970s,
>>
>
>My friends were not very taken with the latest episode. I don't
>know how much staying power the show will have.
I started to feel, a couple of episodes ago, that it had pretty much
run its course. It's fun, but it's also quite formulaic, and it's
going to go stale very quickly if they keep showing it.
On the other hand, from what I could tell from the teaser as I was
fast-forwarding past it, it looks like next week's show is a repeat,
so maybe they're done, at least for a while.
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"Banking is like religion: you have to accept certain rather dicey
things simply on faith, and then everything else follows in
marvellous logic." -- Robertson Davies, _What's Bred in the Bone_
Richard Carlson
> sfdavi...@yahoo.com (David Kaye) wrote in message news:<6b49c602.0309...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> > While BMB was a wasted hour, QE was well worth the time for me.
I finally decided that BMB's true value was in revealing QE's excellence.
I probably wouldn't have appreciated the quality and "natural-ness" of QE
and its stars, had it not been juxtaposed with such a mediocre and
manipulative show.
> My friends were not very taken with the latest episode. I don't
> know how much staying power the show will have.
As much as I like Jai's energy, I was very disappointed that when
he finally had a chance to really contribute... he failed miserably.
Plus, *I* was hoping to get some tips on how to dance too, but all
I got was the one "move". :-)
I think it will be a challenge to keep the series fresh and interesting
when every episode is structured so much alike. If it lasts, I suspect
it will have to do something like pulling in "guest stars" with specific
specialties, to open up more unique types of makeovers. But it may not
last. So, I think Bravo & NBC are right in milking it for all it's
worth right now -- but they also need to take advantage of the audience
they've built up by developing and advertising other shows that we'll
watch; and I haven't seen that happen yet.
-- Richard
Cornelia Wyngaarden
sfdavi...@yahoo.com wrote on 9/4/03 3:51 AM:
>
> (Someday I'm going to prank at our local Abercrombie store in the SF
> Shopping Centre, perhaps paper a slogan over one of those
> oh-so-adorable photos, "For Filipinos who want to be white". Yes, it
> seems from observation that the majority of A&F shoppers are Filipinos
> and other Pacific Islanders.)
Yeah, damn them, they ought to just go where they sell grass skirts and
coconut bras. What are they thinking buying them white man's safari
clothes?
corry
David W. Fenton
I liked her a lot, actually.
But I just couldn't help thinking that she was just like Janel
Maloney (Donna Moss on The West Wing).
This is one of the reasons I liked her, but I understand that the
Donna Moss character is widely hated.
Comments?
David W. Fenton
[Re: Queer Eye]
>My friends were not very taken with the latest episode. I don't
>know how much staying power the show will have.
The problem was that the target of the makeover was a really
passive, non-interesting person. If he were gay, he'd be a
non-aggressive bottom, the kind that just lays there and expects to
be done to. Blech.
The oyster preparation was a perfect example. He didn't even really
*try* to do it right, even though during the instruction period, he
did a good job. And many things he just did halfway in the
"performance" period. That's a passive personality, very different
from the others I've seen (I've seen the Staten Island cop and the
Greek guy from Astoria).
He was nice enough, true, but he needs a lot of therapy (or he
needs to be gang-banged, dunno which) before he would feel
comfortable enough with himself to be able to dance, or just about
anything else.
Or, he needs to drink much more heavily (works for me).
"You don't need a makeover -- you just need 8 margaritas! Right
now!"
Mike McKinley
>He was nice enough, true, but he needs a lot of therapy (or he
>needs to be gang-banged, dunno which) before he would feel
>comfortable enough with himself to be able to dance, or just about
>anything else.
>
>
>
It's always important to dance like *every*body's watching.
I've gotta choreograph my eight counts of eight for the audition
tomorrow.
--
¿...qué podemos saber las mujeres sino las filosofías de cocina? Bien dijo Lupercio Leonardo, que bien se puede filosofar y aderezar la cena. Y yo suelo decir viendo estas cosillas: Si Aristóteles hubiera guisado, mucho más hubiera escrito."
("...what can we women know, save philosophies of the kitchen? It was well put by Lupercio Leonardo that one can philosophize quite well while preparing supper. I often say, when I make these little observations, "Had Aristotle cooked, he would have written a great deal more.")
Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, La Respuesta
David W. Fenton
<vTJ5b.4040$N47....@news.cpqcorp.net>:
>As much as I like Jai's energy, I was very disappointed that when
>he finally had a chance to really contribute... he failed
>miserably.
Was that Jai's fault? I don't think so. The guy was physically
flaccid -- how do you in an afternoon get someone past body issues
that they've had their whole life? And Josh didn't do the things
that he was taught by Jai, and what he did do, he didn't do as well
as he had in "rehearsal."
Josh was the problem here, not Jai or the other 4.
Robert S. Coren
David W. Fenton <dXXXf...@bway.net> wrote:
>er...@io.com (Clay Colwell) wrote in
><f415da82.03090...@posting.google.com>:
>>
>
>I liked her a lot, actually.
>
>But I just couldn't help thinking that she was just like Janel
>Maloney (Donna Moss on The West Wing).
>
>This is one of the reasons I liked her, but I understand that the
>Donna Moss character is widely hated.
She is? I had no idea. She can be annoying at times, but so can they
all (except maybe Leo). What's to hate?
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"These flexible verbs do dozens of idiomatic, logic-defying tricks;
you can't stop them, so you might as well admire them."
--Jan Freeman, _Boston Globe_ 4/5/03
Richard Carlson
> r...@fc.hp.com (Richard Carlson) wrote in
> <vTJ5b.4040$N47....@news.cpqcorp.net>:
> >As much as I like Jai's energy, I was very disappointed that when
> >he finally had a chance to really contribute... he failed
> >miserably.
> Was that Jai's fault? I don't think so. The guy was physically
> flaccid -- how do you in an afternoon get someone past body issues
> that they've had their whole life? And Josh didn't do the things
> that he was taught by Jai, and what he did do, he didn't do as well
> as he had in "rehearsal."
> Josh was the problem here, not Jai or the other 4.
I partly agree with you. Jai was possibly set up for failure; there
may have been nothing he (or anyone else) realistically could have
done for the guy.
However, in the short dancing lesson segment they showed, it looked
like Jai spent as much time messing around and doing rather esoteric
things, as he did in starting from the ground up and just getting
Josh to feel comfortable and more fluid in moving to the beat --
things that might have "stuck" better when Josh was on his own.
It's quite possible that was just the result of the editing process,
as much more of the latter might have been rather boring to watch.
But, based on the on-air footage, it just looked to me like Jai
wasn't a very effective teacher. And I don't necessarily mean that
as criticism of Jai, but rather disappointment that the show hasn't
found a good niche for him, as it has for the other 4.
-- Richard
Alex Elliott
Dennis Lewis <d...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
>I find it somewhat interesting that the gay finalists were both born
>under the astrological sign of cancer, as was James. I'd begun to
>suspect that James was a fellow cancerian, based on his demeanor, and
>today I got a chance to check his bio on the "Boy Meets Boy" site and
>confirm my hunch.
In recent news:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/17/nstars17.xml
Alex.
David W. Fenton
<bj8aoa$67t$1...@panix5.panix.com>:
>In article <93ECAE163df...@24.168.128.90>,
>David W. Fenton <dXXXf...@bway.net> wrote:
>>er...@io.com (Clay Colwell) wrote in
>><f415da82.03090...@posting.google.com>:
>>>
>>>Andra is the Grace to James' Will.
>>
>>I liked her a lot, actually.
>>
>>But I just couldn't help thinking that she was just like Janel
>>Maloney (Donna Moss on The West Wing).
>>
>>This is one of the reasons I liked her, but I understand that the
>>Donna Moss character is widely hated.
>
>She is? I had no idea. She can be annoying at times, but so can
>they all (except maybe Leo). What's to hate?
I don't know. I only know that the comments on the Jump The Shark
website show that lots of people really do hate her. I was just as
surprised as you.
David W. Fenton
in <h69flv0iif8rpag7q...@4ax.com>:
>On 4 Sep 2003 11:58:51 -0400, co...@panix.com (Robert S. Coren)
>wrote:
>
>>I started to feel, a couple of episodes ago, that it had pretty
>>much run its course. It's fun, but it's also quite formulaic, and
>>it's going to go stale very quickly if they keep showing it.
>
>Well, if NBC (masquerading as Bravo) is true to form they'll play
>it over and over until they kill it. That seems to be their
>habit. They'll find they have a hit and then just play episodes
>over and over until people get sick of it and it will die. Will &
>Grace, Third Rock, etc.
Third Rock was dead before it aired.
I don't know how anyhone could sit through a minute of that dreck.
And other than the media critics, who loved it, I've never heard of
a single person who actually thought it was worth watching.
Of course, I don't live in the center of the universe.
Ken, what does Arne think of it?
Nick Fitch
says...
(Third Rock From The Sun)
> I don't know how anyhone could sit through a minute of that dreck.
> And other than the media critics, who loved it, I've never heard of
> a single person who actually thought it was worth watching.
All this time and you've still never heard of me? Should I type louder?
Do I care enough?
Dilemmas.
--
(nickDOTfitchATbtopenworldDOTcom)
David W. Fenton
in <MPG.19c1d481b...@news.btopenworld.com>:
I'm shocked. You *liked* that show? How could you? It was so bloody
awful as to defy description.
You British and your weird sense of humor.
David W. Fenton
<bj8ef7$c0g$1...@panix2.panix.com>:
Shouldn't there be some kind of control group? Or shouldn't
different cohorts having the same sign be compared to see if, even
though the diversity within each cohort might be huge, they might
have more in common with each other than with those from other
cohorts (i.e., born under different signs).
It's not that I think that astrology is anything other than utter
bushwa, but this doesn't seem like a study designed to be able to
debunk astrology at all, as it only goes halfway, with a definition
that is not very precise (exactly what constitutes the threshold of
similarity/difference that would be necessary for astrology to be
proven worthwhile?). Seems to me that the Null hypothesis is
problematic.
Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
> I'm shocked. You *liked* that show? How could you? It was so bloody
> awful as to defy description.
Four aliens masquerade as humans. Hilarity ensues.
See? It doesn't defy description.
(I think I watched most of the first season. It was funnier than
most sit-coms, but that's not really saying all that much, is it? It
had a few memorable scenes, but I forget what those were. Oops.)
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
la...@gnus.org * Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
Lee Rudolph
>Dilemmas.
I read that (no, really! I *did*, I *did*) as "Dildemas",
and I asked myself, "What won't they celebrate next?"
Lee Rudolph
Timothy McDaniel
The Dildemas manorah is illegal in Texas.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com; tm...@us.ibm.com is my work address
Michael Thomas
> dXXXf...@bway.net (David W. Fenton) writes:
>
> > I'm shocked. You *liked* that show? How could you? It was so bloody
> > awful as to defy description.
>
> Four aliens masquerade as humans. Hilarity ensues.
>
> See? It doesn't defy description.
>
> (I think I watched most of the first season. It was funnier than
> most sit-coms, but that's not really saying all that much, is it? It
> had a few memorable scenes, but I forget what those were. Oops.)
Well, I now have two datapoints on Norwegian and damaged
humor glands.
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
It's ironic: these old people are being kept alive by the
organs of the people they run over.
*Chief Wiggums* <-- Hi Alex!
Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
> Well, I now have two datapoints on Norwegian and damaged humor
> glands.
I think the term you're looking for is "a sophisticated and chic
sense of humor".
Robert S. Coren
st...@nospam.com <Stace> wrote:
>dXXXf...@bway.net (David W. Fenton) kindly wrote:
>
>>I don't know. I only know that the comments on the Jump The Shark
>>website show that lots of people really do hate her. I was just as
>>surprised as you.
>
>what we were supposed to hope; but from what you say, it doesn't sound
>like as many people were hoping it as I thought.) <g>
No, I think that would destroy both characters. Part of the whole
dynamic is that she has a crush on him[1] and he's either oblivious or
wisely pretending to be.
And anyway, everyone knows that a romantic relationship between people
in a supervisor/assistant situation is a bad idea. Trust me on this.
[1] Or used to have... lately I'm not so sure.
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
Michael Palmer: "Alas, Ellen, you've become *too* successful:
you're now generic."
Robert Cumming: "Ellen de sui generis?"
Robert S. Coren
>
>>But I just couldn't help thinking that she was just like Janel
>>Maloney (Donna Moss on The West Wing).
>>
>>This is one of the reasons I liked her, but I understand that the
>>Donna Moss character is widely hated.
>>
>>Comments?
>
>anymore cos I thought the writing went way downhill
I wonder what will happen to the writing now that Sorkin is gone.
>then Rob Lowe
>left... now if they had Lily Tomlin's character on more... what a
>hoot!)
Although I'm sorry they killed off Mrs. Landingham, who was more
interesting (and funnier) precisely because she wasn't overstated.
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
Aw, well... I guess some of us talks too much, anyway.
--Rackety Coon Chile (Walt Kelly)
Kevin Michael Vail
er...@io.com (Clay Colwell) wrote:
> I'm still wondering how I'd feel if I were in a group of three men,
> thinking that a fourth guy was fantastic, and wanting a romantic
> relationship with him, and knowing that the fourth was really keen
> on all three of us, and watching him pick, first one, then the second,
> and then me. Yeah, hurt would be involved, but would not being the
> 1st Choice really be That Important? I realize that all sorts of
> context^3 comes into play, but I find it an interesting thought
> experiment.
Been there, done that, although not romantically, just sexually.
--
Kevin Michael Vail | Dogbert: That's circular reasoning.
ke...@vaildc.net | Dilbert: I prefer to think of it as no loose ends.
http://www.vaildc.net/kevin/
John Whiteside
<r...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
> But, based on the on-air footage, it just looked to me like Jai
> wasn't a very effective teacher.
I haven't watched it yet - it's on the Tivo - but... they tried to make
him teach someone something more complicated that making coffee?
I have been assuming that he's the decorative one - otherwise it just
doesn't make sense.
WontParse
news:m3vfs8q...@quimbies.gnus.org:
> Four aliens masquerade as humans. Hilarity ensues.
<Ellen on>
I was in Kristen Johnson's 7th and 8th grade class.
<Ellon off>
Michael Sarris
> d...@sprynet.com (Dennis Lewis) wrote in message news:<3f565d2d...@news.east.earthlink.net>...
>
>
>
>>Things might get a mite awkward afterward, though:
>>
>>"OK, Dan, I guess it's you and me then. What? _You're straight,_ too?
>>Well, then...BRIAN?"
>>
>>"I'm not straight, but don't even think I'd settle for being your
>>third choice, mister..."
>
>
> I'm still wondering how I'd feel if I were in a group of three men,
> thinking that a fourth guy was fantastic, and wanting a romantic
> relationship with him, and knowing that the fourth was really keen
> on all three of us, and watching him pick, first one, then the second,
> and then me. Yeah, hurt would be involved, but would not being the
> 1st Choice really be That Important? I realize that all sorts of
> context^3 comes into play, but I find it an interesting thought
> experiment.
I think it would be really difficult to deal with all the
baggage of the show, all the *un*reality of the experience,
the publicity, and on top of all *that*, to know that you
(or your choice) was second or third place. It's not
exactly starting out on your best foot.
Not to say you can't deal with it -- I was quite charmed
by Darren's message to James that he was just waiting to
try again.
Michael, you can't keep a good man down
--
"And that idea that God created men first makes women second best
And down deep inside it hurts us, ooh
That myth in Genesis is something to break my heart with"
-- Venus Envy, "Myth In Genesis"
Michael Sarris
>
> And where was Andra? In the house kicking Franklin with her high
> heels?
Throttling Dani. In order to get back into Andra's good graces,
Franklin's hiding the body.
Michael, twist and shout
--
Michael Sarris -- mund...@hotmail.com
"Rest your shoulders Peaches and Cream
Everywhere a Judas as far as you can see"
-- Tori Amos, "Professional Widow"
Ned Deily
>MichaelT:
>>Well, I now have two datapoints on Norwegian and damaged humor
>>glands.
>I think the term you're looking for is "a sophisticated and chic
>sense of humor".
This from someone who adores "Married with Children".
--E.Dbundy
--
Ned Deily,
n...@visi.com -- []
Ellen Evans
Was she really tall then?
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@panix.com New York Times, 7/14/96
Get your Ellenwear at http://www.cafeshops.com/ellexia
All the cool kids are doing it.
Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
> This from someone who adores "Married with Children".
And the term you're looking for is "QED".
David Kaye
> Well, frankly, that's not for me to say, nor would I pawn them
> off as "bimbos". (Well, perhaps I would if I judged them solely
> on looks. Well, probably not even then.)
I'm just going on what they said in the last episode. While I guess
they're sincere and all, they just all struck me as not having much
going on.
> The thing that's always ticked me about
> _Survivor_ and games shows like _Greed_ or _The Weakest Link_ is
> that merit is *not* rewarded, and, indeed, is often punished.
I haven't seen the shows you mentioned, save one showing of Weakest
Link. I couldn't see what all the hoo-hah was about.
> And to make a game out of the seeking of love relationships --
> well, I realize that that began with _The Dating Game_, but the
> current trends are troubling at best and (dare I say it) at worst
> chewing holes in the fabric of romance.
Great line. Anyhow, yeah, it might have started with Dating Game, but
if I can remember the program properly, it did seem to be much more of
a "fun date" kind of thing than this show.
BMB seems more like a serious "I want to spend all my life with you"
kind of desperation move. It seems this became even more desperate by
what apparently were dating or group event situations which went on
before, thereby setting up the final show for "I want this to be my
life partner". It's sad, unless I'm really reading something wrong
here.
David Kaye
> Yeah, damn them, they ought to just go where they sell grass skirts and
> coconut bras. What are they thinking buying them white man's safari
> clothes?
I'd have no problem with APIs shopping at Abercrombie if the store
employed non-whites for their endless store photos and catalog photos.
They're ALL white; not only white, but Anglo white.
Abercrombie was the store with the T-shirt that said, "Wong Brothers
Laundry -- Two Wongs Will Make It White".
Any self-respecting non-white person should be throwing rocks through
their windows and burning their whites-only photos.
Mike McKinley
> I partly agree with you. Jai was possibly set up for failure; there
>
>may have been nothing he (or anyone else) realistically could have
>done for the guy.
>
>However, in the short dancing lesson segment they showed, it looked
>like Jai spent as much time messing around and doing rather esoteric
>things, as he did in starting from the ground up and just getting
>Josh to feel comfortable and more fluid in moving to the beat --
>things that might have "stuck" better when Josh was on his own.
>It's quite possible that was just the result of the editing process,
>as much more of the latter might have been rather boring to watch.
>
>But, based on the on-air footage, it just looked to me like Jai
>wasn't a very effective teacher. And I don't necessarily mean that
>as criticism of Jai, but rather disappointment that the show hasn't
>found a good niche for him, as it has for the other 4.
>
>
>
One cannot learn to dance in an afternoon. Or from a three-minute
segment.
--
¿...qué podemos saber las mujeres sino las filosofías de cocina? Bien dijo Lupercio Leonardo, que bien se puede filosofar y aderezar la cena. Y yo suelo decir viendo estas cosillas: Si Aristóteles hubiera guisado, mucho más hubiera escrito."
("...what can we women know, save philosophies of the kitchen? It was well put by Lupercio Leonardo that one can philosophize quite well while preparing supper. I often say, when I make these little observations, "Had Aristotle cooked, he would have written a great deal more.")
Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, La Respuesta
Alex Elliott
Subject: Re: Boy Meets Boy Poll
Summary:
Expires:
References: <3f53ca16...@news.1stconnect.com> <3f567b0d...@news.east.earthlink.net> <bj8ef7$c0g$1...@panix2.panix.com> <93ECC25DDdf...@24.168.128.78>
Sender:
Followup-To:
Reply-To: alex.e...@sympatico.ca
Distribution:
Organization: PANIX -- Public Access Networks Corp.
Keywords:
Cc:
In article <93ECC25DDdf...@24.168.128.78>,
David W. Fenton <dXXXf...@bway.net> wrote:
>alex.e...@sympatico.ca (Alex Elliott) wrote in
><bj8ef7$c0g$1...@panix2.panix.com>:
>
>>In recent news:
>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/17/nst
>>ars17.xml
>
>Shouldn't there be some kind of control group?
Well, I haven't read the original study; but if I were desigining the
study, the obvious control group would be the population as a whole (or
studies of the population as a whole modeled with random sampling).
The question, "Is this subgroup representative of the entire popuation?"
is an extremely important and well-studied problem (since poll-gatherers
want the answer to be "yes" and want to quantify that "yes"). If you
gather statistics on all these people who have the same astrological chart
and they turn out to be an accurate predictor of the distribution of
characteristics as the population as a whole, then that is pretty
compelling evidence that time of birth and these characteristics are
uncorrelated.
>It's not that I think that astrology is anything other than utter
>bushwa, but this doesn't seem like a study designed to be able to
>debunk astrology at all, as it only goes halfway, with a definition
>that is not very precise (exactly what constitutes the threshold of
>similarity/difference that would be necessary for astrology to be
>proven worthwhile?).
Well, again I haven't read the study, but the the threshold would
presumably be something like "95% confidence that this distrubution is
identical to the distribution expected from a truly random sample."
>Seems to me that the Null hypothesis is problematic.
On the contrary. There are entire statistical methodologies built around
declaring one's confidence level in the null hypothesis. No, you can't
"prove a negative", but you *can* say, "I am 95% certain that this is
negative."
Alex.
Clay Colwell
> Any self-respecting non-white person should be throwing rocks through
> their windows and burning their whites-only photos.
Um, I daresay self-respecting folks don't consider vandalism
the most appropriate response to slights. Perhaps we employ
different dictionaries.
Clay Colwell
> > And to make a game out of the seeking of love relationships --
> > well, I realize that that began with _The Dating Game_, but the
> > current trends are troubling at best and (dare I say it) at worst
> > chewing holes in the fabric of romance.
>
> Great line. Anyhow, yeah, it might have started with Dating Game, but
> if I can remember the program properly, it did seem to be much more of
> a "fun date" kind of thing than this show.
>
> BMB seems more like a serious "I want to spend all my life with you"
> kind of desperation move. It seems this became even more desperate by
> what apparently were dating or group event situations which went on
> before, thereby setting up the final show for "I want this to be my
> life partner". It's sad, unless I'm really reading something wrong
> here.
You judge essentially correctly. It's not quite the "My life partner
must be from this crop of 15", but the show does have a whiff of that
seasoning its atmosphere. Then again, James did a lot to infuse it
with such.
Actually, you may be on to something there. Perhaps if the whole thing
were less fraught with Drama, and if the focus of the show would have
been more on no-strings-attached rather than I-want-my-Twoo-Luv, I
would have appreciated it more. I know I could have stomached the
let's-throw-in-some-straights! schtick more easily. (Of course, then
perhaps there'd been more blowjobs^Wkissing.)
Clay Colwell
> Clay Colwell wrote:
>
> > I'm still wondering how I'd feel if I were in a group of three men,
> > thinking that a fourth guy was fantastic, and wanting a romantic
> > relationship with him, and knowing that the fourth was really keen
> > on all three of us, and watching him pick, first one, then the second,
> > and then me. Yeah, hurt would be involved, but would not being the
> > 1st Choice really be That Important? I realize that all sorts of
> > context^3 comes into play, but I find it an interesting thought
> > experiment.
>
> I think it would be really difficult to deal with all the
> baggage of the show, all the *un*reality of the experience,
> the publicity, and on top of all *that*, to know that you
> (or your choice) was second or third place. It's not
> exactly starting out on your best foot.
Liberal amounts of alcohol and sex couldn't hurt.
> Not to say you can't deal with it -- I was quite charmed
> by Darren's message to James that he was just waiting to
> try again.
Do you think he gives good stalker?
Clay Colwell
Think "parsley on the plate".
David W. Fenton
<m3vfs8q...@quimbies.gnus.org>:
>dXXXf...@bway.net (David W. Fenton) writes:
>
>> I'm shocked. You *liked* that show? How could you? It was so
>> bloody awful as to defy description.
>
>Four aliens masquerade as humans. Hilarity ensues.
>
>See? It doesn't defy description.
Well, except for the second part, which never ensued.
>(I think I watched most of the first season. It was funnier than
>most sit-coms, but that's not really saying all that much, is it?
>It had a few memorable scenes, but I forget what those were.
>Oops.)
Er, uh. . .
Robert S. Coren
Mike McKinley <mpmck...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Richard Carlson wrote:
>>
>>But, based on the on-air footage, it just looked to me like Jai
>>wasn't a very effective teacher. And I don't necessarily mean that
>>as criticism of Jai, but rather disappointment that the show hasn't
>>found a good niche for him, as it has for the other 4.
>>
>>
>>
> One cannot learn to dance in an afternoon. Or from a three-minute
>segment.
Oh, I'll bet he could with *you* teaching him, dearest.
--
---Robert Coren (co...@panix.com)------------------------------------
"Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg
cackles as if she had laid an asteroid." -- Mark Twain
David W. Fenton
>In article <93ECC25DDdf...@24.168.128.78>,
>David W. Fenton <dXXXf...@bway.net> wrote:
>>alex.e...@sympatico.ca (Alex Elliott) wrote in
>><bj8ef7$c0g$1...@panix2.panix.com>:
>>
>>>In recent news:
>>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/08/17/n
>>>st ars17.xml
>>
>>Shouldn't there be some kind of control group?
>
>Well, I haven't read the original study; but if I were desigining
>the study, the obvious control group would be the population as a
>whole (or studies of the population as a whole modeled with random
>sampling).
>
>The question, "Is this subgroup representative of the entire
>popuation?" is an extremely important and well-studied problem
>(since poll-gatherers want the answer to be "yes" and want to
>quantify that "yes"). If you gather statistics on all these
>people who have the same astrological chart and they turn out to
>be an accurate predictor of the distribution of characteristics as
>the population as a whole, then that is pretty compelling evidence
>that time of birth and these characteristics are uncorrelated.
I guess so, but I didn't get too much indication that this was what
they did from the article I read. This could be the fault of the
author of that article, of course.
>>It's not that I think that astrology is anything other than utter
>>bushwa, but this doesn't seem like a study designed to be able to
>>debunk astrology at all, as it only goes halfway, with a
>>definition that is not very precise (exactly what constitutes the
>>threshold of similarity/difference that would be necessary for
>>astrology to be proven worthwhile?).
>
>Well, again I haven't read the study, but the the threshold would
>presumably be something like "95% confidence that this
>distrubution is identical to the distribution expected from a
>truly random sample."
This assumes a normal distribution, of course. I'd think you'd need
to look at the distribution of each characteristic separately. And
I'm not sure that the right comparison would be to the population
as a whole. I guess that would be your control group, but it would
also be enlightening to compare various signs.
>>Seems to me that the Null hypothesis is problematic.
>
>On the contrary. There are entire statistical methodologies built
>around declaring one's confidence level in the null hypothesis.
>No, you can't "prove a negative", but you *can* say, "I am 95%
>certain that this is negative."
But it's not clear to me that they had the *right* Null hypothesis
for the purpose that the study is being used in the media.
Clay Colwell
> er...@io.com (Clay Colwell) wrote in
> <f415da82.03090...@posting.google.com>:
>
> [Re: Queer Eye]
> >My friends were not very taken with the latest episode. I don't
> >know how much staying power the show will have.
>
> The problem was that the target of the makeover was a really
> passive, non-interesting person. If he were gay, he'd be a
> non-aggressive bottom, the kind that just lays there and expects to
> be done to. Blech.
>
> The oyster preparation was a perfect example. He didn't even really
> *try* to do it right, even though during the instruction period, he
> did a good job. And many things he just did halfway in the
> "performance" period. That's a passive personality, very different
> from the others I've seen (I've seen the Staten Island cop and the
> Greek guy from Astoria).
An interesting perspective. It rings true to my ear, too.
Perhaps if the couple had just skipped the dancing and gone
straight to the bedroom-dancing? (Now *that* would have
been entertaining -- "hey, you guys with the cameras, you
don't *have* to leave; we want this for our collection!")
> He was nice enough, true, but he needs a lot of therapy (or he
> needs to be gang-banged, dunno which) before he would feel
> comfortable enough with himself to be able to dance, or just about
> anything else.
>
> Or, he needs to drink much more heavily (works for me).
>
> "You don't need a makeover -- you just need 8 margaritas! Right
> now!"
Are margaritas gay enough? I'd go with daquiris, myself.
David W. Fenton
<3f57cce8...@news.1stconnect.com>:
>dXXXf...@bway.net (David W. Fenton) kindly wrote:
>
>Re: Andra
>
>>But I just couldn't help thinking that she was just like Janel
>>Maloney (Donna Moss on The West Wing).
>>
>>This is one of the reasons I liked her, but I understand that the
>>Donna Moss character is widely hated.
>>
>>Comments?
>
>You mean Josh's secretary? . . .
Yep.
> . . . I loved her character. . . .
Me, too. Indeed, the chemistry between her character and Josh's is
one of the best things about the show.
> . . . (Don't watch WW
>anymore cos I thought the writing went way downhill then Rob Lowe
>left... now if they had Lily Tomlin's character on more... what a
>hoot!)
I still like West Wing, but I don't think Rob Lowe's departure was
the problem so much as the way they've written for Lily Tomlin.
>I wouldn't have connected Andra to Donna, but I see what you mean.
It struck me the very first time I saw her.
Clay Colwell
> >news:<bj581l$2s9$1...@panix2.panix.com>...
> >> In article <bj4rfl$a92$1...@panix5.panix.com>,
> >> <Nospa...@nospamPanix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> []
> >>
> >> >I still cannot easily
> >> >forgive the producers for setting J&A up like this
> >>
> >> I came in late on all this, so who is Audra, again?
> >
> >Andra is the Grace to James' Will.
>
> I liked her a lot, actually.
I appreciated her concern for James a lot. And she was
pretty gung ho in trying to determine which of the potentials
would be good matches with him.
I really wasn't trying to insult her by invoking Grace; I was
trying to portray her as the Straight Female Best Friend to
the Sexless Homosexual.
> But I just couldn't help thinking that she was just like Janel
> Maloney (Donna Moss on The West Wing).
>
> This is one of the reasons I liked her, but I understand that the
> Donna Moss character is widely hated.
>
> Comments?
I've never watched The West Wing. I hear some like the show, though.
Mike McKinley
>In article <bja4as$fcv$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
>Mike McKinley <mpmck...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>Richard Carlson wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But, based on the on-air footage, it just looked to me like Jai
>>>wasn't a very effective teacher. And I don't necessarily mean that
>>>as criticism of Jai, but rather disappointment that the show hasn't
>>>found a good niche for him, as it has for the other 4.
>>>
>>> One cannot learn to dance in an afternoon. Or from a three-minute
>>>segment.
>>>
>>>
>Oh, I'll bet he could with *you* teaching him, dearest.
>
>
I am the *worst* teacher. Impatient, abusive, imperious -- the way
I was trained.
Michael Thomas
> Michael Thomas <mi...@mtcc.com> writes:
>
> > Well, I now have two datapoints on Norwegian and damaged humor
> > glands.
>
> I think the term you're looking for is "a sophisticated and chic
> sense of humor".
He adores _The Quiet Man_ too and I had to give three
thumbs down to rid the infestation of Johnny Quest.
Careful, fellow traveler.
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
It's ironic: these old people are being kept alive by the
organs of the people they run over.
*Chief Wiggums* <-- Hi Alex!
Cornelia Wyngaarden
sfdavi...@yahoo.com wrote on 9/5/03 1:09 AM:
>
> Any self-respecting non-white person should be throwing rocks through
> their windows and burning their whites-only photos.
Be sure to tell them all about white racism, they may not have noticed it
for themselves.
corry
Alex Elliott
>>Well, again I haven't read the study, but the the threshold would
>>presumably be something like "95% confidence that this
>>distrubution is identical to the distribution expected from a
>>truly random sample."
>
>This assumes a normal distribution, of course.
No it doesn't. You can do a chi-squared test to see whether two
distributions are the same no matter what functional form those
distributions take. I've done chi-squared tests comparing Poisson
distributions myself.
>I'd think you'd need
>to look at the distribution of each characteristic separately. And
>I'm not sure that the right comparison would be to the population
>as a whole. I guess that would be your control group, but it would
>also be enlightening to compare various signs.
All those points are correct, though I do think comparing to the
population at large is valid. If you believe astrology, you'd expect a
selection of Scorpios to be measurably distinct from a selection across
all signs. It is definitely hard to tell how good this experiment is from
a newspaper write-up - especially a tongue-in-cheek one like this article.
I agree that if they didn't look at each characteristic separately that
that would be a problem, but I don't have too much problem with their only
choosing one sign - every study has its limitations and it's often better
to rely on a variety of different experiments rather than one single one
that tries to measure everything under the sun. This experiment doesn't
definitively disprove astrology for ever and ever, amen (despite what The
Telegaph articl might imply); but it does take one particular prediction
of astrology (people born at the same time will have similar
characteristics) and test it with negative results.
The article does mention another type of experiment, one of which is
described in detail here:
http://home.planet.nl/~skepsis/astrot.html
[Summary: Astrologers, many of them professionals, were sent seven full
astrological charts and seven personality profiles (questions on the
profile were suggested by the astrologers themselves) and asked to match
them up. Half of the astrologers were confident that they had made
perfect matches, but the average success rate was 0.75 out of 7 and the
most successful person only got 3 out of 7. Statistically, they did no
better than random guessing - they actually did marginally *worse* -
and degree of success was completely uncorrelated with the amount of
education or experience in astrology that each guesser had.]
The Telegraph article says the authors reviewed forty studies of this
kind (covering 700 subjects) and found that none of them had positive
results for astrology.
Alex.
Lee Rudolph
>I've done chi-squared tests comparing Poisson
>distributions myself.
Yeah, well, the big Chi-Rho Hisself distrubuted both Poisson *and* Pain;
you've got a ways to go, kid.
Lee Rudolph
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> I am the *worst* teacher. Impatient, abusive, imperious -- the way
> I was trained.
Do you shriek in a charming accent and whack clumsy students with sticks?
Gwendolyn
thinking fondly of her favorite ballet teacher