Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

(Slightly OT) On October 1, 1962, Magic Happened

53 views
Skip to first unread message

Chuck

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 4:04:22 PM10/1/02
to
40 years ago, On October 1, 1962, at 11:30 PM, a young entertainer and
Game Show host named Johnny Carson was introduced to millions by
Groucho Mark on the premiere broadcast of The Tonight Show Starring
Johnny Carson Taking over from Jack Paar, Carson, along with his
sidekick and co-host, "Big" Ed McMahon, would appear on millions of TV
sets in millions of American homes, entertaining audiences nightly. He
endeared himself to all with his hilarious bits, such as Aunt Blabby,
El Moldo, Carnac The Magnificent, Art Fern, parodies of TV shows and
Presidents, and of course his cunning wit and amazing ability to come
up with a spontaneous pants splitting remark just at the right time.
By the 70s' and 80's, he was earning $100 million a year for NBC and
was their primary source of revenue. He was, nay, still is, a
household name, and a prominent person in American culture. He was the
universal watercooler chat, the eqiuivalent of a midnight treat, and
the true king of comedy. This might seem a bit over the top for a
television performer, but he didn't just revolutionize television. He
revolutionized AMERICA. On May 22, 1992, Johnny retired, and has been
seen sparingly since. We love you Johnny, you were the best. And you
always will be.


Chuck

rayburn

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 4:19:22 PM10/1/02
to

"Chuck" <Saj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a569c8e2.02100...@posting.google.com...

Please don't speak for all of us Chuck with that "we" thing. I think that
Dick Cavett was MUCH, MUCH better than Carson in his prime, I mean he had
Jimi Hendrix and Joni Mitchell and radicals and John Lennon on his show
during the late sixties, early seventies (when Carson arguably had his
peak). Carson wasn't too far off from Jerry Lewis' Telethons with his
selection of guests and regulars, a virtual Vegas showcase it became. Also,
Carson was one of the biggest fascists in TV history (not my opinion,
something I've read), in fact, he hated comedy that wasn't too conventional,
Saturday Night Live, which replaced Carson reruns when it made it's debut in
1975, was number one on Carson's "I Hate" list.
So, while Carson's influence on TV and culture was, yes, very influential,
he really didn't speak to the youth with his shows, in fact, he only spoke
to Middle America. And while to each his own, I think I'd rather change the
channel.....

Mike

EPaddon

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 5:35:39 PM10/1/02
to
If Dick Cavett were really "better" he would have had a show that lasted 30
years.

And speaking as one of those who is "young" but whose instincts are Middle
American, I have never found SNL the slightest bit funny. To me, Carson was
one of the last who understood that there were some lines in comedy that were
best left uncrossed, and I have far greater respect for one who was influenced
by the likes of Jack Benny than those who were influenced by Lenny Bruce.

Eric Paddon

Mary L. Wallace

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 5:33:53 PM10/1/02
to
Chuck, I agree 110% (at least!) with your post about Johnny Carson! He
wouldn't have stayed on the air for 30 years without that magic! He
left quite a void when he retired in 1992 -- Jay Leno still has not even
come close to filling his shoes! David Letterman is much better than
Leno but. as good as he is, still isn't quite up there with Carson,
IMHO.

Humor is a subjective thing so to each their own! :-)

I was thinking about the anniversary earlier today so your post made my
day! :-))))

Mary Lou Wallace

N2Nuno

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 5:51:30 PM10/1/02
to
now, unfortunately, he has emphasyma

Kathy's Guy Since 6/16/02

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 5:31:56 PM10/1/02
to

"Chuck" <Saj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a569c8e2.02100...@posting.google.com...

Amen to that!

ObGameShow: Prior to landing his TS gig, Johnny hosted 2 game shows: the
short-lived Earn Your Vacation and the more memorable Who Do You Trust?.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")


Emperor Blitz

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 6:35:46 PM10/1/02
to
>
>Please don't speak for all of us Chuck with that "we" thing.

I agree. I found Carson rather stale and boring. And having Ed McMahon sit
there and cackle for all those years was annoying.

If not for Johnny, Ed would have probably been a janitor in bumbleville, North
Fuckberg.

Chuck #3: You're giving my name a bad name.

The Real Chuck #2
http://sport6449.tripod.com/generalblitzinfantry (Update soon)
"I'm so in love and so alive...'cos you're so beautiful...."--Def Leppard.

Joel Cairo

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 7:47:02 PM10/1/02
to
And let's not forget to thank the vigilant folks in NBC Engineering, who
apparently managed to lose not only the original color tape of the show,
but also any stray kinescope copies that they might have made for their
outlying affiliates.

Way to go, guys... :^(

-Kevin


Chuck wrote:

> 40 years ago, On October 1, 1962, at 11:30 PM, a young entertainer and
> Game Show host named Johnny Carson was introduced to millions by
> Groucho Mark on the premiere broadcast of The Tonight Show Starring

> Johnny Carson.

Emperor Blitz

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 7:58:04 PM10/1/02
to
>
>And let's not forget to thank the vigilant folks in NBC Engineering, who
>apparently managed to lose not only the original color tape of the show,
>but also any stray kinescope copies that they might have made for their
>outlying affiliates.
>
>Way to go, guys... :^(
>

Screw that, I'm more pissed they lost Super Bowl I.

Chuck

Doug

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 8:14:34 PM10/1/02
to
>Screw that, I'm more pissed they lost Super Bowl I.
>

Hey, didn't CBS lose it too (both nets carried the game)?

Also, it doesn't really matter. NFL Films pretty much has a monopoly on
highlights once NFL PRIMETIME is over, so the videotapes of the live game
broadcast would very rarely see the light of day anyway (think about it--when
was the last time you saw an actual non-celluloid videotape of a previously
played NFL game unless you or someone else taped it). As long as THEY still
have the footage, you're fine.

The only time I recall broadcast videoclips being shown was for an ESPN Classic
documentary about the history of televised football produced by (you guessed
it) NFL Films.

And oh yeah, I liked Johnny but prefer Dave.

Doug
--
Jim Perry: We asked 100 airline stewardesses: Has a pregnant woman ever given
birth on one of your flights?
Maury: That's happened--it's been reported. I had nothing to do with it,
though.
- CARD SHARKS (8/80)

Joel Cairo

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 8:36:09 PM10/1/02
to
Actually, if you look, you'll notice that Super Bowl II (which was in
the custody of NFL Films) is also gone.

I was told by another archivist that their storage was so poor, when
they went to pull the tape of SBII for a Super Bowl documentary, the
oxide fell off the backing in a shower of fine powder, back into the
tape case.

Thank God ASCAP was taping SBIII for music-rights review purposes...
their copy of NBC's broadcast is the only tape of **that** game that's
known to exist.

-Kevin

Doug wrote:

Robert Hutchinson

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 11:02:44 PM10/1/02
to
EPaddon says...

> If Dick Cavett were really "better" he would have had a show that lasted 30
> years.

ITYM "popular".

(Not a commentary on either Carson or Cavett, the above.)

--
Robert Hutchinson | "[Destiny's Child] got booed at the NBA
| playoffs. Even men in plush animal costumes
| don't get booed at the NBA playoffs."
| -- Fametracker.com

Matt Kaiser

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 11:28:33 PM10/1/02
to
40 years ago, On October 1, 1962, at 11:30 PM, a young entertainer and
> Game Show host named Johnny Carson was introduced to millions by
> Groucho Mark on the premiere broadcast of The Tonight Show Starring
> Johnny Carson

Johnny's VERY first words related to how he was honored to be part of
the Tonight Show and be infront of millions of people. He said "Only
one other thought I have on this night... I WANT MY NANA!"

The Tonight Show was originally a 90 minute show, but that changed in
the early 70s. Jack Paar had tried unsuccessfully to shorten Tonight
to an hourlong show while he was hosting, but somehow Johnny convinced
NBC that the show was too long and making it shorter might make it
better. It was also in the early 70s that he renegotiated his contract
to do 4 shows a week, with a rotating guest host for the 5th day.

In the 80s, the guest host was often an up and coming comic that was
on The Tonight Show that Johnnny enjoyed. Countless stand up comics
got their start on The Tonight Show, and knew just by looking at
Johnny if they were good enough. If Johnny just thanked you and moved
on, then don't expect to be reinvited. If he smiled and gave you an
"ok" gesture, that's a good thing. If Johnny was rolling on the floor
laughing, and invites you to sit with him for an interview, then you
MIGHT be guest hosting his show soon. One comic that didn't expect
this honor was Steven Wright, who used monotone delivery very
effectively. Steven was obviously unprepared to talk with Johnny, but
he did the best he could, and Johnny still enjoyed him.


He endeared himself to all with his hilarious bits, such as Aunt
Blabby,
> El Moldo, Carnac The Magnificent, Art Fern

And let's not forget Floyd R Turbo, a redneck character that wore a
red coat and a hat with ear flaps. Floyd was uneducated and spoke out
on issues he obviously knew not enough about. Floyd was often compared
to Archie Bunker. Floyd was not a bigot per se, but with Floyd's
education level, Archie could convince Floyd to become one.

Carnac the Magnificent was inspired by Steve Allen's "answer man" bit.
On the Steve Allen show, Tom Poston would read the answer to a
question, and Steve would provide the question (many thought this
inspired Jeopardy! too). Johnny did a very similar routine as Carnac.
Instead of having the answer read to him, Carnac would "predict" the
answer to the question inside an envelope (which were hermedically
sealed in a mayonaisse jar on Funk and Wagnall's front porch)

El Moldo was not a frequent character, but he was sort of the opposite
of Carnac. Instead of being an all knowing psychic, he was probably
the world's worst psychic, picking out members of the audience and
coming up with off the wall predictions for the audience member.

Aunt Blabby is what you might call a variation of the 2000 year old
man sketches that Mel Brooks and Carl Reiner did. (although she was
obviously NOT 2000 years old!) Aunt Blabby often spoke of the old
days, and Ed was the straight man. Aunt Blabby would often chide Ed
for repeating whatever "she" said.

Art Fern was a weird one. He hosted "Tea Time Movies". Art's schtick
was coming up with a an eclectic cast of stars, and putting them
together in some weird movie title. For example "Burt Reynolds, Bert
Parks, Rosa Parks, Tom Parks, Tom Kennedy star in "Elvis the 20 year
old Kangaroo eats Los Angeles". Art also sold merchandise (before the
informercial was invented) and when telling people how to get to the
place that sells the merchandise, shows a VERY complicated road map
with many twists and turns. (This sketch made frequent references to
the "Slaussen Off Ramp")

Chris Lemon

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 11:36:34 PM10/1/02
to
"Matt Kaiser" <mgf...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:79d2d1c7.02100...@posting.google.com...

> (This sketch made frequent references to
> the "Slaussen Off Ramp")

Where, of course, you would <Art Fern> "Get out of your car, cut off your
slaussen, and get back in your car!" </Art Fern>

And I'm surprised you neglected to mention the many Tea Time Movie Ladies,
one of which, Teresa Ganzel, would become a regular on the $25,000
Pyramid... :)


Doug

unread,
Oct 1, 2002, 11:50:32 PM10/1/02
to
>The Tonight Show was originally a 90 minute show, but that changed in
>the early 70s.

Not to get too technical, but the slashing of THE TONIGHT SHOW from 90 minutes
to 60 minutes didn't actually start until the 1980-81 season (from 1967 until
1980 it was 90 minutes). Here's a link to a site that traces the history
pretty accurately:

http://povonline.com/COL303.htm

Dixon Hayes

unread,
Oct 2, 2002, 12:02:07 AM10/2/02
to
>For example "Burt Reynolds, Bert
>Parks, Rosa Parks, Tom Parks, Tom Kennedy star in "Elvis the 20 year
>old Kangaroo eats Los Angeles".

You left out "Slit the Wonder Whale" and a number of other alleged animal
acts...

Dixon
===========
"We defy the mafia!"
--Barney Fife

Classic Hollywood Squares: http://www.classicsquares.com

Dixon Hayes

unread,
Oct 2, 2002, 12:02:48 AM10/2/02
to
>And I'm surprised you neglected to mention the many Tea Time Movie Ladies,
>one of which, Teresa Ganzel, would become a regular on the $25,000
>Pyramid... :)

...and perhaps the best know of which, Carol Wayne, was a regular on "Celebrity
Sweepstakes."

rayburn

unread,
Oct 2, 2002, 2:47:35 AM10/2/02
to

"EPaddon" <epa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021001173539...@mb-cv.aol.com...

> If Dick Cavett were really "better" he would have had a show that lasted
30
> years.

He would've if he played it "safe" like Carson and didn't try to get the
radicals on the show.

> And speaking as one of those who is "young" but whose instincts are Middle
> American, I have never found SNL the slightest bit funny. To me, Carson
was
> one of the last who understood that there were some lines in comedy that
were
> best left uncrossed, and I have far greater respect for one who was
influenced
> by the likes of Jack Benny than those who were influenced by Lenny Bruce.

A statement like that, to me, denounces anything that deviates from the
"natural, vaudevillian style of comedy", that would mean Monty Python, The
Firesign Theater, The VideoFreekz, Cheech and Chong, and so on....

Just my opinion of course...

Mike


rayburn

unread,
Oct 2, 2002, 2:48:08 AM10/2/02
to

"Emperor Blitz" <general...@aol.comengetit> wrote in message
news:20021001183546...@mb-fq.aol.com...

> >
> >Please don't speak for all of us Chuck with that "we" thing.
>
> I agree. I found Carson rather stale and boring. And having Ed McMahon
sit
> there and cackle for all those years was annoying.
>
> If not for Johnny, Ed would have probably been a janitor in bumbleville,
North
> Fuckberg.
>
> Chuck #3: You're giving my name a bad name.
>
> The Real Chuck #2

You tell em my man!

Mike


EPaddon

unread,
Oct 2, 2002, 3:29:44 AM10/2/02
to
>He would've if he played it "safe" like Carson and didn't try to get the
>radicals on the show.

This operates from the bogus premise that the radicals were guests worth
having. Doing something that offends Middle American sensibilities does not
mean it's "better."

>A statement like that, to me, denounces anything that deviates from the
>"natural, vaudevillian style of comedy", that would mean Monty Python, The
>Firesign Theater, The VideoFreekz, Cheech and Chong, and so on..

And with the singular exception of some Monty Python TV bits, I don't find any
of that group amusing either. I get more laughs from Jack Benny radio tapes
than anything that passes for "comedy" today.

Eric Paddon


Sonic Whammy

unread,
Oct 2, 2002, 10:32:49 AM10/2/02
to
I know the feeling about Johnny. The thought hit me yesterday morning, too. So
much so, I got out the tape of his last show and watched it again.

I can't believe it's been 40 years since we first brought the legend into our
homes. For us game show fans, I know it started sooner, but you have to admit,
it was with the Tonight Show that we were all able to truly appreciate what he
could give the American public.

Stay Way Past Cool!

Brian Sapinski
The Sonic Whammy

"October 1, 1962, is a day I'll always remember. I was 36 years old, taking my
place as host of America's most popular late-night program, The Tonight Show."

Chris Lemon

unread,
Oct 2, 2002, 12:21:03 PM10/2/02
to
"EPaddon" <epa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021002032944...@mb-mk.aol.com...

> Cheech and Chong, and so on..
>
> And with the singular exception of some Monty Python TV bits, I don't find
any
> of that group amusing either. I get more laughs from Jack Benny radio
tapes
> than anything that passes for "comedy" today.

Cheech and Chong were hysterical in the hippie/drug context they enjoyed
most of their fame in. The act is somewhat less funny today. Cheech Marin
realized this, which is why he dropped the character, cleaned up, and has
taken on more mainstream roles, such as Don Johnson's sidekick on "Nash
Bridges". Tommy Chong, unfortunately, doesn't seem to have figured this out
yet.

ObGameShow: One of the great moments on one of the first years of the
Celebrity Jeopardy week was Cheech Marin appearing - and proceeding to wipe
the floor with his opponents. Hey, maybe that little Mexican stoner ain't so
dumb after all! :)


rayburn

unread,
Oct 2, 2002, 2:51:01 PM10/2/02
to

"EPaddon" <epa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021002032944...@mb-mk.aol.com...

> >He would've if he played it "safe" like Carson and didn't try to get the
> >radicals on the show.
>
> This operates from the bogus premise that the radicals were guests worth
> having. Doing something that offends Middle American sensibilities does
not
> mean it's "better."


No it doesn't, but it also seems like it's censorship isn't it? It's not a
question of someone offending Middle America mind you, it's the same old
story of Middle America getting pissed off and bitter about something it
doesn't understand.
Yes, Cavett wasn't for everyone in America, but as usual, there is a coderie
of people in this country that complain and get pissed off about things that
A, weren't made for them in the first place, and B, just like to start
trouble because they are fixed in their ways and who the hell are these
"new" people trying to break convention with their "weird ways?" I'm sorry,
things change, not for the better always, but they need to change....

> >A statement like that, to me, denounces anything that deviates from the
> >"natural, vaudevillian style of comedy", that would mean Monty Python,
The
> >Firesign Theater, The VideoFreekz, Cheech and Chong, and so on..
>
> And with the singular exception of some Monty Python TV bits, I don't find
any
> of that group amusing either. I get more laughs from Jack Benny radio
tapes
> than anything that passes for "comedy" today.


Hey, I love Jack Benny also, so it's not this "exclusive club" one needs to
be in. I don't feel "proud" and my ego doesn't feel "stroked" that I like
Jack Benny, or Wheeler and Woosley and Ted Healy and his Stooges cause
they're from 1,000 years ago and not a lot of people know or care who they
are. I work in a film library and have thousands of feet of Jack Benny in
action that probably no one has seen in 60 years. Big deal. Who cares?


EPaddon

unread,
Oct 2, 2002, 4:10:33 PM10/2/02
to
>No it doesn't, but it also seems like it's censorship isn't it?

No it doesn't. If people exercise their choice not to watch something that
offends them and if they want to register a complaint about it, then they have
as much right to do that under the First Amendment as the radicals have to
speak. If a network decides to cancel programming because there's been a
lot of complaints, that isn't censorship that's a business responding to the
marketplace.

Eric Paddon

Chuck

unread,
Oct 2, 2002, 4:35:41 PM10/2/02
to
"rayburn" <matc...@matchgame.com> wrote in message news:<and0me$cm9$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>...

> Please don't speak for all of us Chuck with that "we" thing. I think that
> Dick Cavett was MUCH, MUCH better than Carson in his prime, I mean he had
> Jimi Hendrix and Joni Mitchell and radicals and John Lennon on his show
> during the late sixties, early seventies (when Carson arguably had his
> peak). Carson wasn't too far off from Jerry Lewis' Telethons with his
> selection of guests and regulars, a virtual Vegas showcase it became. Also,
> Carson was one of the biggest fascists in TV history (not my opinion,
> something I've read), in fact, he hated comedy that wasn't too conventional,
> Saturday Night Live, which replaced Carson reruns when it made it's debut in
> 1975, was number one on Carson's "I Hate" list.
> So, while Carson's influence on TV and culture was, yes, very influential,
> he really didn't speak to the youth with his shows, in fact, he only spoke
> to Middle America. And while to each his own, I think I'd rather change the
> channel.....
>
> Mike

general...@aol.comengetit (Emperor Blitz) wrote in message news:<20021001183546...@mb-fq.aol.com>...


OK. I didn't mean "we" as in ATGS, I mean "we" as in terms of a whole
hell of a lot of people who DO love Johnny Carson! In his prime,
(1978 numbers) he attracted 15-17 million viewers a night. Even into
his later years, he kept steady with around 10-12 million viewers a
night. Towards the end of Carson's run, he DID become a bit stale and
boring. I'm glad he cut it where he did. Carson DID like (some)
comedy that was "unconventional" or not the norm. He had many stand
up comics on that DEFINED unconventional. Carson did have a rather
large guest "blacklist", which either helped the show by
perfectionizing it or hurt it because of Johnny's dislike for some
guests (some quite funny).

Oh, and Emperor Blitz, I don't think Ed could have been able to take
your current position as head janitor in Bumbleville, North Fuckberg.
You're doing a fine job. Your own bumbling is evident in your very
own post. I really don't think I could give "your name" a "bad name".
What the hell would I do? Rename you Bartholomew Buxom??? Not
only is it not grammatically correct, it makes you sound like a
3-year-old.

Kathy's Guy Since 6/16/02

unread,
Oct 2, 2002, 6:18:25 PM10/2/02
to

"Matt Kaiser" <mgf...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:79d2d1c7.02100...@posting.google.com...
> The Tonight Show was originally a 90 minute show, but that changed in
> the early 70s. Jack Paar had tried unsuccessfully to shorten Tonight
> to an hourlong show while he was hosting, but somehow Johnny convinced
> NBC that the show was too long and making it shorter might make it
> better. It was also in the early 70s that he renegotiated his contract
> to do 4 shows a week, with a rotating guest host for the 5th day.

It was actually, once Paar took over, 1:45 in length...however, when local
stations began expanding their 11 PM newscasts from 15 min. to a half-hr
around 1965, it meant they weren't picking up the show until after Carson's
monologue. Recieving no help from NBC, he started not coming out of his
dressing room until 11:30, leaving the first 15 min. to Ed and the band,
until NBC agreed to officially move the monologue to 11:30. A year and 1/2
later in Jan 1967, due to friction caused by Ed's expanded role that Johnny
feared might overshadow him, the show was cut to an hour and 1/2.

Emperor Blitz

unread,
Oct 2, 2002, 8:29:12 PM10/2/02
to
>
>I can't believe it's been 40 years since we first brought the legend into our
>homes.

I tend to follow this view: He sucked. Can we stop with the tributes to
someone who only barely qualifies to be here?

Geez...enough already.


>For us game show fans, I know it started sooner, but you have to admit,
>it was with the Tonight Show that we were all able to truly appreciate what
>he
>could give the American public.

He gave nothing but lame humor and a bad golf swing. The Tonight Show was
lamer than lame, especially with that braying jackass Ed McMahon.

Chuck

Emperor Blitz

unread,
Oct 2, 2002, 8:32:42 PM10/2/02
to
>OK. I didn't mean "we" as in ATGS, I mean "we" as in terms of a whole
>hell of a lot of people who DO love Johnny Carson!

Good. Then state that next time.

>In his prime,
>(1978 numbers) he attracted 15-17 million viewers a night.

Yeah and I had the number one sports radio play-by-play calls in Central PA.
Whippy Dippy.

> Even into
>his later years, he kept steady with around 10-12 million viewers a
>night.

Mostly insomniacs and stoned people.

>Towards the end of Carson's run, he DID become a bit stale and
>boring. I'm glad he cut it where he did. Carson DID like (some)
>comedy that was "unconventional" or not the norm.

Unconventional IS comedy. Conventional people are boring as hell and put most
normal people to sleep.

> Carson did have a rather
>large guest "blacklist", which either helped the show by
>perfectionizing it or hurt it because of Johnny's dislike for some
>guests (some quite funny).

So he was a grudge holding old coot too.

>
>Oh, and Emperor Blitz, I don't think Ed could have been able to take
>your current position as head janitor in Bumbleville, North Fuckberg.

What else did he do for 30 years, other than that lame talent show Star Search?

>You're doing a fine job.

Whatever.

> Your own bumbling is evident in your very
>own post. I really don't think I could give "your name" a "bad name".

But you damn well do it.

> What the hell would I do? Rename you Bartholomew Buxom??? Not
>only is it not grammatically correct, it makes you sound like a
>3-year-old.

Here's one for you: Fuck Off and quit acting like you're perfect, Mr. Christ.

Chuck

Kathy's Guy Since 6/16/02

unread,
Oct 2, 2002, 9:08:20 PM10/2/02
to

"Emperor Blitz" <general...@aol.comengetit> wrote in message
news:20021002202912...@mb-fe.aol.com...

> I tend to follow this view: He sucked. Can we stop with the tributes to
> someone who only barely qualifies to be here?

If you don't like them, then don't read them...and he hosted a fairly
successful prime-time GS, plus appearances on TTTT and Password during that
time, so I'd say that qualifies him.

> He gave nothing but lame humor and a bad golf swing. The Tonight Show was
> lamer than lame, especially with that braying jackass Ed McMahon.

Funny, I always got a kick out of his stuff...in fact, I found much of his
stuff to really push the envelope of what was acceptable on TV, particularly
during his early years. And his jokes always ended up being re-told at
office water coolers across America, which is more than many late-night talk
show hosts can say.

Just my 2 cents...

Kathy's Guy Since 6/16/02

unread,
Oct 2, 2002, 9:14:23 PM10/2/02
to

"Emperor Blitz" <general...@aol.comengetit> wrote in message
news:20021002203242...@mb-fe.aol.com...

> >In his prime,
> >(1978 numbers) he attracted 15-17 million viewers a night.
>
> Yeah and I had the number one sports radio play-by-play calls in Central
PA.
> Whippy Dippy.

With all due respect (and no challenge to your abilities), that's basically
an "apples
vs. oranges" comparison, as I'm sure most would agree.

>
> > Even into
> >his later years, he kept steady with around 10-12 million viewers a
> >night.
>
> Mostly insomniacs and stoned people.

Doubtful...insomniacs really don't care what they watch on TV as long as it
sacks them out, and the only thing stoners are doing at that hr is looking
for their next high and trying to get their girl of the week into bed.

> Unconventional IS comedy. Conventional people are boring as hell and put
most
> normal people to sleep.

Funny, I always enjoyed Carson's stuff...you're entitled to your own
opinions, but I don't think anyone who put "normal people" to sleep would
hold the proverbial King of Late Night crown for damn near 30 yrs. Yes, he
was conventional to a large degree, but his humor, comedic abilities, and
countless memorable moments left a legacy in late night TV that, IMO, has
yet to be surpassed.

JC

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 1:26:55 AM10/3/02
to
"Emperor Blitz" <general...@aol.comengetit> wrote

> He gave nothing but lame humor and a bad golf swing. The Tonight Show was
> lamer than lame, especially with that braying jackass Ed McMahon.
>
> Chuck

---------------------------------------------------------

You think Carson was lame? Not only did he have great comedic timing,
but he also had unmatched interviewing abilities. No matter who sat in that
guest chair Johnny had the knack to make the interview funny. It's the one
show that no one would ever refuse to do. Johnny was genuinely funny without
being crude and offensive. Not everyone has the ability to do that. Carson
was the most influential host to ever live. A shot on the Tonight show was
not only a dream to many guests, but a single appearance kicked off many
successful careers. Ray Combs, David Letterman, Jay Leno.... and the list
goes on forever. Weather you like it or not, Carson was "The Man!" Not many
shows in the history of television had his kind of influence and most still
don't. You may not like him, but at least give credit where credit is due.
NBC didn't keep him on the air for 30 years for nothing.


John


Jim Ellwanger

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 2:01:20 AM10/3/02
to
In article <6Rtm9.3661$FO4.1021@sccrnsc03>,
"Chris Lemon" <clem...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote:

> "Matt Kaiser" <mgf...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:79d2d1c7.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > (This sketch made frequent references to
> > the "Slaussen Off Ramp")
>
> Where, of course, you would <Art Fern> "Get out of your car, cut off your
> slaussen, and get back in your car!" </Art Fern>

That's Slauson Cutoff (note spelling), which is an actual stretch of
freeway in Los Angeles. These days, it's called the Marina Freeway, but
when it was being built at around the time Johnny moved from New York to
Burbank, it was generally referred to as the Slauson Cutoff because it's
a limited-access alternative to a surface street named Slauson Avenue.

--
Jim Ellwanger <trai...@mindspring.com>
<http://trainman1.home.mindspring.com> welcomes you daily.
"The days turn into nights; at night, you hear the trains."

Doug

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 10:36:15 AM10/3/02
to
> Ray Combs, David Letterman, Jay Leno.... and the list
>goes on forever.

Well, two out of three ain't bad (sorry, Combs lovers).

Dixon Hayes

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 12:20:00 PM10/3/02
to
>Ray Combs, David Letterman, Jay Leno.... and the list
>goes on forever. Weather you like it or not, Carson was "The Man!"

I think I heard on one of his biographies that Ray Combs was the first standup
to be immediately invited over to Johnny's guest chair after finishing his
*debut* set. Anyone else know that for sure?

Chris Lemon

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 2:36:34 PM10/3/02
to

"JC" <unava...@private.net> wrote in message
news:zyQm9.72780$IL6.3...@news2.east.cox.net...

> You think Carson was lame? Not only did he have great comedic timing,
> but he also had unmatched interviewing abilities. No matter who sat in
that
> guest chair Johnny had the knack to make the interview funny. It's the one
> show that no one would ever refuse to do.

I'm a Carson fan, but this little element of his career wasn't all wine and
roses.

Yes, nobody ever refused to do his show, for two reasons: 1) it had a huge
audience, so if you needed to pimp whatever project you were working on, you
needed to pimp it on Carson. 2) Johnny had a pretty big ego. If Johnny
reached out the Hand Of God to you, and you turned him down without a good
reason for doing so, Johnny might not reach that hand out again. Unless you
were an Upper-A-List star, you might not be able to afford that snub.

Also, in interviews, yes, Johnny could be very funny. But the Golden Rule
was that you were NOT to be funnier than Johnny. If you were, you were often
not invited back.

There's no question his show was very entertaining and successful, but I'm
not about to go nominating him for Saint.


rayburn

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 3:03:38 PM10/3/02
to

"EPaddon" <epa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021002161033...@mb-mk.aol.com...

I agree with you completely. But it seems to me that there are people in
this country that DON'T complain under the guise you've laid out, DON'T
complain for a valid reason, but just do it for the sake of doing it,
because again, who the hell are these freaks to be breaking down convention.
That's for the wrong reasons.
And to me, a network caving in to a select group of people because they are
worried about losing ADVERTISING REVENUE, nothing more, they could give a
fuck about the people mind you, it has nothing to do with viewers tastes or
no tastes, then yes, that is censorship with a capital C.
Now canceling something cause of low ratings, that's another thing.....
:-)

Mike


EPaddon

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 3:22:53 PM10/3/02
to
>But it seems to me that there are people in>this country that DON'T complain
under the guise you've laid out, DON'T
>complain for a valid reason, but just do it for the sake of doing it,
>because again, who the hell are these freaks to be breaking down convention.

I think there is a valid reason in their complaints if the "conventions" being
broken down are done from the standpoint of trying to purposefully offend
people.

To cite a recent example, was the recent decision to cancel "Opie And Anthony"
on radio after the stunt they pulled "censorship" or was it sound business
managment responding to a justifiably outraged marketplace? I say without
hesitation the latter.

Eric Paddon

EPaddon

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 3:24:44 PM10/3/02
to
>There's no question his show was very entertaining and successful, but I'm
>not about to go nominating him for Saint.

Nor would I. His personal life speaks volumes to that, and he could be quite
petty and vicious in other things away from the show. The admiration I give
him is entirely based on the accomplishments of a professional career where he
earned every bit of his success.

Eric Paddon

Mark Jeffries

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 4:33:13 PM10/3/02
to
"Kathy's Guy Since 6/16/02" <chuc...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<WVMm9.64269$9d3.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...

> "Emperor Blitz" <general...@aol.comengetit> wrote in message
> news:20021002202912...@mb-fe.aol.com...
> > I tend to follow this view: He sucked. Can we stop with the tributes to
> > someone who only barely qualifies to be here?
>
> If you don't like them, then don't read them...and he hosted a fairly
> successful prime-time GS, plus appearances on TTTT and Password during that
> time, so I'd say that qualifies him.

Actually, by the time Carson got to what would become "Who Do You
Trust?", it had become a daytime show, but he still was the legitimate
star of that show.

And one could argue that by the time Chuck Blitz came across Carson in
the 80s he was a shadow of his former self, especially compared to the
madness that David Letterman was doing after his show on NBC--but
Carson was always funny, even if the material he worked with
particularly wasn't. And he made the job of hosting a late-night talk
show look easier than it really was (and is). And you also have to
admire the fact that he left on his terms and has stayed gracefully
out of the spotlight since then--you'll never see Johnny on "Celebrity
Fear Factor."

I like Dave, but Carson will always be the king of late-night.

Kathy's Guy Since 6/16/02

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 5:20:54 PM10/3/02
to

"EPaddon" <epa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021003152444...@mb-fx.aol.com...

> Nor would I. His personal life speaks volumes to that, and he could be
quite
> petty and vicious in other things away from the show. The admiration I
give
> him is entirely based on the accomplishments of a professional career
where he
> earned every bit of his success.

Same here, literally...he may not have been the nicest guy off-camera (a la
Allen Ludden), but the mark he left on TV in his almost 30 yrs on the air
will not be forgotten anytime soon.

Kathy's Guy Since 6/16/02

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 5:27:52 PM10/3/02
to

"EPaddon" <epa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021003152253...@mb-fx.aol.com...

> To cite a recent example, was the recent decision to cancel "Opie And
Anthony"
> on radio after the stunt they pulled "censorship" or was it sound business
> managment responding to a justifiably outraged marketplace? I say
without
> hesitation the latter.

Totally agree...if there had been no backlash and only a few complaints here
and there, you can bet O&A would still be running on WNEW.

Dixon Hayes

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 6:53:50 PM10/3/02
to
Chris Lemon wrote:

>Also, in interviews, yes, Johnny could be very funny. But the Golden Rule
>was that you were NOT to be funnier than Johnny. If you were, you were often
>not invited back.

I understand there were a large number of comedians who were exempt from this,
and Carson would sit back and be their biggest fan (and laugher) as they did
their thing. Those ranged from Jack Benny, Red Skelton and Groucho Marx to
George Carlin, David Letterman and Robin Williams.

If you were Ed McMahon, it was a different story. I heard (from McMahon, on
Tom Snyder's "Tomorrow Show") Carson off-handedly made some kind of remark
about passionate people being the ones most often bitten by mosquitoes and
McMahon slapped his own hand and said "Ouch!", apparently robbing Carson of
some joke he had set up. Carson reportedly didn't speak to him for about six
weeks.

I wouldn't nominate him for saint either (large number of show biz folks on
that cruise liner) but he was funny and he had an impact on TV that we can't
even begin to describe. The fact that he's pretty much been out of the public
eye for a decade and we're *still* talking about him this much should say
something. (I know, the same argument could be made for Cavett, I agree.)

Dixon Hayes

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 6:55:44 PM10/3/02
to
>Carson in
>the 80s he was a shadow of his former self, especially compared to the
>madness that David Letterman was doing after his show on NBC--but
>Carson was always funny,

Keep in mind that famous potato chip incident happened in the '80s, and it's
still a roaring hoot to watch now.

Chris Lemon

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 8:28:55 PM10/3/02
to
"Dixon Hayes" <dixon...@aol.comspamless> wrote in message
news:20021003185350...@mb-fj.aol.com...

> I understand there were a large number of comedians who were exempt from
this,
> and Carson would sit back and be their biggest fan (and laugher) as they
did
> their thing. Those ranged from Jack Benny, Red Skelton and Groucho Marx
to
> George Carlin, David Letterman and Robin Williams.

Right, sure, as in most shows, there was a list of guests who Carson needed
more than they needed him, and many of the above are on that list (the
"Upper-A-List" stars I referred to in my post), and most of those above fit
in that category.

> I wouldn't nominate him for saint either (large number of show biz folks
on
> that cruise liner) but he was funny and he had an impact on TV that we
can't
> even begin to describe.

Without question, I wholly agree.


Chris Lemon

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 8:36:18 PM10/3/02
to
"Dixon Hayes" <dixon...@aol.comspamless> wrote in message
news:20021003185350...@mb-fj.aol.com...
> I understand there were a large number of comedians who were exempt from
this,
> and Carson would sit back and be their biggest fan (and laugher) as they
did
> their thing. Those ranged from Jack Benny, Red Skelton and Groucho Marx
to
> George Carlin, David Letterman and Robin Williams.

Right, sure, as in most shows, there was a list of guests who Carson needed


more than they needed him, and many of the above are on that list (the
"Upper-A-List" stars I referred to in my post), and most of those above fit
in that category.

> I wouldn't nominate him for saint either (large number of show biz folks


on
> that cruise liner) but he was funny and he had an impact on TV that we
can't
> even begin to describe.

Without question, I wholly agree.


Chris Lemon

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 8:36:15 PM10/3/02
to
"Dixon Hayes" <dixon...@aol.comspamless> wrote in message
news:20021003185350...@mb-fj.aol.com...
> I understand there were a large number of comedians who were exempt from
this,
> and Carson would sit back and be their biggest fan (and laugher) as they
did
> their thing. Those ranged from Jack Benny, Red Skelton and Groucho Marx
to
> George Carlin, David Letterman and Robin Williams.

Right, sure, as in most shows, there was a list of guests who Carson needed


more than they needed him, and many of the above are on that list (the
"Upper-A-List" stars I referred to in my post), and most of those above fit
in that category.

> I wouldn't nominate him for saint either (large number of show biz folks


on
> that cruise liner) but he was funny and he had an impact on TV that we
can't
> even begin to describe.

Without question, I wholly agree.


Emperor Blitz

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 10:35:55 PM10/3/02
to
>And one could argue that by the time Chuck Blitz

Last name is Gibson.

Use it.

JC

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 11:55:28 PM10/3/02
to
> >And one could argue that by the time Chuck Blitz

"Emperor Blitz" <general...@aol.comengetit> wrote


>
> Last name is Gibson.
>
> Use it.

---------------------------------

First name is Chuck..... "not Emperor" Use It.


John


Bob the Dinosaur

unread,
Oct 3, 2002, 11:59:50 PM10/3/02
to
In article <Qi8n9.75084$IL6.3...@news2.east.cox.net>,
"JC" <unava...@private.net> wrote:

OK, Mr. Unavailable Private. :-) Just a joke, John... couldn't resist.

-- David

--
David Zinkin's Happy Fun World - http://www.davidzinkin.com
CompuZink Computer Consulting - http://www.compuzink.com
Fox News fan sites: ed-hill.com, donnafiducia.com, billmccuddy.com,
juliethuddy.com, briankilmeade.com, bobsellers.org

rayburn

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 12:20:17 AM10/4/02
to

"EPaddon" <epa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021003152253...@mb-fx.aol.com...

To me, there's always an exception to the rule when it's just done for shock
value and nothing more.
I agree with your statement no question. But what my point was (and still
is) is the reasons WHY something gets cancelled, WHY pressure from moral
groups exist. The parties responsible for canceling O&A ( who I never liked
at all) aren't doing it to "save the public" from harms way. If O&A was
pulling in millions in ratings (and I can't believe that it was, even if it
was getting big shares of big markets), they could get away with almost
anything and it would be tolerable, regardless of the backlash. Suddenly,
the negative attention would add to the appeal of what it is. Only if it's
on a downward spiral does this cut and dry type of thing exist IMO. It's a
thinly veiled hypocrisy too if you really think about it. There are plenty
of people in this country that would love to see Jimmy Swaggart banned from
the airwaves forever, probably lot's more than those who wanted O &A
banished. It all comes down to who wants to blow smoke the loudest.
Usually the Moral Majority gets it's way, the others, get left by the
curb... It's also a question of cutting the head off of something that's
losing tons of advertising and affiliate revenue. Wherever has something
been cancelled with a press release that stated "We cancelled this form of
entertainment because we want to protect the public" It's the motives that
make me use the word censorship, not the end results....

Mike


rayburn

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 12:29:53 AM10/4/02
to

"Kathy's Guy Since 6/16/02" <chuc...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:WVMm9.64269$9d3.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> "Emperor Blitz" <general...@aol.comengetit> wrote in message
> news:20021002202912...@mb-fe.aol.com...
> > I tend to follow this view: He sucked. Can we stop with the tributes to
> > someone who only barely qualifies to be here?
>
> If you don't like them, then don't read them...and he hosted a fairly
> successful prime-time GS, plus appearances on TTTT and Password during
that
> time, so I'd say that qualifies him.
>
> > He gave nothing but lame humor and a bad golf swing. The Tonight Show
was
> > lamer than lame, especially with that braying jackass Ed McMahon.
>
> Funny, I always got a kick out of his stuff...in fact, I found much of his
> stuff to really push the envelope of what was acceptable on TV,
particularly
> during his early years.

If that is the case, Jack Parr would usurp Carson totally when he got in big
trouble for the infamous yet hardly controversial Water Closet joke, on the
Tonight Show, prior to Johnny's run. Just because Johnny had things in his
early run like the time he made a joke about circumcision during the famous
Ed Ames Tomahawk throwing incident, doesn't qualify for me as envelope
pushing. :-)
It's also ironic to think that when someone really awesome like Lennon and
McCartney were on the Tonight Show in 1968, lo and behold, Joe Garagiola was
the guest. (yeah, I know, I'm sure it was a coincidence)
It's also telling that one of Carson's biggest rated shows ever was the Tiny
Tim and Miss Vicki wedding.
Let's see, you had some folks buying records like "TipToe Through The
Tulips" and making sure the picket fences were freshly painted every Sunday
and then you had some folks buying MC5 albums who were out getting shot by
the National Guard for holding daises or having sideburns look too long.
Now who did Carson play out for? :-)

By the way, I'll give Carson this, he is a kick ass closet drummer....

Mike

Mike


EPaddon

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 2:03:00 AM10/4/02
to
>The parties responsible for canceling O&A ( who I never liked
>at all) aren't doing it to "save the public" from harms way

Actually they did it to take a stance against what was a clear case of
anti-Catholic bigotry in the worst way. What is wrong with a Catholic group
standing up to the disgusting act of trying to get a crime committed through
the desecration of a sacred house of worship? What and O and A pulled was no
different than a neo-Nazi painting a swastika on a synagogue. That isn't
"censorship", especially when a criminal act was committed as a consequence.

>Usually the Moral Majority gets it's way,

You're out of date because the Moral Majority was disbanded in 1988.

>There are plenty of people in this country >that would love to see Jimmy
Swaggart >banned from the airwaves forever, >probably lot's more than those who
>wanted O &A banished.

Then write to your TV station and tell them you don't want that miserable joke
on TV whom I have no sympathy for (I would note that there is no one in
mainstream conservative Christianity who gives him the time of day). You have
the right to do that under the First Amendment just as the Catholic League has
its right to make its voice heard in what was a clear case of bigotry used to
justify the commission of criminal activity.

Eric Paddon

Chris Lemon

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 2:17:11 AM10/4/02
to
"EPaddon" <epa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021004020300...@mb-fx.aol.com...

> Actually they did it to take a stance against what was a clear case of
> anti-Catholic bigotry in the worst way.

"Anti-Catholic bigotry?" Are you HIGH?

If you think either Opie OR Anthony were thinking (or, in fact, cared) about
the denomination of the church in question even for a second, you are so out
of touch with reality that you are beyond help.

"Huh-huh. They're having sex in a church. This will be outrageous radio.
Play it."

They didn't care if that church was Catholic, Christian, Protestant,
Baptist, Mormon, Presbyterian, or Sub-Genius. For you to suggest that they
were specifically being anti-Catholic displays what a blind slave to your
faith you truly are.


EPaddon

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 2:27:35 AM10/4/02
to
>"Anti-Catholic bigotry?" Are you HIGH?

No, just calling a spade a spade. What they did was bigoted beyond belief.
The fact that they were willing to see that stunt pulled in a revered
institution like St. Patrick's Cathedral demonstrates anti-Catholic bigotry at
its core just as doing it in a synagogue would demonstrate anti-Semitism.

>For you to suggest that they
>were specifically being anti-Catholic displays what a blind slave to your
>faith you truly are.

Wrong again because I'm not even Catholic. But I do have a low regard for
the kind of bigotry that is engaged in against Catholicism by the likes of O
and A.

Eric Paddon

JC

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 3:05:40 AM10/4/02
to

First name is Chuck..... "not Emperor" Use It.


"Bob the Dinosaur" <dzin...@rochester.rr.com> wrote


>
> OK, Mr. Unavailable Private. :-) Just a joke, John... couldn't resist.

----------------------------------

LOL! I know. :-)


John


rayburn

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 3:11:25 AM10/4/02
to

"EPaddon" <epa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021004020300...@mb-fx.aol.com...

> >The parties responsible for canceling O&A ( who I never liked
> >at all) aren't doing it to "save the public" from harms way
>
> Actually they did it to take a stance against what was a clear case of
> anti-Catholic bigotry in the worst way. What is wrong with a Catholic
group
> standing up to the disgusting act of trying to get a crime committed
through
> the desecration of a sacred house of worship? What and O and A pulled was
no
> different than a neo-Nazi painting a swastika on a synagogue. That isn't
> "censorship", especially when a criminal act was committed as a
consequence.

Totally agreed. But don't they have the right to do it by the 1st Amendment
law? Of course not myself and I'm sure everyone else here would tolerate
hate crimes and racism in any form, but the Neo-Nazi thing brings up another
interesting point. The old punk bands The New York Dolls and The Ramones to
some extent used to wear Nazi garb, the story is that members thought it
looked cool, and didn't even know of the horrific thing it represented.
Ludicrious nonetheless, but still they had the right to do it under the
constituional law. Of course some people balked at that garb (rightfully
so), but then you had people like Danny Fields who managed the Ramones at a
time who was Jewish who wasn't offended by the joke, realizing what the
intent was. I never claimed what O&A DID was censored, it was the right to
do it. Just because a million people hate what someone may do, right or
wrong, they have a right to do it, you said it yourself! :-)


> >Usually the Moral Majority gets it's way,
>
> You're out of date because the Moral Majority was disbanded in 1988.

I meant the type....

> >There are plenty of people in this country >that would love to see Jimmy
> Swaggart >banned from the airwaves forever, >probably lot's more than
those who
> >wanted O &A banished.
>
> Then write to your TV station and tell them you don't want that miserable
joke
> on TV whom I have no sympathy for (I would note that there is no one in
> mainstream conservative Christianity who gives him the time of day). You
have
> the right to do that under the First Amendment just as the Catholic League
has
> its right to make its voice heard in what was a clear case of bigotry used
to
> justify the commission of criminal activity.
>

I know. It just seems that the moral right wingers spend a lot more time
(wasting it?) dealing with this stuff than others.
All I am saying, to finally put this to rest on my end, is that the right
always seems to poke their noses in things they shouldn't have any business
in in the first place. I would hope that groups that try to ban albums,
films, what have you would at least WATCH or LISTEN to what they are
protesting, and not going on an image they see, or a epithet that they hear,
or an exposed body part they cringe at. I remember reading about a group
picketing Monty Python's Life of Brian when it came out originally, and the
article went on to say that no one protesting the "blasphemy" had actually
SEEN the movie.
Absolutely, no one should be pigeonholed by the first amendment rights. I
totally agree. But as I have stated again and again, it's the motives of
the people behind the changes, not the results....

Mike

chris319

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 3:25:57 AM10/4/02
to
>I do have a low regard for
>the kind of bigotry that is engaged in against Catholicism by the likes of O
>and A.

Judging from your past posts, you seem to have a distinct preference for your
own brand of bigotry.

chris319

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 4:03:57 AM10/4/02
to
>the Golden Rule
>was that you were NOT to be funnier than Johnny. If you were, you were often
>not invited back.

What are YOU high on? Carson was a terrific straight man and a keen student of
comedy who had no qualms about repeatedly booking guests who would get more
laughs than he, be they upper-A-list celebs, up-and-comers (such as Leno and
Letterman) or civilians. Ask yourself this: what comedian would come on Carson's
show to prove that he was LESS funny than Johnny?

On the other side of the coin, George Fenneman has said that the downfall of
many a contestant on You Bet Your Life was that they tried to be funnier than
Groucho, who of course would hand them their heads.

EPaddon

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 4:27:27 AM10/4/02
to
>Judging from your past posts, you seem to have a distinct preference for your
>own brand of bigotry.

Like what for instance? Don't give me some blanket crap, be specific. If
that is, you have the guts (which I suspect you don't)

Eric Paddon

EPaddon

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 4:39:07 AM10/4/02
to
>Totally agreed. But don't they have the right to do it by the 1st Amendment
>law?

No, they do *not* have the right to violate FCC Standards nor to encourage the
commission of a criminal act, which was what that couple engaged in, and in
which the producer was a willing abettor of. And that is what makes what
they did all the more odious.

>Just because a million people hate what someone may do, right or
>wrong, they have a right to do it, you said it yourself! :-)

That ends with violations of the law which all radio stations are supposed to
abide by in order to have a license from the government to broadcast.

>It just seems that the moral right wingers spend a lot more time
>(wasting it?) dealing with this stuff than others.

Oh really? Then how do you explain the actions of Jessie Jackson's
organizations, the gay rights lobby etc. etc.? God knows they've made their
sure of public protests and demands to get people they don't like yanked off
the air or to get companies and organizations to change their practices to suit
their particular agendas. Or is the First Amendment right of protest a one
way street that isn't applicable to conservative Christian organizations who
choose to register their concerns as citizens?

> is that the right
>always seems to poke their noses in things they shouldn't have any business
>in in the first place.

In other words, they have no First Amendment right of protest unlike the
special interest groups of the left.

>I would hope that groups that try to ban albums,
>films,

Actually, their protests have never centered around "banning" of anything.
When they protest pornographic art in a museum, the protest only happens when
it is in a publicly financed museum supported by tax dollars. They know and
are mindful of the fact that any private oraganization has the right to do what
they want. And if O and A were doing their shtick at a private nightclub,
that wouldn't be protested either. But the airwaves are public airwaves,
subject to regulation by the Federal government statutes in the FCC, which is
supported by the taxpayers money and when any organization is in violation of
those statutes, then an organization justly has the right to complain. And
when a company chooses to sell questionable music, then protestors have the
right to say, "Fine, if you want to sell that just remember you're not going to
have us as customers and we have the right to mobilize our supporters to not
frequent your establishment either." Or must everyone be compelled to do
their business at such places?

>and the
>article went on to say that no one protesting the "blasphemy" had actually
>SEEN the movie

I don't need to see a XXX movie to know that I'm going to be offended. And I
would like you or anyone with a straight face to tell me why anyone who takes
their faith seriously should *not* have been offended by that particular movie?
Do I need to read Mein Kampf from cover to cover to know what Hitler's
attitude toward Jews was?

>t's the motives of
>the people behind the changes, not the results....

Well I would submit that I sure have a hard time understanding the motives of
those who don't protest the actions of left wing protest groups when they use
the same tactics conservative groups use.

Eric Paddon

Robert Hutchinson

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 11:40:47 AM10/4/02
to
EPaddon says...

<snip some things I agree with somewhat>

> Actually, their protests have never centered around "banning" of anything.
> When they protest pornographic art in a museum, the protest only happens when
> it is in a publicly financed museum supported by tax dollars. They know and
> are mindful of the fact that any private oraganization has the right to do what
> they want.

This, in a word, is a laugh. I can't begin to count how many
organizations have fought to ban material sold or displayed in private
establishments by using obscenity laws (an obscenity in themselves, if
you ask me).

--
Robert Hutchinson | "[Destiny's Child] got booed at the NBA
| playoffs. Even men in plush animal costumes
| don't get booed at the NBA playoffs."
| -- Fametracker.com

Chris Lemon

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 11:57:44 AM10/4/02
to
"EPaddon" <epa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021004022735...@mb-fx.aol.com...

> No, just calling a spade a spade. What they did was bigoted beyond
belief.
> The fact that they were willing to see that stunt pulled in a revered
> institution like St. Patrick's Cathedral demonstrates anti-Catholic
bigotry at
> its core just as doing it in a synagogue would demonstrate anti-Semitism.

But my POINT, which you conveniently ignored, is that you can't suggest that
they are singling out one single religious group when it's perfectly clear
they COULDN'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT PARTICULAR CHURCH the act was taking place
in.

The way you're talking, you're suggesting that if the couple showed up with
a tape and said "Listen to this, I did my wife in a synagogue", they would
instantly say "No, nope, can't have that, the Synagogue is holy, we're only
accepting tapes of people bonking in those Heathen Catholic churches." And
you know damn well that isn't the case.

If they're guilty of being anti-ANYTHING, it's anti-religion, and last I saw
we had some papers that allowed that.


EPaddon

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 1:25:47 PM10/4/02
to
>But my POINT, which you conveniently ignored, is that you can't suggest that
>they are singling out one single religious group

Your "point" is a non-sequitur of the first order. Once they gave
encouragement for the crime to be committed in that particular location it
reflected their own contempt for that particular faith, just as countenancing
in any other would also have shown their equal contempt and bigotry for other
faiths.

If your excuse is that somehow the fact that they are equal opportunity bigots
lets them off the hook, that's the most pathetic defense I've ever heard.

Now will you kindly explain why you didn't answer my question with regard to
citing specific examples of my "bigotry"? Or do you just lack the guts to do
so, as I said?

Eric Paddon


Chris Lemon

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 2:25:21 PM10/4/02
to
"EPaddon" <epa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021004132547...@mb-mn.aol.com...

> If your excuse is that somehow the fact that they are equal opportunity
bigots
> lets them off the hook, that's the most pathetic defense I've ever heard.

I'm hardly defending them, except to the point that I would defend any DJ or
radio host whose management threw them under the bus when the heat became
too much for them to stand. All I've stated is that your suggestion that
they are specicially "anti-Catholic" is pure stupidity. And THAT I feel I've
backed up.

> Now will you kindly explain why you didn't answer my question with regard
to
> citing specific examples of my "bigotry"? Or do you just lack the guts
to do
> so, as I said?

Uh, because that was Chris319 making that accusation, and not me, you numb
fuck?

(Your apology is accepted in advance.)


rayburn

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 2:50:49 PM10/4/02
to

"EPaddon" <epa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021004043907...@mb-fx.aol.com...

> >Totally agreed. But don't they have the right to do it by the 1st
Amendment
> >law?
>
> No, they do *not* have the right to violate FCC Standards nor to encourage
the
> commission of a criminal act, which was what that couple engaged in, and
in
> which the producer was a willing abettor of. And that is what makes
what
> they did all the more odious.
>
> >Just because a million people hate what someone may do, right or
> >wrong, they have a right to do it, you said it yourself! :-)
>
> That ends with violations of the law which all radio stations are supposed
to
> abide by in order to have a license from the government to broadcast.

Thus making the supposed "free marketplace" and "free press" totally shut
out. Let's think about people like Abbey Hoffman or Thomas Forcade, who was
probably assassinated by a group who didn't like his subversive tactics.
FCC regulations are a bunch of crap. Jerry Springer gets away with murder.
How about the Osbournes, it's okay I guess if you bleep the offending words,
then you can put it on eh? What kind of hypocrisy is that?

> >It just seems that the moral right wingers spend a lot more time
> >(wasting it?) dealing with this stuff than others.
>
> Oh really? Then how do you explain the actions of Jessie Jackson's
> organizations, the gay rights lobby etc. etc.? God knows they've made
their
> sure of public protests and demands to get people they don't like yanked
off
> the air or to get companies and organizations to change their practices to
suit
> their particular agendas. Or is the First Amendment right of protest a
one
> way street that isn't applicable to conservative Christian organizations
who
> choose to register their concerns as citizens?

Totally ludicrous statement, because Jesse Jackson (who called NYC
"HymieTown" remember?) and Gay Rights activists (who IMO would hardly ever
support causes that weren't self centered) are no different than the right
wingers. Again, it all goes back to the MOTIVES of the situation. My
biggest point, again, is that the groups that blow the most smoke, whether
they have a 1st amendment right to do so, always seems do it for the wrong
reasons.

> > is that the right
> >always seems to poke their noses in things they shouldn't have any
business
> >in in the first place.
>
> In other words, they have no First Amendment right of protest unlike the
> special interest groups of the left.

Of course they do. I kept saying it again and again, but if there are bunch
of people over here smoking pot and having sex without condoms and hate the
government, why should they be bothered by people who can't relate at all to
them, and are bent on destroying what THEY do? It always seemed to me that
the youth, or people who deviate from the norm, have to feel a wrath and
pressure by people who are fixed in their ways and instead of saying, well
THESE people over there really aren't bothering US, we still gotta make em
pay....

Yeah, but how many protestors even CARE about the music they are protesting?
If a 1st amendment right gives somebody the right to say this music is
wrong, even though what's to say is wrong or not? Fats Waller made music in
the 20's that was so filled with sexual innuendo, it would make some of
today's hip hop artists blush. But who gets the censorship. I'm not
advocating what the Gangsta rappers do, I'm just saying that so and so group
hears a sexist lyric, sees this figure looking like a gangster, and thus,
whoops, we better ban him, cause he's gonna fuck our kids up right? Wrong.
Freewill is what makes being a human being great. Not every rapper is evil.
Not every person who wears a nose ring is a weirdo. Not every person who
likes Lenny Bruce is "subversive". If I don't like something, I change the
channel, I don't buy it, I don't listen to it. But even though I'm
protected by the constitution to do so, who the hell am I to say what's
right or wrong for the masses? That's my point you see.


>
> >and the
> >article went on to say that no one protesting the "blasphemy" had
actually
> >SEEN the movie
>
> I don't need to see a XXX movie to know that I'm going to be offended.
And I
> would like you or anyone with a straight face to tell me why anyone who
takes
> their faith seriously should *not* have been offended by that particular
movie?
> Do I need to read Mein Kampf from cover to cover to know what Hitler's
> attitude toward Jews was?

How can you compare 6,000,000 Jews being slaughtered to someone viewing
fellatio in their own home? That's crazy. And you see, you've justified my
point. Something that's apples and oranges becomes this same kind of
"steamrolling" over everything by these groups.
Monty Pythons Life of Brian NEVER made fun of Christ. They made fun of the
way people READ INTO CHRIST. There's a big difference in loving a divine
diety or what have you and the obsessive way that people do it. Not to far
from the obsessions Nazi's had for Hitler in that respect huh? And that
statement is kind of something that John Lennon got in big trouble for.
Again, by Middle America, again by people who didn't take a second to
realize what he meant. They heard him go, "We're bigger than Jesus" and all
these people didn't take a second to try and figure out what he meant.

>
> >t's the motives of
> >the people behind the changes, not the results....
>
> Well I would submit that I sure have a hard time understanding the motives
of
> those who don't protest the actions of left wing protest groups when they
use
> the same tactics conservative groups use.

The only difference is here, is that if someone is protesting a war, like
when Vietnam was protested it was wrong, yet what Nixon was doing was
considered right by the majority, the people IN power, the people IN
control.
The tactics may be the same by both sides, sure, but again, it all comes
down to why is someone doing something and who is it good for? If someone
is preventing me from seeing a foreign film because it may have explicit sex
or violence that may even be integral to the plot, is it doing me any good
if I love and respect and aren't offended by images on celluoid to know that
it was being done "for my own good?" Who is anyone but ME to say what's for
my own good? Right?

Mike


>
> Eric Paddon


rayburn

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 4:01:18 PM10/4/02
to

"Chris Lemon" <clemon7...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:ankmem$f43jk$1...@ID-127786.news.dfncis.de...

Amen to that Chris!!!!! Absolutely, 100 percent correct!

Mike


Chuck

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 5:34:26 PM10/4/02
to
general...@aol.comengetit (Emperor Blitz) wrote in message news:<20021002203242...@mb-fe.aol.com>...
> >OK. I didn't mean "we" as in ATGS, I mean "we" as in terms of a whole
> >hell of a lot of people who DO love Johnny Carson!
>
> Good. Then state that next time.

If I wanted to refer to all of ATGS, I would say, "We here at ATGS".
You ASSUMED I was referring to all of ATGS. "When you assume, you
make an ass out of you and me."


>
> >In his prime,
> >(1978 numbers) he attracted 15-17 million viewers a night.
>
> Yeah and I had the number one sports radio play-by-play calls in Central PA.
> Whippy Dippy.

Yes, but did 15-17 million people listen in? Hell no.
>
> > Even into
> >his later years, he kept steady with around 10-12 million viewers a
> >night.
>
> Mostly insomniacs and stoned people.

Only ignorant people or opiniated jackasses think that. Either you
honestly don't know much about this topic (Whick is perfectly OK) or
you are an opiniated jackass. I would really like to believe the
former, but your behavior strongly suggests the latter.
>
> >Towards the end of Carson's run, he DID become a bit stale and
> >boring. I'm glad he cut it where he did. Carson DID like (some)
> >comedy that was "unconventional" or not the norm.
>
> Unconventional IS comedy. Conventional people are boring as hell and put most
> normal people to sleep.

Everyone has their own opinions. Some people (though I imagine few)
would belie that Charles Grodin was fascinating, while someone like a
David Letterman was as boring as staring at a toe nail for 3 hours.
>
> > Carson did have a rather
> >large guest "blacklist", which either helped the show by
> >perfectionizing it or hurt it because of Johnny's dislike for some
> >guests (some quite funny).
>
> So he was a grudge holding old coot too.

I can't defend the fact that he held grudges. Most were very petty.
Only a handful, not even, were actually justified.
>
> >
> >Oh, and Emperor Blitz, I don't think Ed could have been able to take
> >your current position as head janitor in Bumbleville, North Fuckberg.
>
> What else did he do for 30 years, other than that lame talent show Star Search?

Well, pick up his biography. I won't bore you with details, but...

>He served in the marines. Twice. Once for WWII and second for
"police action" in Korea

>Hosted 13 different local TV shows in Pennsylvania, including Game
Shows, Talk Shows, Variety Shows, Cooking Shows, Sitcoms (early &
undeveloped incarnations) and Kids Shows

>Got big break in TV in 1957 as Announcer and Co-Host of Who Do You
Trust? Got job through next door neighbor, America n Bandstand host
Dick Clark

>Hosted Missing Links

>Landed job as announcer/sidekick of The Tonight Show Starring Johnny
Carson for 30 years

>Did hundreds of commercials/advertisements for many companies,
including Budweiser and Alpo, and still does advertisements. "You may
have already won $10 million."

> Hosted Snap Judgment

>Hosted Concentration

>Hosted Whodunnit?

>Hosted Star Search for 12 years

>Been a part of the annual Jerry Lewis Telethon for more than 35
years.

>Has appeared on hundreds of TV shows, a list so long I can't list
them all here.

When your resume becomes as good looking as this, call me and we'll
talk, OK?



>

> > Your own bumbling is evident in your very
> >own post. I really don't think I could give "your name" a "bad name".
>
> But you damn well do it.

Damn well do what? Bumble or give your name a bad name? You need to be
clearer. That way people won't assume your age has less than two
digits in it, OK?
>
> > What the hell would I do? Rename you Bartholomew Buxom??? Not
> >only is it not grammatically correct, it makes you sound like a
> >3-year-old.
>
> Here's one for you: Fuck Off and quit acting like you're perfect, Mr. Christ.

I'm not acting like I'm perfect. I'm far from perfect. However, I
shouldn't have to put up with you treating me like I'm full of shit.
I'm not. You have your own opinions, and that's great. But just
because I have opinions that are different from yours doesn't make me
retarded. Now pull your big, ego inflated head out of your ass.

EPaddon

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 6:18:25 PM10/4/02
to
>I would defend any DJ or
>radio host whose management threw them under the bus when the heat became
>too much for them to stand

No matter how bigoted they were, and no matter how much they were in violation
of existing FCC Standards. Thank you very much.

>All I've stated is that your suggestion that
>they are specicially "anti-Catholic" is pure stupidity

No it isn't. If they are willing to encourage that conduct in that location
that means they are anti-Catholic as part of a general anti-religious bigotry,
and to suggest that they ought to be let off the hook because they're equal
opportunity bigots is still the most idiotic line of thinking I've ever heard
of in my life.

>Uh, because that was Chris319 making that accusation, and not me, you numb
>fuck?

With that type of crudity you're not getting one from me, since I don't think I
should be blamed for seeing joint idiocy run together in this instance.

Eric Paddon

EPaddon

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 6:36:36 PM10/4/02
to
> Let's think about people like Abbey Hoffman

Yeah a no-talent jerk who encouraged violence and who finally showed the
worthlessness of his character by overdosing on his precious drugs.

>My
>biggest point, again, is that the groups that blow the most smoke, whether
>they have a 1st amendment right to do so, always seems do it for the wrong
>reasons.

Standing up for one's beliefs in the public square is perfectly within the
American tradition, and I'm not about to let those of conservative beliefs get
singled out as somehow being more odious than those of the Left who usually get
a free pass when they engage in the same tactics. It's nice of you to say
they're no different but that's the kind of clarification you should be making
from the outset.

> but if there are bunch
>of people over here smoking pot and having sex without condoms and hate the
>government, why should they be bothered by people

Well if they're doing it in a public forum or in a public place where they feel
they must flaunt such behavior then citizens as taxpayers do have a right to
object to such conduct in the name of community standards that have been agreed
to by the democratic process. This is not about breaking into private homes
and regulating what people do behind closed doors and never has been.

>Yeah, but how many protestors even CARE about the music they are protesting?

Quite a bit in fact. When such music encourages violence, murder, sexual
conduct etc. people do have a right to voice their objections.

>who the hell am I to say what's
>right or wrong for the masses?

Because we who do object reject the ideas of moral relativism which you are now
espousing and arguing on behalf of relativism is a surefire way to say, "Oh, I
don't believe in murder but who am I to say that's wrong if someone else does
it."

>How can you compare 6,000,000 Jews being slaughtered to someone viewing
>fellatio in their own home?

All sin is equal in the eyes of God ultimately. Mein Kampf is a piece of
intellectual pornography and I don't need to read that to know what it stands
for, just as I don't need to see a pornographic movie to know what it
encourages.

>Monty Pythons Life of Brian NEVER >made fun of Christ.

What rubbish.

> They made fun of the
>way people READ INTO CHRIST. There's a big difference in loving a divine
>diety or what have you and the obsessive way that people do it.

Define "obsessive". Because people sing hymns of praise to God? Because
people of faith merely choose to fulfill Christ's calling to preach the Gospel
unto all ends of the Earth rather than keep their mouths shut? What is this
"obsessive" way people believe in God that is suppsoedly worthy of being so
viciously caricatured as that movie did? How is *any* Christian supposed to
come away from a film like that and not have reason to feel offended?

>Not to far
>from the obsessions Nazi's had for Hitler in that respect huh?

So now you liken Christians to Nazis. And you have the nerve to talk about
apples and oranges! What has Christianity ever done to merit such
comparison especially since Hitler's Germany, like all totalitarian states, was
rooted in the *rejection* of traditional religion? (One of the biggest lies
is to say that Hitler and Nazis were traditional Christians. Wrong. Hitler
and Nazism is based on Nietzchean "Superman" theory which is an extension of
ideas Darwin first came up with)

> Who is anyone but ME to say what's for
>my own good? Right?

I'm afraid you've missed the whole point of what such protests are based on.
They are based on (1) not letting such books and movies get formal sanction by
the government through the use of taxpayers money being spent on them, which we
have a right to complain about and that (2) community standards of a community
that have been arrived at through the democratic process must take precedence.
The right of individuals to do what they want in the privacy of thier homes
so long as no other individuals are injured as a consequence of their actions
is not, and never will be in any danger from anything the protestors on my side
of the aisle want to see happen.

Eric Paddon

Emperor Blitz

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 6:45:05 PM10/4/02
to
>Yes, but did 15-17 million people listen in? Hell no.

15 million people didn't watch Johnny when he was my age. Give me time.

>Either you
>honestly don't know much about this topic (Whick is perfectly OK) or
>you are an opiniated jackass. I would really like to believe the
>former, but your behavior strongly suggests the latter.

Neither, it's my opinion. Hear that? O-P-I-N-I-O-N.

>Everyone has their own opinions. Some people (though I imagine few)
>would belie that Charles Grodin was fascinating,

Very few, amen to that.


>David Letterman was as boring as staring at a toe nail for 3 hours.

Uh, ok there bub.

>I can't defend the fact that he held grudges. Most were very petty.
>Only a handful, not even, were actually justified.

Thank you.

>Well, pick up his biography. I won't bore you with details, but...
>
>>He served in the marines. Twice. Once for WWII and second for
>"police action" in Korea
>

Big poopin' deal. I know plenty of two-time vets.

>>Hosted 13 different local TV shows in Pennsylvania, including Game
>Shows, Talk Shows, Variety Shows, Cooking Shows, Sitcoms (early &
>undeveloped incarnations) and Kids Shows

None of which anyone remembers today.

>>Got big break in TV in 1957 as Announcer and Co-Host of Who Do You
>Trust? Got job through next door neighbor, America n Bandstand host
>Dick Clark
>

Ah ha! There ya go, it's not about your talent, it's who you know. (Of course
having both helps)

>>Landed job as announcer/sidekick of The Tonight Show Starring Johnny
>Carson for 30 years

Rephrase to mean braying jackass. Wasted career IMNSHO.

>
>>Did hundreds of commercials/advertisements for many companies,
>including Budweiser and Alpo, and still does advertisements. "You may
>have already won $10 million."
>

Fraudulant ads if my court memory is still good. At least the stupid
Publishers Clearning House Crap.

>When your resume becomes as good looking as this, call me and we'll
>talk, OK?
>

Most people remember him as a braying donkey on Johnny's couch, and that's how
I remember him.

rayburn

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 7:14:11 PM10/4/02
to
Okay, you exactly proved many of my points Eric. One, did you read between
the lines with what I meant when I made the Germany comparison. No, of
course not, you just saw the text at face value and made your judgment.
Not breaking into peoples homes? Abbey Hoffman had the fucking CIA bust
into his home constantly, try to plant drugs on him, please do your homework
before you try to respond to some of these points!
Let me ask you a question. If you don't like certain music or films or TV
shows because of this or that, can you still honesty say with a cool
attitude, that yes, it still has a right to be sold and or broadcast because
of 1st amendment rights?
When right wingers are up against the wall, here comes the bullshit. It
would take a gun right to your temple (not you, a generalization of right
wingers I mean) to make you admit you are wrong, or feel the pressure that a
debate is slipping, or just to say, yeah, I can see that side.
First and foremost, here's my spin on things:
My definition of obsessive is the way religion feels that THIS IS THE ONLY
WAY TO BE, there is no other and FUCK YOU all to damnation and hell if you
don't believe us. Most wars are over religion and nothing more. What has
religion brought us in the last few centuries but pain, pestilence,
inquisitions and the like. Gee, isn't it great for guys like you to reflect
how great the Spanish Inquisition was, just gutting up people and hanging
them by their balls cause they didn't agree with the hierarchy.
God is an opinion like it or not. Does God exist? I can't answer that
question. But I certainly make a claim that God DOESN'T exist, just as
zealous as those who claim he does. How dare I make such an accusation?
Your beautiful candy coated, homogenized and shellacked 1st amendment rights
baby....

And again, only I HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE MY OWN FUCKING CHOICES. I can
smoke crack, shoot heroin, (like our boy Abbey Hoffman, do you even know
what he went through, or does his "look" and "agenda" offend you?), do
whatever I want, so what if it offends you? Good. How offended am I at
many things in life, heavily, like all of us, but I can easily turn away
from what I don't like. Moral groups can't. Why should I give any credence
to a group that doesn't give two shits about me, and even you my friend,
don't be so deceived. Open your eyes man. Do you really think that your
right wing groups care even about you? They don't. I don't want to dig
about tax dollars (by the way, it's pretty old to me to believe in that old
crap that "just because you're a taxpayer" blah,, blah. Well I'm a taxpayer
too, right?) this and that, because it's all stemming from a right wing
bent. I'm talking about DOING GOOD FOR PEOPLE FOR THE SAKE OF DOING GOOD.
( I don't do drugs of course, surprise, but I'm making a point) By the way,
guys like GO Gordon Lady and John Dean were such bigger scumbags and losers
(IMO) than guys like Abbey Hoffman.

By the way, this whole debate has never been an attack on anyone Republican
or Democrat, Right Wing or Left Wing. It's about individuals reasons for
why they do what they do. And as a final note, what does that mean,
"individuals will never BE IN DANGER from anything the protestors on my side
of the aisle want to see happen." Sounds like fascism to me with a big fat
IF....

Now c'mon man, let's get back to Match Game! :-)

Mike

EPaddon

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 7:37:51 PM10/4/02
to
>Abbey Hoffman had the fucking CIA bust
>into his home constantly, try to plant drugs on him,

Oh I see, in other words Hoffman never took drugs voluntarily. You just lost
all your credibility on that one.

>If you don't like certain music or films or TV
>shows because of this or that, can you still honesty say with a cool
>attitude, that yes, it still has a right to be sold and or broadcast because
>of 1st amendment rights?

Of course, and it's my right under that same First Amendment to call crap crap
and to encourage those who feel as I do to not watch or encourage the promotion
of such crap and when taxpayers money is involved its our right to put a stop
toward our tax dollars being used by the government to give official sanction
to such material. That's the other side of the coin you keep forgetting which
assumes the First Amendment is a one way street.

>My definition of obsessive is the way religion feels that THIS IS THE ONLY
>WAY TO BE, there is no other and FUCK YOU all to damnation and hell if you
>don't believe us.

Well sorry, but that is what Christ states when He says "I am the way, the
truth and the light, no man comes to the Father except by me." That isn't a
case of the "followers" being obsessive, that is a case of honoring what the
Son of God commanded to us and I for one am not going to apologize for the fact
that Christians choose to take the things they are commanded to believe
seriously and not bend them to satisfy the whims of bigots. You are as an
individual given the free choice to reject that line of thinking and to reject
it if you like, but Christians and those of any other meaningful faith do not
take the view that all religions are created equally and when you slam us for
believing that you are engaging in what can only be called a bigoted opinion in
which you believe that we must surrender our principles to live up to your
standards.

>Most wars are over religion and nothing more.

Actually more people in the 20th century were murdered as the result of state
sponsored atheism than all the so-called "religious wars" combined of all
previous centuries. And whenever there were such "religious wars" it was not
the result of following Christian doctrine to the letter.

>And again, only I HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE MY OWN FUCKING CHOICES

Indeed you do. But above, you just demanded that Christians give up their
principled beliefs to satisfy you before you'd stop justifying bigoted attacks
on them and that exposes your hypocrisy in the extreme. (not to mention the
fact that you showed yourself to be a tower of ignorance with regard to where
Christians base their belief on).

> Open your eyes man. Do you really think that your
>right wing groups care even about you?

The conservative groups I belong to happen to better reflect the values I
believe in, and I'm not going to apologize for supporting them.

>By the way,
>guys like GO Gordon Lady and John Dean were such bigger scumbags and losers
>(IMO) than guys like Abbey Hoffman.

When did I ever praise them? There you go again showing how little in fact
you know about where mainstream conservatism stands.

> And as a final note, what does that mean,
>"individuals will never BE IN DANGER from anything the protestors on my side
>of the aisle want to see happen."

It simply means that the spin in which your side demonizes the actions of
conservative protestors is 100 percent false.

> Sounds like fascism to me with a big fat

No, actually it means standing up for the principles that are at the heart of
Western Civilization, which sure as heck isn't moral relativsm and the other
garbage that led us to Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, the Khmer Rouge etc. etc.

Eric Paddon

Chris Lemon

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 7:58:28 PM10/4/02
to
"EPaddon" <epa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021004181825...@mb-mn.aol.com...

> No matter how bigoted they were, and no matter how much they were in
violation
> of existing FCC Standards. Thank you very much.

I didn't say that. Putting words in my mouth is only weakening your
argument.

> No it isn't. If they are willing to encourage that conduct in that
location
> that means they are anti-Catholic as part of a general anti-religious
bigotry,

Which is MUCH MUCH different than just stating "anti-Catholic" by itself.

> and to suggest that they ought to be let off the hook because they're
equal
> opportunity bigots is still the most idiotic line of thinking I've ever
heard
> of in my life.

Which I have repeatedly denied saying. Yer obviously blind or an idiot.

> With that type of crudity you're not getting one from me, since I don't
think I
> should be blamed for seeing joint idiocy run together in this instance.

Ah, there it is. Yer an idiot.


Chris Lemon

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 8:00:52 PM10/4/02
to
"Emperor Blitz" <general...@aol.comengetit> wrote in message
news:20021004184505...@mb-cl.aol.com...

> Most people remember him as a braying donkey on Johnny's couch, and that's
how
> I remember him.

Yeah, but you know, if I could pull down that kind of paycheck for being a
braying donkey, well, hee-haw.

(You, the one in the back who suggests that I already DO, you can leave
now... ;))


EPaddon

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 8:08:41 PM10/4/02
to
>I didn't say that.

Oh yes you did. When you suddenly get on the case of those who forced the
removal of those bigots, you by default defended their encouragement of crimes
being committed and violation of FCC standards. Merely translating what you
say into plain English doesn't weaken my case but sure exposes the weakness of
yours.

>Which is MUCH MUCH different than just stating "anti-Catholic" by itself.

No it isn't. And in your case you tried to use this phony distinction as
somehow an indicator of less terrible behavior on their part.

>Which I have repeatedly denied saying

That is the position you have taken when you say that it makes no difference
where this act they encouraged took place.

>Ah, there it is. Yer an idiot.

There is a difference between acknowledging factual error and apologizing, and
in your case you get only an acknowledgment of a factual error on my part
caused by seeing two inane posts running together with the same inane thought.
I don't apologize to those who
use intellectually vapid arguments to defend bigots.

Eric Paddon


Curt Alliaume

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 9:30:07 PM10/4/02
to
In article <20021003122000...@mb-me.aol.com>,
dixon...@aol.comspamless (Dixon Hayes) writes:

>>Ray Combs, David Letterman, Jay Leno.... and the list
>>goes on forever. Weather you like it or not, Carson was "The Man!"
>
>I think I heard on one of his biographies that Ray Combs was the first
>standup
>to be immediately invited over to Johnny's guest chair after finishing his
>*debut* set. Anyone else know that for sure?

I thought that honor went to Freddie Prinze.

-- Curt Alliaume
----------------------
Game Shows '75
http://www.curtalliaume.com/gameshow.html

Chris Lemon

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 10:33:20 PM10/4/02
to
"EPaddon" <epa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021004200841...@mb-mn.aol.com...

> Oh yes you did. When you suddenly get on the case of those who forced
the
> removal of those bigots, you by default defended their encouragement of
crimes
> being committed and violation of FCC standards.

You are a fuckin' clod in the first degree.

You tell me when I got on the case of "those who forced the removal of those
bigots." I want DIRECT QUOTES.

You can't do it. Because I didn't.

Have you worked in radio for even a minute? Because I haven't once taken a
stand for or against the FCC, or espoused an opinion on whether it was right
for O&A to be fired, or whether their First Amendment rights have been
violated, or whatever. NOT ONCE.

THIS IS WHAT I HAVE SAID:

1) Program directors of radio stations, more and more these days, want to
hire "edgy, outrageous" talent, who will do "wild and shocking" things on
their shows - but they won't defend them when the FCC gets their panties in
a bunch.

2) You're starting to backpedal on this one now, because I think you realize
what a jackass it's made you sound like, but every time you suggest that O&A
were "anti-Catholic" AS OPPOSED TO a global "anti-religious", you display
your own ignorance and lack of knowledge of the issue by thinking that O&A
actually cared which particular type of church the act was committed in.

I do not defend their actions. I do not defend the actions of those who
fired them. I'm simply saying that your insinuation that they gave Shit #1
about the denomination of the church (which is EXACTLY what you were saying
when you used the term "anti-Catholic") is giving a couple of idiot shock
DJ's a whole lot more credit then they are probably deserving of.

> Merely translating what you
> say into plain English doesn't weaken my case but sure exposes the
weakness of
> yours.

Except you're attemping to weaken a case that I NEVER MADE, which is doing a
FINE job of proving the case that I AM making, that you are an idiot.


Chris Lemon

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 10:38:13 PM10/4/02
to
"EPaddon" <epa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021004200841...@mb-mn.aol.com...

> Oh yes you did. When you suddenly get on the case of those who forced
the
> removal of those bigots, you by default defended their encouragement of
crimes
> being committed and violation of FCC standards.

You are a fuckin' clod in the first degree.

You tell me when I got on the case of "those who forced the removal of those
bigots." I want DIRECT QUOTES.

You can't do it. Because I didn't.

Have you worked in radio for even a minute? Because I haven't once taken a
stand for or against the FCC, or espoused an opinion on whether it was right
for O&A to be fired, or whether their First Amendment rights have been
violated, or whatever. NOT ONCE.

THIS IS WHAT I HAVE SAID:

1) Program directors of radio stations, more and more these days, want to
hire "edgy, outrageous" talent, who will do "wild and shocking" things on
their shows - but they won't defend them when the FCC gets their panties in
a bunch.

2) You're starting to backpedal on this one now, because I think you realize
what a jackass it's made you sound like, but every time you suggest that O&A
were "anti-Catholic" AS OPPOSED TO a global "anti-religious", you display

your own ignorance and lack of knowledge of the issue by implying that O&A


actually cared which particular type of church the act was committed in.

I do not defend their actions. I do not defend the actions of those who
fired them. I'm simply saying that your insinuation that they gave Shit #1
about the denomination of the church (which is EXACTLY what you were saying
when you used the term "anti-Catholic") is giving a couple of idiot shock
DJ's a whole lot more credit then they are probably deserving of.

> Merely translating what you


> say into plain English doesn't weaken my case but sure exposes the
weakness of
> yours.

Except you're attemping to weaken a case that I NEVER MADE, which is doing a

EPaddon

unread,
Oct 4, 2002, 10:57:29 PM10/4/02
to
>You are a fuckin' clod in the first degree.

I'll gladly put my intellect up against your peabrain, which is incapable of
uttering a sentence without the f-word, anytime.

>every time you suggest that O&A
>were "anti-Catholic" AS OPPOSED TO a global "anti-religious",

And I reiterate: There is absolutely no difference of any substance between
the two. Bigotry is bigotry. And if that action had been performed in a
synagogue there would have been no problem with calling that action
anti-Semitic. That they had no qualm about letting this happen once it was
taking place in St. Patrick's Cathedral made them anti-Catholic bigots for this
particular event. And that is the plain unadulterated truth. For you to
blow a gasket over that shows that in your idiotic thinking being blanketly
bigoted against all religions somehow means that the justified objections of
the Catholic League somehow matter not. That is what your side comes down
to, and hiding behind f-words and insults isn't going to change that.

>I do not defend their actions. I do not defend the actions of those who
>fired them.

Anyone who takes a moral equivalence position with regard to that matter
automatically by default puts themselves on one particular side. When that
action was taken, there was only one decent option available and it was the one
that came to pass.

Eric Paddon


Chris Lemon

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 12:01:05 AM10/5/02
to
"EPaddon" <epa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021004225729...@mb-mn.aol.com...

> I'll gladly put my intellect up against your peabrain, which is incapable
of
> uttering a sentence without the f-word, anytime.

You clearly don't read my posts. Although that much is obvious based on the
way you have approached this argument.

> And I reiterate: There is absolutely no difference of any substance
between
> the two.

And our fundamental difference is that I say yes, there is:

For you to say "anti-Catholic", in my opinion, implies that O&A actually
CARED that the act in question was taking place in a Catholic-denomination
church. I'm telling you that I would be completely and utterly shocked if
this were the case. In fact, I'd go so far to suggest that they didn't even
care that it was a CHURCH. All they cared about was that it was a
controversial location for two people to be doing the Horizontal Mambo, most
likely. That's my OPINION.

And you are within your rights to disagree with this opinion, just as I am
within mine to think you are doing a grave disservice to those who are
fighting the good fight against hatred based on religion with your
Wolf-Crying act.

> And if that action had been performed in a
> synagogue there would have been no problem with calling that action
> anti-Semitic.

Yeah, there would have. Replace "church" with "synagogue" above.

If you can't see that, then we agree to disagree. And that's fine, but
that's where the whole "I think yer an idiot" thing comes in. :)


chris319

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 5:15:39 AM10/5/02
to
>But my POINT, which you conveniently ignored, is that you can't suggest that
>they are singling out one single religious group when it's perfectly clear
>they COULDN'T GIVE A SHIT WHAT PARTICULAR CHURCH the act was taking place
>in.
>
>The way you're talking, you're suggesting that if the couple showed up with
>a tape and said "Listen to this, I did my wife in a synagogue", they would
>instantly say "No, nope, can't have that, the Synagogue is holy, we're only
>accepting tapes of people bonking in those Heathen Catholic churches." And
>you know damn well that isn't the case.
>
>If they're guilty of being anti-ANYTHING, it's anti-religion, and last I saw
>we had some papers that allowed that.

Lemon makes a good point. If I take a crap in the woods is that an act of
bigotry against the U.S. Forest Service?

IIRC the premise of the stunt was to find the most outrageous public place to
have sex. This could have been a window at Bloomingdales, the infield at Yankee
stadium, the sidewalk outside the Today show studio, or a number of other
venues. Disrespectful to the Catholic church, yes, but to say that the church
was the target of anti-Catholic bigotry is taking the demagoguery a little too
far.

EPaddon

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 8:09:54 AM10/5/02
to
>Disrespectful to the Catholic church, yes, but to say that the church
>was the target of anti-Catholic bigotry is taking the demagoguery a little
>too far.

Nope, in this case it's telling it like it is. Anti-Catholic bigotry,
Anti-Christian bigotry, Anti-religious bigotry, it all stems from the same ugly
head.

Eric Paddon


Kathy's Guy Since 6/16/02

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 11:47:09 AM10/5/02
to

"Emperor Blitz" <general...@aol.comengetit> wrote in message
news:20021004184505...@mb-cl.aol.com...
> >>Hosted 13 different local TV shows in Pennsylvania, including Game
> >Shows, Talk Shows, Variety Shows, Cooking Shows, Sitcoms (early &
> >undeveloped incarnations) and Kids Shows
>
> None of which anyone remembers today.

True, but does anyone remember the local shows that Allen Ludden, Dick
Clark, or other well-known emcees did early in their career? That's still a
good way to start.

Chuck Donegan (The Illustrious "Chuckie Baby")


Lisa Pease

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 3:45:01 PM10/5/02
to
epa...@aol.com (EPaddon) wrote in message news:<20021004181825...@mb-mn.aol.com>...

I do.

>
> Eric Paddon

Lisa Pease

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 3:52:29 PM10/5/02
to
"Chris Lemon" <clem...@NOSPAMattbi.com> wrote in message news:<Qbsn9.50579$dp1.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net>...

You mean a genuine "idiot." You mean Paddon is the type of moron
that one could envision so well when Charles Nelson Reilly uttered
"idiot" so beautifully and so often in "H R Pufnstuf." Maybe that
show will return to a cable channel one day and the present tense will
become applicable here.

Bob the Dinosaur

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 4:15:52 PM10/5/02
to
In article <cc1b1d23.02100...@posting.google.com>,
bucke...@hotmail.com (Lisa Pease) wrote:

> You mean a genuine "idiot." You mean Paddon is the type of moron
> that one could envision so well when Charles Nelson Reilly uttered
> "idiot" so beautifully and so often in "H R Pufnstuf." Maybe that
> show will return to a cable channel one day and the present tense will
> become applicable here.

Obviously David Henschel, aka "Lisa Pease," is the one who's been
"puffin' stuff." :-)

-- David

--
David Zinkin's Happy Fun World - http://www.davidzinkin.com
CompuZink Computer Consulting - http://www.compuzink.com
Fox News fan sites: ed-hill.com, donnafiducia.com, billmccuddy.com,
juliethuddy.com, briankilmeade.com, bobsellers.org

EPaddon

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 4:19:05 PM10/5/02
to
If Henschel is chiming in on this, I think I only need point to his as a
portrait of a totally disturbed individual really is.

Eric Paddon

Lisa Pease

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 4:48:16 PM10/5/02
to
epa...@aol.com (EPaddon) wrote in message news:<20021001173539...@mb-cv.aol.com>...
> If Dick Cavett were really "better" he would have had a show that lasted 30
> years.

There was no one self-contained Cavett show that lasted long, but he
remained very visible in the TV medium for ninety percent of the
period between 1968 and the 1995 cancellation of his talk show on the
cable channel CNBC. In 1979 he narrated what may have been the first
documentary series HBO ever broadcast. They were historical specials
about each decade of the Twentieth Century up to that time, including
the 70s. I still remember how HBO used technical tricks to insert
Cavett into old news footage.

He may have disappeared in the early 80s because of mental illness,
but he reappeared with a bang in the fall of 1986 when he tried to
compete with Carson again as Joan Rivers had started doing. He
tackled the brand-new topic of Iran Contra, reminding viewers that
Mark Twain never got tired of slamming politicians. Many of the ABC
executives who reduced Cavett's early 70s talk show from nightly to
monthly are dead now, so we may never know precisely why he moved from
ABC to PBS, then to a fledgling cable channel, then back to ABC in
1986.

>
> And speaking as one of those who is "young" but whose instincts are Middle
> American, I have never found SNL the slightest bit funny. To me, Carson was
> one of the last who understood that there were some lines in comedy that were
> best left uncrossed, and I have far greater respect for one who was influenced
> by the likes of Jack Benny than those who were influenced by Lenny Bruce.

Character comedy wasn't Lenny Bruce's strong point. He used the same
voice and mannerisms throughout most of his routines. Not a single
SNL regular going back to its first season has cited Bruce as a major
influence. Chevy Chase has talked openly of Ernie Kovacs making his
entire career possible. He said it when he accepted an Emmy award in
1976. That was smack dab in the middle of an era when images of Ernie
were totally absent from TV, and you didn't hear anyone even mention
his name on the air.

John Belushi called Milton Berle a "great man" and chided the SNL
writers for giving Uncle Milty terrible material when he hosted the
show in 1979. He was right; it was so bad that Lorne Michaels made it
disappear immediately after the live broadcast. You haven't seen it
since and you won't see it again. Gilda Radner never cited any other
female as an influence, but that's understandable because people will
accept originality in a woman more easily than in a man. When Laraine
Newman gave interviews at the height of her fame, the only clues she
gave about her muse were that she worshiped horror movies and she
didn't want to fall into the trap of Steve Rossi and Marty Allen,
whose repetition of "Hello Dere" brought them very short-lived fame.

Phil Hartman praised Jonathan Winters in TV interviews that were
broadcast before his wife murdered him. Eddie Murphy can get away
with saying that nobody influenced him because he vastly improved upon
the single flaw SNL had between 1975 and 1980: the blaxploitation of
Garrett Morris. SNL did offend many people as early as its first
season when it ridiculed the justifiable homicide defense of
professional celebrity Claudine Longet, then on trial for murder. But
Lorne Michaels was smart enough to showcase so many recurring
characters like Baba Wawa and President Ford that the hurt feelings of
Longet became a dead issue quickly. People do talk about Sinead
O'Connor ripping up a photograph of the pope ten years later.

Lenny Bruce turns up a lot on cable channels, but you never hear
anyone such as Steve Allen link him to SNL humor. Henry Morgan
didn't, as he praised Bruce and denigrated SNL when the tell-all book
about the series got media attention in 1986. Lorne Michaels
responded by saying that he was amazed to hear that Morgan was still
alive. If you get the big picture, you will see that Jack Benny and
Lenny Bruce were just two of several influences on male comedians who
followed them.


>
> Eric Paddon

Paul Duca

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 6:07:00 PM10/5/02
to

Dick Clark hosted "Bandstand" as a strictly local Philadelphia
show for a year before ABC picked it up.


Paul

Paul Duca

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 6:12:05 PM10/5/02
to

Curt Alliaume wrote:

> In article <20021003122000...@mb-me.aol.com>,
> dixon...@aol.comspamless (Dixon Hayes) writes:
>
> >>Ray Combs, David Letterman, Jay Leno.... and the list
> >>goes on forever. Weather you like it or not, Carson was "The Man!"
> >
> >I think I heard on one of his biographies that Ray Combs was the first
> >standup
> >to be immediately invited over to Johnny's guest chair after finishing his
> >*debut* set. Anyone else know that for sure?
>
> I thought that honor went to Freddie Prinze.
>

A very few performers of any type were invited to the couch after a
debut appearance...including Bette Midler in 1970, and in 1968 Barbara
Cowsill, the mother of the family pop-music singing group.


Paul

Kathy's Guy Since 6/16/02

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 6:17:22 PM10/5/02
to

"Paul Duca" <tomser...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3D9F634D...@attbi.com...

>
> Dick Clark hosted "Bandstand" as a strictly local Philadelphia
> show for a year before ABC picked it up.

True, but I was referring more to the pre-Bandstand shows Dick did in places
like Utica, NY.

chris319

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 10:43:20 PM10/5/02
to
>Nope, in this case it's telling it like it is. Anti-Catholic bigotry,
>Anti-Christian bigotry, Anti-religious bigotry, it all stems from the same ugly
>head.

No matter how far you extend your game of "Name That Bigotry", your demagoguery
is pretty far afield. You're playing the bigotry card the same way Johnnie
Cochrane plays the race card.

The premise of the stunt was to have sex in the most outrageous public place,
not to find the most outrageous way to desecrate the Catholic church, yet it's
the kind of thing that wold push the "bigotry" button on someone who is
extremely dense, extremely paranoid or both.

Bob the Dinosaur

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 11:04:41 PM10/5/02
to
In article <267vpusa7rf5c7on3...@4ax.com>,
chris319 <c319...@aol.com> wrote:

> No matter how far you extend your game of "Name That Bigotry",

"Chris, I can name that bigotry in one slur." :-)

EPaddon

unread,
Oct 5, 2002, 11:41:54 PM10/5/02
to
>You're playing the bigotry card the same way Johnnie
>Cochrane plays the race card.

What nonsense. Cochran played the race card in order to obfuscate the fact of
his client's guilt. In my case, the description is used to describe something
that was actually done. And to not acknowledge that a bigoted impulse
toward those of religious faith, especially Christian faith and within that
Catholic faith, accounted for that action, goes a long way toward whitewashing
the reasons why this provoked the outrage that it did.

>The premise of the stunt was to have sex in the most outrageous public place,
>not to find the most outrageous way to desecrate the Catholic church,

A church is not a mere "public place" it is a house of worship for millions of
people who put a higher value on it then they do for the courthouse square or
any secular public place. To have not paused to recognize that what was
being condoned, especially in that kind of setting would generate justifiable
outrage from those who place meaning on what a church symbolizes, once again
reflects the bigoted impulse your side likes to ignore.

The only people I see in this debate being dense are those who have a serious
problem with acknowledging that bigotry against those of faith is a serious
problem in our society.

Eric Paddon

Lisa Pease

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 1:54:16 PM10/6/02
to
epa...@aol.com (EPaddon) wrote in message news:<20021005161905...@mb-fx.aol.com>...

> If Henschel is chiming in on this, I think I only need point to his as a
> portrait of a totally disturbed individual really is.

There is no Henschel and nobody is chiming in on anything. What
people (plural) have been doing in this thread is shooting down your
off-the-wall theories about religion, the First Amendment and the
total influence Lenny Bruce supposedly has had on every single
comedian or comedienne who has uttered a four-letter word. This isn't
the "Henschel" you have been hallucinating about, nor is anyone
responsible for an X squared plus Y quantity of Eric Paddon's posts
coming from an impostor as you have pointed out within the last year.

If the "you" pronoun is allowed here as opposed to a name that could
be phony (check out something called AFTRA) or the "I" that is the
scourge of journalism, then this group should know that you are
deranged. You, whoever you are with your twisted views of religion
and the sameness of everyone in the Midwest, are one sick puppy. Your
name might not be Eric Paddon, but so what? How many people know O.
J. Simpson's first name off the top of their head? Watch, "Eric" is
so fucking stupid, such a friendless loser, that he'll just reply with
Simpson's full name as if that proves his wacko theories.

>
> Eric Paddon

Lisa Pease

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 2:02:06 PM10/6/02
to
Bob the Dinosaur <dzin...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message news:<dzinkin1-86F4A3...@news.fu-berlin.de>...

> In article <cc1b1d23.02100...@posting.google.com>,
> bucke...@hotmail.com (Lisa Pease) wrote:
>
> > You mean a genuine "idiot." You mean Paddon is the type of moron
> > that one could envision so well when Charles Nelson Reilly uttered
> > "idiot" so beautifully and so often in "H R Pufnstuf." Maybe that
> > show will return to a cable channel one day and the present tense will
> > become applicable here.
>
> Obviously David Henschel, aka "Lisa Pease," is the one who's been
> "puffin' stuff." :-)

# 1 There is no David Henshel or however you're spelling it this time.

# 2 There are videocassettes of an early 70s Saturday morning kids'
show on which Charles Nelson Reilly used the word "idiot" many times.
The show was called either "H R Pufnstuf" or "Lidsville." TV trivia
books by Earle Marsh don't list cancelled Saturday morning shows, and
identifying all of Reilly's shows can really put a dent in someone's
social life.

# 3 Even if you're friendless enough to find dates of premiere
broadcasts and finales, you'll never get trivia about the commercial
he did for Bic Banana ballpoint pens.

# 3 Whoever uses the name Eric Paddon is still an idiot, in case you
were wondering.

>
> -- David

Emperor Blitz

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 4:33:18 PM10/6/02
to
>How many people know O.
>J. Simpson's first name off the top of their head?

Orenthal James.

Chuck
http://sport6449.tripod.com/generalblitzinfantry (Update soon)
"I'm so in love and so alive...'cos you're so beautiful...."--Def Leppard.

you oughta know

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 5:15:05 PM10/6/02
to
"Lisa Pease" <bucke...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc1b1d23.02100...@posting.google.com...

Ooooo... Henschel's using the tagline I smacked it with last go-round.
What's that line Allen used about Benny? "Couldn't ad-lib a belch after a
Hungarian dinner without six writers at the table"?

S/He still hasn't quite learned how to count, though.....

ObGameShows: Don't have a copy of the Fates book; did JB ever MG on an FA
WML? TIA.

> >
> > -- David

--
_____

"'Spirit Bear,' the only known black bear that is actually white, was saved
from hunting when the Alaska Board of Game declared a ban on the killing of
any black bear that's white. Darker-furred black bears were expected to file
a discrimination lawsuit."

-- Joe Bob Briggs, UPI's "Joe Bob Briggs' Week In Review", 13 Sept
2002, <http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20020913-034206-8401r>
_____

EPaddon

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 5:31:40 PM10/6/02
to
># 1 There is no David Henshel

It is truly amazing how David has the biggest inferiority complex of any person
to ever walk this planet. :)

Eric Paddon

Kathy's Guy Since 6/16/02

unread,
Oct 6, 2002, 10:33:48 PM10/6/02
to

"Emperor Blitz" <general...@aol.comengetit> wrote in message
news:20021006163318...@mb-me.aol.com...

> >How many people know O.
> >J. Simpson's first name off the top of their head?
>
> Orenthal James.

I thought it was Ornelius! :-D

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages