New Readers Start Here: The u.m.t.w-w FAQ Version 1.2
xSaBx
------------------------------------------------------
This FAQ is posted weekly.
Comments are invited: please e-mail xS...@west-wing.net with any queries,
additions or suggestions.
Contents.
1. Welcome to the Bullpen
2. Charter Information
3. Spoiler Policy: Why do we have it Anyway?
4. Spoiler Policy: Episode Titles & Character Names
5. General Posting Etiquette
6. Oh, and can someone tell me...
1. Welcome to the Bullpen.
------------------------------------------
If you're reading this for the first time, Hello and Welcome to
uk.media.tv.west-wing. Created out of Cyberspace Ether by Liz Batty, this
group serves as the place in Usenet to discuss the NBC Drama Series "The
West Wing" from a UK perspective. "The West Wing" (TWW for short) airs in
the UK on Channel 4 and it's digital-only station E4.
2. Charter Information
----------------------------------
The Charter can be found at
PLEASE take 5 minutes to read it.
3. Spoiler Policy: Why do we have it Anyway?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This Group operates a Spoiler Policy decided by consensus. Discussion of
episodes not yet seen on any terrestrial or satellite station in the UK is
PROHIBITED...which (also by consensus) includes information on the upcoming
Third Season due to debut on NBC in September.
Discussion about episodes which have been seen on E4 (on either of the two
weekly showings: Tuesday at 9.00pm and Sunday at 9.00pm) is permissable
ONLY with the inclusion of the appropriate Spoiler Space (see below).
This process of marking posts is for the benefit of many people who do not
have access to E4 and are having to endure a long wait before Season Two is
shown on Channel 4 (sometime in January 2002) To allow them and those with
E4 to use this group successfully (after all we can all talk about Season
One together...) you should do the following with each post about a S2
episode:
a) Add AT LEAST 30 lines of "Spoiler Space" (press return at least 30
times) before you start your message!
b) In your Subject: line you MUST include the word SPOILER: so it is clear
to anyone reading that your post contains them.
PLEASE NOTE that failure to do both a) and b) is in direct violation of the
charter.
PLEASE avoid putting stuff in your Subject: line that could spoil a Channel
4 only reader (for instance "SPOILER: Season Two Episode 15; Marriage of
UK West Wing Group FAQ Writer to Staffer" would be a spoiler [as well as a
distinct impossibility...] However: "SPOILER: Season Two Episode 15;
Amazing Plot Twist" is a fair deal more considerate)
The rule of thumb has to be, be considerate for other people.
4. Spoiler Policy: Episode Titles & Character Names
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is at least one Season Two episode whose title COULD be construed as
a spoiler: not only for the content of the episode, but for a larger part
of the Story Arc. As a result it is proposed that instead of using the
title of the episodes in the Subject: line that they be referred to either
by the date they were aired or in the format "Season Two Episode X" where X
is the current episode number.
Tonight's Episode is therefore referred to as
"Season Two Episode 12 or 2.12"
It has also been arranged by concensus that the names of characters should
NOT be used in Spoiler headings, as this may indicate which characters may
(or may not) have survived the Season One finale.
5. General Posting Etiquette
--------------------------------------------
PLEASE do not top-post in this group (that is, reply to a message and leave
the rest of the message intact under your reply) It can cause problems
(especially with Spoiler Space) and some newsreaders will ignore the reply
altogether, treating the reply as part of the message. This is a good time
to learn how to cut, paste and correctly attribute.
PLEASE refrain from excessive swearing. Yes we all swear...but there's
really no need for a string of expletives when a cleverly-placed single
profanity will do.
6. Oh, and can someone tell me...
-----------------------------------------------------
If you're looking for transcripts of the episodes or general information
there are a number of good US sites...but bear in mind that these sites
contain lots of unmarked spoilers.
http://www.testytoads.com/TWW/splash.shtml
is basically an oracle of everything West-Wing related, and a good place to
start if you're looking for a transcript.
is also a recommended site.
has a West Wing forum with some Brit interest. If you want to get close to
Aaron Sorkin himself he has apparently been posting to this forum with the
pseudonym "benjamin" for some time.
If you're interested in West Wing Fan fiction my personal recommendations
are
http://members.tripod.com/tww_fanfic
and
http://www.geocities.com/winemaxf/ww.html
The latter has some very good fiction, the former a fairly comprehensive
general selection. If you're looking for slash, there are links from
jedbartlet.com.
Amendments:
There has been a small but consistent objection to some of the wording
contained in the FAQ V 1.1: this has now been amended.
So, what's next?
xSaBx
--
Last Update 24/08/01
#265 in Overall UK SETI standings
Iain Clark
"xSaBx" <sarah@gubbinsdotnet> wrote in message
news:uofmot0vgm94vckan...@4ax.com...
> Welcome to the umtww FAQ V 1.2
> ------------------------------------------------------
> This FAQ is posted weekly.
>
> Comments are invited: please e-mail xS...@west-wing.net with any queries,
> additions or suggestions.
>
After all the nitpicking last time I thought I'd just say thanks for a great
FAQ!
> there are links from
> jedbartlet.com.
>
I'm sure it's just me, but I always read that address as Jedi Bartlet. I'll
get my coat...
Iain
--
"Signs, portents, dreams...next thing
we'll be reading tea leaves and chicken entrails."
Andy Mabbett
<sarah@gubbinsdotnet.?> writes
>2. Charter Information
>----------------------------------
>
>The Charter can be found at
>
>http://www.west-wing.net/
All uk.* charters are at:
http://www.usenet.org.uk/
wherein each has a direct URL. Since those are regarded as the
definitive versions, it would be better to use the URL:
http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.media.tv.west-wing.html
[...]
It would also be a good idea to add a section like this one, from
uk.rec.walking:
Proposed changes to this or any other uk.* newsgroup are
published in news:uk.net.news.announce, a moderated, low traffic
newsgroup, which you are recommended to subscribe to. Details
of elections to the UK Usenet Committee, which normally start in
September of each year, are also found there. Discussion on new
groups and changes takes place in uk.net.news.config. Further
information can be found at:
>5. General Posting Etiquette
>--------------------------------------------
>
>PLEASE do not top-post in this group (that is, reply to a message and leave
>the rest of the message intact under your reply) It can cause problems
>(especially with Spoiler Space) and some newsreaders will ignore the reply
>altogether, treating the reply as part of the message. This is a good time
>to learn how to cut, paste and correctly attribute.
You may wish to add:
You will find a useful primer on how to post to Usenet properly
at:
http://www.star-one.org.uk/computer/format.htm
--
Andy Mabbett
How accessible is your website? <URL:http://www.rnib.org.uk/digital>
<URL:http://www.w3c.org/WAI/Resources/>
<URL:http://www.cast.org/bobby/>
Paul Harper
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>You may wish to add:
But on the other hand, you might not.
What's the matter, Andy, nobody taking you seriously over on .config
any more?
WIth all due respect, there has been more than enough bitching and
"helpful input" with respect to the FAQ - give it a rest for a while,
huh? The last thing this group needs is another ruddy "expert".
Paul.
--
See Jeri Ryan at Retribution this year: www.supernova-conventions.com
A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
" . . . SFX is a fairly useless publication on just
about every imaginable front. Never have so many jumped-up fanboys done so
little, with so much, for so long." JMS.
Andy Mabbett
<pa...@harper.netNOSPAM> writes
[snip ad hominem]
>WIth all due respect, there has been more than enough bitching and
>"helpful input" with respect to the FAQ - give it a rest for a while,
>huh?
Since I'm neither bitching nor providing anything requiring quotation
marks to hide its genuinely helpful intent, you appear to be making
irrelevant observations.
AFAIR, Some time before the creation of this newsgroup, a requests was
sent to the maintainers of every known uk.* newsgroup asking them to
include the paragraph on changes to a newsgroup.
Paul Harper
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <abd6ptokl220a3ns3...@4ax.com>, Paul Harper
><pa...@harper.netNOSPAM> writes
>>On Sun, 2 Sep 2001 22:44:25 +0100, Andy Mabbett
>><an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>
>[snip ad hominem]
>
>>WIth all due respect, there has been more than enough bitching and
>>"helpful input" with respect to the FAQ - give it a rest for a while,
>>huh?
>
>Since I'm neither bitching nor providing anything requiring quotation
>marks to hide its genuinely helpful intent, you appear to be making
>irrelevant observations.
Nor are you in any way taking into account recent activity on this
newsgroup, and are giving the appearance of a fly-by-night "expert".
>AFAIR, Some time before the creation of this newsgroup, a requests was
>sent to the maintainers of every known uk.* newsgroup asking them to
>include the paragraph on changes to a newsgroup.
(request - singular) And only the most spectacularly arrogant
requestor would assume that because something was asked for that it
will automatically happen. Once a newsgroup has been created, the
ongoing maintenance of a FAQ or similar document is a matter for local
users of the group, and nothing whatsoever to do any unnc
intervention.
Or are you now trying to adopt the role of policeman now that the role
of expert has been shown to be a facade on most of the other groups
you use?
xSaBx
wrote:
<stuff snipped>
You've not actually bothered to read ANY of the conversation on this Group,
have you?
Ho hum.
xSaBx
--
Last Update 01/09/01
#260 in Overall UK SETI standings
Alison Hopkins
xSaBx wrote in message ...
>On Sun, 2 Sep 2001 22:44:25 +0100, Andy Mabbett <an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk>
>wrote:
>
><stuff snipped>
>
>You've not actually bothered to read ANY of the conversation on this Group,
>have you?
>
>Ho hum.
>
That's called a drive by mabbetting. <g>
Ali
Andy Mabbett
<pa...@harper.netNOSPAM> writes
>(request - singular)
Oh goody, a typing flame.
<yawn>
>And only the most spectacularly arrogant
>requestor would assume that because something was asked for that it
>will automatically happen.
Where did I assume that anything would automatically happen?
>Once a newsgroup has been created, the ongoing maintenance of a FAQ or
>similar document is a matter for local users of the group,
I'm a user of this group.
>and nothing whatsoever to do any unnc intervention.
Whatever that might be.
[snip further ad hominem and straw men]
--
Andy Mabbett
} <URL:http://www.rnib.org.uk/digital>
How accessible is your website? } <URL:http://www.w3c.org/WAI/Resources/>
} <URL:http://www.cast.org/bobby/>
Andy Mabbett
<sarah@gubbinsdotnet.?> writes
>You've not actually bothered to read ANY of the conversation on this Group,
>have you?
You've not bothered to read my mind, so you can't possibly know what I
have and have not read.
>Ho hum.
I'll name that tune in two.
--
Andy Mabbett
} <URL:http://www.rnib.org.uk/digital>
How accessible is your website? } <URL:http://www.w3c.org/WAI/Resources/>
} <URL:http://www.cast.org/bobby/>
Alison Hopkins
Andy Mabbett wrote in message ...
>I'm a user of this group.
>
>>and nothing whatsoever to do any unnc intervention.
>
Would you care to post some opinion on the show, then?
Ali
xSaBx
wrote:
][ You've not bothered to read my mind, so you can't possibly know what I
][ have and have not read.
You're right. I don't know what you've read, but as your first post here
wasn't actually about TWW I assumed you weren't actually interested in
anything other than being pedantic about the FAQ.
You post some on-topic stuff and I might reconsider my opinion.
xSaBx
--
Last Update 03/09/01
#254 in Overall UK SETI standings
Steve Block
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <vno6ptoat6mu1lgcn...@4ax.com>, xSaBx
><sarah@gubbinsdotnet.?> writes
>>You've not actually bothered to read ANY of the conversation on this Group,
>>have you?
>
>You've not bothered to read my mind, so you can't possibly know what I
>have and have not read.
Does a tin foil hat really work then? Otherwise I am curious as to
your certainty of statement regarding the reading of your mind.
>
>>Ho hum.
>
>I'll name that tune in two.
Hurry up then, I'm getting bored.
Steve Block (at)invisibilia.fsnet.co.uk
Boredom is the only reason we exist.
Richey Edwards
http://www.invisibilia.fsnet.co.uk/index.htm
Gothae Obscurum
>
> On Mon, 3 Sep 2001 17:20:56 +0100, Andy Mabbett
> <an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <vno6ptoat6mu1lgcn...@4ax.com>, xSaBx
> ><sarah@gubbinsdotnet.?> writes
> >>Ho hum.
> >
> >I'll name that tune in two.
>
> Hurry up then, I'm getting bored.
It was "My Boomerang Won't Come Back" by Charlie Drake, unless I'm very much
mistaken... ;)
Cheers
Paul
--
New Dream Disciples single out now...........
Download 'O.P.S.' (Obligatory Pop Song) free from:
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/223/dream_disciples.html
xSaBx
wrote:
][ It was "My Boomerang Won't Come Back" by Charlie Drake
I picked up "Right Said Fred" by Bernard Cribbins...
(cue stupid Comedy songs thread)
xSaBx
--
Last Update 03/09/01
#254 in Overall UK SETI standings
Paul Harper
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>I'm a user of this group.
Since when?
Since you started interfering, or prior to that?
Paul Harper
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>I'll name that tune in two.
What, no RFD?
Tut tut - bad form.
Paul Harper
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>[snip further ad hominem and straw men]
They are neither.
Although I freely admit to finding you an irritating tick turd because
of your misplaced "high and mighty" attitude in other groups, anyone
who wanders onto this (or any other) group offering unsolicited
"advice" on how it should be run without taking the slightest account
of the recent past on that group will be treated with the same degree
of contempt.
You flatter yourself if you think you are in any way special.
You're not special on unnc, and you're not here either.
xSaBx
------------------------------------------------------
This FAQ is posted weekly.
Comments are invited: please e-mail xS...@west-wing.net with any queries,
additions or suggestions.
Contents.
1. Welcome to the Bullpen
2. Charter Information
3. Spoiler Policy: Why do we have it Anyway?
4. Spoiler Policy: Episode Titles & Character Names
5. General Posting Etiquette
6. Oh, and can someone tell me...
1. Welcome to the Bullpen.
------------------------------------------
If you're reading this for the first time, Hello and Welcome to
uk.media.tv.west-wing. Created out of Cyberspace Ether by Liz Batty, this
group serves as the place in Usenet to discuss the NBC Drama Series "The
West Wing" from a UK perspective. "The West Wing" (TWW for short) airs in
the UK on Channel 4 and it's digital-only station E4.
2. Charter Information
----------------------------------
The Charter can be found at
PLEASE take 5 minutes to read it.
5. General Posting Etiquette
--------------------------------------------
PLEASE do not top-post in this group (that is, reply to a message and leave
the rest of the message intact under your reply) It can cause problems
(especially with Spoiler Space) and some newsreaders will ignore the reply
altogether, treating the reply as part of the message. This is a good time
to learn how to cut, paste and correctly attribute.
PLEASE refrain from excessive swearing. Yes we all swear...but there's
really no need for a string of expletives when a cleverly-placed single
profanity will do.
6. Oh, and can someone tell me...
-----------------------------------------------------
If you're looking for transcripts of the episodes or general information
there are a number of good US sites...but bear in mind that these sites
contain lots of unmarked spoilers.
http://www.testytoads.com/TWW/splash.shtml
is basically an oracle of everything West-Wing related, and a good place to
start if you're looking for a transcript.
is also a recommended site.
has a West Wing forum with some Brit interest. If you want to get close to
Aaron Sorkin himself he has apparently been posting to this forum with the
pseudonym "benjamin" for some time.
If you're interested in West Wing Fan fiction my personal recommendations
are
The latter has some very good fiction, the former a fairly comprehensive
general selection. If you're looking for slash, there are links from
jedbartlet.com.
Amendments:
There has been a small but consistent objection to some of the wording
contained in the FAQ V 1.1: this has now been amended.
So, what's next?
Andy Mabbett
<pa...@harper.netNOSPAM> writes
>Since you started interfering, or prior to that?
"Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?"
Andy Mabbett
<pa...@harper.netNOSPAM> writes
>>[snip further ad hominem and straw men]
[snip further ad hominem]
Alison Hopkins
Andy Mabbett wrote in message ...
><pa...@harper.netNOSPAM> writes
>
>>Since you started interfering, or prior to that?
>
>"Have you stopped beating your wife, yet?"
>
Have you started posting on topic?
Ali
Alison Hopkins
Andy Mabbett wrote in message ...
><pa...@harper.netNOSPAM> writes
>>>[snip further ad hominem and straw men]
>
>[snip further ad hominem]
>--
Andy, I have no idea who you are. But I do wish you would not troll by
simply posting off topic nonsense.
Ali
Andy Mabbett
<fn...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>Andy, I have no idea who you are.
Never mind.
>But I do wish you would not troll
Your wish is - and always has been - granted.
>by simply posting off topic nonsense.
Remind me how your "drive by" ad hominem was on- topic?
Andy Mabbett
<sarah@gubbinsdotnet.?> writes
[quoting standardised]
>>You've not bothered to read my mind, so you can't possibly know what I
>>have and have not read.
>
>You're right. I don't know what you've read, but as your first post here
>wasn't actually about TWW I assumed you weren't actually interested in
>anything other than being pedantic about the FAQ.
That's the trouble with making assumptions; it can make you look
foolish.
>You post some on-topic stuff and I might reconsider my opinion.
You can hold whatever uninformed opinions you like; they're your
problem.
Alison Hopkins
Andy Mabbett wrote in message ...
><fn...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>>Andy, I have no idea who you are.
>
>Never mind.
>
>>But I do wish you would not troll
>
>Your wish is - and always has been - granted.
>
>>by simply posting off topic nonsense.
>
>Remind me how your "drive by" ad hominem was on- topic?
>--
My what? I have been posting here since the froup was started and voted for
it. I simply asked you a question. I would be most interested in your views
on TWW.
Ali
Andy Mabbett
<gudy...@gmx.co.uk> writes
>If he is a troll
He isn't. HTH.
Paul Harper
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <ou49ptk2kv2pr1vgb...@4ax.com>, Paul Harper
><pa...@harper.netNOSPAM> writes
>>>[snip further ad hominem and straw men]
>
>[snip further ad hominem]
Well, that's one way of avoiding the issue (that your outside
interference in internal group procedures is unwanted and unwelcomed).
However, simply snipping and substituting "Ad Hominem" wherever an
inconvenient point is made leads readers to think you don't actually
have any answer. They would be correct.
Do you actually *have* anything to say with regard to The West Wing?
xSaBx
wrote:
][ Do you actually *have* anything to say with regard to The West Wing?
Don't be daft...
Paul Harper
>On Wed, 05 Sep 2001 11:35:30 +0100, Paul Harper <pa...@harper.netNOSPAM>
>wrote:
>
>][ Do you actually *have* anything to say with regard to The West Wing?
>
>Don't be daft...
Already knowing the answer, it could be taken as a rhetorical
question! <grin!>
Michael 'Ace' Greenhalgh
"Paul Harper" <pa...@harper.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:jkacpt0chffvekrma...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2001 13:57:30 +0100, xSaBx <sarah@gubbinsdotnet> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 05 Sep 2001 11:35:30 +0100, Paul Harper <pa...@harper.netNOSPAM>
> >wrote:
> >
> >][ Do you actually *have* anything to say with regard to The West Wing?
> >
> >Don't be daft...
>
> Already knowing the answer, it could be taken as a rhetorical
> question! <grin!>
[snip further ad hominem]
;)
--
Mike
Paul Harper
<ace.gre...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>[snip further ad hominem]
>
>;)
<slap!>
Wendy Richards
on-topic posts at all, simply childish sniping and nothing of any relevance
to TWW.
I have two questions. One, is there a group moderator, and if so why has
s/he not declared this a dead thread? Two, if I stick around is there going
to be genuine TWW discussion, or just more of this crap?
Wendy Richards.
--
xSaBx
<we...@kingsmeadowcr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
][ I have two questions. One, is there a group moderator, and if so why has
][ s/he not declared this a dead thread?
No, there's no moderator, I'm afraid, and as it's just a couple of people
out to cause trouble, I'd suggest the use of a kill-file (if you need any
assistance I'm sure Iain can help you, I'm not too hot on how you filter
thru Outlook)
There is discussion of TWW, and the more people we can get doing that the
better. My advice is just to ignore.
:->
Wendy Richards
>
> It's an unmoderated NG otherwise most of Harper's posts would be
> deemed off-topic.
And so would all of yours which I've read so far. Pot calling kettle black?
Off to read the *real* TWW posters...
Alison Hopkins
Wendy Richards wrote in message <9n5qt7$q70$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Unfortunately, we got invaded a few weeks back by the Four F******its of the
Apocalypse, so we all went Elsewhere to talk TWW. As soon as we thought it
was safe, we all came back, but one of the original Four came back, and was
joined by Mabbett.
Stick with the threads with ep numbers, and you should be fine.
Ali
Paul Harper
<we...@kingsmeadowcr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>I have two questions. One, is there a group moderator, and if so why has
>s/he not declared this a dead thread? Two, if I stick around is there going
>to be genuine TWW discussion, or just more of this crap?
No, there is no group moderator, but there are a few who think they
perform that role.
And as for on-topic stuff, the best way to promote it is to start it.
Paul.
--
Mike Plowman
>On Wed, 05 Sep 2001 11:35:30 +0100, Paul Harper <pa...@harper.netNOSPAM>
>wrote:
>
>][ Do you actually *have* anything to say with regard to The West Wing?
>
>Don't be daft...
>
That would be asking an awful lot.
--
Mike Plowman
Coronation Street Visual Updates - www.csvu.net
"There was life before Coronation Street,
but it didn't amount to much." Russell Harty
Mike Plowman
<we...@kingsmeadowcr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Group moderator? This is Usenet. There are no rules.
'Do what thy will shall be the whole of the law.' as Mr C once said.
Mike Plowman
Ooh, the horsemen are gathering. You'd almost think there was a plot!
Kinell Andy, you're the fith horseman. What's your name?
Gothae Obscurum
> Ooh, the horsemen are gathering. You'd almost think there was a plot!
>
> Kinell Andy, you're the fith horseman. What's your name?
Boredom?
Cheers
Paul
--
"You're perfect, yes, it's true
But without me you're only you"
Mike Patton
http://www.rock-god.freeserve.co.uk
Download "Temple Of Secrets" here:
http://www.mp3.com/corrosionuk
Alison Hopkins
Gothae Obscurum wrote in message <3B9775D9...@deja.com>...
>Mike Plowman wrote:
>
>> Ooh, the horsemen are gathering. You'd almost think there was a plot!
>>
>> Kinell Andy, you're the fith horseman. What's your name?
>
>Boredom?
>
>Cheers
>
>Paul
>--
Actually, Mabbett isn't the fifth f*****t, that was He Who Shall Not be
Named, wasn't it, Paul? :) So Mabbett is a poor sixth, I'm afraid.
Ali
Paul Harper
<fn...@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>Actually, Mabbett isn't the fifth f*****t, that was He Who Shall Not be
>Named, wasn't it, Paul? :) So Mabbett is a poor sixth, I'm afraid.
A very poor one :-)
Gothae Obscurum
>
> Gothae Obscurum wrote in message <3B9775D9...@deja.com>...
> >Mike Plowman wrote:
> >
> >> Ooh, the horsemen are gathering. You'd almost think there was a plot!
> >>
> >> Kinell Andy, you're the fith horseman. What's your name?
> >
> >Boredom?
> Actually, Mabbett isn't the fifth f*****t, that was He Who Shall Not be
> Named, wasn't it, Paul? :) So Mabbett is a poor sixth, I'm afraid.
I think He Who Shall Not Be Named is in a f*****t class of his own, Ali.
A f*****t masterclass, so to speak.
It wouldn't surprise me to find out that his name is Terry, IRL.
<idly ruminating>
So, using the Viz analogy, if He Who Shall Not Be Named is Terry
F*****t, I would imagine Mr. Mabbett as Roger Irrelevant.
I'll leave it up to your imagination to pick which characters would
apply to TFFOTA - but I would guess at a whole brace of Spoilt Brats.
Cheers
Paul
(who found out today that his job is under threat and is feeling
fractious)
Andy Mabbett
It's the only one that matters, in this regard.
>Learn how to snip and leave a message understandable.
I have; it was.
Paul Harper
<an...@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <t7mcpt4g6g3kdhno7...@4ax.com>, Gudyrinit
><gudy...@gmx.co.uk> writes
>>>>If he is a troll
>>>
>>>He isn't. HTH.
>>
>>Your opinion.
>
>It's the only one that matters, in this regard.
You arrogant prick. Others think you're little more than a dim-witted
troll, but you say "your opinions don't matter, only mine does" and
you expect to be taken *seriously*?
I repeat my question of earlier - do you have *anything* relevant to
say on the subject of The West Wing. Or are you just a dim witted
troll?
Killans - First And Last And Always
Wendy Richards <we...@kingsmeadowcr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Well, I'm a new reader, so I started here... and this is what I found. No
>on-topic posts at all, simply childish sniping and nothing of any relevance
>to TWW.
Then you're not looking har enough. Yes, there are threads which are little
more than bickering and posturing, but there are also plenty of threads
which are discussions on TWW.
>I have two questions. One, is there a group moderator, and if so why has
>s/he not declared this a dead thread? Two
No moderator. If you'd bothered to read the FAQ and lurk - which
*everyone* should do when they come to a new newsgroup - you'd know
that.
>, if I stick around is there going
>to be genuine TWW discussion, or just more of this crap?
Depends. The more people post belligerent and sanctimonoius crap (like
your post), the smaller the ration of signal-to-noise. You choose.
Mike
--
"It's better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness."
Iain Clark
"Killans - First And Last And Always" <mcol...@nyx.net> wrote in message
news:99995738...@irys.nyx.net...
> In article <9n5qt7$q70$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> Wendy Richards <we...@kingsmeadowcr.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >Well, I'm a new reader, so I started here... and this is what I found. No
> >on-topic posts at all, simply childish sniping and nothing of any
relevance
> >to TWW.
>
> Then you're not looking har enough. Yes, there are threads which are
little
> more than bickering and posturing, but there are also plenty of threads
> which are discussions on TWW.
This is very true, thankfully. In fact, this thread is the only one that's
not relevant to the programme. (Worryingly I seem to be responsible for 1
in every 2 posts everywhere else <g>)
> >, if I stick around is there going
> >to be genuine TWW discussion, or just more of this crap?
>
> Depends. The more people post belligerent and sanctimonoius crap (like
> your post), the smaller the ration of signal-to-noise. You choose.
>
I invited people generally on the C4 West Wing forum to pop over. I think
Wendy was just taken aback by the high bickering-to-sense ratio here at the
moment...as are we all.
Iain
--
"Run a carbon black test on my jaw
And you will find it's all been said before"
Paul Harper
<iainj...@dragonhaven.worldonline.co.uk> wrote:
>(Worryingly I seem to be responsible for 1
>in every 2 posts everywhere else <g>)
But they're such *good* posts, Iain... :-)
Iain Clark
"Paul Harper" <pa...@harper.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
> On Sat, 8 Sep 2001 16:42:14 +0100, "Iain Clark"
> <iainj...@dragonhaven.worldonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >(Worryingly I seem to be responsible for 1
> >in every 2 posts everywhere else <g>)
>
> But they're such *good* posts, Iain... :-)
>
:-P
Andy Mabbett
<paul...@deja.com> writes
>I would imagine Mr. Mabbett as Roger Irrelevant.
Congratulations on your extremely creative, if highly unrealistic,
imagination.
Paul Harper
<paul...@deja.com> wrote:
>I would imagine Mr. Mabbett as Roger Irrelevant.
You over-rate him :-)
David Brain
iainj...@dragonhaven.worldonline.co.uk (Iain Clark) wrote:
> I invited people generally on the C4 West Wing forum to pop over. I
> think
> Wendy was just taken aback by the high bickering-to-sense ratio here at
> the
> moment...as are we all.
Of course joining this group in the middle of a second season that I can't
watch at all might have been dumb ;-) (It might be quicker for me to drop
out until January, or whenever C4 deigns to show it to the rest of us,
especially when the UK Farscape group is currently eating all my
free-time...)
--
David Brain
London, UK
Vivianne Cheshire
<ne...@davidbrain.co.uk> writes
>Of course joining this group in the middle of a second season that I can't
>watch at all might have been dumb ;-) (It might be quicker for me to drop
>out until January, or whenever C4 deigns to show it to the rest of us,
>especially when the UK Farscape group is currently eating all my
>free-time...)
Much the same for me although I couldn't put off watching it until next
year! A friend of mine raved about it through season 1 but I ignored
his pleas to watch it until season 2 (just being bloody minded!) and
really wish I'd watched season 1. If anyone has it on tape.....
And don't use the UK Farscape group as an excuse. I post in there too
and it is quite low traffic. :)
>
>--
>David Brain
Any relation to the gorgeous Jon Brain?
--
"We aliens, set apart, reach only with fantasies"