ATTN JMS: SFX
Iain Reid
NG, and some sigs (including your own) indicate that they are, to all
intents and purposes, more evil than the Shadows as far as you are
concerned. However, I have never heard a straight answer as to what they
actually done.
I've always quite enjoyed it - I liked its kind of irreverant style, but if
I knew what terrible deed it was that they actually commited I might stop
buying it (not that I do so on a regular basis - but I will pick it up
occasionally).
So, JMS...dish the dirt ;).
Jms at B5
>
That's kinda their job. I should not encroach on their franchise.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
Kerry Casey
>
Paul Harper gave an excellent summary on this newsgroup on 27 November last
year.
You can find it at www.dejanews.com under:
Home >> Discussions >> rec.arts.sf tv.babylon5.moderated
Forum: rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Subject: Re: SFX Magazine, JMS and Double Standards
Date: 11/27/1999
Author: Paul Harper <pa...@harper.net>
Kerry
--
Kerry Casey
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
E-mail kca...@bom.gov.au
Paul Harper
>Paul Harper gave an excellent summary on this newsgroup on 27 November last
>year.
<Bows>
Glad to be of service!! <g>
As you can see from the .sig, opinions have not moved on by much! Not least
of all since I have the tremendous pleasure of being presented to the
editor of SFX a few weeks ago.
Bryan Cooney trying to cause trouble again, and succeeding only in making
himself look spectacularly foolish!
Paul.
--
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.
Alison Hopkins
Paul Harper wrote in message <38e8bec8....@news.demon.co.uk>...
>Bryan Cooney trying to cause trouble again, and succeeding only in making
>himself look spectacularly foolish!
>
And this was in any way different, because? <g>
Ali
Paul Harper
wrote:
The scale and immediacy of his success.
Attempting to do this face-to-face with a group of people who a) hold
him in utter contempt, b) have not drunk sufficient to get taken in by
him and c) who out-class him in every intellectual area possible.
Also, the fact that the people he was towing around looked (and
possibly felt) uncomfortable about the whole thing, simply made him
look even sadder than usual.
Oh - and the bodyguards he felt necessary to use all weekend.
Apart from that, nothing springs to mind... <g>
Alison Hopkins
Paul Harper wrote in message ...
>On 3 Apr 2000 12:44:58 -0600, "Alison Hopkins" <fn...@dial.pipex.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Paul Harper wrote in message <38e8bec8....@news.demon.co.uk>...
>>
>>>Bryan Cooney trying to cause trouble again, and succeeding only in making
>>>himself look spectacularly foolish!
>>
>>And this was in any way different, because? <g>
>
>The scale and immediacy of his success.
>
>Attempting to do this face-to-face with a group of people who a) hold
>him in utter contempt, b) have not drunk sufficient to get taken in by
>him and c) who out-class him in every intellectual area possible.
Hm. Point a) is a given, you'd have to drink far more than even umstb5 can
hold to meet point b) and point c) is far too easy.
>
>Also, the fact that the people he was towing around looked (and
>possibly felt) uncomfortable about the whole thing, simply made him
>look even sadder than usual.
One has to wonder why it was all thought neccessary or even advisable. Both
motivation and reason for this escape me completely, to be honest.
>
>Oh - and the bodyguards he felt necessary to use all weekend.
Oh good grief. That suggests a level of self importance which is truly
delusional in its scope.
Ali
Paul Harper
wrote:
>Paul Harper wrote in message ...
>>Attempting to do this face-to-face with a group of people who a) hold
>>him in utter contempt, b) have not drunk sufficient to get taken in by
>>him and c) who out-class him in every intellectual area possible.
>
>Hm. Point a) is a given,
Fair enough!
>you'd have to drink far more than even umstb5 can
>hold to meet point b)
Well, that's an *awful* lot! Especially if I'm there...
> and point c) is far too easy.
OK. Fair comment. Apples in a barrel?
>>Also, the fact that the people he was towing around looked (and
>>possibly felt) uncomfortable about the whole thing, simply made him
>>look even sadder than usual.
>
>One has to wonder why it was all thought neccessary or even advisable. Both
>motivation and reason for this escape me completely, to be honest.
Me too - and, judging from the puzzled looks around the table, others
felt the same way too. Still, it was fun dodging the SFX journo's
pointed questions about music videos. The answers to "do you show
these in public?" being "No because that's a total breach of Warner's
copyright" confused them more than a little.
Gosh - someone who can read between the lines of a pointed question...
>>Oh - and the bodyguards he felt necessary to use all weekend.
>
>Oh good grief. That suggests a level of self importance which is truly
>delusional in its scope.
Not the first time it's happened, either. The first time he's hidden
behind his own baby daughter, I'll give you that, but not the first
time by any means MaKnob has been "employed" to safeguard his royal
highnesses body :-)
Tw*t !