Dimensional Traveler sent the following on 12/21/2016 at 11:47 PM:
> On 12/21/2016 6:20 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> In article <o3f497$a49$
1...@dont-email.me>,
>> "Jim G." <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> anim8rfsk sent the following on 12/20/2016 at 12:23 PM:
> Path:
eternal-september.org!
news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Dimensional Traveler <
dtr...@sonic.net>
> Newsgroups:
rec.arts.tv
> Subject: Re: Today's premieres and other notes (Wednesday, Dec. 21)
> Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 21:49:10 -0800
> Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
> Lines: 53
> Message-ID: <o3fpds$nmt$
2...@dont-email.me>
> References: <
ec007n...@mid.individual.net>
> <
anim8rfsk-1A462...@news.easynews.com>
> <o3ekbv$2r7$
1...@dont-email.me> <o3ekth$39u$
4...@dont-email.me>
> <
anim8rfsk-0F4E1...@news.easynews.com>
> <o3esp5$hf$
5...@dont-email.me> <
ec0igv...@mid.individual.net>
> <o3f5lb$ec4$
1...@dont-email.me>
> <
eb9185cd-5689-41e9...@googlegroups.com>
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 05:47:40 -0000 (UTC)
> Injection-Info:
mx02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="003a77d104a403d0d2ec2f58f4990336";
> logging-data="24285"; mail-complaints-to="
ab...@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18WB6xOPrJ2Zoi5HiK24oqk"
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
> Thunderbird/45.5.1
> In-Reply-To: <
eb9185cd-5689-41e9...@googlegroups.com>
> Cancel-Lock: sha1:hc29m8IluMeloWWb84Lha4qClgU=
> Xref:
news.eternal-september.org rec.arts.tv:1121202
>
> On 12/21/2016 4:58 PM, Ian J. Ball wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 4:11:49 PM UTC-8, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/21/2016 3:45 PM, Robin Miller wrote:
>>>> Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>> On 12/21/2016 12:37 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>> In article <o3ekth$39u$
4...@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>> Dimensional Traveler <
dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/21/2016 11:17 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/21/2016 1:59 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <
ec007n...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>>>>> Robin Miller <robin....@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Real Vikings: Ragnar and His Sons (special) (10 pm,
>>>>>>>>>> History Channel)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --Robin
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> VIKES!!1!!111!!1!1!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> VIKES INCORPORATED!!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> VIKES & SONS INCORPORATED!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (More seriously, I don't think 'Real Vikings' counts as a
>>>>>>> "special". It
>>>>>>> is the fourth episode of a series that's airing tonight.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This one is special because it's historically accurate.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I think you're conflating 'Vikings' and 'Real Vikings' (perhaps
>>>>> deliberately). All the prior 'Real Vikings' episodes were historically
>>>>> accurate too in that they were talking about the archeological finds and
>>>>> evidence.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand. While I don't watch the show, my understanding is
>>>> In article <o38pjo$pkq$
1...@dont-email.me>,
>>>> Ian J. Ball <IJB...@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Librarians (recorded) - "And the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy". Another
>>>>> largely "bottle" episode (and a "Baird" episode to boot), fortunaely
>>>>> this one was a lot better than the earlier "And the Fangs of Death"
>>>>> episode: a supernatural assassin has been sent to kill Baird, and she
>>>>> must avoid the prophecy of her death.
>>>>
>>>> This week's ep was lousy, and totally cemented the format as being
>>>> WAREHOUSE 14.
>>>>
>>>> Fortunately next week has Flynn in it again so it should be a good one.
>>>
>>> Have you had that concussion checked out yet?
>>>
>>>> When did Felicia Day get old and haggard?
>>>
>>> It happens far too often with pale-skinned redheads, it seems. She's a
>>> mere 37, but looks like she could be a decade older. The outdoor filming
>>> probably did no favors, although Lindy still looked adorable.
>>
>> Ah, I wasn't able to find her age. I thought she was a little younger
>> than that, but I agree, she could easily pass for 50.
>>
> I finally had the time to watch the episode this evening. I'd say her
> character _was_ supposed to be haggard and worn from working as an
> underpaid waitress.
That's a fair point, but she did a *really* good job with it. :)