Randy and Johnny
Monica Sztybel
into the character, but at the time Randy thought it "repugnant" (Cinader's
word, I believe), so he stopped. I don't blame Randy. While most actors
consider it a challenge to play themselves, some might feel it takes away
from the character to incorporate their own traits into him/her. It's one
thing to put yourself into the character, but another to have the character
*be* yourself:-)
Randy/Johnny's car is a Land Rover, BTW:-)
Monica
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
Bethers66
I'm in love with both of them, and I have been for over 20 years!!!!!
-Beth
>Sometimes I wonder how much of the actor is incorporated into the character
>portrayed every week on any given series.
>
>Mantooth - 1/2 Native American (Seminole)
>Gage - Native American
>Mantooth - automobile - jeep
>Gage - automobile - jeep
>Mantooth - enjoys the outdoors
>Gage - enjoys the outdoors
>
>Anyone else think of other similarities off hand?
When you come to the edge of all that you know, you must believe one of two
things; there will be earth upon which to stand, or you will be given wings to
fly.
-Unknown
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://members.aol.com/Bethers66/pubpage.htm
Rrsmes
portrayed every week on any given series.
Mantooth - 1/2 Native American (Seminole)
Gage - Native American
Mantooth - automobile - jeep
Gage - automobile - jeep
Mantooth - enjoys the outdoors
Gage - enjoys the outdoors
Anyone else think of other similarities off hand?
Maureen
positivity not negativity
Slugfish
wrote:
> Randy/Johnny's car is a Land Rover, BTW:-)
...to which I can say this: awesome taste in vehicles.
--slg.
--
"You see me and you laugh out loud
You taunt me from safe inside your crowd
My looks, they must threaten you
To make you act the way you do"
--Minor Threat, "Seeing Red"
http://www.telepath.com/slugfish
Dodgers newsgroup FAQ and Other Crap
DLSmythe
>
>...to which I can say this: awesome taste in vehicles.
>
and Kevin/Roy's is a Porsche
personally I like my nice Ford Ranger!!!!!
Chandel691
>...to which I can say this: awesome taste in vehicles.
>and Kevin/Roy's is a Porsche>>
I know Randy used his own car in the show, did Kevin do the same?
Chandel691
>>quirks into the character, but at the time Randy thought it "repugnant"
>>(Cinader's word, I believe), so he stopped.>>
What kind of quirks?
CHUCKENG36
Karen Ronan
> Example: Jack Webb, Pretty much the same guy on and off camera.
I can't believe he was that stiff in real life.
Karen R.
Rrsmes
In one episode Roy is trading his Porsche for Johnnys Land Rover. The Porsche
was Kevins own car in real life.
Maureen
positivity not negativity
Opus (:>
flap his cheeks out. Yep, it's a laugh-a-minute here at the Coble
household.....
DLSmythe wrote:
> >> Randy/Johnny's car is a Land Rover, BTW:-)
> >
> >...to which I can say this: awesome taste in vehicles.
> >
>
> and Kevin/Roy's is a Porsche
>
> personally I like my nice Ford Ranger!!!!!
--
Opus (:>
http://members.home.net/coble/OpusGraphics -Websets and Graphics
http://drewcarey.acmecity.com/kate/43 -Blade Pro Presets
"Well my dad has only had 4 bypasses, and he eats all the steak he
wants."-- Hank Hill
Monica Sztybel
Mainly taking Randy's life experiences and situations and making them
Johnny's and putting Randy's reactions to those situations into Johnny. No
one becomes an actor to portray themselves:-)
Slugfish
> Volvo right here. Dog likes to hang his head out of it and let the wind
> flap his cheeks out. Yep, it's a laugh-a-minute here at the Coble
> household.....
Volvos are way cool...especially the wagons.
Slugfish
(Karen Ronan) wrote:
He must have had something...he was married 3x (including to our dear
Julie London); he was like a total unrepentant jazz and bebop freak;
and he had offspring., which means that at least PART of him stayed
"stiff" for the proper amount of time...and I will leave it at that.
Slugfish
<St...@nac.net> wrote:
> <i>What kind of quirks?</i>
>
> Mainly taking Randy's life experiences and situations and making them
> Johnny's and putting Randy's reactions to those situations into Johnny. No
> one becomes an actor to portray themselves:-)
...and the way I see it, RM had a point there. Somehow I don't find it
too difficult to agree with his assessment of it all being "repugnant"
for some reason. Repugnant is a really strong word, though.
Chandel691
>>for the proper amount of time...and I will leave it at that.>>
LOL! Well, someone had to say it! Thank heavens for you, Slug! :-)
Slugfish
chand...@aol.com (Chandel691) wrote:
I'm expecting to get the proverbial steel ruler across the
knuckles any time now...
Opus (:>
> one becomes an actor to portray themselves:-)
>
people who are box-office draws right now know this. Most of what the leading actors
anywhere do, is being themselves. It's people like me who are willing to black out my
teeth, throw dirt on my face and dress like my mother that actually end up doing the
actual "characterizations". Oh yes, actors who are doing the leading roles in major
films and TV, are most certainly doing what is considered to be "themselves". Because
they're selling movies; they're not "acting".
Randy is considered to be a leading man, and they get the dullest roles in which they
don't do much stretching. I agree with you on the reason he probably wanted to make
the character a little different, but he also said there was a lot of Randy in Johnny;
no way to avoid it. He once said that the John Gage character was him, only a little
more animated.
Monica Sztybel wrote:
> <i>What kind of quirks?</i>
>
> Mainly taking Randy's life experiences and situations and making them
> Johnny's and putting Randy's reactions to those situations into Johnny. No
> one becomes an actor to portray themselves:-)
>
> Monica
>
> **** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
--
Slugfish
I stand corrected.
Fab4 Rule
for Adam-12, the production assistant is listed as Stacey Webb. Could this be
his daughter?
Cindy
Slugfish
NRobin1027
>credits
>> for Adam-12, the production assistant is listed as Stacey Webb. Could this
>be
>> his daughter?
Yes, stacey is his daughter by Julie London. They also have another daughter
named Lisa.
Robin
NRobin1027
Chandel691
words, "That was a rubbish fire. I don't do rubbish fires. I save lives." Too
funny.
Monica Sztybel
people like me who are willing to black out my teeth, throw dirt on my face
and dress like my mother that actually end up doing the actual
"characterizations". Oh yes, actors who are doing the leading roles in major
films and TV, are most certainly doing what is considered to be
Hmmm... I beg to differ with this. There's a difference between putting
yourself into a character, and making the character be you. Does that mean
that Mel Gibson and Harrison ford behave the way their characters do on in
real life? I can't see Gibson being Riggs (from Lethal Weapon):-)
Sure, some of those leads play the same type of characters in most movies,
and I believe that's because their audience has become accustomed to seeing
those characters and can't separate them from other roles the actor would
like to play. Mel would have a hard time playing a sudued villain these
days because his fans are so used to him being the crazy hero.
I wouldn't necessarily say they are playing themselves, but I will agree
that some of them are playing the same characters over and over and that's
due to the audience and the money:-)
Most of what I've seen is that actors will take a situation their character
is in and relate it to something that might have happened to them in real
life in order to get the realism across on screen or on stage.
The problem with the idea of actors playing themselves on screen or fans
believing they are, is that no one can see them as different than those
characters. Poor Randy could not shake the Johnny Gage stigma for years
after Emergency was cancelled. To this day people still believe he is
Johnny. And that's a stigma that sticks to a lot of actors who do TV shows
for many years. Everyone - even people in the industry - just assume that's
all he can do or that's who he is and he has a hard time breaking that
typecast. After a while of playing yourself or a character everyone thinks
is yourself, you get tired ot it.
Rrsmes
>> flap his cheeks out. Yep, it's a >>laugh-a-minute here at the Coble
>> household.....
>Volvos are way cool...especially the >wagons.
I had a Volvo. Two 12 year olds decided to steal it and take it for a joy ride
on the freeway. Stripped the gears and made it no longer a wanted vehicle.
Brand new and paid in full. I cried for months. :-P
They were under age and poor so we never found out who they were and never got
compensation of any kind.
Maureen
positivity not negativity
J6256951
>people like me who are willing to black out my teeth, throw dirt on my face
>and dress like my mother that actually end up doing the actual
>"characterizations". Oh yes, actors who are doing the leading roles in major
>films and TV, are most certainly doing what is considered to be
>"themselves". Because they're selling movies; they're not "acting".
>
Couldn't agree with you more. Take Tom Cruise for example. Love his roles but
if you ever watch him in an interview he is a totally different person. I think
thats why they call it acting!
Opus (:>
> putting
> yourself into a character, and making the character be you.
>
that way, so understand. *I* have studied acting here for a very long
time. There is absolutely NO difference in what you say. That is what
most amateur actors think. The fact is, that once you are finally able
to become the character in question, then you are "living truthfully
under imaginary circumstances". --Sanford Meisner. There is some of
that actor in every "character" he is portraying; you can't help that.
That's what is supposed to happen. The playwright only puts words down
on paper, it is up to the actor to bring that to life, and you can't do
that without becoming that character and giving him those weird little
things you do too. If you didn't allow that to happen, then it will
look like a contrived performance, and that is not acting. It's a
staged reading.
> Sure, some of those leads play the same type of characters in most
> movies,
> and I believe that's because their audience has become accustomed
> to seeing
> those characters and can't separate them from other roles the actor
> would
> like to play.
>
No, it's not the audience that twists the arm of the actor forcing him
to take a certain role. John Travolta, Roseanne and Henry Winkler have
proven how very hard it is to break free from a stigma, but it wasn't
their potential audience forcing their decisions on which new roles to
take; it was them, making the decisions for their own careers.
> Mel would have a hard time playing a sudued villain
> these
> days because his fans are so used to him being the crazy hero.
>
Disagreed. He did a damn fine job playing that guy with the weird face,
and that wasn't his Lethal Weapon thing. Neither was Braveheart and
that was the biggest movie of 1996, was it?
> Most of what I've seen is that actors will take a situation their
> character
> is in and relate it to something that might have happened to them
> in real
> life in order to get the realism across on screen or on stage.
>
That only happens with what we call "Method Actors". Sanford Meisner,
whom I will remind everyone, personally taught Robert Fuller, disagreed
with all of that. In fact, thanks to Lee Strassberg, who was a
proponent of effective memory, we have the method actor term. Üta
Hagen, another one of the Neighborhood Playhouse offshoot actors of
1932, went to Paris during the summer before Stanislavski died, and sat
beside of his sick bed for 5 weeks, picking his brain, complete with a
Russian translator, trying to find out what he meant by all of it. By
the time she got back to NY, Strassberg had already begun filling his
students full of the effective memory, "method" crap, and the theatre
came to such blows over it, that Strassberg completely left and went to
the left coast to start his own school of thought on it. He didn't
bother to wait until Hagen got back from Paris to find out what
Stanislavski had meant; he went ahead and plowed right into getting the
actor to delve deep into his emotions. He became so obsessed with it,
that Meisner and Stella Adler, for two, just couldn't handle it anymore,
and couldn't stand what he was doing emotionally to the mind of the
actor. That's when Sandy and Hagen began teaching themselves. It's a
dangerous thing to make you implode upon yourself that way emotionally,
and that's what Strassberg was doing. It's also not a very reliable
source for doing work. The memory, which was Strassberg's basic element
of his technique, is not a very reliable source for emotion, since it
changes from day to day. You cannot count on the one thing that made
you cry as a teenager, make you cry now when you try to recall that
on-stage. It won't have the same emotional effect on you, and thus
Meisner came up with a way to be able to emote and do all the things we
actors need to do, without it being a hazard to our emotional state of
well being. Gregory Peck, Diane Keaton, Arthur Miller, Robert Fuller,
Sydney Pollack (also Meisner's assistant for three years), Joanne
Woodward, and David Mamet, all studied with Sandy, to name a VERY small
few.
> The problem with the idea of actors playing themselves on screen or
> fans
> believing they are, is that no one can see them as different than
> those
> characters.
>
(Rest snipped for space)
Yes, I agree completely with you. But that's not what I was disputing.
I was trying to make the point in reference to your comment "No one
becomes an actor to portray themselves", that with the art, er,
business, the way it is today, that a lot of the actors who are
classified as ingenues/leading men, continuing to do this acting thing
has gotten easy for them technique wise, and it's no longer a stretch
for them, to play people who are almost themselves. It's easy money.
It allows them to do nothing different. That's why Mel does the same
stuff. He could say no, and people would love him the same, as in
Braveheart. I still adore Henry Winkler because he is such a talented
guy.
See, there's something about me and other actors that perhaps I should
explain to everyone here, since I love it here and have no intention to
leave soon. <g> We are weird, wacked-out people. Our emotions are our
daily tools. Period. You firefighters get to work with your brains,
your axes, your trucks. But our emotions are all that we have to work
with. That's why ours lie a little closer to the surface than most.
That's why most actors are quick-tempered. It's not something we like,
but it's just a characteristic of who we are as people. We feel things
really deeply too because of it. I seriously believe that we walk right
on the very edge of sanity/insanity. We have to, in order to be damned
good at what we do, because we have to go places in our emotions that
would curl your toes, and call upon that at the drop of a hat.
However, the general populous of us, are also dealing with very low
self-esteem issues, and we're basically VERY insecure people. That
means we have exhibitionist tendencies, and our egos are a little
bigger. THAT, in a nutshell, is why a big majority of the actors who
get into this business want to be stars. They care nothing for the art,
or for possibly creating a work that will touch someone. Over in the
Acting ng we are discussing this very thing. Every single day I answer
questions to people saying "I want to be a star, what do I do?" There
is sadly only a small number of us in there who actually care about the
art. So you see, I disagree with your statement, and say to that, that
no, most of the actors who get into the field today, do not care about
acting, and the thought of them having to learn the actual craft, put
some sweat and tears into it, and come up with something worth
remembering, just seems too hard for them, and they want to take the low
road.
But you've made some valid points, and I've enjoyed this.
And now, I'll close this very long, boring letter (So sorry guys; I love
what I do and get excited talking about it) with a very personal quote:
"An Actor must work all his life, cultivate his mind, train his talents
systematically, develop his character; he may never despair and never
relinquish this main purpose-- to love his art with all his strength and
love it unselfishly." --Constantin Stanislavski
Opus (:>
Rrsmes wrote:
--
Chandel691
I think any writer would take exception to the use of the word "only" in that
sentence. Remember that without the playwright, the actor would have nothing to
bring to life.
MSztybel
are finally able to become the character in question, then you are "living truthfully under imaginary circumstances". --Sanford
Meisner. There is some of that actor in every "character" he is portraying; you can't help that. That's what is supposed to happen.
The playwright only puts words down on paper, it is up to the actor to bring that to life, and you can't do that without becoming that
character and giving him those weird little things you do too. If you didn't allow that to happen, then it will look like a contrived
Understood and agreed. However, again the words on the page are of a character that the playwrite had in mind and not
necessarily of the actor portaying that character. That is my point. Yes, actors put themselves in the character, but the playwrites
and screen writers are not writing the actor on the page. So my point is that when a person aspires to become an actor it's not
because they want to depict their own life on the screen, but to put themselves into an exciting character...to breathe life into
something and make it their own without having their own life written into it. Does that make sense?:-)
So I'm not disagreeing with you, but I do feel that there is an element of fantasy that the actors have in mind, where they can be
someone in a film/TV/play that they know they would never be - or can never be - in real life. The situation with Randy was that
some of the things Cinader wanted to use were hitting too close to home for him. Sure, he puts himself and his personality into the
character, but the experiences of the character is more fun when they aren't exactly his own. Does that make sense?
The Native American angle of John Gage, for example, was something that Randy didn't like at the time. That's why we don't see it
brought up much after Peace Pipe (it's mentioned briefly in a couple of episodes that same season, but after that it's not brought up
at all). Mainly Randy was sensitive about that at the time, and probably felt that there was no reason to make Gage Native American.
Granted I don't have the training you have:-) (I did spot some of your postings on the alt.acting newsgroup - impressive:-)). But being
an aspiring actress myself, I would say that I would find it more fun to portray a character with a background that is not necessarily my
own. Sure I'd put myself into the character (it's one of the things I was taught in a class I took:-)), but I wouldn't want to have the
character's background and life experiences to be exactly mine:-)
<i>No, it's not the audience that twists the arm of the actor forcing him to take a certain role. John Travolta, Roseanne and Henry
Winkler have proven how very hard it is to break free from a stigma, but it wasn't their potential audience forcing their decisions on
which new roles to take; it was them, making the decisions for their own careers.</i>
I didn't mean that the audience is twisting their arm. However there is such a thing as typecasting and Hollywood tends to be hesitant
sometimes in hiring people for leading roles when they've spent ten years playing the same character. Too many times I've read
stories where the actor in question is struggling because he's not getting the offers or the call-backs for the parts he really wants,
because no one - Hollywood especially - could shake the image of him in that one role. Henry Winkler hasn't had a successful stint
as a leading man since Happy Days. Yes, he did a few movies and he's now a successful producer (and writer?), but in front of the
camera people still see him as Fonzi.
Travolta was lucky, but it took him a long time to be accepted back into the fold. Even after the Look Who's Talking movies.
Everyone keeps talking about how he made this big comeback with Pulp Fiction, when he's been acting steadily for years. It's all
perception.
It's a shame, but it's true. Some actors just don't get the offers they want. And, in Randy's case, the folks in Hollywood didn't want him
to audition. Whenever he wanted to try out for a part the response was, "We've seen what he can do, he doesn't need to audition."
And he wouldn't get the part. Why? Because what they've seen was John Gage and they didn't want to see what else he was
capable of doing.
Now, I know that with perserverance you can make it. And I wish you luck, but I have heard the other side and I know that it's hard. I
wish only the best for everyone.
<i>I was trying to make the point in reference to your comment "No one becomes an actor to portray themselves", that with the art,
er, business, the way it is today, that a lot of the actors who are classified as ingenues/leading men, continuing to do this acting thing
has gotten easy for them technique wise, and it's no longer a stretch for them, to play people who are almost themselves. It's easy
money.</i>
True, but my point is that no one enters into the industry with the desire to portray themselves - literally:-) I doubt you spent years in
training and performing thinking that it's worthless because you'll only be portraying yourself:-) I do know actors who tire easily from
the formulaic character. They want to stretch. Sure they make take the roles that they can do with their eyes closed for the money,
but I do believe that deep down (or not so deep:-)) they crave meatier characters.
Out of curiosity, of the roles today, what do you deem dull:-) Just curious:-)
<i>They care nothing for the art, or for possibly creating a work that will touch someone. Over in the Acting ng we are discussing this
very thing. Every single day I answer questions to people saying "I want to be a star, what do I do?" There is sadly only a small
number of us in there who actually care about the art. So you see, I disagree with your statement, and say to that, that no, most of the
actors who get into the field today, do not care about acting, and the thought of them having to learn the actual craft, put some sweat
and tears into it, and come up with something worth remembering, just seems too hard for them, and they want to take the low
road.</i>
Yes, I've met those too:-) But I have also met actors who have said, "If you're only in this business to become a star, then you're in
the wrong business," mainly because stardom is fleeting. "You have to love what you do, because that's all you'll have to rely on."
I love attention. Like many in the field, I do have insecurities. However, my interest in this field is artistic. If I get any fame it'll be my
reward, not my goal:-) I realize that I may not share that goal with too many, but that's how I look at it (maybe I'm more insane:-)).
When Randy started out he never wanted to have a "cushy" job working for Universal, but he took it anyway. He wanted to struggle.
He felt true actors did just that. He wanted to work in the theatre:-) He's changed his tune since then and was glad he signed on with
Universal, though to this day he still wants to work on stage. But when he was starting out, as much as he craved attention, he didn't
want it handed to him:-)
I met an actor once who was only into it for the money and fame. When I approached a more successful actor and told him about this
guy, he said that the guy was nuts to be in it for that. There is a lot of blood, sweat and tears, as you say. Also a lot of
disappointment.
So I guess the point is that everyone has their own view of what they want out of this industry. Some want fame and fortune, others
want to be able to be rewarded for a good acting role. Who knows:-) I still believe that - fame aside - most actors would rather play a
role removed from themselves than do a part that is them completely:-)
<i>"An Actor must work all his life, cultivate his mind, train his talents systematically, develop his character; he may never despair
and never relinquish this main purpose-- to love his art with all his strength and love it unselfishly." --Constantin Stanislavski</i>
Amen:-)
Monica
Rrsmes
it?
Amazing how they're all hot to give you insurance but when the time is needed
to pay up you are lucky to get anything. I guess it was better than nothing.
Oh well! It's like they say, time heals all wounds or at least makes them
easier to deal with.
Maureen
positivity not negativity
MedMan2104
Well...... They look a lot a like.
Squad51girl
>
>
>Well...... They look a lot a like.
>
And they sound a lot alike, too. But I'm sure that's just coincidental. ;-)
ZALABE3
>to pay up you are lucky to get anything. I guess it was better than nothing.
Boy, don't even get me started!!! Anyone who works in the medical field can
probably relate to what I am going to say. Medical insurance companies dictate
who a patient can see, what medications they can take, and what tests they can
have performed, regardless of the patient's needs.
I say it at least once a day, and I will say it now, "I HATE insurance
companies."
Sorry.... I will get off my soap box now, but I just can't believe this is the
treatment we pay for.
ZALABE3
>
ROTFLMAO!!
Carrie
DLSmythe
>knuckles any time now...
>
recess
ZALABE3
>recess
I just got it!!!! ROTFL Cheech and Chong, Right?????
SEC4142
NRobin1027 <nrobi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990605155639...@ng-fo1.aol.com...
Rrsmes
Mantooth = gorgeous to the max
Gage = grogeous to the max
Maureen
positivity not negativity
NRobin1027
>
Yep, she was married to Webb first, they had two daughters. After they
divorced, she married Bobby Troup, They had a set of twins and daughter Kelly.
Robin
NRobin1027
cathie
>
> ><Anyone else think of other similarities off hand?>>
>
> Mantooth = gorgeous to the max
> Gage = grogeous to the max
>
grogeous? what's that? ;] does that mean gorgeous, but crossed with
gross because he talks with food in his mouth? hee hee hee hee hee
(sorry couldn't resist)
cathie
ishani
SEC4142 wrote in message ...
Opus (:>
spell-chekker? I've hurd of them, butt never feld the need to have
onne.
cathie wrote:
--
Bethers66
married when he died?
-Beth
>Yep, she was married to Webb first, they had two daughters. After they
>divorced, she married Bobby Troup, They had a set of twins and daughter
>Kelly.
>
>Robin
>NRobin1027
When you come to the edge of all that you know, you must believe one of two
things; there will be earth upon which to stand, or you will be given wings to
fly.
-Unknown
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://members.aol.com/Bethers66/pubpage.htm
Chandel691
married when he died?>>
LOL...I saw the above post, but didn't see what it was responding to. All I saw
was the subject line. Thought I'd REALLY missed something!
Bethers66
(hey, let's start a rumor!!!:)
-Beth
When you come to the edge of all that you know, you must believe one of two
NRobin1027
>still
>married when he died?
>
Actually, they were married on new year's eve 1969. They were still married
when Bobby Troup died.
Robin
NRobin1027
Colleen Condron
wrote:
I'm pretty sure it was 1959---all three of their kids are older
than I am, and I was born in '67.
Colleen
Rrsmes
>grogeous? what's that? ;] does that mean gorgeous, but crossed with gross
because
>because he talks with food in his mouth? hee hee hee hee hee (sorry couldn't
resist)
I was watching my taping of E! and drooling at Gage and guess I got all finger
tied. :-D
Maureen
positivity not negativity
NRobin1027
>than I am, and I was born in '67.
>
>Colleen
>
Oops, I think you're right. It was 1959. My apologies.
Robin
NRobin1027
SEC4142
Chandel691 <chand...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990608012900...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
| >>I'm assuming they were married during the run of the show...were they
still
| married when he died?>>
|
ishani
Rrsmes wrote in message <19990608182448...@ng-ca1.aol.com>...
>>Cathie wrote:
>
>>grogeous? what's that? ;] does that mean gorgeous, but crossed with gross
>because
>>because he talks with food in his mouth? hee hee hee hee hee (sorry
couldn't
>resist)
>
>I was watching my taping of E! and drooling at Gage and guess I got all
finger
>tied. :-D
There's a pun there, but, I won't touch it.
Opus (:>
>
BeezLuis
>
Good idea. (;> >>
Oh come on! Touch it!
ishani
Spamkills since 6-1-99: 2
BeezLuis wrote in message <19990610072835...@ng-fy1.aol.com>...