DHP: Jekyll or Hyde?
S A Cowden
on behalf of my daughter to announce the closure of her site "David Hyde
Pierce- A Tribute". Due to on-going, seemingly unresolveable problems with
David Hyde Pierce and Paramount Pictures, my daughter's health has been so
adversely effected that she feels unable to contain to maintain this web
site. Shirley Ann has asked me to detail, as succinctly as possible, the
circumstances which have brought things to this conclusion. It is not our
wish to publicly defame either DHP or Paramount but merely to explain things
to the many thousands of fans who have visited and enjoyed Shirley Ann's
site.
In September, I sent a blank birthday card to Mr Pierce along with a
stamped, addressed envelope, explaining that my daughter was going through a
period of ill health and asking him to please sign and return the card as a
birthday surprise for her. I received no reply. Earlier in the year my
daughter was one of a group of several fans who donated money to DHP's
church in memory of his father, no acknowledgement was forthcoming from Mr
Pierce on this occasion either. I decided I would write to DHP's agent and
ask if she could shed any light on what the problem may be here, again, no
reply was made. A follow up phone call to the agency was unhelpful but I was
given the fax number of Mr Pierce's publicist and I faxed the 'story'
through to them. Need I say that once more no response was made. Finally,
through a friend I discovered that at some point Shirley Ann's name had been
passed to Paramount's security department and DHP had been told never to
contact her in any way. This does not explain why he did not have someone
write to me and explain this was the situation. Naturally, my daughter was
very upset when she learned of this ban especially since she had no idea
what she might have done to be considered worthy of such action. I next
wrote to Paramount's director of security asking for an explanation but yet
again no reply. Shirley Ann, in sheer desperation, wrote to DHP personally
asking him to contact the security people and at the very least get them to
proffer some sort of explanation- even a criminal is entitled to be told of
what 'crime' they have been accused but again our letters have been totally
ignored. We can only imagine that Mr Pierce is happy for the ban to remain
in place and has no concern at all for the effect on my daughter's health.
What else can we think given the circumstances I have outlined? If my
daughter's appearance at the hotel in England at the time of Jane Leeves'
wedding is the reason for all this then surely the fact that Shirley Ann's
behaviour during her time in this hotel was totally benign must make any
breaching of Paramount's code of behaviour excusable? Over a number of
year's Shirley Ann has sent DHP a few letters, a gift, a couple of birthday
and congratulations cards- all harmless. Nothing offensive or malicious.
Something 'unsound' has been read in to my daughter's behaviour by people
who are simply not qualified to make those sort of judgements. I realise
that there are a lot of crazy people out there and that a measure of
caution/security must be applied but quite clearly Shirley Ann is harmless,
over-zealous perhaps, but not worthy of this sort of treatment. A slap on
the wrist if considered necessary could have been given but surely everyone,
especially someone who is disabled, deserves a second chance. Has DHP truly
no compassion?
Finally, as anyone who has ever visited Shirley Ann's site would surely
recognise, creating and maintaining this site was a labour of love for my
daughter truly adored "Frasier" and DHP's performance- she will no longer be
able to watch and enjoy the show and a light has gone out in her life. She
has been so hurt and consequently made ill (medical evidence can be
supplied) by this whole sorry business that the damage done may never be
healed. To those of you out there who have been good and true friend's to
Shirley Ann, we send our sincere appreciation and good wishes. (I am not
skilled at sending messages to forum such as this so if this message should
appear twice please excuse me. I have also used my daughter's server to send
this message but I can be contacted at george...@hotmail.com)
Sincerely,
Mr G Cowden
amber...@my-dejanews.com
In article <76de02$474$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"S A Cowden" <Shirl...@cowdens.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> I am George Cowden, father of Shirley Ann. It is with sadness that I write
> on behalf of my daughter to announce the closure of her site "David Hyde
> Pierce- A Tribute". Due to on-going, seemingly unresolveable problems with
> David Hyde Pierce and Paramount Pictures, my daughter's health has been so
> adversely effected that she feels unable to contain to maintain this web
> site. Shirley Ann has asked me to detail, as succinctly as possible, the
> circumstances which have brought things to this conclusion. It is not our
> wish to publicly defame either DHP or Paramount but merely to explain things
> to the many thousands of fans who have visited and enjoyed Shirley Ann's
> site.
<Main Body of message snipped to save band width>
Hello,
I usually lurk on this Newsgroup, but I had to add some support to this post.
I just wanted to say I am sorry to hear about these problems Shirley Ann had
a wonderful web site and it is a shame that she has been made to feel that
she should discontinue with it.
I hope one of the programs producers or people who have anything to do with
the show, who I understand do occasionally lurk on the newsgroup reads your
very touching post and passes the message onto DHP. In my opinion he should
be ashamed of himself for such behaviour, after all if he had no fans he
would not have a successful career either!
I hope Shirley Ann feels better again soon.... I must admit I have never
really had the courage to write to my favourite actor but I know if I was
treated in such a way by him I would be devastated to.
Best Wishes and I hope 1999 will be happy for you all...
Sheena
Sheena
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Les Faby
Shirl...@cowdens.freeserve.co.uk says...
> I am George Cowden, father of Shirley Ann. It is with sadness that I write
>
First, this does not seem to be a counterfeit message.
I have checked the link
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/8518/
and her site has been closed down so I think this message
does represent her.
I appreciated her wonderful site.
I am sad to hear Shirley Ann is in ill health.
However, DHP's only responsibility is to play Niles on a TV show. There
are over ten million viewers. If he sent 1% of them birthday cards, that
would be 100,000 cards a year. He has allowed himself to be photographed
with Shirley Ann. I don't think he owes his fans any more than that.
Also, I would surmise he has had problems with his privacy
and/or safety being invaded from some miniscule subset of those ten
million people. It may be difficult for DHP to sort out the cranks and
crazies from the ardent fans.
Les Faby
D Adams
> What else can we think given the circumstances I have outlined? If my
> daughter's appearance at the hotel in England at the time of Jane Leeves'
> wedding is the reason for all this then surely the fact that Shirley Ann's
> behaviour during her time in this hotel was totally benign must make any
> breaching of Paramount's code of behaviour excusable?
It seems you and your daughter have been bugging DHP for a long time. It would
be nice if you could leave the man alone.
maro
--
NOTE! If you use the Reply button, edit out "n0spam" from my address.
Heather Garvey
>passed to Paramount's security department and DHP had been told never to
>contact her in any way. This does not explain why he did not have someone
>write to me and explain this was the situation.
Actually, it does. If you have been "told never to contact her in
any way", then contacting her in any way would be Wrong. See how that works?
>We can only imagine that Mr Pierce is happy for the ban to remain
>in place and has no concern at all for the effect on my daughter's health.
>What else can we think given the circumstances I have outlined? If my
That the man has a life and does not contact people on the
"psychopath" list for quite sensible reasons? She may or may not
be an overzealous-to-the-point-of-scary person, but Paramount has decided
that she is and there's not a hell of a lot you can do about it, beyond
what you have done. I doubt that DHP is even getting the mail - either
his assistants are culling out the psycho list ones or he is, before reading
them.
And DHP is NOT responsible for any state your daughter works
herself into, or for any illness she suffers from.
>been so hurt and consequently made ill (medical evidence can be
She has not been "made ill" by DHP. She may have worked herself
into an illness, but people do not get ill because people don't want
to sign get well cards for them. I'm sorry that the situation has upset
her so, but DHP is not responsible for her overzealous celebrity worship.
--
Heather Garvey (ra...@xnet.com) | We who stride like giants across the
INTJ and BOFH | world and allow all the systems to
The Lady with the LART | speak, each unto the other.
http://www.xnet.com/~raven/ | -- Chad Robinson, BOFH
MUDDLEPUP
biggest fan.
However, I hope she feels better knowing that DHP probably never got any of her
correspondance, that if for some reason she was put on their "security risk"
list, it was Paramount, not DHP who put her there.
Paramount and other production companies have a huge stake in their stars, both
personal & financial, and take no risks, no matter how small, concerning their
well-being. And since celebrity stalking has become so well publicized, i.e.
Steven Speilberg, David Letterman, Madonna, etc, etc, DHP's or any other
celebrity's "people" cannot take any chances with their "meal ticket".
Unfortunately, their are a lot of "crazies" in this world, and as the saying
goes, "one bad apple can spoil the barrel." And unfortunately, Shirley Ann is a
victim of that..........
One question though, how did this friend know that Shirley Ann was on Paamount
s list? He must be pretty well connected to know that.....
Charles Pope Jr.
>
> I am George Cowden, father of Shirley Ann. It is with sadness that I write
> Pierce- A Tribute". Due to on-going, seemingly unresolveable problems with
> David Hyde Pierce and Paramount Pictures, my daughter's health has been so
> adversely effected that she feels unable to contain to maintain this web
This is certainly the saddest, strangest situation I have encountered
since joining the Internet last April.
I realize there are two sides to every story and, obviously, I have much
greater access to the details from Shirley Ann's point of view than that
of either Paramount or David Hyde Pierce. Moreover, I am not seeking
further clarifications or explanations from anyone.
The purpose of this post is not to take sides. I merely wish to provide
my own view of Shirley Ann's motivation for her website Tribute to DHP,
and one or two related observations.
My impression has always been that Shirley Ann's motivation was simply
to share her enjoyment of "Frasier" and her admiration for DHP's
artistry with others, such as myself, who also have derived so much joy
from the show and its superb cast, writers and producers.
Since more than one producer, working for "Frasier", has seen fit to
write cordial, offline email to me regarding some of my own posts
regarding the program, I would like them (and perhaps their associates
at Paramount) to know that it was Shirley Ann who advised me to
subscribe to this NG as she felt I would enjoy it and could make some
kind of useful contribution to the group.
With regard to DHP's view, my only comment is I find it strange (if the
explanations provided to Shirley Ann and her father are indeed true [and
I've been made aware the source is someone in production at "Frasier"])
that anyone would allow an employer (in the case of Paramount, an
_indirect_ employer [DHP was cast for "Frasier" by Grub Street
Productions, _not_ by Paramount or NBC]) to dictate whether or not he is
permitted to communicate with other persons.
I can only speak for myself, but if an employer attempted to dictate
with whom _I_ could or could not communicate, I would likely slap the
employer with a professional grievance and, depending on the response,
eventual related litigation.
In case anyone has forgotten, the United States Of America is a nation
founded on the basis of freedom of speech -- not to mention freedom from
servitude! -- among other beliefs. It has successfully won _wars_ in
support of these ideals (and is continuing to do so even in the
present).
CPJ.
DarbyJM
for DHP was both genuine and harmless. It's sad that she is no longer
interested in something which used to give her so much joy.
I'm also sorry that Shirley Ann is taking this so hard, and has allowed this
(non-)experience to affect her health.
However, I don't think that DHP *owes* her, or any other fan, any type of
recognition. Although I have no knowlege of the amount of fanmail he must
receive, I would imagine that it would be considerable -- and asking him for
personal correspondence -- no, EXPECTING him to comply with a *request* for
personal correspondence -- strikes me as wrong.
In fact, I would go so far as to say it bothers me that NO RESPONSE from DHP
was met with such surprise / upset by both Shirley Ann and her father. It
seems a rather overblown reaction, IMO. I think her father would have set a
better example by explaining that DHP is obviously a busy man, and can't
respond to EVERY request, instead of pushing the issue as if DHP had done some
WRONG which required an explanation.
JMHO.
Darby
Dave
>
> S A Cowden wrote:
> >
> > I am George Cowden, father of Shirley Ann. It is with sadness that I write
> > on behalf of my daughter to announce the closure of her site "David Hyde
> > Pierce- A Tribute". Due to on-going, seemingly unresolveable problems with
> > David Hyde Pierce and Paramount Pictures, my daughter's health has been so
> > adversely effected that she feels unable to contain to maintain this web
> > site...
>
> This is certainly the saddest, strangest situation I have encountered
> since joining the Internet last April.
>
I'll agree with you. This is surely a parable for why it's not often
such a good idea to get hung up on the unattainable. Celebrities have
no obligation to even recognize their fans exist, much less to
correspond personally and develop relationships with them, and when
hardcore fans find this out the hard way, there are often many ill
feelings and, apparently, biologically based maladies as well.
I'm not trying to sound insulting, I just don't know a better what to
say what I mean. Anyone who claims to be a "superfan" or "so and so's
Number One fan ever in the world" should think a little bit about Mr.
Cowden's post and what can become of such devotion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
rat...@EYEcanect.net replace EYE with I
(Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Pope Jr.
> ....after all if he had no fans he
> would not have a successful career either!
I may be mistaken, but my impression has been that, if it were possible
to be a celebrated actor _without_ being famous, this would be DHP's
choice.
CPJ.
Dave
> You can never be too careful. But saying you are a huge fan can't do any harm,
> except build an ego.
BUT an overbuilt ego can be a very harmful thing all by itself, right?
>
> --Lisa
> (Fond of KG, but not stalkingly fond.) :-)
Thanks for the disclaimer. I was a little frightened. :)
Dave
>
> In fact, I would go so far as to say it bothers me that NO RESPONSE from DHP
> was met with such surprise / upset by both Shirley Ann and her father. It
> seems a rather overblown reaction, IMO. I think her father would have set a
> better example by explaining that DHP is obviously a busy man, and can't
> respond to EVERY request, instead of pushing the issue as if DHP had done some
> WRONG which required an explanation.
Now that I've had time to reflect, and in light of what Darby wrote, it
seems the original post struck me as somewhat odd. At one point, I
almost felt as though this was only posted so there would be a
"permanent public record" so to speak, as if it were to be used at some
future point as evidence in some sort of legal action against DHP or
others in his professional circle.
I know it sounds silly, and I apologize if I've offended, but that was a
distinct impression that I got while reading the post, and I felt I
should share it.
Charles Pope Jr.
> I almost felt as though this was only posted so there would be a
> "permanent public record" so to speak, as if it were to be used at some
> future point as evidence in some sort of legal action against DHP or
> others in his professional circle.
>
> I know it sounds silly, and I apologize if I've offended, but that was a
> distinct impression that I got while reading the post, and I felt I
> should share it.
To put a legal spin on such an unhappy situation, my view (while I'm not
a lawyer, I've had more experience with civil disputes than many people)
is that Shirley Ann probably _does_ have grounds to sue Paramount for
defamation. The fact that Paramount's director of security declined to
send _any_ response to Mr. Cowden's request for an explanation strongly
signals they don't wish to state, let alone write, anything further
which could be used against them. Even the most innocuous, apologetic
response could be used (easily) in court to establish acknowledgement
that Paramount indeed _had_ defamed Shirley Ann.
And one thing I can state from direct experience is that even the most
brutal, cut-throat litigation lawyers _quickly_ turn chicken when some
of their own more dubious smoke-and-mirrors (never mind factually
sloppy) tactics are exposed as such (sometimes even by _their own_
clients!) and used to threaten _them_ with professional and/or legal
actions.
Nevertheless, given Mr. Cowden's unequivocal statement, "It is not our
wish to publicly defame either DHP or Paramount...", my impression is
that he and Shirley Ann do not seem inclined to pursue this matter in
court (something which, legal considerations aside, would probably be a
lot more stressful than continuing to operate a celebrity website).
CPJ.
Jane
S A Cowden wrote in message <76de02$474$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>through a friend I discovered that at some point Shirley Ann's name had
been
>passed to Paramount's security department and DHP had been told never to
>contact her in any way
Well, Shirley Ann, you can take some comfort in the idea that I believe I
may be personna non grata with Paramount, also, because of my nasty posts
about Camille. I know that a lot of you guys on ATF think I am some sort of
lunatic, so it stands to reason that Paramount's security people may also
believe I'm a little bonkers.
The fact that David Lee never answered an e-mail from me (completely
innocuous, simply asking about something in the show) sort of fits, too.
Outside of the nasty posts, I sent KG that e-mail criticizing his website,
and another suggesting that they add Camille's high-school graduation
picture to the site, to give her a little more credibility. A couple of
months ago, I also sent KG a copy of an old Woody Allen short story, "The
Whore of Mensa". I thought he'd find it amusing, and that it may hit home.
I honestly didn't think I came off as that crazy. A little nasty, maybe.
But it's not as though I ever showed up anywhere, or threatened anyone. What
can I say? Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
I'll now wait for a post from DM saying, "I told you so".
I must say that I, for one, feel that Shirley Ann's accusing DHP of ruining
her health by ignoring her is much more "over-the-top" than anything I've
ever said.
Jane
TREES2LUV
with the fans, also the staff and co-workers who make the show viewable. I
mean if there were none of these people, and just actors, we'd only have a
bunch of people reading lines all over the place. But recognition is all I
think people deserve, and I never heard a celeb say they don't need their fans.
They always seem to mention them sometime along the line, and that's all they
need to do. I think a person would be a "bad celebrity" if they thought all
the little people were useless and that they don't matter. I think it would be
an honour if I had someone say they were my #1 fan. Not neseccarily (sp.)
meaning that they really were, but it's a nice thought. I could see how it
might be scarey if someone was to keep pestering me for a letter or something.
except build an ego.
--Lisa
FrasierNut
>for DHP was both genuine and harmless.
Yes. I, too, enjoyed her page and it is unfortunate that this whole situation
has occured.
>I'm also sorry that Shirley Ann is taking this so hard, and has allowed this
>(non-)experience to affect her health.
I am also sorry that this has affected her health, however it is VERY UNFAIR to
place blame upon DHP and to accuse him of not caring about anyone's welfare.
It was not he who placed the ban and for whomever did, there has to be a valid
reason why this has happened.
>However, I don't think that DHP *owes* her, or any other fan, any type of
>recognition.
True. Yes, it would be nice if every celebrity responded to every piece of fan
mail sent to him/her. However, this is not realistic. As previously
mentioned, he probably doesn't even receive the mail directly. Yet, it is
essential to bring up two points. One, it's important to state the fact that
he has been known to answer much of his fan mail (not all, but much.) And two,
we must not forget the picture taken at the hotel with David and Shirley Ann
before Jane Leeve's wedding. To me, this is a very complicated issue in
which we are not getting the full story. There are too many pieces of the
puzzle missing.
Victoria
(# 1 DHP fan)-----however, not stalkingly obsessive. :)
LabRattus
>I usually lurk on this Newsgroup, but I had to add some support to this post.
>I just wanted to say I am sorry to hear about these problems Shirley Ann had
>a wonderful web site and it is a shame that she has been made to feel that
>she should discontinue with it.
>
>I hope one of the programs producers or people who have anything to do with
>the show, who I understand do occasionally lurk on the newsgroup reads your
>very touching post and passes the message onto DHP.
Which appears to be the real reason this was posted ...
>In my opinion he should
>be ashamed of himself for such behaviour, after all if he had no fans he
>would not have a successful career either!
>
>I hope Shirley Ann feels better again soon.... I must admit I have never
>really had the courage to write to my favourite actor<snip>
Not to offend, but I really don't think it takes a lot of courage to write a
celebrity. All it takes is a pen, some paper and a stamp. In certain cases,
it takes courage *not* to do it - not to avoid the challenge of living a
meaningful life by losing yourself in celebrity worship. I'm not sure where the
line is between being an enthusiastic fan and being obsessed. I do know that
if you feel compelled to crash a wedding to see an actor or if your health
suffers due to the inattention of a perfect stranger, that line is definitely
visible in your rear view mirror. It would be best to turn around, burn the fan
club card and try to find some greater meaning in life. I don't say that with
any ill will toward Shirley Ann. I'm sure she's a lovely person and I wish her
the best.
And for anyone who thinks DHP (or any other actor, athlete, whatever) is God or
worthy of worship, just picture him on the crapper. Because he sits there
everyday. Just like you, just like me (well, on good days). Wildly talented?
Yes. Attractive? Definitely. God? Hardly.
SH
LabRattus
>I can only speak for myself, but if an employer attempted to dictate
>with whom _I_ could or could not communicate, I would likely slap the
>employer with a professional grievance and, depending on the response,
>eventual related litigation.
>
You claim to be Canadian, but you're really an American, aren't you? <g>
>In case anyone has forgotten, the United States Of America is a nation
>founded on the basis of freedom of speech -- not to mention freedom from
>servitude! -- among other beliefs. It has successfully won _wars_ in
>support of these ideals (and is continuing to do so even in the
>present).
Oh, now that PROVES it!!!
SH
Charles Pope Jr.
(Actually, what it proves is I used to work as a policy speech writer
for federal Cabinet Ministers...)
Well..., if I ever decide to apply for a Green Card, guess I should
include my entire litigation files (go back more than 22 years, and
encompass a fired magazine editor plus, more recently, two lawyers
having breakdowns [not kidding]) -- and _your_ post, LR.
And if the Republicans win the next Presidential election, I'll throw in
a copy of my rec.dvd.misc post from a few weeks ago flaming an
ego-bloated pothead-turned-schoolmarm. (People, you _don't_ wanna
know.)
Happy New Year, everyone!
CPJ.
Shelley
>DarbyJM wrote:
>
>>
>> In fact, I would go so far as to say it bothers me that NO RESPONSE from DHP
>> was met with such surprise / upset by both Shirley Ann and her father. It
>> seems a rather overblown reaction, IMO. I think her father would have set a
>> better example by explaining that DHP is obviously a busy man, and can't
>> respond to EVERY request, instead of pushing the issue as if DHP had done
> some
>> WRONG which required an explanation.
>
>Now that I've had time to reflect, and in light of what Darby wrote, it
>almost felt as though this was only posted so there would be a
>"permanent public record" so to speak, as if it were to be used at some
>future point as evidence in some sort of legal action against DHP or
>others in his professional circle.
>
>I know it sounds silly, and I apologize if I've offended, but that was a
>distinct impression that I got while reading the post, and I felt I
>should share it.
I don't think you sound silly. The whole thing gave me that impression,
particularly the line about providing proof of her medical deterioration as
caused by this whole mess. Proof? For whom? And why? I don't know.
I've enjoyed Shirley Ann's site. Lots of great shots from the show. If it's
gone for good it's truly a shame. I wish her nothing but health and
happiness. But if she so enjoys the show and watching DHP, I don't understand
why that must now change. Or why she's giving up the website. Why can't it
still be enjoyable--just because she'll never hear from DHP personally? It's
not like he was a close friend who is suddenly shunning her. He's this guy
who has no obligation to see anyone, talk to anyone, or correspond with anyone
he doesn't really want to. She's seen him live and in person before, had her
picture taken with him. That's more than most fans ever get to do with their
favorite stars, I think. Shirley Ann shouldn't take it personally.
And, like ratboy I hope I don't offend here, but the first time I visited
Shirley Ann's Tribute page, I remember getting an odd feeling when I read her
story explaining how she wasn't a stalker or anything. Seemed an odd thing to
put out there. I didn't think she was--why is this explanation here? There
must have been some funny vibes that she noticed, maybe when she met him or
had her picture taken with him. So all this, I would think, shouldn't be that
big a shock.
Don't let it get you down. There are many better things out there to be
depressed about, believe me.
Shelley
son...@hotmail.com
-------------------------------------------
I'm not against the blacks, and a lot of the good blacks will attest to that.
-- Evan Mecham, then governor of Arizona
TREES2LUV
>it takes courage *not* to do it - not to avoid the challenge of living a
>meaningful life by losing yourself in celebrity worship.
I wrote to someone....so I'm no cowardly lion. :-)
> burn the fan
>club card
What?! Card? There's a card?? hehe.
~~Lisa~~
(#1 KG Fan!)
"Stagger onward, rejoicing."
******
"I am tonight the mystery guest
At a dinner thrown
By my own
Decisions."
--KG
DocFranken
allowing her health to deteriorate over this is evident that she may be just a
little too in to DHP. For petes sake! She got her picture taken with the
man!!! That is more than any of us will ever get the chance to do!! Also, she
wrote him several Birthday cards and letters, but we don't know the tone or
content of those cards and letters do we? Maybe there was something in them
that gave the security team reason to be cautious. Since the strange case of
Margaret Raye ( who killed herself near my hometown) I'm sure security detail
for the stars are on full alert now.
I have had my picture taken with Mrs Clinton, and I have spoken with the
president at length, and they know me and I know them, however, I do not expect
a serious friendship to come of this, but imagine if I behaved towards the
first family the way Shirley behaved towards DHP! The secret service would
indeed keep a close eye on me. So it stands to reason that the security team
of DHP is playing it safe. To be a stalker, one doesn't necessarily have to be
breaking in to a stars home or calling him or her everyday, you only need the
appearance of a stalker mentality to give cause for concern. I do not say all
this with any ill will toward Shirley, but she must understand that stars must
protect themselves.
Tom R. # 1 Frasier fan
S A Cowden
However, I have just been back to the newsgroup and one or two new post's
also merit response.
To SH: "crashing a wedding"!!!? The wedding was held some ten miles or so
from the hotel my daughter stayed in. Thousands of people over the years
have checked in to the same hotel as their favourite rock star/actor in
order to meet them. That doesn't necessarily mean they are dangerously
obsessed!!! To my daughter, as she explained on her site, this was chance
for her to have a short break and have a little adventure. Nothing more. She
certainly does not think Mr Pierce is God!!! And as a man of 83 years of age
who has seen a great deal of life I would certainly make sure that she
modified her behaviour if I felt there was anything a miss about it. Her
interest in "Frasier" and DHP simply added a wonderful new dimension to her
life which has been blighted by illness. No one claimed that DHP *had* to
respond but given the circumstances I have outlined in my earlier post's you
will perhaps understand why I feel he *should* have. Shirley Ann also knows
full well that he is a stranger, I don't feel that is the point here. Having
suffered the loss of her mother from cancer and having endured her own ill
health she knows only too well that there are other things and worse things
to get depressed about. But that doesn't mean to say that she is not correct
in being upset about this situation.
To Tom R: If there *was* anything untoward about Shirley Ann's letters to
DHP then we would not pursue this matter publicly, would we? Also, if that
were the case why has someone from the DHP camp not issued a warning letter?
To the lady who said the "Me & DHP" section of the site hinted at my
daughter's fear of being misinterpretated, that is correct. This was based
on her gift being returned through security. The shock has come at DHP's
reaction to the birthday card request for she did not know that he had any
suspicions about her.
I am sure there are fans out there who would admit that for one reason or
another "Frasier" and DHP are an 'obsession', Niles on screen is obsessed
with Daphne, no one finds that worrying. Please do not, in your
understandable desire to defend your favourite actor, turn on another fan.
Oh and Alison, I asked you to make your support public as I expected the
sort of mass defence of DHP that has been forthcoming. I thought you were
supportive of my daughter but I realise now that was wrong. It seems that
probably, I cannot 'win' but winning was never my intention.
Sincerely
Mr George Cowden
cheryl
íf you were in Paramount trying to decide who would be a potential
psycho and who wouldn't, how would you be ***sure**? wouldn't you
rather err on the side of caution? Some people have claimed that
Shirley is obviously just a devoted fan, and completely harmless.
Well, are we saying that just because she's put up a fantastic
website? how would the people from Paramount be SURE? I think Shirley
had a wonderful website, and the vidcaps are amazing, but imagine you
are an exec at Paramount, and you have all this evidence - the
website, the letters, the gifts, the cards etc. And you have to ask
yourself- is this person a potential risk? Can you say for
sure that the answer is no?
They would rather be safe than to be sorry. It's easier for them to
say "no, don't contact this person, and you WILL be safe", rather than
"we THINK she is all right, but we can't be sure".
we know shirley so we'd like to support her as a friend. But look at
the point of view from a person whose job it is to ensure DHP's
security.
Remember John Lennon. Remember Rebecca Schaffer. Remember Ronald
Reagan (/Jodie Foster). Remember Selena. Remember that the word "fan"
comes from the word "fanatic".
And remember cases with less tragic circumstances: David Letterman
(man, those women stalkers were psychos), and also all those other
restraining orders. And lots of stars are made to memorise faces of
people who'd potentially be dangerous to them.
If it were up to me, i'd err on the side of caution.
happy new year(!)
Cheryl
Charles Pope Jr.
>
> Playing devil's advocate -
>
> íf you were in Paramount trying to decide who would be a potential
> psycho and who wouldn't, how would you be ***sure**? wouldn't you
> rather err on the side of caution? Some people have claimed that
> Shirley is obviously just a devoted fan, and completely harmless.
> Well, are we saying that just because she's put up a fantastic
> website? how would the people from Paramount be SURE? I think Shirley
> had a wonderful website, and the vidcaps are amazing, but imagine you
> are an exec at Paramount, and you have all this evidence - the
> website, the letters, the gifts, the cards etc. And you have to ask
> yourself- is this person a potential risk? Can you say for
> sure that the answer is no?
Risk? Risk in what context?
> They would rather be safe than to be sorry. It's easier for them to
> say "no, don't contact this person, and you WILL be safe", rather than
> "we THINK she is all right, but we can't be sure".
Safe? Safe from what?
> we know shirley so we'd like to support her as a friend. But look at
> the point of view from a person whose job it is to ensure DHP's
> security.
> Remember John Lennon. Remember Rebecca Schaffer. Remember Ronald
> Reagan (/Jodie Foster). Remember Selena. Remember that the word "fan"
> comes from the word "fanatic".
> And remember cases with less tragic circumstances: David Letterman
> (man, those women stalkers were psychos), and also all those other
> restraining orders. And lots of stars are made to memorise faces of
> people who'd potentially be dangerous to them.
Cheryl, do you realize you are comparing Shirley Ann with murderers and
advanced psychopaths? I don't think you mean to be so offensive, but
any lawyer will inform you Shirley Ann could now sue _you_, in addition
to Paramount, were she so inclined.
> If it were up to me, i'd err on the side of caution.
In this instance, I believe Paramount has erred on the side of extreme,
obsessive paranoia, not to mention _very_ ill-advisedly failing to
recognize the degree to which they have now put themselves at risk of
legal retaliation which would likely be quite easy to accomplish in a
California civil court.
My advice to Paramount, if they are paying any attention to this NG is:
fire the lawyers and other security 'advisors' responsible for
black-listing Shirley Ann, be grateful (as her father has confirmed in a
post this morning) she does not plan to sue them, but _don't_ wait for
another more vindictive person to teach them a lesson the hard way.
Aside from any other considerations, if Paramount _were_ to be sued by a
fan in Shirley Ann's situation, the ensuing publicity would be _a lot_
more damaging to "Frasier" than a few harmless gifts or letters -- never
mind a website which is arguably the best "Frasier"-related one on the
Internet (a lot better than NBC's, which is often out-of-date and
inaccurate).
CPJ.
DocFranken
>Reagan (/Jodie Foster). Remember Selena. Remember that the word "fan"
>comes from the word "fanatic".
Actually, John Hinckley was no fan of Reagan, but more obsessed with Jodi
Foster. He thought he would impress her by killing a President.
Not to be picky, but the word Fan did not come from the word "fanatic" but
the other way around. The actual word "fan" originated from the old days when
people would sit in the sun to watch a sporting event and they would be waving
hand held fans to keep cool. Sports anouncers would say " the fan wavers over
there are going wild!" but then they just shortened it to "the fans are loving
this game" or something to that effect. The word "fanatic" came later.
Tom R.
David
news:368B94...@sympatico.ca...
>
>Risk? Risk in what context?
Risk of anything. She has already made uninvited personal contact with one
cast member at her wedding. As I was saying to Lisa the other day, a chance
encounter is one thing. If a stranger who knows me from the Internet were to
show up at my wedding, (and I am well aware that a wedding is a public
event) and makes himself known, you can be sure I will never willingly
engage in any contact with that person again.
>
>> They would rather be safe than to be sorry. It's easier for them to
>> say "no, don't contact this person, and you WILL be safe", rather than
>> "we THINK she is all right, but we can't be sure".
>
>Safe? Safe from what?
>
At the least, unwanted contact with someone they do not wish to have contact
with. At most, anything imaginable.
>
>Cheryl, do you realize you are comparing Shirley Ann with murderers and
>advanced psychopaths? I don't think you mean to be so offensive, but
>any lawyer will inform you Shirley Ann could now sue _you_, in addition
>to Paramount, were she so inclined.
Um no. Cheryl is doing nothing of the sort. She is merely offering examples
of some cases where a lack of vigilance led to tragic consequences. To use
your logic, the fact that I lock my door means I am comparing my neighbours
to thieves, murderers and rapists. It's nothing of the sort -- it's just
taking the amount of precaution I feel is prudent in my particular
situation.
>In this instance, I believe Paramount has erred on the side of extreme,
>obsessive paranoia, not to mention _very_ ill-advisedly failing to
>recognize the degree to which they have now put themselves at risk of
>legal retaliation which would likely be quite easy to accomplish in a
>California civil court.
>
>My advice to Paramount, if they are paying any attention to this NG is:
>fire the lawyers and other security 'advisors' responsible for
>black-listing Shirley Ann, be grateful (as her father has confirmed in a
>post this morning) she does not plan to sue them, but _don't_ wait for
>another more vindictive person to teach them a lesson the hard way.
>
Charles, in the spirit of the season, allow me to reiterate that you sir,
are a moron.
From their total lack of response, it seems that Paramount is doing exactly
what any competant attorney would advise.
You seem to be suffering from the delusion that Paramount and DHP are under
some sort of legal obligation to have contact with Shirley Ann. They have
none. She has no grounds whatsoever for a lawsuit. They have made no public
statements about her whatsoever. They have (and we have only her father's
word for this) not responded to mail. That is entirely within their rights.
They have also (according to her father) placed her on some sort of internal
"blacklist."
We have no way of knowing if this is true. Moreover, *he* has no way of
knowing if this is true. If it is, however, (and it is almost certain that
if she were not on it before, she is now), that is also well within their
rights.
The only person who has done anything to damage Shirley Ann's reputation or
expose her to any sort of embarassment is Shirley Ann herself.
I am fascinated, as always, that your concept of privacy begins and ends
with an actor's sexual orientation, and that, only if said actor is gay.
Is Shirley Ann just a harmless fan? Probably.
But I wouldn't be willing to take that risk in DHP's place.
Are she and her father placing too much importance on this? Certainly.
Is there anything they can do to change the situation? No. Paramount, DHP
and anyone else involved have every right to engage (or not) in
correspondance with anyone they choose, without giving any explanation
whatsoever.
And that's exactly what they are doing.
--
| Looking for a flame-war free *FUN* newsgroup? Try alt.culture.fabulous
| E-mail: d a v i d at s h o w b u zz n e t dot c o m
David
news:19981231005111...@ng-fu1.aol.com...
>
>And for anyone who thinks DHP (or any other actor, athlete, whatever) is
God or
>worthy of worship, just picture him on the crapper. Because he sits there
>everyday. Just like you, just like me (well, on good days). Wildly
talented?
>Yes. Attractive? Definitely. God? Hardly.
>
And placing it in perspective, quoting David Cubitt (late of Traders,
Michael Hayes and soon on "Turks"), "it's not like I'm a hockey player or
anything."
cheryl
>Actually, John Hinckley was no fan of Reagan, but more obsessed with Jodi
>Foster. He thought he would impress her by killing a President.
yes, that's what I meant.
> Not to be picky, but the word Fan did not come from the word "fanatic" but
>the other way around. The actual word "fan" originated from the old days when
oh, i have to admit, i thought it was the other way around. read it
somewhere. This *would* be an interesting story for alt.usage.english.
I was watching Letterman the other night, and he was asking Julia
Roberts where her house was. She replied (to this effect)- Dave, if
there's *anything* we've learnt from you, it's never to say where we
live.
Cracked me up completely.
David
>But it's not as though I ever showed up anywhere, or threatened anyone.
What
>can I say? Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
>
>I'll now wait for a post from DM saying, "I told you so".
What's to say? You acted in a way that would make it extremely unlikely
anyone on the show would want to have anything to do with you. And as a
result, it does indeed seem that no one on the show will have anything to do
with you. But there's no need to say I told you so -- I can't imagine you
expected any other result.
>
>I must say that I, for one, feel that Shirley Ann's accusing DHP of ruining
>her health by ignoring her is much more "over-the-top" than anything I've
>ever said.
>
I'm not going to compare degrees of unpleasantness. Both of you have given
off enough signals that most celebs and their people would choose to err on
the side of caution.
If I were asked to give general advice to people regarding celebrities I
would say:
1. The best situation all around is to simply enjoy their work. Watch their
show, see their movies, buy their books. You'll be happy. They'll be happy.
2. If something about them bothers you -- their politics, their personal
life, their hair -- then decide whether or not it interferes in your
enjoyment of their work. If it does, stop watching. Don't expect them to
change to suit you, a total stranger. They have every right to lead their
life as they see fit. That doesn't mean you can't have an opinion or express
it. Just not to them.
3. Do not presume to offer comments or advice on anything unrelated to their
work. About their work, if you don't have anything nice to say, leave it
unsaid. These people have other actors, writers, directors, producers,
network executives, critics, focus groups, friends and relatives to critique
their every movement. You wouldn't, after all, enjoy being accosted by a
total stranger who doesn't think you're doing a good job raising your
children.
4. If you encounter them, there is no requirement that you say hello!
5. If you say hello, there is no need to engage them in prolonged
conversation. A simple "I enjoy your work" to which they can say "Thank you,
it's nice to hear that" is more than enough.
6. Think of yourself as a telemarketer. You are interfering in their private
life and they are probably don't want or need you in it. Be as polite as
possible and as unobtrusive as possible. If they're busy, or engaged in
conversation with someone else, leave them alone. A smile and a nod is more
than sufficient to let them know they've been recognized and you wish them
well.
7. Put yourself in their position. Remember that what is a
once-in-a-lifetime encounter to you is an everyday and not always pleasant
occurence to them.
*Everyone* today has rather less privacy than they would like. Most of the
mail we receive is unwanted. Most phone calls we receive are unwanted. For
celebs it's magnified to an incredible degree. Try to keep that in mind
before you waltz uninvited into their lives.
cheryl
<charle...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Risk? Risk in what context?
Risk to DHP's safety.
>Cheryl, do you realize you are comparing Shirley Ann with murderers and
>advanced psychopaths?
No I am not!!! The last thing I would want to do is say that.
My point, if badly put, was that they would rather **err** on the
side of **caution**. My point was that they ("they' being whoever is
responsible for DHP's safety) don't know Shirley Ann personally so
they would rather make an error about her character.
My illustrations were used to highlight the point that from security's
point of view, making a mistake can be potentially fatal.
You know how in econs they talk about how risk averse people will
over-insure themselves, risk neutral will buy the "correct" amount of
insurance and risk-loving will under-insure themselves. well, this is
just a case of paramount/dhp/security (whoever. i wouldn't know) being
risk averse.
If Tony Blair or President Clinton decided to come and visit me
tomorrow on an official visit, (for whatever reason), my flat, my
neighbour's flats, my block, neighbouring blocks- would all have to be
examined and security cleared.
When I stayed with a friend who is the daughter of an ambassador, my
*family* and I had to pass security clearance.
That's not an insult to me. That friend told me later that another
friend of hers failed security clearance because she had a dodgy
UNCLE. And if I demanded to know why they insisted on such stringent
checks, they'd tell me: remember Pope John Paul II, remember President
Kennedy, remember Rajiv Ghandi, remember Yitzhak Rabin.
These people are simply being risk averse. And it shouldn't be taken
personally.
Without going into detail at all, there's someone who's semi-stalking
me, i suspect.
Note: i *suspect*. Am not sure. So it's easier for me not to reply to
his emails, and electronic postcards, and icq messages (and in all
cases, He found ME, not the other way around) and safer too, i feel.
Maybe he's really just a nice guy who's just clueless about What
Freaks People Out. maybe he's harmless. maybe. I don't know for sure
and the process of Finding Out For Sure puts my safety at risk. (And
as Economists put it- gives me negative utility) So i'd rather ERR on
the side of CAUTION.
If me, a non-star and a nobody, can get freaked out by ONE random
bloke, what more DHP, a very public person, who has to contend with
Many Random Blokes.
So maybe my post which, with all due respect charles, I feel you've
misinterpreted was strongly laced with paranoia. But you see where i'm
coming from.
and that's all i have to say.
now back to my essay on the pensions crisis.
Alan E Hill
following subversive contact:
Replicant: mui...@globalnet.co.uk.don'tspam (cheryl)
Message Classification: <368ba477...@news.globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: DHP: Jekyll or Hyde?
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1998 16:23:10 GMT
>oh, i have to admit, i thought it was the other way around. read it
>somewhere. This *would* be an interesting story for alt.usage.english.
According to my dictionary:
fan - an ardent admirer or devotee - derived from fanatic with roots
in the 17C - 19C.
fanatic - a person with extreme zeal or enthusiasm beyond normal
limits - roots in 16C derived from latin - fanaticus - belonging to a
temple henced inspired by _a_ god.
--
Alan E Hill Bristol/UK
... shurely shome mishtake ...
DocFranken
>According to my dictionary:
>
>fan - an ardent admirer or devotee - derived from fanatic with roots
>in the 17C - 19C.
hmmm..... this is wrong, my information was takine from an Encyclopedia
Tom R.
Mmb2226
Not sure which encyclopaedia you are using Tom, but The Oxford English
Dictionary defines "fanatic"as coming from the French "fanatique" a C16 century
adjective meaning of a temple or worship of a God. The noun fanatic was used
from the mid C17 century firstly to describe religious zealots and later for
any devotee. It also gives literary references of its use.
Michele
TREES2LUV
>life and they are probably don't want or need you in it.
Well telemarketing is a job, and they need to make a living too. Some people
benefit from them.
Bokman7757
Then why the provocative subject header?
Of course I am deeply sorry for Shirley Ann's illness and disappointment.
However, I do not think David Hyde Pierce can be held responsible for any of
it. He has a life of his own to lead, and the only thing an artist owes his
fans is his best work. It's nice if an actor can take the time to express good
wishes towards a particular fan- but it isn't always feasible.
TREES2LUV
debate. In the left corner weighing in at....
TREES2LUV
Um....uh....shoot. Well, you know who I mean.
Dave
>
> >
> >According to my dictionary:
> >
> >fan - an ardent admirer or devotee - derived from fanatic with roots
> >in the 17C - 19C.
>
> hmmm..... this is wrong, my information was takine from an Encyclopedia
>
Hmmm. Two reference works with polar opposite information concerning
the origin of FAN and FANATIC. Someone is wrong. I wonder who. Does
anyone feel like doing any research?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
rat...@EYEcanect.net replace EYE with I
(Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jane
David wrote in message <76galq$oc7$0...@dosa.alt.net>...
>>I honestly didn't think I came off as that crazy. A little nasty, maybe.
>>But it's not as though I ever showed up anywhere, or threatened anyone.
>What
>>can I say? Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke.
>>
>>I'll now wait for a post from DM saying, "I told you so".
>
>What's to say? You acted in a way that would make it extremely unlikely
>anyone on the show would want to have anything to do with you. And as a
>result, it does indeed seem that no one on the show will have anything to
do
>with you. But there's no need to say I told you so -- I can't imagine you
>expected any other result.
Truthfully, that time when I asked David Lee to express his opinion of
Camille, I expected him to rush valiantly to her defense, if that was the
way he felt. If his opinion were otherwise, he'd keep his mouth shut - the
right thing to do, under the circumstances. Since he did NOTHING to defend
the fair Camille, he probably laughed his ass off at some of my posts. If
he chose to have nothing to do with me, I doubt it was because he didn't
WANT to. It was probably because he felt that in his position, he SHOULDN'T.
Or, maybe, Paramount security said NOT to.
>If I were asked to give general advice to people regarding celebrities I
>would say:
>
>1. The best situation all around is to simply enjoy their work. Watch their
>show, see their movies, buy their books. You'll be happy. They'll be happy.
If it were a perfect world, I'd agree with you. A celebrity such as Kelsey
Grammer should be able to say: "I drink(drank) too much. I snort(ed) too
much coke. I make pornographic movies. I repeatedly choose the lowest
garbage to be my SO. I waste my money on "fitness gurus" that charge
$10,000 to tell me to stop eating potato chips. Okay. Do you like
Frasier? Yes? You do? You don't like my personal life? Does it bother
you? Then don't watch Frasier. Fuck you, and the horse you rode in on."
But he DOESN'T say that, does he? He cares very much about what his fans
think of his personal life. He had to write a book justifying himself and
his actions. He had to create a website to show himself and Camille as a
wholesome American family, who celebrates Christmas, loves animals, and
yes, even who used to be little children!!
He has devoted far more time, I would say, to justifying himself to his
public, than the combined time that fans such as Lisa, or I, have spent
speculating about what it would be like to meet him, to get high with him,
or to sleep with him.
Jane
Q of the T
.sig: "Heil!"
Charles Pope Jr.
>
> DocFranken wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >According to my dictionary:
> > >
> > >fan - an ardent admirer or devotee - derived from fanatic with roots
> > >in the 17C - 19C.
> >
> > hmmm..... this is wrong, my information was takine from an Encyclopedia
> >
>
> Hmmm. Two reference works with polar opposite information concerning
> the origin of FAN and FANATIC. Someone is wrong. I wonder who.
> Does anyone feel like doing any research?
No.
CPJ.
(layzeeboi 'mode' [aftrr awl, it's nuuuu yearzz eeeeev (quote,
"Valley Of The Dolls" by the late Jacqueline Susann)])
TREES2LUV
>public, than the combined time that fans such as Lisa, or I, have spent
>speculating about what it would be like to meet him, to get high with him,
>or to sleep with him.
Well what else is there to do? hehe. What did I tell you about putting those
visions in my head? I...um...what was I saying? >:-)
Charles Pope Jr.
> He has devoted far more time, I would say, to justifying himself to his
> public, than the combined time that fans such as Lisa, or I, have spent
> speculating about what it would be like to meet him, to get high with him,
> or to sleep with him.
Hey......, um eye missin sump'n? Does TREEZ2LUV wanna 'brake up' K&C?
(N Eyem naught tahkin bowt Kntucky Freyed Chikun [imagine DHP
pronunciation, "High Crane Drifter", season three...)
Gossshhh... 2Bad Doruhthee Killgallon iznt rown tu 'spread' the
wurd......
Wotz thuh wurhl cumm'n two?
SeaPeaJay
(hay, geyes..., juss kidd'n [member wot daye it iz......])
"staggrrrrrrrzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.................."
Les Faby
tree...@aol.com says...
> "fan/fanatic origin" debate.
OED and American Heritage agree that "fan" is a jocular abrev. of
"fanatic".
Les Faby
D Adams
> Cheryl, do you realize you are comparing Shirley Ann with murderers and
> advanced psychopaths? I don't think you mean to be so offensive, but
> any lawyer will inform you Shirley Ann could now sue _you_, in addition
> to Paramount, were she so inclined.
Charley please get a grip. You are getting more absurd every day.
maro
--
NOTE! If you use the Reply button, edit out "n0spam" from my address.
D Adams
> If I were asked to give general advice to people regarding celebrities I
> would say:
>
> 1. The best situation all around is to simply enjoy their work. Watch their
> show, see their movies, buy their books. You'll be happy. They'll be happy.
David, I loved your message. It is so decent and reasonable. However, I think
your wonderful message will go right over some people's head.
Jane
PrestonDL wrote in message <19981231211152...@ng-cd1.aol.com>...
>I have resisted the Jane's baiting before, but what the hell, it's New
Year's
>Eve so I will bite this one time.
The Jane? You mean, like. . .the Donald? Thanks, but no thanks.
Woof. . .the Great Man Himself speaks. (That is NOT sarcasm, by the way. I
admire you tremendously.)
> She recently wrote:
>
>>Truthfully, that time when I asked David Lee to express his opinion of
>>Camille, I expected him to rush valiantly to her defense, if that was the
>>way he felt.
>
>You expected wrong. Camille is a lovely woman who does not need to be
>defended to you by me or anyone else.
I just assumed that if you felt that Kelsey Grammer needing defending,
surely you'd feel the need to defend Camille as well, if you had the
affection for her that you obviously feel for her husband. Dragged out from
the annals (anals?) of DejaNews:
*********************************************************
Re: Kelsey Grammar as a person
Author: PrestonDL
Email: pres...@aol.com
Date: 1998/02/15
Forums: alt.tv.frasier
John recently wrote:
>Kelsey Grammer is undoubtedly one of those actos who is euphemistically
>described as 'difficult'.
Uh, I guess you could uphemistically describe him as "difficult", but you
would
be uphemistically "full of it". <G>
Sorry, I couldn't resist. The fact is that Kelsey is exactly the opposite
of
your description (IMHO). I'm wondering why you would say he was difficult.
Have you been around the FRASIER set much?Just curious.
(end of quote)
************************************************************
>> If his opinion were otherwise, he'd keep his mouth shut - the
>>right thing to do, under the circumstances.
>
>I kept my mouth shut because your rambling "nastiness for sport" posts,
did
>not deserve a response.
>
>> Since he did NOTHING to defend
>>the fair Camille, he probably laughed his ass off at some of my posts.
>
>Not really, just to clear that up.
Maybe. Maybe not. I can't prove anything. The only thing I can say with any
certainty is that, even if you think that Camille is the worst scum that
ever walked God's good earth, you are hardly in the position to say so
publicly. You are, however, in a position to spread around good stuff about
her. For whatever reason, you did not choose that option.
>
> If
>>he chose to have nothing to do with me, I doubt it was because he didn't
>>WANT to.
>
>I'm afraid your well honed powers character judgement have failed you yet
>again. It was in fact while reading one of your posts that I decided to
take a
>good long break from this NG.
Well, David, since you obviously have been lurking out there, you should
have seen my offer to my fellow ATFer's. I had said that if anybody could
verify that I was, indeed, the cause of you leaving, that I would send you
an e-mail promising that, if you would become a regular on this group again,
I'd keep my mouth shut about Camille.
That offer still stands. I may be on the bitchy side, but I know how to
keep a promise.
>A Happy New Year to all my friends, the great FRASIER fans on this NG.
You have a happy, too, David.
Charles Pope Jr.
>
> > Cheryl, do you realize you are comparing Shirley Ann with murderers and
> > advanced psychopaths? I don't think you mean to be so offensive, but
> > any lawyer will inform you Shirley Ann could now sue _you_, in addition
> > to Paramount, were she so inclined.
>
> Charley please get a grip. You are getting more absurd every day.
Umm..., not _quite_ sure what you mean here, but FWIW I can inform you
that the realities of civil law in North America _are_ pretty absurd.
My own lawyers (who are as good as they get) have told me that in civil
courtrooms decisions are usually rendered on the basis of "distortion"
of truth rather than even well-documented reality (most judges [and
lawyers] don't like having to do a lot of reading).
I've been there, but please don't ask me for a detailed explanation
unless you are a well-heeled book publisher and willing to offer me an
advance well into the six-figure range ($U.S., of course). And even
then, I'd probably pass. I can't think of any task I would dislike
more.
It doesn't surprise me that you (and possibly other posters) found
"absurd" my noting that Cheryl, technically, could be sued -- but the
reality is: it's true. And if you can find a lawyer willing to wade
through the past 48 hours' posts here for minimal or no charge, he/she
will confirm this.
However, I can add that most responsible American and Canadian lawyers
who recognize that a client has even quite solid grounds for a
defamation suit against another party will usually advise _against_
pursuing such an action. In addition to the exorbitant cost and extreme
stress that such an action always entails for a plaintiff, the bottom
line is that if someone is genuinely concerned about their reputation,
the immediate result of a defamation, libel or slander action is to make
a _much_ larger number of people aware of the defamatory statements than
what would be the case if the client had decided to ignore the
statements.
CPJ.
Charles Pope Jr.
>
> Paramount Security, to shed some light on another thread...,
> does not tell anyone with whom they may or may not interact.
Thank you for providing this information.
> A Happy New Year to all my friends, the great FRASIER fans on this NG.
And Happy New Year to you and the entire production team for today's
best entertainment/television program.
Charles.
TREES2LUV
I got over that stage. LOL! She can be there with us too. Oops, that's a bit
more than you needed to know huh?
PrestonDL
>Truthfully, that time when I asked David Lee to express his opinion of
>Camille, I expected him to rush valiantly to her defense, if that was the
>way he felt.
You expected wrong. Camille is a lovely woman who does not need to be
defended to you by me or anyone else.
> If his opinion were otherwise, he'd keep his mouth shut - the
>right thing to do, under the circumstances.
I kept my mouth shut because your rambling "nastiness for sport" posts, did
not deserve a response.
> Since he did NOTHING to defend
>the fair Camille, he probably laughed his ass off at some of my posts.
Not really, just to clear that up.
If
>he chose to have nothing to do with me, I doubt it was because he didn't
>WANT to.
I'm afraid your well honed powers character judgement have failed you yet
again. It was in fact while reading one of your posts that I decided to take a
good long break from this NG.
> It was probably because he felt that in his position, he SHOULDN'T.
>Or, maybe, Paramount security said NOT to.
Paramount Security, to shed some light on another thread as well as this one,
does not tell anyone with whom they may or may not interact.
I'd like to quote DM once more because he seems to have it right.
>>What's to say? You acted in a way that would make it extremely unlikely
>>anyone on the show would want to have anything to do with you. And as a
>>result, it does indeed seem that no one on the show will have anything to
>do
>>with you. But there's no need to say I told you so -- I can't imagine you
>>expected any other result.
A Happy New Year to all my friends, the great FRASIER fans on this NG.
David
LabRattus
>And placing it in perspective, quoting David Cubitt (late of Traders,
>Michael Hayes and soon on "Turks"), "it's not like I'm a hockey player or
>anything."
>
A hockey player??? Um, okay, YOUR Canadian heritage is not at all suspect. <g>
SH
Mindycy1X
>>According to my dictionary:
>>
>>fan - an ardent admirer or devotee - derived from fanatic with roots
>>in the 17C - 19C.
>
>hmmm..... this is wrong, my information was takine from an Encyclopedia
What encyclopedia are you using...Flunk and Wagnall's?
-mindy
--
Remove "X" to email.
Nigel
Well, having had the time to let the original message settle down a bit,
and seeing the follow-ups to it, I have decided to de-lurk (again?) and
offer my opinion.
<my opinion, possibly offensive follows>
As with someone else on this newsgroup, my first thought was what an
amazingly well-written troll, never having heard of Shirley Ann or her
(apparently) amazing web-site, that was the only conclusion I could draw.
After seeing responses that both her and the site were genuine, and the
site had actually been closed, my opinion of the original message changed
a little bit. Now I see it as a "pity poor old us" post. All that Mr.
Cowden had to write was "Due to personal reasons the web-site has been
taken down." maybe give a little more information than that, but
definitely not drag the whole thing through the mud.
Probably the part that offends me the most though is this quote from the
original message... "but surely everyone, especially someone who is
disabled, deserves a second chance". This touches a personal cord with
me, I suffer from a rare neurological disease (1 in 1.34 Million per year
rate of incidence in the U.S per year) that even the doctors can't tell
me anything about. I do not expect, nor do I want, to be treated any
differently as a result of this disease. Expecting a celebrity to
remember that someone he has once met, who apparently is capable of
living a somewhat normal life (able to move around without having to drag
30+ pounds of machinery with her) to take the time to deal with a special
request because of a disability is pushing it quite a bit in my books.
Mr. Cowden mentioned that because one is a celebrity does not mean they
no longer have to follow the basic rules of etiquette for dealing with
others. I just want to say that it also doesn't mean they are forced to
deal with every request from every person that writes to them. DHP may
not be a celebrity on the level of Tom Cruise, but there are quite a few
people I know who watch frasier just so they can see him (sorry Lisa,
they just don't appreciate KG)
And yes, I also think that telling your daughter she would get a birthday
card (or a get well card) signed by DHP when you didn't have the card yet
was a mistake on your part. Although, if she is an adult capable of
living as an adult, she should not let something that simple get to her
to the degree it apparently has. And yes people, stress (and strong
emotions) can play a major part in how a systemic disorder manifests
itself (I had a relapse when my girlfriend at the time told me she was
having an affair while I was in the hospital)
<end of my probably offensive opinion>
Thanks for reading this, and Mr. Cowden, the legal jurisdiction I am
sitting in while I type this grants me the right to have and to speak my
opinion without fear of reprisals.
Nigel
(to email me, I am actually at home, NOT almost there)
Charles Pope Jr.
> Well, David, since you obviously have been lurking out there, you should
> have seen my offer to my fellow ATFer's. I had said that if anybody could
> verify that I was, indeed, the cause of you leaving, that I would send you
> an e-mail promising that, if you would become a regular on this group again,
> I'd keep my mouth shut about Camille.
>
> That offer still stands. I may be on the bitchy side, but I know how to
> keep a promise.
Whether or not David Lee might decide to resume regular participation at
this NG is, obviously, for him to decide. I'm glad, Jane, you've
reminded him of your promise and indicated you'll keep it, if required.
And I'm glad too that it appears he is continuing to read this NG, if
only sporadically posting himself. (Until seeing his post a few days
ago regarding E2, I honestly thought he was no longer even lurking.)
This NG appears almost _addictive_ for some of us. It seems that
anything off-topic (by which I mean not directly discussing "Frasier",
the show itself [others I'm sure have other definitions]) leads to
confrontation, acrimony and genuine pain. Attempts to overcome disputes
frequently fail or backfire, while more modest attempts at enlightenment
are sometimes ridiculed or considered condescending. In a post last
summer, Mr. Lee stated that sometimes at a.t.f. he felt like Sisyphus
(the founding King of Corinth, condemned by Zeus to push a heavy rock up
a steep hill eternally!).
I've got a bad headache at the moment (not necessarily blaming a.t.f.,
though), so will... um, *try* to stop for a while.
Happy New Year everyone.
Charles.
EasterSlyc
While I always feel a little suckered at the point in the movies when some
obnoxious peon finally goads the hero into punching him in the nose, I still
feel like cheering when the bully hits the dirt.
Thank you for finally giving Jane the reply her posts deserved.
Teresa C.
********
No Quote for you! No quote! Next!
--The Quote Nazi
(to reply, replace the "y" in Easterslyc with an "i." Thank you.)
TREES2LUV
David
news:MPG.10f62017d4e48a09989680@news...
>
>Mr. Cowden mentioned that because one is a celebrity does not mean they
>no longer have to follow the basic rules of etiquette for dealing with
>others. I just want to say that it also doesn't mean they are forced to
>deal with every request from every person that writes to them. DHP may
>not be a celebrity on the level of Tom Cruise, but there are quite a few
>people I know who watch frasier just so they can see him (sorry Lisa,
>they just don't appreciate KG)
>
In fact, I would have to say that DHP *was* following the basic rules of
ettiquette. There was no relationship between him and Shirley Ann.
Like a lot of people on Usenet, I occasionally receive unsolicited e-mail
from people who feel they know me, but who I don't know because they lurk.
Usually I respond, but if there's something that sets off even the teeniest
little flag, I don't.
As an example, a couple of years ago I received an e-mail from someone who
said "I just wanted to tell you that I'm absolutely in love with you, even
though you're gay and old enough to be my father."
Was the girl who wrote that "OK?" Probably. She probably was just kidding
around. But I chose not to get involved with her and respond. That's my
right. I post on Usenet, like the rest of you, and that makes us public
figures of a sort. People think they know us, but they don't. There's a lot
of my life I choose not to share with the world. I choose who I will
associate with, and who I will not. And strangers with a crush on me based
on a character I play on Usenet are not people who I want to get involved
with.
That girl was probably a bit hurt that I didn't respond. I don't feel good
about that. Perhaps she changed her opinion of me as a result and was no
longer a "fan." But then, she never knew me in the first place. Her
relationship was with someone she created out of my Usenet postings, just
like we create our opinions of actors based on their performances.
I think it's better to lose a fan than encourage a relationship that can't
happen.
P.S. to anyone out there who does send fan mail to celebrities. "Old enough
to be my father" is one of those phrases you want to avoid. <g>
--
| Looking for a flame-war free *FUN* newsgroup? Try alt.culture.fabulous
| E-mail: d a v i d at s h o w b u zz n e t dot c o m
David
news:19981231213545...@ng-ca1.aol.com...
Well Mr. Cubitt is very attractive and is occasionally referred to as a sex
symbol. Since this is something that rarely happens to Canadian actors, I
asked him about it, and if he had had any unusual encounters with fans as a
result.
That was his reply.
DocFranken
No, Comptons Encyclopedia (1974) "How Things Chang" It is a children's
reference set that is a supplement that came with the main Encyclopedia set.
Tom R.
PS. I can give page number and volume number if you like.
David
news:368C3F5C...@enter.net...
>David wrote:
>
>> If I were asked to give general advice to people regarding celebrities I
>> would say:
>>
>> 1. The best situation all around is to simply enjoy their work. Watch
their
>> show, see their movies, buy their books. You'll be happy. They'll be
happy.
>
>David, I loved your message. It is so decent and reasonable. However, I
think
>your wonderful message will go right over some people's head.
>
Well thanks for the kind words. It's really just common sense -- treat a
celebrity as you would expect to be treated by a total stranger. But even I
am not immune. <g>
One time last spring I had a long interview with a series star. He was
charming, entertaining and gave me over an hour of his time. It was one of
my more memorable and pleasant interviews.
Outside of work, I've always made it a point to avoid talking to
celebrities, including those I've met. But a couple of months later I saw
this actor at the fall launch for one of the Canadian networks.
After the presentation, the actors were available for informal chat with the
press. This being Canada, the press were all talking to each other, while
the celebrities were sitting at a table being studiously ignored. I felt
kind of bad for them, so I sucked up my courage and went over to say hello
to this actor.
Of course I introduced myself and reminded him of our recent interview. It
quickly became apparent that he had no memory of it whatsoever.
Relevance to Frasier: I interviewed Peri Gilpin the same day. She was
equally charming, entertaining and generous with her time. She also paid me
a compliment that had my head spinning for days. But if I ever run into her,
I now know better than to expect her to remember it!
DarbyJM
<<A Happy New Year to all my friends, the great FRASIER fans on this NG.>>
And the same to you and everyone involved with FRASIER!
Darby
DarbyJM
<<Maybe. Maybe not. I can't prove anything. The only thing I can say with any
certainty is that, even if you think that Camille is the worst scum that
ever walked God's good earth, you are hardly in the position to say so
publicly. You are, however, in a position to spread around good stuff about
her. For whatever reason, you did not choose that option.>>
Uh -- doesn't this sound like another "He didn't reply to me, so I'm going to
ASSUME what his motives are" scenario?
How odd -- two in one week. ;-)
Darby
DarbyJM
From my Microsoft Encarta 97 (all hail Bill Gates).
fan (f²n) n. Informal.
1. An ardent devotee; enthusiast.
[Short for fanatic.]
fanatic (f…-n²t"´k) n.
1. One who is fanatical.
adj.
2. Fanatical.
[From Latin f³num, temple.]
"The American Heritage® Concise Dictionary," (c) 1994 Houghton Mifflin Company.
(c) 1994 INSO Corporation. All rights reserved.
Darby
Mealtkt75
I have been reading all the posts regarding the letter from Mr. Cowad.
I think that you should all put this to a rest and get over it. Isn't it
obvious, that the more you discuss it the more attention you are giving to Mr
C.
I also hope that Polly Anne gets better soon but she has to live with the
reality of life.
Lets start 1999 on the good foot.
PS- My solution to Mr. C is go out and have a PINT.
CHEERS...........
Angela Maher
Chris
>Well, David, since you obviously have been lurking out there, you should
>have seen my offer to my fellow ATFer's. I had said that if anybody could
>verify that I was, indeed, the cause of you leaving, that I would send you
>an e-mail promising that, if you would become a regular on this group
>again, I'd keep my mouth shut about Camille.
In the few weeks that I've been lurking on this newsgroup I've always found
Jane's posts to be very entertaining. Anyone (including David Lee) who
fails to see the humour and/or finds her comments offensive has the option
to place her on their killfile. If I were KG she'd definitely be on mine.
If they choose not to exercise this option they can simply ignore her.
Although "Frasier" is one of my favourite TV programmes, I've never taken
much of an interest in the cast's personal lives. I'd never even heard of
Camille before I joined this group. If she and Kelsey are in love and happy
together then good luck to them. If she is only attracted to him because of
his celebrity and he to her because of her body, and this makes them happy,
then good luck to them also. I don't think a few humorous comments in this
group are going to affect their lives in any way.
I wasn't here when David Lee used to contribute to this group and although I
would love to have his input on the programme, I don't think anyone should
have to limit their topic of conversation in order to bring him back.
~Chris~
TREES2LUV
>reference set
AH HAHAHA!!!
>PS. I can give page number and volume number if you like.
Wow. Watch out! I bet you'll be swamped with requests! HAHA!!
TREES2LUV
>quickly became apparent that he had no memory of it whatsoever.
Maybe he woulda remembered you if you had done a handstand or some outrageous
stunt at the first meeting. hehe.
David
news:19990101124834...@ng-fr1.aol.com...
>>Of course I introduced myself and reminded him of our recent interview. It
>>quickly became apparent that he had no memory of it whatsoever.
>
>Maybe he woulda remembered you if you had done a handstand or some
outrageous
>stunt at the first meeting. hehe.
Well I *was* in my underwear during the whole thing, but as it was a
telephone interview he probably didn't notice.
LabRattus
>To all folks on Frasier postboard:
> I have been reading all the posts regarding the letter from Mr. Cowad.
>I think that you should all put this to a rest and get over it. Isn't it
>obvious, that the more you discuss it the more attention you are giving to Mr
>C.
>I also hope that Polly Anne gets better soon but she has to live with the
>reality of life.
LOL! I'm sure you weren't trying to be funny, but I'm dying here. Can I offer
a piece of advice? If you ever get the inkling to become a journalist, please
wait patiently until it passes. <g>
SH
Jane
Chris wrote in message <76iuea$1u6$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>In the few weeks that I've been lurking on this newsgroup I've always found
>Jane's posts to be very entertaining. Anyone (including David Lee) who
>fails to see the humour and/or finds her comments offensive has the option
>to place her on their killfile. If I were KG she'd definitely be on mine.
>If they choose not to exercise this option they can simply ignore her.
Mazel tov. It's about time that someone made this observation. Lots of
people on this newsgroup piss and moan how I'm a bully who deserves to be
punched in the nose, or whatever. If I'm so goddamned undesirable, why not
treat me like Tim Hodge and killfile me?
Why do you READ the claptrap I spew on this newsgroup? You read it for the
same reason why the National Enquirer is the most popular newspaper in this
country. IT'S ENTERTAINING. At least Chris acknowledges it's entertaining,
instead of hypocritically whining about how "not nice" it is and then
sneaking a peek at it anyway.
>I wasn't here when David Lee used to contribute to this group and although
I
>would love to have his input on the programme, I don't think anyone should
>have to limit their topic of conversation in order to bring him back.
Whether I'm entertaining or not, obviously David Lee, as a creator of
Frasier, is a much more desirable person to have as a regular on this group.
I repeat - if I'm the reason why he rarely participates anymore, then for
the good of the group, I'll leave my so-called Enquirer press pass home
before coming to hang out on ATV.
Jane
Queen of the Trash
.sig: "Heil!"
Jane
DarbyJM wrote in message <19990101091022...@ng-fa2.aol.com>...
I don't see any assumptions being made in the paragraph you quoted.
When I speculated that DL didn't reply to me because he was told not to by
Paramount security, and when I said he probably laughed his ass off at some
of my posts. . .THOSE were assumptions.
I mean, no big deal. . .just so you quote the right stuff when making a
point, from now on.
Jane
.sig:"Heil!"
Jane
DocFranken wrote in message
<19990101204005...@ng-fs1.aol.com>...
>>
>>Jane
>>Queen of the Trash
>>.sig: "Heil
>
It's supposed to be a joke. You can keep those little expressions that you
append after your name in a thing called a signature, or .sig, file. So I
decided to make a funny and say that my .sig file contained the expression
"Heil!".
Jane
.sig: "Heil!"
D Adams
> Umm..., not _quite_ sure what you mean here,
Charley, I don't recall anyone _ever_ in this ng, ever talk about suing anyone
for their opinion, except you and the guy who thinks the world owes his
daughter a living because she is disable.
Do you follow me?
maro
--
NOTE! If you use the Reply button, edit out "n0spam" from my address.
Jane
Jane wrote in message <76jvg0$jhm$1...@camel0.mindspring.com>...
And besides, if it were REALLY the Nazi salute, it would be *SIEG* Heil.
Jane
.sig:"Heil!"
D Adams
> I'm afraid your well honed powers character judgement have failed you yet
> again. It was in fact while reading one of your posts that I decided to take a
> good long break from this NG.
Please kill file her and stay.
> A Happy New Year to all my friends, the great FRASIER fans on this NG.
Happy New Year to you and the cast and crew of "Frasier".
Charles Pope Jr.
>
> "Charles Pope Jr." wrote:
>
> > Umm..., not _quite_ sure what you mean here,
>
> Charley, I don't recall anyone _ever_ in this ng, ever talk about suing anyone
> for their opinion, except you and the guy who thinks the world owes his
> daughter a living because she is disable.
For the record, you should know I have never sued anyone for their
opinion on any subject, let alone for defamation. I think you should
reread (a bit more carefully) my post in which I discussed
_hypothetically_ a few pros and cons of embarking on defamation actions.
OTOH, on more than one occasion I have successfully sued parties who
attempted to defraud me of money to which I was entitled, and in doing
so I also inflicted a lot of pain on certain very sleazy, sloppy persons
who richly deserved it. This may be vindictive, but I don't think it's
absurd. Nevertheless, I'm aware many people are threatened or otherwise
uncomfortable with someone such as myself who is even sporadically
litigious.
And I don't recall Mr. Cowden stating in any of _his_ posts that he
"thinks the world owes his daughter a living" because she is disabled.
It was my impression Mr. Cowden was seeking an explanation for the
reported blacklisting of his daughter by Paramount Security.
However, the closest we've come to an explanation was David Lee's
unequivocal statement yesterday that Paramount Security "does not tell
anyone with whom they may or may not interact".
Earlier today someone (already forget who) suggested that Paramount
Security may have _suggested_ to DHP it might be advisable for him not
to communicate further with Shirley Ann. This may or may not be what
really happened. Obviously, _I_ do not know. However, I know that in
most workplace situations people often give _informal_ advice to
co-workers and that gossip grapevines quickly translate the initial
advice into something quite different (different tone and related
inference, as well as different wording).
Also, people should realize there is a difference between pointing out
that someone may have grounds for a defamation suit and _actually
recommending_ they embark on such action. As I noted in my post
yesterday, most responsible lawyers _don't_ encourage clients to pursue
such actions. And neither do I. Regardless of context, litigation is a
last resort.
CPJ.
David
>DM wrote:
>
>>I choose who I will
>>associate with, and who I will not. And strangers with a crush on me based
>>on a character I play on Usenet are not people who I want to get involved
>>with.
>>
>
feel
>somehow deceived. <sniff> I feel like I've gotten to know people (if only
a
>little) based on their participation here, but you've shattered that now.
>
Well I was exaggerating a bit to make a point. I don't engage in outright
deception, but a lot of me is left out, and what's displayed is a
caricature.
DocFranken
>Jane
>Queen of the Trash
>.sig: "Heil
Jane, just curious, but why are you using the Nazi salute expression??
Tom R.
LabRattus
>Lots of
>people on this newsgroup piss and moan how I'm a bully who deserves to be
>punched in the nose, or whatever. If I'm so goddamned undesirable, why not
>treat me like Tim Hodge and killfile me?
>
>Why do you READ the claptrap I spew on this newsgroup?
Against my better judgement, I'd like to attempt to explain this. My response
is not directed at you directly, but is more of a general remark about why it's
impossible to both participate in a newsgroup and yet not be exposed to a
person or a particular subject you find offensive.
First of all, if your newsreader doesn't support a killfile (and many don't),
you can't filter out a person/subject you don't want to hear about. Secondly,
even if you DO have a killfile, you still can't get away from someone without
exerting herculean efforts (which in the end are probably not worth it).
Why? Because someone will invariably reply to the offensive post and quote a
great deal of the original material. If the replier isn't in your killfile,
you'll end up reading it and being offended. OK, so now I guess you can say
"Well, don't read any more posts with that particular Subject header". Well,
that only works so long as nobody changes the Subject header without actually
CHANGING THE SUBJECT. Trust me, far too many people are fond of doing this.
There's also another aspect of ignoring all replies to a particular subject
header - because of thread drift, you are likely to miss an interesting
discussion that you would have otherwise enjoyed. It happens a lot.
I constantly hear people saying "just ignore him/her" or "that's what killfiles
are for". I keep banging my head against my monitor when I hear that kind of
stuff because at a practical level, there's NO WAY to get away from a regular
on this forum without simply leaving the newsgroup.
As for the Timmy example, it was easier to ignore him because the vast majority
of his posts had Subject headers that made it quite clear it was OFF TOPIC and
the regulars here (for the most part) did not reply to him at all. He didn't
become a integral part of the newsgroup.
SH
LabRattus
>I choose who I will
>associate with, and who I will not. And strangers with a crush on me based
>on a character I play on Usenet are not people who I want to get involved
>with.
>
So .. this isn't the REAL you? Just some character you play on Usenet? I feel
somehow deceived. <sniff> I feel like I've gotten to know people (if only a
little) based on their participation here, but you've shattered that now.
>That girl was probably a bit hurt that I didn't respond.
A little at first, but then I got over it. <g>
SH ( *obviously kidding* )
DocFranken
>And besides, if it were REALLY the Nazi salute, it would be *SIEG* Heil.
>
of course! you are right! DUH! I know a letter was missing!
Tom R.
D Adams
> For the record, you should know I have never sued anyone for their
> opinion on any subject, let alone for defamation.
But you have threatened to sue.
> I think you should
> reread (a bit more carefully) my post in which I discussed
> _hypothetically_ a few pros and cons of embarking on defamation actions.
Why would you even bring it up?
> OTOH, on more than one occasion I have successfully sued parties who
> attempted to defraud me of money to which I was entitled, and in doing
> so I also inflicted a lot of pain on certain very sleazy, sloppy persons
> who richly deserved it. This may be vindictive, but I don't think it's
> absurd. Nevertheless, I'm aware many people are threatened or otherwise
> uncomfortable with someone such as myself who is even sporadically
> litigious.
We have heard zillion times about your lawsuits. You keep telling us how
successfully you have managed to sue and win. How many more times will you tell us?
If you think this subject will win you any respect, or friends, you are very much
mistaken.
> And I don't recall Mr. Cowden stating in any of _his_ posts that he
> "thinks the world owes his daughter a living" because she is disabled.
> It was my impression Mr. Cowden was seeking an explanation for the
> reported blacklisting of his daughter by Paramount Security.
Well Charley, my impression is a lot different than yours.
> However, the closest we've come to an explanation was David Lee's
> unequivocal statement yesterday that Paramount Security "does not tell
> anyone with whom they may or may not interact".
Charley, you are talking as if this case is your case. Get a grip!
> Also, people should realize there is a difference between pointing out
> that someone may have grounds for a defamation suit and _actually
> recommending_ they embark on such action. As I noted in my post
> yesterday, most responsible lawyers _don't_ encourage clients to pursue
> such actions. And neither do I. Regardless of context, litigation is a
> last resort.
Charley, this is a newsgroup about "Frasier".
Do you follow me?
Chris
>I
>>would love to have his input on the programme, I don't think anyone should
>>have to limit their topic of conversation in order to bring him back.
>Whether I'm entertaining or not, obviously David Lee, as a creator of
>Frasier, is a much more desirable person to have as a regular on this
group.
>I repeat - if I'm the reason why he rarely participates anymore, then for
>the good of the group, I'll leave my so-called Enquirer press pass home
>before coming to hang out on ATV.
With all due respect to David Lee, I fail to see why any concessions need be
made in order to secure his participation in this group. If you choose to
tone down your comments, then do so because you want to, not to suit someone
else. In a public newsgroup everyone has an equal right to voice their
opinions and everyone is equally as capable of dealing with posts they do
not wish to read.
To put it into perspective, if having to read one of Jane's comments in a
newsgroup is the worst thing that happens to David Lee today, he must lead a
very sheltered life.
~Chris~
TREES2LUV
>telephone interview he probably didn't notice.
Makes a person wonder what your wardrobe is for the computer. :-)
LabRattus
>With all due respect to David Lee, I fail to see why any concessions need be
>made in order to secure his participation in this group.
So .. you think David should participate against his will if he finds
Camille-bashing offensive and doesn't care to be exposed to it?
It's all about free will. If Jane is free to rag on Camille, David is free to
find better things to do with his time. When he left, he never even publicly
announced that he was ditching us nor did he ask that concessions be made for
him. Jane freely offerred (thanks, Jane). So what's the problem with these
two people exercising their freedom?
SH
Sheila
David wrote:
>
> 6. Think of yourself as a telemarketer. You are interfering in their private
> life and they are probably don't want or need you in it. Be as polite as
> possible and as unobtrusive as possible. If they're busy, or engaged in
> conversation with someone else, leave them alone. A smile and a nod is more
> than sufficient to let them know they've been recognized and you wish them
> well.
>
This whole long thread about Shirley Anne and her father has me
wondering: How many other posters feel the urgent need to contact DHP
or KG or other stars? Is this common?
I really don't understand it myself. Since I live in LA, I see a
celebrity every now and then and I have never felt inclined to say hello
or even indicate that I recognize them -- simply because I sense that it
is not welcomed. I don't understand wanting to have a social
interaction that is not mutually desired. (I feel the same way in
conversation. If the other person is not giving me his/her complete
attention, I move on.)
Although I love the work of DHP, Mahoney and the others, I feel
completely content to enjoy their work on the screen and then go on with
my life. Am I alone in this? Or is everyone here just dying to catch a
glimpse of Kelsey at Gelson's?
Sheila
Charles Pope Jr.
>
> ....wondering: How many other posters feel the urgent need to contact
> DHP or KG or other stars? Is this common?
>
> I really don't understand it myself. Since I live in LA, I see a
> celebrity every now and then and I have never felt inclined to say hello
> or even indicate that I recognize them -- simply because I sense that it
> is not welcomed. I don't understand wanting to have a social
> interaction that is not mutually desired. (I feel the same way in
> conversation. If the other person is not giving me his/her complete
> attention, I move on.)
>
> Although I love the work of DHP, Mahoney and the others, I feel
> completely content to enjoy their work on the screen and then go on with
> my life. Am I alone in this? Or is everyone here just dying to catch a
> glimpse of Kelsey at Gelson's?
This is interesting and I don't think it's been asked here before (at
least not during the past eight months).
If I had some kind of _legitimate_ social or professional opportunity to
meet any of the actors from "Frasier" I would probably go for it
because, aside from admiring their work, I sense they are all people of
well above-average interest and intelligence. But, no -- I'm not "dying
to catch a glimpse" of any of them.
I don't live in Los Angeles, but my home city is used a certain amount
for TV and film production. In only the past six or seven months, such
people as Sir Richard Attenborough, Pierce Brosnan, Yasmene Bleeth and
Victor Garber have worked here briefly, and the local media made more of
a fuss than the public at large. And I'm pretty sure at least some
tourists visiting LA would imagine themselves thrilled to spot even one
of these people in the _real_ Hollywood. And a bit further back (about
ten years) Paul Newman and Joanne Woodward were doing location work here
[a friend got to serve them coffee]. (Still haven't seen "Mr. and Mrs.
Bridges".)
But I know I'd also be _very_ intimidated if I had the opportunity to
meet the "Frasier" cast, because these are people who have accomplished
a lot more in their lives than I consider I have. Though, I think I'm
sufficiently together that my curiosity would overcome my being
intimidated.
Still..., what would we talk about? (As Sheila commented, do we
_really_ want social interaction that is not mutually desired?) Would I
ask them goofy questions about the show ("Is David Lee as stern as he
sometimes comes across at a.t.f.?")? Would I expect them to ask
questions about me? (No.) Perhaps I'd ask KG and/or DHP about their
piano studies, since this is semi-extraneous to the show and something I
also once pursued. And I might ask JL/JM about their earlier years in
England, since one of my parents was English, and I visited Britain
frequently as a child.
Yes. I agree with Sheila: the most important thing these people give
us is their work (which, in case anyone forgets, is what made them
celebrities). And that should be enough.
CPJ.
Dave
> I would like to meet KG because I think him very sexy and because I identify
> with him in some ways. But outside of him, I don't remember ever really
> wanting to meet a celebrity since I was four years old and had a terrible
> crush on Liberace.
This is too funny! Sorry Jane, but the utter ludicrousness of a 4 year
old girl with a crush on a celeberity so far out of all possible
potential social circle, combined with the fact that he was such a
garish homosexual, made me laugh out loud.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
rat...@EYEcanect.net replace EYE with I
(Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TREES2LUV
>glimpse of Kelsey at Gelson's?
Where?!?! hehe.
Libra Hope
completely content to enjoy their work on the screen and then go on with
glimpse of Kelsey at Gelson's?
I do agree with you on this Sheila. On a different note, where did you see
Kelsey, and did you happen to see David as well? Better give me a day/ time/
address of this Gelson's place just to be safe :)
j/k lol
Love-Always-
Megs
LabRattus
>This whole long thread about Shirley Anne and her father has me
>wondering: How many other posters feel the urgent need to contact DHP
>or KG or other stars? Is this common?
I can't speak to whether or not it's common, but I know that I don't feel any
"urgent need" to do this. You bring up an excellent point with regards to
whether the interaction would be *mutually* desired. I tend to think not, and
would probably steer clear of a celebrity I encountered in public.
To be honest, I think I also may be afraid of coming off as a total schmuck
("Oh, gosh golly, I'm so honored to breath the air you have belched!"). I fear
this even though I don't put actors on a pedestal and I don't envy their life
at all. But in the heat of the moment, who knows how big a schmuck I could be
.....
SH
Jane
LabRattus wrote in message <19990102235015...@ng116.aol.com>...
I would like to meet KG because I think him very sexy and because I identify
with him in some ways. But outside of him, I don't remember ever really
wanting to meet a celebrity since I was four years old and had a terrible
crush on Liberace. I had dictated a letter to my mother (I couldn't write
yet) - saying something to the effect of "I love you and I want to marry you
when I grow up." He read the letter on his show!
I know what you mean about feeling like a schmuck. My oldest daughter and I
both play flute, and a couple of years ago, I took her up to Lincoln Center
to see James Galway perform. She wanted to go backstage and get his
autograph and everything, and I was delighted, because I thought it would be
cool to meet him also, but I'd never consider attempting it without my kid
as an "excuse". Sort of like the dad who uses his little son as an excuse
to have a model railroad, you know?
We did get to meet James Galway, by the way. He was friendly and
delightful, and autographed my daughter's program. I had to bite my tongue,
though, when I saw the brocaded vest he was wearing. It was just godawful.
Jane
.sig: "Heil!"
EasterSlyc
>
> ....wondering: How many other posters feel the urgent need to contact
> DHP or KG or other stars? Is this common?
>
> celebrity every now and then and I have never felt inclined to say hello
> or even indicate that I recognize them -- simply because I sense that it
> is not welcomed. I don't understand wanting to have a social
> interaction that is not mutually desired. (I feel the same way in
> conversation. If the other person is not giving me his/her complete
> attention, I move on.)
>
> completely content to enjoy their work on the screen and then go on with
> my life. Am I alone in this? Or is everyone here just dying to catch a
> glimpse of Kelsey at Gelson's?
As Charles says, an interesting question. I used to live in New York, and
occasionally caught glimpse of celebrities--walking around just like normal
people! It was always thrilling for a moment, mostly because you recognize the
face. It's just as exciting to see a friend you haven't seen for awhile in an
unexpected place.
What's weird about it is that you recognize the celebrity, and you want to
smile and nod. I think I have on occasion. But they don't know you... it must
be very strange for them.
I have since moved to Portland (Oregon), and, just like Charles, we sometimes
are blessed with television or film production. There is usually a small
mention of this in our local paper, but the only celebrity I would have liked
to have run into was (sigh) Bill Pullman when he was making Zero Effect.
Much, much more exciting is to see a movie or television show and recognize a
local actor who managed to snag a bit part.
Finally, one story about my town and celebrities. I love it because I think it
epitomizes the Portland philosophy:
Some years ago, Madonna came to town to film Body of Evidence. She was
presented with the key to the city by the mayor (which was fashioned from
fishnet stockings, leather, and metal by a local artist). She promptly
disappeared into a suite at a top notch hotel, where, it was rumored, she had
had a complete gym set up for her private use.
The local paper decided to be cute and run a contest. Encouraging the citizens
to become amateur papparazzi, the paper offered a prize to the best candid
picture of the Material Girl.
They got exactly three pictures. One fuzzy shot showed Madonna entering the
hotel lobby, a second fuzzy shot showed her leaving the lobby. The third
picture was a photograph of a classic madonna and child statue.
While they received only three photos, what they did get was an avalanche of
indignant letters and phonecalls. Their readership was extremely offended at
the contest, and scolded the paper for suggesting that people ought to invade
Madonna's privacy by taking pictures of her. They had to withdraw the contest
and apologize.
I've never been prouder of my home town.
<g>
Teresa C.
********
No Quote for you! No quote! Next!
--The Quote Nazi
(to reply, replace the "y" in Easterslyc with an "i." Thank you.)
DarbyJM
<<I don't live in Los Angeles, but my home city is used a certain amount for TV
and film production. >>
at the hotel where she was staying (I was there for a business meeting -- had
no clue she was staying there), without saying a word. I thought it would be
rude to stare, so I gave her her privacy (although I have to admit to noticing
that while she IS gorgeous in person, she also weighs a bit more than she seems
to on camera - <g>)!
I also got to watch the filming of a scene outside of my office one day --
there were DOZENS of takes of the same 3-minute scene (and it wasn't even
anything exciting)! I was watching the crew, as they talked about the lighting
and background of the shots, the extras were being told to walk slower / more
quickly, and *the Star* was lounging (in costume -- which made him look almost
like a street person) against the side of a car between takes. People were
wondering past (through the staging) asking each other "What's with all this
stuff -- are they filming a movie here?" Two young women passed right in front
of *the Star*, and the one replied "I don't think so -- I don't see anyone
famous." I saw his mouth twitch, and, as soon as they had passed, he walked
over to share the joke with one of his co-workers. That, IMO, was a priceless
moment -- the chance to see these professionals at work, and to view *us*
through *their* eyes!
Darby
David
>Sheila asked:
>
>>This whole long thread about Shirley Anne and her father has me
>>or KG or other stars? Is this common?
>
any
>"urgent need" to do this. You bring up an excellent point with regards to
>whether the interaction would be *mutually* desired. I tend to think not,
and
>would probably steer clear of a celebrity I encountered in public.
Living in downtown Toronto one encounters celebrities on a fairly regular
basis. I've never had the slightest desire to say anything to any of them.
I did once see Jane Sibbett (Ross' ex-wife Carol on Friends) and as I knew
my niece (then ten) watched the show I told her about it. She said, "Isn't
she a lesbian?"
Things sure have changed since I was ten!
Mindycy1X
>This whole long thread about Shirley Anne and her father has me
>wondering: How many other posters feel the urgent need to contact DHP
>or KG or other stars? Is this common?
>
>I really don't understand it myself. Since I live in LA, I see a
>celebrity every now and then and I have never felt inclined to say hello
>or even indicate that I recognize them -- simply because I sense that it
>is not welcomed.
As a NYers, I think people here are used to seeing celebrities in certain
places. Or it could just be our blase attitude toward everything, including
celebrities, lol. People complain all the time about noisy film productions
clogging up every neighborhood from Battery Park to Hell's Kitchen to the Upper
West Side. Most of my sightings have been on the streets, and people simply do
not care to stop in the middle of a crowded NY street in order to speak to
someone (except tourists ;)). It's a very mind-your-own-business atmosphere.
I saw Patti Smith in a small record shop in SoHo. She was with a friend
looking through jazz records and I was the only other person in the store.
Although I love her music , I knew that this was certainly not the place or the
time. And I never really had the urge to anyway. But I guess that urge varies
from person to person. A couple of friends and I saw Claire Danes in a vintage
clothing shop, and they had no second thoughts about approaching her. I am
simply not comfortable doing it.
-mindy
--
Remove "X" to email.
David
>Jane wrote:
>
>> I would like to meet KG because I think him very sexy and because I
identify
>> with him in some ways. But outside of him, I don't remember ever really
>> wanting to meet a celebrity since I was four years old and had a terrible
>> crush on Liberace.
>
>old girl with a crush on a celeberity so far out of all possible
>potential social circle, combined with the fact that he was such a
>garish homosexual, made me laugh out loud.
>
Bit of trivia: Liberace sued a British newspaper for libel (or is it
slander?) for hinting that he was homosexual. And he won.
I think his chances of success today would be considerably less. But just to
test the theory... I think I'll out one of the Frasier cast members.
Here it comes.
Eddie's really a lesbian wearing a strap-on.
LabRattus
>I would like to meet KG because I think him very sexy and because I identify
>with him in some ways. But outside of him, I don't remember ever really
>wanting to meet a celebrity since I was four years old and had a terrible
>crush on Liberace.
I laughed so hard I startled the dog. Liberace?! That's too much.
>I had dictated a letter to my mother (I couldn't write
>yet) - saying something to the effect of "I love you and I want to marry you
>when I grow up." He read the letter on his show!
>
>I know what you mean about feeling like a schmuck. My oldest daughter and I
>both play flute, and a couple of years ago, I took her up to Lincoln Center
>to see James Galway perform. She wanted to go backstage and get his
>autograph and everything, and I was delighted, because I thought it would be
>cool to meet him also, but I'd never consider attempting it without my kid
>as an "excuse". Sort of like the dad who uses his little son as an excuse
>to have a model railroad, you know?
>
>We did get to meet James Galway, by the way. He was friendly and
>delightful, and autographed my daughter's program. I had to bite my tongue,
>though, when I saw the brocaded vest he was wearing. It was just godawful.
I'm sure it was quietly elegant in comparison with Liberace's wardrobe. <g>
SH
Bokman7757
>old girl with a crush on a celeberity so far out of all possible
>potential social circle, combined with the fact that he was such a
>garish homosexual, made me laugh out loud.
"I still can't believe Liberace was gay. The women loved him!"- Austin Powers