why does everyone hate abbie carmicheal?!!!!!
DEONDRE NELSON
powerful actor and I think they should give her own show called "The
Day I Went to Acting Class to Learn How To Be a Lawyer." The woman is a
goddess! To everyone who hates Abbie: I hope at least one of you guys
get involved in a murder investigation and she's the one to prosecute
your asses.
ssnare
myself VERY far away from any Abbie fan who uses the word "broad" to
describe a woman.
BTW....she's not really a prosecutor.......any one of "us guys" gets
involved in a murder investigation, I don't think Abbie Carmichael is likely
to show up.
Jeff
DEONDRE NELSON wrote in message
<16722-37...@newsd-223.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Constance Jenkins
>Abbie has to be one of the best looking broads on t.v. She is one
>powerful actor and I think they should give her own show called "The
>Day I Went to Acting Class to Learn How To Be a Lawyer." The woman is a
>goddess! To everyone who hates Abbie: I hope at least one of you guys
>get involved in a murder investigation and she's the one to prosecute
>your asses.
>
Calm down, dear. Put a cool rag on your head and take a deep breath.
Abbie Carmichael is a *fictional* character. She isn't going to be
prosecuting any of "our asses". She also isn't an actress. Angie
Harmon is an actress who plays a character called Abbie. Straight on
that?
And as for why some don't like the character, the actress or both,
well, there are a variety of reasons. I'm sure others will elaborate
them for you.
As for your ringing endorsement of her acting skills, I'd take them a
little more seriously if they hadn't been preceded by "the best
looking broad on t.v."
As for the rest, I find it interesting that those of us that don't
like her aren't going around wishing ill to those who do.
Consta
p.s. are we sure she's ever been to acting class?
Ms Mog
Am I the only one who took this first post to be sarcastic and quite amusing?
Either way, there are people here who are missing a lot of fun by being so
doctrinaire.
ns
excellent overall..
DEONDRE NELSON wrote in message
<16722-37...@newsd-223.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
Eliott Finesse
ssnare wrote in message <3eNY2.12932$Ya.2...@dustdevil.neo.rr.com>...
>I happen to like Abbie....but I'd like to take this opportunity to distance
>myself VERY far away from any Abbie fan who uses the word "broad" to
>describe a woman.
I happen to like Abbie but I'd like to take this opportunity to distance
myself very far from anyone who uses the term "fan" to describe a human
being.
Ligthen up.
ssnare
>myself very far from anyone who uses the term "fan" to describe a human
>being.
>
>Ligthen up.
If I had said "The original poster has to be the stupidest nigger" (assuming
he is black, of course), he would have been offended.
So why can't I be offended at women being called "broads"??
DEONDRE NELSON
DEONDRE NELSON
Eliott Finesse
DEONDRE NELSON wrote in message
>I'm sorry, I take back the "broad" statment!!
Don't, make him take back the "fan" statment. After all you aren't a
"FANatic."
Eliott Finesse
ssnare wrote in message ...
You can be offended all you want, and I will continue to post how ridiculous
you appear dressed as such when you post telling people not to say things so
you won't be offended.
TheRogue
got alot of anger in you and I bet she's fiery herself. In the end? I
give Constance in five rounds. Final blow will be a rabbit punch
followed by an uppercut.
Me? I just like pretty women. Angie's a-ok with me.
Rogue
Bah, how ironic...pretty woman...I HATED Roberts, if that makes a
difference.
Chris Crandall
: To everyone who hates Abbie: I hope at least one of you guys
: get involved in a murder investigation and she's the one to prosecute
: your asses.
Me too. I'd get acquitted, if she prosecuted me alone, given her proven
incompetence.
(I'd get Arthur Gold.)
Samuel Bethune
DEONDRE NELSON wrote in message
Abbie has to be one of the best looking broads on t.v. She is one
powerful actor and I think they should give her own show called "The
Day I Went to Acting Class to Learn How To Be a Lawyer." The woman is a
get involved in a murder investigation and she's the one to prosecute
your asses.
To Deondre: Maybe you should get a clue and figure out why so many people
(male AND female) don't like Abbie. Speaking from experience as a former
prosecutor, Abbie comes across as a bitch with an agenda more than as a
tough but fair prosecutor who just happens to be a woman. Almost every
female prosecutor I've ever worked with who had that kind of attitude ended
up losing major cases and eventually their jobs.
Jaime Ross, on the other hand, did an excellent job of portraying the
typical female prosecutor. Whether it's the writing or Angie Harmon's over
the top portrayal, hers is unquestionably the worst portrayal of a female
prosecutor I've ever seen. If she were any worse, she'd set feminism back
about 100 years.
Eliott Finesse
Samuel Bethune wrote in message <92628728...@news.remarQ.com>...
>
>DEONDRE NELSON wrote in message
><16722-37...@newsd-223.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>Abbie has to be one of the best looking broads on t.v. She is one
>powerful actor and I think they should give her own show called "The
>Day I Went to Acting Class to Learn How To Be a Lawyer." The woman is a
>goddess! To everyone who hates Abbie: I hope at least one of you guys
>get involved in a murder investigation and she's the one to prosecute
>your asses.
>
>To Deondre: Maybe you should get a clue and figure out why so many people
>(male AND female) don't like Abbie. Speaking from experience as a former
>prosecutor, Abbie comes across as a bitch with an agenda more than as a
>tough but fair prosecutor who just happens to be a woman. Almost every
>female prosecutor I've ever worked with who had that kind of attitude ended
>up losing major cases and eventually their jobs.
You mean in your jurisdiction they decide who gets to keep ADA jobs by the
win /oss column?
That is inappropriate.
Constance Jenkins
>
>You mean in your jurisdiction they decide who gets to keep ADA jobs by the
>win /oss column?
>
>That is inappropriate.
>
Why is it inappropriate? Wouldn't losing cases consistently tend to
point to incompetence? Incompetence would certainly be grounds for
getting canned.
Granted, getting the axe for losing the occasional case would be
grossly unfair, but a prosecutor that loses consistently probably
isn't doing something right.
Consta, curious to your reasoning here
JayZ755
>(male AND female) don't like Abbie.
All of those people can speak for themselves. As far as I know, you are only
one people.
Speaking from experience as a former
>prosecutor, Abbie comes across as a bitch with an agenda more than as a
>tough but fair prosecutor who just happens to be a woman. Almost every
>female prosecutor I've ever worked with who had that kind of attitude ended
>up losing major cases and eventually their jobs.
>
Since you don't deny that there are such prosecutors, why do you have a problem
with the actor's portrayal? No one has ever said that the Abbie Carmichael
character had to be likeable. An actor's performance should be believably
human, but it doesn't have to be likeable.
>Jaime Ross, on the other hand, did an excellent job of portraying the
>typical female prosecutor. Whether it's the writing or Angie Harmon's over
>the top portrayal, hers is unquestionably the worst portrayal of a female
>prosecutor I've ever seen. If she were any worse, she'd set feminism back
>about 100 years.
If feminism can't admit that a woman can ever be motivated by less than the
best emotions, then it deserves to be set back 100 years.
L&O has had seven prosecutor characters now, including Schiff. Abbie
Carmichael is being portrayed in different ways than Jamie Ross. Jamie Ross
didn't have an affair with Sam Waterston's character, as the previous ADA did.
Does that make that character of Jamie Ross, and Carey Lowell's performance,
better or worse than Jill Hennessey's? Angie Harmon is being asked to do
different things as an actor than Jill Hennessey or Carey Lowell were. Let's
not be so politcially correct that any prosecutor with some negative character
traits is taken personally.
Jay
Chelsea Christenson
Well, telling people not to say something would be rude, but asking them not to
say something is perfectly reasonable. It might even work. To assume that
there's just no point whatsoever in asking is to surrender to the forces of
incivility, and that would be tragic.
Jeanna H
hardly any wins?
Eliott Finesse wrote:
> You mean in your jurisdiction they decide who gets to keep ADA jobs by the win /loss column?
>
> That is inappropriate.
--
visit my website http://members.home.net/j-j
Eliott Finesse
Constance Jenkins wrote in message
<37367c1f...@news.mindspring.com>...
>"Eliott Finesse" <e...@usbn.int> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>You mean in your jurisdiction they decide who gets to keep ADA jobs by the
>>
>>That is inappropriate.
>>
>
>Why is it inappropriate? Wouldn't losing cases consistently tend to
>point to incompetence? Incompetence would certainly be grounds for
>getting canned.
>
>Granted, getting the axe for losing the occasional case would be
>grossly unfair, but a prosecutor that loses consistently probably
>isn't doing something right.
>
>Consta, curious to your reasoning here
Justice isn't about winning or losing.
Eliott Finesse
Chelsea Christenson wrote in message <37372331...@us.oracle.com>...
>Eliott Finesse wrote:
>
>> ssnare wrote in message ...
>> >>I happen to like Abbie but I'd like to take this opportunity to
distance
>> >>myself very far from anyone who uses the term "fan" to describe a human
>> >>being.
>> >>
>> >>Ligthen up.
>> >
>> >
>> >If I had said "The original poster has to be the stupidest nigger"
>> (assuming
>> >he is black, of course), he would have been offended.
>> >So why can't I be offended at women being called "broads"??
>>
>> You can be offended all you want, and I will continue to post how
ridiculous
>> you appear dressed as such when you post telling people not to say things
so
>> you won't be offended.
>
>Well, telling people not to say something would be rude, but asking them
not to
>say something is perfectly reasonable.
True enough, but the original poster was not asking, but insiting. that's
why I mocked him/her.
> It might even work. To assume that
>there's just no point whatsoever in asking is to surrender to the forces of
>incivility, and that would be tragic.
Exactly so, but come on! using the term "broad" is not the same as using
the term. "nigger."
MrCairo
acting. A different actress could make Abbie come to life and that
would make her a pretty interesting character.
Regards,
MrC
Chelsea Christenson
> Exactly so, but come on! using the term "broad" is not the same as using
> the term. "nigger."
Some women would disagree -- especially those who have had the term used against
them. I tend to use it as a kind of archetype myself, as in "Barbara Stanwyck
is the quintessential broad." In other words, tough, no-nonsense and looking
out for number one. It's one of those words I'd like to reclaim.
Chelsea Christenson
> You mean in your jurisdiction they decide who gets to keep ADA jobs by the
> win /oss column?
>
> That is inappropriate.
Not entirely. First, there's the matter of whether you bring charges against
someone, then whether try someone, then whether you win. And it's all about
developing a case: putting together witnesses and evidence, then presenting
them effectively to a jury. A lawyer who loses a lot might be trying people
without establishing a good case or might be bad at presenting the case to the
jury.
Of course, on your side of the argument, there's the fact that juries are just
unpredictable, which is why prosecutors are so fond of plea bargains. In fact,
one could argue that a prosecutor who goes to trial frequently is not doing a
good job; they should be persuading the defense that (jury wackiness aside) a
trial is not likely to turn out the way they want. Again, that depends on
building and presenting a case.
Samuel Bethune
Eliott Finesse wrote in message
<6OuZ2.6972$dQ....@news.rdc1.wa.home.com>...
>
>Samuel Bethune wrote in message <92628728...@news.remarQ.com>...
>>
>>DEONDRE NELSON wrote in message
>><16722-37...@newsd-223.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>>Abbie has to be one of the best looking broads on t.v. She is one
>>powerful actor and I think they should give her own show called "The
>>Day I Went to Acting Class to Learn How To Be a Lawyer." The woman is a
>>goddess! To everyone who hates Abbie: I hope at least one of you guys
>>get involved in a murder investigation and she's the one to prosecute
>>your asses.
>>
>>prosecutor, Abbie comes across as a bitch with an agenda more than as a
>>tough but fair prosecutor who just happens to be a woman. Almost every
>>female prosecutor I've ever worked with who had that kind of attitude
ended
>>up losing major cases and eventually their jobs.
>
>
>win /oss column?
>
>That is inappropriate.
>
ADA jobs by their win/loss record. However, a significant aspect of the job
is being able to work effectively with other attorneys.
Your comment was inappropriate.
Sam
Chris Crandall
: Justice isn't about winning or losing.
And the everyday doing of law isn't about justice.
Look . . . most people who go to trial are, in fact, guilty. A variety of
experts estimate the number to be somewhere over 80% are unmistakeably
guilty.
If you've got a very low conviction rate, compared to your peers, and
assuming that you get approximately the same cases as your peers, then
yes, a low win rate is tantamount to a low job evaluation.
Do you really want your local elected District Attorney to keep employees
whose low level of incompetence keeps drunk drivers on the road, drug
dealers in the neighborhood, spouse abusers in their homes, and murderers
on the street?
Eliott Finesse
I guess you didn't read my post carefully. I ASKED you if that was the
case.. Now you seem to be denying that ADAs are fired cause of win'loss
records..Interesting.
Also, you implictly say that any female ADA that has "that kind of attitude"
loses major cases...meaning of course the former causes the latter. This of
course is pure speculation on your part and has absolutely no credible
evidence to back it up.
>Your comment was inappropriate.
It is ok for comments to offend, but for actions such as firing peopel based
on win/loss is completely differnt.. But you know this.
Eliott Finesse
Chris Crandall wrote in message <7h7nbd$clg$1...@news.cc.ukans.edu>...
>Eliott Finesse (e...@usbn.int) wrote:
>: Justice isn't about winning or losing.
>
>And the everyday doing of law isn't about justice.
>
>Look . . . most people who go to trial are, in fact, guilty. A variety of
>experts estimate the number to be somewhere over 80% are unmistakeably
>guilty.
Experts? 95% of all cases are plead..... Sam was way off the mark with his
remark.. he could have had a better argument if he had specified trials.
>If you've got a very low conviction rate, compared to your peers, and
>assuming that you get approximately the same cases as your peers, then
>yes, a low win rate is tantamount to a low job evaluation.
no ADA gets the same cases as their peers. That's ridiculous.
>Do you really want your local elected District Attorney to keep employees
>whose low level of incompetence keeps drunk drivers on the road, drug
>dealers in the neighborhood, spouse abusers in their homes, and murderers
>on the street?
Perhaps the perswon was not guilty. Then by losing they are doing the right
thing...
Constance Jenkins
>
>Justice isn't about winning or losing.
>
Well, to paraphrase Jack McCoy, there is no justice if you don't win.
In other words, a prosecutor who consistently loses and lets guilty
(presumably) parties go free certainly ought to be rethinking their
career choice.
Again, I'm not talking about getting canned for the occasional case
(some defendants are innocent and some juries vote to acquit no matter
how well you did), but a prosecutor who loses on a consistent basis
ought to be shown the door.
Consta
ssnare
>why I mocked him/her.
Wrong, sir....I never asked OR insisted (or "insited"). Re-read the
posting. I said that I wished to distance myself from that person because
they used such a term.....and the original poster was enough of a human
being to apologize.
Eliott Finesse
Your insistence was clearly evident. And they did not apologize. Perhaps
you should take a reading course.
Eliott Finesse
Constance Jenkins wrote in message <3737878...@news.mindspring.com>...
>"Eliott Finesse" <e...@usbn.int> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Justice isn't about winning or losing.
>>
>
>Well, to paraphrase Jack McCoy, there is no justice if you don't win.
>
>In other words, a prosecutor who consistently loses and lets guilty
>(presumably) parties go free certainly ought to be rethinking their
>career choice.
This sentiment is why the USA is considered a barbaric nation...The
presumption is of innocence not guilt.
And old Sam didn't say anything about losing on a consistent basis, but bad
attitudes causing the loss of BIG cases.
>
>Again, I'm not talking about getting canned for the occasional case
>(some defendants are innocent and some juries vote to acquit no matter
>how well you did
Again you presume that if they are charged they are guilty. I am sure you
wouldn't want this concept applied to you if you were in the dock.
PaxNow69
PaxN...@aol.com
Ruti Hershberg
>
> Look . . . most people who go to trial are, in fact, guilty. A variety of
> experts estimate the number to be somewhere over 80% are unmistakeably
> guilty.
>
> assuming that you get approximately the same cases as your peers, then
> yes, a low win rate is tantamount to a low job evaluation.
>
> whose low level of incompetence keeps drunk drivers on the road, drug
> dealers in the neighborhood, spouse abusers in their homes, and murderers
> on the street?
Just wondering, did I miss something? How did we even get on to this
subject under a thread that asks why people hate Abbie? Abbie started
working major crimes after having a really high conviction rate (I think
it was 95%) in special narcotics. I havn't seen her damage McCoy's
conviction rate either.
I do however agree that if an ADA has a really bad conviction record it
probably indicates as to his ability to do the job. And that people who
are really bad at their job sometimes loss it.
Ruti
ama...@nauticom.net
> This sentiment is why the USA is considered a barbaric nation...The
> presumption is of innocence not guilt.
you
> wouldn't want this concept applied to you if you were in the dock.
>
>
The presumption of innocence is why the prosecutor has the burden of
proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Any prosecutor who pursues
cases which he/she cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt obviously has
bad judgment in which cases to pursue; any prosecutor who consistently
loses cases which can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt should be in
another line of work. Anyone who can't do the job they're hired to do,
whether an attorney or not, should find something else to do for a
living.
Amy
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Samuel Bethune
Eliott Finesse wrote in message ...
>>
>>Eliott Finesse wrote in message
>><6OuZ2.6972$dQ....@news.rdc1.wa.home.com>...
>>>
>>>Samuel Bethune wrote in message <92628728...@news.remarQ.com>...
>I guess you didn't read my post carefully. I ASKED you if that was the
>case.. Now you seem to be denying that ADAs are fired cause of win'loss
>records..Interesting.
Yes, I did deny that. I have never seen an ADA fired for that reason. I've
seen them fired for being difficult to get along with, and for dragging out
cases longer than they needed to be, and for professional incompetence, but
NOT for win/loss records. Your question seemed somewhat sarcastic to me,
hence my response.
>Also, you implictly say that any female ADA that has "that kind of
attitude"
>loses major cases...meaning of course the former causes the latter. This
of
>course is pure speculation on your part and has absolutely no credible
>evidence to back it up.
I think not. I've been practicing law for seven years and am a former
prosecutor. I'm quite certain I know what I'm talking about. My statement
was hardly speculation. It is a fact based on my personal observations.
Moreover, I've seen the exact same thing happen to males. Your statement
that I'm "speculating" clearly indicates to me that you weren't paying
attention to what I said.
>>Your comment was inappropriate.
>
>
>It is ok for comments to offend, but for actions such as firing peopel
based
>on win/loss is completely differnt.. But you know this.
I didn't say it was right..........I just said it happens. And I wasn't the
person doing the firing, so don't blame me.
Constance Jenkins
>
>This sentiment is why the USA is considered a barbaric nation...The
>presumption is of innocence not guilt.
>And old Sam didn't say anything about losing on a consistent basis, but bad
>attitudes causing the loss of BIG cases.
I'll take your word for it. I was responding to your comment about
the win/loss column being no basis for job evaluation/termination.
>Again you presume that if they are charged they are guilty. I am sure you
>wouldn't want this concept applied to you if you were in the dock.
That't the jury's presumption, not necessarily the prosecutor's. In
fact, if the prosecutor isn't damned sure they have the guilty party,
they have no business prosecuting the case.
I'm being pragmatic. When trials cost upwards of a quarter million
dollars, I don't think the DA's office goes around prosecuting
innocent people to get their jollies.
Consta
ssnare
>you should take a reading course.
Allow me to post what Diondre wrote.....
<<I'm sorry, I take back the "broad" statment!!>>.
The apology was "clearly evident"....that's what the words "I'm sorry" mean.
Perhaps it is not me who should take a reading course.
Now, Diondre and I have stopped feuding, but you want to continue
it......despite getting facts wrong and insisting others are mis-reading.
Perhaps you'd like to follow Diondre's example and bury the hatchet? This
bickering has gone overboard....let's just drop it!?!
Jeanna H
Do YOU know what you are talking about? Maybe you need to take a lesson
from your name and try some "Finesse"- I bet it'll look good on you.
--
Constance Jenkins
>Mr Eliott Finesse,
>Do YOU know what you are talking about? Maybe you need to take a lesson
>from your name and try some "Finesse"- I bet it'll look good on you.
>
>Constance Jenkins wrote:
>>
LOL Jeanna, I read this through and wondered what I'd done to annoy
you <G>. Took me a second time through to figure it out.
Consta, glad it's not me you're hissed at
p.s. got the email lol!!
Samuel Bethune
Constance Jenkins wrote in message <3738da5...@news.mindspring.com>...
My news server here at home is apparently much slower than the one I have at
the office. I read Eliott's response at work and have come to the
conclusion that he reads way too much into my posts.
Sam
Doxdogy
offend anyone, one of the boys or one of the girls. She seems to want to prove
that she is the big bad prosecutor that can kick butt. I agree with a
different presentation (not saying that Angie Harmon can't do it). Abbie would
be a great character.
DEONDRE NELSON
Barry Gaudet
: would you want to keep an ADA if she/he has a score of major losses with
: hardly any wins?
: Eliott Finesse wrote:
: > You mean in your jurisdiction they decide who gets to keep ADA jobs by the win /loss column?
: >
: > That is inappropriate.
It would depend on the nature of the cases and the defense attorneys I
guess. If you are losing cases that are generally considered sure things
then yes it is appropriate.
This reminds of the lawyer from that old show 'Soap'. He said preferred
the loser cases because if he did win he was a hero but nobody blamed him
if he lost.
--
'nihil ex nihil'
Barry Gaudet
: I dislike her because Angie Harmon (the actress) does a poor job of
: acting. A different actress could make Abbie come to life and that
: would make her a pretty interesting character.
In what way is she a poor actress?
--
'nihil ex nihil'
Pennyaline
In every way.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sorry, but my karma ran over your dogma.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MrCairo
> In every way.
I agree. Her acting is flat and lifeless. She can't deliver a line
worth a damn; not to mention that her face seems to be set in stone. An
occasional expression would be nice. It's painful to watch her. She
seems to be trying desperately to keep up with the actors around her
(and failing).
The person I would like to see in that role is Lorraine Toussaint
<http://www.lifetimetv.com/onair/shows/anyday/cast/frameset.shtml/toussaint.html>,
who was mentioned in another thread. (She had some great battles with
Ben Stone.) I know that she's in another series, but here's a woman who
could play AC as fiery and passionate and be believable while doing so.
Some people might complain because that would place two strong, black
women on one show--but I say the obvious talent of LT qualifies her for
the part.
Maybe someday Angie Harmon will be able to give a strong
performance--but it won't be as Abbie Carmichael and it won't be on Law
& Order.
Regards,
MrC
Ms Mog
I was straightening out some of the shelves where I keep old Playbills, and I
came across one from the senior productions of the Juilliard School. Much to
my delight, I saw that Lorraine Toussaint was in one of the Shakespeare plays I
saw that year! Unlike her fancy cornrows of the '90s, she had a very modest
afro. She looked great, and as I remember, was wonderful in the play. Same
beautiful, strong, lilting voice.
BaileyJen8
are in any way qualified to comment on her acting ability,. So maybe you are a
lawyer and she portrays that a litlle bitchy or tough, get over it that is how
she is told to do it.
She is still on the show, she still presents Abbie in a very commanding way and
that is just a part of Abbie's personality, just because she doesn't take it in
the rear each week like some of the other characters would to please Mr. all
mighty McCoy, well it makes the show more watchable, and less like a boys club,
maybe that is the part you do not like, male or female.
Either way she is here to stay, so get used to it and stop whining like babies
who wet there dipers.
Jennifer
An opinion can never be wrong, only its delivery can be somewhat
inappropriate!!!!
Pennyaline
>I think you all need to stop pretending you are all professors at Julliard,
>or
>are in any way qualified to comment on her acting ability,.
We're better qualified than that. We are the audience, the consumers.
Purchasing power. Get it?
>So maybe you are
>a
>lawyer and she portrays that a litlle bitchy or tough, get over it that is
>how
>she is told to do it.
Bitchy and tough I can live. Leaden acting is intolerable.
>She is still on the show,
"Providence" is still on the air. It's still one of the suckingest, bitingest,
blowingest programs in existence, but it's on the air.
>she still presents Abbie in a very commanding way
>and
>that is just a part of Abbie's personality, just because she doesn't take it
>in
>the rear each week like some of the other characters would to please Mr. all
>mighty McCoy, well it makes the show more watchable, and less like a boys
>club,
>maybe that is the part you do not like, male or female.
Actually, it makes me wonder what she's already accommodating in the rear.
>Either way she is here to stay, so get used to it and stop whining like
>babies
>who wet there dipers.
Uh... never mind.
>An opinion can never be wrong, only its delivery can be somewhat
>inappropriate!!!!
Check a philosophy text near you. Opinions can be wrong.
AKitty8883
or
>are in any way qualified to comment on her acting >ability,.
Excuse me? People are allowed to have an opinion and to express that opinion
freely in a democracy. Acting isn't brain surgery, my dear - anyone can tell if
someone seems natural in a role or if they seem wooden. Acting is professional
b.s.'ing and you don't need a drama degree to make those kind of value
judgements just as you don't need to be a chef to know when a certain dish
tastes bad. Get off it.
>So maybe you are a
>lawyer and she portrays that a litlle bitchy or tough, >get over it that is
how
>she is told to do it.
That may be your opinion, but others who have a different opinion than your own
aren't wrong, either. If people like or dislike her, they are allowed to say
so.
>She is still on the show, she still presents Abbie in a >very commanding way
and
>that is just a part of Abbie's personality, just >because she doesn't take it
in
>the rear each week like some of the other characters >would to please Mr. all
>mighty McCoy,
Psychopaths usually don't take other people's feelings into account. Some of us
are actually turned off by people who think it's OK to behave like a tryrant
and dictator. Abbie can leave her psychopathic attitude at the front door ;-)
>well it makes the show more watchable, and less like a >boys club,
>maybe that is the part you do not like, male or female.
Some of us prefer characters who have some degree of civility and don't behave
as if they grew up in a cave. Poor manners doesn't make you tough, it makes you
a boor. I've come across both male and female real-life Abbie Carmichaels - and
when I'm through with them, they usually leave with their tail between their
legs. That's why I can't stand Abbie - it's this sterotypical pseudo-feminist
garbage that gives women a bad name - it's like, OK you have no manners, no
humanity - so I guess that's what makes you a feminist. It's the same as the
obnoxious male "bad-ass" attitude a few years ago - it's not tough, it's
pathetic. I won't allow it in my presence, regardless of gender. I think it's a
North American phenomenom that toughness is equated with acting feral. It
reminds me of what Gandhi once said to this question:
Reporter: What do you think of Western civilization?
Gandhi: I think it would be a very good idea.
>Either way she is here to stay, so get used to it and >stop whining like
babies
>who wet there dipers.
In other words, we shouldn't behave like Abbie?
>Jennifer
>
>An opinion can never be wrong,
But in your case, we'll make an exception.
A.
William December Starr
baile...@aol.com (BaileyJen8) said:
> I think you all need to stop pretending you are all professors at
> Julliard, or are in any way qualified to comment on her acting
> ability,. So maybe you are a lawyer and she portrays that a litlle
> bitchy or tough, get over it that is how she is told to do it.
>
> She is still on the show, she still presents Abbie in a very
> commanding way and that is just a part of Abbie's personality, just
> because she doesn't take it in the rear each week like some of the
> other characters would to please Mr. all mighty McCoy, well it makes
> the show more watchable, and less like a boys club, maybe that is
> the part you do not like, male or female.
>
> Either way she is here to stay, so get used to it and stop whining
> like babies who wet there dipers.
See, boys and girls? *This* is why you shouldn't drink and post.
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
Samuel Bethune
Constance Jenkins wrote in message
>baile...@aol.com (BaileyJen8) wrote:
>
>>I think you all need to stop pretending you are all professors at
Julliard, or
>>are in any way qualified to comment on her acting ability,. So maybe you
are a
>>lawyer and she portrays that a litlle bitchy or tough, get over it that is
how
>>she is told to do it.
I'm more qualified to comment on her acting ability than you are to comment
on my expression of opinion. So knock off your "holier than thou" attitude
and get over it yourself!
ANIM8Rfsk
so much "opinion"??>>
I have a friend who pulls this crap all the time. Any time he's wrong about
something, he says it's his opinion, so it's valid. And it's invariably a
mistatement of fact. Snarl.
*********************************************
By the way, there is no year zero, (no zeros in Roman numerals)
and the third Millenium starts in 2001, not 2000.
ssnare
not
>so much "opinion"??>>
>
>I have a friend who pulls this crap all the time. Any time he's wrong
about
>something, he says it's his opinion, so it's valid. And it's invariably a
>mistatement of fact. Snarl.
Yeah, I know the type.....just can't bear to admit being wrong. As they
say, "Opinions are like buttholes. Everyone's got one, and they all stink".
>By the way, there is no year zero, (no zeros in Roman numerals)
>and the third Millenium starts in 2001, not 2000.
BRAVO!!! Someone else who knows that Y2K and the new millenium are NOT the
same year!!!!!!
Cheryl K Ito
>>Claire, but Claire was a bit too compassionate for the >job (Although I
did
>like her
>>most of the time).
>
>Claire overdid it sometimes - to the point I wanted to smack her. ;-)
Sometimes
>I think she had more compassion for defendents than for victims - she
would've
>been a better defence lawyer in that regard.
However in White Rabbit, it was Claire who was taking the hard stand and
Jack that wanted to plea her out.
J. Petrusek
> By the way, there is no year zero, (no zeros in Roman numerals)
> and the third Millenium starts in 2001, not 2000.
and ssnare wrote:
> ...BRAVO!!! Someone else who knows that Y2K and the new millenium
> are NOT the same year!!!!!!
My God. At least two others out there... I'm not spitting into the wind
alone. Anyone else?
Constance Jenkins
>I think you all need to stop pretending you are all professors at Julliard, or
>are in any way qualified to comment on her acting ability,. So maybe you are a
>lawyer and she portrays that a litlle bitchy or tough, get over it that is how
>she is told to do it.
Not a professor at Julliard, but I did work in the business for 15
years. I worked with enough truly talented actors to know the
difference between good and bad.
Even if I hadn't, I'd still be qualified to comment on her acting
ability. I'm an audience member. The whole point of acting is to
"sell" your performance to the audience. If the audience ain't buying
it, you aren't doing a good job. I don't buy Carmichael.
>
>She is still on the show, she still presents Abbie in a very commanding way and
>that is just a part of Abbie's personality, just because she doesn't take it in
>the rear each week like some of the other characters would to please Mr. all
>mighty McCoy, well it makes the show more watchable, and less like a boys club,
>maybe that is the part you do not like, male or female.
>
Actually, one could wonder where she took it to get where she is....if
one were mean-spirited enough. Actually, I'm not that mean-spirited.
She didn't have to compromise her morals, just flash a smile and wear
tight blouses.
The woman is employed today because of her looks. She isn't the worst
actor to trod the boards (I'd give that one to good old Pamela
Lee...), but let's be realistic, with her modest talents, she'd be
unemployed if she wasn't an ex-model.
That's more an indictment of the Hollywood mentality than of Ms.
Harmon. If she can get work, more power to her. It's just a shame
talent takes a back seat, in my opinion. An acting professor I
admired greatly once told his class "if you want to be employable <in
Hollywood>, you either need to be stone-cold gorgeous or very
talented. The former will get you more work than the latter."
>
>Either way she is here to stay, so get used to it and stop whining like babies
>who wet there dipers.
>
At least we know how to spell "their" and use it correctly in a
sentence.
>Jennifer
>
>An opinion can never be wrong, only its delivery can be somewhat
>inappropriate!!!!
As this one was, and "somewhat" is an understatement.
I still marvel at those who get positively hostile when people dare to
disagree with them. If you like the character or the actor or both,
more power to you. Just don't expect the rest of us to a) agree with
you or b) stop saying what we think because you don't agree. If you
don't like the notes, try skipping over them.
Consta
Barry Gaudet
: baile...@aol.com (BaileyJen8) wrote:
: >I think you all need to stop pretending you are all professors at Julliard, or
: >are in any way qualified to comment on her acting ability,. So maybe you are a
: >lawyer and she portrays that a litlle bitchy or tough, get over it that is how
: >she is told to do it.
: Not a professor at Julliard, but I did work in the business for 15
: years. I worked with enough truly talented actors to know the
: difference between good and bad.
: Even if I hadn't, I'd still be qualified to comment on her acting
: ability. I'm an audience member. The whole point of acting is to
: "sell" your performance to the audience.
I agree completely.
: If the audience ain't buying
: it, you aren't doing a good job. I don't buy Carmichael.
This I don't agree with. I dont consider AH the best actor since [insert
your preference here], but she seems competent to me. I have yet to hear a
reasoned critique.
'Everything' is rather too broad to address. 'Wooden' seems to fly in
the face of 'bitchy' which isn't a comment on her abilities but on how
the character was written. Besides I wouldn't consider her wooden.
--
'nihil ex nihil'
Constance Jenkins
>
>: If the audience ain't buying
>: it, you aren't doing a good job. I don't buy Carmichael.
>
> This I don't agree with. I dont consider AH the best actor since [insert
>your preference here], but she seems competent to me. I have yet to hear a
>reasoned critique.
> 'Everything' is rather too broad to address. 'Wooden' seems to fly in
>the face of 'bitchy' which isn't a comment on her abilities but on how
>the character was written. Besides I wouldn't consider her wooden.
>
>--
Then you are "buying" her, and more power to you.
As for the reasoned critique, wooden and bitchy aren't mutually
exclusive, one describes her delivery, the other the character's
traits (attributable to the wiritng, not the acting).
Remember, I have never claimed that she's just completely horrible. I
do think she is glaringly mediocre. I find her delivery flat most of
the time, and when she does take a stab at "emoting", she goes over
the top into posturing (the "I'm ACTING!!" syndrome). She has (and
this one I will stand by <G>), poor breath control and poor diction.
As for whether or not she's competent, I suppose it depends on your
definition <G>. You think she is, I think she falls short of it. I
have yet to see an episode where I am not aware of her attempting to
act. I don't mean that in a nasty way...I just mean that unlike
Orbach, Waterston, Hill and Merkleson, I don't "lose" myself in her
character. I'm not saying this very well <G>....I have a hard time
suspending my disbelief because I'm aware of her acting technique (if
you want to call it that) and don't buy into the character as being
"real" for the hour of the episode.
If she were on a different show with less stellar co-stars, perhaps
her limitations wouldn't be so problematic. There is no shortage of
mediocre acting on television <G>.
Consta
Pennyaline
>> Opinions can be wrong.
>
>Pardon me for being ignorant but...how?
As I wrote in the part of the post you snipped, refer to the nearest volume of
philosophical study.
(Yeah, it surprised me, too.)
Constance Jenkins
If your opinion is "I like Abbie", then no you really can't be wrong
(unless you are lying). On the other hand, if you believe the sky is
green, you can believe it, you can firmly hold the opinion...and
you're still wrong <G>.
And, of course, humans have been known to be
self-delusional..."believing" things (or espousing beliefs) that they
don't really, in their heart of hearts, believe. Example, a person
who believes themselves to be liberal, open-minded and non-bigotted,
who despises hate crimes...but who wouldn't have dinner at a black
person's house.
So, yes, opinions *can* be wrong. However, when it comes to "I like"
it's rather a no-brainer...either you really do like or you're lying
<G>.
Consta
p.s. and if you think Abbie is the best ADA you aren't wrong...just
misguided <JOKING!!!>
Brian Barjenbruch <bri...@home.com> wrote:
>> Opinions can be wrong.
>
>Pardon me for being ignorant but...how?
>
>If my opinion is, for example, Abbie Carmichael is the best assistant
>D.A. that Law & Order has ever had (it is, and she is), how can
>somebody tell me I am wrong? You can disagree with me, of course.
>Most would. But how can anyone tell me that I am *wrong* (as if they
>had the right to tell me what to think), and have any leg to stand on?
>Just because most people hate Abbie, does that mean I can't *like* her?
>Don't I have the right to?
>
>--
>"Its origin and purpose...still a total mystery."
>- Dr. Heywood Floyd, "2001: A Space Odyssey"
ssnare
>(unless you are lying). On the other hand, if you believe the sky is
>green, you can believe it, you can firmly hold the opinion...and
>you're still wrong <G>.
But, Consta....wouldn't that fall under an "incorrect fact" status, and not
so much "opinion"?? I was under the impression that an opinion could never
be fully proven OR dis-proven (as if that's a word!)
Playing Devil's Advocate!
Jeff
Drakkenfyre
another person's perception of green.
Drak
Constance Jenkins
of the opinion that the death penalty is constitutional (for arguments
sake)...meaning *I* believe it to be so.
Whatever may or may not be the actual factual evidence of that
position is irrelevant--I believe it. *IF* I believe it in the face
of contradictory evidence, then my "opinion" is "wrong".
The point being that if I "believe" (hold the opinion) of an incorrect
fact, then my opinion is, in fact, wrong.
Consta
Constance Jenkins
given. Color perception varies quite a bit in different individuals.
While the visible color spectrum falls out in "commonly perceived"
colors, the variations within them are much harder to pin down. If I
hold up an aqua colored card, some will see it as a greenish-blue and
others as a blue-ish green (which are, in fact, different things).
The average human (assuming no color blindness) is actually quite good
at differentiating between colors (able to recognize hundreds of
"shades" of blue), but humans have (as an aside) fairly poor color
memory. If I show you a lavendar swatch, then take it away, it's not
all that likely you could pick the same color out of a line up.
Gads, it's been years since I taught color theory. We're dredging up
some old brain cells here <G>.
But back to your mind-blower, it's been even longer since I studied
philosophy. Maybe some else here can correct me if I'm totally off
base, but I think it's Plato's cave allegory that says we all see the
world like shadows cast from behind us...flickering images of reality
filtered through our individual perceptions...so what I call green may
or may not bear any resemblance to your green...but it is no less
"really" green for me.
Consta
Drakkenfyre <4118...@3web.net> wrote:
>Okay, here's a mind-blower. Who's to say one person's green is the same as
>another person's perception of green.
>
>Drak
>
>
>
Drakkenfyre
having the biggest millennium party imaginable. Well, I'm not going to be
home this year. (Well, maybe I'll be in my little bomb shelter, maybe I'll
be getting sloshed, I just won't be home) We can then find a percentage by
dividing my current friends by my former friends. Or maybe we could
calculate it by death threats.
My point being, among the younger croud, most people are ignorant... of this
fact.
Drak
Pennyaline wrote:
>
>
> IMO, the actual date is widely recognized.
>
> <but the caterer is already booked!>
>
RH
AKitty8883 wrote:
> >I think you all need to stop pretending you are all >professors at Julliard,
> or
> >are in any way qualified to comment on her acting >ability,.
>
> Excuse me? People are allowed to have an opinion and to express that opinion
> freely in a democracy. Acting isn't brain surgery, my dear - anyone can tell if
> someone seems natural in a role or if they seem wooden. Acting is professional
> b.s.'ing and you don't need a drama degree to make those kind of value
> judgements just as you don't need to be a chef to know when a certain dish
> tastes bad. Get off it.
>
I agree with you that one doesn't need to be an expert to talk about acting
ability. I for one think Harmon is doing an OK job portraying Abbie, and this is
just my totally unprofessional opinion.
>
> >So maybe you are a
> >lawyer and she portrays that a litlle bitchy or tough, >get over it that is
> how
> >she is told to do it.
>
> That may be your opinion, but others who have a different opinion than your own
> aren't wrong, either. If people like or dislike her, they are allowed to say
> so.
>
Yes they are. Over and over again.
>
> >She is still on the show, she still presents Abbie in a >very commanding way
> and
> >that is just a part of Abbie's personality, just >because she doesn't take it
> in
> >the rear each week like some of the other characters >would to please Mr. all
> >mighty McCoy,
>
> Psychopaths usually don't take other people's feelings into account. Some of us
> are actually turned off by people who think it's OK to behave like a tryrant
> and dictator. Abbie can leave her psychopathic attitude at the front door ;-)
>
Psychopath? Slightly strong word, isn't it? Has Abbie murdered anyone to your
knowledge? Has she shown any kind of violent behavior?
Has she even done something as unethical as, say, hiding a witness?
Abbie has shown empathy on a number of occasions (empathy towards the victims,
empathy towards the families of victims, even empathy towards the woman who killed
the lawyer in Harm, and eventually towards Alice in "punk".) We don't exactly see
Jack holding the suspects' hands either. True she isn't half as compassionate as
Claire, but Claire was a bit too compassionate for the job (Although I did like her
most of the time).
Abbie may be a little lacking in the compassion dept.. But I don't see that any
differently than I see the other characters' flaws (and they all have flaws). And I
really think that most of the time, her tendency not to feel sorry for the people,
who do the crimes, we get to see on the show, is quite fitting.
>
> >well it makes the show more watchable, and less like a >boys club,
> >maybe that is the part you do not like, male or female.
>
> Some of us prefer characters who have some degree of civility and don't behave
> as if they grew up in a cave. Poor manners doesn't make you tough, it makes you
> a boor. I've come across both male and female real-life Abbie Carmichaels - and
> when I'm through with them, they usually leave with their tail between their
> legs. That's why I can't stand Abbie - it's this sterotypical pseudo-feminist
> garbage that gives women a bad name - it's like, OK you have no manners, no
> humanity - so I guess that's what makes you a feminist. It's the same as the
> obnoxious male "bad-ass" attitude a few years ago - it's not tough, it's
> pathetic. I won't allow it in my presence, regardless of gender. I think it's a
> North American phenomenom that toughness is equated with acting feral. It
> reminds me of what Gandhi once said to this question:
>
I don't think Abbie's as rude as you make her sound. And I do think she has shown
Humanity on a number of occasions.
>
> Reporter: What do you think of Western civilization?
> Gandhi: I think it would be a very good idea.
>
LOL, that's a great quote.
>
> >Either way she is here to stay, so get used to it and >stop whining like
> babies
> >who wet there dipers.
>
> In other words, we shouldn't behave like Abbie?
>
You can say a lot of bad things about Abbie. But I really don't see her as whining.
And I think the dipers would show under her skirt <g>.
>
> >Jennifer
> >
> >An opinion can never be wrong,
>
> But in your case, we'll make an exception.
>
Funny.
>
> A.
>
> >only its delivery can be somewhat
> >inappropriate!!!!
Ruti
One of the happiest people on earth (cause we managed to replace the worst prime
minister in the history of Israel),
Drakkenfyre
the L&O: Unofficial Companion. Essentially, Wolf just told them to flip the
roles.
Drak
Ms Mog wrote:
> << However in White Rabbit, it was Claire who was taking the hard stand and
> Jack that wanted to plea her out. >>
>
> Yeah, and that always pissed me off. I thought it was totally out of
> character.
AKitty8883
of us
>> are actually turned off by people who think it's OK >to behave like a
tryrant
>> and dictator. Abbie can leave her psychopathic >attitude at the front door
;-)
>>
>Psychopath? Slightly strong word, isn't it? Has Abbie >murdered anyone to your
>knowledge?
Clinically speaking, a psychopath doesn't necessarily murder or is violent -
sometimes the term is used instead of "anti-social personality disorder" - all
it means is you have a severe lack of empathy and the only feelings you take
into account are you own. Trust Hollywood to bedfuddle yet another word ;-)
>Has she shown any kind of violent behavior?
Only when she doesn't get things her own way ;-)
>Has she even done something as unethical as, say, >hiding a witness?
In the ep "Agony", I seem to recall her trying to do something bordering on
that. I think she would break the law to get her own way - not shoot up the
place, but more on the white-collared variety.
>Abbie has shown empathy on a number of occasions >(empathy towards the
victims,
>empathy towards the families of victims, even empathy >towards the woman who
killed
>the lawyer in Harm, and eventually towards Alice in >"punk".) We don't exactly
see
>Jack holding the suspects' hands either.
That's because his hands are usually holding a shot glass ;-)
>True she isn't half as compassionate as
>Claire, but Claire was a bit too compassionate for the >job (Although I did
like her
>most of the time).
Claire overdid it sometimes - to the point I wanted to smack her. ;-) Sometimes
I think she had more compassion for defendents than for victims - she would've
been a better defence lawyer in that regard.
>Abbie may be a little lacking in the compassion dept..
Her behavior seems a tad immature.
>But I don't see that any
>differently than I see the other characters' flaws (and >they all have flaws).
Some flaws are more tolerable than others. With Jack, he seems so relentless
with wanting to nail people who seem to have good excuses - until he pokes
holes in their sob stories.
<snip>
>I don't think Abbie's as rude as you make her sound. >And I do think she has
shown
>Humanity on a number of occasions.
When? I must've blinked ;-)
>>
>> Reporter: What do you think of Western civilization?
>> Gandhi: I think it would be a very good idea.
>>
>
>LOL, that's a great quote.
>
>>
> >>Either way she is here to stay, so get used to it >and >stop whining like
>> babies
> >>who wet there dipers.
>>
>> In other words, we shouldn't behave like Abbie?
>>
>
>You can say a lot of bad things about Abbie. But I >really don't see her as
whining.
>And I think the dipers would show under her skirt <g>.
>
LOL!
A.
Ms Mog
Pennyaline
IMO, the actual date is widely recognized.
<but the caterer is already booked!>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BaileyJen8
You wouldn't by any chance be in Canada ????
Circa USA:
I do not need to flip through a philosophy book to know that an opinion cannnot
by definition be wrong, no matter what it is. the only assessor of its
authenticity is me. By you saying it is "wrong" is incorrect, what you mean
is you do not agree because it is not possible for you (coming from a different
perspective of the opininated, to think MY opinion is wrong.
Example, In my opinion, Claire Kincaid was the worst ADA the show had in terms
of both feminism and professionalism, her departure while tragic, helped breath
some life in the show.
(The show did get an Emmy finally after her departure, yes ???)
I know I will be attacked for that even though it says for example in the
beginning, but what can you do.
>>An opinion can never be wrong, only its delivery can be somewhat
>>inappropriate!!!!
>
>Check a philosophy text near you. Opinions can be wrong.
>
You only get what you give.
Game 6 E3
>so much "opinion"?
Okay. Here's a better example: I believe that David Hasselhoff is the best
actor on tv because of the great job he does as Adam Schiff. My belief that
Hasselhoff plays Adam is a factual error. My belief that Hasselhoff is the
best actor on tv is my opinion. My opinion would be invalid since it's based
on erroneous information.
Constance Jenkins
Actually believing David Hasselhoff is the best actor on tv makes you
dangerously delusional <GGGGG>.
Consta
Constance Jenkins
(champagne, romantic music and a romantic get away" to help people
conceive THIS New Year's Eve. I guess they are hoping for
looooonnnnngggg gestation periods <G>.
The other little known (and sometimes disputed) fact is that the year
2000 IS in fact a leap year.
Consta
Drakkenfyre <4118...@3web.net> wrote:
>I shall test that hypothesis this year. I have told all my friends I am
>having the biggest millennium party imaginable. Well, I'm not going to be
>home this year. (Well, maybe I'll be in my little bomb shelter, maybe I'll
>be getting sloshed, I just won't be home) We can then find a percentage by
>dividing my current friends by my former friends. Or maybe we could
>calculate it by death threats.
>
>My point being, among the younger croud, most people are ignorant... of this
>fact.
>
>Drak
>
>Pennyaline wrote:
>
>>
>>
MrCairo
> have told all my friends I am having the
> biggest millennium party imaginable.
> Well, I'm not going to be home this year.
> (Well, maybe I'll be in my little bomb
> shelter, maybe I'll be getting sloshed, I
> just won't be home) We can then find a
> percentage by dividing my current
> friends by my former friends. Or maybe
> we could calculate it by death threats.
LOL. Good one.
I'm going to take a different approach: one party for my friends who
believe the millennium starts in 2000 and another party for the 2001
believers.
I'm not insisting that friends have to come to only one. :-)
Regards,
MrC
AKitty8883
>>>Claire, but Claire was a bit too compassionate for >the >job (Although I
>did
>>like her
>>>most of the time).
>>
>>Claire overdid it sometimes - to the point I wanted to >smack her. ;-)
>Sometimes
>>I think she had more compassion for defendents than >for victims - she
>would've
>>been a better defence lawyer in that regard.
>
>
>Jack that wanted to plea her out.
I said 'sometimes', I didn't say every time :-)
A.
RH
>
> >But, Consta....wouldn't that fall under an "incorrect fact" status, and not
> >so much "opinion"?
>
> Okay. Here's a better example: I believe that David Hasselhoff is the best
> actor on tv because of the great job he does as Adam Schiff. My belief that
> Hasselhoff plays Adam is a factual error. My belief that Hasselhoff is the
> best actor on tv is my opinion. My opinion would be invalid since it's based
> on erroneous information.
David Hasselhoff as Adam schiff. Am I the only one to find the thought
disturbing?<g>
Ruti
AKitty8883
Remember when Roseanne was "guest editor" for the New Yorker a few years back?
I say, why not do it for Law and Order? Have "very special guest stars" take
over the roles for one week? David Hasselhoff as Adam Schiff is a good start.
Jamie Farr could play Briscoe, Zsa Zsa Gabor could play Abbie... ;-)
A.
>Ruti
Raine
started between 3 and seven years ago.Records are so poorly made and kept
thousands of years ago how can they as accurate as today?PLus,remember when
each Eurpoean country had a different calender before they were finally
united by the Christian one?And what about other religions and their views
of a millenium:It's only been a thousand years by Christian standards,so to
many countries 2000 is just another Christian year.Anyone else agree here?
Raine
"He who dares,wins"
J. Petrusek wrote in message <37422935...@ameritechski.netski>...
RH
Cheryl K Ito wrote:
Which was rather our of character for her. Just like Jamie's flip flopping
view on the death penalty.
Ruti
Jeanna H
>
> Game 6 E3 wrote:
> >
> > >But, Consta....wouldn't that fall under an "incorrect fact" status, and not
> > >so much "opinion"?
> >
> > Okay. Here's a better example: I believe that David Hasselhoff is the best
> > actor on tv because of the great job he does as Adam Schiff. My belief that
> > Hasselhoff plays Adam is a factual error. My belief that Hasselhoff is the
> > best actor on tv is my opinion. My opinion would be invalid since it's based
> > on erroneous information.
>
> David Hasselhoff as Adam schiff. Am I the only one to find the thought
> disturbing?<g>
>
> Ruti
No, Ruti, count me in!
Wasn't it David Hasselhoff who hired Angie Harmon for Baywatch? I read
an article *somewhere* on the 'Net that he hired her knowing she
couldn't act, but because she was pretty.
Now, doesn't that show he can't tell acting from his butt?
Jeanna
--
visit my website http://members.home.net/j-j
Chris Crandall
"The" new millenium began Jan 1, 1996. Since historians have corrected
the calendar, so that Jesus Christ was born in 4 BC, the date goes back 4
years.
Of course, *any* 1000 years is a millenium, and so, TOMORROW is the first
day of the new millenium!!! Wahooo!
A millenium begins and ends whenever anyone wants it to. It's a silly
debate, populated by a few too many know-it-all-wannabe's who
don't-really-know-enough-just-enough-to-be-dangerous.
The amazing thing, of course, is that "our" calendar isn't everybody's
calendar. It's just that some people think it is.
ANIM8Rfsk
between 3 and seven years ago>>
Nonsense. "Most scholars"? Maybe some hard-core Bible scholars, but certainly
not 'most' And, only then if you're arguing the calendar should be magically
reset to whatever the current theory of Christ's birth is. We're not. We're
talking about the Julian Calendar (can I have fries with that?) and people
misbelieving it contains a year 0. It doesn't.
<<It's only been a thousand years by Christian standards,so to
many countries 2000 is just another Christian year>>
Huh? What's only been a thousand years, the last thousand years? That would
been a thousand years by ANYONE'S standards, unless they use a different length
year, or other than base 10 numbering.
The second point I agree with completely. So?
<<And what about other religions>>
I don't think any of them are arguing about 2000 v 2001?
<<PLus,remember when each Eurpoean country had a different calender>>
I'm not THAT old, but I've heard about it. ;-)
Again, what's your point?
And I LIKE Abby, dammit, but I do miss Claire.
*********************************************
ANIM8Rfsk
best actor on tv is my opinion.>>
Oooooooo - while I understand and agree with your basic premise, is it possible
to state an opinion so completely, totally, objectively wrong that it ceases to
even BE an opinion?
;-D
ANIM8Rfsk
an article *somewhere* on the 'Net that he hired her knowing she
couldn't act,>>
The story at the time was that he saw her on a plane and convinced her to
become an actress. This is total nonsense, as she has acting credits predating
Baywatch Nights by at least 3 years.
Chris Crandall
: The story at the time was that he saw her on a plane and convinced her to
: to become an actress. This is total nonsense, as she has acting credits
: predating Baywatch Nights by at least 3 years.
Yeah? Like what?
MrCairo
> agree with your basic premise, is it
> possible to state an opinion so
> completely, totally, objectively wrong
> that it ceases to even BE an opinion?
> ;-D
Why am I suddenly thinking of Archie Bunker of "All In The Family?"
Now, THAT man had opinions.
Regards,
MrC
Chelsea Christenson
> A millenium begins and ends whenever anyone wants it to.
This is where articles and other qualifiers come in handy. For example,
12/31/99 is the last day of the 90s. It is the last day of the 1900s. It is
not the last day of the 20th century. It is not the last day of the second
millenium AD. Thus the difference between "a" millenium and "the"
millenium. "The" millenium refers to a specific concept, with associated
specific rules about counting things.
Chris Crandall
: > A millenium begins and ends whenever anyone wants it to.
Chelsea Christenson (cchr...@us.oracle.com) wrote:
:This is where articles and other qualifiers come in handy. For example,
:12/31/99 is the last day of the 90s. It is the last day of the 1900s. It is
:not the last day of the 20th century. It is not the last day of the second
:millenium AD. Thus the difference between "a" millenium and "the"
:millenium. "The" millenium refers to a specific concept, with associated
:specific rules about counting things.
And that specific concept is whatever most people understand it to be.
And most people think "the" millenium begins 1/1/2000. That's "the"
millenium they're talking about.
And they're right.
Unless one is the Queen of Hearts from Alice in Wonderland, and words mean
only exactly what you intend them to mean, and nothing else.
The millenium is a social concept. God did not ordain it (and if He did,
he was almost certainly meaning something else than how we understand it).
But that is most certainly not a Law and Order topic.
D.F. Manno
MrC...@webtv.net (MrCairo) wrote:
> I'm going to take a different approach: one party for my friends who
> believe the millennium starts in 2000 and another party for the 2001
> believers.
>
> I'm not insisting that friends have to come to only one. :-)
Is that what is known as the two-party system? (Sorry, I just couldn't resist.)
--
D.F. Manno
domm...@netscape.net
"If we didn't laugh we would all go insane." -- Jimmy Buffett
William December Starr
"J. Petrusek" <jep_cth...@ameritechski.netski> said:
> ANIM8Rfsk signed with:
>
>> By the way, there is no year zero, (no zeros in Roman numerals)
>> and the third Millenium starts in 2001, not 2000.
>
> and ssnare wrote:
>
>> ...BRAVO!!! Someone else who knows that Y2K and the new millenium
>> are NOT the same year!!!!!!
>
> My God. At least two others out there... I'm not spitting into the wind
> alone. Anyone else?
Isn't the more relevant question "Does anybody *care*?"
-- William December Starr <wds...@crl.com>
Ms Mog
..and while we are waxing philosophical about the new millennium, let's all
commit ourselves to learning how to spell it correctly!
M i l l e n n i u m, two l's and 2 n's.
Thank you all so very much for indulging my annoying little fixation.
English teacher mode <OFF>
Constance Jenkins
(1998-)
2.Lawn Dogs (1997) .... Pamela Gregory
3."C-16: FBI" (1997) TV Series .... Amanda Reardon
4."Baywatch Nights" (1995) TV Series .... Ryan McBride
... aka "Detectives On the Beach" (1995)
This is Ms. Harmon's listing in the IMDB database...which shows
Baywatch Nights as her first acting credit. If you know of credits
prior to this, I'd be interested in seeing them, since *she* said in
an article that Hasselhoff "discovered" her on an airplane trip.
Consta
anim...@aol.comNOSPAM (ANIM8Rfsk) wrote:
><<Wasn't it David Hasselhoff who hired Angie Harmon for Baywatch? I read
>an article *somewhere* on the 'Net that he hired her knowing she
>couldn't act,>>
>
>The story at the time was that he saw her on a plane and convinced her to
>become an actress. This is total nonsense, as she has acting credits predating
>Baywatch Nights by at least 3 years.
>
>
>*********************************************
Game 6 E3
>Actually believing David Hasselhoff is the best actor on tv makes you
>dangerously delusional <GGGGG>.
How can you say that? He DID discover Angie Harmon.
Game 6 E3
>back?
>I say, why not do it for Law and Order? Have "very special guest stars" take
>over the roles for one week? David Hasselhoff as Adam Schiff is a good start.
>Jamie Farr could play Briscoe, Zsa Zsa Gabor could play Abbie... ;-)
>
>A.
>
>>Ruti
>
>
McCoy and Charles Nelson Reilly could play Curtis.
ANIM8Rfsk
A guest shot on Renegade.
I actually checked :-)
ANIM8Rfsk
Well, actually, that's only PART of Ms. Harmon's listing in the IMDB; should
scrolled down: ;-D
"1."Renegade" (1992) playing "Debbie Prentice" in episode: "Offshore Thunder"
1995 "
*********************************************
By the way, there is no year zero, (no zeros in Roman numerals)
and the third Millennium starts in 2001, not 2000.
Jeanna H
> Sure. Morgan Fair child could play Lt. Van Buren. Gilbert Gotfried could be
> McCoy and Charles Nelson Reilly could play Curtis.
Wouldn't that be a show??? I am not sure Morgan could pull it off, but
Gilbert would be funny!