Re: Roseanne in full blown Pinocchio mode now

[Ubiquitous]

supe...@super70s.invalid wrote:

>Roseanne Barr On Possible Return to TV: "'I've Already Been Offered So
>Many Things"
>
>The comedian, who had her rebooted sitcom cancelled by ABC following
>racist remarks on Twitter, revealed that she "almost already accepted
>one really good offer to go back on TV."
>
>9:26 PM PDT 7/1/2018
>by Abid Rahman
>The Hollywood Reporter
>
>Roseanne Barr may make a second comeback in 2018 after she revealed that
>she's been offered "many" opportunities to return to television.
>
>Speaking on Rabbi Shmuley Boteach's podcast, her second appearance on
>the program, Barr spends much of the interview talking about the Torah
>and her Jewish faith, but she also intimated a possible route back to
>television. "I've already been offered so many things and I almost
>already accepted one really good offer to go back on TV and I might do
>it. But we'll see," she said.
>
>The comedian's iconic sitcom Roseanne was resurrected by ABC this year,
>with a more Trump-friendly bent, and debuted to stunning ratings. But
>the whirlwind beginning presaged a spectacular end as the show was
>cancelled after Barr made racist remarks aimed at former Obama
>administration official Valerie Jarrett. ABC is currently working on a
>spin-off of Roseanne titled The Conners that will not feature Barr's
>character, instead focusing on the rest of the cast.
>
>Barr told Boteach that she didn't ask for money when she signed away the
>rights to her eponymous show as an act of "penance" and that she "didn't
>want to hurt the new show" or for the Roseanne cast, particularly
>African-American actress Jayden Rey, to lose their jobs.
>
>"I thought signing off of my own life's work and asking for nothing in
>return I thought that was a penance. Sometimes you ask people what do
>you think should be done to you, knowing what you've done wrong and it
>seems that people always know what should be done to them. I just knew
>that was the right thing and I want to do the right thing because I've
>lived my life, most part of it, to do the right thing for all people,
>not just Jews," she said.
>
>Boteach also pressed Barr on whether she had reached out and apologized
>to Valerie Jarrett privately. She said had not as yet, but she was
>"praying for the right words" before she spoke to Jarrett.

And you believe she is lieing because?

--
"The sky was low and heavy, like the brow of a retarded child."

[A Friend]

In article <20180702-1...@Ubiquitous.news.giganews.com>,

Barr's claim that she's had multiple offers to return to TV is in the
face of zero leaks on the subject. I guarantee you that there'd be
leaks if such were true. Also, this statement is the first time I've
heard that Barr didn't take any money for her rights to ROSEANNE.
Frankly, absent any other reporting on this subject -- and there'd be a
lot, you know, if it were true -- I just don't believe her.

And she hasn't apologized to Valerie Jarrett yet because she's praying
for the right words? C'mon.

[Ubiquitous]

I can see your point. I don't care enough to check.

--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <020720181306375058%no...@noway.com>, A Friend <no...@noway.com>
wrote:

> And she hasn't apologized to Valerie Jarrett yet because she's praying
> for the right words? C'mon.

That's between her, her good, and anyone willing to watch her contingent on an
apology. I'm not in any of those.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
I'm saving up to buy the Donald a blue stone This post / \
from Metebelis 3. All praise the Great Don! insults Islam. Mohammed

[FPP]

But you care enough to "debate" it?
Of course you don't care! That would require consulting the facts, and
that would trigger your allergy to the truth.

--
Mike Godwin
"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm
with you."
8:03 PM - Aug 13, 2017

[FPP]

On 7/2/18 2:01 PM, super70s wrote:
> In article <20180702-1...@Ubiquitous.news.giganews.com>,
> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>

> Just out of curiosity, why did you make effort to remove "Trump" from my
> original subject header and start a whole new thread for no particular
> reason? Are you in love with the guy that much?
>
> This kind of behavior is why I have you shitcanned in rec.arts.tv.

Then you don't KNOW about all the "debates" you've lost with him!

[FPP]

On 7/2/18 3:16 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> supe...@super70s.invalid wrote:

>> Just out of curiosity, why did you make effort to remove "Trump" from my
>> original subject header and start a whole new thread for no particular
>> reason? Are you in love with the guy that much?
>

> I think the real question is "why did you unnecessarily add `Trump` to the
> subject of your article"? Obessed, much?

Yeah... he's Obessive-Compulsarie.

[Eddie Haskell]

only the very lowest of intelligence believe trump

[Ubiquitous]

fred...@gmail.com wrote:
>On 7/2/18 3:16 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> supe...@super70s.invalid wrote:
>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>> no...@noway.com wrote:
>>>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

>>>>>> And you believe she is lieing because?
>>>>>
>>>>> Barr's claim that she's had multiple offers to return to TV is in the
>>>>> face of zero leaks on the subject. I guarantee you that there'd be
>>>>> leaks if such were true. Also, this statement is the first time I've
>>>>> heard that Barr didn't take any money for her rights to ROSEANNE.
>>>>> Frankly, absent any other reporting on this subject -- and there'd be a
>>>>> lot, you know, if it were true -- I just don't believe her.
>>>>>
>>>>> And she hasn't apologized to Valerie Jarrett yet because she's praying
>>>>> for the right words? C'mon.
>>>>
>>>> I can see your point. I don't care enough to check.
>>>
>>> Just out of curiosity, why did you make effort to remove "Trump" from my
>>> original subject header and start a whole new thread for no particular
>>> reason? Are you in love with the guy that much?
>>
>> I think the real question is "why did you unnecessarily add `Trump` to

>> the subject of your article"? Obsessed, much?
>
>Yeah... he's Obessive-Compulsarie.

Anyone who unnecessarily adds `Trump` to the subject of a posting is, by
definition, obsessed with President trump.

[Ubiquitous]

supe...@super70s.invalid wrote:
> Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> supe...@super70s.invalid wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>>> no...@noway.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:

>>>>>>> And you believe she is lieing because?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Barr's claim that she's had multiple offers to return to TV is in
>>>>> the face of zero leaks on the subject. I guarantee you that
>>>>> there'd be leaks if such were true. Also, this statement is the
>>>>> first time I've heard that Barr didn't take any money for her
>>>>> rights to ROSEANNE. Frankly, absent any other reporting on this
>>>>> subject -- and there'd >>>> be a lot, you know, if it were true --
>>>>> I just don't believe her.
>>>>>
>>>>> And she hasn't apologized to Valerie Jarrett yet because she's

>>>>> praying or the right words? C'mon.

>>>>
>>>> I can see your point. I don't care enough to check.
>>>
>>> Just out of curiosity, why did you make effort to remove "Trump" from
>>> my original subject header and start a whole new thread for no particular
>>> reason? Are you in love with the guy that much?
>>
>> I think the real question is "why did you unnecessarily add `Trump` to the
>> subject of your article"? Obessed, much?
>

>Um, over 3,000 documented lies as of May 1

TROLL-O-METER

5* 6* *7
4* *8
3* *9
2* *10
1* | *stuporous
0* -*- *catatonic
* |\ *comatose
* \ *clinical death
* \ *biological death
* _\/ *demonic apparition
* * *damned for all eternity

[Eddie Haskell]