Mark Harmon character killed
Doc
Mark Harmon character being killed by the second robber after walking
in on a holdup. It was supposed to be dramatic, but I thought it was
too unbelievable to have the big dramatic impact they were going for.
If he was really this ultra-trained pro, I would think the FIRST thing
that would have gone through his mind re: the robbery is - *How many
are there?* Play dumb, scope out the place etc. before committing
himself. Surely, that must be standard police academy rookie level
stuff. He was on the ball enough to figure out what was going on in
the first place, but he didn't catch on that the clerk was still
paralyzed with fear?
Roehl Sybing
"Doc" <docsa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<f0c1bc20.0205...@posting.google.com>...
Roehl Sybing
"All the world is yours, minus what you can't take with you in a small carry-on
when you leave"
Infinite Deferral Productions - http://www.infinitedeferral.com/
smish
"Roehl Sybing" <roehl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020523155527...@mb-dh.aol.com...
> "Doc" <docsa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<f0c1bc20.0205...@posting.google.com>...
> > I'm a sporadic watcher of The West Wing, I caught the bit about the
> > Mark Harmon character being killed by the second robber after walking
> > in on a holdup. It was supposed to be dramatic, but I thought it was
> > too unbelievable to have the big dramatic impact they were going for.
> > If he was really this ultra-trained pro, I would think the FIRST thing
> > that would have gone through his mind re: the robbery is - *How many
> > are there?* Play dumb, scope out the place etc. before committing
> > himself. Surely, that must be standard police academy rookie level
> > stuff. He was on the ball enough to figure out what was going on in
> > the first place, but he didn't catch on that the clerk was still
> > paralyzed with fear?
>
> Being lovestruck can do some crazy things to you.
That's what I'm blaming his incompetence on :)
adam
Robert Young
Roehl said it pretty succinctly. His "watch" was over. The stalker had
been put into custody. He could kiss CJ, a professionally questionable
act, given it was only a couple of minutes since the news. He had
dropped his professional stance and was even into ordering a rose for
the meeting a few minutes later. He lost his "edge." Watch him as he
calls for NYPD backup. He is cocky, feeling good. It is no surprise
that he wasn't thinking it through.
Then, besides the shock to all of us, the story line falls on CJ. She
had found someone, not that she was "looking," and now he was gone.
The event was profound because he was a likeable character who managed
to pierce CJ's hard-shell. His death is due to our affection of him in
regard to his relationship with CJ, not him alone. There will clearly
be carry-over (to next season) via CJ on this event. She already once
wanted to quit. It may come up again next season.
Also see Ann's reply under the thread "Dumb." She makes a good point
on the plotting.
Robert
Jeffrey@coreCyberSoft
He was a cop first, thru and thru!
he may be a college educated fed now, but he was a cop with good instincts
and one hell of a good shot. You do not go dumb like that no matter how
much love you are in.
It becomes instinctual, because I do not believe a cop could survive today
if it did not.
"smish" <mi...@noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.fool> wrote in message
news:acji6h$8rm$1...@harrier.doc.ic.ac.uk...
J Alex
"Jeffrey@coreCyberSoft" <jbha...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:HpfH8.61525$eD2.1...@news2.east.cox.net...
> BULL.
> He was a cop first, thru and thru!
> he may be a college educated fed now, but he was a cop with good instincts
> and one hell of a good shot. You do not go dumb like that no matter how
> much love you are in.
>
Sorkin to be written out of it by the end of the season. "I'll kill him just
as they fall for each other" was the best Sorkin could come up with on such
short notice.
Roehl Sybing
By trade, I'm a writer, I educated and trained myself and have spent the last
six years trying to be a pretty decent amateur writer. I'm a writer first,
much like everyone is their job first before everything else, but that doesn't
mean I'm a writer twenty-four hours a day. Some of us have to catch ourselves
once in a while.
"Jeffrey@coreCyberSoft" <jbha...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:<HpfH8.61525$eD2.1...@news2.east.cox.net>...
> BULL.
> He was a cop first, thru and thru!
> he may be a college educated fed now, but he was a cop with good instincts
> and one hell of a good shot. You do not go dumb like that no matter how
> much love you are in.
>
> It becomes instinctual, because I do not believe a cop could survive today
> if it did not.
Roehl Sybing
Adam H. Kerman
>I'm a sporadic watcher of The West Wing, I caught the bit about the
>Mark Harmon character being killed by the second robber after walking
>in on a holdup.
This would be a spoiler. You wanna avoid putting them in the Subject? Then
use spoiler space in the message.
Doc
> Call me a romantic, but you've never been there, have you?
>
> By trade, I'm a writer, I educated and trained myself and have spent the last
> six years trying to be a pretty decent amateur writer. I'm a writer first,
> much like everyone is their job first before everything else, but that doesn't
> mean I'm a writer twenty-four hours a day. Some of us have to catch ourselves
> once in a while.
>
Well...I'm NOT a trained cop and I can honestly say that my reaction
even when he pulled his piece out was "well that was stupid.." for all
the reasons above.
He knows he's in a mortal situation, it's my understanding these guys
are trained to the point that these kind of things become virtually on
the level of instinctive second nature, and he's secret service,
presumably the best of the best. All the lovey dovey crap is going to
go out the window. He's going to assess the scenario first. I think
it was sloppy writing.
Let's ask the cops out there, whaddya think?
J Alex
the Subject? Then
> use spoiler space in the message.
Baldric
>
The backhanded insult. Come on, you're better than that.
> By trade, I'm a writer, I educated and trained myself and have spent the last
> six years trying to be a pretty decent amateur writer. I'm a writer first,
> much like everyone is their job first before everything else, but that doesn't
> mean I'm a writer twenty-four hours a day. Some of us have to catch ourselves
> once in a while.
>
Of course, if you turn an awkward phrase with your pals at the bar the
most you might get is a ribbing. Someone in Simon's profession can end
up with a toe tag when they slip.The higher the odds, the more you're
hardwired not to slip, especially on the stone simple basics.
Baldric
Adam H. Kerman
Give people a week to watch the show. Don't ruin things for them.
If you quote, don't run all the lines together. Look how ugly that is!
J Alex
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
news:uesqisg...@corp.supernews.com...
game:
Bartlet had the Qumari defense minister killed.
Harmon died in an implausible shoot-out.
CJ cried about it.
Amy lost her job.
If you want to tape the show and watch it later, that's fine, but PLEASE
skip reading the newsgroup instead of complaining about spoilers.
Adam H. Kerman
>> >"Adam H. Kerman" > This would be a spoiler. You wanna avoid putting them
>in
>> >the Subject? Then
>> >> use spoiler space in the message.
>>>Its not a spoiler the day after the show aired.
>>Give people a week to watch the show. Don't ruin things for them.
>>If you quote, don't run all the lines together. Look how ugly that is!
>You're inventing netiquette now. The day after the show, everything is fair
>game:
>Bartlet had the Qumari defense minister killed.
>Harmon died in an implausible shoot-out.
>CJ cried about it.
>Amy lost her job.
>If you want to tape the show and watch it later, that's fine, but PLEASE
>skip reading the newsgroup instead of complaining about spoilers.
You're an asshole. Don't appoint yourself guardian of who may and may not
read an unmoderated newsgroup. It takes neither brains nor effort to avoid
putting spoilers on the Subject. Just a bit of concern about the needs of
others.
Getteur
>news:<20020523221506...@mb-md.aol.com>...
>> Call me a romantic, but you've never been there, have you?
>>
>> By trade, I'm a writer, I educated and trained myself and have spent the
>last
>> six years trying to be a pretty decent amateur writer. I'm a writer first,
>> much like everyone is their job first before everything else, but that
>doesn't
>> mean I'm a writer twenty-four hours a day. Some of us have to catch
>ourselves
>> once in a while.
Your analogy is full of holes--big ones.
Being a writer is not a life-and-death typr of profession. You don't have to
guard against anything--unless it is writer's block--so letting relaxing from
the work is not that big a deal.
Add to that, in this case, it was abviously a life-threatening situation, not
something one in his position should be letting himself take some relaxing time
off right then.
>Well...I'm NOT a trained cop and I can honestly say that my reaction
>even when he pulled his piece out was "well that was stupid.." for all
>the reasons above.
>
>He knows he's in a mortal situation, it's my understanding these guys
>are trained to the point that these kind of things become virtually on
>the level of instinctive second nature, and he's secret service,
>presumably the best of the best. All the lovey dovey crap is going to
>go out the window. He's going to assess the scenario first. I think
>it was sloppy writing.
>
>Let's ask the cops out there, whaddya think?
Yes, do.
Gary
Getteur
>
>>"Adam H. Kerman" > This would be a spoiler. You wanna avoid putting them in
>>the Subject? Then
>>> use spoiler space in the message.
>
>>Its not a spoiler the day after the show aired.
>
>Give people a week to watch the show. Don't ruin things for them.
A week? I'm sure the intelligent people who watch TWW and subscribe to this NG
are quite capable of doing as I do: Don't read the posts on the current episode
until after you've watched it. Duh!
>If you quote, don't run all the lines together. Look how ugly that is!
Sound to me like you're just scratching for stuff to nitpick J Alex for,
Kerman.
Gary
Adam H. Kerman
>>>"Adam H. Kerman" > This would be a spoiler. You wanna avoid putting them in
>>>the Subject? Then
>>>> use spoiler space in the message.
>>>Its not a spoiler the day after the show aired.
>>Give people a week to watch the show. Don't ruin things for them.
>A week? I'm sure the intelligent people who watch TWW and subscribe to
>this NG are quite capable of doing as I do: Don't read the posts on the
>current episode until after you've watched it. Duh!
The spoiler was in the Subject. That's rather different than referring to the
season finale in the Subject and discussing the plot points in the message.
"J Alex" has taken the position that if someone hasn't watched all the
episodes, then he must not read the read the newsgroup at all because certain
authors cannot bother to consider the needs of others.
I know the distinction of putting a spoiler in the message versus putting the
spoiler on the Subject is subtle. Are you really too dense to appreciate the
distinction?
>>If you quote, don't run all the lines together. Look how ugly that is!
>Sound to me like you're just scratching for stuff to nitpick J Alex for,
>Kerman.
Don't be absurd. If someone quotes, he's obliged to make it legible.
We don't need advice on quoting from someone who refused to use attribution
lines till just a few months ago.
J Alex
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote in message
news:ueu1msm...@corp.supernews.com...
> J Alex <jalexa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >If you want to tape the show and watch it later, that's fine, but PLEASE
> >skip reading the newsgroup instead of complaining about spoilers.
>
> You're an asshole.
J Alex
"Adam H. Kerman" wrote in message >
> "J Alex" has taken the position that if someone hasn't watched all the
> episodes, then he must not read the read the newsgroup at all because
certain
> authors cannot bother to consider the needs of others.
episode that you haven't seen and don't want to know anything in advance,
then it is a good idea to skip reading this NG until after you watch your
tape.
The reason I posted a reply to your original message was that you were
taking the unusual approach that it was wrong to post a message/subject
about a show that already aired. Would you tell the folks in your office not
to discuss it in the break room until it was a week old?
BTR1701
<a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
> J Alex <jalexa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
> >>J Alex <jalexa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >"Adam H. Kerman" > This would be a spoiler. You wanna avoid putting
> >> >them
> >in
> >> >the Subject? Then
> >> >> use spoiler space in the message.
>
> >>>Its not a spoiler the day after the show aired.
>
> >>Give people a week to watch the show. Don't ruin things for them.
>
> >>If you quote, don't run all the lines together. Look how ugly that is!
>
> >You're inventing netiquette now. The day after the show, everything is
> >fair
> >game:
>
> >Bartlet had the Qumari defense minister killed.
> >Harmon died in an implausible shoot-out.
> >CJ cried about it.
> >Amy lost her job.
>
> >If you want to tape the show and watch it later, that's fine, but PLEASE
> >skip reading the newsgroup instead of complaining about spoilers.
>
> You're an asshole. Don't appoint yourself guardian of who may and may not
> read an unmoderated newsgroup.
He didn't say people may not read the newsgroup. He just said that if
they do, they're gonna see spoilers after the show has aired. Big
difference.
Getteur
>lines till just a few months ago.
>
>
Fuck off, asshole. No one is pointing a gun at your head and forcing you to
read my, or J's or anyone else's posts.
Why is it, that of all the people who post on this NG, you're the *only* one
who tries to tell everyone how they should and should not do their posting?
Are you the posting police? You come across as the newsgroup equivalent of the
inquisition.
And to boot, as usual, you don't know half of what you're (trying to) talk
about. So I don't give a flying f*** what you have to say about anything.
Gary
Adam H. Kerman
I stick by my comment. If you put a spoiler in the Subject, it makes seeing
it unavoidable. He's saying it's too damn bad if it spoils the episode.
Adam H. Kerman
You've never given a damn about what anyone else in this newsgroup has to say.
This is not news.
Putting a spoiler in the Subject shortly after an episode has aired is
exceedingly rude. I will continue to point this out if it's done in future
threads. You are hardly the arbiter of Netiquette.
Adam H. Kerman
>"Adam H. Kerman" wrote:
>>"J Alex" has taken the position that if someone hasn't watched all the
>>episodes, then he must not read the read the newsgroup at all because certain
>>authors cannot bother to consider the needs of others.
>You put it a little more bluntly than I did, but, sure, if you have an
>episode that you haven't seen and don't want to know anything in advance,
>then it is a good idea to skip reading this NG until after you watch your
>tape.
No, I am taking the position that it's wrong to put a spoiler on the Subject.
Discuss it all you want in the newsgroup, but don't spoil things for others
by putting a plot point in the Subject.
>The reason I posted a reply to your original message was that you were
>taking the unusual approach that it was wrong to post a message/subject
>about a show that already aired.
I said no such thing. Requesting spoiler space for a week is the usual
practice in other tv groups.
>Would you tell the folks in your office not to discuss it in the break room
>until it was a week old?
Not comparable. I'd ask you not to broadcast it over the loudspeaker.
BTR1701
<a...@chinet.chinet.com> wrote:
Yes, that's what he's saying but he's not determining who may and may
Adam H. Kerman
Sure he is. It makes the group unusable for people who don't wish to be
spoiled. If they expect there to be spoilers in Subjects, they'll leave.
It's easy to ruin things for others. Why do we want that?
Marie-Ann Kyne-Lilley
Kristina Forsyth
"test"?
T
"Marie-Ann Kyne-Lilley" <m.k...@jims.cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:act2b3$bdt$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...