Fox Promises "Viewer Friendly" X Files
Nick Pedicini
I was reading in USA Today (over the shoulder of a coworker) this morning
that either the president or the head of programming for Fox has "promised'
a "viewer friendly" episode of TXF which will follow the Super Bowl. They
"understand" their responsibilities and don't want anything "inappropriate"
since "a lot of people will be watching." (sic to all quotes as it's been a
long day and I ain't spending 50 cents)
Additionally, this same exec has promised that Millennium will move away
from the "serial killer of the week" and into more spiritual,
conspiratorial and something else. He says that Carter was too concerned
with trying "not" to copy TXF.
Well, ladies and germs. May I tell you that I am just all aflutter over
this news that Our Favorite Show is now being composed by Fox Network
Execs! Why, no won-der we're being treated to a steady diet of UST-drained,
Non-Sequitur, Time Distorted crap. Well, I look foreward to TXF II: Married
WIth Aliens. Mulder can sit on the couch and scratch himself and go
"woo-woo" at the scantily clad Uniblondes on the TV while Scully can get
that red hair piled up and complain that Mulder never gives her any--like
she's getting it now. Hey, no more of that literary allusion nonsense.
Shakespeare? Schoepenhauer? Mody Dick? Vamoose. Bring on Mickey Spillane
and Steven King! Yoo-hoo, Agent Mulder, meet you "new" partner Pam "Leggy"
Anderson........
Tell me it's a bad dream......Please!
NJP
sdsuser
With the UN blode as Kelly (nah, that wouldn't work) and Langley as Bud,
DD's dog Blue as Buck. Who plays the Darcys?
Lisa DaFoe
megad...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Time for CC to do some screaming in the execs office. C'mon, buddy! He's
> had to fight for this show before, so why are we getting this "Viewer-
> Friendly" crap? I'm not blaming him completely though...TPTB (stupid) can
> be pretty pushy...however, I think that CC is kinda letting us down. Since
> when does TXF care about what's 'Inappropriate'? I swear, if after the
> Superbowl, I have to watch a sugar-coated episode with M&S making Hard
> Decisions about Drugs, I will cry.
I, for one, am just dying to know what the hell, "user friendly" is
supposed to mean. Do they mean friendly to most of the mindless boobs
who watch football? If that's true, we're in trouble.
And before all you football fans flame me, I'm not implying that
everyone who watches football is a mindless boob, just most of them.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Lisa
The Fanfic is Out There
Alyssa Fernandez
megad...@aol.com wrote:
> I think that CC is kinda letting us down. Since
> when does TXF care about what's 'Inappropriate'? I swear, if after the
> Superbowl, I have to watch a sugar-coated episode with M&S making Hard
> Decisions about Drugs, I will cry.
ANNOUNCER: Tonight, on a very special episode of "The X-Files"...
SCULLY: (glaring at Mulder) What is this I found in your top drawer?
MULDER: Nothing! It's nothing--
SCULLY: Mulder, this is--*pornography*!
[Ominous French horns.]
Mulder, don't you know this is demeaning to women?!
MULDER: But, Scully--it's an alien autopsy video!
SCULLY: A naked female alien! Mulder, have you no shame? Don't you
know that pornography leads to hairy palms, non-consensual sex, and pay
inequity for female co-stars? If it were male-male I could understand,
sure, everyone knows that's okay... But *THIS*? [She collapses,
weeping.] Oh, Mulder, Mulder...You were the only one I trusted...
[Close-up of Mulder's stricken face. More French horns.]
[Cue commercial.]
Alyssa,
Figuring it's either this, or Pendrell's painful battle with
bed-wetting.
Starbuck
Alyssa Fernandez wrote:
>
> ANNOUNCER: Tonight, on a very special episode of "The X-Files"...
>
> SCULLY: (glaring at Mulder) What is this I found in your top drawer?
>
> MULDER: Nothing! It's nothing--
>
> SCULLY: Mulder, this is--*pornography*!
>
> [Ominous French horns.]
>
> Mulder, don't you know this is demeaning to women?!
>
> MULDER: But, Scully--it's an alien autopsy video!
>
> SCULLY: A naked female alien! Mulder, have you no shame? Don't you
> know that pornography leads to hairy palms, non-consensual sex, and pay
> inequity for female co-stars? If it were male-male I could understand,
> sure, everyone knows that's okay... But *THIS*? [She collapses,
> weeping.] Oh, Mulder, Mulder...You were the only one I trusted...
>
> [Close-up of Mulder's stricken face. More French horns.]
>
> [Cue commercial.]
>
> Alyssa,
> Figuring it's either this, or Pendrell's painful battle with
> bed-wetting.
Very Funny!!!! But did you have to tell *everyone* about Pendrell's little
problem? I happen to have sort of a thing for lab nerds....
--
nan
Dr. Lisa's loyal assistant in the Unholy Trinity
Part time deputy/posse leader in the big black HUMMER!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Scully: "You've got that look on your face, Mulder."
Mulder: "What look is that?"
Scully: "The kind when you've forgotten your keys and you're trying to figure
out how to get back in the house."
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Starbuck
Lisa DaFoe wrote:
>
> I, for one, am just dying to know what the hell, "user friendly" is
> supposed to mean. Do they mean friendly to most of the mindless boobs
> who watch football? If that's true, we're in trouble.
>
> And before all you football fans flame me, I'm not implying that
> everyone who watches football is a mindless boob, just most of them.
>
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> Lisa
> The Fanfic is Out There
I don't know if I'm just getting used to it, but XF used to *scare* me, and now it
hasn't for a while. I haven't seen "Terma" yet, but except for "Sanguinarium",
this season has yet to give me nightmares. (something I'm exceptionally good
at) I just hope they don't try to tone it down *too* much, especially since it's not
actually changing time slots, is it? (I can't for the life of me remember what
time the superbowl is over)
And I must be one of those NON-mindless boobs, right? No flames, Lisa, at
least not yet!! <g> (GEAUX TIGERS!)
--
nan
...now the Millennium with the clowns...*that* was scary!!! (but I've been a wuss
about clowns ever since reading It.)
megad...@aol.com
Time for CC to do some screaming in the execs office. C'mon, buddy! He's
had to fight for this show before, so why are we getting this "Viewer-
Friendly" crap? I'm not blaming him completely though...TPTB (stupid) can
when does TXF care about what's 'Inappropriate'? I swear, if after the
Superbowl, I have to watch a sugar-coated episode with M&S making Hard
Decisions about Drugs, I will cry.
I am not who I am!
Meg
X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X
*X-Ville's Resident Juvenile Delinquent and part-time WIB*
"Sometimes the only sane response to an insane world is insanity"
-Fox Mulder "The Walk"
X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X
munc...@netcom.com
>Nick Pedicini wrote:
>>
>> I was reading in USA Today (over the shoulder of a coworker) this morning
>> that either the president or the head of programming for Fox has "promised'
>> a "viewer friendly" episode of TXF which will follow the Super Bowl. They
>> "understand" their responsibilities and don't want anything "inappropriate"
>> since "a lot of people will be watching." (sic to all quotes as it's been a
>> long day and I ain't spending 50 cents)
[snip]
This is scarier than any X-Files aired to date! ACK! CC must be having
cats. What the hell does "viewer friendly" mean. Don't tell me that at
this late date the poobahs at Fox, the same friendly types who were
shutting down websites, are now actually reading this and other net
groups and RESPONDING to some people's concerns about violence?
Now, if by "viewer friendly" they mean staking the writers down on fire
ant beds and making them ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THEY RAISE, then
I'm all for it. Not all the questions, just a couple. Just to reassure
us they know where they're headed with all this. I personally cannot
imagine how newbies are able to follow this show at all, what with all
the self-references and flashbacks. They must REALLY love the show to
stick with it in the middle of so much confusion.
****************************************************************
Sarah Stegall*http://www.munchkyn.com/*munc...@netcom.com
I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandfather,
not screaming in terror like his passengers...
****************************************************************
mot...@aol.com
Of course, "Viewer Friendly" could also mean that the network suits are
putting the pressure on Carter & Co. to come up with a universally
appealing episode.
They're probably looking for something not too disgusting, but very
promotable -- that doesn't require too much previous knowledge of "The
X-Files." You're dealing with a network that's looking at its highest
rated show and saying "Okay, we've got an opportunity to reach a huge
audience tonight. How do we do it?" They've got a built-in audience.
They've got to hold it. The mainstream viewers watching the Bowl
probably won't stick around for a "Millenium-"style episode with dead
strippers and people buried alive. What they'd like and be drawn to is
another "Humbug" or "Copraphages." Okay, what they'd really like is a
Darrin Morgan script, but we're asking a lot.
The point is, they have that audience, and they want to hold the audience.
They want to draw people to X-Files once.. and keep them there.
It's a classic network conspiracy. I know. I've been to "Must-See-TV"
hell and back again. I escaped. Some don't.
P Chu
In article <01bbe2f2$a190b940$39d2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com>,
"Nick Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I was reading in USA Today (over the shoulder of a coworker) this morning
>that either the president or the head of programming for Fox has "promised'
>a "viewer friendly" episode of TXF which will follow the Super Bowl. They
>"understand" their responsibilities and don't want anything "inappropriate"
>since "a lot of people will be watching." (sic to all quotes as it's been a
>long day and I ain't spending 50 cents)
This is bad...This is _very_ bad... Can anyone say "stiffling of artistic
creativity"?
>Additionally, this same exec has promised that Millennium will move away
>from the "serial killer of the week" and into more spiritual,
>conspiratorial and something else. He says that Carter was too concerned
>with trying "not" to copy TXF.
Huh? Millennium is about the evil being unleashed at the end of this century
right? FB did work in the FBI's VCS right? That's why he was recruited in
to the Millennium Group right? Do we really need conspiracies in Millennium
so as "not" to copy TXF <big smirk>.
>Well, ladies and germs. May I tell you that I am just all aflutter over
>this news that Our Favorite Show is now being composed by Fox Network
>Execs! Why, no won-der we're being treated to a steady diet of UST-drained,
>Non-Sequitur, Time Distorted crap. Well, I look foreward to TXF II: Married
>WIth Aliens. Mulder can sit on the couch and scratch himself and go
>"woo-woo" at the scantily clad Uniblondes on the TV while Scully can get
>that red hair piled up and complain that Mulder never gives her any--like
>she's getting it now. <snip>
Why is that show still on the air...forgit I said that 'kay? I really don't
wanna discuss it ;-)
No vision deficiencies? Reach for those shades,
-Peggy, Town Optician
whatever
Lisa DaFoe wrote:
>
> megad...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Time for CC to do some screaming in the execs office. C'mon, buddy! He's
> > had to fight for this show before, so why are we getting this "Viewer-
> > Friendly" crap? I'm not blaming him completely though...TPTB (stupid) can
> > be pretty pushy...however, I think that CC is kinda letting us down. Since
> > when does TXF care about what's 'Inappropriate'? I swear, if after the
> > Superbowl, I have to watch a sugar-coated episode with M&S making Hard
> > Decisions about Drugs, I will cry.
>
> supposed to mean. Do they mean friendly to most of the mindless boobs
> who watch football? If that's true, we're in trouble.
>
> And before all you football fans flame me, I'm not implying that
> everyone who watches football is a mindless boob, just most of them.
* The mindless boobs you're refering to, wouldn't read this
NG anyway. So I hope no one flames you. If nothing else, I know
what you mean by that statement... I used to date him.
deb...or whatever.
X-Ville Humor Police
Bands for Lands
...And don't forget all the press they got over the Quentin Tarintino
directing flap. It's possible a few groups were a little uptight
about that.
If FOX was real smart they would re-run the pilot!
"See the one that started it all!"
It seems logical.
1) It brings in new viewers who have felt allianated from coming into
a show late in it's run.
2) It appeases the old x-philes.
3) It's very tame in the controversial sense.
4) Is not too deep for those intellectually challenged sports fans.
5) Last but not least, it saves FOX money. They'll score a top ten hit
with an old show and generate more bragging revenue from commercials.
Doug B.
megad...@aol.com
>2) It appeases the old x-philes
Not some of them, judging from all the people pissed off at all the
repeats coming up.
Lisa DaFoe
mot...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Of course, "Viewer Friendly" could also mean that the network suits are
> putting the pressure on Carter & Co. to come up with a universally
> appealing episode.
> They're probably looking for something not too disgusting, but very
> promotable --
If that's true, it's pretty funny coming from Fox considering some of
the disgusting programs they've shown. "When Animals Attack" and that
horrible "Caught on Tape" show that showed people dying in horrible
manners.
--
Bernardine
"Nick Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Tell me it's a bad dream......Please!
<SLAPS Nick across the face> Calm down! Calm down!!
<snicker> I had a window of opportunity, what can I say?
-----
>I was reading in USA Today (over the shoulder of a coworker) this morning
>that either the president or the head of programming for Fox has "promised'
>a "viewer friendly" episode of TXF which will follow the Super Bowl. They
>"understand" their responsibilities and don't want anything "inappropriate"
>since "a lot of people will be watching." (sic to all quotes as it's been a
>long day and I ain't spending 50 cents)
Let's think about this. This can mean only ONE thing. This is an
INVITATION to the mainstream audience. A "lot of people" who didn't
watch TFX the week before are going to watch it after Superbowl
"because it's there"? Exsqueeze me. I know you're paraphrasing Nick,
but let's retool the relevant message:
"Fox is promising a viewer-friendly episode well in advance of the
Superbowl in a cloying attempt to beg that massive viewing audience to
stick around for the post-game show.
'It will be viewer-friendly!' says Fox execs, and hint that the
episode will be staged in the North Pole and involve a large cast of
vertically-challenged extras."
>Additionally, this same exec has promised that Millennium will move away
>from the "serial killer of the week" and into more spiritual,
>conspiratorial and something else. He says that Carter was too concerned
>with trying "not" to copy TXF.
Millennium couldn't sustain SKOTW for long, but I don't like the sound
of this either. I'm easily offended by gratuitous violence (a la
Tarrantino) and I've yet to find Millennium objectionable.
>Well, ladies and germs. May I tell you that I am just all aflutter over
>this news that Our Favorite Show is now being composed by Fox Network
>Execs! Why, no won-der we're being treated to a steady diet of UST-drained,
>Non-Sequitur, Time Distorted crap. Well, I look foreward to TXF II: Married
>WIth Aliens. <snip>
I think a candlelight vigil may in order here. :*( Seriously, I
guess we'll have to reserve judgement until will see it, I believe
SuperBowl is January 26. But if it's as ludicrous or insipid or both
as you fear, then I'm having a Mourning Party at my place.
- Bernardine
Nick Pedicini
Look guys, I *know* what the Foxexec meant. They have this golden
opportunity before them. Lots of non-fox viewers. Lot of non-xfiles
viewers. Early hour. No bloody corpses. No oily worms burrowing under the
skin. No ratman and his plastic arm. (Who stole my gooooolden arm......?)
No Mulder possessed by former personalities under hypnosis. No convoluted
mytharc stuff. They want something that will appeal to the great unwashed.
Gets more ratings. Gets more viewers. (Hey guys, you're averaging in the
teens. Let's not get greedy, eh?) What bothered me about the article (which
is more directly and accurately quote in the "X Files Super Bowl" post) is
that we now have foxexecs who are making creative decisions about a show
which we were led to believed was entirely under the control of one man.
Today it's "give a warm and fuzzy" post super bowl ep. Tomorrow it's "lets
get rid of all that confusing mytharc stuff" or "lets give Mulder a
babe-a-licious blonde girlfried" or "lets dump all that depressing
conspiracy stuff."
Hey, Mulder and Scully can......win the lottery! Yeah, there we go. And
then they can do all sorts of white trash stuff that makes absolutely no
sense and was probably adlibbed or written a few hours before it was shot.
Yeah.
Ah, how about the Xmas ep? Skinner falls asleep and the succubi of UFOs
past, present and future visit him. Mulder and Scully are amazed the next
morning when he shows up in his nightshirt outside their apartments wearing
antenna ears and singing christmas carols...
Agent Pendrell get's a shot on "The New Dating Game." The three
bachelorettes are Scully, the Uniblonde and Mulder's Mom. Scully loses out
when she answers Pendrell's last question "How would you show me a good
time?" with "A quiet dinner, a movie, and a good night kiss."
Mom Mulder wins when she promises to "spank her naughty little boy."
can't wait....
NJP
Gary Massengale
Maybe its another story by Darin Morgan, like "Humbug" or "Clyde Bruckman's
final repose". You know, something a little less grim so as not to scare
the kiddies. (Lord knows they're probably still in shock from an episode
of "Millenium".
Gary
Lisa DaFoe <lda...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<32A796...@worldnet.att.net>...
> megad...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Time for CC to do some screaming in the execs office. C'mon, buddy!
He's
> > had to fight for this show before, so why are we getting this "Viewer-
> > Friendly" crap? I'm not blaming him completely though...TPTB (stupid)
can
> > be pretty pushy...however, I think that CC is kinda letting us down.
Since
> > when does TXF care about what's 'Inappropriate'? I swear, if after the
> > Superbowl, I have to watch a sugar-coated episode with M&S making Hard
> > Decisions about Drugs, I will cry.
>
> I, for one, am just dying to know what the hell, "user friendly" is
> supposed to mean. Do they mean friendly to most of the mindless boobs
> who watch football? If that's true, we're in trouble.
>
> And before all you football fans flame me, I'm not implying that
> everyone who watches football is a mindless boob, just most of them.
>
>
Nick Pedicini
Bernardine <pett...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote in article
<589f5b$f...@news.istar.ca>...
> "Nick Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Tell me it's a bad dream......Please!
>
> <SLAPS Nick across the face> Calm down! Calm down!!
> <snicker> I had a window of opportunity, what can I say?
>
Ooooooh Bern, I'll never sit down on that cheek again.........
NJP
Amy Schatz
>Alyssa Fernandez wrote:
>
> megad...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I think that CC is kinda letting us down. Since
> > when does TXF care about what's 'Inappropriate'? I swear, if after the
> > Superbowl, I have to watch a sugar-coated episode with M&S making Hard
> > Decisions about Drugs, I will cry.
>
>
> SCULLY: (glaring at Mulder) What is this I found in your top drawer?
>
> MULDER: Nothing! It's nothing--
>
> SCULLY: Mulder, this is--*pornography*!
>
> [Ominous French horns.]
>
> Mulder, don't you know this is demeaning to women?!
>
> MULDER: But, Scully--it's an alien autopsy video!
>
> SCULLY: A naked female alien! Mulder, have you no shame? Don't you
> know that pornography leads to hairy palms, non-consensual sex, and pay
> inequity for female co-stars? If it were male-male I could understand,
> sure, everyone knows that's okay... But *THIS*? [She collapses,
> weeping.] Oh, Mulder, Mulder...You were the only one I trusted...
>
> [Close-up of Mulder's stricken face. More French horns.]
>
> [Cue commercial.]
ROTFL!! Oh, that was just great! I loved it! :D
> Alyssa,
> Figuring it's either this, or Pendrell's painful battle with
> bed-wetting.
Or Cancer Man's protest against age discrimination? Skinner's troubles with the Hair
Club For Men? Or maybe, it'll tell us that we should always use the Buddy System,
and present M&S as an example. <G>
Amy
ruta...@aol.com
I'm just curious, then, how they would have fit Quentin Tarantino into a
"viewer friendly" equation, seeing as how he was this close to directing
the Post Super Bowl episode until caught by the Directors Guild.
I don't think "viewer friendly" is nearly as evil a term as y'all assume.
And I don't mind a bit, so long as it's not a betrayal of the show's
conventions (i.e. the characters/plot don't do anything they wouldn't
normally do). Hey, guys, it's only one show of the near-hundred they've
done thus far.
al
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alanna Baker, mba...@cs.trinity.edu......x'ed etc.
Home of the Stereo Sound Odyssey and Other Grahamtastic Treats!
"I temper madness to believe in extreme"-JMS/R.E.M.
megad...@aol.com
>I must be one of those NON mindless boobs, right?
Count me in on that...I may be a delinquent, but I'm not a boob!
I am not who I am!
Meg
(Buffalo Bills Freak)
X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X
*X-Ville's Resident Juvenile Delinquent and part-time WIB*
*X* Lover of all things Krycek *X*
"Sometimes the only sane response to an insane world is insanity" (Mulder, 'The Walk')
X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X
Sumo Rabbit
"Nick Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Ah, how about the Xmas ep? Skinner falls asleep and the succubi of UFOs
>past, present and future visit him. Mulder and Scully are amazed the next
>morning when he shows up in his nightshirt outside their apartments wearing
>antenna ears and singing christmas carols...
How about Scully goes on a Hawaiian vacation with Pendrell, and Mulder
is paired up with... BARNEY? Together, they run around New York city,
chasing Cavity Creeps and maybe help a Power Ranger save a poor cat
caught in a tree?
>Agent Pendrell get's a shot on "The New Dating Game." The three
>bachelorettes are Scully, the Uniblonde and Mulder's Mom. Scully loses out
>when she answers Pendrell's last question "How would you show me a good
>time?" with "A quiet dinner, a movie, and a good night kiss."
>Mom Mulder wins when she promises to "spank her naughty little boy."
Niiiiiiice 8)
We Make Holes in Teeth
We Make Holes in Teeth
Andy
***
The above address has been altered because I *hate* SpamBots
harvesting USENET for Unsolicited Commercial Email. Remove
the "NO.JUNK.EMAIL" to contact me.
Rosemary Ighel
"Nick Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I was reading in USA Today (over the shoulder of a coworker) this morning
>that either the president or the head of programming for Fox has "promised'
>a "viewer friendly" episode of TXF which will follow the Super Bowl.
I think it's a fair bet that this will be a non-arc story, no gruesome
monsters, and a story not too obscure for anyone new to X-Files can
understand.
R.
Bernardine
"Nick Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Today it's "give a warm and fuzzy" post super bowl ep. Tomorrow it's "lets
>get rid of all that confusing mytharc stuff" or "lets give Mulder a
>babe-a-licious blonde girlfried" or "lets dump all that depressing
>conspiracy stuff."
Well yes, that is the whole point. If Fox is baiting a hook for the
Big Crowd and they catch them, then they HAVE to keep the new pace.
If they want 'em, and they get 'em, they gotta keep 'em. So this is
not a one time thingy, this is a possibility that the show is taking a
new direction. I understand.
Nick, I'm probably becoming paranoid (and you are a bad influence btw)
but I'm thinking that they viewer discretion warning was different on
Millennium last night. Didn't it say "Parental Discretion" instead of
"Viewer Discretion"?
And this may be my in magination as well but I just saw the tamest,
cheesiest promo on my local station last night for TXF. Looked a bit
more like a pop music video. Not sure if it's a Fox product or
something thrown together locally. Maybe Alan saw it and can lend his
opinion ...
- Bernardine
megad...@aol.com
>Or Cancer Man's protest against age discrimination? <snipped "Viewer
Friendly" ideas>
Or maybe something sweet, like this....
[A DEATHBED SCENE...CSM LYING ON A BED, SCULLY KEEPING A CLOSE VIGIL]
CSM:.I just *cough* want you to know...
S: Yes? What is it? What is it?
CSM: I have watched you from afar...and I just think I should *hack* tell
you...
S: What? Oh, please don't die! You musn't! How shall I get along without
you?
CSM: Let me whisper in your ear...
[S BENDS OVER]
CSM (whispers): I have always loved you...kiss me, kiss me once...before I
die...
S: Oh Reggie! (Begins to cry) I knew it! I knew you loved me! And I love
you too...and we'll be together forever, I promise...you can't leave me
now, you can't!
CSM: I have no choice my dear...my time has come...
S: No! No!
[CSM DIES TO THE SWELLING SOUNDS OF VIOLINS]
S: Nooooooooooooooo! (Sobs uncontrollably)
Or whatever. <GAG>
I am not who I am!
Meg
X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X*X
Alan Hurshman
> "Nick Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Today it's "give a warm and fuzzy" post super bowl ep. Tomorrow it's
"lets
> >get rid of all that confusing mytharc stuff" or "lets give Mulder a
> >babe-a-licious blonde girlfried" or "lets dump all that depressing
> >conspiracy stuff."
>
> Well yes, that is the whole point. If Fox is baiting a hook for the
> Big Crowd and they catch them, then they HAVE to keep the new pace.
> If they want 'em, and they get 'em, they gotta keep 'em. So this is
> not a one time thingy, this is a possibility that the show is taking a
> new direction. I understand.
I think the interpretation you are giving to this is
probably correct. With the X-Files having improved
in the ratings Fox may now be exercising more
control. They see a real chance for profit. The
show is no longer just a cheap slot filler.
But they could have perfectly honourable reasons
for putting together a special episode for that night.
They may just be trying to increase the audience,
which I don't think is an evil act in itself. Since
the episode will air at an earlier time and with a
larger lead in audience than usual they may just
want to make sure they don't offend anyone. As
long as the episode is not totally brain dead I
have no problem with that.
I think we need to be careful not to fall into
the trap of making assumptions about the
motives of others when we have no real
evidence on which to base a final conclusion.
It is always easy to take shots at corporate and
government 'suits'. We can accuse them of
venality, stupidity or laziness without having to
worry that they or anyone else will challenge
us on it. It is, after all, the real fad of the nineties.
Blaming mythically powerful organizations or
groups for our problems (without taking the time
to find out if it is true or not) is to this dxecade
what 'trust no one over 30' was to the sixties.
I think I'll let Fox show it's hand before I loose
any sleep. After all, if the X-Files had been on
NBC it wouldn't have lasted past the second
episode.
>
> Nick, I'm probably becoming paranoid (and you are a bad influence btw)
> but I'm thinking that they viewer discretion warning was different on
> Millennium last night. Didn't it say "Parental Discretion" instead of
> "Viewer Discretion"?
One of the reason I am not paranoid is I
never pick up on this level of detail. Only
in X-Ville. PITY!!
>
> And this may be my in magination as well but I just saw the tamest,
> cheesiest promo on my local station last night for TXF. Looked a bit
> more like a pop music video. Not sure if it's a Fox product or
> something thrown together locally. Maybe Alan saw it and can lend his
> opinion ...
Well, I saw an ad Friday night on MITV that
did seem odd. Not sure I would describe it
as cheesy. Just very, very weak. It felt as
though it had been thrown together by
someone who never watched the show.
--
Alan Hurshman,
The Spa, X-Ville.
(Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Nick Pedicini
Alan Hurshman <alan...@demosys.gcomm.com> wrote in article
<01bbe48d$ad2008a0$461e...@devel1.Psychology.Dal.Ca>...
> Bernardine <pett...@fox.nstn.ca> wrote in article
> <58c840$s...@news.istar.ca>...
> > "Nick Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
>
>> It is always easy to take shots at corporate and
> government 'suits'. We can accuse them of
> venality, stupidity or laziness without having to
> worry that they or anyone else will challenge
> us on it.
Well, I'd be more sympathetic, Alan, if many of the corporate and goverment
'suits' (and I number myself among them) weren't tirelessly demonstrating
that they are, in fact, venal, stupid and lazy. The point made on this post
about the "Death Hour" on Fox is a pretty good example. (Remember Holden's
speech at the start of "Network"? Chayevsky is looking mighty prophetic.
"Wipe that f***in' Disney right off the air.")
Look, some on this group perceive a substantial loss in quality on TXF this
season and are looking for reasons why such a thing could happen. I don't
think we are at the point where we are willing to say "Carter is bored" or
"Morgan and Wong are out of ideas" or "Somebody put stupid pills in the
water cooler." When the news media banners that Fox execs are "ordering"
episodes that have a certain quality (particularly as they were trumpeting
some months ago how Carter was bulldozing *his* shows past the Fox mufti)
then the question logically poses itself: are they more involved in the
direction of the show than in past years and if so, is *that* contributing
to this perceived drop in quality. I like Millennium (particularly after
last night's ep.) If the show is to change direction, I would hope that it
is because that's what the *creator* sees as necessary, not because the
head of programming wants another spooky/usty/conspiracy show to jack the
ratings.
To your point, and as I have said, the show is a commodity now. A money
generator not only for Fox but for the creators as well. I can't blame them
for going after the gusto. In a year or two, when they are all shopping
their resume's/reels out there, a #1 or #2 ratings will mean big bucks.
Nothing wrong with that. (Though I can't be happy about it.). Just as a
curiousity, of the hundred or so shows already in the can, which would you
pick as the most "harmless?" (No fair on Jose Chung, it would be entirely
too confusing to newcomers.)
> > Nick, I'm probably becoming paranoid (and you are a bad influence btw)
>
A paranoid X Phile..........Dept of Redundancy Dept?
Bad influence......moi?
Bernardine
"Alan Hurshman" <alan...@demosys.gcomm.com> wrote:
>I think the interpretation you are giving to this is
>probably correct. With the X-Files having improved
>in the ratings Fox may now be exercising more
>control. They see a real chance for profit. The
>show is no longer just a cheap slot filler.
I don't think there is much question that we are involved in a game of
speculation. The atmosphere of discussion (as Nick also notes in
reply) has been concerned with whether or not the overall quality of
the X-Files is being lost. This may be due to a number of factors,
perhaps Carter's involvement with Millennium, but scarier still, a
glossing over of a show that we have enjoyed for specific reasons
(none of them glossy) for some time.
Clearly we are none of us empowered to effect change, and as I did say
earlier, we should reserve judgement til we see the show. Hell it
could be a frigging orgasm of an episode, who knows? It is worthy of
discussion to the extent that it may or may not be a further indicator
of a change in the focus and targetting of the show.
>I think we need to be careful not to fall into
>the trap of making assumptions about the
>motives of others when we have no real
>evidence on which to base a final conclusion.
>It is always easy to take shots at corporate and
>government 'suits'. We can accuse them of
>venality, stupidity or laziness without having to
>worry that they or anyone else will challenge
>us on it. It is, after all, the real fad of the nineties.
>Blaming mythically powerful organizations or
>groups for our problems (without taking the time
>to find out if it is true or not) is to this dxecade
>what 'trust no one over 30' was to the sixties.
Whoa, I'm having Musings flashbacks. Organizations can't venal, etc.
AND omnioptent. Part of what always separated the X-Files from
whatever flavour of the season NBC was offering (this season included)
was the supposed autonomy of the show producers. As it happens, the
fact that TXF was written and targetted at a niche audience brought it
right to our doorsteps. Now, if Fox wishes to mass-market TXF, we
believe that this may mean a change in the production qualities of the
show. The writing may become more simplistic, the acting sexier, the
FX bigger, and so on. What we're really talking about is the
difference between Millennium and Profiler, and what we're afraid of
is that someone somewhere is telling Carter that the audience (the one
they want) is just not "getting" Millennium, maybe not "getting" TFX
either. That maybe he should dip it in chocolate and put sprinkles on
it, so more people will eat it up.
I know this sounds like we have some proprietary interest in these
shows, of course we do not. As a TV viewer I will simply feel
somewhat deprived if it is proven yet again that programming has to
be dumb to be beautiful.
>I think I'll let Fox show it's hand before I loose
>any sleep. After all, if the X-Files had been on
>NBC it wouldn't have lasted past the second
>episode.
TXF was a surprise hit (shocker to some), I doubt that Fox considered
themselves in serious competition with NBC when they launched it.
- Bernardine
Alan Hurshman
Nick Pedicini <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<01bbe496$398d27c0$35d2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com>...
>
> Well, I'd be more sympathetic, Alan, if many of the corporate and
goverment
> 'suits' (and I number myself among them) weren't tirelessly
demonstrating
> that they are, in fact, venal, stupid and lazy.
Right, MANY. Not ALL. If you want to be
anything more than a bigot you judge people on
what they do not what you think they might do.
If you think that the X-Files is turning into pabulum
and no longer worth watching then turn it off. But
don't try to attach specific blame in a situation
where you cannot know enough to assign blame.
That is the role of politicians, after all.
Think of all the ways in which any single
episode of a television program can go wrong.
For example, I thought the background story to
TERMA was quite good (for TV). The arm removal
was a bit stupid but the rest I could accept. The
problem I had was with the execution, in particular
the coutroom scene (Mulder's grandstand) and the
whole business with the KGB Elder. If you are going
to show a KGB agent (whose hands tremble with
age) kill a woman and then sneak into and kill people
at two other locations you must convince me that he
can do this. In my opinion, they failed. For instance,
he was so frail in real life the woman would have
killed him.
So what happened. Did the writer fail to provide the
conecting narrative that would have convinced me of
the KGB agents abilities. Or were those scenes in
the script but then cut out by the director or left out
because of a lack of time to shoot them. Maybe they
were cut during editing to save time for something else
they wanted to add to the episode. Maybe someone
from Fox is sticking their oar in. At the start of the
series, when the X-Files was just a cheap slot filler,
Fox may not have watched it too closely. Now that
is #1 in the Fox lineup the people in management
maybe trying to enhance their own careers by getting
closer to and involving themselves in the show. Or
maybe the Fox people are getting involved because
CC is less interested. Who knows.
I could waste time speculating on how some of the
scenes in this episode got screwed up. But that is
not the point. The point is, ther are an amazing number
of ways for an episode to go wrong (I haven't even
mentioned pressure from the stars or sponsors). It
seems almost a miracle that anything good ever
shows up on television. It would be an even greater
miracle if we here could really figure why the series
was in decline (if it actually was).
>The point made on this post
> about the "Death Hour" on Fox is a pretty good example. (Remember
Holden's
> speech at the start of "Network"? Chayevsky is looking mighty
prophetic.
In more ways than one. Chayevsky made a very good
living writing for television. I doubt if he ever offered
to take a huge pay cut just to put quality work on the
air. This is one of the problems I have with many of the
insider critics of the Hollywood system. They
want to advocate the production of true works of art
without ever having to risk their own money. Robin
Williams likes crapping on Disney but I bet he would
not want to face the fact that his own inflated salary
contributes to declining fees paid to supporting actors
and a move of the movie production process away
from script and direction to the world of the star vehicle.
> "Wipe that f***in' Disney right off the air.")
>
> Look, some on this group perceive a substantial loss in quality on TXF
this
> season and are looking for reasons why such a thing could happen.
Right, and some on this group disagree (me, for
instance). Short of spending the time and money
to do a scientific study your negative view is just
an opinion. As is my positive outlook. And I'm
certain I can find as many good ways to half-fill
a glass as you can to half-empty them.
(Hmmmm..... Anyone know of an agency
that would like to fund a study into the
change in the quality of the X-Files? Do
we have a research granting agency in
X-Ville?)
> Just as a
> curiousity, of the hundred or so shows already in the can, which would
you
> pick as the most "harmless?" (No fair on Jose Chung, it would be
entirely
> too confusing to newcomers.)
Well (without going to the website and reviewing
the episode list) I think the 'gator ate the yappy
dog show would work. Tension, chat but nothing
that would really offend or confuse.
Nick Pedicini
> Nick Pedicini <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> <01bbe496$398d27c0$35d2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com>...
> >
> > Well, I'd be more sympathetic, Alan, if many of the corporate and
> goverment
> > 'suits' (and I number myself among them) weren't tirelessly
> demonstrating
> > that they are, in fact, venal, stupid and lazy.
>
> Right, MANY. Not ALL.
Got a list? NBC and FOX but not CBS or CBC? C'mon, you're spitting hairs.
If you want to be
> anything more than a bigot you judge people on
> what they do not what you think they might do.
This makes no sense, Alan. I AM judging them on what THEY are doing. THEY
put it up there every week at 9PM Sundays. I AM watching the show and
reacting to THAT. These posts have been speculation as to WHY I'm seeing
what I'm seeing. I am not connected with Fox, 1013 or anyone involved in
the show so I have to glean what information I can from whatever sources
are available to me: newspapers, television shows, this group etc.
> Think of all the ways in which any single
> episode of a television program can go wrong.
(snip)
> So what happened. Did the writer ...
>Maybe someone
> from Fox is sticking their oar in.
>Or
> maybe the Fox people are getting involved because
> CC is less interested. Who knows.
A nice restatement of what Bern and I have been saying. Perhaps we are not
as far apart as it may seem. As I noted in the response. I am not inclined
to blame CC or any of his staff but that may very well be the problem.
Still, when somebody delivers a quality product for three years and then
suddenly it changes, the tendency is to look elsewhere.
> I could waste time speculating on how some of the
> scenes in this episode got screwed up. But that is
> not the point.
I beg to differ. That is exactly the point. If we want crap, we can tune
into many other things. And to your earlier point, if I continue to
perceive a decline in quality on TXF I will eventually give it up. I
suspect some long time viewers on this group already have done so. That
doesn't mean that I should go sit in a corner and keep silent so that those
with less demanding standards can sail on thinking that nothing is amiss. I
didn't set the standards that TXF has, Carter did that. I admire him for
living up to them for this long in a field as prone to venality, stupidity
and laziness as his is.
The point is, ther are an amazing number
> of ways for an episode to go wrong (I haven't even
> mentioned pressure from the stars or sponsors). It
> seems almost a miracle that anything good ever
> shows up on television.
It's not miracle. It's hard work by talented people. Television is not an
art form. At it's best, it is artistic advertising. It's there to sell soap
suds and automibiles. That some things created surmount this and become art
is wonderful but not unusual. Most art served some other purpose. "The
Anatomy Lesson of Doctor Tulp" ring any bells?
> air. This is one of the problems I have with many of the
> insider critics of the Hollywood system. They
> want to advocate the production of true works of art
> without ever having to risk their own money
I don't know of too many writers or stars who have the kind of financial
security to do what you suggest, George C Scott tried it a number of years
ago and bankrupted himself. I agree that artists are notoriously bad
critics. Still, I think the quality of Chayevsky's work allows for a
certain weight to his views. And yes, Network was a send up but that *any*
of it rings so true is still frightening.
> Right, and some on this group disagree (me, for
> instance). Short of spending the time and money
> to do a scientific study your negative view is just
> an opinion. As is my positive outlook. And I'm
> certain I can find as many good ways to half-fill
> a glass as you can to half-empty them.
Ah, well then, we agree to disagree. This is when we have a valid
discussion, Alan. I don't find the relativist dismissal of "it's your
opinion" to be sufficient. And it's used far too often on the Net. It
bespeaks an intellectual laziness. If you don't have the will and the
ability to defend your opinion then don't open your mouth.
I've always seen flaws in the show but never to the point where they
interfered with my ability to watch it without an almost constant breaking
of the suspension of disbelief. Since I've cited many of those things in
past posts, and you've mentioned some yourself, I am not going back over
old ground. You have my half empty glass...where's your half full one?
NJP
madse004
> "Nick Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Tell me it's a bad dream......Please!
>
> <SLAPS Nick across the face> Calm down! Calm down!!
> <snicker> I had a window of opportunity, what can I say?
> -----
> >I was reading in USA Today (over the shoulder of a coworker) this morning
> >that either the president or the head of programming for Fox has "promised'
> >a "viewer friendly" episode of TXF which will follow the Super Bowl. They
> >"understand" their responsibilities and don't want anything "inappropriate"
> >since "a lot of people will be watching." (sic to all quotes as it's been a
> >long day and I ain't spending 50 cents)
I loved the disclaimer, Nick, that you would not spend the money to buy
the Rag of the USA but would not resist reading over a co-worker's
shoulder. What is "inappropriate" for an audience that just spent good
hours of their life watching grown men bash each other around? (Insert by
Doc Aay).
The only possible redeeming feature of such a ploy would be if Darin
Morgan were to write the episode. "Cloy" does not seem to be in his
vocabulary--but then, I could be wrong (it has happened a couple of
times). {A cloy ploy might be an apt description if such a travesty were
to occur} I am wondering "what's the point?". Sure, maybe you sucker a
few non-regulars into watching but that would mean you lose them if you
return to business as usual (whatever that is). Also, what is a
"viewer"? Are *we* just chopped liver? again, we return to the bottom
line as mover and shaker for any effort in life. Help, I am feeling a
little humbugish--that might shake my mood, a review of "Humbug"!
Bernadine, I find myself agreeing with your posts to the final statement.
it is nice to have someone else join the adults here. Also agree about
your analysis of "Millennium" and the gratuitous violence of "Pulp
Fiction", etc. I found nothing funny about blowing somebody's brains out
by accident. Did you find the character of Ardis had possibilities? (I
know, I know, this is not alt. tv. millenium).
Doc Aay (who doesn't know when the Super Hype is and could not care less)
Bernardine
madse004 wrote:
>The only possible redeeming feature of such a ploy would be if Darin
>Morgan were to write the episode. "Cloy" does not seem to be in his
>vocabulary--but then, I could be wrong (it has happened a couple of
>times). {A cloy ploy might be an apt description if such a travesty were
>to occur} I am wondering "what's the point?". Sure, maybe you sucker a
>few non-regulars into watching but that would mean you lose them if you
>return to business as usual (whatever that is). Also, what is a
>"viewer"? Are *we* just chopped liver? again, we return to the bottom
>line as mover and shaker for any effort in life. Help, I am feeling a
>little humbugish--that might shake my mood, a review of "Humbug"!
Ah -- this is the major concern -- that TXF will not return to
business as usual, but rather spin out a few more *viewer-friendly*
episodes. Maybe for FOREVER!! (How's that for over-reacting, Alan?).
Seriously, a Morgan episode (a la Bruckman) would be adored by all. I
wonder if dogs eating human entrails is viewer-friendly?
>Also agree about
>your analysis of "Millennium" and the gratuitous violence of "Pulp
>Fiction", etc. I found nothing funny about blowing somebody's brains out
>by accident. Did you find the character of Ardis had possibilities? (I
>know, I know, this is not alt. tv. millenium).
Yeah but it's rerun week so let's not worry about it <g>. Ardis was
the famale investigator in the previous episode? I had forgotten
about her actually. I thought she worked extremely well, or at least
had the potential to. She was written a little bit me-tooish (What do
you think Frank? Frank, what do YOU think?) but I certainly liked
seeing a strong female addition. I think the Frank character will
always need someone natural to balance out his deeply introspective,
*noir* quality.
And Doc, if you haven't seen Dusk Til Dawn yet (Tarrantino) -- DON'T.
It makes Pulp look like a Disney movie.
- Bernardine
Nick Pedicini
> madse004 wrote:
> >Also agree about
> >your analysis of "Millennium" and the gratuitous violence of "Pulp
> >Fiction", etc. I found nothing funny about blowing somebody's brains
out
> >by accident. Did you find the character of Ardis had possibilities? (I
> >know, I know, this is not alt. tv. millenium).
> you think Frank? Frank, what do YOU think?) but I certainly liked
> seeing a strong female addition. I think the Frank character will
> always need someone natural to balance out his deeply introspective,
> *noir* quality.
>
The "greek chorus" aspect of Frank's Millennial partners has been evident
but not annoying. (Okay, so once or twice it reminded me of Woody Allen
parodying Ingmar Bergman in "Love and Death".....) Ardis, with the comments
on their kids started to break out of that mold a bit. I was pleasantly
surprised when Peter was given a less stylized turn on this last episode.
NJP
Which way to the "village idiots" convention?
Bernardine
"Nick Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>The "greek chorus" aspect of Frank's Millennial partners has been evident
>but not annoying. (Okay, so once or twice it reminded me of Woody Allen
>parodying Ingmar Bergman in "Love and Death".....) Ardis, with the comments
>on their kids started to break out of that mold a bit. I was pleasantly
>surprised when Peter was given a less stylized turn on this last episode.
I at first resisted the subliminal aspect of *the family* in Mil.
because I originally interpretted it as peril-mongering. But I
quickly realized (by the end of the first ep) that family and children
specifically are the motivation. It is what separates "becoming THE
monster" from "becoming A monster." We saw what happens when the
stability is lost with the subsidiary cop character in Dead Letters
<?>. I think I'm tending now to cull out the stable characters (like
Ardis) from the potential trouble-makers based on whether or not
they've found this *rock* to cling to in the midst of all the "evil"
that surrounds them.
I must say I thought that the Millennium group would function a little
more like a team, each member with his/her own special gift (like
Mission Impossible, etc.). We saw shadows of this in Dead Letters,
again, but not _really_. So it seems that the rest have to rely on
their more worldy methods, and call Frank in when they need that
special psi factor. I suppose the absence of teamwork could be blamed
on wanting to avoid a resemblance to Profiler, which from the two
episodes I've seen, do the high-tech war-room stuff quite a bit.
>Which way to the "village idiots" convention?
Yeah so what about this?
I suppose my invitation was lost in the mail :(
- Bernardine
madse004
In article <01bbe496$398d27c0$35d2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com>, "Nick
Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Just as a curiousity, of the hundred or so shows already in the can,
which would you pick as the most "harmless?" (No fair on Jose Chung, it
would be entirely too confusing to newcomers.)
>
> > > Nick, I'm probably becoming paranoid (and you are a bad influence btw)
> >
>
> A paranoid X Phile..........Dept of Redundancy Dept?
>
>
> Bad influence......moi?
Can I put in my vote as to the best episode to show after the SB--okay, I
don't need *that* many people telling me no!--I agree with whomever
(whichever?) person said that the best would be the pilot. It would bring
more people into the File Fold, has two rather innocent and young looking
leads, straightforward story for those who like 'em simple and that little
tease of Scully in her underwear. Maybe not Al Bundy material but not
bad. Any discussion?
Loving all these bad influences (is that the name of a rock group somewhere?).
Doc Aay (I know this has been hashed before but I just bought Music in the
Key of X, would someone provide the lyrics for Red Right Hand once again?
{I want to know if my mother could listen to it, parental advisory and
all.} Thanks!)
Bernardine
madse004 wrote:
>Can I put in my vote as to the best episode to show after the SB--okay, I
>don't need *that* many people telling me no!--I agree with whomever
>(whichever?) person said that the best would be the pilot. It would bring
>more people into the File Fold, has two rather innocent and young looking
>leads, straightforward story for those who like 'em simple and that little
>tease of Scully in her underwear. Maybe not Al Bundy material but not
>bad. Any discussion?
Let's see now, they want to grab new viewers without
offending anyone ...
da-da-da-da-da--da-
... I think it's gotta be The Host guys. It's gooey, but not gorey.
It's Mulder and Scully interaction at it's finest; a true
collaboration of Scully's science and Mulder's imagination. It's got
the right amount of light-hearted spirit, but with the suspense and
recoil that we know and love. And methinks that it might sell
baby flukes for Fox.
IN FACT, they could write Fluke II. D. Morgan to write it this time
and Carter could wear the suit.
Yep, I think I feel strongly about this.
- Bernardine
Murielle L. Sey
On 11 Dec 1996, Bernardine wrote:
> Let's see now, they want to grab new viewers without
> offending anyone ...
>
> da-da-da-da-da--da-
>
> ... I think it's gotta be The Host guys. It's gooey, but not gorey.
> It's Mulder and Scully interaction at it's finest; a true
> collaboration of Scully's science and Mulder's imagination. It's got
> the right amount of light-hearted spirit, but with the suspense and
> recoil that we know and love. And methinks that it might sell
> baby flukes for Fox.
>
> IN FACT, they could write Fluke II. D. Morgan to write it this time
> and Carter could wear the suit.
>
> Yep, I think I feel strongly about this.
>
> - Bernardine
ROLF!!! Oh Yes! I'm for bringing back the flukeman! Baby
Flukes? All right! I'm offering to be their mother... Mama Fluke,
unless Mrs. Peacock has beaten me to it.
And Mulder and Scully could be the god-parents? Whaddya think?
Yeah? Me too!
Hugs
Murielle
madse004
In article <58c6l7$p...@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>,
ar...@uci.NO.JUNK.EMAIL.edu (Sumo Rabbit) wrote:
> "Nick Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Ah, how about the Xmas ep? Skinner falls asleep and the succubi of UFOs
> >past, present and future visit him. Mulder and Scully are amazed the next
> >morning when he shows up in his nightshirt outside their apartments wearing
> >antenna ears and singing christmas carols...
>
> How about Scully goes on a Hawaiian vacation with Pendrell, and Mulder
> is paired up with... BARNEY? Together, they run around New York city,
> chasing Cavity Creeps and maybe help a Power Ranger save a poor cat
> caught in a tree?
>
> >Agent Pendrell get's a shot on "The New Dating Game." The three
> >bachelorettes are Scully, the Uniblonde and Mulder's Mom. Scully loses out
> >when she answers Pendrell's last question "How would you show me a good
> >time?" with "A quiet dinner, a movie, and a good night kiss."
> >Mom Mulder wins when she promises to "spank her naughty little boy."
>
> Niiiiiiice 8)
>
> We Make Holes in Teeth
> We Make Holes in Teeth
***********SMACK!!!!!! Gotchya!! Doc Aay***********************
Alyssa Fernandez
madse004 wrote:
> Can I put in my vote as to the best episode to show after the SB--okay, I
> don't need *that* many people telling me no!--I agree with whomever
> (whichever?) person said that the best would be the pilot. It would bring
> more people into the File Fold, has two rather innocent and young looking
> leads, straightforward story for those who like 'em simple and that little
> tease of Scully in her underwear. Maybe not Al Bundy material but not
> bad. Any discussion?
I loved the pilot, and the reasons you give for showing it are good
ones, but my vote would go to "Ice." Why? Well, ditto on the "innocent
and young looking leads" and the "straightforward story"--plus excellent
Mulderisms and a non-conspiracy exploration of M/S trust. It's a neat
little variation on "The Thing" and I think non-philes would find it
very accessible.
Alyssa,
Who liked the tease of Mulder and the strip search even more than Scully
in her underwear.
Paul Wartenberg
I would think the best post-Super Bowl show would be something
relatively enjoyable and not that "spooky"...maybe "Jose Chung", the
pilot episode, "Deep Throat", or "Little Green Men", shows that would
define the series and not scare the !@#$ out of people at the same time
(like "Host" or "Home"...brrrr...)
--
Paul Wartenberg-------------------- | -----All Done.--------
z004...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us | -----Bye-Bye.---------
vill...@icanect.net--------------- | ----------------------
-----Jeremiah Smith Lives---------- | -----X-FILES----------
-----Freedom is in the mind and the spirit------------------
-----The body still must break the chains.------------------
Alan Hurshman
WARNING! WARNING! WARNING.
Long boring reply to a long boring
series of posts. Radioactive verbage!
Enter at your own risk.
======================================
Nick Pedicini <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<01bbe54c$ceda2a60$2cd2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com>...
> Alan Hurshman <alan...@demosys.gcomm.com> wrote in article
> <01bbe536$0749eaa0$461e...@devel1.Psychology.Dal.Ca>...
> > Nick Pedicini <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
> > <01bbe496$398d27c0$35d2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com>...
> > >
>> If you want to be
> > anything more than a bigot you judge people on
> > what they do not what you think they might do.
>
> This makes no sense, Alan. I AM judging them on what THEY are
doing. THEY
> put it up there every week at 9PM Sundays. I AM watching the
show and
> reacting to THAT. These posts have been speculation as to WHY
I'm seeing
> what I'm seeing. I am not connected with Fox, 1013 or anyone
involved in
> the show so I have to glean what information I can from
whatever sources
> are available to me: newspapers, television shows, this group
etc.
Oh, it makes perfect sense. Well, maybe
not perfect but fairly good sense. First, if
you track the thread of this discussion back
you will find that what I am writing about here
are the assumptions people make about the
actions of corporations and governments.
It has nothing to do with the content of the
current season of X-Files episodes. The
sequence of posts run:
(1) You report a few statements by someone
from Fox and give your interpretation.
(2) I respond that I suspect you may be right
but note that there are perfectly innocent
explanations for these comments (first 2
paragraphs). I follow this with a third paragraph
about my own distaste for the habit many people
have of giving the worst possible interpretation
to any act of government or business. There
is a difference between not trusting the people
at Fox and going out of your way to put the
worst possible light on what may be, in this
case, simple PR fluff.
(3) You respond to me by noting you would be
more sympathetic if these people (who you seem
to say includes you) did not show themselves to
be 'venal, stupid and lazy'.
(4) I respond essentially repeating what I said
in point 2 above. If you judge people purely on
assumptions that have nothing to do with their
current actions (which we all do rather more
than we should) you risk descending into bigotry.
(5) Finally, you respond saying may statements
make no sense.
I think they make sense. In fact, in the time
since your Dec 5 post I have become more
convinced than ever that the comments in the
USA Today article do not portend some great plan
on the part of Fox to gut the X-Files. If Chris
Carter was able to control the content of the
show when it had very poor ratings why would
you think he has less clout now that the show
is a money maker?
Another reason I see nothing to worry about in the
comments of the Fox exec comes from the words you
report in the second paragraph of you initial post.
You write that this person expects Carter to move
Millennium away from the serial murderer of the week
format to one that is more spiritual and has more
conspiracy. This does not sound like some evil Fox
scheme. It sounds exactly like the original plan Carter
had for the show. The coming of the end of the century
was supposedly making some disturbance in the 'Force'
and the Millennium group was formed to fight the
effects of this disturbance.
> >Or
> > maybe the Fox people are getting involved because
> > CC is less interested. Who knows.
>
> A nice restatement of what Bern and I have been saying. Perhaps
we are not
> as far apart as it may seem. As I noted in the response. I am
not inclined
> to blame CC or any of his staff but that may very well be the
problem.
> Still, when somebody delivers a quality product for three years
and then
> suddenly it changes, the tendency is to look elsewhere.
We are very far apart. I see no systematic decline
in the show and if I did I would try and find out what
was going on at 10:13 before checking out the Fox
boys. To date, Carter seems to have been very good
at protecting his show from network interference.
Until I hear him or one of his other producers
complaining about their loss of control I will not
be lighting my torch and joining the villagers in
the town square.
snip......
>
> > air. This is one of the problems I have with many of the
> > insider critics of the Hollywood system. They
> > want to advocate the production of true works of art
> > without ever having to risk their own money
>
> I don't know of too many writers or stars who have the kind of
financial
> security to do what you suggest, George C Scott tried it a
number of years
> ago and bankrupted himself. I agree that artists are
notoriously bad
> critics. Still, I think the quality of Chayevsky's work allows
for a
> certain weight to his views. And yes, Network was a send up but
that *any*
> of it rings so true is still frightening.
You are avoiding the point. Many of the high
profile critics of Hollywood (I mentioned Robin
Williams but add people like Joe Eszterhas to
the list) are, because of the extreme salaries
they demand and get, contributing to the problem.
I would not expect Eszterhas (who in interview
still seems to think he is the hippie writer he
was 20 years ago at Rolling Stone) to demand less.
But I think he should be a bit less self-righteous
in his criticism of a system he has made millions
from. He might also consider donating some of his
time to help others make real movies. A number
of the better paid Hollywood actors actually do
that.
And I have often seen the dismissal of relativism,
whether moral or artistic, as just another game
played by the self-righteous to shove their
opinions down the throats of others. I have watched
the X-Files from the first episode and have seen no
general decline in the quality of the programs
produced. But I know enough about the frailty of
human judgement in such matters not to be too
certain of my own opinion, let alone yours. One
example - the great hug in Terma. I saw a simple
hug. Others saw a tidal wave of UST. Go figure?
You claim in the above section and earlier in this
post that your criticism of the current season
is based on solid evidence that you have written
about in the past. I have read most of your
commentaries and I have yet to find anything in
them that amounts to more than a more literate
and entertaining version of the frequently
observed 'this season sucks' post.
Oh, and you talk of intellectual laziness but
choose to support your position by referencing
your past 'publications' rather than actually
giving evidence? I've read all of the posts
currently available on the server I access
and find nothing there to support your position.
Do I now have to track down an ATX archive in
the faint hope that maybe I missed the post in
which you gave the ultimate proof of your decline
and fall theory? Don't think so.
Where are my half-full glasses, you ask. Well,
following in your example, right over there in
that box of past posts. I don't actually have to
give them to you, do I? Oh, ok.
First, as I have said here and elsewhere, I see
no decline in the show. GA has become a better
actress and the conspiracy arc has become a bit
more complex, but that is all. So we disagree.
Half full glass = show is good.
How do we debate this? Have you observed some
specific feature of the show that is open
rational examination and measurement. I know
of no way to get to the heart of 'crappiness'
of 'UST drainage'. It is difficult enough in
science to bring any debate to a narrow enough
focus that a final resolution becomes possible.
And in science, it takes years to do this. Here,
it will not happen. The issues are too vague.
Our evaluation of the 'facts' too easily
influenced by our own experiences. For me
arguing of this and that on a newsgroup is
never a debate. It is an exchange of views.
The distinction is very real.
Next half-full glass : the Millennium effect.
As soon as Carter's Millennium announcement
was made fans of the X-Files began expressing
concern about a possible decline in the show.
Many of the more committed viewers came to
this season expecting to see episodes that were
less well written or less well produced. They
were primed to see failure and, by golly, some
did. In psychology we call this priming. You
see what you expect to see, feel what you expect
to feel. Even if you, as a viewer, claim not to
have expected a drop in the quality of the show
we psychologists will tut-tut and say it was
a subconscious expectation that influenced your
behaviour. Isn't "science" wonderful.
Let me give you briefly 3 other ways to explain
away the criticism of this season.
(1) The show is now doing well in the ratings and
in no danger of being cancelled. Fans may feel
freer to express criticism now that they no longer
worry that their actions could help get the
show taken off the air.
(2) These posts occur in a newsgroup. People
are more likely to go to the trouble of
logging on and saying something if their opinion
is negative than if it is positive (the letter to
the editor effect). Add to that the magnifying
effect like minds can have on each other and
you get maybe more criticism than the show
deserves. Earlier, I think the show got more
praise around here than it deserved. (BTW, this
newsgroup critic effect is actually being
studied though I have not come across any
published reports as of yet.)
(3) After 3 seasons some of the plot devices are
being repeated. For younger viewers, who have yet
to see the alien-government conspiracy plot
device or the creature who lives off a vital
part of humans plot device 300 times, this may
be significant. For me, the beauty is in the
execution and in the detail. There are no new
stories.
Well, that was fun. So, I have no trouble
explaining away criticism of this season
of the X-Files. Does this mean I think this
is the final word on the matter? Of course
not. While these arguments work for me I'm
not so blind as to think others don't have
equally valid reasons for seeing things
differently. They are not stupid people, they
just disagree with me. Relativism? You betcha!
Now let me see. After rereading this reply
I discover that I am an X-Files fan posting to an
X-Files newsgroup encouraging people to be
wary of but not excessively paranoid about
the actions of big business and government.
Is that tilting at windmills or what?
Nick, you can have the last word on this puppy.
madse004
In article <32AF19...@toolcity.net>, Alyssa Fernandez
<zzz...@toolcity.net> wrote:
Alyssa, I agree this would be a great episode also, it is just that it
reminds me too much of home (my real one, not X-Ville or the Peacock
residence). Give an episode in a tropical region (typed heat initially
but since gizzie is back decided that wasn't so wise), maybe "Arcebio".
For x-virgins "Ice" would be a good choice. Has a "let's both point our
guns at each other at the same time" scene doesn't it? It has been awhile
since I've seen it as I don't have it on tape. That kind of stand-off
seems to be popular right now. Thank you for your recommendation.
Doc Aay
Kate Hagerty
julie wrote:
> The episode after the Super Bowl will NOT be a rerun. Also, it will not be a
> Quentin T.-directed ep, although that is still planned for later in the season
> (May sweeps would be my guess).
Does the Director's Guild know about this? As of last week he was
forbidden from directing any more television until he joined up.
K.
julie
Paul Wartenberg wrote:
>
> I would think the best post-Super Bowl show would be something
> relatively enjoyable and not that "spooky"...maybe "Jose Chung", the
> pilot episode, "Deep Throat", or "Little Green Men", shows that would
> define the series and not scare the !@#$ out of people at the same time
> (like "Host" or "Home"...brrrr...)
Quentin T.-directed ep, although that is still planned for later in the season
(May sweeps would be my guess).
jul
laura capozzola
For the sanity of the people in this newsgroup, my choice would be any
episode where Fox Mulder does not tape an X on his window.
-Laura-
Who is sure that the oiliens are nesting on her pineal gland.
Nick Pedicini
My dear Doctor Hume,
How nice of you to write. And how is London these days? Cold and wet, I'd
venture. Not much different here in Koenigsberg.
Upon reading your missive, I began to compose a reply of suitable length,
charged as I was by you with punctuating our little discussion.
I found, however, in reviewing our correspondance, that amidst all our
disagreements, we are of one mind in one area: that what began as a
curiousity has compounded itself well beyond what was necessary to air the
matter.
It is also apparent that we shall not come to agreement with regards to the
quality of The Work, but, as we have had more than sufficient time and
space to make our separate views clear, I also see no sense in continuing
the discussion. You will forgive me for not picking up the gauntlet with
regards to relativism and quality, but as a survivor of The Great Pringles
Debate of '73 (or was it '75?), I have no stomach for revisiting such
bloody ground.
One point of clarification, if you will permit me. In glancing back over
the 200 odd notes I've made since the onset of the current season, I find
that it is only lately I have come to the conclusion that there is some
diminishment in the overall quality of The Work. I wrote, and still feel,
that "Unruhe" rates with much of the best we've seen. I noted that
"Sanguinarium," while I didn't consider it to be of first rank, was equal
to past episodes. I was among those who defended "The Field" even though I
felt that, while it held a kind of loopy romantic charm, it was not truly
an "x-file." And there was "Musings," which I cited as being quite
astonishing, though I am apparently the only person on earth who believes
it to be a purely fantastical creation. It was only with "Terma," Sarah
Stegall's pentimento billboard notwithstanding, that I felt that some of
the things I have been seeing were, in sum, more than annoying aberrations.
I omitted citing these earlier comments in our last exchange out of a sense
of brevity and not because they were not available to me. Still, nothing of
The Work that I have cited is uniquely my perception. A good many others
have called out these things as well. A quick review of the aformentioned
Stegall's earlier reviews, for example, would point this up. It may
surprise you to find that I think the lengthy "time-line" debate was
useless, and that the dissection of "Musings" historical references to be
beside the point. As these have been cited endlessly as examples of a
perceived carelessness indicative of the decline of The Work, I would hold
that I have tried to avoid the "easy" denunciation in favor of a more
careful consideration.
Be that it all may, I think of the show now as of a high-wire act that has
gone on for four hours. I cannot be disappointed that the aerialist, weary
as he must be, no longer thrills me with feats of dazzling skill. I am more
than amazed and grateful that he is able to merely remain aloft when so
many other newer and fresher acrobats are daily falling to the ground all
around us.
Well, I have gone on longer than I wanted. For that I apologize in advance.
I do understand your views, My Dear Hume, though I as regards sharing
them....well......
I. Kant
(NJP)
Coleen Sullivan-Baier
In <58p2v8$2...@nntp.seflin.lib.fl.us>
z004...@bcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us (Paul Wartenberg) writes:
>
>
> I would think the best post-Super Bowl show would be something
>relatively enjoyable and not that "spooky"...maybe "Jose Chung"
Oh, joy, a house full of drunken earthlings, football... and
Jose Chung.
I know SOMEONE who will work late THAT Sunday........
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXgizzieXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Coleen Sullivan-Baier
In <madse004-121...@pub-12-a-6.dialup.umn.edu> madse004
writes:
>In article <32AF19...@toolcity.net>, Alyssa Fernandez
><zzz...@toolcity.net> wrote:
>> I loved the pilot, and the reasons you give for showing it are good
>> ones, but my vote would go to "Ice."
>Alyssa, I agree this would be a great episode also, it is just that it
>reminds me too much of home
Oh, man, Doc...did THEY put worms in your ears??? <blech>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~&:( XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXgizzieXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Rufie710
In article <01bbe892$aa045320$22d2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com>, "Nick
Pedicini" <jny...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I have said it before and I'll say it again........Nick , you are
brilliant. ( what do you do in "real "life" anyhow? Are you a writer?)
quoting it all because it is worth reading twice.
--
rufie710
"I tried Reality once, I found it too confining"
Leigh A Vrabel
On 12 Dec 1996, Paul Wartenberg wrote:
>
> I would think the best post-Super Bowl show would be something
> relatively enjoyable and not that "spooky"...maybe "Jose Chung", the
(snip snip)
Here's how I envision the general, non-X-phile reaction to Jose
Chung:
Blink. Blink. "Okay, so what was this bleeping ep about?"
"Is Alex Trebek a recurring figure?"
Blink. Blink. Cough. "So this Scully is a man?"
Blink. Blink. "Um, I dont' believe Agent Mulder could eat that
much sweet potato pie."
Blink. Blink. "I just didn't get it."
Perhaps Jose Chung isn't the most viewer-friendly way to snag a
new fan, even though those of us in the know find it hysterical...:)
Leigh Anne
Rufie710
> On 12 Dec 1996, Paul Wartenberg wrote:
>
> >
> > I would think the best post-Super Bowl show would be something
> > relatively enjoyable and not that "spooky"...maybe "Jose Chung", the
> (snip snip)
>
>
"Humbug" was the episode that got me hooked-and I think it appeals to just
the sort of twisted folks one wants to have around town. ruth , twisting
slowly in the wind. (and rain, here in NJ)
julie
Kate Hagerty wrote:
>
> julie wrote:
>
> > The episode after the Super Bowl will NOT be a rerun. Also, it will not be a
> > Quentin T.-directed ep, although that is still planned for later in the season
> > (May sweeps would be my guess).
>
> forbidden from directing any more television until he joined up.
>
> K.
Wednesday wherein we were informed that they still hope/plan to go
forward. All QT has to do is join the union. It doesn't *have* to be a big deal,
but the press (both mainstream and industry) are making it a bigger deal than
it needs to be.
jul
julie
Nick Pedicini wrote:
>
> My dear Doctor Hume,
SNIP
> I. Kant
>
> (NJP)
thanks very much, Nick, for giving me my first Philosophy 101 nightmares in
ten years. Geez. :-)
jul
whatever
We interrupt your regularly scheduled posts to
bring you this commercial announcement from an Observer:
I absolutely refuse to snip anything that others
may have missed. It's below if you care to read it. Actually,
I recommend it. As usual, ATXF's Articulate Testosterone
Brigade has wonderfully pithy comments on diverse subjects.
And what a fine display of Testosterone it is!
I think it's a wonderful thing to watch two of my favorite
posters go head-to-head (Go, Gizzie!) on any subject. Now,
really guys, can you agree to differ? After Nick makes his
reply, Alan DID leave it up to you.
I'm looking forward to the next installment...
Oh, yeah! If you guys are going to kiss and make-up;
Can I watch?
Oh, never mind...
NOW! Back to our regularly scheduled program...
deb...or whatever.
X-Ville's Humour Police.
Town Jester.
X-V's Dear Ma Peacock.
Coleen Sullivan-Baier
In <32B2EC...@polaristel.net> whatever <what...@polaristel.net>
writes:
>Brigade has wonderfully pithy comments on diverse subjects.
>
> And what a fine display of Testosterone it is!
>I think it's a wonderful thing to watch two of my favorite
>posters go head-to-head (Go, Gizzie!) on any subject. Now,
>really guys, can you agree to differ?
This discussion between two of my favorite X-men was
interesting, informative, and INCREDIBLY arousing.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXgizzieXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
(I *AM* cheap)
Nick Pedicini
Alyssa Fernandez <zzz...@toolcity.net> wrote in article
<32B38E...@toolcity.net>...
>
> Alyssa,
> Hoping that Nick's "I. Kant" signature was only a reference to Immanuel,
> and not a punning refusal to continue this thread.
>
The last word is the last word. Until next time.....
As for the rest:
"Ordinary people spend their lives avoiding tense situations. Repo man
spends his life getting *into* tense situations..."
NJP
pwe...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
<01bbe48d$ad2008a0$461e...@devel1.Psychology.Dal.Ca> <01bbe496$398d27c0$35d2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com> <01bbe536$0749eaa0$461e...@devel1.Psychology.Dal.Ca> <01bbe54c$ceda2a60$2cd2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com> <01bbe837$1a9a8480$461e...@devel1.Psychology.
Organization: Edmonton FreeNet, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Distribution:
Alyssa Fernandez (zzz...@toolcity.net) wrote:
: Coleen Sullivan-Baier wrote:
: > > And what a fine display of Testosterone it is!
: >
: > This discussion between two of my favorite X-men was
: > interesting, informative, and INCREDIBLY arousing.
: >
: > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXgizzieXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
: > (I *AM* cheap)
: God, if you're cheap, Gizzie, I'm giving it away. I am starting to have
: these hot, steamy fantasies in which Nick and Alan debate whether the
: universe is expanding or contracting, and whether or not ontogeny really
: does recapitulate phylogeny. I need a cold shower or something.
: Alyssa,
You're kidding right? We all know that the universe is expanding. Read
__A Brief History of Tim__ by Stephen W. Hawking. Yeah, I know I'm a big
geek!
--The Paulverizer
X-Ville's:
Owner/Bartender--Puffy's Saloon
Atheist Minister--Church conveniently located at the bar in Puffy's;
all are welcome
Rent-A-Cop--HOME Asylum
My other .sig is a Rolls Royce
Pam Nilsson
laura capozzola <laur...@erols.com> wrote:
>madse004 wrote:
>>
>> In article <32AF19...@toolcity.net>, Alyssa Fernandez
>> <zzz...@toolcity.net> wrote:
>>
(snip)
>> For x-virgins "Ice" would be a good choice. Has a "let's both point our
>> guns at each other at the same time" scene doesn't it? It has been awhile
>> since I've seen it as I don't have it on tape. That kind of stand-off
>> seems to be popular right now. Thank you for your recommendation.
>> Doc Aay
Whenever I try to hook a friend on the X-files, I always show them Ice
first. It has all the great qualities mentioned plus really great, fast
pacing that hooks people and reels 'em in!
Jan Morier
pwe...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
snip....
>You're kidding right? We all know that the universe is expanding. Read
>__A Brief History of Tim__ by Stephen W. Hawking. Yeah, I
know I'm a big
>geek!
>
> --The Paulverizer
>X-Ville's:
>Owner/Bartender--Puffy's Saloon
etc.
_________________
OhmyGawd,
I haven't laughed so hard since the last time!
Intended or not, Paul - you have made my day!
A Brief History of Tim - Wow, how Python-esque!
Beauty eh?
Love,
RightBrain
The Village Idiot
(still laughing..)
M. R. Power
pwe...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
> __A Brief History of Tim__ by Stephen W. Hawking. Yeah, I know I'm a big
Let's see, would that be Tim Curry, Tim Daly, Tiny Tim, or some other Tim
who shall remain nameless?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
OK, I'm better now. <G>
Blessed Be,
Blackbird
(Who can't believe she was the first to catch this, at least according to
her server...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chatlink.com/~blackbird/
email: blac...@budget.net
"Meanwhile, I've quit the FBI and become a spokesperson for the AbRoller."
D. Scully
"The reward for conformity is that everyone likes you but yourself."
R. M. Brown
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Pedicini
M. R. Power <blac...@budget.net> wrote in article
<blackbird-8509...@budget.net>...
> pwe...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
>
> > __A Brief History of Tim__ by Stephen W. Hawking. Yeah, I know I'm a
big
>
> Let's see, would that be Tim Curry, Tim Daly, Tiny Tim, or some other Tim
> who shall remain nameless?
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> OK, I'm better now. <G>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
I think we need.......a shrubbery!
NJP
Rufie710
In article <01bbed4d$39a80d00$30d2...@netcom.ix.netcom.com>, "Nick Pedicini"
>
> NJP
*with* a picket fence.................. Ruth , questing.
whatever
>
> NJP
* Nee!
deb...or whatever.
(Who wonders if Krychek said,"'Tis but a scratch.")