info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
February sweeps and the continuing ghettoization of scifi
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Hugh Jass
Feb 22, 2013, 10:06:24 PM2/22/13
to
I don't know what's replacing Nielsen ratings as the primary way network
shows' revenue is determined, but clearly something has, as the networks
clearly do not give a shit about viewership during sweeps periods anymore.
Witness tonight's "lineup", if I may use that term loosely. CSI:NY is a
rerun, smack dab in the middle of sweeps. One of the top shows on TV. A
rerun. Even a couple of years ago they wouldn't have dared.
And then there's the continuing absence of Grimm on NBC. It disappeared for
Christmas ... and never came back. Rumor has it it has *not* been canceled,
but week after week goes by and no Grimm. Not even a rerun. If this streak
continues for one more week, there won't have been any throughout the
entire February ratings sweep, which a decade ago would have meant Grimm
didn't have any data with which to demand good advertising rates until the
end of May sweeps, by which time it would have ended for the summer. It
would have been suicide for the show, in other words.
Now that doesn't prove that sweeps-based advertising rates aren't
important; the continuing ghettoization of scifi means it's 100% plausible
that NBC has decided to strangle Grimm in the cradle by purposely
sabotaging its profitability, then using that as an excuse to cancel it.
After all they infamously did exactly that with the original Star Trek way
back in the seventies. But they are being awfully blatant about it if so.
They'd ALREADY shuffled it off to Friday nights, ala Star Trek, and then to
yank it completely off the air through an entire sweeps period ON TOP OF
THAT?
The other possibility is that there is another revenue source that's
beginning to eclipse ones that depend on getting good ratings during sweeps
months. I'm not sure what that might be, though, that wouldn't also be hurt
by the show's lengthy absence. Disappearing the show for months at a time
won't exactly drum up DVD sales, for example, and no new episodes for
months means nothing new to sell to streaming services.
Does anybody know what it might be that is making sweeps less relevant? Are
they simply trying to kill Grimm? Could CBS even be trying to kill CSI:NY?
shows' revenue is determined, but clearly something has, as the networks
clearly do not give a shit about viewership during sweeps periods anymore.
Witness tonight's "lineup", if I may use that term loosely. CSI:NY is a
rerun, smack dab in the middle of sweeps. One of the top shows on TV. A
rerun. Even a couple of years ago they wouldn't have dared.
And then there's the continuing absence of Grimm on NBC. It disappeared for
Christmas ... and never came back. Rumor has it it has *not* been canceled,
but week after week goes by and no Grimm. Not even a rerun. If this streak
continues for one more week, there won't have been any throughout the
entire February ratings sweep, which a decade ago would have meant Grimm
didn't have any data with which to demand good advertising rates until the
end of May sweeps, by which time it would have ended for the summer. It
would have been suicide for the show, in other words.
Now that doesn't prove that sweeps-based advertising rates aren't
important; the continuing ghettoization of scifi means it's 100% plausible
that NBC has decided to strangle Grimm in the cradle by purposely
sabotaging its profitability, then using that as an excuse to cancel it.
After all they infamously did exactly that with the original Star Trek way
back in the seventies. But they are being awfully blatant about it if so.
They'd ALREADY shuffled it off to Friday nights, ala Star Trek, and then to
yank it completely off the air through an entire sweeps period ON TOP OF
THAT?
The other possibility is that there is another revenue source that's
beginning to eclipse ones that depend on getting good ratings during sweeps
months. I'm not sure what that might be, though, that wouldn't also be hurt
by the show's lengthy absence. Disappearing the show for months at a time
won't exactly drum up DVD sales, for example, and no new episodes for
months means nothing new to sell to streaming services.
Does anybody know what it might be that is making sweeps less relevant? Are
they simply trying to kill Grimm? Could CBS even be trying to kill CSI:NY?
RichA
Feb 22, 2013, 10:29:47 PM2/22/13
to
On Feb 22, 10:06 pm, Hugh Jass <h.jass...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> Does anybody know what it might be that is making sweeps less relevant? Are
> they simply trying to kill Grimm? Could CBS even be trying to kill CSI:NY?
17 eps as a season, it's days are numbered.
> Does anybody know what it might be that is making sweeps less relevant? Are
> they simply trying to kill Grimm? Could CBS even be trying to kill CSI:NY?
Barry Margolin
Feb 23, 2013, 12:00:08 AM2/23/13
to
In article <kg9bnk$3p2$1...@news.mixmin.net>,
discussion of this in the thread about Hill Harper moving to "Covert
Affairs", as his contract with CSI:NY is up and he's not renewing it.
>
> And then there's the continuing absence of Grimm on NBC. It disappeared for
> Christmas ... and never came back. Rumor has it it has *not* been canceled,
> but week after week goes by and no Grimm. Not even a rerun. If this streak
Rumor has always been that it would come back in late March. Is your
calendar broken?
Bye Seamus....
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
Hugh Jass <h.ja...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> I don't know what's replacing Nielsen ratings as the primary way network
> shows' revenue is determined, but clearly something has, as the networks
> clearly do not give a shit about viewership during sweeps periods anymore.
>
> Witness tonight's "lineup", if I may use that term loosely. CSI:NY is a
> rerun, smack dab in the middle of sweeps. One of the top shows on TV. A
> rerun. Even a couple of years ago they wouldn't have dared.
It's not a rerun. In fact, it's the season finale. There's been
> I don't know what's replacing Nielsen ratings as the primary way network
> shows' revenue is determined, but clearly something has, as the networks
> clearly do not give a shit about viewership during sweeps periods anymore.
>
> Witness tonight's "lineup", if I may use that term loosely. CSI:NY is a
> rerun, smack dab in the middle of sweeps. One of the top shows on TV. A
> rerun. Even a couple of years ago they wouldn't have dared.
discussion of this in the thread about Hill Harper moving to "Covert
Affairs", as his contract with CSI:NY is up and he's not renewing it.
>
> And then there's the continuing absence of Grimm on NBC. It disappeared for
> Christmas ... and never came back. Rumor has it it has *not* been canceled,
> but week after week goes by and no Grimm. Not even a rerun. If this streak
calendar broken?
Bye Seamus....
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
Hugh Jass
Feb 23, 2013, 12:36:21 AM2/23/13
to
On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:00:08 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <kg9bnk$3p2$1...@news.mixmin.net>,
> Hugh Jass <h.ja...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I don't know what's replacing Nielsen ratings as the primary way network
>> shows' revenue is determined, but clearly something has, as the networks
>> clearly do not give a shit about viewership during sweeps periods anymore.
>>
>> Witness tonight's "lineup", if I may use that term loosely. CSI:NY is a
>> rerun, smack dab in the middle of sweeps. One of the top shows on TV. A
>> rerun. Even a couple of years ago they wouldn't have dared.
>
> It's not a rerun.
Plot synopsis in the guide said "In the Season 9 finale ...", though it's
> In article <kg9bnk$3p2$1...@news.mixmin.net>,
> Hugh Jass <h.ja...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I don't know what's replacing Nielsen ratings as the primary way network
>> shows' revenue is determined, but clearly something has, as the networks
>> clearly do not give a shit about viewership during sweeps periods anymore.
>>
>> Witness tonight's "lineup", if I may use that term loosely. CSI:NY is a
>> rerun, smack dab in the middle of sweeps. One of the top shows on TV. A
>> rerun. Even a couple of years ago they wouldn't have dared.
>
> It's not a rerun.
the middle of February, and went on to sound very familiar.
And I caught the ending. Mac proposed to Christine. Didn't I see them
celebrating their anniversary with a rooftop dinner a couple of episodes or
so ago?
> In fact, it's the season finale.
rookie show that might conceivably have failed to get its back nine.
> There's been discussion of this in the thread about Hill Harper
> moving to "Covert Affairs", as his contract with CSI:NY is up
> and he's not renewing it.
Wouldn't a contract have been "up" at a season boundary, such as the end of
May?
>> And then there's the continuing absence of Grimm on NBC. It disappeared for
>> Christmas ... and never came back. Rumor has it it has *not* been canceled,
>> but week after week goes by and no Grimm. Not even a rerun. If this streak
>
> Rumor has always been that it would come back in late March. Is your
> calendar broken?
>
> Bye Seamus....
>> Does anybody know what it might be that is making sweeps less relevant? Are
>> they simply trying to kill Grimm? Could CBS even be trying to kill CSI:NY?
erilar
Feb 23, 2013, 1:58:14 PM2/23/13
to
In article <barmar-948DB1....@news.eternal-september.org>,
of Juliet's selective amnesia and fixation on Nick's boss, and according
to the ad, it continues, so I don't intend to watch.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> Rumor has always been that it would come back in late March. Is your
> calendar broken?
I saw a Grimm ad. Early March. I quit watching it because I got so sick
> Rumor has always been that it would come back in late March. Is your
> calendar broken?
of Juliet's selective amnesia and fixation on Nick's boss, and according
to the ad, it continues, so I don't intend to watch.
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Jim G.
Feb 25, 2013, 3:43:17 PM2/25/13
to
erilar sent the following on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:58:14 -0600:
Yeah, the Juliet storyline is admittedly beyond the tedious stage, but
there's so much other good stuff with this show that I'm willing to suck
it up on that front. But hopefully they'll wrap up that silliness in the
second half of season two. There have already been indications that
she's snapping out of it, IIRC.
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Good evening. I'm a lizard woman from the dawn of time, and this is my wife." -- Madame Vastra, DOCTOR WHO
there's so much other good stuff with this show that I'm willing to suck
it up on that front. But hopefully they'll wrap up that silliness in the
second half of season two. There have already been indications that
she's snapping out of it, IIRC.
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Good evening. I'm a lizard woman from the dawn of time, and this is my wife." -- Madame Vastra, DOCTOR WHO
shawn
Feb 25, 2013, 4:56:54 PM2/25/13
to
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:43:17 -0600, Jim G.
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>erilar sent the following on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:58:14 -0600:
>> In article <barmar-948DB1....@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > Rumor has always been that it would come back in late March. Is your
>> > calendar broken?
>>
>> I saw a Grimm ad. Early March. I quit watching it because I got so sick
>> of Juliet's selective amnesia and fixation on Nick's boss, and according
>> to the ad, it continues, so I don't intend to watch.
>
>Yeah, the Juliet storyline is admittedly beyond the tedious stage, but
>there's so much other good stuff with this show that I'm willing to suck
>it up on that front. But hopefully they'll wrap up that silliness in the
>second half of season two. There have already been indications that
>she's snapping out of it, IIRC.
Yes, I feel certain they will wrap up that storyline soon.
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>erilar sent the following on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:58:14 -0600:
>> In article <barmar-948DB1....@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > Rumor has always been that it would come back in late March. Is your
>> > calendar broken?
>>
>> I saw a Grimm ad. Early March. I quit watching it because I got so sick
>> of Juliet's selective amnesia and fixation on Nick's boss, and according
>> to the ad, it continues, so I don't intend to watch.
>
>Yeah, the Juliet storyline is admittedly beyond the tedious stage, but
>there's so much other good stuff with this show that I'm willing to suck
>it up on that front. But hopefully they'll wrap up that silliness in the
>second half of season two. There have already been indications that
>she's snapping out of it, IIRC.
Unfortunately we will have to deal with the infatuation that Juliet
and Nick's boss are still feeling for each other. Hopefully that won't
take too long since it seems that the facts behind it are coming out.
Jim G.
Feb 27, 2013, 3:54:48 PM2/27/13
to
shawn sent the following on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:56:54 -0500:
You think that the infatuation will remain after Juliet snaps out of the
spell? For a viewer like me who hates the soapy stuff, that would really
suck. And Nick probably wouldn't like it, either.
spell? For a viewer like me who hates the soapy stuff, that would really
suck. And Nick probably wouldn't like it, either.
shawn
Feb 27, 2013, 6:43:03 PM2/27/13
to
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:54:48 -0600, Jim G.
few more episodes before she snaps out of the spell. After that
happens I expect all we will get is awkward silence if the two meet
but no more than that.
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>shawn sent the following on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:56:54 -0500:
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:43:17 -0600, Jim G.
>> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >erilar sent the following on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:58:14 -0600:
>> >> In article <barmar-948DB1....@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> >> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Rumor has always been that it would come back in late March. Is your
>> >> > calendar broken?
>> >>
>> >> I saw a Grimm ad. Early March. I quit watching it because I got so sick
>> >> of Juliet's selective amnesia and fixation on Nick's boss, and according
>> >> to the ad, it continues, so I don't intend to watch.
>> >
>> >Yeah, the Juliet storyline is admittedly beyond the tedious stage, but
>> >there's so much other good stuff with this show that I'm willing to suck
>> >it up on that front. But hopefully they'll wrap up that silliness in the
>> >second half of season two. There have already been indications that
>> >she's snapping out of it, IIRC.
>>
>> Yes, I feel certain they will wrap up that storyline soon.
>> Unfortunately we will have to deal with the infatuation that Juliet
>> and Nick's boss are still feeling for each other. Hopefully that won't
>> take too long since it seems that the facts behind it are coming out.
>
>You think that the infatuation will remain after Juliet snaps out of the
>spell? For a viewer like me who hates the soapy stuff, that would really
>suck. And Nick probably wouldn't like it, either.
No, I just meant that we will have to deal with that infatuation for a
>shawn sent the following on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:56:54 -0500:
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:43:17 -0600, Jim G.
>> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >erilar sent the following on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:58:14 -0600:
>> >> In article <barmar-948DB1....@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> >> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Rumor has always been that it would come back in late March. Is your
>> >> > calendar broken?
>> >>
>> >> I saw a Grimm ad. Early March. I quit watching it because I got so sick
>> >> of Juliet's selective amnesia and fixation on Nick's boss, and according
>> >> to the ad, it continues, so I don't intend to watch.
>> >
>> >Yeah, the Juliet storyline is admittedly beyond the tedious stage, but
>> >there's so much other good stuff with this show that I'm willing to suck
>> >it up on that front. But hopefully they'll wrap up that silliness in the
>> >second half of season two. There have already been indications that
>> >she's snapping out of it, IIRC.
>>
>> Yes, I feel certain they will wrap up that storyline soon.
>> Unfortunately we will have to deal with the infatuation that Juliet
>> and Nick's boss are still feeling for each other. Hopefully that won't
>> take too long since it seems that the facts behind it are coming out.
>
>You think that the infatuation will remain after Juliet snaps out of the
>spell? For a viewer like me who hates the soapy stuff, that would really
>suck. And Nick probably wouldn't like it, either.
few more episodes before she snaps out of the spell. After that
happens I expect all we will get is awkward silence if the two meet
but no more than that.
Jim G.
Feb 28, 2013, 3:21:52 PM2/28/13
to
shawn sent the following on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:43:03 -0500:
And hopefully the writers won't spend episode after episode with Nick
and Juliet "exploring" their feelings for each other in the aftermath,
or whatnot. Get 'em back together quickly. Break 'em up quickly. I don't
care either way. Just be done with it and move on to the non-soapy
stuff. Ideally, I'd like to see Juliet in on the secret once and for
all, whether she's still with Nick or not. The current three musketeers
need a female touch, after all.
and Juliet "exploring" their feelings for each other in the aftermath,
or whatnot. Get 'em back together quickly. Break 'em up quickly. I don't
care either way. Just be done with it and move on to the non-soapy
stuff. Ideally, I'd like to see Juliet in on the secret once and for
all, whether she's still with Nick or not. The current three musketeers
need a female touch, after all.
shawn
Feb 28, 2013, 5:16:18 PM2/28/13
to
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:21:52 -0600, Jim G.
I'll be shocked if they don't bring Juliet in on the secret by the end
of the season. I suspect they will keep her and Nick together but
either way I expect her to be brought in on the secret before long.
Heck, even this sudden infatuation with Nick's boss should be raising
questions in her mind. I do agree that whatever they are going to do
they need to do quickly. This isn't the sort of show that works as a
soap opera.
of the season. I suspect they will keep her and Nick together but
either way I expect her to be brought in on the secret before long.
Heck, even this sudden infatuation with Nick's boss should be raising
questions in her mind. I do agree that whatever they are going to do
they need to do quickly. This isn't the sort of show that works as a
soap opera.
Jonathan Wilson
Feb 28, 2013, 9:05:12 PM2/28/13
to
> care either way. Just be done with it and move on to the non-soapy
> stuff. Ideally, I'd like to see Juliet in on the secret once and for
I have seen far too many potentially good TV series ruined when the
> stuff. Ideally, I'd like to see Juliet in on the secret once and for
producers started adding too much "soap" and not enough hard drama or
action (Jericho being one example I can think of)
Jim G.
Mar 4, 2013, 3:33:24 PM3/4/13
to
shawn sent the following on Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:16:18 -0500:
I hope that you're right.
> I suspect they will keep her and Nick together
I agree. But then again, this *is* NBC, and if they think that the soapy
stuff will keep the non-skiffy fans coming back...
> but
> either way I expect her to be brought in on the secret before long.
Again, I hope that you're right.
> Heck, even this sudden infatuation with Nick's boss should be raising
> questions in her mind.
Yeah, she's not stupid, and now that she's got *most* of her faculties
back, she should be busy processing things...
> I do agree that whatever they are going to do
> they need to do quickly. This isn't the sort of show that works as a
> soap opera.
Amen. And I can only hope that someone is beating this point into the
NBC suited pinheads on a daily basis.
> I suspect they will keep her and Nick together
stuff will keep the non-skiffy fans coming back...
> but
> either way I expect her to be brought in on the secret before long.
> Heck, even this sudden infatuation with Nick's boss should be raising
> questions in her mind.
back, she should be busy processing things...
> I do agree that whatever they are going to do
> they need to do quickly. This isn't the sort of show that works as a
> soap opera.
NBC suited pinheads on a daily basis.
Jim G.
Mar 4, 2013, 3:33:24 PM3/4/13
to
Jonathan Wilson sent the following on Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:05:12 +0800:
Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
bad.
string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
bad.
shawn
Mar 4, 2013, 6:15:54 PM3/4/13
to
On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:33:24 -0600, Jim G.
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Jonathan Wilson sent the following on Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:05:12 +0800:
>> > care either way. Just be done with it and move on to the non-soapy
>> > stuff. Ideally, I'd like to see Juliet in on the secret once and for
>> I have seen far too many potentially good TV series ruined when the
>> producers started adding too much "soap" and not enough hard drama or
>> action (Jericho being one example I can think of)
>
>Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
>string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
>common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
>bad.
See "Revolution" as an example.
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Jonathan Wilson sent the following on Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:05:12 +0800:
>> > care either way. Just be done with it and move on to the non-soapy
>> > stuff. Ideally, I'd like to see Juliet in on the secret once and for
>> I have seen far too many potentially good TV series ruined when the
>> producers started adding too much "soap" and not enough hard drama or
>> action (Jericho being one example I can think of)
>
>Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
>string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
>common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
>bad.
Jim G.
Mar 6, 2013, 3:50:32 PM3/6/13
to
shawn sent the following on Mon, 04 Mar 2013 18:15:54 -0500:
Do I have to?
Merrick Baldelli
Mar 9, 2013, 11:09:51 AM3/9/13
to
On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:33:24 -0600, Jim G.
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
>string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
>common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
>bad.
Yes indeed.. It's like tissues in a woman's bra. Always a
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
>string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
>common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
>bad.
disappointment for the straight man who thought he was going to be
getting more than a handful...
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ You can't spell 'disgust' without
/ / 'SGU' - Anim8rFSK
anim8rFSK
Mar 9, 2013, 1:07:29 PM3/9/13
to
In article <fommj8ph0cpmecghh...@4ax.com>,
Merrick! Yay! :)
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
--
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 10, 2013, 12:54:44 AM3/10/13
to
Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
>>string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
>>common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
>>bad.
>Yes indeed.. It's like tissues in a woman's bra. Always a
>disappointment for the straight man who thought he was going to be
>getting more than a handful...
Animal House!
>Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
>>string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
>>common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
>>bad.
>Yes indeed.. It's like tissues in a woman's bra. Always a
>disappointment for the straight man who thought he was going to be
>getting more than a handful...
anim8rFSK
Mar 10, 2013, 9:10:59 AM3/10/13
to
shawn
Mar 10, 2013, 10:15:56 AM3/10/13
to
On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 06:10:59 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
wrote:
Then don't look at this:
http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/summer-glau/videos/24670683/title/summer-glau-fhm-photoshoot-video
wrote:
http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/summer-glau/videos/24670683/title/summer-glau-fhm-photoshoot-video
anim8rFSK
Mar 10, 2013, 11:25:34 AM3/10/13
to
Murdoc
Mar 10, 2013, 6:09:31 PM3/10/13
to
Your Name
Mar 10, 2013, 8:31:34 PM3/10/13
to
In article <8mte0ov7caq3.3wja2h0we47e$.d...@40tude.net>, Murdoc
HDTV?! What the fuh? This ain't the freaking noughties. We demand Retina
display quality!!!! ;-)
display quality!!!! ;-)
Jim G.
Mar 11, 2013, 6:01:36 PM3/11/13
to
Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Sat, 09 Mar 2013 11:09:51 -0500:
girl in question *always* did that. But the girls who would even
*consider* doing that were all too stupid to realize that consistency
was important, so they'd go from an A cup to a B or C cup every once in
a while, which was always good for a laugh.
And while I don't know who forgot to lock up the RAThouse last night,
it's nice to know that it wasn't someone *too* crazy who found the front
door open. Or did you break a window in the back?
> On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:33:24 -0600, Jim G.
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
> >string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
> >common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
> >bad.
>
> Yes indeed.. It's like tissues in a woman's bra. Always a
> disappointment for the straight man who thought he was going to be
> getting more than a handful...
As a straight guy, I can assure you that that ploy only worked if the
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
> >string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
> >common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
> >bad.
>
> Yes indeed.. It's like tissues in a woman's bra. Always a
> disappointment for the straight man who thought he was going to be
> getting more than a handful...
girl in question *always* did that. But the girls who would even
*consider* doing that were all too stupid to realize that consistency
was important, so they'd go from an A cup to a B or C cup every once in
a while, which was always good for a laugh.
And while I don't know who forgot to lock up the RAThouse last night,
it's nice to know that it wasn't someone *too* crazy who found the front
door open. Or did you break a window in the back?
Jim G.
Mar 11, 2013, 6:01:36 PM3/11/13
to
shawn sent the following on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:15:56 -0400:
Thank you for that. I owe you a beer, or something. :)
anim8rFSK
Mar 11, 2013, 7:21:47 PM3/11/13
to
In article <nsisj8t0bnd301tqq...@4ax.com>,
Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Sat, 09 Mar 2013 11:09:51 -0500:
> > On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:33:24 -0600, Jim G.
> > <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
> > >string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
> > >common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
> > >bad.
> >
> > Yes indeed.. It's like tissues in a woman's bra. Always a
> > disappointment for the straight man who thought he was going to be
> > getting more than a handful...
>
> As a straight guy, I can assure you that that ploy only worked if the
> girl in question *always* did that. But the girls who would even
> *consider* doing that were all too stupid to realize that consistency
> was important, so they'd go from an A cup to a B or C cup every once in
> a while, which was always good for a laugh.
>
> And while I don't know who forgot to lock up the RAThouse last night,
> it's nice to know that it wasn't someone *too* crazy who found the front
> door open. Or did you break a window in the back?
That's a particularly ugly, if likely unintended, euphemism.
> Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Sat, 09 Mar 2013 11:09:51 -0500:
> > On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:33:24 -0600, Jim G.
> > <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
> > >string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
> > >common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
> > >bad.
> >
> > Yes indeed.. It's like tissues in a woman's bra. Always a
> > disappointment for the straight man who thought he was going to be
> > getting more than a handful...
>
> As a straight guy, I can assure you that that ploy only worked if the
> girl in question *always* did that. But the girls who would even
> *consider* doing that were all too stupid to realize that consistency
> was important, so they'd go from an A cup to a B or C cup every once in
> a while, which was always good for a laugh.
>
> And while I don't know who forgot to lock up the RAThouse last night,
> it's nice to know that it wasn't someone *too* crazy who found the front
> door open. Or did you break a window in the back?
Jim G.
Mar 12, 2013, 3:21:10 PM3/12/13
to
anim8rFSK sent the following on Mon, 11 Mar 2013 16:21:47 -0700:
Yeah, it was unintended. Get your mind out of the gutter, mister! :)
dx...@albury.nospam.net.au
Mar 13, 2013, 6:37:45 AM3/13/13
to
Jim G. wrote:
> shawn sent the following on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:15:56 -0400:
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 06:10:59 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <khh774$ofj$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
>>>>>> string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
>>>>>> common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
>>>>>> bad.
>>>>
>>>>> Yes indeed.. It's like tissues in a woman's bra. Always a
>>>>> disappointment for the straight man who thought he was going to be
>>>>> getting more than a handful...
>>>>
>>>> Animal House!
>>>
>>> I'm only 13 ...
>>
>> Then don't look at this:
>> http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/summer-glau/videos/24670683/title/summer-glau-fhm-photoshoot-video
>
> Thank you for that. I owe you a beer, or something. :)
Did you notice, over in the "Summer Glau Pop Quiz" section:-
> shawn sent the following on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:15:56 -0400:
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 06:10:59 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <khh774$ofj$1...@news.albasani.net>,
>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
>>>>>> string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
>>>>>> common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
>>>>>> bad.
>>>>
>>>>> Yes indeed.. It's like tissues in a woman's bra. Always a
>>>>> disappointment for the straight man who thought he was going to be
>>>>> getting more than a handful...
>>>>
>>>> Animal House!
>>>
>>> I'm only 13 ...
>>
>> Then don't look at this:
>> http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/summer-glau/videos/24670683/title/summer-glau-fhm-photoshoot-video
>
> Thank you for that. I owe you a beer, or something. :)
Summer Glau
What was here first role on TV?
I've got no idea what "here" first appeared on T.V. in ..... nor do I
know what *her* first role was!!
Daniel
anim8rFSK
Mar 13, 2013, 11:41:47 AM3/13/13
to
In article <_FY%s.235614$411....@newsfe02.iad>,
That's not a real toughy; she had a bit on ANGEL and moved on to FIREFLY.
Your Name
Mar 13, 2013, 4:15:14 PM3/13/13
to
In article <anim8rfsk-BF657...@news.easynews.com>, anim8rFSK
> That's not a real toughy; she had a bit on ANGEL and moved on to FIREFLY.
Her first appearance (rather than role) on TV was probably some advert. :-)
Merrick Baldelli
Mar 14, 2013, 4:03:20 PM3/14/13
to
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:01:36 -0500, Jim G.
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>And while I don't know who forgot to lock up the RAThouse last night,
>it's nice to know that it wasn't someone *too* crazy who found the front
>door open. Or did you break a window in the back?
No one changed the locks and my key still works.
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>And while I don't know who forgot to lock up the RAThouse last night,
>it's nice to know that it wasn't someone *too* crazy who found the front
>door open. Or did you break a window in the back?
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
/ / stopped taking their medication?
- Captain Infinity
Merrick Baldelli
Mar 14, 2013, 4:03:20 PM3/14/13
to
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:21:10 -0500, Jim G.
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> That's a particularly ugly, if likely unintended, euphemism.
>
>Yeah, it was unintended. Get your mind out of the gutter, mister! :)
After the Summer Glau pollution of the thread, I'm afraid that
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> That's a particularly ugly, if likely unintended, euphemism.
>
>Yeah, it was unintended. Get your mind out of the gutter, mister! :)
it's going to take a lot more than a simple reminder of where he last
left his mind to get him to stop.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Murdoc
Mar 14, 2013, 10:55:14 PM3/14/13
to
On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:03:20 -0400, Merrick Baldelli wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:21:10 -0500, Jim G.
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> That's a particularly ugly, if likely unintended, euphemism.
>>
>>Yeah, it was unintended. Get your mind out of the gutter, mister! :)
>
> After the Summer Glau pollution of the thread,
Summer Glau? Pollution? Are you off your gourd? :)
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:21:10 -0500, Jim G.
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> That's a particularly ugly, if likely unintended, euphemism.
>>
>>Yeah, it was unintended. Get your mind out of the gutter, mister! :)
>
> After the Summer Glau pollution of the thread,
Jim G.
Mar 15, 2013, 6:07:09 PM3/15/13
to
Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:03:20 -0400:
alone the same thread.
> I'm afraid that
> it's going to take a lot more than a simple reminder of where he last
> left his mind to get him to stop.
No worries. I'm often finding myself checking curbs for my own mind, so
I'll just keep an eye out for his while I'm at it.
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:21:10 -0500, Jim G.
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> That's a particularly ugly, if likely unintended, euphemism.
> >
> >Yeah, it was unintended. Get your mind out of the gutter, mister! :)
>
> After the Summer Glau pollution of the thread,
"Summer Glau" and "pollution" don't belong in the same language, let
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> That's a particularly ugly, if likely unintended, euphemism.
> >
> >Yeah, it was unintended. Get your mind out of the gutter, mister! :)
>
> After the Summer Glau pollution of the thread,
alone the same thread.
> I'm afraid that
> it's going to take a lot more than a simple reminder of where he last
> left his mind to get him to stop.
I'll just keep an eye out for his while I'm at it.
Jim G.
Mar 15, 2013, 6:07:09 PM3/15/13
to
Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:03:20 -0400:
> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:01:36 -0500, Jim G.
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >And while I don't know who forgot to lock up the RAThouse last night,
> >it's nice to know that it wasn't someone *too* crazy who found the front
> >door open. Or did you break a window in the back?
>
> No one changed the locks and my key still works.
Adam was supposed to call the locksmith, IIRC. He can be so
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >And while I don't know who forgot to lock up the RAThouse last night,
> >it's nice to know that it wasn't someone *too* crazy who found the front
> >door open. Or did you break a window in the back?
>
> No one changed the locks and my key still works.
irresponsible sometimes.
Merrick Baldelli
Mar 16, 2013, 12:42:07 PM3/16/13
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:07:09 -0500, Jim G.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:03:20 -0400:
>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:01:36 -0500, Jim G.
>> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >And while I don't know who forgot to lock up the RAThouse last night,
>> >it's nice to know that it wasn't someone *too* crazy who found the front
>> >door open. Or did you break a window in the back?
>>
>> No one changed the locks and my key still works.
>
>Adam was supposed to call the locksmith, IIRC. He can be so
>irresponsible sometimes.
Given that boy's history, *this* is not surprising actually.
>Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:03:20 -0400:
>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:01:36 -0500, Jim G.
>> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >And while I don't know who forgot to lock up the RAThouse last night,
>> >it's nice to know that it wasn't someone *too* crazy who found the front
>> >door open. Or did you break a window in the back?
>>
>> No one changed the locks and my key still works.
>
>Adam was supposed to call the locksmith, IIRC. He can be so
>irresponsible sometimes.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Merrick Baldelli
Mar 16, 2013, 12:42:07 PM3/16/13
to
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Merrick Baldelli
Mar 16, 2013, 12:42:07 PM3/16/13
to
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:07:09 -0500, Jim G.
"skillet-face".
>"Summer Glau" and "pollution" don't belong in the same language, let
>alone the same thread.
>
>> I'm afraid that
>> it's going to take a lot more than a simple reminder of where he last
>> left his mind to get him to stop.
>
>No worries. I'm often finding myself checking curbs for my own mind, so
>I'll just keep an eye out for his while I'm at it.
Pfft. Use bait. It's easier that way.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:03:20 -0400:
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:21:10 -0500, Jim G.
>> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> That's a particularly ugly, if likely unintended, euphemism.
>> >
>> >Yeah, it was unintended. Get your mind out of the gutter, mister! :)
>>
>> After the Summer Glau pollution of the thread,
They do in my dictionary... they're right next to the slang
>Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:03:20 -0400:
>> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:21:10 -0500, Jim G.
>> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >> That's a particularly ugly, if likely unintended, euphemism.
>> >
>> >Yeah, it was unintended. Get your mind out of the gutter, mister! :)
>>
>> After the Summer Glau pollution of the thread,
"skillet-face".
>"Summer Glau" and "pollution" don't belong in the same language, let
>alone the same thread.
>
>> I'm afraid that
>> it's going to take a lot more than a simple reminder of where he last
>> left his mind to get him to stop.
>
>No worries. I'm often finding myself checking curbs for my own mind, so
>I'll just keep an eye out for his while I'm at it.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Adam H. Kerman
Mar 17, 2013, 12:53:30 PM3/17/13
to
Merrick Baldelli <mbal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:03:20 -0400:
>Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:03:20 -0400:
>>>Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>And while I don't know who forgot to lock up the RAThouse last night,
>>>>it's nice to know that it wasn't someone *too* crazy who found the front
>>>>door open. Or did you break a window in the back?
>>>No one changed the locks and my key still works.
>>Adam was supposed to call the locksmith, IIRC. He can be so
>>irresponsible sometimes.
>Given that boy's history, *this* is not surprising actually.
I do apologize.
>>>>And while I don't know who forgot to lock up the RAThouse last night,
>>>>it's nice to know that it wasn't someone *too* crazy who found the front
>>>>door open. Or did you break a window in the back?
>>>No one changed the locks and my key still works.
>>Adam was supposed to call the locksmith, IIRC. He can be so
>>irresponsible sometimes.
>Given that boy's history, *this* is not surprising actually.
Jim G.
Mar 18, 2013, 4:02:04 PM3/18/13
to
Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:42:07 -0400:
even when she was comparable to a skillet, she was one of the cutest
skillets out there. [And I moved your reply to where it presumably
belonged.]
> >> I'm afraid that
> >> it's going to take a lot more than a simple reminder of where he last
> >> left his mind to get him to stop.
> >
> >No worries. I'm often finding myself checking curbs for my own mind, so
> >I'll just keep an eye out for his while I'm at it.
>
> Pfft. Use bait. It's easier that way.
I'm not a master baiter. Wait, let me rephrase that.
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:07:09 -0500, Jim G.
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:03:20 -0400:
> >> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:21:10 -0500, Jim G.
> >> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> That's a particularly ugly, if likely unintended, euphemism.
> >> >
> >> >Yeah, it was unintended. Get your mind out of the gutter, mister! :)
> >>
> >> After the Summer Glau pollution of the thread,
> >
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:03:20 -0400:
> >> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:21:10 -0500, Jim G.
> >> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> That's a particularly ugly, if likely unintended, euphemism.
> >> >
> >> >Yeah, it was unintended. Get your mind out of the gutter, mister! :)
> >>
> >> After the Summer Glau pollution of the thread,
> >
> >"Summer Glau" and "pollution" don't belong in the same language, let
> >alone the same thread.
>
> They do in my dictionary... they're right next to the slang
> "skillet-face".
True to an extent when she was much younger. Not now, IMHO. In any case,
> >alone the same thread.
>
> They do in my dictionary... they're right next to the slang
> "skillet-face".
even when she was comparable to a skillet, she was one of the cutest
skillets out there. [And I moved your reply to where it presumably
belonged.]
> >> I'm afraid that
> >> it's going to take a lot more than a simple reminder of where he last
> >> left his mind to get him to stop.
> >
> >No worries. I'm often finding myself checking curbs for my own mind, so
> >I'll just keep an eye out for his while I'm at it.
>
> Pfft. Use bait. It's easier that way.
Jim G.
Mar 18, 2013, 4:02:04 PM3/18/13
to
Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:42:07 -0400:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:07:09 -0500, Jim G.
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:03:20 -0400:
> >> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:01:36 -0500, Jim G.
> >> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >And while I don't know who forgot to lock up the RAThouse last night,
> >> >it's nice to know that it wasn't someone *too* crazy who found the front
> >> >door open. Or did you break a window in the back?
> >>
> >> No one changed the locks and my key still works.
> >
> >Adam was supposed to call the locksmith, IIRC. He can be so
> >irresponsible sometimes.
>
> Given that boy's history, *this* is not surprising actually.
He was probably out drinking half the night with a bunch of Seamus
> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:03:20 -0400:
> >> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:01:36 -0500, Jim G.
> >> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >And while I don't know who forgot to lock up the RAThouse last night,
> >> >it's nice to know that it wasn't someone *too* crazy who found the front
> >> >door open. Or did you break a window in the back?
> >>
> >> No one changed the locks and my key still works.
> >
> >Adam was supposed to call the locksmith, IIRC. He can be so
> >irresponsible sometimes.
>
> Given that boy's history, *this* is not surprising actually.
socks. It happens.
Jim G.
Mar 18, 2013, 4:02:04 PM3/18/13
to
Adam H. Kerman sent the following on Sun, 17 Mar 2013 16:53:30 +0000
(UTC):
Heh. For the locksmith part, right?
(UTC):
Merrick Baldelli
Mar 20, 2013, 12:31:55 PM3/20/13
to
On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 15:02:04 -0500, Jim G.
<jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:42:07 -0400:
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:07:09 -0500, Jim G.
>> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:03:20 -0400:
>> >> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:01:36 -0500, Jim G.
>> >> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >And while I don't know who forgot to lock up the RAThouse last night,
>> >> >it's nice to know that it wasn't someone *too* crazy who found the front
>> >> >door open. Or did you break a window in the back?
>> >>
>> >> No one changed the locks and my key still works.
>> >
>> >Adam was supposed to call the locksmith, IIRC. He can be so
>> >irresponsible sometimes.
>>
>> Given that boy's history, *this* is not surprising actually.
>
>He was probably out drinking half the night with a bunch of Seamus
>socks. It happens.
And there lies the problem, eh?
>Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Sat, 16 Mar 2013 12:42:07 -0400:
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 17:07:09 -0500, Jim G.
>> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >Merrick Baldelli sent the following on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 16:03:20 -0400:
>> >> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:01:36 -0500, Jim G.
>> >> <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >And while I don't know who forgot to lock up the RAThouse last night,
>> >> >it's nice to know that it wasn't someone *too* crazy who found the front
>> >> >door open. Or did you break a window in the back?
>> >>
>> >> No one changed the locks and my key still works.
>> >
>> >Adam was supposed to call the locksmith, IIRC. He can be so
>> >irresponsible sometimes.
>>
>> Given that boy's history, *this* is not surprising actually.
>
>He was probably out drinking half the night with a bunch of Seamus
>socks. It happens.
0 new messages