Recently deceased celebrities
Keith F. Lynch
and Michael Jackson. Two things surprised me about the resulting
news coverage:
Nothing negative was said about Ed McMahon. I knew of him mostly as
someone whose name was on innumerable annoying "You have already won!"
sweepstakes scams. I was pleased, a few years ago, to hear that he
was being sued for fraud. I thought that was what he was best known
for. But apparently it's not even worthy of notice. And not because
one doesn't speak ill of the dead -- much of the Michael Jackson
coverage mentioned the serious but unsubstantiated allegations
against him.
The other thing that surprised me was that Michael Jackson got more
coverage than Farrah Fawcett. A '70s singer who had only been in the
news since then because of those unsubstantiated allegations, and
because of his changing color, is more famous than a glamorous movie
and TV star?
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
>Three celebrities died this week: Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett,
>and Michael Jackson. Two things surprised me about the resulting
>news coverage:
>
>Nothing negative was said about Ed McMahon. I knew of him mostly as
>someone whose name was on innumerable annoying "You have already won!"
>sweepstakes scams. I was pleased, a few years ago, to hear that he
>was being sued for fraud. I thought that was what he was best known
>for. But apparently it's not even worthy of notice. And not because
>one doesn't speak ill of the dead -- much of the Michael Jackson
>coverage mentioned the serious but unsubstantiated allegations
>against him.
Ed McMahon was able to be an advertising celebrity because people liked
his persona from The Tonight Show, Star Search, etc. That's what they
still remember.
>
>The other thing that surprised me was that Michael Jackson got more
>coverage than Farrah Fawcett. A '70s singer who had only been in the
>news since then because of those unsubstantiated allegations, and
>because of his changing color, is more famous than a glamorous movie
>and TV star?
Maybe you don't pay for cable TV, so you never saw MTV, and as a result
are unaware of Michael Jackson's post-1970s career. _Thriller_ (1982)
is the world's best-selling record of all time (says Wikipedia), and he
had four other solo studio albums among the world's best-selling records,
the last in 1995. (His 2001 album sold a mere 10 million copies.) His videos
were influential and ground-breaking.
Farrah Fawcett ahs done a bunch of good work in TV movies/miniseries, guest
starring on TV series, etc, but I think she's probably best known for her
swimsuit poster and for Charlie's Angels.
-- Alan
Keith F. Lynch
> Ed McMahon was able to be an advertising celebrity because people
> liked his persona from The Tonight Show, Star Search, etc. That's
> what they still remember.
Ah. I never watched those shows, so I only knew him as a dishonest
sweepstakes huckster who did his best to trick people into thinking
they had won a sweepstakes when they hadn't. I don't think I had
ever heard of him in any other context.
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>Three celebrities died this week: Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett,
>and Michael Jackson. Two things surprised me about the resulting
>news coverage:
>
>Nothing negative was said about Ed McMahon. I knew of him mostly as
>someone whose name was on innumerable annoying "You have already won!"
>sweepstakes scams. I was pleased, a few years ago, to hear that he
>was being sued for fraud. I thought that was what he was best known
>for. But apparently it's not even worthy of notice. And not because
>one doesn't speak ill of the dead -- much of the Michael Jackson
>coverage mentioned the serious but unsubstantiated allegations
>against him.
>
>The other thing that surprised me was that Michael Jackson got more
>coverage than Farrah Fawcett. A '70s singer who had only been in the
>news since then because of those unsubstantiated allegations, and
>because of his changing color, is more famous than a glamorous movie
>and TV star?
More proof that Keith is not living in the real world.
Farrah never starred in any really successful movies (although she had
supporting parts in several that were) - so, not really a movie star.
Farrah was the star of one TV show, Charlie's Angels a show she appeared
on for one year - so, not really a TV star either. Farrah was famous
mainly on the strength of her beauty, her one year on Charlie's Angels,
her famous poster and the fact that she was romantically linked to two
famous actors - Lee Majors and Ryan O'Neal.
Meanwhile, Michael Jackson, far from being merely a 70s singer, had 11
solo Billboard #1 Hits after 1979 (and two others in the 70s), 5
multiplatinum albums released after 1980 - including the top selling
album in the world, Thriller, 13 Grammy Awards and was a two time
inductee into the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame (solo and with his brothers
as the Jackson 5). Michael Jackson has long been styled the "King Of
Pop."
--
"Well, Thurgood Marshall retired, so that wasn't an earthquake we felt
last Friday. It was the whole country moving a few inches to the
right."
- Jay Leno
Philip Chee
> The other thing that surprised me was that Michael Jackson got more
> coverage than Farrah Fawcett. A '70s singer who had only been in the
> news since then because of those unsubstantiated allegations, and
> because of his changing color, is more famous than a glamorous movie
> and TV star?
He had genuine and undeniable talent while FF was famous for being well
famous (and married/divorced from Lee Majors).
Also he was a ground breaking pioneer . Remember that prior to his
Thriller album, MTV would only play videos from white (or at least
non-black) artistes.
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
Karl Johanson
news:2u0roj....@news.alt.net...
> On 26 Jun 2009 20:57:10 -0400, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>
>> The other thing that surprised me was that Michael Jackson got more
>> coverage than Farrah Fawcett. A '70s singer who had only been in the
>> news since then because of those unsubstantiated allegations, and
>> because of his changing color, is more famous than a glamorous movie
>> and TV star?
>
> He had genuine and undeniable talent while FF was famous for being well
> famous (and married/divorced from Lee Majors).
>
> Also he was a ground breaking pioneer . Remember that prior to his
> Thriller album, MTV would only play videos from white (or at least
> non-black) artistes.
"White only" and "non-black" are pretty different. And are you even sure of
the latter?
Karl Johanson
Edward McArdle
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Three celebrities died this week: Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett,
>and Michael Jackson. Two things surprised me about the resulting
>news coverage:
>
>Nothing negative was said about Ed McMahon. I knew of him mostly as
>someone whose name was on innumerable annoying "You have already won!"
>sweepstakes scams. I was pleased, a few years ago, to hear that he
>was being sued for fraud. I thought that was what he was best known
>for. But apparently it's not even worthy of notice. And not because
>one doesn't speak ill of the dead -- much of the Michael Jackson
>coverage mentioned the serious but unsubstantiated allegations
>against him.
>
>The other thing that surprised me was that Michael Jackson got more
>coverage than Farrah Fawcett. A '70s singer who had only been in the
>news since then because of those unsubstantiated allegations, and
>because of his changing color, is more famous than a glamorous movie
>and TV star?
And nobody on this thread has yet remarked (if I understand correctly)
that Jackson has just sold about $10 million dollars worth of tickets for
his English tour, which will probably have to be returned and money
refunded.
A friend has remarked that they might be valuable collectables. But
100,000 of them?
--
Edward McArdle
Colette Reap
>And nobody on this thread has yet remarked (if I understand correctly)
>that Jackson has just sold about $10 million dollars worth of tickets for
>his English tour, which will probably have to be returned and money
>refunded.
>
>A friend has remarked that they might be valuable collectables. But
>100,000 of them?
It was actually a lot more tickets than that - according to reports it
was between 750-800,000, total value of well over USD100m. The O2
Areana, where he was going to play 50 shows, can hold an awful lot of
people. and all the shows were sellouts.
Andy Leighton
If the O2 Arena gigs were sellouts then that is 1m tickets alone (the
capacity is 20,000).
--
Andy Leighton => an...@azaal.plus.com
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
Colette Reap
>On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:43:47 +0100, Colette Reap <col...@lspace.org> wrote:
>> mca...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>And nobody on this thread has yet remarked (if I understand correctly)
>>>that Jackson has just sold about $10 million dollars worth of tickets for
>>>his English tour, which will probably have to be returned and money
>>>refunded.
>>>
>>>A friend has remarked that they might be valuable collectables. But
>>>100,000 of them?
>>
>> It was actually a lot more tickets than that - according to reports it
>> was between 750-800,000, total value of well over USD100m. The O2
>> Areana, where he was going to play 50 shows, can hold an awful lot of
>> people. and all the shows were sellouts.
>
>If the O2 Arena gigs were sellouts then that is 1m tickets alone (the
>capacity is 20,000).
Sorry, bad wording on my part. I don't think they'd finished selling
all the tickets, but each tranche they released sold out - the latest
tranche they released was last Monday. The figures I was quoting were
from the BBC:
"Tickets for the London shows, promoted by AEG Live, sold at at a rate
of 11 per second, 657 per minute and nearly 40,000 an hour.
Fans from as far afield as Japan, Belgium and Dubai queued to purchase
their tickets, priced at between �50 and �75. The latest issue of
tickets went on sale on Monday. Some 800,000 tickets had been sold."
--
Colette
Kip Williams
> On 26 Jun 2009 20:57:10 -0400, Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>
>> The other thing that surprised me was that Michael Jackson got more
>> coverage than Farrah Fawcett. A '70s singer who had only been in the
>> news since then because of those unsubstantiated allegations, and
>> because of his changing color, is more famous than a glamorous movie
>> and TV star?
>
> He had genuine and undeniable talent while FF was famous for being well
> famous (and married/divorced from Lee Majors).
>
> Also he was a ground breaking pioneer . Remember that prior to his
> Thriller album, MTV would only play videos from white (or at least
> non-black) artistes.
"In Living Color" did a take-off of Michael's video "Black or White," in
which several cars are vandalized. A police officer shows up, and
"Michael" says, "I don't know if I'm black or white, Officer!"
The officer cuffs him and says, "You're under arrest."
"I guess I'm black, then."
Kip W
Kip Williams
> And nobody on this thread has yet remarked (if I understand correctly)
> that Jackson has just sold about $10 million dollars worth of tickets for
> his English tour, which will probably have to be returned and money
> refunded.
>
> A friend has remarked that they might be valuable collectables. But
> 100,000 of them?
Of which 250,000 will appear on ebay.
Kip W
Kevrob
ObSF:
Farrah in "Saturn 3" - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079285/
Michael in "Captain EO" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090793/
... not to mention cameos in "Back to The Future II" and "Men in Black
II."
"The Wiz" was OBFantasy, too.
Kevin
dougberry
mysterious "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> spoke thusly in
rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>Three celebrities died this week: Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett,
>and Michael Jackson. Two things surprised me about the resulting
>news coverage:
>
>Nothing negative was said about Ed McMahon. I knew of him mostly as
>someone whose name was on innumerable annoying "You have already won!"
>sweepstakes scams. I was pleased, a few years ago, to hear that he
>was being sued for fraud. I thought that was what he was best known
>for.
o_0
You have to be kidding. Seriously, you have GOT to be kidding.
>But apparently it's not even worthy of notice. And not because
>one doesn't speak ill of the dead -- much of the Michael Jackson
>coverage mentioned the serious but unsubstantiated allegations
>against him.
Well, because that was major part of his life story. The allegations
of child abuse led to a massive decline in his fortunes, and
emphasized a lifestyle that had gone past eccentric into truly
bizarre.
>The other thing that surprised me was that Michael Jackson got more
>coverage than Farrah Fawcett. A '70s singer who had only been in the
>news since then because of those unsubstantiated allegations, and
>because of his changing color, is more famous than a glamorous movie
>and TV star?
"70's singer"? Again, You have got to be kidding. "Thriller" and
"Bad", his two biggest albums (combined sales of over 140 million
copies) came in the eighties. His career took off after Thriller sold
25 million copies in six months.
To reduce Michael Jackson to a "70s singer" is like saying George
Lucas contributed to science-fiction by making THX-1138. Technically
accurate, but it ignores the bulk and best of his work.
As much as I admired Farrah Fawcett, her career was quiet compared to
Michael Jackson's.
--
Douglas E. Berry dberryOB...@gmail.com
http://gridlore.livejournal.com
http://www.facebook.com/douglas.berry
Do the OBVIOUS thing to email.
"Well I'm not evil, I'm just good looking." - Alice Cooper
dougberry
mysterious "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> spoke thusly in
rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing <win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
>> Ed McMahon was able to be an advertising celebrity because people
>> liked his persona from The Tonight Show, Star Search, etc. That's
>> what they still remember.
>
>Ah. I never watched those shows, so I only knew him as a dishonest
>sweepstakes huckster who did his best to trick people into thinking
>they had won a sweepstakes when they hadn't. I don't think I had
>ever heard of him in any other context.
So, you never once in your life watched The Tonight Show with Johnny
Carson, or heard anything about it?
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> sweepstakes huckster who did his best to trick people into thinking
>> they had won a sweepstakes when they hadn't. I don't think I had
>> ever heard of him in any other context.
> So, you never once in your life watched The Tonight Show with Johnny
> Carson, or heard anything about it?
If I did, it wasn't enough for me to have heard of McMahon.
If he did have fame and fortune from show biz, why did he become a
sweepstakes scammer?
Kevrob
Google ate my earlier post, so forgive me if this gets duplicated.
ObSF for Farrah - "Saturn 3"
For Michael - "Captain EO, "The Wiz" and cameos in "Men In Black II"
and "Back To The Future II."
Kevin
David G. Bell
<77ub459r2iqj4n6lg...@4ax.com>
col...@lspace.org "Colette Reap" wrote:
> Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:43:47 +0100, Colette Reap <col...@lspace.org> wrote:
> >> mca...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>And nobody on this thread has yet remarked (if I understand correctly)
> >>>that Jackson has just sold about $10 million dollars worth of tickets for
> >>>his English tour, which will probably have to be redefinition of drunk for
> pedestrians based on the amount of alcohol
> in the blood? There isn't in the UK for pedestrians (or cyclists
> or horse-riders or horse and carriage for that matter). Although
> there are offences of being drunk in a public place, drunk in charge
> of a cycle/horse/carriage it is based upon observed behaviour and
> control of themselves (or their vehicle) falling far below what is
> normal. A breath specimen or blood test cannot be demanded from
> peds or cyclists or horsey-people.
And there are family stories, from sources that include my police
officer great-uncles, of known drunks who relied on their horses knowing
the way home.
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
On the horizon, a carrier task force of the Salvation Navy was
turning into the wind, preparing to launch Zeppelins.
Keith F. Lynch
> Also he was a ground breaking pioneer . Remember that prior to his
> Thriller album, MTV would only play videos from white (or at least
> non-black) artistes.
I don't have cable TV, so I have no idea what MTV shows. And I'm not
into rock music anyway. But Wikipedia disagrees with you. It says
Eddy Grant, Tina Turner, and Donna Summer were in MTV's "rotation."
Dorothy J Heydt
>The scrolls speak of the day, 26 Jun 2009 21:28:24 -0400, when the
>mysterious "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> spoke thusly in
>rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>
>>Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
><win...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU> wrote:
>>> Ed McMahon was able to be an advertising celebrity because people
>>> liked his persona from The Tonight Show, Star Search, etc. That's
>>> what they still remember.
>>
>>Ah. I never watched those shows, so I only knew him as a dishonest
>>sweepstakes huckster who did his best to trick people into thinking
>>they had won a sweepstakes when they hadn't. I don't think I had
>>ever heard of him in any other context.
>
>So, you never once in your life watched The Tonight Show with Johnny
>Carson, or heard anything about it?
Nope, Keith probably didn't. I never watched it either,
though I knew McMahon was involved in it, mostly because
recent news items about him (struggling with bankruptcy, in
danger of losing his house, etc. etc.) always mentioned the
association.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Kip Williams
> <Doug Berry> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Ah. I never watched those shows, so I only knew him as a dishonest
>>> sweepstakes huckster who did his best to trick people into thinking
>>> they had won a sweepstakes when they hadn't. I don't think I had
>>> ever heard of him in any other context.
>
>> So, you never once in your life watched The Tonight Show with Johnny
>> Carson, or heard anything about it?
>
> If I did, it wasn't enough for me to have heard of McMahon.
>
> If he did have fame and fortune from show biz, why did he become a
> sweepstakes scammer?
I'm going to guess it was for the money.
I found it amusing one night I happened to catch Ed showing Johnny what
he'd gotten in the mail. It was one of those sweepstakes envelopes, with
his picture on it.
Kip W
Kip Williams
> As much as I admired Farrah Fawcett, her career was quiet compared to
> Michael Jackson's.
True enough. Since nobody's mentioned it, though, I'll toss in that she
was well regarded in her leading role in the 1984 TV-movie "The Burning
Bed."
Kip W
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
><Doug Berry> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Ah. I never watched those shows, so I only knew him as a dishonest
>>> sweepstakes huckster who did his best to trick people into thinking
>>> they had won a sweepstakes when they hadn't. I don't think I had
>>> ever heard of him in any other context.
>
>> So, you never once in your life watched The Tonight Show with Johnny
>> Carson, or heard anything about it?
>
>If I did, it wasn't enough for me to have heard of McMahon.
>
>If he did have fame and fortune from show biz, why did he become a
>sweepstakes scammer?
Because on Keithworld, Patrick Dempsey is an executive with State Farm
and knows all the activities of that insurance company?
--
"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their
intentions rather than their results."
- Milton Friedman
David V. Loewe, Jr
G. Bell") wrote:
>col...@lspace.org "Colette Reap" wrote:
>> Andy Leighton <an...@azaal.plus.com> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:43:47 +0100, Colette Reap <col...@lspace.org> wrote:
>> >> mca...@ozemail.com.au (Edward McArdle) wrote:
>> >>>And nobody on this thread has yet remarked (if I understand correctly)
>> >>>that Jackson has just sold about $10 million dollars worth of tickets for
>> >>>his English tour, which will probably have to be redefinition of drunk for
>> pedestrians based on the amount of alcohol
>> in the blood? There isn't in the UK for pedestrians (or cyclists
>> or horse-riders or horse and carriage for that matter). Although
>> there are offences of being drunk in a public place, drunk in charge
>> of a cycle/horse/carriage it is based upon observed behaviour and
>> control of themselves (or their vehicle) falling far below what is
>> normal. A breath specimen or blood test cannot be demanded from
>> peds or cyclists or horsey-people.
>
>And there are family stories, from sources that include my police
>officer great-uncles, of known drunks who relied on their horses knowing
>the way home.
How did you jump threads?
--
"...you know, it seems to me you suffer from the problem of
wanting a tailored fit in an off the rack world."
Dennis Juds
Cryptoengineer
Keith F. Lynch
> db...@zhochaka.org.uk ("David G. Bell") wrote:
>> And there are family stories, from sources that include my police
>> officer great-uncles, of known drunks who relied on their horses
>> knowing the way home.
> How did you jump threads?
His horse did it.
Cryptoengineer
> <Doug Berry> wrote:
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> Ah. I never watched those shows, so I only knew him as a dishonest
> >> sweepstakes huckster who did his best to trick people into thinking
> >> they had won a sweepstakes when they hadn't. I don't think I had
> >> ever heard of him in any other context.
> > So, you never once in your life watched The Tonight Show with Johnny
> > Carson, or heard anything about it?
>
> If I did, it wasn't enough for me to have heard of McMahon.
>
> If he did have fame and fortune from show biz, why did he become a
> sweepstakes scammer?
Or to phrase it another way 'When did he stop beating his wife?'.
Since Keith has a 'well-known reputation for accuracy', I'm sure he'll
have some factual basis for his accusation - he wouldn't want to be
guilty of libel, after all.
Ed was apparently not very good with personal finances ('fame and
fortune' don't always go hand in hand), and took on all kinds of minor
roles which leveraged his celebrity from 30 years on The Tonight Show
as Johnny's sidekick. One of the better known ones was as the hired
spokesman for American Family Publishers. AFP was investigated back in
the 90s for deceptive practices, but as far as I can tell, McMahon was
never accused of personal wrongdoing.
So Keith, where's the beef? (to use another pop culture reference he
won't get).
pt
Keith F. Lynch
> Since Keith has a 'well-known reputation for accuracy', I'm sure
> he'll have some factual basis for his accusation - he wouldn't want
> to be guilty of libel, after all.
I've received those letters myself, in which Ed McMahon promised me
that I really, truly had won millions of dollars. Either I really
*was* the winner, and threw away a fortune, or someone was using Ed's
name without his permission, or Ed was guilty of fraud.
And I don't think I really was the winner, as numerous other people
got those letters. Several flew thousands of miles to collect their
winnings, as they had been directed to, only to find themselves
stranded.
> So Keith, where's the beef? (to use another pop culture reference he
> won't get).
See
http://www.sptimes.com/News2/Sweeps/default.html
and the news stories it links to.
David Friedman
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Since Keith has a 'well-known reputation for accuracy', I'm sure
> > he'll have some factual basis for his accusation - he wouldn't want
> > to be guilty of libel, after all.
>
> I've received those letters myself, in which Ed McMahon promised me
> that I really, truly had won millions of dollars.
Are you sure? Googling for information, it looks as though the usual
statement was "You may have already won ... ."
> Either I really
> *was* the winner, and threw away a fortune, or someone was using Ed's
> name without his permission, or Ed was guilty of fraud.
>
> And I don't think I really was the winner, as numerous other people
> got those letters. Several flew thousands of miles to collect their
> winnings, as they had been directed to, only to find themselves
> stranded.
Again from my googling, it sounds as though those were people who
misread the letters. The impression I got was that the mailing were
deceptive in the sense of trying to create the impression that the
recipient's odds were better than they were, but not actually false.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
Keith F. Lynch
> Are you sure? Googling for information, it looks as though the
> usual statement was "You may have already won ... ."
I'm sure. As I said, see
http://www.sptimes.com/News2/Sweeps/default.html
and what it links to. For instance:
On Jan. 27, Lum received the mailing he thought declared him the
winner. It read "George Lum is one of our all-time top winners,"
with "one of" and the "s" in winners crossed out. Lum said he tried
to call American Family to verify his prize but never reached anyone.
He said he also wrote letters to the company but got no response.
Finally, he boarded a jet and flew through six time zones to Tampa,
only to discover he had been fooled.
and
But before her agent could find a publisher, West opened a letter
from American Family Publishers spokesmen Ed McMahon and Dick Clark.
She rubbed off a number. It matched the prize number under the
security seal. She read the letter again and started shaking. She
appeared to be an $11-million winner. She looked for a disclaimer,
like the ones she saw on other sweepstakes pitches, but didn't
see one.
The instructions said to respond to a Tampa address within five days.
By the time she opened the letter Wednesday, only two days remained.
So West borrowed $1,500 from her sister and flew to Tampa on Thursday
with daughters Hope Angel West, 19, and Jessica Elizabeth Tyson, 11,
to claim the money.
Unless McMahon was unbelievably oblivious, he was a crook.
Karl Johanson
news:e8a3444a-0734-40a0...@h28g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 27, 12:26 pm, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> If I did, it wasn't enough for me to have heard of McMahon.
>
>> If he did have fame and fortune from show biz, why did he become a
>> sweepstakes scammer?
>Or to phrase it another way 'When did he stop beating his wife?'.
>Since Keith has a 'well-known reputation for accuracy', I'm sure he'll
>have some factual basis for his accusation - he wouldn't want to be
>guilty of libel, after all.
http://www.crimes-of-persuasion.com/Crimes/Telemarketing/Outbound/Major/Sweepstakes/sweepstakes.htm
"Regardless of their assurances of propriety, one of the nations largest
sweepstakes operators, American Family Publishers, which uses Ed McMahon and
Dick Clark as its spokespersons, has agreed to pay various states $1.25
million for violations of consumer laws as well as stop the use of illegal
promotional tactics."
dougberry
the mysterious Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com> spoke thusly in
rec.arts.sf.fandom:
Incredible performance.
dougberry
mysterious "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> spoke thusly in
rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my> wrote:
>> Also he was a ground breaking pioneer . Remember that prior to his
>> Thriller album, MTV would only play videos from white (or at least
>> non-black) artistes.
>
>I don't have cable TV, so I have no idea what MTV shows. And I'm not
>into rock music anyway. But Wikipedia disagrees with you. It says
>Eddy Grant, Tina Turner, and Donna Summer were in MTV's "rotation."
Along with 500 white rock acts. There was considerable criticism of
MTV for being rather lacking in black artists. Michael Jackson, and
then Prince, changed that.
--
Douglas E. Berry dberryOB...@gmail.com
http://gridlore.livejournal.com
http://www.facebook.com/douglas.berry
Do the OBVIOUS thing to email.
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they
do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Since Keith has a 'well-known reputation for accuracy', I'm sure
>> he'll have some factual basis for his accusation - he wouldn't want
>> to be guilty of libel, after all.
>
>I've received those letters myself, in which Ed McMahon promised me
>that I really, truly had won millions of dollars. Either I really
>*was* the winner, and threw away a fortune, or someone was using Ed's
>name without his permission, or Ed was guilty of fraud.
Funny...
The phrase *I* recall from those types of advertisements was "You may
already be a winner."
>And I don't think I really was the winner, as numerous other people
>got those letters. Several flew thousands of miles to collect their
>winnings, as they had been directed to, only to find themselves
>stranded.
Me thinks they didn't actually *read* the thing.
>> So Keith, where's the beef? (to use another pop culture reference he
>> won't get).
>
>See
>http://www.sptimes.com/News2/Sweeps/default.html
>and the news stories it links to.
Looks to me like those are gullible people being gullible.
Most of the complaints I saw dealt with the belief that you had to order
a magazine to enter or that ordering a magazine increased your chances.
Of course, there were two companies involved and I may be confusing the
two.
--
"Try to learn something about everything and everything about
something."
- T.H. Huxley
Karl Johanson
news:82tc45l9ug75pq2mb...@4ax.com...
> On 27 Jun 2009 15:21:52 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Since Keith has a 'well-known reputation for accuracy', I'm sure
>>> he'll have some factual basis for his accusation - he wouldn't want
>>> to be guilty of libel, after all.
>>
>>I've received those letters myself, in which Ed McMahon promised me
>>that I really, truly had won millions of dollars. Either I really
>>*was* the winner, and threw away a fortune, or someone was using Ed's
>>name without his permission, or Ed was guilty of fraud.
>
> Funny...
>
> The phrase *I* recall from those types of advertisements was "You may
> already be a winner."
Some did, some didn't.
William December Starr
Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> said:
> Ed [McMahon] was apparently not very good with personal finances
> ('fame and fortune' don't always go hand in hand),
As do not "fortune" and "holding onto fortune."
Let us all now gather together to laugh at M.C. Hammer.
-- wds
William December Starr
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> said:
> The phrase *I* recall from those types of advertisements was
> "You may already be a winner."
I fondly recall a one-panel cartoon from the late 1960s or early
1970s, _maybe_ from the New Yorker, showing an anthropomorphized
hot dog reading its mail. The caption, of course, was "You may
already be a wiener."
-- wds
William December Starr
"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> said:
> Meanwhile, Michael Jackson, far from being merely a 70s singer,
> had 11 solo Billboard #1 Hits after 1979 (and two others in the
> 70s), 5 multiplatinum albums released after 1980 - including the
> top selling album in the world, Thriller, 13 Grammy Awards and was
> a two time inductee into the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame (solo and
> with his brothers as the Jackson 5). Michael Jackson has long
> been styled the "King Of Pop."
Shouldn't that "has" be in the past tense, even prior to his death?
Aside from having become a big cultural joke by the last decade or
so, hadn't he also ceased to be relevant musically?
-- wds
William December Starr
Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> said:
> ObSF for Farrah - "Saturn 3"
>
> For Michael - "Captain EO, "The Wiz" and cameos in "Men In Black
> II" and "Back To The Future II."
I never knew that about Back to the Future II... where was he in it?
-- wds
Ben Yalow
>Three celebrities died this week: Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett,
>and Michael Jackson. Two things surprised me about the resulting
>news coverage:
>Nothing negative was said about Ed McMahon. I knew of him mostly as
>someone whose name was on innumerable annoying "You have already won!"
>sweepstakes scams. I was pleased, a few years ago, to hear that he
>was being sued for fraud. I thought that was what he was best known
>for. But apparently it's not even worthy of notice. And not because
>one doesn't speak ill of the dead -- much of the Michael Jackson
>coverage mentioned the serious but unsubstantiated allegations
>against him.
Ed McMahon spent 30 years on TV as the most impportant second bananna on
the show that created late night television. Anything else he did was
relatively minor -- he was one of the more important figures in the
development of TV. Aside from that, he had his own show for well over a
decade -- which long outlives most TV shows -- but even that was a minor
piece of his career. So, not surprisingly, they spent their time talking
about his key role in TV history, not minor things that you find annoying.
>The other thing that surprised me was that Michael Jackson got more
>coverage than Farrah Fawcett. A '70s singer who had only been in the
>news since then because of those unsubstantiated allegations, and
>because of his changing color, is more famous than a glamorous movie
>and TV star?
A second rate TV star, famous for *one season* of a TV show, and a
hot-selling pinup picture. And that compares to the person who, along
with Elvis and the Beatles, shaped popular music in the second half of
the twentieth century?
I think you have no concept of how our culture functions, if those are
your impressions of those three people.
>--
>Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Ben
--
Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
Not speaking for anybody
Ben Yalow
>Cryptoengineer <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Since Keith has a 'well-known reputation for accuracy', I'm sure
>> he'll have some factual basis for his accusation - he wouldn't want
>> to be guilty of libel, after all.
>I've received those letters myself, in which Ed McMahon promised me
>that I really, truly had won millions of dollars. Either I really
>*was* the winner, and threw away a fortune, or someone was using Ed's
>name without his permission, or Ed was guilty of fraud.
Can you post the exact wording?
Mine tended to say things like "You may have won ...".
Or, from the example quoted in the stories, that said (fine print) "if you
have and return the top winning entry, we'll say ..." followed, in large
print, by "<X>, THIS IS YOUR TICKET TO A GUARANTEED TWELVE MILLION DOLLAR
WIN" -- again, a true statement.
>And I don't think I really was the winner, as numerous other people
>got those letters. Several flew thousands of miles to collect their
>winnings, as they had been directed to, only to find themselves
>stranded.
>> So Keith, where's the beef? (to use another pop culture reference he
>> won't get).
>See
>http://www.sptimes.com/News2/Sweeps/default.html
>and the news stories it links to.
Those stories reminded me that my memories were most likely true -- the
wording was tricky, but truthful. And, where the stories quote the actual
words, that's pretty accurate.
>--
>Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Ben
mor...@epsilon3.com
His last album tanked and he hasn't done anything ground-breaking in years
but his announced comeback tour in 50 cities sold out within days of being
announced. So depends on how you define relevant.
cryptoguy
> Cryptoengineer <petert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Since Keith has a 'well-known reputation for accuracy', I'm sure
> > he'll have some factual basis for his accusation - he wouldn't want
> > to be guilty of libel, after all.
>
> I've received those letters myself, in which Ed McMahon promised me
> that I really, truly had won millions of dollars. Either I really
> *was* the winner, and threw away a fortune, or someone was using Ed's
> name without his permission, or Ed was guilty of fraud.
I guess you didn't check the fine print. He made no such promise. The
envelopes always read something like 'You *may* have already won $10
million dollars' (my emphasis). Deceptive? I though it was pretty
sleazy. But Ed was only a paid spokesman, not an evil scammer. When
the authorities investigated AFP, he was never accused of anything
beyond poor judgement in working for them.
> And I don't think I really was the winner, as numerous other people
> got those letters. Several flew thousands of miles to collect their
> winnings, as they had been directed to, only to find themselves
> stranded.
> > So Keith, where's the beef? (to use another pop culture reference he
> > won't get).
>
> Seehttp://www.sptimes.com/News2/Sweeps/default.html
> and the news stories it links to.
I checked it. They all date back to the nineties, as I indicated.
pt
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>I think you have no concept of how our culture functions, if those are
>your impressions of those three people.
There was any lingering doubt in your mind?
--
"...the thing that I call living is just being satisfied
With knowin' I got no one left to blame."
- Gordon Lightfoot
mor...@epsilon3.com
On 27-Jun-2009, mor...@epsilon3.com wrote:
> His last album tanked and he hasn't done anything ground-breaking in years
> but his announced comeback tour in 50 cities sold out within days of being
> announced. So depends on how you define relevant.
I sit correcting myself. I knew it was 50 dates in one location. And I
thought I'd heard on NPR that they'd all sold out but according to another
thead it tain't so.
Ben Yalow
>and
And neither of those stories quoted the received letter in full. When it
did, it quoted, for Lum, the fine print which made the statement true.
>--
>Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
>Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Ben
Karl Johanson
news:h26iu0$i9a$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> A second rate TV star, famous for *one season* of a TV show,
And the original movie. And other movies and TV shows. And stage
productions. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000396/
>and a hot-selling pinup picture.
Top selling pinup picture.
>And that compares to the person who, along
> with Elvis and the Beatles, shaped popular music in the second half of
> the twentieth century?
I was never a huge fan of Michael Jackson (I like his work in USA for Africa
best), but he clearly goes beyond super-star status. However, I suggest
you've seriously mis-classified Farrah Fawcett.
> I think you have no concept of how our culture functions, if those are
> your impressions of those three people.
>
>>--
>>Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
>
> Ben
Karl Johanson
David V. Loewe, Jr
<karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>"Ben Yalow" <yb...@panix.com> wrote
>
>> A second rate TV star, famous for *one season* of a TV show,
>
>And the original movie. And other movies and TV shows. And stage
>productions. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000396/
I liked her, but her body of work is rather sparse. Sparse enough for
Ben's characterization.
>>and a hot-selling pinup picture.
>
>Top selling pinup picture.
>
>>And that compares to the person who, along
>> with Elvis and the Beatles, shaped popular music in the second half of
>> the twentieth century?
>
>I was never a huge fan of Michael Jackson (I like his work in USA for Africa
>best), but he clearly goes beyond super-star status. However, I suggest
>you've seriously mis-classified Farrah Fawcett.
Face it. She was more famous for being Lee Major's ex-wife and Ryan
O'Neal's current squeeze than anything other than one season of
Charlie's Angels and the poster.
>> I think you have no concept of how our culture functions, if those are
>> your impressions of those three people.
--
Kip Williams
_National Lampoon_. S. Gross, I believe. After publishing it the first
time, they put it on their blow-in subscription cards for a while as well.
Kip W
Karl Johanson
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:07:54 -0700, "Karl Johanson"
> <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>"Ben Yalow" <yb...@panix.com> wrote
>>
>>> A second rate TV star, famous for *one season* of a TV show,
>>
>>And the original movie. And other movies and TV shows. And stage
>>productions. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000396/
>
> I liked her, but her body of work is rather sparse. Sparse enough for
> Ben's characterization.
"Rather sparse" is a vague term. "A second rate TV star, famous for *one
season* of a TV show,..." is just wrong.
Ben Yalow
I think it might be hard to argue that anyone who can sell 100 million
dollars worth of tickets to a set of live concerts is irrelevant.
>-- wds
Philip Chee
> I think you have no concept of how our culture functions, if those are
> your impressions of those three people.
Is that an inclusive "our" or an exclusive "our"? Malay has separate
words for each. In English it's harder to tell.
> Ben
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]If rabbits feet are so lucky, what happened to the rabbit
* TagZilla 0.066.6
Colette Reap
NPR were right in that all the tickets that had been released to date
had sold, it's just that the promoters hadn't released all the tickets
yet. There is no doubt, given the speed at which the tickets that had
been released got snapped up, that the rest would have all been sold,
too.
Paul Dormer
<ade15810-425c-49d2...@o36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
kev...@my-deja.com (Kevrob) wrote:
>
> ObSF for Farrah - "Saturn 3"
The bizarre thing about Saturn 3 was that it was written my Martin Amis.
Dorothy J Heydt
They may yet be. Apparently various other performers are
going to hold a memorial concert for which the tickets will
be valid.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
David Loewe, Jr.
<karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:07:54 -0700, "Karl Johanson"
>> <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>"Ben Yalow" <yb...@panix.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> A second rate TV star, famous for *one season* of a TV show,
>>>
>>>And the original movie. And other movies and TV shows. And stage
>>>productions. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000396/
>>
>> I liked her, but her body of work is rather sparse. Sparse enough for
>> Ben's characterization.
>
>"Rather sparse" is a vague term. "A second rate TV star, famous for *one
>season* of a TV show,..." is just wrong.
Well, *that's* an opinion...
--
"One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their
intentions rather than their results."
- Milton Friedman
Karl Johanson
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:09:12 -0700, "Karl Johanson"
> <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote
>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:07:54 -0700, "Karl Johanson"
>>> <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>"Ben Yalow" <yb...@panix.com> wrote
>>>>
>>>>> A second rate TV star, famous for *one season* of a TV show,
>>>>
>>>>And the original movie. And other movies and TV shows. And stage
>>>>productions. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000396/
>>>
>>> I liked her, but her body of work is rather sparse. Sparse enough for
>>> Ben's characterization.
>>
>>"Rather sparse" is a vague term. "A second rate TV star, famous for *one
>>season* of a TV show,..." is just wrong.
>
> Well, *that's* an opinion...
For my opinion to be wrong in this case, she would have to have recieved no
fame for any of her other acting work.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
"Star" is a term that has a pretty specific meaning *inside* the TV and
movie industry. You have to be able to carry a production and that
production has to (movie) sell lots of tickets or (TV) generate high
ratings.
She didn't carry Charlie's Angels with that show's ensemble casting of
female leads.
She was the lead in three movies, one of which was stolen out from under
her by Joan Collins. None of those three did significant box office,
although one won her some acting recognition.
On TV, she was a bit more successful. One season as a triple lead in a
wildly popular show. Four acclaimed TV movies, which had been largely
forgotten before her death.
While apparently talented (six Golden Globe and three Emmy nominations -
no wins), her body of work leaves her far behind first rate TV stars.
Let's face it, Mark Addy has a better claim to being a first rate TV
star than Farrah did.
--
"People, don't you understand - the child needs a helping hand
Or he'll grow to be an angry young man some day."
Scott Davis
Keith F. Lynch
> Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> I think you have no concept of how our culture functions, if those
>> are your impressions of those three people.
> There was any lingering doubt in your mind?
This gets tiresome. Really, really tiresome.
I guess I should have remained silent, or just browsed Wikipedia,
rather than opening myself to a small amount of information on Jackson
and McMahon laced with heaping helpings of abuse and insults.
In *my* reality, it's unfannish to ridicule someone for not already
knowing something. *Especially* something about celebrity trivia.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Keith F. Lynch
> I guess you didn't check the fine print. He made no such promise.
> The envelopes always read something like 'You *may* have already won
> $10 million dollars' (my emphasis).
I did. And I have *very* good close-up vision. At least some of
those letters definitely said I *had* won. Period.
The news stories I cited mentioned others who saw the same thing.
They showed it to their friends and relatives, who agreed. Only then
did they head to Florida to collect their winnings.
One more person agreed with them -- Florida's attorney general, who
successfully sued that company.
> Deceptive? I though it was pretty sleazy.
According to the legal system, which everyone here but me seems to
accord great respect, it went beyond sleaze into outright fraud.
> But Ed was only a paid spokesman, not an evil scammer. When the
> authorities investigated AFP, he was never accused of anything
> beyond poor judgement in working for them.
His name was on their letters for years. As far as I know, he never
publicly dissociated himself from them.
If it had been you or I, we'd have been thrown in prison for
racketeering and fraud.
> I checked it. They all date back to the nineties, as I indicated.
So? I didn't say this had happened recently.
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> I think you have no concept of how our culture functions, if those
>>> are your impressions of those three people.
>
>> There was any lingering doubt in your mind?
>
>This gets tiresome. Really, really tiresome.
>
>I guess I should have remained silent, or just browsed Wikipedia,
>rather than opening myself to a small amount of information on Jackson
>and McMahon laced with heaping helpings of abuse and insults.
>
>In *my* reality, it's unfannish to ridicule someone for not already
>knowing something. *Especially* something about celebrity trivia.
It is amusing to me that when you finally make this response, you
respond to *me*.
I wasn't the only person to comment.
I wasn't even the first person to comment.
I don't believe that I am the most prolific commentator on the subject.
Yet, you respond to me. Paranoid much, Keith?
And, frankly, much of the time the sheer magnitude, and sheer frequency
of your purveying of them, of your misinformation or misimpressions
overwhelms everyone.
To use the star analogy, you depicted Jackson as a burned out brown
dwarf after 1979. The fact of the matter is that during that same time
frame he blazed forth like Eta Carinae in an eruptive phase. Now,
either your memory is shot or you're just not paying attention to
*world* culture (because Jackson was a star of top rank throughout the
world in the time you said he was essentially washed up).
--
"Her name was Anne and I'll be damned if I recall her face
She left me not knowing what to do."
- Gordon Lightfoot
Karl Johanson
Bar moving. The term used was "famous" not "star".
> She didn't carry Charlie's Angels with that show's ensemble casting of
> female leads.
Bar moving. Didn't claim she carried the show.
> She was the lead in three movies, one of which was stolen out from under
> her by Joan Collins. None of those three did significant box office,
I assume "significant" is something you'll use as a bar moving tool.
> although one won her some acting recognition.
>
> On TV, she was a bit more successful. One season as a triple lead in a
> wildly popular show.
And cameos in two other seasons.
> Four acclaimed TV movies, which had been largely
> forgotten before her death.
>
> While apparently talented (six Golden Globe and three Emmy nominations -
> no wins), her body of work leaves her far behind first rate TV stars.
> Let's face it, Mark Addy has a better claim to being a first rate TV
> star than Farrah did.
Bar moving again. I didn't claim she was a first rate TV star. I said that
the characterization of her as, "A second rate TV star, famous for *one
season* of a TV show,..." is just wrong.
If you're going to move the bar, why not move it further and claim that a
russet has a better claim to being a potato, or some such?
Karl Johanson
Kevrob
> I never knew that about Back to the Future II... where was he in it?
>
>
From "Six Random Michael Jackson Pop-Culture Moments" @
http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2009/06/six_random_michael_jackson_pop.html
"Back to the Future
When Marty McFly enters Café 80’s in Back to the Future II, we see a
video simulation of Jackson ticking off the specials: 'Try our La
Bamba fajita tortilla pita. It's got a hot salsa, avocados, cilantro
mix, with your choice of beans, chicken, be-be-beef, or pork.' In Back
to the Future III, Marty moonwalks for his life."
IMDB credits the Video Waiter performance to "E. Casanova Evans."
Very Max Headroomish.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096874/fullcredits#cast
I may misremember, but I recently watched BTTFII on DVD, and one
commentary track metioned that MJ was a fan of the series, and the
"came" had his blessing.
Kevin
David Loewe, Jr.
<karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote
>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:23:48 -0700, "Karl Johanson"
>> <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote
>>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:09:12 -0700, "Karl Johanson"
>>>> <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote
>>>>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:07:54 -0700, "Karl Johanson"
>>>>>> <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>"Ben Yalow" <yb...@panix.com> wrote
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A second rate TV star, famous for *one season* of a TV show,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And the original movie. And other movies and TV shows. And stage
>>>>>>>productions. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000396/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I liked her, but her body of work is rather sparse. Sparse enough for
>>>>>> Ben's characterization.
>>>>>
>>>>>"Rather sparse" is a vague term. "A second rate TV star, famous for *one
>>>>>season* of a TV show,..." is just wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Well, *that's* an opinion...
>>>
>>>For my opinion to be wrong in this case, she would have to have recieved
>>>no
>>>fame for any of her other acting work.
>>
>> "Star" is a term that has a pretty specific meaning *inside* the TV and
>> movie industry. You have to be able to carry a production and that
>> production has to (movie) sell lots of tickets or (TV) generate high
>> ratings.
>
>Bar moving. The term used was "famous" not "star".
"A second rate TV star"
>> She didn't carry Charlie's Angels with that show's ensemble casting of
>> female leads.
>
>Bar moving. Didn't claim she carried the show.
Explaining why she wasn't a "star."
>> She was the lead in three movies, one of which was stolen out from under
>> her by Joan Collins. None of those three did significant box office,
>
>I assume "significant" is something you'll use as a bar moving tool.
Explaining why she wasn't a movie star.
>> although one won her some acting recognition.
>>
>> On TV, she was a bit more successful. One season as a triple lead in a
>> wildly popular show.
>
>And cameos in two other seasons.
So, John Jumper and Michael Ryan are famous on stage and screen?
>> Four acclaimed TV movies, which had been largely
>> forgotten before her death.
See that? Up there? THAT disputes your contention that you're only
disputing the "famous" part of the remark.
*Even if that is true*, the above, by noting those TV movies were
largely forgotten, puts the kibosh on it.
No wonder you didn't respond to this.
>> While apparently talented (six Golden Globe and three Emmy nominations -
>> no wins), her body of work leaves her far behind first rate TV stars.
>
>> Let's face it, Mark Addy has a better claim to being a first rate TV
>> star than Farrah did.
>
>Bar moving again. I didn't claim she was a first rate TV star. I said that
>the characterization of her as, "A second rate TV star, famous for *one
>season* of a TV show,..." is just wrong.
I'm confused. You claim not to be disputing her status as a second rate
(or lower) TV star, yet you include it in the quote of what you ARE
disputing.
To quote Prince, "Something in the water does not compute."
>If you're going to move the bar,
I'm not shifting the bar.
>why not move it further and claim that a
>russet has a better claim to being a potato, or some such?
--
"But then I remembered that I was debating with someone who bears hus
insensitivity as a point of pride - and has a lot to be proud of - and
cut it out."
Lara Beaton on John S. Novak, III in <3946b195...@news.btinternet.com>
mor...@epsilon3.com
Wow. I had no idea you had your own Martin Amis.
Kevrob
> On 28-Jun-2009, p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk (Paul Dormer) wrote:
>
> > In article
> > kev...@my-deja.com (Kevrob) wrote:
>
> > > ObSF for Farrah - "Saturn 3"
>
> > The bizarre thing about Saturn 3 was that it was written my Martin Amis.
>
> Wow. I had no idea you had your own Martin Amis.
Must be a PoMo or deconstructionist thing: Every reader has his own
Martin Amis?
Kevin
Keith F. Lynch
> It is amusing to me that when you finally make this response, you
> respond to *me*.
I almost always reply to messages in reverse order. This often allows
me to reply to more than one message at a time, if the latter message
quotes a former message, and I wish to respond to both -- as I did in
this case.
Your message is often the most recent in a thread, since you post
so much.
> I don't believe that I am the most prolific commentator on the
> subject.
You and I are the most prolific commentators on nearly every topic.
So far in June, according to
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.sf.fandom/about
I've posted 419 times, you've posted 331 times (almost exactly evenly
split between your two ISPs), and David Friedman is in a distant third
place with 189. Ben Yalow is fourth, with 124. (About 80 people have
posted at least once.)
> And, frankly, much of the time the sheer magnitude, and sheer
> frequency of your purveying of them, of your misinformation or
> misimpressions overwhelms everyone.
As I said in a message you may not have read yet, from now on I will
treat any such insult as an an admission that you were wrong and that
the argument is over. I'll call it Loewe's law. This is your final
warning.
> To use the star analogy, you depicted Jackson as a burned out brown
> dwarf after 1979.
I depicted him as a "'70s singer." So sue me.
> The fact of the matter is that during that same time frame he blazed
> forth like Eta Carinae in an eruptive phase.
I don't closely follow pop culture. I've never claimed to. I said,
"The other thing that surprised me was that Michael Jackson got more
coverage than Farrah Fawcett," and I get insults from you (and others).
The insults might be deserved if I held myself out as an expert on
celebrity trivia, but, as you know, I don't.
Why don't you mention Eta Carinae in casual conversation, and ridicule
anyone who has no idea what that star is famous for, or even that it
is a star?
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I guess you didn't check the fine print. He made no such promise.
>> The envelopes always read something like 'You *may* have already won
>> $10 million dollars' (my emphasis).
>
>I did. And I have *very* good close-up vision. At least some of
>those letters definitely said I *had* won. Period.
>
>The news stories I cited mentioned others who saw the same thing.
>They showed it to their friends and relatives, who agreed. Only then
>did they head to Florida to collect their winnings.
>
>One more person agreed with them -- Florida's attorney general, who
>successfully sued that company.
http://myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/newsreleases/BAA688DF5DEF0DCE8525677F005DB94D
"[AG] Butterworth filed a civil complaint in February 1998 charging
American Family Publishers and spokesmen Clark and McMahon with using
various deceptions to sell magazine subscriptions. Those deceptions
included falsely suggesting that recipients must make purchases to win,
that recipients were part of a select group vying for a prize and that
recipients had to respond immediately to prevent someone else from
claiming their prize. Butterworth also accused the company of using
deceptive billing practices to entice customers into paying two or more
times for the same subscription."
I don't see anything on that list that translates to "stop telling them
that they've already won," Keith.
Moreover, the AGs didn't even get an admission of wrong-doing.
"Without admitting wrongdoing, American Family Publishers agreed to
revise the manner in which it conducts its sweepstakes solicitations."
>> Deceptive? I though it was pretty sleazy.
>
>According to the legal system, which everyone here but me seems to
>accord great respect, it went beyond sleaze into outright fraud.
>
>> But Ed was only a paid spokesman, not an evil scammer. When the
>> authorities investigated AFP, he was never accused of anything
>> beyond poor judgement in working for them.
>
>His name was on their letters for years. As far as I know, he never
>publicly dissociated himself from them.
>
>If it had been you or I, we'd have been thrown in prison for
>racketeering and fraud.
Doubtful.
>> I checked it. They all date back to the nineties, as I indicated.
>
>So? I didn't say this had happened recently.
--
"Taxes are not levied for the benefit of the taxed."
-Lazarus Long
Keith F. Lynch
> Ed McMahon spent 30 years on TV as the most impportant second
> bananna on the show that created late night television. Anything
> else he did was relatively minor --
Maybe so, but I had never heard of him until I got those letters that
claimed to be from him.
> he was one of the more important figures in the development of TV.
Wikipedia says he was first on TV in 1957. That's a bit late for the
development of TV.
Keith F. Lynch
> Shouldn't that "has" be in the past tense, even prior to his death?
> Aside from having become a big cultural joke by the last decade or
> so, hadn't he also ceased to be relevant musically?
What does it mean to be relevant musically?
Everyone has different musical tastes. I like Mozart. Many don't
like him. Many never heard of him. No doubt in 200 years, some
people will still be listening to Jackson, while many won't like him,
and many will never have heard of him.
Alan Winston - SSRL Central Computing
>In article <u72b4592jucs69ksl...@4ax.com>,
>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> said:
>
>> Meanwhile, Michael Jackson, far from being merely a 70s singer,
>> had 11 solo Billboard #1 Hits after 1979 (and two others in the
>> 70s), 5 multiplatinum albums released after 1980 - including the
>> top selling album in the world, Thriller, 13 Grammy Awards and was
>> a two time inductee into the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame (solo and
>> with his brothers as the Jackson 5). Michael Jackson has long
>> been styled the "King Of Pop."
>
>Aside from having become a big cultural joke by the last decade or
>so, hadn't he also ceased to be relevant musically?
Have the Rolling Stones ceased to be relevant musically? I mean, maybe they
have, but they're also still able to fill stadiums-full of people, and so
apparently was Michael Jackson (800k tickets sold for the now-canceled
concert series).
-- Alan
Paul Dormer
wrote:
>
> > The bizarre thing about Saturn 3 was that it was written my
> > Martin Amis.
>
> Wow. I had no idea you had your own Martin Amis.
For that matter, who would want their own Martin Amis.
Karl Johanson
>For Michael - "Captain EO, "The Wiz" and cameos in "Men In Black II"
>and "Back To The Future II."
There's a sprite which looks like Michael Jackson in the computer game
"Plants versus Zombies".
Karl Johanson
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>As I said in a message you may not have read yet, from now on I will
>treat any such insult as an an admission that you were wrong and that
>the argument is over. I'll call it Loewe's law. This is your final
>warning.
So, under this doctrine, we can all just ignore you for what you wrote
to Doug Berry about landing on his head?
--
"You're free to be as much of an asshole as you wish -- as long as I'm
not paying for it."
- Todd Masco
Keith F. Lynch
> wrote to Doug Berry about landing on his head?
Yes, you can ignore that message, which was a joke.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> So, under this doctrine, we can all just ignore you for what you
>> wrote to Doug Berry about landing on his head?
>
>Yes, you can ignore that message, which was a joke.
I think it was a sign of your innate frustration and hostility breaking
through.
My evidence is better than the evidence you claim for the examples of
*my* hostility. After all, my hostility consists of snark. Your
hostility consists of imagining posters landing on their heads (Doug) or
being shot by motorists (myself).
You sound pretty "unfannish" to me...
--
"The greatest happiness is to scatter your enemy, to drive him before
you, to see his cities reduced to ashes, to see those who love him
shrouded in tears, and to gather into your bosom his wives and
daughters.
- Genghis Khan, 1226
David Friedman
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> According to the legal system, which everyone here but me seems to
> accord great respect, it went beyond sleaze into outright fraud.
>
> > But Ed was only a paid spokesman, not an evil scammer. When the
> > authorities investigated AFP, he was never accused of anything
> > beyond poor judgement in working for them.
>
> His name was on their letters for years. As far as I know, he never
> publicly dissociated himself from them.
>
> If it had been you or I, we'd have been thrown in prison for
> racketeering and fraud.
Due to a civil complaint, settled by a consent agreement? Ed MacMahon
wasn't the only person involved, and nobody else went to jail either.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
Keith F. Lynch
> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Yes, you can ignore that message, which was a joke.
> I think it was a sign of your innate frustration and hostility
> breaking through.
Frustration, yes. I don't know what is the matter with you and him.
Maybe it *is* brain damage. I don't know.
I have no hostility to either of you, or to anyone else in this
newsgroup.
dougberry
the mysterious "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> spoke
thusly in rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>On 28 Jun 2009 15:13:49 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
>wrote:
>
>>As I said in a message you may not have read yet, from now on I will
>>treat any such insult as an an admission that you were wrong and that
>>the argument is over. I'll call it Loewe's law. This is your final
>>warning.
>
>So, under this doctrine, we can all just ignore you for what you wrote
>to Doug Berry about landing on his head?
Of course not! Keith can insult me about my military service, my
current toothless state, and anything else, but should I mention he
pled guilty to felonies, I'm being mean.
Don't you understand? This is KeithWorld!
--
Douglas E. Berry dberryOB...@gmail.com
http://gridlore.livejournal.com
http://www.facebook.com/douglas.berry
Do the OBVIOUS thing to email.
"Well I'm not evil, I'm just good looking." - Alice Cooper
dougberry
when the mysterious Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> spoke thusly in
rec.arts.sf.fandom:
I had to send mine back to the factory. Kept producing Neo-Victorian
poetry. and don't get me started about the carpets!
dougberry
mysterious "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> spoke thusly in
rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Ed McMahon spent 30 years on TV as the most impportant second
>> bananna on the show that created late night television. Anything
>> else he did was relatively minor --
>
>Maybe so, but I had never heard of him until I got those letters that
>claimed to be from him.
>
>> he was one of the more important figures in the development of TV.
>
>Wikipedia says he was first on TV in 1957. That's a bit late for the
>development of TV.
yeah, because television programming styles and standards were fixed
by 1954 and never changed.
Keith, you don't know what you are talking about. Give up and back
away slowly.
--
Douglas E. Berry dberryOB...@gmail.com
http://gridlore.livejournal.com
http://www.facebook.com/douglas.berry
Do the OBVIOUS thing to email.
"There's a long drive... it's gonna be, I believe...
THE GIANTS WIN THE PENNANT!! THE GIANTS WIN THE PENNANT!!
THE GIANTS WIN THE PENNANT! THE GIANTS WIN THE PENNANT!"
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Yes, you can ignore that message, which was a joke.
>
>> I think it was a sign of your innate frustration and hostility
>> breaking through.
>
>Frustration, yes. I don't know what is the matter with you and him.
>Maybe it *is* brain damage. I don't know.
>
>I have no hostility to either of you, or to anyone else in this
>newsgroup.
The evidence indicates otherwise.
I'll repeat: "Your hostility consists of imagining posters landing on
their heads (Doug) or being shot by motorists (myself).
You sound pretty "unfannish" to me..."
You imagine that I get shot and you *say* you don't care if I live or
die in that scenario and you think *I* have brain damage?!?
Michael Benveniste
wrote:
>ObSF for Farrah - "Saturn 3"
Also the 1976 film version of "Logan's Run."
--
Mike Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
Cogito eggo sum -- I'm thinking toaster waffles for breakfast.
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> It is amusing to me that when you finally make this response, you
>> respond to *me*.
>
>I almost always reply to messages in reverse order. This often allows
>me to reply to more than one message at a time, if the latter message
>quotes a former message, and I wish to respond to both -- as I did in
>this case.
>
>Your message is often the most recent in a thread, since you post
>so much.
And you have been told that if you reply to a message from me, but are
not specifically addressing me, that you *ought* to make note of it -
because, in absence of such notice, I *will* take it as a reply to me if
it follows text I have written.
For example, you could have top posted this as if it were an overview. A
notation that "This isn't specifically directed at David, but..." would
also have worked.
--
"Quantum particles: the dreams that stuff is made of."
- David Moser
Ben Yalow
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote
>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:09:12 -0700, "Karl Johanson"
>> <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>"David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> wrote
>>>> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:07:54 -0700, "Karl Johanson"
>>>> <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>>>"Ben Yalow" <yb...@panix.com> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> A second rate TV star, famous for *one season* of a TV show,
>>>>>
>>>>>And the original movie. And other movies and TV shows. And stage
>>>>>productions. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000396/
>>>>
>>>> I liked her, but her body of work is rather sparse. Sparse enough for
>>>> Ben's characterization.
>>>
>>>"Rather sparse" is a vague term. "A second rate TV star, famous for *one
>>>season* of a TV show,..." is just wrong.
>>
>> Well, *that's* an opinion...
>For my opinion to be wrong in this case, she would have to have recieved no
>fame for any of her other acting work.
Correct.
I think she would have received some critical appreciation for things like
The Burning Bed (assuming she were given the part), but not the sort that
would make her famous.
There are lots of minor, sometimes really skilled, actors, who aren't
famous. Without Charlie's Angels, I think she would have fallen into that
category.
Ben
--
Ben Yalow yb...@panix.com
Not speaking for anybody
Ben Yalow
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>>> I think you have no concept of how our culture functions, if those
>>> are your impressions of those three people.
>> There was any lingering doubt in your mind?
>This gets tiresome. Really, really tiresome.
>I guess I should have remained silent, or just browsed Wikipedia,
>rather than opening myself to a small amount of information on Jackson
>and McMahon laced with heaping helpings of abuse and insults.
>In *my* reality, it's unfannish to ridicule someone for not already
>knowing something. *Especially* something about celebrity trivia.
The thread began with your comment:
>The other thing that surprised me was that Michael Jackson got more
>coverage than Farrah Fawcett. A '70s singer who had only been in the
>news since then because of those unsubstantiated allegations, and
>because of his changing color, is more famous than a glamorous movie
>and TV star?
This is a claim by you that you feel qualified to comment on who Michael
Jackson is, and that he's a 70s singer who has only been in the news since
then for various minor reasons.
If you'd said, "I don't know anything about Michael Jackson since the
70s.", then it would not be claiming knowledge about something. But you
did claim knowledge, and it's clearly false. For the record, just to give
a clear post-70s fact that would make Jackson famous, there's the release
of Thriller in 1982 -- the best selling album in history.
Nobody is expected to know everything (although it's impossible to find
people who have any contact with the popular culture of the last several
decades to not recognize Michael Jackson). But, if you don't know
something, it's useful not to make pronoucements about it.
>--
>Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Ben
Ben Yalow
>Ben Yalow <yb...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Ed McMahon spent 30 years on TV as the most impportant second
>> bananna on the show that created late night television. Anything
>> else he did was relatively minor --
>Maybe so, but I had never heard of him until I got those letters that
>claimed to be from him.
Which is irrelevant to why he was famous. Your knowledge base on popular
culture is minimal, even by fannish standards, since you've made clear
that TV is barely a part of your life, whereas it's one of the drivers of
popular culture.
>> he was one of the more important figures in the development of TV.
>Wikipedia says he was first on TV in 1957. That's a bit late for the
>development of TV.
Not really. Late night TV was significantly shaped by 30 years of Johnny
Carson and Ed McMahon.
>--
>Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Ben
Philip Chee
> Nobody is expected to know everything (although it's impossible to find
> people who have any contact with the popular culture of the last several
> decades to not recognize Michael Jackson). But, if you don't know
> something, it's useful not to make pronoucements about it.
Not to defend Keith, but, but, when has this non-knowledge ever stopped
the average sf fan from such pronouncements?
Phil
--
Philip Chee <phi...@aleytys.pc.my>, <phili...@gmail.com>
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
David G. Bell
<i1sf45l1rpt2la798...@4ax.com> DougBerry
wrote:
> The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 28 Jun 2009 15:25:29 -0500, when
> the mysterious "David V. Loewe, Jr" <dave...@charter.net> spoke
> thusly in rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>
> >On 28 Jun 2009 15:13:49 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>As I said in a message you may not have read yet, from now on I will
> >>treat any such insult as an an admission that you were wrong and that
> >>the argument is over. I'll call it Loewe's law. This is your final
> >>warning.
> >
> >So, under this doctrine, we can all just ignore you for what you wrote
> >to Doug Berry about landing on his head?
>
> Of course not! Keith can insult me about my military service, my
> current toothless state, and anything else, but should I mention he
> pled guilty to felonies, I'm being mean.
>
> Don't you understand? This is KeithWorld!
But how did he get zoning for a theme park like THIS?
--
David G. Bell -- SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.
On the horizon, a carrier task force of the Salvation Navy was
turning into the wind, preparing to launch Zeppelins.
Paul Dormer
>
> > The bizarre thing about Saturn 3 was that it was written my
> > Martin Amis.
>
> Wow. I had no idea you had your own Martin Amis.
Incidentally, not my most embarrassing typo of the weekend.
On Friday, I booked my flight to Montreal via a website. It was only
when I received my e-mail confirmation, I discovered my name listed as
"Ms Paul Robert Dormer". I e-mailed the site with a correction and got
what I suspect was a semi-automatic reply saying that to change the name
would require cancelling (which involved a �25 cancellation fee) and
re-booking. I then spent half an hour on the phone whilst the person at
the site went to the airline to see if they'd accept the change. (I
guess the alternative would have been to shave off my beard and wear a
frock to the airport.)
I suspect it wasn't so much a typo as that the title was a drop-down box
and I'd forgotten to select an item from the box and Ms was the default.
Good Windows programming should force the user to pick a value from that
box.
Paul Dormer
Lynch) wrote:
>
> Three celebrities died this week: Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett,
> and Michael Jackson.
Ed McMahon's obituary made it to the paper today:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/ed-mcmahon-sidekick-on-lsquot
onightrsquo-for-30-years-famous-for-his-cry-of-lsquoheeeeeerersquos-johnny
rsquo-1723087.html
I must admit it was not a name that rang any bells for me.
The timing for the announcements of the Fawcett and Jackson deaths was
such that the Friday edition of the paper had a one-page news item about
Fawcett's death and a full page obituary, nothing about Jackson. (When I
switched on BBC News at about 23:30 on Thursday night, it was the main
item, but they were still not 100% sure he was dead.) Saturday's edition
had several pages on Jackson and a two-page obituary.
One of the other obituaries in today's paper was for Colin Bean, an actor
best known for playing Private Sponge, a minor character in the
long-running TV series Dad's Army. He got exactly the same size obituary,
same size photograph, as McMahon.
The third obituary today was for Wing Commander Ken Mackenzie, who won a
DFC in the Battle of Britain: "He was flying a Hawker Hurricane, its
ammunition spent. His quarry was a Messerschmitt 109 fighter which tried
to evade him by diving almost to sea level, intent on heading for France
and safety. Mackenzie knocked it into the sea by the extraordinarily
dangerous move � very definitely not recommended in any training manual �
of using his plane�s wing to shear its tail off, sending it spiralling
out of control. When the German plane went into the waves, Mackenzie
nursed his damaged craft back to England, crash-landing in a field near
Folkestone in Kent."
Lee Ratner
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 04:00:08 +0000 (UTC), Ben Yalow wrote:
> > Nobody is expected to know everything (although it's impossible to find
> > people who have any contact with the popular culture of the last several
> > decades to not recognize Michael Jackson). But, if you don't know
> > something, it's useful not to make pronoucements about it.
>
> Not to defend Keith, but, but, when has this non-knowledge ever stopped
> the average sf fan from such pronouncements?
>
geeks, the various types of fen, and nerds are made fun of is moderate
to extreme lack of knowledge of popular culture. Many of us have
demonstrated such a lack of knowledge of popular culture including
myself. Its not something to be proud because it shows a lack of
awareness of one's surroundings. You do not necessarily have to watch
America's Got Talent or House or American Idol, or if you are not an
American the popular tv shows in your native country, but you should
know at least what they are.
Kevrob
> In article <h23qp6$gi...@panix2.panix.com>, k...@KeithLynch.net (Keith F.
>
> Lynch) wrote:
>
> > Three celebrities died this week: Ed McMahon, Farrah Fawcett,
> > and Michael Jackson.
>
> Ed McMahon's obituary made it to the paper today:
>
> onightrsquo-for-30-years-famous-for-his-cry-of-lsquoheeeeeerersquos-johnny
> rsquo-1723087.html
>
> I must admit it was not a name that rang any bells for me.
>
>
I don't find that surprising, given that someone Ed McM's career was
in U.S. domestic TV, and mostly on shows (Tonight, game shows) that
weren't likely to be shown abroad until fairly recently, when he was
no longer appearing on them.
I'm familiar with the names of certain "chat show" types or DJs from
Paul's side of the pond who haven't also gone on the air in the States
(Terry Wogan, the late John Peel), but I won't always recognize their
faces or voices if I miss an introduction. Frex, it took me awhile to
figure out who the "Terry" Jimmy Rabbitte was monologing to in Roddy
Doyle's "The Commitments" was.
Kevin
Kevrob
> The scrolls speak of the day, Sun, 28 Jun 2009 12:06:43 -0700 (PDT),
> when the mysterious Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> spoke thusly in
> rec.arts.sf.fandom:
>
> >On Jun 28, 3:01 pm, morr...@epsilon3.com wrote:
> >> On 28-Jun-2009, p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk (Paul Dormer) wrote:
>
> >> > In article
> >> > <ade15810-425c-49d2-8ba2-9e9916c18...@o36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> >> > kev...@my-deja.com (Kevrob) wrote:
>
> >> > > ObSF for Farrah - "Saturn 3"
>
> >> > The bizarre thing about Saturn 3 was that it was written my Martin Amis.
>
> >> Wow. I had no idea you had your own Martin Amis.
>
> >Must be a PoMo or deconstructionist thing: Every reader has his own
> >Martin Amis?
>
> I had to send mine back to the factory. Kept producing Neo-Victorian
> poetry. and don't get me started about the carpets!
> --
>
>
What, you couldn't impose your own meaning on the textiles?
Kevin
David Friedman
<49f9e07a-a700-4535...@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Lee Ratner <LBRa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One of things that
> geeks, the various types of fen, and nerds are made fun of is moderate
> to extreme lack of knowledge of popular culture. Many of us have
> demonstrated such a lack of knowledge of popular culture including
> myself. Its not something to be proud because it shows a lack of
> awareness of one's surroundings. You do not necessarily have to watch
> America's Got Talent or House or American Idol, or if you are not an
> American the popular tv shows in your native country, but you should
> know at least what they are.
It's neither something to be proud of nor something to be ashamed of.
There are far more things worth knowing in the world than there is time
to learn about all of them.
David Friedman
p...@pauldormer.cix.co.uk (Paul Dormer) wrote:
> Ed McMahon's obituary made it to the paper today:
>
>
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/ed-mcmahon-sidekick-on-lsquot
> onightrsquo-for-30-years-famous-for-his-cry-of-lsquoheeeeeerersquos-johnny
> rsquo-1723087.html
>
> I must admit it was not a name that rang any bells for me.
Nor me. Prior to the discussion here, I don't think I had any idea who
he was.
Kevrob
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:41:15 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >ObSF for Farrah - "Saturn 3"
>
> Also the 1976 film version of "Logan's Run."
>
> --
>
I had forgotten that one. Say "Logan's Run" to me and my mind wanders
to the toothsome Jenny Agutter.
Both babes in this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOi8dDmF6to&NR=1
Kevin
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> So, under this doctrine, we can all just ignore you for what you
>> wrote to Doug Berry about landing on his head?
>
>Yes, you can ignore that message, which was a joke.
No, no...
Can we "treat any such insult as an an admission that you were wrong and
that the argument is over." and ignore you for the rest of the thread?
This IS what you promulgate in your new Lynch's Personal Rule.
Shouldn't sauce for the goose be sauce for the gander, Keith? Or are
you not willing to be subject to the same rules you apply to everyone
else?
--
"Why do we never get an answer
When we're knocking at the door
With a thousand million questions
About hate and death and war?"
David J. Hayward
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>> And, frankly, much of the time the sheer magnitude, and sheer
>> frequency of your purveying of them, of your misinformation or
>> misimpressions overwhelms everyone.
>
>As I said in a message you may not have read yet, from now on I will
>treat any such insult
If you don't want to get such insults (and I'd dispute that it is an
insult), then quit providing the fodder for them.
Are you denying that you were misinformed about Mr. Jackson? Are you
denying that you had a misimpression of the extent of his fame?
My statement is the truth. I'm not going to start lying to you to spare
your feelings.
>as an an admission that you were wrong
Because no one could or would EVER, in the history of the world, tear
your argument or point to utter shreds and then throw in an insult on
top of things?
Don't ever watch Christopher Hitchens.
>and that the argument is over.
That is one of the most intellectually dishonest bits I've ever seen.
You're going to run up your little white flag, stick your fingers in
your ears and proclaim "Victory!" I'd say it was childish, but you'd
probably think that characterization was insulting (walking on
*eggshells* around you, Keith), so I won't.
>I'll call it Loewe's law.
Already taken.
Loewe's Law: A Usenet poster who is denigrating the intelligence of
another Usenet poster is more likely than normal to commit a
typographical or grammatical error while doing so.
Maybe you should call it Lynch's Personal Rule. After all, it isn't
even a law, it is merely a statement of what *you* intend to do - a
personal rule. Moreover, the first and only person, so far, that have
invoked it against is Doug Berry and not me.
>This is your final warning.
I'm quivering in my slippers.
>> To use the star analogy, you depicted Jackson as a burned out brown
>> dwarf after 1979.
>
>I depicted him as a "'70s singer." So sue me.
>
>> The fact of the matter is that during that same time frame he blazed
>> forth like Eta Carinae in an eruptive phase.
>
>I don't closely follow pop culture. I've never claimed to. I said,
>"The other thing that surprised me was that Michael Jackson got more
>coverage than Farrah Fawcett," and I get insults from you (and others).
>The insults might be deserved if I held myself out as an expert on
>celebrity trivia, but, as you know, I don't.
This isn't just celebrity trivia. Michael Jackson was one the most
overexposed people of the 80s. He was possibly the most known and
recognizable person on the planet during that decade. There is an
astonishment that this escaped your notice because the rest of us
couldn't escape it - some of us tried to.
Now THINK.
This guy is getting far more press than you think is warranted. Should
you A) go pop off to the NG or B) look him up on Wikipedia and find out
what you're missing?
I should think the choice is clear.
>Why don't you mention Eta Carinae in casual conversation,
I didn't bring up Michael Jackson. You did.
>and ridicule anyone who has no idea what that star is famous for, or
>even that it is a star?
You have this essentially backwards. It is as if someone brought up Eta
Carinae in a casual conversation and that person was the only one in the
conversation who was unaware that Eta Carinae was a star, much less what
it was famous for.
--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."
- Voltaire
David Friedman
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> This isn't just celebrity trivia. Michael Jackson was one the most
> overexposed people of the 80s. He was possibly the most known and
> recognizable person on the planet during that decade. There is an
> astonishment that this escaped your notice because the rest of us
> couldn't escape it - some of us tried to.
For what it's worth, I don't think I knew who Michael Jackson was in the
80's, although I had probably heard his name. Possibly not in the 90's
either.
People do vary a lot in what particular things attract their attention.