GL: SOD Headline ?
Donni
//
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
//
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
//
//
At the grocery store I saw the headline on SOD and it said... GL: Hunk
is Blind. or words to that effect.
Any ideas?
KC
wrote:
A GL character is blind, not a GL actor. I hate when they have a cheap
headline like that, just to shock or frighten people.
KC
M
Lewis construction site.
DonnaB shallotpeel
<esb8o35oanfkbcaig...@4ax.com>, KC <cmk...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:10:49 -0500, Donni <Da...@nospamorham.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Adding some spoiler space just because
> >//
> >/
> >/
> >/
> >/
> >/
> >/
> >/
> >//
> >/
> >/
> >/
> >/
> >/
> >/
> >/
> >/
> >//
> >//
> >
> >At the grocery store I saw the headline on SOD and it said... GL: Hunk
> >is Blind. or words to that effect.
>
> A GL character is blind, not a GL actor. I hate when they have a cheap
> headline like that, just to shock or frighten people.
Hmm, I hate many aspects of the fronts of soap mags today, but I didn't even
blink at that. I knew immediately who & what hunky GL character they had to
be speaking about. I'm sure they thought people would know!
And, KC, that's the issue that has the Ehlers feature interview in it.
--
DonnaB shallotpeel
"Courage is doing what you're afraid to do. There can be no courage unless
you're scared." - Edward Vernon Rickenbacker. American Pilot, Businessman &
Aviator. 1890-1973
KC
LOL. I got it in today's mail! So, Monday I got an issue, Tues I got
an issue, hmm, something's wrong with this picture.
KC
Donni
wrote:
>They are obviously talking about "Bill Lewis" and the explosion at the
>Lewis construction site.
OH DUH! Some days I'm just too stupid. I think I've watched Passions
too much.
Rthrquiet
> In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:22:29 -0500 in Msg.#
> <esb8o35oanfkbcaigd0b9je3668v2tt...@4ax.com>, KC <cmk1...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > A GL character is blind, not a GL actor. I hate when they have a cheap
> > headline like that, just to shock or frighten people.
>
> Hmm, I hate many aspects of the fronts of soap mags today, but I didn't even
> blink at that. I knew immediately who & what hunky GL character they had to
> be speaking about. I'm sure they thought people would know!
I think that's a bad assumption on their part, however. I watched last
week and so I was *pretty* sure I understood what they meant, but even
then, I had a pang of misgiving and was uneasy, until I took a peak
inside, with the thought that some actor I liked had gone unexpectedly
blind.
And if I had not happened to be watching last week because I had the
week off, I *totally* would have panicked, probably. It's not as
though bad things don't happen to GL actors. Remember Leonard Staab's
hang-gliding accident? And of course there's Michael Zaslow.
Still, even with that, I can't exactly say the headline is "wrong,"
per se. "GL Hunk Goes Blind" is perfectly true, but it's also
ambiguous enough to create problems, since it could refer either to a
GL character or to a GL actor. "Springfield Hunk Goes Blind" would
have been less ambiguous (but it also probably would not have fit).
Ditto "GL Character Goes Blind" (which also probably would not have
fit). (If I hadn't had to write headlines myself in a past life, I'd
have no sympathy whatsoever.)
Like KC, I wish they'd just not do headlines like this one.
Michael
Rthrquiet
> I had a pang of misgiving and was uneasy, until I took a peak
> inside,
Proofread, Michael, proofread. <peak> should have been <peek>. Sigh.
Apologies.
Michael
DonnaB shallotpeel
<v3f8o3h440qvr7vbo...@4ax.com>, KC <cmk...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
It is not unheard of for people's soap mags to be held up while people read
them at the Post Office.
--
DonnaB shallotpeel
"Education is a wonderful thing. If you couldn't sign your name you'd have
to pay cash." - Rita Mae Brown, STARTING FROM SCRATCH: A DIFFERENT KIND OF
WRITER'S MANUAL, 1988
MarkH
Yes, but the "peak" spelling was so much funnier and suggestive :-)
KC
<shall...@comcast.net> wrote:
>In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:17:31 -0500 in Msg.#
><v3f8o3h440qvr7vbo...@4ax.com>, KC <cmk...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:56:05 -0500, DonnaB shallotpeel
>> <shall...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >And, KC, that's the issue that has the Ehlers feature interview in it.
>>
>> LOL. I got it in today's mail! So, Monday I got an issue, Tues I got
>> an issue, hmm, something's wrong with this picture.
>
>It is not unheard of for people's soap mags to be held up while people read
>them at the Post Office.
Really?? I've never heard of that. If people care *that* much, why are
the ratings sinking? And, I thought it was a federal crime to tamper
with the US mail! It's pretty funny, though.
KC
Jude Cormier
by sending you older issues at the same time as the current issue!
DonnaB shallotpeel
<fmin5b$4i4$1...@registered.motzarella.org>, "Jude Cormier" <jh...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Also not unheard of, for publishers to try and fill your subscription faster
> by sending you older issues at the same time as the current issue!
Really? Most of the times if something like that happens it is entirely at
the level of the fulfillment house. I don't even know how the publisher
would accomplish such a thing. Besides, what you just described wouldn't
actually fill your subscription faster?!!
DonnaB shallotpeel
<djnpo35kca01unbqt...@4ax.com>, KC <cmk...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Yep, really. As far as ratings are concerned, I think a great many more
people today read the soap mags without buying them, whether they actually
watch the show or not.
I'm not sure they could be accused of tampering with the mail, though. But,
they could get a reprimand for delaying it or changed to another shift,
branch, route, etc.
--
DonnaB shallotpeel
"Good judgment comes from experience, and often experience comes from bad
judgment." - Rita Mae Brown
Jude Cormier
"DonnaB shallotpeel" <shall...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:juvpo31e8aa7dfdpb...@4ax.com...
> In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:31:32 -0600 in Msg.#
> <fmin5b$4i4$1...@registered.motzarella.org>, "Jude Cormier"
> <jh...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Also not unheard of, for publishers to try and fill your subscription
>> faster
>> by sending you older issues at the same time as the current issue!
>
> Really? Most of the times if something like that happens it is entirely at
> the level of the fulfillment house. I don't even know how the publisher
> would accomplish such a thing. Besides, what you just described wouldn't
> actually fill your subscription faster?!!
publisher/fufillment house--same difference, whatever
and yes, it does fill your subscription faster.
DonnaB shallotpeel
<fmj09d$kbr$1...@registered.motzarella.org>, "Jude Cormier" <jh...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> "DonnaB shallotpeel" <shall...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:juvpo31e8aa7dfdpb...@4ax.com...
> > In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on Tue, 15 Jan 2008 10:31:32 -0600 in Msg.#
> > <fmin5b$4i4$1...@registered.motzarella.org>, "Jude Cormier"
> > <jh...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Also not unheard of, for publishers to try and fill your subscription
> >> faster by sending you older issues at the same time as the current issue!
> >
> > Really? Most of the times if something like that happens it is entirely at
> > the level of the fulfillment house. I don't even know how the publisher
> > would accomplish such a thing. Besides, what you just described wouldn't
> > actually fill your subscription faster?!!
>
> publisher/fufillment house--same difference, whatever
Oh, gosh no. Not the same at all.
> and yes, it does fill your subscription faster.
How? The only way to fill your subscription faster would be to (1) be super
timely period, or (2) send you future episodes.
--
DonnaB shallotpeel
"I believe all literature started as gossip." - Rita Mae Brown
Jude Cormier
I know my experience is that it DOES fill a subscription faster.
YMMV
MarkH
I think what Jude means is this:
If you contract for 52 issues.
If, up front, they send you FOUR issues (including four for weeks gone
by...old news), they will fulfill your 52 issue contract
faster...i.e., "use up" a subscription faster.
You only get 49 issues of de facto "breaking news" (if there is such a
thing in a soap mag), because they used up your allotted issues by
backfilling with old news.
Am i right, Jude?
DonnaB shallotpeel
<81482b0c-f993-4e32...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, MarkH
<MarkH_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If you contract for 52 issues.
>
> If, up front, they send you FOUR issues (including four for weeks gone
> by...old news), they will fulfill your 52 issue contract
> faster...i.e., "use up" a subscription faster.
That makes no sense to me. The 52 issues is still 52 issues. But, what do
you mean by 'upfront'?
> You only get 49 issues of de facto "breaking news" (if there is such a
> thing in a soap mag), because they used up your allotted issues by
> backfilling with old news.
As opposed to NOT getting every issue?! Certainly they can be late with
issues. There's no question about that. And, certainly late issues & current
issues can come close together - especially after the holidays. But, to me,
not getting every issue isn't an option. And, breaking news isn't the only
reason to subscribe. Frankly, if you want breaking news as fast as
available, usually there's one or more outlets that have them on the shelf
*just* earlier than the earliest mail recipients. And, some of the earliest
mail recipients get the magazines earlier than most others. There's a whole
range of dates when people can see them.
--
DonnaB shallotpeel
"I don't expect executives to be creative but I do expect them to have
courage." - Rita Mae Brown, STARTING FROM SCRATCH: A DIFFERENT KIND OF
WRITER'S MANUAL
DonnaB shallotpeel
<fmj4si$b76$1...@registered.motzarella.org>, "Jude Cormier" <jh...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Look, I'm not here to get into an argument.
Nor am I.
--
DonnaB shallotpeel
"If the world were a logical place, men would ride side-saddle." - Rita Mae
Brown
Jude Cormier
"MarkH" <MarkH_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:81482b0c-f993-4e32...@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Am i right, Jude?
Yes, Mark :)
Jude Cormier
> In rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs on Tue, 15 Jan 2008 14:25:47 -0600 in Msg.#
> <fmj4si$b76$1...@registered.motzarella.org>, "Jude Cormier"
> <jh...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Look, I'm not here to get into an argument.
>
> Nor am I.
>
It just seem to me you were doubting what I was saying, Donna.
No offense.