Y&R Foundation and Disconnect
Watching It
about Y&R that truly concerns me. WHO on this show has not
had an upheval in his/her life since this new head writer
took over? It's like we're on shaky footing with the show.
No life, no family is sacred. The very foundation is being
chipped away. That is uncomfortable for me. Can anyone
point to one person whose life is the same?
The Operator
"Watching It" <mable...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mKWEg.6999$Qf....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Will she come back for the funeral?
Patricia Wadley
Nope, and that is the problem when you get someone new. They want to
put their "stamp" on the show, or the company, or whatever. And they
end up destroying the company or tv show.
I really liked the show with the plots that were moving right along.
Then, them killing John has forced me to reevaluate whether or not I am
wasting my time with this show. I don't like the "shake ups" too many,
too soon and no way to prepare. That may be true in "real life" but HEY
this is NOT real life. You may gain a few viewers, but you risk
alienating and turning off your core audience.
I have about four weeks of tapes to watch, and to tell you the truth, [I
have been watching in real time everyday] I have no desire to go back
and watch the shows I have missed. Why? Because I don't like where
this show is going.
There was no reason to kill off Cassie, I do not give a royal rat's ass
if it was to change the direction of the plot, show, whatever.
I hated the Brad story, started out good, but then YOU HAVE GOT TO BE
KIDDING, his mom is NOT eighty something.
I hated the Victor becoming John Abbott, I want John Abbott to be John
Abbott.
I do NOT like the Nick Phyllis plot, it started out ok, but you know
what? It is getting old. MAKE UP YOUR MIND NICK.
Sharon in Jep plots are OLD OLD OLD. Will this woman get over herself
and grow up? She isn't in high school any more and these plots are ALL
rehashes of the Matt plot.
I know why they killed off Cassie, she was more mature than Sharon.
Some of the plots were good, now they are all totally and completely
tedious.
I am sorry, death bed scenes are tedious. They are nothing more than
rehashes.
In all, this show has become boring and predictable.
my2cents
p
Diva
Doris, still wheeling and dealing.
Diva
Diva
Gina's cooking remains stable but her tasting appears to have
increased.
Diva
Cheri
Watching It wrote in message ...
Miguel. Unless, he's changed his chocolate chip recipe. Now, that would
be a tragedy, and life would never be the same. :-)
Cheri
Cheri
Patricia Wadley wrote in message ...
>I hated the Brad story, started out good, but then YOU HAVE GOT TO BE
>KIDDING, his mom is NOT eighty something.
I hate Brad period, and telling Victoria yesterday that "he and Sharon
were more than friends, but, she's his wife," (like he's making a
sacrifice to stay with her or something) made me hate him more. Kick
that boy to the curb Vic, let him babysit Sharon for the next few years,
that ought to make him humble.
Cheri
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> Nope, and that is the problem when you get someone new. They want to
> put their "stamp" on the show, or the company, or whatever. And they
> end up destroying the company or tv show.
It's understandable that a new person would want to make their presence
noteworthy. But when the company is number one to begin with, seems a
little risky to come in and change it THIS drastically THIS fast, IMO.
Seems LML couldn't care less how anything was done before, didn't bother
to research what qualities put Y&R above the rest, and what loyal,
long-time viewers want or expect is the least of her concern ... in
fact, what the actors want is apparently a higher priority than what the
*viewers* want.
> I really liked the show with the plots that were moving right along.
> Then, them killing John has forced me to reevaluate whether or not I am
> wasting my time with this show.
For me it is three things: (1) the nth time repeat of Nick and Sharon's
Musical Chair Marriage (I know that began before LML took over); (2) the
Brad's Past story with more holes than a slice of Swiss cheese; and
finally (3) the Bury Jerry idea.
> I don't like the "shake ups" too many, too soon and no
> way to prepare. That may be true in "real life" but HEY
> this is NOT real life. You may gain a few viewers, but you
> risk alienating and turning off your core audience.
Amen!
And they're all *negative* shake-ups. I'm aware of the belief that happy
characters are boring, and soap viewers are only interested in turmoil.
I'm also sure that the turmoil is much more fun to write and act, and
that it takes more effort and energy to make "happy" look interesting.
That said, seems with that in mind, someone arbitrarily decided: "So,
let's just ELIMINATE "happy" and "good" completely and have it ALL
fighting, bickering, backstabbing turmoil and chaos ... they'll REALLY
like THAT!"
There is precious little to offset all the grief anymore. Nikki keeps
saying, "Our family is in crisis!" When EVER is the Newman family NOT in
crisis? or the Abbott family? or the Winters family? or the Fisher
family?
Lauren and Michael are the only two people on the whole show that give
viewers the feeling that there's a bond between them that they BOTH love
and cherish. They smile and laugh and make jokes with one another and
seem to truly enjoy spending time together.
How can we really get into the "drama" or care what happens to any of
them if we never see anything good or valuable or treasured being
threatened by the crises and turmoil?
If all we want to see are people we don't care about and their stories
of twisted lies, betrayals and questionable paternities, followed by
screaming catfights and hair pulling, Jerry Springer is already doing
that, and probably at a fraction of the cost.
Shirl
ravelation
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
>There is precious little to offset all the
>grief anymore. Nikki keeps saying, "Our
>family is in crisis!" When EVER is the
>Newman family NOT in crisis? or the
>Abbott family? or the Winters family? or
>the Fisher family?
I really don't mean to sound like I'm defending LML and the direction of
the show, but I keep getting the feeling from reading comments (esp.
yours, Shirley) that you're blaming YEARS of crappiness on LML! Your
passage above illustrates this idea I'm trying to convey perfectly.
>Lauren and Michael are the only two
>people on the whole show that give
>viewers the feeling that there's a bond
>between them that they BOTH love and
>cherish.
And there's the balance you so desperately look for. Me personally? I'd
put a gun to my head if they made a bunch of Michael and Lauren's on the
show.
Ravl
MarkH
Patricia Wadley wrote:
> Watching It wrote:
> > After reading the posts of others today, I have one question
> > about Y&R that truly concerns me. WHO on this show has not
> > had an upheval in his/her life since this new head writer
> > took over? It's like we're on shaky footing with the show.
> > No life, no family is sacred. The very foundation is being
> > chipped away. That is uncomfortable for me. Can anyone
> > point to one person whose life is the same?
> >
> >
>
That's how you cure stagnation. As long as the responses of characters
are consistent with history, and lead to new directions that are
consistent with what we know to be true about the characters, I think
this is fine. Many viewers note that Cassie's death (a product of the
past regime) wonderfully propelled whole new arcs for Nick/Sharon,
Phyllis/Jack, and the Winters. This energized the show...so if this is
"foundation shaking", I say bring it on.
> Nope, and that is the problem when you get someone new. They want to
> put their "stamp" on the show, or the company, or whatever. And they
> end up destroying the company or tv show.
>
Okay, but remember that this is not LML's sole "fault". CBS exec
Barbara Bloom was INTENT on making this happen, and hired THREE
consultants at the end of last year (LML, but also Sally Sussman-Morina
and Scott Hamner, both of whom are now writing for the show).
Moreover, it was done with full eager participation of Bill Bell Jr.
(who is running the production co.). So, since a shakeup was GOING to
happen one way or another, I'm delighted that LML (who was amazing
during much of her Knot's Landing run) was selected.
In the end, though, I think it is CHARACTERS, not the show, that are
being shaken up. Take three recent examples: (a) Victor's head butt
was very consistent with his fighting in the past, and I'm glad it
finally had consequences (soccer players have the highest rate of head
injury of any sport). It is precisely because he is OUT of
character...and that this was revealed slowly...that many of us were
delighted with the story. When he comes back from Hope after 3 weeks
on Dilantin, the delight will be that he is back in fighting form, and
that he will take care of all the bad apples who--in one way or
another--took advantage of or failed to act promptly on hisillness.
(b) John Abbott's death. I am heartsick about this, and hate to lose
the patriarch. But let's face facts. Before shooting Terrible Tom,
John had become peripheral and was rarely seen...even written off the
show ("moved to New York") for a time during the 90s. After being sent
to prison (a story from the last regime), it was hard to bring him
back. AND, the actor (in his 70s) wanted a reduced story schedule.
The payoff of the death of this patriarch (whose kids never moved
out!!!) can be remarkable. With the promise that we'll see ghost-John
40-50 times a year, I'm content. Like others, I'm loving the realism
of this D.N.R. story. (c) Brad's story. I loved the buildup. Great
suspense! I hated the execution. (Reliquary? Kidnapping?). [It helps
knowing this was all an artifice to work around staff vacations]. I
liked the action at the end! (Brad's wrestling moves! Had me on the
edge of my seat). Moreover, I think the payoff will be great!
(Victoria returns to the dark, untrusting side. That will be fun).
Each of these twists is absolutely consistent with history, in
character, and will lead to great new story.
>
> There was no reason to kill off Cassie, I do not give a royal rat's ass
> if it was to change the direction of the plot, show, whatever.
>
This was the previous regime. As I wrote above, I think this was a
terrific idea, and continues to pay off now. I love the courage, and
consider this story point the last "gift" of the previous regime.
> I hated the Brad story, started out good, but then YOU HAVE GOT TO BE
> KIDDING, his mom is NOT eighty something.
>
I don't care much about the age, but I'm inclined to agree with the
fact that this short-arc story was not Y&R in finest form. But, the
long-term payoff (Victoria's mistrust; Brad's ass-whupping by a
re-energized Victor) is worth i.
> I hated the Victor becoming John Abbott, I want John Abbott to be John
> Abbott.
>
Victor will come back on Dilantin, and he'll be Victor again. I'm
looking forward to it, even as I miss the daily laugh-out-loud (Nikki &
the power drill, Zapato and the dog hair on suits, spitting watermelon
seeds, nuns who smelled of lavendar, snowflakes) of kinder-gentler
Victor.
> I do NOT like the Nick Phyllis plot, it started out ok, but you know
> what? It is getting old. MAKE UP YOUR MIND NICK.
>
Uh uh! This is GREAT SOAP. It's brilliant (sorry, Shirl) on SO MANY
levels.
Did you hear what Nick said to Sharon yesterday? "Just because we're
not together right now..." Right now! Ahhh...he betrayed his inner
feelings beautifully.
Phyllis was right to be afraid. Nick is not committed to her. She is
(a) a rebound, (b) a hot sex toy, and (c) the carrying vessel of the
baby he craves.
This indecision is the stuff of GREAT soaps, esp. since Nick doesn't
see it yet.
Also, I love that Nick is repeated his dad's dysfunctional
patterns...which is what happens in real life. Victor always rushed to
Nikki--damsel in distress--even when he was involved with other women.
Victor always refused to LET GO. We're starting to see the same bad
pattern in Nick...and I couldn't be happier. This is the kind of
dynamic that can sustain a soap for decades.
> I am sorry, death bed scenes are tedious. They are nothing more than
> rehashes.
>
Couldn't disagree more...but I was a Six Feet Under nut. Death is
poignant. It brings out unspoken feelings, regret. It brings (usually
temporarily) warring factions together. It brings out heated conflicts
(like around this DNR stuff...a TOTALLY realistic twist). It brings
prodigal relatives home.
Death is an amazing plot device, and it has been cheapened on soaps
because characters never die...they keep returning from the dead.
Kudos to Y&R for treating death--and its fallout--realistically.
That said, I think premising another set of story arcs on a high
profile death (John's), on the heels of doing so last year (Cassie) is
a big risk. Y&R really hit pay dirt this summer with its injection of
red herrings/suspense, and also with its injection of humor (Phyl/Nick,
Victor). It will be important to retain these exciting new show
elements as they move forward, or the progress of the past months will
be lost.
> In all, this show has become boring and predictable.
>
I disagree. I don't have a CLUE what is going to happen next in most
of the stories, and that is what I love.
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> That's how you cure stagnation. As long as the responses of characters
> are consistent with history, and lead to new directions that are
> consistent with what we know to be true about the characters, I think
> this is fine. Many viewers note that Cassie's death (a product of the
> past regime) wonderfully propelled whole new arcs for Nick/Sharon,
> Phyllis/Jack, and the Winters. This energized the show...so if this is
> "foundation shaking", I say bring it on.
Foundation shaking can be very risky -- just ask anyone that lives in
San Francisco! If the structure is worthy of saving, which most would
concur that a No. 1 soap opera IS, shaking the foundation to the extent
that the whole thing may collapse right before your eyes *intentionally*
might not be such a great technique.
LML is creating magnitude 8.0 or greater DESTRUCTIVE quakes with Y&R,
not the smaller magnitude jolts that serve to relieve pressure and
thought to be a good thing.
> So, since a shakeup was GOING to happen one way or another,
> I'm delighted that LML (who was amazing during much of her
> Knot's Landing run) was selected.
How long ago was the KL run? And a night-time, prime-time serial is not
the same as a daily viewed, 3-decade running soap opera. Both "soaps,"
but different dynamics. Because she did one well 20 years ago doesn't
mean she's the perfect person here, as we've seen so far. Oh wait, the
ratings are this week, so that must mean she's doin' great.
> In the end, though, I think it is CHARACTERS, not
> the show, that are being shaken up.
Hello...the characters ARE THE SHOW!
> I am heartsick about this, and hate to lose
> the patriarch. But let's face facts. Before
> shooting Terrible Tom, John had become
> peripheral and was rarely seen...even written off the
> show ("moved to New York") for a time during the 90s.
Yes, he was written off in the 90s, the but the possibility for his
return was always there, and in fact, he ultimately did return. Just
because a character, especially an elderly patriarch, is peripheral
doesn't mean it's a great idea to kill him off. Elderly, patriarchal
characters *should* be peripheral rather than being featured in *every*
story as EB thinks he should be. That's not to say they shouldn't have
or aren't worthy of a story from time to time ... they ARE! But being
peripheral doesn't diminish their value as foundation that is important
to the show and to the strength of the younger characters...not to
mention HISTORY that is important *to viewers*.
> (c) Brad's story. I loved the buildup. Great
> suspense! I hated the execution. (Reliquary? Kidnapping?).
> [It helps knowing this was all an artifice to work around staff
> vacations].
I'm shaking my head here ... if the *execution* doesn't hold up, what do
you have? A great build-up and great suspense when the whole thing falls
on the floor and shatters into a gazillion pieces? Well, you can always
say, "Too bad, I *thought* it was going to be good!"
As for knowing staff vacations played a part in its downfall, that
doesn't cut a bit of ice with me. If a brilliant professional like LML
doesn't know how to plan for staff vacations during a major story, she
shouldn't be in a position to make these kinds of decisions.
> It will be important to retain these exciting new show
> elements as they move forward, or the progress of the
> past months will be lost.
Progress? I don't see the past few months as progress. I see them as
some of the most destructive in Y&R's history.
> I don't have a CLUE what is going to happen next in most
> of the stories, and that is what I love.
I like unpredictability too, but I prefer to be anticipating greatness,
not being fearful of what more of LML's chain-saw technique will do to
the Y&R.
Shirl
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> >There is precious little to offset all the
> >grief anymore. Nikki keeps saying, "Our
> >family is in crisis!" When EVER is the
> >Newman family NOT in crisis? or the
> >Abbott family? or the Winters family? or
> >the Fisher family?
ravel...@webtv.net (ravelation) wrote:
> I really don't mean to sound like I'm defending LML
> and the direction of the show, but I keep getting the
> feeling from reading comments (esp. yours, Shirley)
> that you're blaming YEARS of crappiness on LML! Your
> passage above illustrates this idea I'm trying to convey
> perfectly.
I was here posting from time to time prior to LML's arrival about my
opinion that there was too much bickering, fighting and backstabbing and
not enough love, compassion, forgiveness and trust to balance it out and
make us CARE. So no, I'm not blaming LML for prior years of that.
However, since LML arrived, that balance is even more drastically out of
whack. Every family is experiencing exhaustive turmoil and precious
little, if any, kindness. Are you inspired to get together with friends
that are constantly fighting? or, after several visits where all they do
is bicker, do you start to feel not as excited about getting together
with them?
> >Lauren and Michael are the only two
> >people on the whole show that give
> >viewers the feeling that there's a bond
> >between them that they BOTH love and
> >cherish.
>
> And there's the balance you so desperately look for.
ONE couple on a show with this many families and couples is hardly the
"balance" I'm looking for.
> Me personally? I'd put a gun to my head if they made a
> bunch of Michael and Lauren's on the show.
A statement taken to the opposite extreme -- I never said they need "a
bunch of Michael and Laurens". I'm not saying a show WITHOUT turmoil is
the answer.
I'm saying that the days we all look back at with such fondness were
times when Y&R had lots of turmoil, but ALSO had lots of love and
understanding, VALUED relationships, treasured bonds ... we cared
*because the characters cared* about each other. Nowadays, characters'
relationships are so conditional, and it is questionable how valued
and/or treasured they are by the players ... not a very strong degree of
protectiveness about those relationships. No moral compass. No
integrity.
No balance.
Shirl
Watching It
<Xmnus...@aol.communicate> wrote in message
news:Xmnushal8y-98890...@news.west.cox.net...
<snip>
> I like unpredictability too, but I prefer to be
> anticipating greatness,
> not being fearful of what more of LML's chain-saw technique
> will do to
> the Y&R.
>
> Shirl
I love this metaphor, Shirl. You paint a picture with words
that reflect what my mind is thinking. This is so painful
for me to watch. I mean, in the past, you had issues...but
there was always some aspect of the show that remained
constant and you could depend upon that as a axis from which
to venture. Right now, I have no where to drop an anchor as
I hang on for the ride. Everywhere I look, there is turmoil.
What was broken about Y&R tht it had to be fixed? It's been
on top for how many years now? How does that adage go,
..."If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> I love this metaphor, Shirl. You paint a picture with words
> that reflect what my mind is thinking.
Many of us are feeling similar sadness about what we see happening.
> This is so painful for me to watch. I mean, in the past,
> you had issues...but there was always some aspect of the
> show that remained constant and you could depend upon
> that as a axis from which to venture. Right now, I have no
> where to drop an anchor as I hang on for the ride. Everywhere
> I look, there is turmoil.
As I've mentioned several times, no balance.
There used to be something uplifting to offset all the turmoil and
chaos. Now, we go from Nikki worrying about where Victor is to Lily and
Daniel missing each other to Dru and Neil at each other's throats to
Nick and Sharon desperately trying to find some middle ground to Jack
and Gloria stabbing each other in the back to Phyllis being all alone
and not knowing from one moment to the next where she stands with anyone
to Brad and Victoria pretending they don't have an elephant between them
to the biggest downer of all, people gathered at the hospital deciding
when to pull the plug on the patriarch of their family.
Gee, wasn't that hour was entertaining?
It's not that I don't expect to feel their pain or to cry with them
sometimes, but all this fighting, scheming, discord ... and NOTHING
upbeat? As mentioned in another post, how often do we revisit places
where the time spent is always a downer and rarely upbeat or fun?
I used to look forward to the hour each day that I spent with the Y&R.
Now I find myself asking if I want to subject myself to all that
exhausting misery or if I'll feel better after an hour of playing with
my dog? Let's just say the dog is loving LML these days!
> What was broken about Y&R tht it had to be fixed?
Nothing.
I raised the same question a couple of weeks ago.
Not that it couldn't use some improvements, but it wasn't at the bottom,
in danger of falling off the radar screen, and in need of a complete and
total overnight makeover! It was No. 1, as it had been. Changing the
entire look and feel may have seemed exciting at first, but as a few of
us predicted, it may well backfire. The Brad's Past and Bury Jerry
stories, while having some individual scenes worthy of kudos, are not,
IMO, a good sign of the "direction" LML intends to take the show.
> It's been on top for how many years now?
> How does that adage go, ..."If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Exactly. Thanks for reiterating so I don't sound so much like a broken
record.
Shirl
MarkH
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
> "MarkH" <slip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > (c) Brad's story. I loved the buildup. Great
> > suspense! I hated the execution. (Reliquary? Kidnapping?).
> > [It helps knowing this was all an artifice to work around staff
> > vacations].
>
> I'm shaking my head here ... if the *execution* doesn't hold up, what do
> you have? A great build-up and great suspense when the whole thing falls
> on the floor and shatters into a gazillion pieces? Well, you can always
> say, "Too bad, I *thought* it was going to be good!"
>
I enjoy soaps on two levels...a running narrative, but also as a
day-to-day experience. As I wrote at the time, during the build-up
phase of Brad's story, I loved the day-to-day experience.
Hence, the story gets good marks from me for its early elements
(fleshing in Brad's empty past, suspense), and bad marks from me for
turning into a hackneyed kidnapping yarn. Although, even there, I liked
elements (decoding the message-in-the-dust in Sharon's picture...having
that revealed to be a trick...Brad's dispatching of the bad guys).
MarkH
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
> "Watching It" <mable...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > What was broken about Y&R tht it had to be fixed?
>
> Nothing.
> I raised the same question a couple of weeks ago.
> Not that it couldn't use some improvements, but it wasn't at the bottom,
> in danger of falling off the radar screen, and in need of a complete and
> total overnight makeover! It was No. 1, as it had been. Changing the
> entire look and feel may have seemed exciting at first, but as a few of
> us predicted, it may well backfire.
I think this is a fascinating question, and one for which I have not
yet found an answer. WHY did CBS essentially mandate the re-tooling of
Y&R (and not it's much weaker sibling, B&B?).
It's hard to point to anything objective. More than #1 in the ratings,
Y&R is often at the top of the coveted 18-to-49 demographic (even
though it often gets written off as an old-folks-soap, it actually does
pretty well with the young). So, why did they shake things up?
Not one piece of press has explained this to me yet.
That said, I don't agree with the view of Y&R as unrelenting sadness
and misery. Yes, the episodes surrounding John's death are sad--as
they should be. But, Dru still inspires a smile, Nick and Phyllis
still smoulder, and--while wacky Victor is probably gone for good--I'm
sure we'll be getting some smiles when Victor is back.
The ratings numbers are predictably stable. The show goes up and down
by a point or two every week. I can't believe anyone expected a new
writer to significantly reverse viewer erosion. I personally hoped for
this, but I also knew it was unlikely without heavy promotion.
Cheri
MarkH wrote in message
>Hence, the story gets good marks from me for its early elements
>(fleshing in Brad's empty past, suspense), and bad marks from me for
>turning into a hackneyed kidnapping yarn. Although, even there, I liked
>elements (decoding the message-in-the-dust in Sharon's picture...having
>that revealed to be a trick...Brad's dispatching of the bad guys).
The "bad guys" won't be completely dispatched, until Victoria dumps
Brad. He's such a low-life mutha.
Cheri
Patricia Wadley
>
> I'm saying that the days we all look back at with such fondness were
> times when Y&R had lots of turmoil, but ALSO had lots of love and
> understanding, VALUED relationships, treasured bonds ... we cared
> *because the characters cared* about each other. Nowadays, characters'
> relationships are so conditional, and it is questionable how valued
> and/or treasured they are by the players ... not a very strong degree of
> protectiveness about those relationships. No moral compass. No
> integrity.
>
> No balance.
>
> Shirl
Oh, you are so right. Even Jill and Katherine, at their worst fighting
still had time to turn to one another for help. Remember the time that
Katherine found a lump in her breast. Who did she call? Nikki? No,
she called Jill. And Jill went with her to have the mammogram. Jill
was so caring and comforting. Katherine really needed her support.
And, fortunately, it wasn't anything and they were back to their
bickering and fighting the next day. But for a few hours [their time]
we saw two women stand together, strong and there for one another.
I doubt we will ever see that again, and I don't care how many times
Sharon and Dru get together, I just do not believe them.
my2cents
p
Patricia Wadley
>
>
>>In all, this show has become boring and predictable.
>>
>
>
> I disagree. I don't have a CLUE what is going to happen next in most
> of the stories, and that is what I love.
>
You just proved my point. The summer, unlike other summers, started out
great. Great story arcs beginning and possible wizard plots. But then
they became same old same old. Sharon kidnapped or gone and bad guy in
the mix. How MANY times has that been done?
Nick becoming his father with indecision coating all his female
decisions? How many times are we going to see that again?
Newman family in crisis and always about the same thing: Sharon and
Victor. Though, of course they did kill off the only mature person in
the family, so I guess they are going back to high school plots, again.
Jack against everyone. Again.
Ashley stupid. Again.
Colleen as bitch has a lot of potential. So does Lily, I hope Daniel
kicks her to the curb and tells her he is sorry he wasted his time.
What's going to happen:
Jack will try to get back Jabot. Now, HOW many times has that been a plot?
Ashley will try to get rid of Brad in Abby's life. Ashley used Brad and
she will use him again and you know that she is going to turn to Victor.
Victor will be fighting everyone, his kids, Jack, Brad, the dog catcher
[probably not, but why not?]
The point is that it will be the same fights as before.
He has already started his visits with ex-wives again.
Katherine will be fighting with Jack.
Jack will be fighting with Gloria.
Michael will take his mom's side. Lauren will be upset.
Kevin will be EVERYONE'S whipping boy.
Gina will still be handing out menus.
And gee we haven't seen any of this before, now have we?
The only new are really interesting character on this show has been
Gloria. She has been mean, cruel, vindictive and vicious. She has been
a lot of fun to watch and bitch about.
She is not nearly as stupid as most of them can be.
John dying was not necessary. They could have had him in a coma. All
of the story lines would have continued the same. Jack could go and
have one way conversations with him as could Ash and Gloria. The point
is that his potential recovery would have always been there and there
were so many plots that could have spun off from there.
Now there is Jack with NO moral anchor and lots of hatred. He is not
going to mellow. There is Gloria who has a deadly enemy in Jack and
they are going to try and destroy each other. I understand that Jack is
going to make sure Gloria misses John's funeral. She will, probably,
kill him for that and I don't blame her.
The point is, only new character has really introduced new plots, but
the death of John Abbott has destroyed their moral anchor, none of those
kids, down to and including the grandkids has any integrity or morality.
Who they gonna call? Victor? I don't think so. [Abby is too young.]
my2cents
p
Niki
> <Xmnus...@aol.communicate> wrote in message
> news:Xmnushal8y-98890...@news.west.cox.net...
> <snip>
>
>>I like unpredictability too, but I prefer to be
>>anticipating greatness,
>>not being fearful of what more of LML's chain-saw technique
>>will do to
>>the Y&R.
> I love this metaphor, Shirl. You paint a picture with words
> that reflect what my mind is thinking. This is so painful
> for me to watch. I mean, in the past, you had issues...but
> there was always some aspect of the show that remained
> constant and you could depend upon that as a axis from which
> to venture. Right now, I have no where to drop an anchor as
> I hang on for the ride. Everywhere I look, there is turmoil.
> What was broken about Y&R tht it had to be fixed? It's been
> on top for how many years now? How does that adage go,
> ..."If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
There's a pic of her in SODs 8-22 edition on page 79.
To borry a phrase from Ravl, I'm just sayin'.
http://nikibone.com/ratsc/lml.jpg
She aint no Bill Bell.
--
Niki
Terry Pulliam Burd
rummaged among random neurons and opined:
>But I was a little put-off because Sharon had just returned from a
>harrowing experience so--being kidnapped and held prisoner, to me, Dru
>seemed like a whiney little nit-wit. If it wasn't for that, their
>relationship would have worked and I could have enjoyed them together.
>As it was, it just wasn't balanced.
Yahbut, Dru didn't know Sharon had been kidnapped, did she? Did I fall
asleep during an epi sometime this week? Today's show (Friday) had Dru
reference her thinking Sharon had been on vacation, so she didn't seem
to know about the kidnapping. Given that, Dru's drama about herself
seems understandable.
I also think this conspiracy of silence, as it were, is going to do
Sharon a great deal of harm if she can't share her kidnapping
experience outside the 3 who had been in the church when Brad killed
the Bad Guys.
What I am absolutely not getting is Victoria going ballistic when she
thinks Brad and Sharon just shared a kiss. I mean, what's up with
that?
Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA
--
"Just what kind of jackassery do I have to put up with today?" Danae
in "Non Sequitur"
To reply, replace "spaminator" with "cox"
Watching It
"Terry Pulliam Burd" <ntpu...@spaminator.net> wrote in
message news:kerce21aplkbef1d8...@4ax.com...
I don't think that Dru knew. I have not seen any indication
that she was told, and Brad wanted to keep things a secret.
I thought maybe I had missed the part where Sharon told Dru
about the kidnapping. Her not knowing would make her
self-centered conversation with Sharon understandable IMO.
record hunter
queenie wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 19:22:34 GMT, Patricia Wadley <mj...@sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> > I don't care how many times
> >Sharon and Dru get together, I just do not believe them.
>
> harrowing experience so--being kidnapped and held prisoner, to me, Dru
> seemed like a whiney little nit-wit. If it wasn't for that, their
> relationship would have worked and I could have enjoyed them together.
> As it was, it just wasn't balanced.
Well, Dru didn't know that. Still doesn't.
ravelation
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
>Every family is experiencing exhaustive
>turmoil and precious little, if any,
>kindness. Are you inspired to get
>together with friends that are constantly
>fighting? or, after several visits where
>all they do is bicker, do you start to feel
>not as excited about getting together
>with them?
Not all the families are bickering, Shirley. Yes, they are having
turmoil, but what I see coming from the ashes of turmoil is a bonding of
the families that we love to watch. Come on, we finally have Jack and
Ashley acting like a real loving brother and sister. Kevin, Michael and
Gloria are a strong, tight family. The Newmans are even on the same page
with each other, if only Victor would come home.
>Lauren and Michael are the only two
>people on the whole show that give
>viewers the feeling that there's a bond
>between them that they BOTH love and
>cherish.
You don't think Nick and Phyllis are happy? Jill and Kay? JT and
Colleen? Kevin and Jana? What do you want??
Ravl
ravelation
mj...@sbcglobal.net (Patricia Wadley)
wrote:
>Oh, you are so right. Even Jill and
>Katherine, at their worst fighting still had
>time to turn to one another for help.
snip>
Are you watching the same show as me?!? Jill and Katherine have totally
been there for each other this past week, as they should be. I like them
as Mother and Daughter.
>and I don't care how many times Sharon
>and Dru get together, I just do not
>believe them.
Really? I like their friendship and look forward to seeing where it
leads them.
The two of them offering advice to each other will be a hoot!
Ravl
ravelation
que...@nospam.com (queenie) wrote:
>But I was a little put-off because Sharon
>had just returned from a harrowing
>experience so--being kidnapped and
>held prisoner, to me, Dru seemed like a
>whiney little nit-wit.
I think she was supposed to sound that way to us. Sharon couldn't tell
her what happened and how bad her life has been lately, so it stands to
reason when Dru went blabbing on about her problems, they paled in
comparison.
>If it wasn't for that, their relationship
>would have worked and I could have
>enjoyed them together. As it was, it just
>wasn't balanced.
This isn't the first "friend" encounter they've had. I found it
perfectly fine, especially in light of Dru's intuition about Sharon's
condition.
Ravl
she's gonna chaw that bone until Sharon gives it up!
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> >Every family is experiencing exhaustive
> >turmoil and precious little, if any,
> >kindness. Are you inspired to get
> >together with friends that are constantly
> >fighting? or, after several visits where
> >all they do is bicker, do you start to feel
> >not as excited about getting together
> >with them?
ravel...@webtv.net (ravelation) wrote:
> Not all the families are bickering, Shirley.
Maybe it's all in our individual perceptions. I see them all bickering.
> Yes, they are having turmoil, but what I see coming
> from the ashes of turmoil is a bonding of the families
> that we love to watch.
Nice words, but I don't see any bonds forming that are going to be the
substantial, valuable, protected kind that we used to see on soaps, the
ones that last more than a couple of days before someone or something
threatens them.
> Come on, we finally have Jack and Ashley acting like
> a real loving brother and sister.
Ravl...Jack and Ashley are acting like a loving brother and sister *at
their father's DEATHBED*! Excuse me for being cynical, but putting their
differences aside during John's deathbed vigil was good of them, yes,
but do you believe for a minute that as soon as they disagree about
Gloria or Victor or some business decision they won't be at each other's
throats again?
And like it or not, Gloria was John's wife, so that makes her part of
Jack and Ashley's family, too. Do you not see *constant* bickering there?
> Kevin, Michael and Gloria are a strong, tight family.
Yes, a family (Kevin and Gloria) that will go to any lengths, even
illegal ones, to stay on top of things. That's self-imposed turmoil, and
it's exhausting because even when things turn around for them, they
stoop to some other dumb stunt again. I realize crisis, turmoil and
bickering are huge ingredients, but do you not want to see families like
Kevin and Gloria make progress and grow without *reverting* every time
you/they turn around? They take one step forward and three giant ones
*backward*. If that's evidence of a "strong, tight family" bond, I think
it's pretty twisted.
> The Newmans are even on the same page
> with each other, if only Victor would come home.
The Newmans aren't even all in the same BOOK!
Victor FINALLY has this epiphany about the beauty of life and the
meaning and importance of family and what does he do? HE LEAVES THEM
without a WORD! LOL.
Nikki loves him, yes, and she knows something is terribly wrong ... does
epilepsy make one forget how to be considerate of loved-ones feelings?
how to let people know where you are and where you're going? one's phone
number? Funny, he knows how to get from one place to another, but he
doesn't think he needs to phone home?
And the other Newmans ...
Victoria and Brad are HARDLY in sync or on the same page; Victoria and
Nick have words nearly every time they speak to each other; Nick and
Sharon can barely be in the same room with each other; Sharon and Nikki
can barely be in the same room with each other; and Sharon and Victoria
... 'nuff said!
And you see the Newmans as "on the same page with each other". Wow, I
sure don't see it that way.
The Winters, which you didn't mention, are even worse. Dru and Neil can
hardly get past the first sentence without one or the other of them
taking exception to something and going ballistic. Neil's thoughts are
elsewhere. Lily and Daniel are at odds. The bond Neil and Daniel were
forming is shot to hell. Daniel and Devon are about to come to blows.
Lily and Neil are good, Lily and Dru are okay, but Lily and Dru/Neil are
iffy also, since Dru and Neil still want to put her in a highchair and
spoon-feed her.
> >Lauren and Michael are the only two
> >people on the whole show that give
> >viewers the feeling that there's a bond
> >between them that they BOTH love and
> >cherish.
>
> You don't think Nick and Phyllis are happy?
Yes, Nick and Phyllis are happy ... sort of like a fish blissfully
swimming around in a puddle of water that's drying up and getting
smaller minute-by-minute.
> Jill and Kay?
Jill and Kay are happy? Great ... that helps the show a lot since we
only see them once in a Blue Moon anymore. If they aren't involved in
any currently running story, how does their harmony make our viewing
experience something to look forward to everyday? I think Mac and Brock
are off somewhere together enjoying their father/daughter bond, too, but
I don't see how that's helping balance out all the bickering and
fighting we SEE on the show on a daily basis.
> JT and Colleen?
> Kevin and Jana? What do you want??
Yes JT and Colleen aren't fighting at the moment. As for Kevin and Jana,
they're barely even a "couple" yet.
What do I want? I want to see *and feel* some of the strong bonds of
yesteryear again ... not people just saying the words, but seeing that
they will go the extra mile for one another, not bail the moment there's
a hint of trouble or some outside threat presents itself. I want to see
*some* of them have a moral compass and USE IT. I want to see and feel
some of the family loyalties and just plain 'ole personal integrity --
people standing up for what they believe and not having it be some
twisted mass of contradictions. I want there to be enough difference in
character traits so as to not see them ALL giving the same
self-righteous, judgmental hypocritical speeches to each other about
behavior they are ALL guilty of.
And lastly, I want to be able to care about the characters like I used
to, and for that to happen, the characters need to show some
intelligence, fer crissakes! How can I care about characters who repeat
the SAME behaviors again and again and again, suffer horrible
consequences each time, but NEVER LEARN OR GROW from those experiences?
How many times do you emotionally buy-into turmoil of people you care
about when/if they keep repeating the SAME blatantly DUMB mistakes?
Before anyone suggests that the show would be boring without all this,
the Y&R HAD all this. That's why some of us have been watching as long
as we have. I'm not suggesting an extreme in either direction ... the
turmoil is necessary for interest, of course, but without people we know
and care about, we might as well just watch CNN to get a daily dose of
strangers in turmoil.
Remember, you asked.
;-)
Shirl
MarkH
to add. A few thoughts:
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
> Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
> > >Every family is experiencing exhaustive
> > >turmoil and precious little, if any,
> > >kindness. Are you inspired to get
> > >together with friends that are constantly
> > >fighting? or, after several visits where
> > >all they do is bicker, do you start to feel
> > >not as excited about getting together
> > >with them?
>
> ravel...@webtv.net (ravelation) wrote:
> > Not all the families are bickering, Shirley.
>
> Maybe it's all in our individual perceptions. I see them all bickering.
>
First of all, I concur...it's not all bickering. Second of all,
BICKERING HAPPENS! Even at the deathbed. And that's what I find
compelling...when people act like people really act. People disagree
about DNRs, about the dispensation of the estate.... I am so not
interested in watching shiny happy people respond in emotionally
positive way. Or, that said, I could watch Mr. Rogers reruns for tat.
Give me dysfunction and realism!
>
> > Come on, we finally have Jack and Ashley acting like
> > a real loving brother and sister.
>
> Ravl...Jack and Ashley are acting like a loving brother and sister *at
> their father's DEATHBED*! Excuse me for being cynical, but putting their
> differences aside during John's deathbed vigil was good of them, yes,
> but do you believe for a minute that as soon as they disagree about
> Gloria or Victor or some business decision they won't be at each other's
> throats again?
They haven't been at each other's throatsn YEARS! Not really!
Moreover, this is what happens in the real world. People bond
temporarily at deaths, and then go right back to feuding. I've watched
that--in my family and acquaintances--over and over again.
>
> And like it or not, Gloria was John's wife, so that makes her part of
> Jack and Ashley's family, too. Do you not see *constant* bickering there?
>
Yup. It's the reality of America today. Blended families don't all
get along. I wouldn't be interested in watching a sugar-coated Brady
Bunch version. This is how the world works.
> > Kevin, Michael and Gloria are a strong, tight family.
>
> Yes, a family (Kevin and Gloria) that will go to any lengths, even
> illegal ones, to stay on top of things. That's self-imposed turmoil, and
> it's exhausting because even when things turn around for them, they
> stoop to some other dumb stunt again. I realize crisis, turmoil and
> bickering are huge ingredients, but do you not want to see families like
> Kevin and Gloria make progress and grow without *reverting* every time
> you/they turn around? They take one step forward and three giant ones
> *backward*. If that's evidence of a "strong, tight family" bond, I think
> it's pretty twisted.
No, no, no, no (for me). Now that I have realized Gloria will never
grow (she'll always revert to self-serving, survivalist,
street-fighter), I'm compelled by her. Again, I know too many people
who never grow. Never, never, never! That's the world. I love the
real-world unpredictability...one day they love and are secure...then,
with a slight shift, they come unravelled again. What makes it
compelling is that, deep down, you know that they'll hang together, no
matter how angry they are.
>
> > The Newmans are even on the same page
> > with each other, if only Victor would come home.
>
> The Newmans aren't even all in the same BOOK!
>
Exactly. The Newmans are terribly screwed up, and now Nick is turning
into Victor-junior, running to the rescue of his estranged wife
(whether she wants it or not). Thank heavens! The more screwed up,
the more interesting! Nick has CLEARLY grown over the years...but he
still has a lot more growing to do--and he may never accomplish it.
That's what's fun for me....rooting for these dysfunctional folks, even
though they'll probably fail.
>
> The Winters, which you didn't mention, are even worse. Dru and Neil can
> hardly get past the first sentence without one or the other of them
> taking exception to something and going ballistic. Neil's thoughts are
> elsewhere. Lily and Daniel are at odds. The bond Neil and Daniel were
> forming is shot to hell. Daniel and Devon are about to come to blows.
> Lily and Neil are good, Lily and Dru are okay, but Lily and Dru/Neil are
> iffy also, since Dru and Neil still want to put her in a highchair and
> spoon-feed her.
It's nice to see Dru have to revert to her old streetfighter ways. A
secure, confident Dru is a bore. A grasping, defensive, angry Dru is
fun.
> >
> > You don't think Nick and Phyllis are happy?
>
> Yes, Nick and Phyllis are happy ... sort of like a fish blissfully
> swimming around in a puddle of water that's drying up and getting
> smaller minute-by-minute.
>
That is what is keeping me watching. That couple will implode...and
you know it will be a passionate fireworks of a story. I like that the
bubble of their happiness is so fragile. If I wanted a happy ending,
I'd either get a Grimms Brothers book, or watch some paint-by-numbers
romantic comedy at the movie theater.
> > Jill and Kay?
>
> Jill and Kay are happy? Great ... that helps the show a lot since we
> only see them once in a Blue Moon anymore. If they aren't involved in
> any currently running story, how does their harmony make our viewing
> experience something to look forward to everyday? I think Mac and Brock
> are off somewhere together enjoying their father/daughter bond, too, but
> I don't see how that's helping balance out all the bickering and
> fighting we SEE on the show on a daily basis.
Bickering is good to watch. For example, when Gloria confront Jack
about his bad behavior in the weeks to come, I'm gonna be on the edge
of my seats. What fun!
>
> > JT and Colleen?
> > Kevin and Jana? What do you want??
>
> Yes JT and Colleen aren't fighting at the moment. As for Kevin and Jana,
> they're barely even a "couple" yet.
>
> What do I want? I want to see *and feel* some of the strong bonds of
> yesteryear again ... not people just saying the words, but seeing that
> they will go the extra mile for one another, not bail the moment there's
> a hint of trouble or some outside threat presents itself. I want to see
> *some* of them have a moral compass and USE IT.
When were these strong bonds of yesteryear present? What characters?
I don't ever recall watching Y&R when such bonds were present. The
Brooks' family sisters and parents feuded. The Fosters too. The
Williams family was mess (Paul ran away to a cult to get away from
them). Nikki and Casey had a dysfunctional and incestuous family. The
Newmans were ALWAYS screwed up. Jack Abbott blackmailed Ashley about
her paternity two decades ago...Ashley and Traci were at war over Brad.
WHEN DID ANYONE EVER GO THE EXTRA MILE ON THIS SHOW?
And the mythic "moral compass". Shirl has previously established that
Y&R never had one (no "Dr. Joe" from AMC)...and I think that's what I
want to see! Moreover, as Shirl has reminded us, Y&R has been #1 for
years. So, the grey ambiguity of most characters--present from the
beginning of this show--seems to be one element that has kept folks
tuning in for over 30 years.
>
> And lastly, I want to be able to care about the characters like I used
> to, and for that to happen, the characters need to show some
> intelligence, fer crissakes! How can I care about characters who repeat
> the SAME behaviors again and again and again, suffer horrible
> consequences each time, but NEVER LEARN OR GROW from those experiences?
> How many times do you emotionally buy-into turmoil of people you care
> about when/if they keep repeating the SAME blatantly DUMB mistakes?
>
> Before anyone suggests that the show would be boring without all this,
> the Y&R HAD all this. That's why some of us have been watching as long
> as we have. I'm not suggesting an extreme in either direction ... the
> turmoil is necessary for interest, of course, but without people we know
> and care about, we might as well just watch CNN to get a daily dose of
> strangers in turmoil.
When oh when oh when did Y&R ever have this? I'm sure you saw it, but
all I'm recalling is the perpetual screw-ups of the characters we know
and love.
You know, some of the old "gentle greats" of this show (Liz Foster,
Andy Richards, Danny Romalotti) are gone (in my opinion) for a REASON.
They were good, honorable, made morally consistent choices. They were
boring. These were the characters for whom I most fast-forwarded.
Bill Bell's intent, when he designed the show (and accepted the "Young
and Restless" title, instead of his preferred "The Innocent Years') was
to create a show with YOUNG protagonists, who make a lot of mistakes.
He wanted a show that was sexier than others (although, in the time
since, Y&R has actually become the least sexual of the soaps).
According to Susan Seaforth Hayes (I'm paraphrasing), Bill Bell said
that you needed to stock a show with young, female protagonists because
"the heat rising off that young woman's brow would propel stories for
years".
Y&R is filled with dysfunctional characters and families, as it has
been since day one. I believe it is currently true to its foundation
and history, with STYLISTIC changes in presentation that have not
altered one piece of its fundamental roster of characters or dramatic
conventions.
Terry Pulliam Burd
rummaged among random neurons and opined:
<snip>
>And like it or not, Gloria was John's wife, so that makes her part of
>Jack and Ashley's family, too. Do you not see *constant* bickering there?
On another board I read the following:
S
P
A
C
E
I
N
C
A
S
E
Jack contends that Gloria wasn't legally married to John (which I
contended long ago) when he finds out that John left half of his
estate to her. Now, how that's going to prohibit her from inheriting,
legally married or no, I cannot fathom.
Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd
AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA
record hunter
Me, too. They could become my new favorite best friends.
record hunter
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
<some snippage, because it got too long>
> What do I want? I want to see *and feel* some of the strong bonds of
> yesteryear again ... not people just saying the words, but seeing that
> they will go the extra mile for one another, not bail the moment there's
> a hint of trouble or some outside threat presents itself.
I never saw these people that way. If I had, I would have been able to
watch. What I saw were a bunch of backstabbing sons -- and daughters --
of bitches who would deceive each other for a dime. I see the citizens
of Genoa City in a much more benevolent light these past two years than
I ever did before.
> I want to see
> *some* of them have a moral compass and USE IT.
I thought they were the most amoral people in daytime, and I would
catch anything from an ep here and there to a week to a month of shows
between 1990-1997, maybe. I couldn't watch because of it. Most
impressive (negatively) were Victor and Jack going after each other
constantly, but Victor in particular, the way he would follow his dick
from Ashley to Nikki to Ashley to Nikki to you name it, and then Jack
would eat Vic's sloppy seconds--sorry, I don't see the moral compass.
And that monster woman. Ugh. Worst character ever.
Moral compass? Not!
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> > I want to see
> > *some* of them have a moral compass and USE IT.
"record hunter" <record...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought they were the most amoral people in daytime, and I would
> catch anything from an ep here and there to a week to a month of shows
> between 1990-1997, maybe. I couldn't watch because of it. Most
> impressive (negatively) were Victor and Jack going after each other
> constantly, but Victor in particular, the way he would follow his dick
> from Ashley to Nikki to Ashley to Nikki to you name it, and then Jack
> would eat Vic's sloppy seconds--sorry, I don't see the moral compass.
>
> And that monster woman. Ugh. Worst character ever.
>
> Moral compass? Not!
Exactly my point, RH.
In the Y&R of old, *some* characters had a moral compass and followed
it. Yes, there were times when they might stray, but they suffered
consequences, as did those around them, and they felt regret, remorse,
and worked for forgiveness (in soap style, anyway). I could name names,
but those that have been around since the beginning can remember the
time and characters I'm thinking of, I'm sure.
Today, ITA with you that there *is no* moral compass, which was exactly
my point. Characters have no personal standards ... anything goes, and
when they do something that hurts someone else, they show little or no
regret, suffer little or no consequences, and think nothing of
chastising and judging others with hypocritical indignation for the same
behaviors THEY are guilty of.
Shirl
Patricia Wadley
>
> mj...@sbcglobal.net (Patricia Wadley)
> wrote:
>
>
>>Oh, you are so right. Even Jill and
>
> >Katherine, at their worst fighting still had
> >time to turn to one another for help.
> snip>
>
> Are you watching the same show as me?!? Jill and Katherine have totally
> been there for each other this past week, as they should be. I like them
> as Mother and Daughter.
>
>
In was talking about years and years ago.
Of course they are there for each other, now. They are Mother and Daughter.
And, I like it.
my2cents
p
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> First of all, I concur...it's not all bickering. Second of all,
> BICKERING HAPPENS! Even at the deathbed.
> I am so not interested in watching shiny happy people
> respond in emotionally positive way. Or, that said, I
> could watch Mr. Rogers reruns for tat. Give me dysfunction
> and realism!
Obviously you missed the part where I said I was not suggesting an
extreme of one and the absence of the other.
Yes, if ALL were shiny happy people responding in emotionally positive
ways, we could watch Mr. Rogers; conversely, if ALL are bickering,
backstabbin and dysfunctional, we could watch CNN or Jerry Springer.
As for realism ... hello! ... happy people and emotionally positive,
uplifting events and relationships are part of REALITY too. Not all of
us find happy boring.
The Y&R, up until the last few years, was NEVER made up *SOLELY* of
bickering, backstabbing dysfunction ... it always had some loving,
tenderness, and some real positive emotional bonds between people. I'm
not just talking about ONE scene here and there -- "what about Ashley
and Jack at John's deathbed? ... well DUH! -- I'm talking about periods
in characters' lives when things were, for the most part, going well and
their relationships were "on track". That doesn't mean they never fought
or never made mistakes ... but we saw and FELT their love for each other
enough to *believe* it and care about it/them.
THAT is what made the stories compelling, not simply the prospect of
seeing someone bite someone else's head off or of seeing someone pull
one dumb stunt after another (i.e., Glo, the character you don't want to
grow and learn).
> They haven't been at each other's throatsn YEARS!
Have you been watching the same show?
It doesn't take much for Jack and Ashley to be at odds. Do you remember
how well (not) they got along when Ashley hired Victor as a consultant?
> Moreover, this is what happens in the real world.
There are people -- couples, friends, co-workers, spouses, etc. -- who
experience happiness and warmth among each other, too. So if we're going
to show bickering and dysfunction because "this is what happens in the
real world," why can't we show BOTH sides of reality?
> No, no, no, no (for me). Now that I have realized Gloria will never
> grow (she'll always revert to self-serving, survivalist,
> street-fighter), I'm compelled by her.
Not everyone feels that way.
> Again, I know too many people who never grow.
> Never, never, never! That's the world.
That's *one part* of the world. There's another part where survivalist
street-fighters *do* grow and learn, and that can be just as compelling,
if done well. Why does it only have to be YOUR way?
That's my main point in all of this, that there needs to be some
BALANCE, not a show that only tells the negative stories and omits the
positive ones. That technique effectively cuts out half the viewership.
Do you not see that?
> I love the real-world unpredictability...one day they
> love and are secure...then, with a slight shift, they
> come unravelled again. What makes it compelling is that,
> deep down, you know that they'll hang together, no
> matter how angry they are.
No, I *don't know* deep down that they'll hang together. You mean like
Nick and Sharon? like Jack and Phyllis? like Brad and Ashley? or like
Brad and Victoria? like Brad and Sharon?
You just illustrated my point perfectly ... today, we DON'T know, deep
down, that any of these characters will hang together.
> Exactly. The Newmans are terribly screwed up, and now Nick is turning
> into Victor-junior, running to the rescue of his estranged wife
> (whether she wants it or not). Thank heavens! The more screwed up,
> the more interesting!
I don't have to see continuously screwed up characters or situations to
find them interesting. Some of the most interesting people I know are
the ones who have made mistakes (as we all have) and learned from the
experiences; the ones who keep repeating the same blunders over and over
ad nauseam are the ones I find one-note and dull as dishwater. Ditto for
characters who likewise never seem to use more than a fraction of their
brains.
> It's nice to see Dru have to revert to her old streetfighter ways. A
> secure, confident Dru is a bore. A grasping, defensive, angry Dru is
> fun.
ICDM. A middle-of-the-road Dru would be nice once in a while. I don't
see anything "fun" about Dru in her current state.
> That is what is keeping me watching. That couple will implode...and
> you know it will be a passionate fireworks of a story. I like that the
> bubble of their happiness is so fragile. If I wanted a happy ending,
> I'd either get a Grimms Brothers book, or watch some paint-by-numbers
> romantic comedy at the movie theater.
Where did you get the idea that a soap opera is supposed to be filled
with *only* YOUR idea of dysfunctional "fun"? Soaps have always had a
lot of intense drama involving betrayals and questionable paternities,
but they've also had a healthy dose of love and *romance* (what's THAT
anymore?). What makes you so sure no one is interested in that anymore?
> The Brooks' family sisters and parents feuded. The Fosters too.
Are you reading ANYTHING I'm writing?
I did NOT say people/families should NOT feud--I agree that feuds in
families are real and exist in nearly all families. But yes, there were
bonds among the Brooks and the Foster family members, despite their
feuding, that we don't see or feel in the Newman family or the Abbott
family or the Winters family. That part you mentioned earlier about deep
down, knowing they'd hang in there together existed with the Brooks and
Foster families (minus Lori and Leslie, perhaps) ... it's simply NOT
there now.
> And the mythic "moral compass". Shirl has previously established that
> Y&R never had one (no "Dr. Joe" from AMC)...
Huh? I never said the Y&R never had a moral compass. Never!
Saying there was no Dr. Joe is not the same thing. John Abbott was the
closest Y&R came to Dr. Joe. Dr. Joe was not perfect, but he *did* have
a moral compass. John Abbott had a moral compass. There were others,
even some of the current characters, who USED TO have a moral compass.
> So, the grey ambiguity of most characters--present from the
> beginning of this show--seems to be one element that has kept folks
> tuning in for over 30 years.
So now you presume to be able to pinpoint the "one element" that has
kept folks tuning in for 30 years? You should call CBS, I'm sure they
have a place for you alongside LML ... or maybe you're already there.
I couldn't disagree more that character ambiguity is the ONE ELEMENT
that has kept people tuning in for over 30 years. I also disagree that
"most characters" were ambiguous ... *some* were, others were not even
close to being ambiguous, which is what balanced it out. Again,
illustrating my point that there has to be a balance to be successful.
Having it either *all* your way (ALL dysfunctional fighting) or *all* my
way (ALL loving harmony) won't work long term. No surprise that you're
such a cheerleader for the current look and feel if all you want to see
is dysfunction.
> You know, some of the old "gentle greats" of this show (Liz Foster,
> Andy Richards, Danny Romalotti) are gone (in my opinion) for a REASON.
> They were good, honorable, made morally consistent choices. They were
> boring. These were the characters for whom I most fast-forwarded.
I never fast-forwarded Liz Foster. I was 33 years younger when I began
watching, and Liz Foster reminded me of my mother ... hard-working,
wise, decent, loving, caring, always protecting her kids. Now I'm 33
years older, and as a mother of a couple of young adults, I see things
more from Liz's perspective as a mother.
Danny Romalotti took a lot of razzing, and so did people who liked him,
almost like if you say you like the BeeGees or Barry Manilow! But I
liked Danny and Christine together. IMO, tthey were good together, they
supported each other, smiled and laughed together, had fun together ...
their bond seemed real. It was not believable to me that he would write
Christine *a letter* to end their marriage. Again, the show didn't
consist *ONLY* of them, but they filled part of the need for that
balance for those of us who liked that.
You, being one who likes dysfunction and characters who are always
acting out, probably loved Lori Brooks. For me, she was often FF
material. But the point is that we had BOTH. Not today.
I'm not going to debate with you whether the Y&R *today* is what Bill
Bell intended it to be. Fact is, LML and her entourage arrived and
proceeded to change the look and feel of the show. Some like those
changes, some do not. As I've been saying from the start of this new
regime, time will tell whether or not it holds up long term.
Shirl
ravelation
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
>And you see the Newmans as "on the
>same page with each other". Wow, I
>sure don't see it that way.
That's because you've become so cynical towards Y&R, that you're failing
to see that Victor, Nikki, Victoria and Nick are all on the same page.
Victor's epiphany made sure of that.
>The Winters, which you didn't mention,
>are even worse.
I didn't mention them because I knew that.
>What do I want? I want to see *and feel*
>some of the strong bonds of yesteryear
>again ... not people just saying the
>words, but seeing that they will go the
>extra mile for one another, not bail the
>moment there's a hint of trouble or
>some outside threat presents itself.
And, how long has it been since we've seen that? Years? A Decade,
perhaps?
You want to see the nostalgic Y&R, not the year 2006 Y&R. Hopefully,
they'll listen to us ( :-) ) and give us some more old clips. Love the
really old clips.
Ravl
would love to see what you're talking about, too, but we haven't had
none that for years! (and not the months that you seem to want to blame
it on...)
>Remember, you asked.
You've given me a grin!
Ravl
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> >And you see the Newmans as "on the
> >same page with each other". Wow, I
> >sure don't see it that way.
ravel...@webtv.net (ravelation) wrote:
> That's because you've become so cynical towards Y&R, that you're failing
> to see that Victor, Nikki, Victoria and Nick are all on the same page.
> Victor's epiphany made sure of that.
No, it's because of the things I outlined in my last response to this
claim of yours that the Newmans are on the same page, which are very
valid reasons why I don't see them that way, not simply cynicism.
As for Victor's epiphany, doesn't matter how big the realization is
about his family if his WIFE doesn't even know where he is or if he's
still breathing. I don't see that his epiphany has made sure of
anything, so far, other than getting Victor off screen for a while. To
hell with the *story*.
> would love to see what you're talking about, too, but we haven't had
> none that for years! (and not the months that you seem to want to blame
> it on...)
I'm not blaming the absence of all I listed on LML. I listed the absence
of those things problems with the show several times here and elsewhere
long before LML took over. This isn't anything new I'm just saying now.
The point I was making is that rather than seeing LML attempting to
bring back some of that *balance*, I see her heading in the opposite
direction, adding more and more discord, dysfunction and FIGHTING,
veering even further away from any kind of balance. I don't blame LML
for all I listed, I just don't see her doing anything to fix it, and in
fact, she's making it even worse.
> You've given me a grin!
;-)
Good!
Shirl
ravelation
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
>other than getting Victor off screen for a
>while. To hell with the *story*.
Do you realize how many times we've harped that subject OVER THE YEARS,
NOT JUST MONTHS? Why is this ravelation of people taking vacation and
having a weak storyline attached to it such a startling thing right now?
Ravl
>I listed the absence of those things
>problems with the show several times
>here and elsewhere long before LML
>took over. This isn't anything new I'm
>just saying now.
IMO, your tone has been that the fault of your discontent is on LML's
shoulders only. What does that say about all of the veteran writers who
are still there? (What does that say about LML?!?)
Ravl
Cheri
queenie wrote in message ...
>I know Dru doesn't know. I cannot imagine someone who's been beaten,
>thrown into a car and kidnapped, had a gun to her head, tied up with a
>load of dynamite under her ass and then rescued, would be able to hold
>a conversation, or comfort, someone over their marital problems. Give
>me a break! Sharon should have still been shaking after her harrowing
>experience and Dru should have noticed that something was wrong. That
>scene was truly out of whack, IMO.
It was queenie. I thought Sharon should have told her that she was
kidnapped, without the details, she could have said is was for ransom,
being a Newman, but that they wanted to keep it out of the papers for
Noahs sake or something like that, so they're keeping it to themselves.
Cheri
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> >other than getting Victor off screen for a
> >while. To hell with the *story*.
ravel...@webtv.net (ravelation) wrote:
> Do you realize how many times we've harped that subject OVER THE YEARS,
> NOT JUST MONTHS? Why is this ravelation of people taking vacation and
> having a weak storyline attached to it such a startling thing right now?
Because these are a new headwriter's FIRST stories--the chance to make
her big splashy entrance, let everyone know how great she is. If you
were in her shoes, wouldn't you STAND ON YOUR HEAD to assure that an
actor's vacation doesn't sabotage the momentum of the stories lots of
people are looking at as YOUR ability to deliver or not?
> >I listed the absence of those things
> >problems with the show several times
> >here and elsewhere long before LML
> >took over. This isn't anything new I'm
> >just saying now.
>
> IMO, your tone has been that the fault of your discontent is on LML's
> shoulders only. What does that say about all of the veteran writers who
> are still there? (What does that say about LML?!?)
Again, I listed these same concerns before, so I'm NOT (how many times
do I have to say this?) blaming LML solely for this. HOWEVER, you must
have missed where I explained that I *am* blaming LML for making the
problem I'm talking about (too much fighting and little, if any, genuine
kindness) WORSE instead of better.
Shirl
Niki
> Because these are a new headwriter's FIRST stories--the chance to make
> her big splashy entrance, let everyone know how great she is. If you
> were in her shoes, wouldn't you STAND ON YOUR HEAD to assure that an
> actor's vacation doesn't sabotage the momentum of the stories lots of
> people are looking at as YOUR ability to deliver or not?
She can't do that Shirl. All her prior writing jobs are off the air.
All except for KL (time was just up, ran it's course) were x'd from what I
see. Getting a show x'd indicates people are not watching. People usually
don't watch because the show is crappy. Usually because there's nothing there
and the writing is crap.
--
Niki
record hunter
HOMEFRONT was terrific. Took place right after WWII. Loved it. I think
it lasted two seasons. That and I'LL FLY AWAY were my two favorite
shows then. It was back in the good old days, when ATWT was the best
soap, before D. Marland died.
Sherri Chesney
"queenie" <que...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:q5bhe21r7inoh1om7...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 18:52:36 -0700, Terry Pulliam Burd
> <ntpu...@spaminator.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 19:17:29 -0400, queenie <que...@nospam.com>
>>rummaged among random neurons and opined:
>>
>>>But I was a little put-off because Sharon had just returned from a
>>>harrowing experience so--being kidnapped and held prisoner, to me, Dru
>>>seemed like a whiney little nit-wit. If it wasn't for that, their
>>>relationship would have worked and I could have enjoyed them together.
>>>As it was, it just wasn't balanced.
>>
>>Yahbut, Dru didn't know Sharon had been kidnapped, did she?
>
> thrown into a car and kidnapped, had a gun to her head, tied up with a
> load of dynamite under her ass and then rescued, would be able to hold
> a conversation, or comfort, someone over their marital problems. Give
> me a break! Sharon should have still been shaking after her harrowing
> experience and Dru should have noticed that something was wrong. That
> scene was truly out of whack, IMO.
>
>
>
> to her, I would have expected a few more scratches or something, I mean,
> with her hands tied up for so long, and her feet shouldn't she be covered
> with bruises.
> "All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes
> invariably from people who are not fighting".
>
> George Orwell
ravelation
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
>you must have missed where I explained
>that I *am* blaming LML for making the
>problem I'm talking about (too much
>fighting and little, if any, genuine
>kindness) WORSE instead of better.
Hey David, I'm joining you on the good ship Cynic! Perhaps it's my
living in SoCal, but "genuine kindness" isn't something you run into too
often anymore.
Ravl
what shows out there expound "genuine kindness"?
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> Hey David, I'm joining you on the good ship Cynic! Perhaps it's my
> living in SoCal, but "genuine kindness" isn't something you run into too
> often anymore.
As a matter of fact, it does have something to do with living in SoCal,
or anywhere in CA, for that matter, and other places as well. Having
spent most of my life there and gone elsewhere in the last five years,
it's noteworthy when you come to a place where genuine kindness still
exists. But it *does* still exist.
So while I've been accused of being the cynic recently, I'm not sure
which of us is really the cynic, you or I?
Regardless, back to the topic, just because YOU don't run into genuine
kindness that often anymore, does that mean it no longer has any place
in good storytelling or in the balance of a show dealing with people and
relationships?
You understandably resented the reference to sheep, yet your point here
seems to be that since others have abandoned genuine kindness, everyone
should just go with what's "normal" for today and forget about it...like
sheep. Are you part of the problem? or part of the solution? Maybe the
only opportunity some have to see genuine kindness anymore is on their
favorite soap.
Shirl
P.S. Who was talking about "expounding" genuine kindness? It doesn't
have to be expounded, just included as part of the mix, IMO ...
otherwise, there really IS no "mix", is there?!
ravelation
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
>I'm not sure which of us is really the
>cynic, you or I?
We both are! You towards Y&R, and me towards society!
>Regardless, back to the topic, just
>because YOU don't run into genuine
>kindness that often anymore, does that
>mean it no longer has any place in good
>storytelling or in the balance of a show
>dealing with people and relationships?
Did you like that Sharon offered Dru a place to stay? Did you like that
Lily put her differences with Daniel behind her and invited him to her
party? Did you like that Phyllis invited Nick to the sonogram?
What about the moment Gloria fell into Jack's arms sobbing
uncontrollably? (I know, a momentary bit of kindness, yet still
kindness.)
I'm sure you're getting my drift....(and the above mentioned "kindness"
was shown in only one day...imagine that!
Ravl
so sick of Real Life that Y&R seems really nice to me! (in a backstabby,
campy, escapism kind of way!)
MarkH
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
>
> You, being one who likes dysfunction and characters who are always
> acting out, probably loved Lori Brooks. For me, she was often FF
> material. But the point is that we had BOTH. Not today.
>
Yup, you got that! :-). I _loved_ Lorie Brooks!
Watching It
"ravelation" <ravel...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14545-44...@storefull-3336.bay.webtv.net...
>
> Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
>
<snippit>
> Did you like that Sharon offered Dru a place to stay? Did
> you like that
> Lily put her differences with Daniel behind her and invited
> him to her
> party? Did you like that Phyllis invited Nick to the
> sonogram?
> What about the moment Gloria fell into Jack's arms sobbing
> uncontrollably? (I know, a momentary bit of kindness, yet
> still
> kindness.)
>
> Ravl
> so sick of Real Life that Y&R seems really nice to me! (in
> a backstabby,
> campy, escapism kind of way!)
>
I missed Gloria falling into Jack's arms (school is in
session now and I must give less time to these sorts of
things). WHEN did that happen? I must see a rebroadcast of
that one! :-)
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
None of what you quoted was mine, though you left my name in there. JFTR.
Shirl
P.S. It was no big thing.
"...the moment Gloria fell into Jack's arms sobbing uncontrollably" is
an exaggeration of what happened. They were all were arguing. Gloria was
overcome for a moment. Jack happened to be standing behind her. She
turned around, sobbing. He was there, she leaned into him and rested her
head against his chest for all of 2 SECONDS, and that was that. He
didn't push her away, but he didn't envelop her in a bear hug, either.
It was over in the blink of an eye and they went on arguing.
Niki
> P.S. It was no big thing.
> "...the moment Gloria fell into Jack's arms sobbing uncontrollably" is
> an exaggeration of what happened. They were all were arguing. Gloria was
> overcome for a moment. Jack happened to be standing behind her. She
> turned around, sobbing. He was there, she leaned into him and rested her
> head against his chest for all of 2 SECONDS, and that was that. He
> didn't push her away, but he didn't envelop her in a bear hug, either.
> It was over in the blink of an eye and they went on arguing.
That's what I got too Shirl. If Jack could have said the F word, I'm betting
there would have been about 29 in that scene.
--
Niki
ravelation
niki...@gmail.com (Niki) wrote:
>>Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
>>P.S. It was no big thing.
>>"...the moment Gloria fell into Jack's
>>arms sobbing uncontrollably" is an
>>exaggeration of what happened.
>That's what I got too Shirl. If Jack could
>have said the F word, I'm betting there
>would have been about 29 in that scene.
I didn't see Jack's F word lip during that scene. I thought he was going
to move away from Gloria so her pain wouldn't get on him, and was
pleasantly surprised that Jack accepted her sobbing on his
shoulder...even it it was for a brief moment.
Ravl
now, that Billy has about a snuff can full of F words in that lower lip
o' his!
Niki
> niki...@gmail.com (Niki) wrote:
>>That's what I got too Shirl. If Jack could
> >have said the F word, I'm betting there
> >would have been about 29 in that scene.
> I didn't see Jack's F word lip during that scene. I thought he was going
> to move away from Gloria so her pain wouldn't get on him, and was
> pleasantly surprised that Jack accepted her sobbing on his
> shoulder...even it it was for a brief moment.
Read what I wrote again Ravl. You're getting on my last nerve defending some
of this drivel coming thru. You seem to be in argument mode just for the sake
of arguing.
I haven't tuned out Y&R yet, but you're real close.
> Ravl
> now, that Billy has about a snuff can full of F words in that lower lip
> o' his!
Oh, ok, so you can say that and it's ok. Jack had a WTF look on his face in
that scene. That's all I'm sayin'. But since you apparently disagree, it's
wrong. Yeah ok.
--
Niki
ravelation
niki...@gmail.com (Niki) wrote:
>>That's what I got too Shirl. If Jack could
>>have said the F word, I'm betting there
>>would have been about 29 in that
>>scene.
I commented:
>>>I didn't see Jack's F word lip during >>>that scene. I thought he was
going to
>>>move away from Gloria so her pain
>>>wouldn't get on him, and was
>>>pleasantly surprised that Jack >>>accepted her sobbing on his
>>>shoulder...even it it was for a brief >>>moment.
>Read what I wrote again Ravl. You're
>getting on my last nerve defending
>some of this drivel coming thru.
As have you been getting on my last nerve with your negativity. So,
we're even.
>You seem to be in argument mode just
>for the sake of arguing.
No, I just saw the scene differently than you. I didn't see Jack's
patented F You lip.
I also don't think I sounded defensive towards you in my response.
AAMOF, by ending my post with a crack about BIlly's built in snuff lip,
I was trying to make it light. Then, you have to say this:
>I haven't tuned out Y&R yet, but you're
>real close.
Then quit fucking reading me, ok. That was *so* uncalled for.
>>now, that Billy has about a snuff can full
>>of F words in that lower lip o' his!
>Oh, ok, so you can say that and it's ok.
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Who the fuck took off with your
sense of humor? First you go off on your friend RH, and now me? What the
fuck?!? (sorry about the f bombs, but she's gone and pissed me off!)
>Jack had a WTF look on his face in that
>scene. That's all I'm sayin'. But since
>you apparently disagree, it's wrong.
>Yeah ok.
Where did I say you were "wrong"? He had that look for such a brief
moment and I saw it melt away as he allowed her to wallow.
And because of this, you want to "tune me out"?? W T F??
Ravl
whatever, Niki.... <shakin' my head on this one>
Cheri
ravelation wrote in message
<16524-44...@storefull-3332.bay.webtv.net>...
Ravl
whatever, Niki.... <shakin' my head on this one>
I'm thinkin we're not doing enough slunchin while discussin. Let's meet
at the bar tomorrow ladies. :-)
Cheri
record hunter
Cheri wrote:
> ravelation wrote in message
> <16524-44...@storefull-3332.bay.webtv.net>...
>
>
> Ravl
> whatever, Niki.... <shakin' my head on this one>
>
> I'm thinkin we're not doing enough slunchin while discussin.
Or maybe somebody's doin' too much. :(
and I never use these things :(
ravelation
gserviceatinreachdotcom (Cheri) wrote:
>>whatever, Niki.... <shakin' my head on
>>this one>
>I'm thinkin we're not doing enough
>slunchin while discussin. Let's meet at
>the bar tomorrow ladies. :-)
I think someone's messing with the planet alignments. My job life took a
"political" nosedive on Friday and I'm sure some, if not all, of my
defensiveness has come from the incident. Not that I don't feel what
I've been projecting, I do. Perhaps it's come across as very defensive
on my part because I've been feeling very strange about myself since
Friday. For that, I'm sorry. But, I also feel I'm not the only one
speaking in defensive tones. (wow, that pretty much sums up the way shit
went down, only my Principal isn't liking Y&R right now either, if you
know what I mean...)
That's why I'm so tweaked about the different feelings I have about Y&R.
Normally, I'd be hating Y&R right now because of personal strife, but I
seriously am enjoying each nuance, even the mean spiritedness.
Ravl
not that any of that makes any sense!
MarkH
>
> >Read what I wrote again Ravl. You're
> >getting on my last nerve defending
> >some of this drivel coming thru.
>
> As have you been getting on my last nerve with your negativity. So,
> we're even.
>
> >You seem to be in argument mode just
> >for the sake of arguing.
>
> No, I just saw the scene differently than you. I didn't see Jack's
> patented F You lip.
>
> I also don't think I sounded defensive towards you in my response.
> AAMOF, by ending my post with a crack about BIlly's built in snuff lip,
> I was trying to make it light. Then, you have to say this:
>
> >I haven't tuned out Y&R yet, but you're
> >real close.
>
> Then quit fucking reading me, ok. That was *so* uncalled for.
>
>
> What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Who the fuck took off with your
> sense of humor? First you go off on your friend RH, and now me? What the
> fuck?!? (sorry about the f bombs, but she's gone and pissed me off!)
>
>
> And because of this, you want to "tune me out"?? W T F??
>
> Ravl
> whatever, Niki.... <shakin' my head on this one>
I don't suppose it would be useful for me to say that I like it when
people don't personalize here. It's fine to disagree with the soap,
disagree with its staff, and even counter-argue with other posters on
here. But I personally don't enjoy when people say "you're too long
winded" or "I'm going to killfill you" or "you're delusional" or
whatever. That takes the discourse away from the show...and such
personalizations are frequently hurtful.
Maybe I'm just too Canadian... (haven't lived there in decades, tho)
Cheri
ravelation wrote in message
<18081-44...@storefull-3337.bay.webtv.net>...
I think someone's messing with the planet alignments. My job life took a
"political" nosedive on Friday and I'm sure some, if not all, of my
I'm very sorry to hear that, hopefully the "political" nosedive is
temporary?
Cheri
Cheri
MarkH wrote in message
>I don't suppose it would be useful for me to say that I like it when
>people don't personalize here. It's fine to disagree with the soap,
>disagree with its staff, and even counter-argue with other posters on
>here. But I personally don't enjoy when people say "you're too long
>winded" or "I'm going to killfill you" or "you're delusional" or
>whatever. That takes the discourse away from the show...and such
>personalizations are frequently hurtful.
I don't suppose it would be useful for me to say that I agree with you,
but I do. :-)
Cheri
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> I don't suppose it would be useful for me to say
> that I like it when people don't personalize here.
Sometimes it's hard to overlook double standards -- i.e., one person
gets jumped on for saying "my perception is different than yours" and
told that that's not the reason for their opinion; then two days later,
the jumper says "I just saw the scene differently than you" and that's
okay. Ya keep tellin' yourself not to personalize, but ...
<shrug>
Overall, IMO, we all do pretty well.
Shirl
Cheri
queenie wrote in message ...
>On 23 Aug 2006 10:35:25 -0700, "MarkH" <slip...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>I don't suppose it would be useful for me to say that I like it when
>>people don't personalize here. It's fine to disagree with the soap,
>>disagree with its staff, and even counter-argue with other posters on
>>here. But I personally don't enjoy when people say "you're too long
>>winded" or "I'm going to killfill you" or "you're delusional" or
>>whatever. That takes the discourse away from the show...and such
>>personalizations are frequently hurtful.
>
>Oh, shut the fuck up, Flanders!
>
>Just kidding.... I just couldn't resist. ITA with you, honest. :-)
I am LMAO.
Cheri
ravelation
gserviceatinreachdotcom (Cheri) wrote:
>>I think someone's messing with the
>>planet alignments. My job life took a
>>"political" nosedive on Friday and I'm
>>sure some, if not all, of my
>I'm very sorry to hear that, hopefully the >"political" nosedive is
temporary?
You are so sweet AND kewl, Cheri. You know what? I listened to my
horrorscope (OMG, Shirley! Glynnis!!) on Monday which said, "Plug your
nose and close your mouth to something that was distasteful and you'll
amaze people and learn valuable information."
Dang if I didn't go in today to find out said distaste might be looking
for a new job.
Ravl
held my tongue and it may just pay off!
ravelation
gserviceatinreachdotcom (Cheri) wrote:
>>Oh, shut the fuck up, Flanders!
>>Just kidding.... I just couldn't resist.
>>ITA with you, honest. :-)
>I am LMAO.
Me too!
Honest, I'll be all agreeable and everything from now on!
Ravl
okleedoklee?
Xmnus...@aol.communicate
> I listened to my horrorscope (OMG, Shirley! Glynnis!!)
OMG is right, Ravl!
I've recalled MANY prior RATSC regulars, but I COMPLETELY FORGOT about
Glynnis and her "horrorscopes". There have definitely been some
characters here over the years! My daughter participated in a chat group
for a number of years that used to have annual, real-life events. I've
often wondered what some of our RATSC-mates are really like, if by just
hearing them *talk* we could accurately guess their screen names. Can
only imagine what the "horrorscope" lady was like!
Thanks for the memory. <grinning>
Shirl
ravelation
Xmnus...@aol.communicate wrote:
>>ravel...@webtv.net (ravelation)
>>wrote:
>>I listened to my horrorscope (OMG,
>>Shirley! Glynnis!!)
>OMG is right, Ravl!
The funny thing is, you are 'seeing' how that hit me as I was typing the
word. I'd totally forgotten about her too, and when I went to type
"horrorscope", there she was!
I knew you'd get a kick out of that!
>My daughter participated in a chat group
>for a number of years that used to have
>annual, real-life events. I've often
>wondered what some of our
>RATSC-mates are really like, if by just
>hearing them *talk* we could accurately
>guess their screen names.
There's definitely a few that I would guess in a heartbeat who they
were. You would be able to do the same thing with the ones I'm speaking
about. ;)
Perhaps, with a long enough out time, we could make a date for people to
meet at Christine's RL boutique. (I bet she'd show up for us if we did
it!) It's really close to the Beverly Center shopping mall and around
the corner from Pink's hot dogs. We could "do lunch."
Ravl
Niki
> ravelation wrote...
> Ravl
> whatever, Niki.... <shakin' my head on this one>
> I'm thinkin we're not doing enough slunchin while discussin. Let's meet
> at the bar tomorrow ladies. :-)
Ha! Keep that up and you'll have a rap tune going. :)
--
Niki
Niki
> ravelation wrote in message
> <18081-44...@storefull-3337.bay.webtv.net>...
>
> I think someone's messing with the planet alignments.
Funny you say that Rav, Pluto is no longer a planet.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/08/24/pluto.ap/index.html
My job life took a
> "political" nosedive on Friday and I'm sure some, if not all, of my
Not sure exactly what that means, but mine did too as of last Monday. No more
clocking in before 8a. I can take going in EARLY, but I absolutely HATE HATE
HATE staying late. Eh, so be it. <shrug> I clocked out Thursday with 38.42
hours. I LOVE my early Friday.
> I'm very sorry to hear that, hopefully the "political" nosedive is
> temporary?
Damn. Sounds like Rav won't be Mayor of GC?
--
Niki
Niki
> No, come on over to my place. I have a couple of big bottles of red
> wine. :-)
That's making me want to cook a big batch of spaghetti and meatballs.
--
Niki