"Castle" - Sir.... REALLY?

[chicagofan]

I read the opinions of the new hard nosed "boss" this season, but I
missed any comments about this "SIR"... nonsense. Am I the only one
who thinks that is ridiculous? Are there really female professionals
in real life who want to be called SIR? Is this a military carryover,
or am I just that out of date?

Barbara

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

In article <j5b4nc$sd9$1...@dont-email.me>, chicagofan <chica...@privacy.net>
wrote:

I see it as a running joke...with various inflections on the word conveying
disdain, irony, etc while at the same time fulfilling her need for dominance

[Rich]

chicagofan <chica...@privacy.net> wrote in news:j5b4nc$sd9$1@dont-
email.me:

> I read the opinions of the new hard nosed "boss" this season, but I

Black female boss, good. Means we'll see less of her than even Montgomery.

[syvyn11]

It's Military protocol. That you call all commissioned officers
'Sir'. It's dependent on them if you can call them 'Ma'am'.

And the police is a para-military organization.

[Mikey]

>
> Black female boss, good. Means we'll see less of her than even
> Montgomery.

I hope we don't see much of her.....yech!

Mikey :)

[EGK]

I like Castle quite a bit but does anyone really care about this on-going
arc of who killed Beckett's mom? I like the characters and, as with mostTV,
episodes vary in quality from one to the next but I can't even keep track of
how convoluted this back story has gotten. Get it the hell over with
already.

[Seapig]

On Sep 21, 10:05 am, EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

I'm with you, but I think it's going to last for however long the show
lasts, especially now that they're apparently using the trauma
involved with the case as the impediment to romance between C&B.

[EGK]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:25:34 -0700 (PDT), Seapig <sea...@altavista.com>
wrote:

I think Castle made a huge mistake trying to create a "Red John" arc ala The
Mentalist. Castle's main attraction (at least to me) was it was much
lighter in tone and the character interaction. Not convoluted and dire
backstories.

[anim8rfsk]

Yep. This crap about her not being a fully functional human being since
her mother's death is just that - crap. They seem to be trying to set
up a scenario where she cant get together with Castle until the murder
is solved and he's preventing her from solving the murder and I ...
Don't care.

--
sent from a borrowed ipad

[Dano]

"Seapig" wrote in message
news:31d8ff28-7d35-412c...@z18g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

===========================================

I agree. They ARE treading a fine line with the romantic angle though. I
think a lot of fans want these two to hook up. On the other hand, so often
that's the kiss of death as it changes the chemistry. But now...with this
new "evil boss" they have taken an even bigger chance with the chemistry
IMO. We'll see how it pans out. I'm skeptical at best. But what are you
going to do? You make Castle and Beckett a couple and how would THAT work?
It's far fetched enough having a writer "embedded" with these cops...but
married to one of them? Or even just a couple? Certainly even Castle's
buddy the mayor couldn't pull enough strings to allow THAT.

[Mason Barge]

On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:39:34 -0400, chicagofan <chica...@privacy.net>
wrote:

It seems to me to be headed down the tubes. So many successful shows
screw things up, because they just never quite understand why it is people
watch them.

[Obveeus]

"anim8rfsk" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> Yep. This crap about her not being a fully functional human being since
> her mother's death is just that - crap. They seem to be trying to set
> up a scenario where she cant get together with Castle until the murder
> is solved and he's preventing her from solving the murder and I ...
> Don't care.

That pretty much sums it up. The issue is bigger than just Beckett's mommy,
though. The issue is that these shows always fall victim to the idea that
viewers will care *even more* about the cases if the cases somehow tie back
into the personal lives of the characters. As a result, not only do we get
semi-functional Beckett, we get former-boss was part of that evil
conspiracy.

[Jim G.]

syvyn11 sent the following on Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:32:31 -0700 (PDT):

Some state and federal police, yes. The NYPD, and most certainly the
branch of it that Beckett and the boss work for, are not.

--
Jim G.
Waukesha, WI

[Obveeus]

"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aifk775umpbo2f7ef...@4ax.com...

It is such a cliche for shows to bring in a new boss, have them be a 'hard
ass', and then over the next few episodes the rest of the cast grows to
respect, honor, and even love them because they really are looking after the
best interests of the employees. So what if she tried to keep Castle out of
the office? The last boss did the same thing. So what if she likes to be
called 'sir'? That just opens up comedic opportunity for her to be called
'sire'. I think people are jumping the gun on condemning this character.

[Seapig]

> backstories.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I can live with it as a change of pace, as long as it's just a few
episodes per season, and doesn't affect the lighter tone of the bulk
of the episodes. It looks like we're back to fun Castle next week.

[Seapig]

On Sep 21, 12:02 pm, anim8rfsk <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote:
> EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> > On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:45:39 -0400, "Mikey" <mminor...@earthlink.net>

> > wrote:
>
> > >> Black female boss, good.  Means we'll see less of her than even
> > >> Montgomery.
>
> > >I hope we don't see much of her.....yech!
>
> > >Mikey :)
>
> > I like Castle quite a bit but does anyone really care about this
> > on-going
> > arc of who killed Beckett's mom?  I like the characters and, as with
> > mostTV,
> > episodes vary in quality from one to the next but I can't even keep
> > track of
> > how convoluted this back story has gotten.   Get it the hell over with
> > already.
>
> Yep.  This crap about her not being a fully functional human being since
> her mother's death is just that - crap.  They seem to be trying to set
> up a scenario where she cant get together with Castle until the murder
> is solved and he's preventing her from solving the murder and I ...
> Don't care.

I think they got themselves in trouble by accelerating the
relationship stuff - they had so many moments the last couple years
where Castle and Beckett almost hooked up that they ran of good
reasons to keep them apart. So, they had to settle for a bad reason
to keep them apart, or end up like "Moonlighting" did after its leads
finally hooked up (not good, for anyone who doesn't remember the 80s).

They would have been better off staying in the comfort zone of the
first couple seasons, where Beckett's attitude toward Castle was
somewhere between like and hate, and where Castle was content to keep
himself busy with a parade of groupies and floozies.

[chicagofan]

Jim G. wrote:
> syvyn11 sent the following on Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:32:31 -0700 (PDT):
>
>> On Sep 20, 6:39 pm, chicagofan<chicago...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I read the opinions of the new hard nosed "boss" this season, but I
>>> missed any comments about this "SIR"... nonsense. Am I the only one
>>> who thinks that is ridiculous? Are there really female professionals
>>> in real life who want to be called SIR? Is this a military carryover,
>>> or am I just that out of date?
>>>

>> It's Military protocol. That you call all commissioned officers
>> 'Sir'. It's dependent on them if you can call them 'Ma'am'.
>>
>> And the police is a para-military organization.
>>
> Some state and federal police, yes. The NYPD, and most certainly the
> branch of it that Beckett and the boss work for, are not.
>

Thanks guys... I guess that explains it. However, as a female, I think
she's overdoing the authoritarian emphasis with this choice. In other
words, plain silly to me, if it's not a regulation of the job you hold. :)
bj

[chicagofan]

I'm not condemning the character, just criticizing the writer's choice
to make a big deal over her being addressed as "Sir".... which I
explained elsewhere is silly to me. I haven't seen anything wrong with
her actions YET. :)
bj

[RichA]

On Sep 21, 3:02 pm, anim8rfsk <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote:
> EGK <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

> > On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:45:39 -0400, "Mikey" <mminor...@earthlink.net>

> > wrote:
>
> > >> Black female boss, good.  Means we'll see less of her than even
> > >> Montgomery.
>
> > >I hope we don't see much of her.....yech!
>
> > >Mikey :)
>
> > I like Castle quite a bit but does anyone really care about this
> > on-going
> > arc of who killed Beckett's mom?  I like the characters and, as with
> > mostTV,
> > episodes vary in quality from one to the next but I can't even keep
> > track of
> > how convoluted this back story has gotten.   Get it the hell over with
> > already.
>
> Yep.  This crap about her not being a fully functional human being since
> her mother's death is just that - crap.  They seem to be trying to set
> up a scenario where she cant get together with Castle until the murder
> is solved and he's preventing her from solving the murder and I ...
> Don't care.

It's a bit childish. How often have you seen two people (in real
life) attracted to one another and not do anything about it?
Hollywood morality and sense of propriety is just...schizo.

[Jim G.]

Obveeus sent the following on Wed, 21 Sep 2011 16:03:09 -0400:

In any case, it's easier for a new boss to start out overly strict and
then loosen up his or her standards/expectations over time versus coming
in and setting too casual a tone and then struggling to change it in the
other direction.

[anim8rfsk]

I have. Her ludicrous threat to Castle about kicking him out if he ever
'embarrassed' her again just proved she's an incompetent fool. Clearly
she doesn't have the authority to kick Castle out, and he just proved
it, and her empty threat just made her look stupid.

[chicagofan]

I'm going to split hairs here... and agree she made herself look foolish
again....by what SHE SAYS, but she hasn't taken any actions that I can
blame her for... yet. :) Unless I wasn't paying enough close attention.
bj

[Obveeus]

"anim8rfsk" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> I have. Her ludicrous threat to Castle about kicking him out if he ever
> 'embarrassed' her again just proved she's an incompetent fool. Clearly
> she doesn't have the authority to kick Castle out, and he just proved
> it, and her empty threat just made her look stupid.

But in her defense, the last boss did and said the same things.

[Professor Bubba]

In article <j5f56h$qvb$1...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obv...@aol.com>
wrote:

Penny Johnson Whoever is a good actress, and her role here may turn
into something really fine ... but they needed to give her something in
this introductory episode, and she got nothing.

IIRC Captain Janeway didn't want to be called "ma'am", either.

[suzeeq]

And Castle's Captain did say 'if my mother comes in here, you can call
her ma'am' which could indicate it's something you call older women.

[Seapig]

On Sep 22, 6:19 am, suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
> Professor Bubba wrote:

> > In article <j5f56h$qv...@dont-email.me>, Obveeus <Obve...@aol.com>
> > wrote:

>
> >> "anim8rfsk" <anim8r...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>> I have.  Her ludicrous threat to Castle about kicking him out if he ever
> >>> 'embarrassed' her again just proved she's an incompetent fool.  Clearly
> >>> she doesn't have the authority to kick Castle out, and he just proved
> >>> it, and her empty threat just made her look stupid.
> >> But in her defense, the last boss did and said the same things.
>
> > Penny Johnson Whoever is a good actress, and her role here may turn
> > into something really fine ... but they needed to give her something in
> > this introductory episode, and she got nothing.
>
> > IIRC Captain Janeway didn't want to be called "ma'am", either.
>
> And Castle's Captain did say 'if my mother comes in here, you can call

> her ma'am' which could indicate it's something you call older women.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Beckett always called the old captain "Sir" - I don't know if she did
it to a greater extent than the others, but it's something that stood
out to me, for whatever reason. Even when she was butting heads with
him, she always showed him the respect of the "Sir". Maybe that's
something they wanted to maintain, more for what it says about Beckett
than about the captain, and "ma'am" just doesn't carry the same weight
as "sir".

[Dano]

"Seapig" wrote in message
news:ee3c4c2b-1952-4c13...@u15g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

========================================

It just sounds stupid. I like the Brit's fashion..."gov".

Every source about the military I just looked up states clearly that
superior officers be addressed as either "sir" or "ma'am" as
appropriate...which I take to mean depending on the gender of the superior.
This is a rather silly thing for ANY officer to demand. I guess the
writer(s) are just trying to emphasize the unreasonableness and nastiness of
this woman. Really defies any reason or logic to treat people under one's
command really. Any fool could see that is no way to earn the respect of
anyone. I also have no doubt the next phase will be to humanize her and try
to make her sympathetic. Dopey approach IMHO.

[chicagofan]

Seapig wrote:
> On Sep 22, 6:19 am, suzeeq<su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>
>> Professor Bubba wrote:
>>> Penny Johnson Whoever is a good actress, and her role here may turn
>>> into something really fine ... but they needed to give her something in
>>> this introductory episode, and she got nothing.
>>>
>>> IIRC Captain Janeway didn't want to be called "ma'am", either.
>>>

LOL!!! Who would? I agree about the writing for her in this episode.

>> And Castle's Captain did say 'if my mother comes in here, you can call
>> her ma'am' which could indicate it's something you call older women.-
>>

> Beckett always called the old captain "Sir" - I don't know if she did
> it to a greater extent than the others, but it's something that stood
> out to me, for whatever reason. Even when she was butting heads with
> him, she always showed him the respect of the "Sir". Maybe that's
> something they wanted to maintain, more for what it says about Beckett
> than about the captain, and "ma'am" just doesn't carry the same weight
> as "sir".
>

She could have said "Captain" was her preference. I agree "Ma'am"
doesn't fit. :)
bj

[chicagofan]

Dano wrote:
> "Seapig" wrote in message:<snipped>

> Beckett always called the old captain "Sir" - I don't know if she did
> it to a greater extent than the others, but it's something that stood
> out to me, for whatever reason. Even when she was butting heads with
> him, she always showed him the respect of the "Sir". Maybe that's
> something they wanted to maintain, more for what it says about Beckett
> than about the captain, and "ma'am" just doesn't carry the same weight
> as "sir".
>
> ========================================
>
> It just sounds stupid. I like the Brit's fashion..."gov".
>
> Every source about the military I just looked up states clearly that
> superior officers be addressed as either "sir" or "ma'am" as
> appropriate...which I take to mean depending on the gender of the superior.
> This is a rather silly thing for ANY officer to demand. I guess the
> writer(s) are just trying to emphasize the unreasonableness and nastiness of
> this woman. Really defies any reason or logic to treat people under one's
> command really. Any fool could see that is no way to earn the respect of
> anyone. I also have no doubt the next phase will be to humanize her and try
> to make her sympathetic. Dopey approach IMHO.
>

That's how I saw it, Dano. A step too far to identify this character
for my tastes. Totally unnecessary.
bj

[Obveeus]

"chicagofan" <chica...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> She could have said "Captain" was her preference. I agree "Ma'am"
> doesn't fit. :)

Ma'am hasn't been in style since Married With Children eviscerated it.

[erilar]

In article <aifk775umpbo2f7ef...@4ax.com>,
Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:

There is no excuse for this new boss, totally clashing with the
established and popular chemistry of the rest of the cast.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[erilar]

In article <j5ft9q$34s$1...@dont-email.me>, "Dano" <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Every source about the military I just looked up states clearly that
> superior officers be addressed as either "sir" or "ma'am" as
> appropriate...which I take to mean depending on the gender of the superior.
> This is a rather silly thing for ANY officer to demand. I guess the
> writer(s) are just trying to emphasize the unreasonableness and nastiness of
> this woman. Really defies any reason or logic to treat people under one's
> command really. Any fool could see that is no way to earn the respect of
> anyone. I also have no doubt the next phase will be to humanize her and try
> to make her sympathetic. Dopey approach IMHO.

I hope you're right, but don't expect much.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[Dano]

"erilar" wrote in message
news:drache-0D48FD....@news.eternal-september.org...

===============================================

Well I certainly don't expect it to matter too much. The old captain hardly
had a lot to do either. It's part of the reason the actor moved on from the
show.

[Seapig]

On Sep 23, 9:18 am, erilar <dra...@chibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
> In article <aifk775umpbo2f7efkjhkno6dpnoiv1...@4ax.com>,
>  Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 18:39:34 -0400, chicagofan <chicago...@privacy.net>

> > wrote:
>
> > >I read the opinions of the new hard nosed "boss" this season, but I
> > >missed any comments about this "SIR"... nonsense.   Am I the only one
> > >who thinks that is ridiculous?   Are there really female professionals
> > >in real life who want to be called SIR?   Is this a military carryover,
> > >or am I just that out of date?
>
> > It seems to me to be headed down the tubes.  So many successful shows
> > screw things up, because they just never quite understand why it is people
> > watch them.
>
> There is no excuse for this new boss, totally clashing with the
> established and popular chemistry of the rest of the cast.

Drama is all about conflict; if the new captain didn't bring some
conflict, there'd be no reason to have a new captain, at least not one
that gets any camera time.

I don't see any reason for concern. She might try to get in the way
of Castle having his fun, but it's not like she's going to succeed.

[Dano]

"Seapig" wrote in message
news:e5963555-3810-47be...@k34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

==========================================

Actually...they have a new captain because the actor who played the old one
left the show of his own volition.

[Professor Bubba]

In article <j5itnh$p5l$1...@dont-email.me>, Dano <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Yes. He's NYC-based, and he (like pretty much everyone else on the
show) thought Castle would be done after its initial ten episodes.

Obviously the new captain can't prevent Castle from working with the
squad, so I hope they give her something to do besides sit behind her
desk and grumble "Great Caesar's ghost!" about it every so often.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Professor Bubba wrote:

>Dano <janea...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>Actually...they have a new captain because the actor who played the old one
>>left the show of his own volition.

>Yes. He's NYC-based, and he (like pretty much everyone else on the
>show) thought Castle would be done after its initial ten episodes.

Why would you want to have a New York cast on a show set in New York?
It's really too bad there is no major base of actors and no television
production facilities there. Some day we'll run out of Canadians.

[Mason Barge]

Except that it is the correct form of address for a female superior in the
military, FBI, and afaik every police force in the country.

[Adam H. Kerman]

In civilian life, it's the correct form of address for a married, widowed,
or divorced woman. The military has no concept of spinster officers?

[Michael Alden]

I hope the show lasts long enough for Castle's daughter to reach
adulthood. She is going to be gorgeous.

[Professor Bubba]

In article
<0d785564-cf52-432e...@q24g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,

Michael Alden <drben...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I hope the show lasts long enough for Castle's daughter to reach
> adulthood. She is going to be gorgeous.

They're treating her gently. I noticed on the rerun of the steampunk
episode that when Castle bursts into the apartment and catches her with
Ashley, her dialogue is "What the heck, Dad?" but her lips are saying
"What the hell, Dad?" She then looks down and to her right, as if
she'd surprised herself.

[anim8rfsk]

Michael Alden <drben...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I hope the show lasts long enough for Castle's daughter to reach
> adulthood. She is going to be gorgeous.
>

Define 'adulthood' - she should be in college by now (yeah, I know,
early admission, but still).

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>Michael Alden <drben...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>I hope the show lasts long enough for Castle's daughter to reach
>>adulthood. She is going to be gorgeous.

>Define 'adulthood' - she should be in college by now (yeah, I know,
>early admission, but still).

Too old to be cast as a high school girl.

[Professor Bubba]

In article <j5rdmk$jqk$3...@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

Molly Quinn turns 18 next month. How old is Alexis supposed to be?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Then she's playing her age.

[anim8rfsk]

I'm assuming she's entering senior year, so, same age.

[Obveeus]

"anim8rfsk" <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> Michael Alden <drben...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I hope the show lasts long enough for Castle's daughter to reach
>> adulthood. She is going to be gorgeous.
>>
> Define 'adulthood' - she should be in college by now (yeah, I know,
> early admission, but still).

I know that you won't want to hear this, but I think she looks a lot like
Chelsea Clinton.

[Dano]

"Michael Alden" wrote in message
news:0d785564-cf52-432e...@q24g2000vby.googlegroups.com...

I hope the show lasts long enough for Castle's daughter to reach
adulthood. She is going to be gorgeous.

======================================

I'm sure we'll see a lot more of her after this one's long gone.

[EGK]

I don't think ANYONE wants to hear that.

[Mason Barge]

I thought she was older, too, but I checked imdb and she's exactly the age
of her character. 18 on October 8. Oooh! Nude photos!

[Remysun]

On Sep 27, 2:05 pm, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I thought she was older, too, but I checked imdb and she's exactly the age
> of her character.  18 on October 8.  Oooh!  Nude photos!

She'll be old enough for her tramp stamp, then it's all downhill.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post picture please.

[anim8rfsk]

That was just mean.

[usmc...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 6:39:34 PM UTC-4, chicagofan wrote:
> I read the opinions of the new hard nosed "boss" this season, but I
>
> missed any comments about this "SIR"... nonsense. Am I the only one
>
> who thinks that is ridiculous? Are there really female professionals
>
> in real life who want to be called SIR? Is this a military carryover,
>
> or am I just that out of date?
>
>
>

> Barbara

WOmen are not called "sir" in the military. That is a wild misnomer.

[zimm...@wideopenwest.com]

Military protocol? Nonsense. Even our military is not that far gone. Female officers are still addressed as "Ma'am."

This is obviously ABC's & Disney Corp's PC stupidity run amok... Again. And I disagree with the other comment that it is a running joke (though it is ridiculous). They address her as "sir" in all situations. It doesn't work for me.

[erilar]

In article <5602e282-0a56-4cfe...@googlegroups.com>,

But she demands it. And this show is not exactly realistic 8-) I just
like the characters.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

[Barry Margolin]

In article <ba2e10ca-0cd1-4631...@googlegroups.com>,

This seems to be something that was initiated on Star Trek, probably
part of Roddenberry's view that the future would be totally egalitarian.
It's not totally far-fetched, but not true currently.

I did some google searching, and all the discussion boards say that this
would never be done in the current military.

--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

[David Johnston]

On 1/7/2014 1:58 PM, zimm...@wideopenwest.com wrote:
> Military protocol? Nonsense.

Nonsense nobody was in fact saying. Not even on the show.

[instig...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 10:32:31 PM UTC-4, syvyn11 wrote:

> On Sep 20, 6:39 pm, chicagofan <chicago...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> > I read the opinions of the new hard nosed "boss" this season, but I
>
> > missed any comments about this "SIR"... nonsense.   Am I the only one
>
> > who thinks that is ridiculous?   Are there really female professionals
>
> > in real life who want to be called SIR?   Is this a military carryover,
>
> > or am I just that out of date?
>
> >
>
> > Barbara
>
>
>

> It's Military protocol. That you call all commissioned officers
>
> 'Sir'. It's dependent on them if you can call them 'Ma'am'.
>
>
>
> And the police is a para-military organization.

They call women "sir" in the military? Ever been in the military?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <d9a0db1e-c6a3-4d51...@googlegroups.com>,

Didn't we put this question to rest months ago? Why are you resurrecting
this thread, when the question had already been answered numerous times.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Barry the troll feeder strikes again.

[davidbar...@gmail.com]

[squee...@gmail.com]

No. It's not military protocol to address female officers as "Sir". They're addressed as Ma'am or by their rank. I am a 20 year veteran of the Air Force. Other than by accident, I never heard a woman addressed as Sir.

[Capricorne]

squee...@gmail.com wrote :

> No. It's not military protocol to address female officers as "Sir".
> They're addressed as Ma'am or by their rank. I am a 20 year veteran of the
> Air Force. Other than by accident, I never heard a woman addressed as Sir.

True. And there is also the fact that Kate is calling her future
husband "Castle". Who is calling her husband by his last name? No one.
Unless there are not happy with you, of course. ;-)

[suzeeq]

They've beem friends/buddies for a really long time. It could be seen as
an affectionate name by this time. And yeah, some couples do call each
other by their last name.

[A Friend]

In article <btfsk2...@mid.individual.net>, Capricorne

<capri...@gmail.com> wrote:

> squee...@gmail.com wrote :
> > No. It's not military protocol to address female officers as "Sir".
> > They're addressed as Ma'am or by their rank. I am a 20 year veteran of the
> > Air Force. Other than by accident, I never heard a woman addressed as Sir.
>
>
> True. And there is also the fact that Kate is calling her future
> husband "Castle". Who is calling her husband by his last name? No one.

T'aint funny, McGee.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <21050021-12a1-4e12...@googlegroups.com>,

This thread is nearly 3 years old. Didn't we beat it to death ages ago?
What new information are you providing that wasn't already said way back
then?

[Adam H. Kerman]

I don't recall anyone calling him "Fibber", which was for those tongue
twisting stories he used to tell in early days. Molly typically
said that unscripted, when Jim Jordan blew a joke.

On Castle, I've never heard anyone but his mother call him Richard. I don't
recall what his ex-wives called him.

[Dano]

"suzeeq" wrote in message news:lkuele$1h9$1...@dont-email.me...

=================================================

Am I the only geezer here who remembers the show "Life of Riley" with
William Bendix?

[suzeeq]

I know I watched it as a kid, the details are a little fuzzy.

[Dano]

"suzeeq" wrote in message news:ll02j6$poa$1...@dont-email.me...

=======================================================

I was quite young myself...but I do remember his wife (and everyone else)
always called him "Riley" and only that.

[Bill Anderson]

What a revoltin' development THIS is.

--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog

[Dano]

"Bill Anderson" wrote in message
news:98WdnR-N1ccfD-7O...@giganews.com...

================================
Ha!

[A Friend]

In article <lkvt7l$hed$3...@news.albasani.net>, Adam H. Kerman

Even Beckett called him Rick in the pilot. I'm pretty sure Gina called
him Rick as well; not sure about Jericho Woman.

I think I prefer Kate calling him Castle. It'll make it more
meaningful when she finally calls him Rick or Richard during the
wedding-night scene -- if they ever get married, that is. Right now,
this thing is starting to come off a lot like Lois & Clark.

[A Friend]

In article <ll027p$ntt$1...@dont-email.me>, Dano <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

No, you're not, but you're the only one who remembered the relevant
detail. Nice.

[A Friend]

In article <ll06ah$o3l$1...@dont-email.me>, Dano <janea...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

I remember that they recast the neighbors after a while -- Tom d'Andrea
and Gloria Blondell were let go, and they hired George O'Hanlon and Flo
Sundstrom. They lasted less than a season. Then they brought back
d'Andrea and Blondell.

Oh, yeah. Riley's neighbor Gillis: Even his wife called him Gillis.
O'Hanlon played Calvin Dudley, but everybody called him Dud. (His wife
called him that, too. Cue laugh track.)

[Adam H. Kerman]

fwiw, William Bendix couldn't get out of a contract; Riley was recast
as Jackie Gleason for its first season on tv.

[westr...@gmail.com]

Wrong...

[Barry Margolin]

In article <db3f3426-98d5-46c9...@googlegroups.com>,
westr...@gmail.com wrote:

> Wrong...

Why are you replying to this 3-year-old thread, in which dozens of
people have already pointed that out? Do you have anything new to bring
to the discussion?

I hate Google Groups.

[Stan Brown]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:11:30 -0400, Barry Margolin wrote:
>
> In article <db3f3426-98d5-46c9...@googlegroups.com>,
> westr...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Wrong...
>
> Why are you replying to this 3-year-old thread, in which dozens of
> people have already pointed that out? Do you have anything new to bring
> to the discussion?
>
> I hate Google Groups.

Does not MT News enable filtering out the spawn of Google Groups? I
have my Gravity filter set to delete all of them unread, except
replies to my own recent articles.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Shikata ga nai...

[Barry Margolin]

In article <MPG.2e2ed488d...@news.individual.net>,

Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:11:30 -0400, Barry Margolin wrote:
> >
> > In article <db3f3426-98d5-46c9...@googlegroups.com>,
> > westr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Wrong...
> >
> > Why are you replying to this 3-year-old thread, in which dozens of
> > people have already pointed that out? Do you have anything new to bring
> > to the discussion?
> >
> > I hate Google Groups.
>
> Does not MT News enable filtering out the spawn of Google Groups? I
> have my Gravity filter set to delete all of them unread, except
> replies to my own recent articles.

Unfortunately, too many of the groups I read have regular posters who
use GG.

[Jim G.]

Barry Margolin sent the following on Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:03:01 -0400:

Block GG by default and then whitelist those you want to see. That's how
I do it. The same goes for AIOE.

--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Everyone is relevant to someone." -- Harold Finch, PERSON OF INTEREST

[anim8rFSK]

In article <ehqas9t6tlcrkso8u...@4ax.com>,

Jim G. <jimg...@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

> Barry Margolin sent the following on Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:03:01 -0400:
> > In article <MPG.2e2ed488d...@news.individual.net>,
> > Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:11:30 -0400, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <db3f3426-98d5-46c9...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > westr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Wrong...
> > > >
> > > > Why are you replying to this 3-year-old thread, in which dozens of
> > > > people have already pointed that out? Do you have anything new to bring
> > > > to the discussion?
> > > >
> > > > I hate Google Groups.
> > >
> > > Does not MT News enable filtering out the spawn of Google Groups? I
> > > have my Gravity filter set to delete all of them unread, except
> > > replies to my own recent articles.
> >
> > Unfortunately, too many of the groups I read have regular posters who
> > use GG.
>
> Block GG by default and then whitelist those you want to see. That's how
> I do it. The same goes for AIOE.

You gave away our secret!

--
Wait - are you saying that ClodReamer was wrong, or lying?

[Jim G.]

anim8rFSK sent the following on Tue, 15 Jul 2014 11:29:31 -0700:

Next to blocking any post crossposted to a "politics" group, blocking GG
by default was the best move I ever made on the filter front. Sometimes
a nuclear device is more efficient than a bunch of individual bullets.

[lerou...@gmail.com]

I was in the military and was never instructed a female officer as sir.

[mistym...@gmail.com]

You are incorrect. I was military and if you called a female superior "Sir" then I'd suggest using care as you pick yourself up off the floor where she laid you out! Calling her "Sir" is as offensive as calling an enlisted person "Sir" or "Ma'am".

[franc...@gmail.com]

I am a retired female Army officer and am a ma'am. It drives me nuts when they call the CPT "sir"

[suzeeq]

franc...@gmail.com wrote:
> I am a retired female Army officer and am a ma'am. It drives me nuts when they call the CPT "sir"

She asked to be called that. And this thread has got to be 2 years old...

[BTR1701]

So what? I've never understand why there's a subset of people on Usenet who
get all prickly over old threads. If someone has something to say that's
relevant to an older discussion, there's nothing wrong with posting a
follow up to it.

[Adam H. Kerman]

It would have been lovely if the O.P. reviving a dead thread had quoted
correctly to provide context. As the precursor article was posted three
years ago, it will have expired on most News sites by now. But then, the
O.P. used Google Groups, incapable of producing a conventionally formatted
article in followup.

[trotsky]

On 10/28/14 7:30 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:12:53 -0500, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>> So what? I've never understand why there's a subset of people on Usenet
>> who get all prickly over old threads. If someone has something to say
>> that's relevant to an older discussion, there's nothing wrong with
>> posting a follow up to it.
>

> Because this group is infested with a bunch of prickly asshats that
> worries more about the minutiae of the posts versus the actual content.


Could you respond to yourself a few more times just for good measure?

[anim8rFSK]

In article <m2o28l$2du$1...@dont-email.me>,

BTR1701 <addre...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:12:53 -0500, BTR1701 wrote:
>

> > So what? I've never understand why there's a subset of people on Usenet
> > who get all prickly over old threads. If someone has something to say
> > that's relevant to an older discussion, there's nothing wrong with
> > posting a follow up to it.
>

> Because this group is infested with a bunch of prickly asshats that
> worries more about the minutiae of the posts versus the actual content.
>

> If you look at the posts they only come from about 10 users tops. And any
> one who pricks their little clique sensibilities is treated to a barrage
> of Seamsus nonsense. Disgree with the "group think" Seamus! Don't give
> your complete life history, yet they don't follow that, SEAMUS! Oh and
> don't forget the resident SHITown dorq who is perfect in every way...
> Once I started to plonk these asshats to the kill file this group
> improved tremendously. There are still a few who ruin for the rest of us.
>
> Maybe if some of the posters on this group grew up, took some reading
> comprehension course(s), and oh... READ THE FUCKING POSTS versus a bunch
> of stupid BULLSHIT!
>
> And you wonder why UseNet has declined from its past glory(s)! Although
> some of the Linux ML/groups/boards are just as bad if not worse, example,
> the kernel ML and Linus.

Shut up, Seamus

[BTR1701]

BTR1701 <addre...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2014 23:12:53 -0500, BTR1701 wrote:
>

>> So what? I've never understand why there's a subset of people on Usenet
>> who get all prickly over old threads. If someone has something to say
>> that's relevant to an older discussion, there's nothing wrong with
>> posting a follow up to it.
>

> Because this group is infested with a bunch of prickly asshats that
> worries more about the minutiae of the posts versus the actual content.
>
> If you look at the posts they only come from about 10 users tops. And any
> one who pricks their little clique sensibilities is treated to a barrage
> of Seamsus nonsense. Disgree with the "group think" Seamus! Don't give
> your complete life history, yet they don't follow that, SEAMUS! Oh and
> don't forget the resident SHITown dorq who is perfect in every way...
> Once I started to plonk these asshats to the kill file this group
> improved tremendously. There are still a few who ruin for the rest of us.
>
> Maybe if some of the posters on this group grew up, took some reading
> comprehension course(s), and oh... READ THE FUCKING POSTS versus a bunch
> of stupid BULLSHIT!
>
> And you wonder why UseNet has declined from its past glory(s)! Although
> some of the Linux ML/groups/boards are just as bad if not worse, example,
> the kernel ML and Linus.

Shut up, Seamus, and quit trying to pretend to be me.

[Barry Margolin]

In article
<1628464528436160858.064821...@news.giganews.com>
,

So what did he have to say that wasn't said before?

[Michael Black]

Usenet was never intended to be permanent. It's built on the concept
that messages would expire.

Dejanews changed that, making the archive, but they didn't allow replies
to old messages. Google took over that archive, and didn't allow replies
to old messages either. But then they changed the interface, to match
their own groups, and suddenly it was happening. I complained, I hope
others did, and the bug wsa fixed. But the next iteration of the
interface put it back, and it just keeps happening.

We are not a web forum. When someone ressurects an old thread, they
aren't adding to that thread, they are resurrecting a long dead thread.
If they have something to say, they can start a new thread.

To make matters worse, most of these old thread resurrecters have no clue
where they are, or when the post was. Since it is all a google problem,
they may not quote, the subject header may not have a "re:" to indicate a
reply, and much of the time, it's not added information, it's "is this
thing still for sale?". 20 years after the original post, the original
poster may be dead, and is more than likely not still around to answer.

The only context we have is that we know the google idiots are doing this,
so when you get that "is this thing still for sale" with no other context,
you know another google idiot has replied to an old message.

It would be fine if we all read via google's interface, we'd see the old
messages there. But we don't. So too many think this is a new message
(and somehow the earlier messages in the thread haven't arrived yet, which
used to happen but I haven't seen that in a long time) and they reply as
if it's a new thread. But back in 1996 or whatever, the message was
replied to and all that needed saying wsa said back then. SO it's just a
rehash. A few months ago, someone resurrected an old thread, though only
a few years old, and it ended up with the same people replying that did
the first time, with about the same information, all because some google
idiot thought they had some reason to resurrect the old thread. And the
original poster, back four years, had even provided a followup at the
time, posting about the solution he came up with, and that everything was
fine.

That's another subset of these resurrections, they are often to sell
soemthing. Either someone hoping that guy in 1994 who was looking for a
certain part might still want it, or outright spam, someone hiding behind
an old thread (so it looks legit) but when you read the message, it's the
usual spam.

Google at one point put up a list of famous Usenet threads. At least one
of those, the one where Linus first annoucnes Linux, has been long
vandalized by google idiots who think it's "cute" to post a reply 20 years
later saying "thanks". It's a bastardization of usenet.

Even the "well I added to this old thread so the information would be
together" makes no sense. If someone is fixing something in 1994, and
someone comes up with some tidbit in 2014, the search engine that found
the original thread will find the second message, they don't have to be
linked together.

There is absolutely no reason to reply to messages older than 30 days (the
limit dejanews, and original google, had in place).

I have messages saved going back to August 1996. I don't reply to them,
even though I could. SOme I saved for the information, some I saved
intending to reply later, and after a certain time, I realize it's silly
to reply, the conversation has moved on.

Michael

[BTR1701]

Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>> suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>>> franc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> I am a retired female Army officer and am a ma'am. It drives me nuts
>>>> when they call the CPT "sir"
>>>
>>> She asked to be called that. And this thread has got to be 2 years old...
>>
>> So what? I've never understand why there's a subset of people on Usenet who
>> get all prickly over old threads. If someone has something to say that's
>> relevant to an older discussion, there's nothing wrong with posting a
>> follow up to it.

> We are not a web forum. When someone ressurects an old thread, they
> aren't adding to that thread, they are resurrecting a long dead thread.
> If they have something to say, they can start a new thread.

So who decides how old is too old? And what difference does it make to you?
Seriously, why would anyone rational even care about things like ths?

Bottom line, since, as you note, this isn't a web forum, there is no
moderation, and whatever your personal definition of "too old" is, it will
not be shared by everyone, so you can either continue to bitch and whine
about every perceived transgression of your personal standards or you can
just suck it up and deal with the occasional zombie thread.

> There is absolutely no reason to reply to messages older than 30 days
> (the limit dejanews, and original google, had in place).

I often mark threads as unread for shows I haven't watched, then when I get
around to watching them, will go back and read the threads and reply to
them. In some cases, that can be more than 30 days for me due to my work
and travel schedule, so I am (and will be in the future) in violation of
your 'rule'. Hope it doesn't make you too butthurt, but your only option is
to get over it, because I won't be changing what works for me in order to
please you.

[suzeeq]

30 days is reasonable, 2 or 3 years is not. This person added nothing to
the discussion which makes me wonder if it's a troll or sock. The only
'rule' is one of common sense.

[Michael Black]

On Tue, 28 Oct 2014, BTR1701 wrote:

> Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>> suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>> franc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> I am a retired female Army officer and am a ma'am. It drives me nuts
>>>>> when they call the CPT "sir"
>>>>
>>>> She asked to be called that. And this thread has got to be 2 years old...
>>>
>>> So what? I've never understand why there's a subset of people on Usenet who
>>> get all prickly over old threads. If someone has something to say that's
>>> relevant to an older discussion, there's nothing wrong with posting a
>>> follow up to it.
>
>> We are not a web forum. When someone ressurects an old thread, they
>> aren't adding to that thread, they are resurrecting a long dead thread.
>> If they have something to say, they can start a new thread.
>
> So who decides how old is too old? And what difference does it make to you?
> Seriously, why would anyone rational even care about things like ths?
>

This post that started this is a classic example.

There's no "re:" in the subject header it looks like a new thread.
But there is an "in-Reply-to", so it's a reply to something. There's no
quoting either.

It turns out the original thread started in 2011, was resurrected in
January of this year, an stumbled along, then once again it's resurrected.

It's the worst of the worst. And it's only coming from google. I don't
care if one of the regulars replies to an old thread, because they are
merely slow responding. But this regular issue from google is about
really clueless people who aren't here, but somehow find random posts from
the past, never noticing how old they are, and their junk replies land
here because they have no idea this is usenet. And like I detailed, most
of them serve no purpose, other than to mess up our newsgroups.

Michael

[Michael Black]

For the life of me, I can't figure out why people are finding old threads,
and then find a need to reply. Well, sometimes it "make sense", if they
think something for sale is still available, or they think they can profit
from posting something in reply. But since these aren't regular usenet
posters, it's an odd thing why they find this 2011 thread about Castle,
and then decide to reply, when there are so many more recent posts that
they could be replying to. Yes, sometimes it does seem like trolling,
they can reply to an old thread, then sit back as the current posters trip
over themselves to reiply, and yet back whenever there were enough replies
and it probably was covered back then to the extent needed.

Micahel