The plan was to have this whole thing fully done and ready to post. We did the Cat Ballou review. We had the Dear Third Estate Sunday Review. But that's about all we could manage as we saw C.I. attacked and then Rebecca. As we watched while Betty considered packing it in and Folding Star wondered how much crap you're supposed to put up with.
Two small fry bloggers decide to flame on like Johnny Storm the Human Torch.
And that shelved any hopes of being on top of this edition.
We went with the flow. Instead of doing an all night session, we all took a five hour nap after getting the interview with Common Ills community members Gina and Krista (who do the gina & kristin round-robin e-mail). Betty and Rebecca helped out there so thank you for that and thank you Gina and Krista for the interview.
The humorous piece was written by Rebecca, Betty and The Third Estate Sunday Review. Ava did work in a joke C.I. had used on another topic but, please note Paul and Dopey, C.I. didn't participate so save your angry, flaming e-mails.
While Ava and C.I. did the review of Living With Fran and the DVD review of The Electric Horseman, Rebecca helped us with the editorial.
We hope you'll find something to enjoy this issue. There is humor here. But we're also addressing a serious issue.
For the record, the issue of counters came up due to "Paul." That can't be stated often enough. If he hadn't shot his mouth off about supposedly being able to read an e-mail composed while someone visited his site, due to his counters, it never would have been an issue.
We don't think it happened. If it did, that's pretty scary. And all of Dopey's whining about corporations don't change thing.
If it didn't happen, then any "hysteria" that's been caused has come from Paul claiming an event that never happened. But instead of getting honest, both want to bully Rebecca and C.I. in e-mails.
That's pretty shitty.
Paul's obsessed over the fact that in a roundtable, C.I. didn't note that Paul had apologized. Why should that be noted, that wasn't the topic and if you want your apology -- which was an "aside" at best and a weak one at that -- noted, you've got a site. The same site that you posted your "HOW DO YOU SLEEP!" slam at The Common Ills becaue they didn't choose to come to your party (to use Rebecca's analogy).
Dopey's obsessed over the fact that The Common Ills community doesn't know that corporations track. Dopey needs to learn to read. Maybe it's because he came in late, but that's been noted repeatedly on the site. It's also been noted (along with firewalls, Paul) in the UK Computer Gurus newsletter that TCI members receive.
C.I.'s comments in the roundtable were hoped to be the only comments on it by C.I. For two weeks, nothing had been said about it at The Common Ills. C.I. cancelled out on a roundtable we'd scheduled the weekend after the attack because of the fact that we were going to address it there. C.I. also asked us to rethink the editorial we had prepared on your attack that weekend.
(Didn't say, "Pull it," asked us to think if we really thought anything good would come of it. Knowing all that C.I. has to put up with up, we pulled it. Our decision.)
Rebecca didn't want to be silent. And somehow that was C.I.'s fault as well, according to you, Paul. Ask Rebecca, she'll tell you the wish that she not write anything about it was conveyed to her. She'll tell you C.I. refused to discuss the attack with her on the record or off.
Krista and Gina also attempted to get C.I. to talk in their round-robin e-mail. C.I. remained silent until it came up during the roundtable. And Rebecca wasn't done when C.I. interjected. As everyone present knows, Rebecca was just building up to a bigger point when C.I. jumped in to take the "high road." (We just used "high road." Dopey, you can accuse us of visiting your site now.)
All along, C.I. tried to balance two things at once, what was best for the community and protecting your privacy.
You blew it when you started your e-mails after the roundtable went up. You blew it by badgering C.I., bitching about Rebecca and acting like a total prick. We've seen the e-mails, Paul. C.I. takes the fall (again) and apologizes for mentioning you by name and linking to your site. Paul, we didn't want that. None of us at the site did. Ava and Ty ended up siding with C.I. over it because it was important to C.I. The point was to show that there were no hard feelings.
But to you, it's a conspiracy to destroy you. Yeah, Paul, that's how we do it. We wait two weeks to go after you. Guess we needed the surprise option?
You need to own your mistakes. Ava just said this is turning into an editorial.
So to our readers, we are very upset about this. One person wants to blow a gasket and act like he never started up the issue of counters, when he did. He wants to explode because in a roundtable, his weak apology wasn't stated. (If it had been, our remarks about the apology would have only pissed him off more because none of us, except possibly C.I. found it sincere. Did C.I. find it sincere? We don't know.)
And the second person is pissed that C.I. didn't drop everything and blog about something that the idiot didn't ask to be quoted on, didn't write up anything for the community on -- something that had been blogged on and noted repeatedly already.
A lot of time was wasted that could have gone to other things. Ava can tell you because she's helped C.I. a great deal last week.
So if there's a theme to this edition it's about how bullies think they can have the last word. We expect that from the right. When it comes from the left, it's a shock.
-- Jim, Ava, Dona, Ty and Jess
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Editorial on two idiots
We did a humorous post on what went down last week. You can read it in this edition. But we don't think it's funny.
We agree with Rebecca that Dopey needs to take a literacy course.
Long ago (and far away?), "Paul" began bragging about being able to see a visitor to his site composing an e-mail (to someone other than "Paul"). When Paul passed that on to C.I., C.I. blogged about it because privacy concerns are concerns of The Common Ills community. C.I. did not say, "Hey everyone, it was 'Paul!' What a creep, huh?"
Paul wants to act like that never happened. Except when he's screaming to Rebecca. The current excuse is "It might have been something they were posting at another site." Who cares?
It's not your fucking business what anyone does online.
We think you're inflating this tale, we've always thought that. But you claim it happened. So in the words of C.I., "get honest."
You seem to think it's fun to beat up on sick people and when your busy, Dopey appears to be dispatched.
Dopey, we've seen all your e-mails. (As had Rebecca before she ever posted on this matter.)
You've got some serious problems such as comprehension -- is it a problem for you in the spoken language or just when it comes to the written word?
You send two e-mails to C.I. on the day of the apology to the community. And you can't shut up about corporations but you can never say, "Could you please me quote me on the subject of counters to your community?" That's all it took, dumb ass. But you didn't know how to issue a statement. And in your second e-mail, you give the impression that you're okay with it.
Well, here's the first problem. The Common Ills isn't your blog. You have no say in it. Here's the second problem. All the issues you raised were covered months ago at that site. And there was even a post where people with counters were defended. But you don't know that or you can't read it and grasp it. There's some problem with the way your brain works.
Having acted like there's no personal problem, you then go on to your blog and trash The Common Ills community. Someone posts a response there. They never say they are a member.
But you're convinced they are and that it's Rebecca so you and "Paul" start in on that nonsense.
Rebecca's never gone to your site. None of us have. One person who has told us it was a third-rate copy of Eschaton. You're apparently so busy being a weak copy of Atrios that you're not saying anything worth hearing. We agree with C.I., Atrios does what Atrios does and he's famous for it. You're not going to get any traffic by trying to be Atrios. Why would anyone wanting Atrios settle for a weak-ass copy of him? Like C.I. said, if people want Johnny Depp, they'll hire Johnny Depp, not the knock-off Skeet Ulrich.
When not trying to copy Atrios, you are too busy calling C.I. a liar and demanding your readers write in to gripe. No one wrote, Dopey. Does that give you any indication of how little you're valued even by people who visit your dopey blog.
The way it stands, C.I. could be screaming, "Retract the liar!" The facts are on C.I.'s side. But instead, C.I. moves on.
You, on the other hand, feel the need to mock someone who's seriously ill and working on recovery. We'd use words like "appears to mock" but we've read your e-mail to Rebecca. You meant to mock. Hope you never try to get an endorsement from the American Cancer Society.
Hope you never dream of winning a humanitarian award.
We think most people would realize how disgusting your actions were. But we realize that you have a problem with comprehension. So let's put this very plain: YOU ARE DISGUSTING. WHAT YOU DID WAS DISGUSTING.
Dopey, you picked the wrong woman to boss around when you went after Rebecca. She won't back down. You've already attacked a friend of her's which was enough to set her off. Now you think you scream at her?
We realize no one reads your site. We also realize why. You don't seem to grasp why but we'll put that off as another comprehension problem on your part.
But to Dopey and Paul, keep up this crap and we'll really get pissed. Right now, we're grossly offended. Bill Bixby used to say on The Incredible Hulk something like, "Don't make me mad, you wouldn't like me when I'm angry."
We don't think your attacks on women or on sick ones are representative of what the left is supposed to stand for. You need to ask yourself if you're goal is to be the next Ann Coulter or the next Katrina vanden Heuvel. As it stands, you've now written your own little Slander. We seriously doubt that you've got the ability to go from that to the sort of inspiration and factual presentations of Katrina vanden Heuvel, but prove us wrong, please.
You and Paul have serious image problems now. We hear about it on campus, we read about it in e-mails. You might have thought this was another case where you could flame on and get away with it. But this time, you've burned yourself.
You've both created a name for yourself, finally, but it's not a good name.
We agree with Rebecca that Dopey needs to take a literacy course.
Long ago (and far away?), "Paul" began bragging about being able to see a visitor to his site composing an e-mail (to someone other than "Paul"). When Paul passed that on to C.I., C.I. blogged about it because privacy concerns are concerns of The Common Ills community. C.I. did not say, "Hey everyone, it was 'Paul!' What a creep, huh?"
Paul wants to act like that never happened. Except when he's screaming to Rebecca. The current excuse is "It might have been something they were posting at another site." Who cares?
It's not your fucking business what anyone does online.
We think you're inflating this tale, we've always thought that. But you claim it happened. So in the words of C.I., "get honest."
You seem to think it's fun to beat up on sick people and when your busy, Dopey appears to be dispatched.
Dopey, we've seen all your e-mails. (As had Rebecca before she ever posted on this matter.)
You've got some serious problems such as comprehension -- is it a problem for you in the spoken language or just when it comes to the written word?
You send two e-mails to C.I. on the day of the apology to the community. And you can't shut up about corporations but you can never say, "Could you please me quote me on the subject of counters to your community?" That's all it took, dumb ass. But you didn't know how to issue a statement. And in your second e-mail, you give the impression that you're okay with it.
Well, here's the first problem. The Common Ills isn't your blog. You have no say in it. Here's the second problem. All the issues you raised were covered months ago at that site. And there was even a post where people with counters were defended. But you don't know that or you can't read it and grasp it. There's some problem with the way your brain works.
Having acted like there's no personal problem, you then go on to your blog and trash The Common Ills community. Someone posts a response there. They never say they are a member.
But you're convinced they are and that it's Rebecca so you and "Paul" start in on that nonsense.
Rebecca's never gone to your site. None of us have. One person who has told us it was a third-rate copy of Eschaton. You're apparently so busy being a weak copy of Atrios that you're not saying anything worth hearing. We agree with C.I., Atrios does what Atrios does and he's famous for it. You're not going to get any traffic by trying to be Atrios. Why would anyone wanting Atrios settle for a weak-ass copy of him? Like C.I. said, if people want Johnny Depp, they'll hire Johnny Depp, not the knock-off Skeet Ulrich.
When not trying to copy Atrios, you are too busy calling C.I. a liar and demanding your readers write in to gripe. No one wrote, Dopey. Does that give you any indication of how little you're valued even by people who visit your dopey blog.
The way it stands, C.I. could be screaming, "Retract the liar!" The facts are on C.I.'s side. But instead, C.I. moves on.
You, on the other hand, feel the need to mock someone who's seriously ill and working on recovery. We'd use words like "appears to mock" but we've read your e-mail to Rebecca. You meant to mock. Hope you never try to get an endorsement from the American Cancer Society.
Hope you never dream of winning a humanitarian award.
We think most people would realize how disgusting your actions were. But we realize that you have a problem with comprehension. So let's put this very plain: YOU ARE DISGUSTING. WHAT YOU DID WAS DISGUSTING.
Dopey, you picked the wrong woman to boss around when you went after Rebecca. She won't back down. You've already attacked a friend of her's which was enough to set her off. Now you think you scream at her?
We realize no one reads your site. We also realize why. You don't seem to grasp why but we'll put that off as another comprehension problem on your part.
But to Dopey and Paul, keep up this crap and we'll really get pissed. Right now, we're grossly offended. Bill Bixby used to say on The Incredible Hulk something like, "Don't make me mad, you wouldn't like me when I'm angry."
We don't think your attacks on women or on sick ones are representative of what the left is supposed to stand for. You need to ask yourself if you're goal is to be the next Ann Coulter or the next Katrina vanden Heuvel. As it stands, you've now written your own little Slander. We seriously doubt that you've got the ability to go from that to the sort of inspiration and factual presentations of Katrina vanden Heuvel, but prove us wrong, please.
You and Paul have serious image problems now. We hear about it on campus, we read about it in e-mails. You might have thought this was another case where you could flame on and get away with it. But this time, you've burned yourself.
You've both created a name for yourself, finally, but it's not a good name.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
I turn on the TV and see nothing crap. Suggestions for what to do requested.
Robbie, NYU
Dear Robbie,
After carefully considering your query and weighing your dilemma, we do have a suggestion for you: turn the TV off. We beg you, turn the TV off.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
Each Sunday you crack me up. I find your articles funny & insightful. I would recommend that you drop the Sunday and become a seven day a week The Third Estate Review.
Loretta, Oklahoma City
Dear Loretta,
Why not The Third Estate Daily Review? While we don't intend on any changes anytime soon, we would like to point out that we have an archive and you can utilize that seven days a week.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
Since Kat's first Kat's Korner, I have been in love with her. Is she everything I imagine?
Todd
Dear Todd,
More. So much more.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
Is the world nuts or just the Bully Boy? It's getting hard to tell.
Charlie, Austin, TX
Dear Charlie,
We used to think it was the world. Then we saw the world thought the Bully Boy was nuts. So we were starting to wonder if it was just a slight majority of our own country. However, with the continual rise in disapproval for the Bully Boy and with half the country now firmly against the war, we don't think it is the nation. So that just leaves the Bully Boy.
And Ryan Seacrest of course.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
Here is a serious question for you. A cat, a dog and a bird are on the lawn in a circle. All remain still. A gunshot goes off. Which moves first?
Mystery Man, Toledo
Dear Mystery Man,
Who shot the gun? What did they shoot at?
Another question: who cares?
Are you setting up an example based on something you've observed? If you've observed it only once, we're not sure what you think you've proven. If this is an "experiment" you're conducting repeatedly, we're not sure what exactly you're trying to prove.
Is this a reflex test? A speed test? What qualifies as move? A cocked head? A flap of wings?
Since one will take to flight and two will move relatively close to the ground we think this may be a case of apples and oranges.
Is this a hearing test? And if not, why not? What if, for instance, the dog is deaf? If so, does the dog need to feel the bullet or see the others reacting to know that something is up?
Are all three equally fit?
If so, how did you determine that?
If you are conducting experiments and not just tossing out examples, we should advise you that if this is intentional, it may border on animal cruelty.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
Most of my nights are spent faking squeals and pretending to shudder with delight while my boyfriend, Mr. One Thrust, dives in, cries out "Mommy!" and then pats me on the shoulder like we're on the same baseball team. I don't know what to do.
Melanie
Dear Melanie,
Would you boyfriend happen to "Dopey?" Rebecca's pretty sure that he is. Our advise, sit him down and tell him, "Honey, you don't just hit the ball and tap home with your foot, you have to run the bases." If that doesn't work, we suggest you reply with something along the lines of, "That's it? You're kidding me right? That's it. That's it! Where'd you learn that technique? On your blow up doll!" Either way, we hope he gets the message.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
Are you really not going to review of any PBS's British sitcoms?
Alan, Chicago
Dear Alan,
Ava and C.I. are not going to review any of the "Brit-coms." The reason for that is that the ones available depend upon your area. We are aware that we have college students and other readers on a tight budget. We highlight Kat's Korner because we think Kat's writing is so strong that she conveys the music even if you can't afford it. But for what we highlight, we try to focus on what's most readily available. That means we focus on broadcast television. Although we've been advised by one reader that he only gets NBC, Fox and ABC in his area. At some point, C.I. and Ava may review a CBS show (they don't believe they have thus far -- another reason to check the archive, Loretta) but, as Ava and C.I. point out, "No one's having to pay for network television with anything but their brain cells." With movies, we're considering a review of Monster-in-Law because we do enjoy Jane Fonda's acting and are all eager to see the film (opens May 13th). But with movies thus far, we go by what we can locate in either our university libraries or the local library.
Alan, you might argue, but by your reasons, what if someone doesn't have the film in their library? They can request it. Libraries are great resources and people should use them more.
With books we review, the same argument applies.
If it helps any, all of us have watched a Brit-com or two over the years and have enjoyed many of them.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
There's not been a Jane Fonda comedic performance film discussed in awhile. Did you forget them?
Barney, San Diego
Dear Barney,
No, we didn't. Jane Fonda has done a number of comedies. Period of Adjustment is one Ty has seen before but we weren't able to find that at libraries. Ditto Any Wednesday which Dona used to watch on TV with "a bowl of onion dips and Ruffles each time it was on" growing up. Had we found either on DVD or VCR, we would have reviewed them. Steelyard Blues is another comedy we had to pass on. What we were left with was Barefoot in the Park, Cat Ballou, Nine to Five,
Barbarella, The Electric Horseman, Fun With Dick & Jane and California Suite. Our intention was always to hold Nine to Five for the edition the week Monster in Law was released. With this edition, we have Nine to Five and Barbarella left to review. We're concentrating on Fonda's performances in these films. Usually we have a great deal to say about the film itself. That was not the case with Cat Ballou which has some solid performances from all (and strong ones from Fonda in the lead and Lee Marvin in supporting roles) and a funny script but some bad direction.
Fonda's performance in it foreshadows her strengths to come and the film will make you laugh but we didn't feel the need to note much more than that. It does have a rare film performance by Nat King Cole. We might not have stressed that enough. If not, let us point out that Nat King Cole sings in the movie at various intervals.
We think Fonda is a great dramatic actress. We also think she's a great comedic actress and our reviews have been attempts of reminding people of that. We feel her return to the screen after a fifteen year absence is big news.
We'll guess that others agree as well since her book, My Life So Far, debuted at number one on the best seller list.
Our hope is that if she doesn't decide to make a number of other films, she'll at least make one more and that someone will be smart enough to reteam her and Robert Redford for one more film together. (They've co-starred in The Chase, Barefoot in the Park and The Electric Horseman.)
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
How do you decide which blog to spotlight?
Ronald, Trenton
Dear Ronald,
We had thought we'd expand to non Common Ills community members. But the problem with that is that we tend to wait until the last minute to compile these editions. That means that we're choosing among C.I., Rebecca, Kat, Betty and Folding Star. Fortunately all five are strong writers. But since we need permission to reprint someone's entry in full and we wait until the last minute, that leaves us with those five.
From those five, we toss out various possibilites and all vote. All being Ty, Jess, Dona, Jim and Ava of The Third Estate Sunday Review plus anyone helping us, for instance C.I., Folding Star, Rebecca, Kat and Betty. We discuss it and argue to decide which one to go with.
At one point, we were hoping to run an interview C.I. was attempting to do with a non-community member blogger. C.I. tried to do the interview and was put off after it was agreed to. (C.I. says, "For God's sake, note that he apologized after the fact or I'll get e-mails!") C.I. had explained that the interview would go along with a blog spotlight and we were willing to let that blogger pick the entry that he felt was his favorite (for whatever reason). As we waited and waited on that Saturday and midnight drew ever closer, C.I. went to Folding Star and "begged" (C.I.'s word) for an interview. Folding Star was happy to provide one. And we were happy to run it.
But if you wonder why we focus only on community blogs, that's also part of the reason. Early on we attempted to promote a non community blog. We were going to highlight an entry in full and provide an interview with the blogger. As we were put off and put off, we figured why even bother. It wasn't worth it.
We will probably be doing something soon with Ruth who is a Common Ills community member and provides Ruth's Morning Edition Report. In addition, there's another member of The Common Ills community who will soon start providing entries. Krista and Gina have discussed this in their round-robin e-mail. If you are in the know, you're as excited about that as we are but our lips are sealed for now. In this edition, we have an article on Krista on Gina and how their round-robin came to be. The UK Computer Gurus do a bi-weekly newsletter for Common Ills members and the ringleader is also working on a piece for us. He has been working on that since our second issue. We spoke to him today and he's still working on it. We've read parts of it and think it's incredible and jam packed with information. But to post it up as an article, he wants it to be perfect. We're thinking that day may never come but we assured him that if it ever does, we will gladly post it.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
I need to lose at least ten pounds for a wedding next month. I'm freaking and just in a total and complete panic trying to figure out what to do!
Lisa, Providence
Dear Lisa,
Ten pounds? You're stressing over ten pounds? Try walking twenty minutes each evening. It'll provide you some fresh air and hopefully some peace. But we're sure you have much more to offer than your weight. Eat healthy, take walks and, if you enjoy them, extend them a little each week. If you have a weight problem, consult your doctor. And learn to embrace who you are and not reach for a doctored magazine cover photo that the media sells you.
Glossy mag covers are the result of intense make up and hair work, retouched photos and sometimes some "slenderizing" done after the photo is taken. (Soemtimes a head is even put another body.) That's not reality and most people can't achieve it naturally.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
We're expecting our third child. Our first child was named after my husband's father. Our second child was named after his grandmother. My father's getting upset that we've yet to honor anyone in my family. What should I do?
Dina
Dear Dina,
Congratulations on the addition to your family. Your parents and grandparents did have names, right? If you're wanting to honor someone on your side of the family, you should. If you husband is too pigheaded to do so with a first name, we'd suggest a middle name. And remember that it's not uncommon for a child these days to have more than one middle name.
So if you have a daughter and your husband wants to name her after his third cousin Melissa and you want to name her Christine after your own grandmother but he's insisting that his fourth cousing Lydia also be acknowledged, use all three. Melissa Christine Lydia? Christine Melissa Lydia? Christine Lydia Melissa?
In an ideal world, it is past time for you to be able to pick the name of your child. If you're needing us to say that to have someone to back you up, tell your husband that we feel you should be allowed to pick the name of this baby.
But if you're just attempting to figure out a way to have some input, we'd suggest adding on a middle name. That doesn't strike us as fair but we're sure that a mother of two with a third on the way knows more than us about how plans and life don't always go down the same path. So if you're looking for a way to adapt, go with the middle name. If you're looking to stand your ground, we agree it's past time for you to pick the name of one of your children.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
My girlfriend is obsessed with corsswords. We'll be watching a DVD or something on TV and she'll reach over, grab her crosswords magazine and start doing one of her puzzles. That's not the problem. The problem is that I've noticed she cheats. I'm wondering what this says about her because I'm thinking about asking her to marry me?
Dustin, Seattle
Dear Dustin,
What's really going on here? You're looking at how she does her crosswords to figure out if she's the right one? Either you're highly suspicious or you already know that she's not the one and you're looking for confirmation on that.
As for the crossword puzzle, we're assuming that you're seeing her peaking at the answers, her cheating, as some indication of a character flaw. Are you thinking that because she cheats at a puzzle, she will cheat on you?
There's another way to read it: She devotes time to something and when she realizes she's reached a brick wall, she moves on. That may indicate that she's practical. Which sounds to us like a trait a woman who marries you will need. By that we mean, if she were, for instance highly romantic, we're not sure she'd be thrilled with the idea that you're checking with strangers on whether or not to propose to her. If she's practical, she might know you well enough to laugh at the whole thing.
We think the issue isn't how she does the crossword puzzle, we think the issue is why you're attempting to figure her out by how she does a crossword puzzle. So we'd encourage you to look inside and determine whether you have trust issues? Or mabye she's not your one? Or maybe you're just going to second guess everything? You know those answer and you'll have to figure it out for your own well being.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
Could you pass on to Ava and Jim that we haven't left the apartment on a Friday in the last ten months (which was after my wife had the baby). So anytime they can review a show that airs on Friday, we'd really appreciate it. We've stuck with ABC and aren't really sure why. But we are interested in what the other networks offer?
Peter
Dear Peter,
Ava and C.I. are noting Living With Fran this edition which airs on Friday nights on the WB. They say they will try to pick out a program that airs on Friday next week as well and that they'll do that for you and your wife. Hope that helps.
For readers with questions who enjoy risking a shot a smart ass answer, e-mail us at thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com. (Note if your name and/or location can be used.)
I turn on the TV and see nothing crap. Suggestions for what to do requested.
Robbie, NYU
Dear Robbie,
After carefully considering your query and weighing your dilemma, we do have a suggestion for you: turn the TV off. We beg you, turn the TV off.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
Each Sunday you crack me up. I find your articles funny & insightful. I would recommend that you drop the Sunday and become a seven day a week The Third Estate Review.
Loretta, Oklahoma City
Dear Loretta,
Why not The Third Estate Daily Review? While we don't intend on any changes anytime soon, we would like to point out that we have an archive and you can utilize that seven days a week.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
Since Kat's first Kat's Korner, I have been in love with her. Is she everything I imagine?
Todd
Dear Todd,
More. So much more.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
Is the world nuts or just the Bully Boy? It's getting hard to tell.
Charlie, Austin, TX
Dear Charlie,
We used to think it was the world. Then we saw the world thought the Bully Boy was nuts. So we were starting to wonder if it was just a slight majority of our own country. However, with the continual rise in disapproval for the Bully Boy and with half the country now firmly against the war, we don't think it is the nation. So that just leaves the Bully Boy.
And Ryan Seacrest of course.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
Here is a serious question for you. A cat, a dog and a bird are on the lawn in a circle. All remain still. A gunshot goes off. Which moves first?
Mystery Man, Toledo
Dear Mystery Man,
Who shot the gun? What did they shoot at?
Another question: who cares?
Are you setting up an example based on something you've observed? If you've observed it only once, we're not sure what you think you've proven. If this is an "experiment" you're conducting repeatedly, we're not sure what exactly you're trying to prove.
Is this a reflex test? A speed test? What qualifies as move? A cocked head? A flap of wings?
Since one will take to flight and two will move relatively close to the ground we think this may be a case of apples and oranges.
Is this a hearing test? And if not, why not? What if, for instance, the dog is deaf? If so, does the dog need to feel the bullet or see the others reacting to know that something is up?
Are all three equally fit?
If so, how did you determine that?
If you are conducting experiments and not just tossing out examples, we should advise you that if this is intentional, it may border on animal cruelty.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
Most of my nights are spent faking squeals and pretending to shudder with delight while my boyfriend, Mr. One Thrust, dives in, cries out "Mommy!" and then pats me on the shoulder like we're on the same baseball team. I don't know what to do.
Melanie
Dear Melanie,
Would you boyfriend happen to "Dopey?" Rebecca's pretty sure that he is. Our advise, sit him down and tell him, "Honey, you don't just hit the ball and tap home with your foot, you have to run the bases." If that doesn't work, we suggest you reply with something along the lines of, "That's it? You're kidding me right? That's it. That's it! Where'd you learn that technique? On your blow up doll!" Either way, we hope he gets the message.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
Are you really not going to review of any PBS's British sitcoms?
Alan, Chicago
Dear Alan,
Ava and C.I. are not going to review any of the "Brit-coms." The reason for that is that the ones available depend upon your area. We are aware that we have college students and other readers on a tight budget. We highlight Kat's Korner because we think Kat's writing is so strong that she conveys the music even if you can't afford it. But for what we highlight, we try to focus on what's most readily available. That means we focus on broadcast television. Although we've been advised by one reader that he only gets NBC, Fox and ABC in his area. At some point, C.I. and Ava may review a CBS show (they don't believe they have thus far -- another reason to check the archive, Loretta) but, as Ava and C.I. point out, "No one's having to pay for network television with anything but their brain cells." With movies, we're considering a review of Monster-in-Law because we do enjoy Jane Fonda's acting and are all eager to see the film (opens May 13th). But with movies thus far, we go by what we can locate in either our university libraries or the local library.
Alan, you might argue, but by your reasons, what if someone doesn't have the film in their library? They can request it. Libraries are great resources and people should use them more.
With books we review, the same argument applies.
If it helps any, all of us have watched a Brit-com or two over the years and have enjoyed many of them.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
There's not been a Jane Fonda comedic performance film discussed in awhile. Did you forget them?
Barney, San Diego
Dear Barney,
No, we didn't. Jane Fonda has done a number of comedies. Period of Adjustment is one Ty has seen before but we weren't able to find that at libraries. Ditto Any Wednesday which Dona used to watch on TV with "a bowl of onion dips and Ruffles each time it was on" growing up. Had we found either on DVD or VCR, we would have reviewed them. Steelyard Blues is another comedy we had to pass on. What we were left with was Barefoot in the Park, Cat Ballou, Nine to Five,
Barbarella, The Electric Horseman, Fun With Dick & Jane and California Suite. Our intention was always to hold Nine to Five for the edition the week Monster in Law was released. With this edition, we have Nine to Five and Barbarella left to review. We're concentrating on Fonda's performances in these films. Usually we have a great deal to say about the film itself. That was not the case with Cat Ballou which has some solid performances from all (and strong ones from Fonda in the lead and Lee Marvin in supporting roles) and a funny script but some bad direction.
Fonda's performance in it foreshadows her strengths to come and the film will make you laugh but we didn't feel the need to note much more than that. It does have a rare film performance by Nat King Cole. We might not have stressed that enough. If not, let us point out that Nat King Cole sings in the movie at various intervals.
We think Fonda is a great dramatic actress. We also think she's a great comedic actress and our reviews have been attempts of reminding people of that. We feel her return to the screen after a fifteen year absence is big news.
We'll guess that others agree as well since her book, My Life So Far, debuted at number one on the best seller list.
Our hope is that if she doesn't decide to make a number of other films, she'll at least make one more and that someone will be smart enough to reteam her and Robert Redford for one more film together. (They've co-starred in The Chase, Barefoot in the Park and The Electric Horseman.)
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
How do you decide which blog to spotlight?
Ronald, Trenton
Dear Ronald,
We had thought we'd expand to non Common Ills community members. But the problem with that is that we tend to wait until the last minute to compile these editions. That means that we're choosing among C.I., Rebecca, Kat, Betty and Folding Star. Fortunately all five are strong writers. But since we need permission to reprint someone's entry in full and we wait until the last minute, that leaves us with those five.
From those five, we toss out various possibilites and all vote. All being Ty, Jess, Dona, Jim and Ava of The Third Estate Sunday Review plus anyone helping us, for instance C.I., Folding Star, Rebecca, Kat and Betty. We discuss it and argue to decide which one to go with.
At one point, we were hoping to run an interview C.I. was attempting to do with a non-community member blogger. C.I. tried to do the interview and was put off after it was agreed to. (C.I. says, "For God's sake, note that he apologized after the fact or I'll get e-mails!") C.I. had explained that the interview would go along with a blog spotlight and we were willing to let that blogger pick the entry that he felt was his favorite (for whatever reason). As we waited and waited on that Saturday and midnight drew ever closer, C.I. went to Folding Star and "begged" (C.I.'s word) for an interview. Folding Star was happy to provide one. And we were happy to run it.
But if you wonder why we focus only on community blogs, that's also part of the reason. Early on we attempted to promote a non community blog. We were going to highlight an entry in full and provide an interview with the blogger. As we were put off and put off, we figured why even bother. It wasn't worth it.
We will probably be doing something soon with Ruth who is a Common Ills community member and provides Ruth's Morning Edition Report. In addition, there's another member of The Common Ills community who will soon start providing entries. Krista and Gina have discussed this in their round-robin e-mail. If you are in the know, you're as excited about that as we are but our lips are sealed for now. In this edition, we have an article on Krista on Gina and how their round-robin came to be. The UK Computer Gurus do a bi-weekly newsletter for Common Ills members and the ringleader is also working on a piece for us. He has been working on that since our second issue. We spoke to him today and he's still working on it. We've read parts of it and think it's incredible and jam packed with information. But to post it up as an article, he wants it to be perfect. We're thinking that day may never come but we assured him that if it ever does, we will gladly post it.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
I need to lose at least ten pounds for a wedding next month. I'm freaking and just in a total and complete panic trying to figure out what to do!
Lisa, Providence
Dear Lisa,
Ten pounds? You're stressing over ten pounds? Try walking twenty minutes each evening. It'll provide you some fresh air and hopefully some peace. But we're sure you have much more to offer than your weight. Eat healthy, take walks and, if you enjoy them, extend them a little each week. If you have a weight problem, consult your doctor. And learn to embrace who you are and not reach for a doctored magazine cover photo that the media sells you.
Glossy mag covers are the result of intense make up and hair work, retouched photos and sometimes some "slenderizing" done after the photo is taken. (Soemtimes a head is even put another body.) That's not reality and most people can't achieve it naturally.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
We're expecting our third child. Our first child was named after my husband's father. Our second child was named after his grandmother. My father's getting upset that we've yet to honor anyone in my family. What should I do?
Dina
Dear Dina,
Congratulations on the addition to your family. Your parents and grandparents did have names, right? If you're wanting to honor someone on your side of the family, you should. If you husband is too pigheaded to do so with a first name, we'd suggest a middle name. And remember that it's not uncommon for a child these days to have more than one middle name.
So if you have a daughter and your husband wants to name her after his third cousin Melissa and you want to name her Christine after your own grandmother but he's insisting that his fourth cousing Lydia also be acknowledged, use all three. Melissa Christine Lydia? Christine Melissa Lydia? Christine Lydia Melissa?
In an ideal world, it is past time for you to be able to pick the name of your child. If you're needing us to say that to have someone to back you up, tell your husband that we feel you should be allowed to pick the name of this baby.
But if you're just attempting to figure out a way to have some input, we'd suggest adding on a middle name. That doesn't strike us as fair but we're sure that a mother of two with a third on the way knows more than us about how plans and life don't always go down the same path. So if you're looking for a way to adapt, go with the middle name. If you're looking to stand your ground, we agree it's past time for you to pick the name of one of your children.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
My girlfriend is obsessed with corsswords. We'll be watching a DVD or something on TV and she'll reach over, grab her crosswords magazine and start doing one of her puzzles. That's not the problem. The problem is that I've noticed she cheats. I'm wondering what this says about her because I'm thinking about asking her to marry me?
Dustin, Seattle
Dear Dustin,
What's really going on here? You're looking at how she does her crosswords to figure out if she's the right one? Either you're highly suspicious or you already know that she's not the one and you're looking for confirmation on that.
As for the crossword puzzle, we're assuming that you're seeing her peaking at the answers, her cheating, as some indication of a character flaw. Are you thinking that because she cheats at a puzzle, she will cheat on you?
There's another way to read it: She devotes time to something and when she realizes she's reached a brick wall, she moves on. That may indicate that she's practical. Which sounds to us like a trait a woman who marries you will need. By that we mean, if she were, for instance highly romantic, we're not sure she'd be thrilled with the idea that you're checking with strangers on whether or not to propose to her. If she's practical, she might know you well enough to laugh at the whole thing.
We think the issue isn't how she does the crossword puzzle, we think the issue is why you're attempting to figure her out by how she does a crossword puzzle. So we'd encourage you to look inside and determine whether you have trust issues? Or mabye she's not your one? Or maybe you're just going to second guess everything? You know those answer and you'll have to figure it out for your own well being.
Dear Third Estate Sunday Review,
Could you pass on to Ava and Jim that we haven't left the apartment on a Friday in the last ten months (which was after my wife had the baby). So anytime they can review a show that airs on Friday, we'd really appreciate it. We've stuck with ABC and aren't really sure why. But we are interested in what the other networks offer?
Peter
Dear Peter,
Ava and C.I. are noting Living With Fran this edition which airs on Friday nights on the WB. They say they will try to pick out a program that airs on Friday next week as well and that they'll do that for you and your wife. Hope that helps.
For readers with questions who enjoy risking a shot a smart ass answer, e-mail us at thirdestatesundayreview@yahoo.com. (Note if your name and/or location can be used.)
A humorous look at two morons who attacked C.I. last week
We've reviewed e-mails at length and have written (Ava, Jim, Ty, Dona and Jess with help from Betty and Rebecca) up this example of the blog event that all our readers are e-mailing about. We're going with humor and note the editorial this issue for the non-humorous take.
In December:
T.I.,
Heh, heh, liked what you wrote. You should pant-pant get a counter. That's how you get taken seriously. No one will link to you without one and man it's real important like if you want the media to follow you. I am able to see people's underwear with mine!
[. . .]
Paul
Paul --
Are you kidding me with this?
[. . .]
-- t.i.
TI,
No, for real. Like this girl with panties that said Wednesday on them was visiting my site on a Saturday. Weird! Yeah, you should pant, pant, tell your readers about them.
Paul
Topical Issues (blog)
Okay, so here's the deal. We don't have a counter at this site. Not one I've put up. I'm sure Google has something but I have no access to whatever it tracks. If you're a closet Judy Garland fan, I won't know you've gone over the rainbow unless you tell me that in an e-mail. But I've been advised that one person with a counter was able to see the underwear that a visitor was wearing when she viewed his site. I have no idea, I'm not a computer expert. Check into it yourself.
sample e-mails in reply to post:
TI,
Hey, great post! Loved it! And I've realized maybe I had no right to look at some chick's panties so I've posted something up at my site to let people know that I have counters.
Paul
#1 Who the fuck is that blogger claiming to see underwear? I bet he's lying but I sure as hell won't be going to his site!
#2 He saw someone's underwear?
#3 Was that guy for real?
April
TI,
Could you please link to Dopey's site Pouty Mouth? He's really a good guy and a great friend and we work on a lot of important issues together?
Paul
TI,
There's still no link to Dopey's Potty Mouth. Are you against him or something? Seems like the whole world is. Look, he's a great guy! Link to him!
Paul
Paul --
I've advised the panel that you're vouching for him. I don't make the decision on blog links anymore. For the last two months, that's been something the panel's decided on. I did pass on your feelings.
-- t.i.
TI,
Hiya, I'm so busy and so loving it. I got a write up! For my new site! Things are changing and I'm going to be making money at last! I can feel it! Look I've got a new site, can you link to it?
I know how your readers feel about counters. I've got no counter at the site. I'll never have one. And it's about an issue your people care about, clean panties! So can you please link to it?
Adam's linking to it and he's getting me lots of hits. You know you're nothing without hits! I could be on CNN's blog show! I know I'll get a mention! By the way, thanks for linking to Dopey's site!
Paul
TI,
I sent you something on this already and an e-mail I sent to everyone. Could you please link to Clean These Panties! that's the new site. We're really proud of it. And your people don't need to worry because there's no counter or nothing. I won't be able to see anyone's panties. I don't know why Tribeca wrote that thing about my counters? Do you? I've always been nice to her and she has to write that thing about me seeing panties. I know, she didn't name me, but that was like totally uncool and totally against what the blog world is about.
Paul
TI,
Have you seen Paul's blog today? He's got a link to a site that's working on the clean panties issue. It's called Clean These Panties! If you link to Paul today, I think this would be a good link.
Marco
Topical Issues (blog):
Marco e-mails to highlight [. . .]
[The Clean These Panties! post.]
Sample e-mails from Topical Issues readers:
#1 Did you know that Paul's sending people to Dopey's site. Potty Mouth has counters and it's Paul's friend. I'm sure he can't see my panties because Paul is a liar but I don't care to be sent to sites like that.
#2 I click on Clean These Panties! and to take action, I have to go to Dopey's site and enter my e-mail address, name, etc. Isn't Dopey a friend of Paul's? I don't trust either. I'd appreciate it if you'd not link to a take action from Paul, Dopey or any of their supposed panty peaking pals. Thanks.
#3 I'd love to help with Clean These Panties! but I'm not entering any information at Dopey's site.
#4 We did our round-robin a day early due to the fact that we went to Clean These Panties! and discovered to do anything via that site, you had to go to Dopey's. We're advising people of how to take action. We like Paul but we don't visit his site because of his claim (true or not) that he can see someone's panties. I really think it was a mistake to link to that site.
Topical Issues (blog):
Apology to the community
I'm getting a lot of e-mails from members about sending you to a site.
Here's the entry we're talking about:
Marco e-mails to highlight Paul's Iraq's in My Title But I Really Don't Talk About That But Check Out The Play I Wrote With That Title:
Me and someone you've never heard of are really concerned that some people aren't provided access to clean panties. We've created a new site Clean These Panties! and you can take action if you hot foot over there. Dopey of Potty Mouth is helping us with this. People, we need clean panties!
Apparently, when you go to Clean These Panties!, you're asked to go to another site which has counters that have you concerned. My apologies for that.
Today, you had the opportunity to give up the right to not having your panties peaked at and that's what you did. Presented with having them peaked at or using Clean These Panties!, you chose to do nothing.
My apologies.
Corrected Post:
[. . .]
Apparently, when you got Clean These Panties!, you're asked to go to another site which has counters that have you concerned. My apologies for that.
Today you had the opportunity to give up the right to not having your panties peaked at and that's what you did. Presented with having them peaked at or using Clean These Panties!, you elected to excercise your power of "no."
My apologies.
[Note: This post has been corrected per Shirley.]
TI,
That was so uncool! And your readers have been bombarding me with e-mails all day! I can't believe they chose to do nothing.
Paul
Paul --
That post has been corrected, per Shirley, to read "excercise the power of 'no.'" I've had a long day, I don't feel good, I mispoke and it's been corrected.
-- T.I.
TI,
Well you may have corrected the post but I still can't believe that attitude! I'm going to write something about counters! This whole thing has gotten out of control.
Paul
TI,
Look everyone uses counters! Google uses counters! Corporations use counters! I'm not to be trusted but some corporation is! Let me now go on for 7K about what corporations do that I don't and what I do that corporations don't. For instance, I pee standing up most days and corporations don't do that [. . .]
Dopey of Potty Mouth
Dopey --
I'm tired and I'm having trouble following your e-mail. I've been at the hospital all day and I don't work at one. I've been poked and prodded all day. I'm heavily drugged right now. If you have something to say to members, let me know.
-- t.i.
TI,
Oh, I hope you get better. I just know that everyone uses counters. Corporations use counters. Google uses counters. [. . .] Hope you get better.
-- Dopey of Potty Mouth
TI,
Well, you should go on to sleep. I've been busy myself. I'm working on this major story that will blow my major story on how Associated Press and this rip-off company used the same font! I've found out this time that they both also use the same punctuation! This is big! By the way, I wrote something at my blog that might upset some of your readers. I think I'll call this a "heads up" heh-heh. Laughing cause a heads up comes before you do something LMAOTFR!
Paul
Sample e-mail to Topical Issues:
#1 Have you seen this from Paul's site:
As John Lennon once rapped, "How Do You Sleep?" Now I'm sure there are some good people over at TI but they're fucking stupid and they're fucking cowards and they're all worried about counters for no reason. It's like someone claimed to see their panties or something! Where would they get that idea! They need to chill! And they did nothing on my Clean These Panties!
How could they be so stupid! I've spent my whole week working on Clean These Panties! and when I say it's an issue and something needs to be done than goddamn it people better do what I fucking tell them! Tell me, TI readers, HOW DO YOU SLEEP!
I believe we all just got trashed. And it's curious that Paul doesn't mention that he claims to have seen someone' s panties. Unless I'm mistaken, Tribeca was quoted in the round-robin saying Paul was the one claiming that. We all knew it was him back in December from the blind item but once Tribeca told us, we had even more reason not to visit his site. I don't know if he can see panties or not but I'm not going to his fucked up site or one of his pals' site.
TI
On the recent attack, Pat of Pat's Partition e-mailed to note Tori Amos' "I guess in times like these/ You find out who your friends are." I would agree.
2 Weeks later
Fourth Altered Reality (blog):
We're doing the round up and let's turn to Tribeca.
Tribeca: I just think the attack on the TI readers was offensive. I have a lot to say on this subject.
TI: I'm going to jump in here. I was speaking to a friend on the phone today and she was saying we didn't need to take the high road. She felt that the community should have been defended from the attack. It's obvious that we're talking about Paul of Why Do I Mention Iraq In My Title Except to Push My Play? and I want to say that Paul was working on an issue he was very passionate about, he was tired and hopefully at another time he would have worded it differently. Hopefully in time, we'll be able to look back on this and see it as a shrug.
TI,
That was so uncool and such a betrayal! You didn't mention that I had apologized! And you named me! That is just wrong! That is fucking wrong! You better tell people that I apologized!
I trashed all of your readers! That you remember! Trashed them at my site! Threw my temper tantrum! And all you can say is I was tired? All you can say is that I was passionate about the issue? I'm not going to put up with this shit!
Attack/Defense as Dopey says!
Paul
Paul --
I've been quiet on this issue for two weeks. I didn't bring it up. When it came up, I commented. The friend I quoted represented the opinions of most members, the "hope" was that we could move beyond it. If you're upset that you were mentioned, blame me. I'm the one who made that decision, I argued it and then to make sure that you didn't come off as the big evil, I argued for the link to you.
-- T.I.
T.I.,
That fucking sucks! You better tell your blog that counters don't look at panties! And you better tell them to install some firewalls! And you better say that I apologized to you! And you better [. . .] You're fucked and you're a fucking [. . .] You'll do what I say! Everyond has to do what I say! Ask Atrios, I put that little bitch in his place! I did the same with Kos! They both came crawling back to me. I am the supreme ruler of the universe! Nothing happens without my say so! The world trembles at my mighty mouth! I'm not Potty Mouth! I have readers! 12! Dopey only gets 2 hits a week on a good week at Potty Mouth! I will destroy you!
Paul
Paul --
Don't write me anymore.
-- t.i.
T.I.,
You're a hysterical! And here's another thing, you are spreading wrong information! Me and Dopey were called domestic abusers! When you quoted that woman who said people had a right to not want their panties stared at, she works at a domestic abuse center! Real cute, real fucking cute, TI, calling me and Dopey abusers! Saying we beat up on women!
You better write that I have never beat up on a woman! Dopey too!
You better fucking write what I tell you to! I will flame off on you! I can drop my whole series on how Garfield is ripping off Peanuts and come after you! Don't think I won't do that!
Paul
TI,
I'm not fucking kidding! I'm not taking this shit! I took the high road and never said anything about any of you! And then you go and trash me with 4th Altered Reality! You're a fucking hypocrite! The Times would print whatever I fucking told them so you're just a fucked up idiot!
I'm so fucking sick of you and I'll now go into five or six paragraphs about how fucking stupid you are and what you better write but I won't say quote me because I don't want it to come out of my mouth you have to make your readers think you are saying it and you fucking better!
Because no one trusts me anyomre because I've gone off on every blogger there is. And now it's your turn motherfucker! So you just get ready for these crimes I'm charging your fucked up ass with! First, you only mentioned my blog five times last week. Hey, fucked up idiot, there are seven days in a week! Seven! Five mentions with seven days? That is so uncool. Atrios thought he could get away with that shit! Now he writes me back when I e-mail him. I'm that important! Crime two, on Tuesday of last week, you said that I wrote a "strong entry." Strong?
Are you trying to say I smell! That is so fucked up, TI, and you don't fucking know who you're dealing with! Which reminds me of three weeks ago, crime three, when my blog was only noted four times that week. Hey, check your fucking calander, dumb ass, there are seven days in every week. I won't be ignored! And I love how you ignored Dopey's break through piece, crime four!, blowing the lid off the tragedy of bubblegum on people's shoes! Do you know how fucking hard that is to get off a shoe? I guess not. I guess you're just too busy forcusing on Nepal! What should I do? Ignore bubblegum and write about Poland? Fuck that shit, you are so fucked up. Crime five, [. . .]
Paul
Paul --
I'm typing an entry now. Telling what went down. So let me know what you want in it. Did you see someone's panties or not?
-- t.i.
TI,
Whatever. I don't even care anymore. Fucking write whatever you fucking want you're a fucking asshole. Go fuck yourself! But you better tell people I fucking apologized! And me & Dopey know that Tribecca went to his site and wrote nasty things about him! It was Tribeca and we know it! You are fucked, you are toast! How dare you try to write about the crimes I have said you are guilty of! Who the hell do you think you are? Me, I'll be the only one left with integrity. Fuck the hell off! Me & Dopey will destroy you! We both hate you!
Peace,
Paul
Paul --
Tribeca's never been to Potty Mouth. She doesn't go online to research. She does calls and she reads magazines. She's not a computer expert. If someone wrote something, it wasn't Tribecca.
Did you see someone's panties or not? I've spent two weeks trying to take the high road and eating your shit on this. You said there would be no counters at Clean These Panties! You said it would be a safe site for the readers. You knew their concerns about privacy. So let's get that out in the open.
-- t.i.
[Editor's note: Paul is never heard from again. For whatever reason, being forced to go on the record about what he saw sends Paul running.]
Tuesday
Dopey --
Do you have any problem with me? Tribeca's didn't visit your site.
-- TI
TI,
Have you seen this at Potty Mouth? I just went there and saw that Dopey had written this:
Since a TI reader, didn't say they were a reader but I know every damn thing, wants to knock boots with me, will make sure I get the big O first like I always do! TI is a liar! TI refuses to tell readers what counters do!
Are you going to address this?
Houston
Houtson --
I hadn't seen that. I'm working on a thing on Paul right now. I'll e-mail Dopey and I'm thinking he doesn't know what went down. I'll give him a chance to respond if he wants to. If he wants to respond, we'll quote him and ignore what he blogged. I really don't think he knows that someone claims to have seen panties.
-- t.i.
TI --
I have emailed you on this situation. You replied once and I e-mailed back "GEt Well!" but did you reply to that? No, you didn't. I emailed get well and other things. You did not reply to my second email. I may not get over 800 emails a day, but I reply to every email and I replied to both emails I got this week including the one about Charles Taylor out of Nigeria and how I might be able to get some money if I turn over my bank account information. I always reply to my emails. Just because you said you were tired and throwing up and couldn't follw my emails is no reason not to write back! So when I didn't hear from you, I figured you were too sick so I decided to do the ehtical thing and call you a liar on my blogg. I feel that's fair. I never accused you of being a liar in any email I wrote you. I know I only went on and on about corporations in both ones and of course that was blogged on at your blogg many times over but I don't care about what's up before I want you to repeat it all again coz there are lots of slow readers like me. And since I knew you were sick and you said you were having trouble following my emails, I felt the ehtical thing was to go on my blogg and trash you. I'm sure you understand. You can find my entries trashing you at:
http://www.pottymouth/i
and
http://www.pottymouth/i
The second post was prompted by a comment I preceived to be from Tribeca. But in the comment, she uses the phrase "high road" and as we all know, no one in the world ever uses that term but Tribeca. She also mentioned her blog by name. So if it wasn't her, it was somebody doing a great impression of her. By that I mean, they knew the name of her blog and they were using "high road" and she cointed that term, write? No one's ever used "high road" in the entire world but Tribeca. And if she uses it and someone knows her blogg, it must be her writing, write?
As you can thell from mypostyes I have a big problem with your apology and how I don't think it's fair that no one every heard my response so paste my blogg repsonses at your site because while it's already at mine, no one will ever read it because no one reads my site. I do not appreciate the preceived evil about counters.
I will now go and repeat my rant about how corporations, multi-billon copropation tracks and stuff and it turns out that was blogged on at your blogg long before I ever even knew but I'm slow and stupid too. Since I am slow and stupid and you didn't drop everything to write me and beg me for a comment to post on your blogg I do feel the only etical thing for me to do was to blogg about this on my site.
Dopey
Dopey --
I'm about to e-mail you a question and I need a reply quickly.
-- t.i.
Dopey --
If you have something to say to the community, you need to note that by saying, "This is for the readers" and indicating where your comment ends. There's another e-mail to follow.
t.i.
Dopey --
I'm working on a post on the whole thing. I don't think you have all the information you think you have. Ask Paul why the readers are bothered by counters.
[. . .]
I want to get this up and go to bed. If you have something to say, I can wait thirty minutes.
-- t.i.
[TI,]
I apologize that I hadn't replied yet, I didn't check my email for about 45 minutes. At this point, I don't want to keep you up all night, especially if your sick, so I'm going to write what I want posted as my comments tomorrow.
[Dopey]
Houston --
I'm not addressing Dopey's blogged comments. I don't think he knows what Paul's claimed all along to see. Tribeca says I'm an idiot and that Dopey will burn me on this but I really don't think he will because he's been nice in his e-mails. I think he was just frustrated and didn't know why people were bothered by Paul's counters. All Paul has to do is get honest. Whether he will or not, I don't know. But Dopey's not Paul and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He says he will comment tomorrow so we'll post whatever he sends in to be quoted and we'll ignore the posts from his blog because I don't think he knew why people were offended by Paul or the counter issue. Yes, he blasted us at his site but he's been very nice in e-mails and I don't want to get into a back and forth. I'm tired and this isn't helping. So hopefully tomorrow, we can post Dopey's comments and move on to real issues. Tribeca says I'm an idiot but I've seen no reason tonight not to think that Dopey is sincere.
-- t.i.
P.S. Here's what I posted:
So let's talk about what went down since some want to rewrite. I linked to a site that sent you to another site. I had no idea you would be rerouted and Paul sent an e-mail assuring that it was a safe site for you. Paul doesn't want to talk about that.
Paul does want to tell me what I should say. Paul doesn't want to be quoted, he just wants to bully me into saying something. Paul needs to get honest. Get honest, Paul.
[. . .]
T.I.,
Have you seen Dopey's site? He's mocking your illness and he's slamming you:
Well last night TI bombarded me with e-mails! Over and over. I said, "Just post what I blogged!" I have no idea why TI bothered me about any of this. As my readers know, I have never done anything but tell the truth. Like when I wrote that TI refused to post my comments to TI readers. It's not like I nver said "This is for your readers, quot eme here." If I'd done that I would be the liar. I don't know why TI thinks it's okay to send me all those e-mails.
And I'm tired. I work 7pm to 7am and I have hypoglaucoma and I'm really, really tired. And I can't even think right now. Oh, I'm so pathetich.
I think Tribeca was right about not trusting him. And what pisses me off even more is that the post appears to be mocking your illness.
Houston
In December:
T.I.,
Heh, heh, liked what you wrote. You should pant-pant get a counter. That's how you get taken seriously. No one will link to you without one and man it's real important like if you want the media to follow you. I am able to see people's underwear with mine!
[. . .]
Paul
Paul --
Are you kidding me with this?
[. . .]
-- t.i.
TI,
No, for real. Like this girl with panties that said Wednesday on them was visiting my site on a Saturday. Weird! Yeah, you should pant, pant, tell your readers about them.
Paul
Topical Issues (blog)
Okay, so here's the deal. We don't have a counter at this site. Not one I've put up. I'm sure Google has something but I have no access to whatever it tracks. If you're a closet Judy Garland fan, I won't know you've gone over the rainbow unless you tell me that in an e-mail. But I've been advised that one person with a counter was able to see the underwear that a visitor was wearing when she viewed his site. I have no idea, I'm not a computer expert. Check into it yourself.
sample e-mails in reply to post:
TI,
Hey, great post! Loved it! And I've realized maybe I had no right to look at some chick's panties so I've posted something up at my site to let people know that I have counters.
Paul
#1 Who the fuck is that blogger claiming to see underwear? I bet he's lying but I sure as hell won't be going to his site!
#2 He saw someone's underwear?
#3 Was that guy for real?
April
TI,
Could you please link to Dopey's site Pouty Mouth? He's really a good guy and a great friend and we work on a lot of important issues together?
Paul
TI,
There's still no link to Dopey's Potty Mouth. Are you against him or something? Seems like the whole world is. Look, he's a great guy! Link to him!
Paul
Paul --
I've advised the panel that you're vouching for him. I don't make the decision on blog links anymore. For the last two months, that's been something the panel's decided on. I did pass on your feelings.
-- t.i.
TI,
Hiya, I'm so busy and so loving it. I got a write up! For my new site! Things are changing and I'm going to be making money at last! I can feel it! Look I've got a new site, can you link to it?
I know how your readers feel about counters. I've got no counter at the site. I'll never have one. And it's about an issue your people care about, clean panties! So can you please link to it?
Adam's linking to it and he's getting me lots of hits. You know you're nothing without hits! I could be on CNN's blog show! I know I'll get a mention! By the way, thanks for linking to Dopey's site!
Paul
TI,
I sent you something on this already and an e-mail I sent to everyone. Could you please link to Clean These Panties! that's the new site. We're really proud of it. And your people don't need to worry because there's no counter or nothing. I won't be able to see anyone's panties. I don't know why Tribeca wrote that thing about my counters? Do you? I've always been nice to her and she has to write that thing about me seeing panties. I know, she didn't name me, but that was like totally uncool and totally against what the blog world is about.
Paul
TI,
Have you seen Paul's blog today? He's got a link to a site that's working on the clean panties issue. It's called Clean These Panties! If you link to Paul today, I think this would be a good link.
Marco
Topical Issues (blog):
Marco e-mails to highlight [. . .]
[The Clean These Panties! post.]
Sample e-mails from Topical Issues readers:
#1 Did you know that Paul's sending people to Dopey's site. Potty Mouth has counters and it's Paul's friend. I'm sure he can't see my panties because Paul is a liar but I don't care to be sent to sites like that.
#2 I click on Clean These Panties! and to take action, I have to go to Dopey's site and enter my e-mail address, name, etc. Isn't Dopey a friend of Paul's? I don't trust either. I'd appreciate it if you'd not link to a take action from Paul, Dopey or any of their supposed panty peaking pals. Thanks.
#3 I'd love to help with Clean These Panties! but I'm not entering any information at Dopey's site.
#4 We did our round-robin a day early due to the fact that we went to Clean These Panties! and discovered to do anything via that site, you had to go to Dopey's. We're advising people of how to take action. We like Paul but we don't visit his site because of his claim (true or not) that he can see someone's panties. I really think it was a mistake to link to that site.
Topical Issues (blog):
Apology to the community
I'm getting a lot of e-mails from members about sending you to a site.
Here's the entry we're talking about:
Marco e-mails to highlight Paul's Iraq's in My Title But I Really Don't Talk About That But Check Out The Play I Wrote With That Title:
Me and someone you've never heard of are really concerned that some people aren't provided access to clean panties. We've created a new site Clean These Panties! and you can take action if you hot foot over there. Dopey of Potty Mouth is helping us with this. People, we need clean panties!
Apparently, when you go to Clean These Panties!, you're asked to go to another site which has counters that have you concerned. My apologies for that.
Today, you had the opportunity to give up the right to not having your panties peaked at and that's what you did. Presented with having them peaked at or using Clean These Panties!, you chose to do nothing.
My apologies.
Corrected Post:
[. . .]
Apparently, when you got Clean These Panties!, you're asked to go to another site which has counters that have you concerned. My apologies for that.
Today you had the opportunity to give up the right to not having your panties peaked at and that's what you did. Presented with having them peaked at or using Clean These Panties!, you elected to excercise your power of "no."
My apologies.
[Note: This post has been corrected per Shirley.]
TI,
That was so uncool! And your readers have been bombarding me with e-mails all day! I can't believe they chose to do nothing.
Paul
Paul --
That post has been corrected, per Shirley, to read "excercise the power of 'no.'" I've had a long day, I don't feel good, I mispoke and it's been corrected.
-- T.I.
TI,
Well you may have corrected the post but I still can't believe that attitude! I'm going to write something about counters! This whole thing has gotten out of control.
Paul
TI,
Look everyone uses counters! Google uses counters! Corporations use counters! I'm not to be trusted but some corporation is! Let me now go on for 7K about what corporations do that I don't and what I do that corporations don't. For instance, I pee standing up most days and corporations don't do that [. . .]
Dopey of Potty Mouth
Dopey --
I'm tired and I'm having trouble following your e-mail. I've been at the hospital all day and I don't work at one. I've been poked and prodded all day. I'm heavily drugged right now. If you have something to say to members, let me know.
-- t.i.
TI,
Oh, I hope you get better. I just know that everyone uses counters. Corporations use counters. Google uses counters. [. . .] Hope you get better.
-- Dopey of Potty Mouth
TI,
Well, you should go on to sleep. I've been busy myself. I'm working on this major story that will blow my major story on how Associated Press and this rip-off company used the same font! I've found out this time that they both also use the same punctuation! This is big! By the way, I wrote something at my blog that might upset some of your readers. I think I'll call this a "heads up" heh-heh. Laughing cause a heads up comes before you do something LMAOTFR!
Paul
Sample e-mail to Topical Issues:
#1 Have you seen this from Paul's site:
As John Lennon once rapped, "How Do You Sleep?" Now I'm sure there are some good people over at TI but they're fucking stupid and they're fucking cowards and they're all worried about counters for no reason. It's like someone claimed to see their panties or something! Where would they get that idea! They need to chill! And they did nothing on my Clean These Panties!
How could they be so stupid! I've spent my whole week working on Clean These Panties! and when I say it's an issue and something needs to be done than goddamn it people better do what I fucking tell them! Tell me, TI readers, HOW DO YOU SLEEP!
I believe we all just got trashed. And it's curious that Paul doesn't mention that he claims to have seen someone' s panties. Unless I'm mistaken, Tribeca was quoted in the round-robin saying Paul was the one claiming that. We all knew it was him back in December from the blind item but once Tribeca told us, we had even more reason not to visit his site. I don't know if he can see panties or not but I'm not going to his fucked up site or one of his pals' site.
TI
On the recent attack, Pat of Pat's Partition e-mailed to note Tori Amos' "I guess in times like these/ You find out who your friends are." I would agree.
2 Weeks later
Fourth Altered Reality (blog):
We're doing the round up and let's turn to Tribeca.
Tribeca: I just think the attack on the TI readers was offensive. I have a lot to say on this subject.
TI: I'm going to jump in here. I was speaking to a friend on the phone today and she was saying we didn't need to take the high road. She felt that the community should have been defended from the attack. It's obvious that we're talking about Paul of Why Do I Mention Iraq In My Title Except to Push My Play? and I want to say that Paul was working on an issue he was very passionate about, he was tired and hopefully at another time he would have worded it differently. Hopefully in time, we'll be able to look back on this and see it as a shrug.
TI,
That was so uncool and such a betrayal! You didn't mention that I had apologized! And you named me! That is just wrong! That is fucking wrong! You better tell people that I apologized!
I trashed all of your readers! That you remember! Trashed them at my site! Threw my temper tantrum! And all you can say is I was tired? All you can say is that I was passionate about the issue? I'm not going to put up with this shit!
Attack/Defense as Dopey says!
Paul
Paul --
I've been quiet on this issue for two weeks. I didn't bring it up. When it came up, I commented. The friend I quoted represented the opinions of most members, the "hope" was that we could move beyond it. If you're upset that you were mentioned, blame me. I'm the one who made that decision, I argued it and then to make sure that you didn't come off as the big evil, I argued for the link to you.
-- T.I.
T.I.,
That fucking sucks! You better tell your blog that counters don't look at panties! And you better tell them to install some firewalls! And you better say that I apologized to you! And you better [. . .] You're fucked and you're a fucking [. . .] You'll do what I say! Everyond has to do what I say! Ask Atrios, I put that little bitch in his place! I did the same with Kos! They both came crawling back to me. I am the supreme ruler of the universe! Nothing happens without my say so! The world trembles at my mighty mouth! I'm not Potty Mouth! I have readers! 12! Dopey only gets 2 hits a week on a good week at Potty Mouth! I will destroy you!
Paul
Paul --
Don't write me anymore.
-- t.i.
T.I.,
You're a hysterical! And here's another thing, you are spreading wrong information! Me and Dopey were called domestic abusers! When you quoted that woman who said people had a right to not want their panties stared at, she works at a domestic abuse center! Real cute, real fucking cute, TI, calling me and Dopey abusers! Saying we beat up on women!
You better write that I have never beat up on a woman! Dopey too!
You better fucking write what I tell you to! I will flame off on you! I can drop my whole series on how Garfield is ripping off Peanuts and come after you! Don't think I won't do that!
Paul
TI,
I'm not fucking kidding! I'm not taking this shit! I took the high road and never said anything about any of you! And then you go and trash me with 4th Altered Reality! You're a fucking hypocrite! The Times would print whatever I fucking told them so you're just a fucked up idiot!
I'm so fucking sick of you and I'll now go into five or six paragraphs about how fucking stupid you are and what you better write but I won't say quote me because I don't want it to come out of my mouth you have to make your readers think you are saying it and you fucking better!
Because no one trusts me anyomre because I've gone off on every blogger there is. And now it's your turn motherfucker! So you just get ready for these crimes I'm charging your fucked up ass with! First, you only mentioned my blog five times last week. Hey, fucked up idiot, there are seven days in a week! Seven! Five mentions with seven days? That is so uncool. Atrios thought he could get away with that shit! Now he writes me back when I e-mail him. I'm that important! Crime two, on Tuesday of last week, you said that I wrote a "strong entry." Strong?
Are you trying to say I smell! That is so fucked up, TI, and you don't fucking know who you're dealing with! Which reminds me of three weeks ago, crime three, when my blog was only noted four times that week. Hey, check your fucking calander, dumb ass, there are seven days in every week. I won't be ignored! And I love how you ignored Dopey's break through piece, crime four!, blowing the lid off the tragedy of bubblegum on people's shoes! Do you know how fucking hard that is to get off a shoe? I guess not. I guess you're just too busy forcusing on Nepal! What should I do? Ignore bubblegum and write about Poland? Fuck that shit, you are so fucked up. Crime five, [. . .]
Paul
Paul --
I'm typing an entry now. Telling what went down. So let me know what you want in it. Did you see someone's panties or not?
-- t.i.
TI,
Whatever. I don't even care anymore. Fucking write whatever you fucking want you're a fucking asshole. Go fuck yourself! But you better tell people I fucking apologized! And me & Dopey know that Tribecca went to his site and wrote nasty things about him! It was Tribeca and we know it! You are fucked, you are toast! How dare you try to write about the crimes I have said you are guilty of! Who the hell do you think you are? Me, I'll be the only one left with integrity. Fuck the hell off! Me & Dopey will destroy you! We both hate you!
Peace,
Paul
Paul --
Tribeca's never been to Potty Mouth. She doesn't go online to research. She does calls and she reads magazines. She's not a computer expert. If someone wrote something, it wasn't Tribecca.
Did you see someone's panties or not? I've spent two weeks trying to take the high road and eating your shit on this. You said there would be no counters at Clean These Panties! You said it would be a safe site for the readers. You knew their concerns about privacy. So let's get that out in the open.
-- t.i.
[Editor's note: Paul is never heard from again. For whatever reason, being forced to go on the record about what he saw sends Paul running.]
Tuesday
Dopey --
Do you have any problem with me? Tribeca's didn't visit your site.
-- TI
TI,
Have you seen this at Potty Mouth? I just went there and saw that Dopey had written this:
Since a TI reader, didn't say they were a reader but I know every damn thing, wants to knock boots with me, will make sure I get the big O first like I always do! TI is a liar! TI refuses to tell readers what counters do!
Are you going to address this?
Houston
Houtson --
I hadn't seen that. I'm working on a thing on Paul right now. I'll e-mail Dopey and I'm thinking he doesn't know what went down. I'll give him a chance to respond if he wants to. If he wants to respond, we'll quote him and ignore what he blogged. I really don't think he knows that someone claims to have seen panties.
-- t.i.
TI --
I have emailed you on this situation. You replied once and I e-mailed back "GEt Well!" but did you reply to that? No, you didn't. I emailed get well and other things. You did not reply to my second email. I may not get over 800 emails a day, but I reply to every email and I replied to both emails I got this week including the one about Charles Taylor out of Nigeria and how I might be able to get some money if I turn over my bank account information. I always reply to my emails. Just because you said you were tired and throwing up and couldn't follw my emails is no reason not to write back! So when I didn't hear from you, I figured you were too sick so I decided to do the ehtical thing and call you a liar on my blogg. I feel that's fair. I never accused you of being a liar in any email I wrote you. I know I only went on and on about corporations in both ones and of course that was blogged on at your blogg many times over but I don't care about what's up before I want you to repeat it all again coz there are lots of slow readers like me. And since I knew you were sick and you said you were having trouble following my emails, I felt the ehtical thing was to go on my blogg and trash you. I'm sure you understand. You can find my entries trashing you at:
http://www.pottymouth/i
and
http://www.pottymouth/i
The second post was prompted by a comment I preceived to be from Tribeca. But in the comment, she uses the phrase "high road" and as we all know, no one in the world ever uses that term but Tribeca. She also mentioned her blog by name. So if it wasn't her, it was somebody doing a great impression of her. By that I mean, they knew the name of her blog and they were using "high road" and she cointed that term, write? No one's ever used "high road" in the entire world but Tribeca. And if she uses it and someone knows her blogg, it must be her writing, write?
As you can thell from mypostyes I have a big problem with your apology and how I don't think it's fair that no one every heard my response so paste my blogg repsonses at your site because while it's already at mine, no one will ever read it because no one reads my site. I do not appreciate the preceived evil about counters.
I will now go and repeat my rant about how corporations, multi-billon copropation tracks and stuff and it turns out that was blogged on at your blogg long before I ever even knew but I'm slow and stupid too. Since I am slow and stupid and you didn't drop everything to write me and beg me for a comment to post on your blogg I do feel the only etical thing for me to do was to blogg about this on my site.
Dopey
Dopey --
I'm about to e-mail you a question and I need a reply quickly.
-- t.i.
Dopey --
If you have something to say to the community, you need to note that by saying, "This is for the readers" and indicating where your comment ends. There's another e-mail to follow.
t.i.
Dopey --
I'm working on a post on the whole thing. I don't think you have all the information you think you have. Ask Paul why the readers are bothered by counters.
[. . .]
I want to get this up and go to bed. If you have something to say, I can wait thirty minutes.
-- t.i.
[TI,]
I apologize that I hadn't replied yet, I didn't check my email for about 45 minutes. At this point, I don't want to keep you up all night, especially if your sick, so I'm going to write what I want posted as my comments tomorrow.
[Dopey]
Houston --
I'm not addressing Dopey's blogged comments. I don't think he knows what Paul's claimed all along to see. Tribeca says I'm an idiot and that Dopey will burn me on this but I really don't think he will because he's been nice in his e-mails. I think he was just frustrated and didn't know why people were bothered by Paul's counters. All Paul has to do is get honest. Whether he will or not, I don't know. But Dopey's not Paul and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He says he will comment tomorrow so we'll post whatever he sends in to be quoted and we'll ignore the posts from his blog because I don't think he knew why people were offended by Paul or the counter issue. Yes, he blasted us at his site but he's been very nice in e-mails and I don't want to get into a back and forth. I'm tired and this isn't helping. So hopefully tomorrow, we can post Dopey's comments and move on to real issues. Tribeca says I'm an idiot but I've seen no reason tonight not to think that Dopey is sincere.
-- t.i.
P.S. Here's what I posted:
So let's talk about what went down since some want to rewrite. I linked to a site that sent you to another site. I had no idea you would be rerouted and Paul sent an e-mail assuring that it was a safe site for you. Paul doesn't want to talk about that.
Paul does want to tell me what I should say. Paul doesn't want to be quoted, he just wants to bully me into saying something. Paul needs to get honest. Get honest, Paul.
[. . .]
T.I.,
Have you seen Dopey's site? He's mocking your illness and he's slamming you:
Well last night TI bombarded me with e-mails! Over and over. I said, "Just post what I blogged!" I have no idea why TI bothered me about any of this. As my readers know, I have never done anything but tell the truth. Like when I wrote that TI refused to post my comments to TI readers. It's not like I nver said "This is for your readers, quot eme here." If I'd done that I would be the liar. I don't know why TI thinks it's okay to send me all those e-mails.
And I'm tired. I work 7pm to 7am and I have hypoglaucoma and I'm really, really tired. And I can't even think right now. Oh, I'm so pathetich.
I think Tribeca was right about not trusting him. And what pisses me off even more is that the post appears to be mocking your illness.
Houston
Gina & Krista discuss the gina & krista round-robin
Krista and Gina are Common Ills community members. Once a week they do an e-mail available to members that they've dubbed "the round-robin" (lowercase in honor of Rebecca).
"It's a newsletter," Gina explains. "We provide action alerts for topics discussed at The Common Ills and elsewhere, we provide some gossip, we usually note what's going on with The Apprentice because we're both obsessed with that show. That's why we have put it out on Friday every week but one."
The round-robin started at the end of February when Krista wasn't sure that she ever wanted to share on The Common Ills again.
Krista offers the back story as this, "There was a serious issue and I'd been focusing on a person and not the issue. I found him hot, I still think he's hot. But when I realized that I'd focused so much on a person and ignored the issue, I just felt really stupid. I felt like I owed the community an apology for distracting and wasting time."
"Which I disagreed with and I asked C.I. to pass an e-mail on to her," Gina picks up. "It's like C.I. said the first time Krista commented on the man in January, I believe -- whatever gets your focus and acts as your in on an issue, use it. And that was an in, a hottie. And it did get the community to focus on an area they might have otherwise ignored. So it was ridiculous for Krista to feel bad and I told her that and C.I. told her that and members told her that."
Krista still feels embarrassed by the entire thing. When she got Gina's e-mail, they began exchanging e-mails.
"It was more like talking and that's what it's like when you get something posted at The Common Ills but I just felt a lot of pressure, like I had to footnote and research everything. So we were e-mailing on topics and discussing issues the way you would if you were sitting across from a friend. I sent one to C.I. and was surprised that it was considered worthy of posting. I wasn't ready for that. But I was okay with passing it on to Eli and Liang whom I knew from their comments that had been posted."
From those two, it continued to grow. Currently on Fridays, it goes out to 512 members.
"Krista and I e-mail back and forth all week. On Fridays, we pick what we think were our best discussions and grab some of that. It's another way to look at the issues. And we include inside gossip like Ruth's son's getting married Saturday morning. Or KeShawn's new baby. It's a way for members to get another view about each other."
"And The Apprentice!" Krista adds laughing.
"It's such trash," Gina picks up, "but we are obsessed with that show. Our headline for our two paragraph review of the episode this week was 'nbc to bully boy, you're fired!' So it's just our back and forth. And currently we're arguing over who's going to win."
Each round-robin ends with resources for issues and activism. That's as much "footnoting" as they intend to do "because this is just us talking."
They also do sneak peaks of upcoming items. Rebecca might explain what her upcoming themes will probably be for the next week. Betty will answer questions about the outline she's working from. We'll usually let them know what we'll be reviewing here.
"Because it's an e-mail and not a blog," Gina says, "we're able to go over things that we wouldn't post. So when the threatening mail started pouring in over Ava and C.I.'s TV reviews, we were able to inform people what was going on there. We really, really wanted a statement from C.I. about the attack on the community. C.I. gave us this, 'No comment.' Rebecca and Jim were much more forthcoming and we were able to go with that and explain to members what was going on."
Asked what the criteria for signing up is, Krista replied, "You have to be a member that's posted. If we wanted just anyone to have access to it, we'd post it. The attacks on C.I. and Rebecca have really bothered all of us. We did a thing with Betty that we ran Friday about how she feels trepidation about blogging now because of the attitude of some men that they can beat up on you and bully you. This is a private space for members. We've only turned down one person and that was this week when the round-robin suddenly got some attention due to disclosure reasons. C.I. passed on an e-mail from a guy requesting to be added to the list. C.I. noted that the guy had never written before. Like C.I., we wondered about the guy. Since he'd never had anything posted at The Common Ills, not even a 'Mr. Blank e-mails to get us to note . . .' we turned him down. Liang is an example of someone who worries about posting at The Common Ills because she's adamentally pro peace and during the attacks, she noted, and we printed, that she wouldn't have said half the things she'd been saying if they had to go up at the site because some people were real dicks and she didn't want to be attacked for it. We also included a response to the community from three female bloggers who aren't Common Ills community members but had been told about the round-robin by Rebecca and wanted to say something to us about how disgusting they found the whole thing. It's a way to speak directly to members and not have to worry about a retaliation attack."
The Sudan has been an issue they've addressed via the round-robin. Gina feels that's been the best way.
"What's the answer? It appears that there's movement on the issue. But we can say in our round-robin that ___'s is full of shit and that there's got to be an answer other than war, war, war all the time."
"Like that Thursday song!" Krista interjects. "In the old days, or the early days, of The Common Ills, C.I. could reply to every e-mail and that's no longer the case. Especially when asshole bloggers are taking up the limited time for e-mails. So we can find resources or e-mail C.I. for some and we can talk about peace and not worry that some snotty little asshole who apparently just stumbled onto the Sudan is going to scream, 'Pie in the sky!' We're trying to find alternative ways of dealing with things at a time when we're under an administration that only knows how to launch bombs and go to war. We can address and question so-called peace keeping activities. Liang can share horror stories about her extended family. We don't have to censor ourselves for any reason. It keeps the community strong and I guess 'tribal.'"
Gina add to that, "Look at Eli this week at The Common Ills. He'd weighed in on Ireland but otherwise had stuck to private e-mails until this week. C.I. had told Eli he was a good writer and by sharing a thought here and there in the round-robin, he was able to get more feedback. Wally told him, 'No one but you can write this. The rest of us are too angry and it will come across.' So Eli wrote the entry and it was beautiful."
"And we can use words like 'beautiful' without fear of being mocked!" Krista adds laughing.
Community members who haven't yet signed up for the round-robin should do so. Wally contributed two paragraphs that went into details on how the panel deliberates links this week.
Third Party explained why he doesn't trust the two party system. As an attachment, a photo of Ruth's infant grandson was offered. It's a personal look at the community that allows members to say "Closed door meeting, everybody that's not a member, out."
And they have no interest in turning it into a blog?
No, both say. This was always intended as a private conversation to allow people to speak freely and the attacks of the last two weeks on The Common Ills have only made them more firm in their decision.
"We really admire women bloggers who blog," Gina says. "But what we saw this week and what we heard from the three female bloggers made us sure that our alternative course of action was the way to go. Some people are strong enough for that nonsense. I've got enough battles in my own life without worrying about someone easing into my life posing as a friend and then attacking me left and right."
"You know what I think it is?" Krista asks. "I think we're dealing with frustrated males who either think it's a way for them to get attention, by beating up on women and starting a feud, or else they realize that they have no weight to throw around because their blogs aren't getting the audience they wanted so they decide to attack and they're more comfortable beating up on women."
"Which ever, it sucks," Gina adds.
gina & krista's round-robin goes out each Friday afternoon barring a need for an earlier appearence. Those interested should notify Rebecca or C.I. and they will pass your interest onto Gina and Krista.
"It's a newsletter," Gina explains. "We provide action alerts for topics discussed at The Common Ills and elsewhere, we provide some gossip, we usually note what's going on with The Apprentice because we're both obsessed with that show. That's why we have put it out on Friday every week but one."
The round-robin started at the end of February when Krista wasn't sure that she ever wanted to share on The Common Ills again.
Krista offers the back story as this, "There was a serious issue and I'd been focusing on a person and not the issue. I found him hot, I still think he's hot. But when I realized that I'd focused so much on a person and ignored the issue, I just felt really stupid. I felt like I owed the community an apology for distracting and wasting time."
"Which I disagreed with and I asked C.I. to pass an e-mail on to her," Gina picks up. "It's like C.I. said the first time Krista commented on the man in January, I believe -- whatever gets your focus and acts as your in on an issue, use it. And that was an in, a hottie. And it did get the community to focus on an area they might have otherwise ignored. So it was ridiculous for Krista to feel bad and I told her that and C.I. told her that and members told her that."
Krista still feels embarrassed by the entire thing. When she got Gina's e-mail, they began exchanging e-mails.
"It was more like talking and that's what it's like when you get something posted at The Common Ills but I just felt a lot of pressure, like I had to footnote and research everything. So we were e-mailing on topics and discussing issues the way you would if you were sitting across from a friend. I sent one to C.I. and was surprised that it was considered worthy of posting. I wasn't ready for that. But I was okay with passing it on to Eli and Liang whom I knew from their comments that had been posted."
From those two, it continued to grow. Currently on Fridays, it goes out to 512 members.
"Krista and I e-mail back and forth all week. On Fridays, we pick what we think were our best discussions and grab some of that. It's another way to look at the issues. And we include inside gossip like Ruth's son's getting married Saturday morning. Or KeShawn's new baby. It's a way for members to get another view about each other."
"And The Apprentice!" Krista adds laughing.
"It's such trash," Gina picks up, "but we are obsessed with that show. Our headline for our two paragraph review of the episode this week was 'nbc to bully boy, you're fired!' So it's just our back and forth. And currently we're arguing over who's going to win."
Each round-robin ends with resources for issues and activism. That's as much "footnoting" as they intend to do "because this is just us talking."
They also do sneak peaks of upcoming items. Rebecca might explain what her upcoming themes will probably be for the next week. Betty will answer questions about the outline she's working from. We'll usually let them know what we'll be reviewing here.
"Because it's an e-mail and not a blog," Gina says, "we're able to go over things that we wouldn't post. So when the threatening mail started pouring in over Ava and C.I.'s TV reviews, we were able to inform people what was going on there. We really, really wanted a statement from C.I. about the attack on the community. C.I. gave us this, 'No comment.' Rebecca and Jim were much more forthcoming and we were able to go with that and explain to members what was going on."
Asked what the criteria for signing up is, Krista replied, "You have to be a member that's posted. If we wanted just anyone to have access to it, we'd post it. The attacks on C.I. and Rebecca have really bothered all of us. We did a thing with Betty that we ran Friday about how she feels trepidation about blogging now because of the attitude of some men that they can beat up on you and bully you. This is a private space for members. We've only turned down one person and that was this week when the round-robin suddenly got some attention due to disclosure reasons. C.I. passed on an e-mail from a guy requesting to be added to the list. C.I. noted that the guy had never written before. Like C.I., we wondered about the guy. Since he'd never had anything posted at The Common Ills, not even a 'Mr. Blank e-mails to get us to note . . .' we turned him down. Liang is an example of someone who worries about posting at The Common Ills because she's adamentally pro peace and during the attacks, she noted, and we printed, that she wouldn't have said half the things she'd been saying if they had to go up at the site because some people were real dicks and she didn't want to be attacked for it. We also included a response to the community from three female bloggers who aren't Common Ills community members but had been told about the round-robin by Rebecca and wanted to say something to us about how disgusting they found the whole thing. It's a way to speak directly to members and not have to worry about a retaliation attack."
The Sudan has been an issue they've addressed via the round-robin. Gina feels that's been the best way.
"What's the answer? It appears that there's movement on the issue. But we can say in our round-robin that ___'s is full of shit and that there's got to be an answer other than war, war, war all the time."
"Like that Thursday song!" Krista interjects. "In the old days, or the early days, of The Common Ills, C.I. could reply to every e-mail and that's no longer the case. Especially when asshole bloggers are taking up the limited time for e-mails. So we can find resources or e-mail C.I. for some and we can talk about peace and not worry that some snotty little asshole who apparently just stumbled onto the Sudan is going to scream, 'Pie in the sky!' We're trying to find alternative ways of dealing with things at a time when we're under an administration that only knows how to launch bombs and go to war. We can address and question so-called peace keeping activities. Liang can share horror stories about her extended family. We don't have to censor ourselves for any reason. It keeps the community strong and I guess 'tribal.'"
Gina add to that, "Look at Eli this week at The Common Ills. He'd weighed in on Ireland but otherwise had stuck to private e-mails until this week. C.I. had told Eli he was a good writer and by sharing a thought here and there in the round-robin, he was able to get more feedback. Wally told him, 'No one but you can write this. The rest of us are too angry and it will come across.' So Eli wrote the entry and it was beautiful."
"And we can use words like 'beautiful' without fear of being mocked!" Krista adds laughing.
Community members who haven't yet signed up for the round-robin should do so. Wally contributed two paragraphs that went into details on how the panel deliberates links this week.
Third Party explained why he doesn't trust the two party system. As an attachment, a photo of Ruth's infant grandson was offered. It's a personal look at the community that allows members to say "Closed door meeting, everybody that's not a member, out."
And they have no interest in turning it into a blog?
No, both say. This was always intended as a private conversation to allow people to speak freely and the attacks of the last two weeks on The Common Ills have only made them more firm in their decision.
"We really admire women bloggers who blog," Gina says. "But what we saw this week and what we heard from the three female bloggers made us sure that our alternative course of action was the way to go. Some people are strong enough for that nonsense. I've got enough battles in my own life without worrying about someone easing into my life posing as a friend and then attacking me left and right."
"You know what I think it is?" Krista asks. "I think we're dealing with frustrated males who either think it's a way for them to get attention, by beating up on women and starting a feud, or else they realize that they have no weight to throw around because their blogs aren't getting the audience they wanted so they decide to attack and they're more comfortable beating up on women."
"Which ever, it sucks," Gina adds.
gina & krista's round-robin goes out each Friday afternoon barring a need for an earlier appearence. Those interested should notify Rebecca or C.I. and they will pass your interest onto Gina and Krista.
DVD review: Cat Ballou
"Wolf City, Wyoming/ Wolf City Wyoming."
The songs from Cat Ballou will stick in your head. We're not sure that's a good thing. Though sung well by Nat King Cole and Stubby Kaye (who sing them onscreen), these fast-paced songs intended to move the story along also end up stuck in your head.
The other thing you'll notice in this 1965 film directed by Elliot Silverstein is the acting. Lee Marvin won an Oscar for playing Kid Shellen and another character in the film (we don't want to spoil the surprise for anyone who hasn't seen it yet). Marvin is hilarious. But so is the rest of the cast. There's not a clunker in the cast.
Jane Fonda does a wonderful job as Cat Ballou. Knowing what's in store later in her career, it's easy to see where she's headed in retrospect. But what about at the time?
Judith Crist, in the New York Herald Tribune,: "Jane Fonda is marvelous as the wide-eyed Cat, exuding sweet feminine sex appeal every sway of the way." Time magazine noted: "In a performance that nails down her reputation as a girl worth singing about actress Fonda does every preposterous thing demanded of her with a giddy sincerity that is at once beguiling, poignant and hilarious."
Barefoot in the Park, The Game Is Over, They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, Klute, et al were all in the future at this point. But you can see the groundwork for those performances in this one. What's also interesting is that you can see Fonda's first American role with a range. Not just of emotions, but also for the character herself.
Cat Ballou (the title character played by Fonda) starts off as a retiring school teacher freshly trained. She has a secret passion for gun fighter stories. As the movie zips along, Ballou quickly takes part in armed robbery, faces execution, and other things.
The script is genuinely funny, but the direction leaves a lot to be desired. Crowd scenes are especially difficult to watch. Take the barn dancing/barn fighting scenes where you're constantly trying to locate characters in the frame. If they were staged carefully, they weren't filmed that way. It's a mess and the easy thing to do is just accept that it's going to be that way.
The performances and the script carry this film. Walter Newman and Frank R. Pierson wrote the script (based on a novel by Roy Chanslor). The script zips along, the actors are left to their own devices and the director seems to be on an extended smoke break.
Fonda's up for the challenge. As the anchor holding the film together, she provides both the gravity and the light touch and drives the film. Fonda had been the film lead in American films before, in "sex comedies." In the time period, that largely meant you were interested in romance and more but you strongly guarded your virginity. A lot of actresses were capable of that, a lot of actresses weren't capable of more than that. Given her chance to drive a film as the lead, not the female lead, Fonda proves she's to what it takes. (Marvin won his Oscar for best supporting actor.)
Being a 1965 film, sadly, she has to guard that maidenhead but thankfully, Cat Ballou has other things on her mind. Avenging the death of her father being chief among them. She's also got to keep the rag tag band that makes up her "posse" together. But again, her physcality has to be noted. The tension she brings to her body in a potential love scene on the train, the way she's jerkily extending herself only to pull back, prepares the audience for the moment early on when Cat will have to make a choice. It's the body movements as much as the lines they keep you from being shocked when school marm Cat suddenly turns into outlaw of the west. Near the end of the picture, there's a slow walk to a knoose that could go overboard into Joan of Arc-ness but, even then, Fonda had the steady touch and knew how to hold her head and carry herself so that you root for her instead of giving up hope and thinking, "They're going to kill that girl!"
Very few actors seem to truly inhabit their characters and their space. Brando comes to mind as an exception. Fonda is another one. In stillness or in motiong, she pulls you into the frame and you feel as though you're watching a full blown person, not a sketch comedy character.
Fonda's already got the comic timing (had it Sunday in New York and Period of Adjustment), but she's filling out as an actress. Watching the film today, you're able to appreciate both what an opportunity this was for an actress and how up to the challenge Fonda was.
The songs from Cat Ballou will stick in your head. We're not sure that's a good thing. Though sung well by Nat King Cole and Stubby Kaye (who sing them onscreen), these fast-paced songs intended to move the story along also end up stuck in your head.
The other thing you'll notice in this 1965 film directed by Elliot Silverstein is the acting. Lee Marvin won an Oscar for playing Kid Shellen and another character in the film (we don't want to spoil the surprise for anyone who hasn't seen it yet). Marvin is hilarious. But so is the rest of the cast. There's not a clunker in the cast.
Jane Fonda does a wonderful job as Cat Ballou. Knowing what's in store later in her career, it's easy to see where she's headed in retrospect. But what about at the time?
Judith Crist, in the New York Herald Tribune,: "Jane Fonda is marvelous as the wide-eyed Cat, exuding sweet feminine sex appeal every sway of the way." Time magazine noted: "In a performance that nails down her reputation as a girl worth singing about actress Fonda does every preposterous thing demanded of her with a giddy sincerity that is at once beguiling, poignant and hilarious."
Barefoot in the Park, The Game Is Over, They Shoot Horses, Don't They?, Klute, et al were all in the future at this point. But you can see the groundwork for those performances in this one. What's also interesting is that you can see Fonda's first American role with a range. Not just of emotions, but also for the character herself.
Cat Ballou (the title character played by Fonda) starts off as a retiring school teacher freshly trained. She has a secret passion for gun fighter stories. As the movie zips along, Ballou quickly takes part in armed robbery, faces execution, and other things.
The script is genuinely funny, but the direction leaves a lot to be desired. Crowd scenes are especially difficult to watch. Take the barn dancing/barn fighting scenes where you're constantly trying to locate characters in the frame. If they were staged carefully, they weren't filmed that way. It's a mess and the easy thing to do is just accept that it's going to be that way.
The performances and the script carry this film. Walter Newman and Frank R. Pierson wrote the script (based on a novel by Roy Chanslor). The script zips along, the actors are left to their own devices and the director seems to be on an extended smoke break.
Fonda's up for the challenge. As the anchor holding the film together, she provides both the gravity and the light touch and drives the film. Fonda had been the film lead in American films before, in "sex comedies." In the time period, that largely meant you were interested in romance and more but you strongly guarded your virginity. A lot of actresses were capable of that, a lot of actresses weren't capable of more than that. Given her chance to drive a film as the lead, not the female lead, Fonda proves she's to what it takes. (Marvin won his Oscar for best supporting actor.)
Being a 1965 film, sadly, she has to guard that maidenhead but thankfully, Cat Ballou has other things on her mind. Avenging the death of her father being chief among them. She's also got to keep the rag tag band that makes up her "posse" together. But again, her physcality has to be noted. The tension she brings to her body in a potential love scene on the train, the way she's jerkily extending herself only to pull back, prepares the audience for the moment early on when Cat will have to make a choice. It's the body movements as much as the lines they keep you from being shocked when school marm Cat suddenly turns into outlaw of the west. Near the end of the picture, there's a slow walk to a knoose that could go overboard into Joan of Arc-ness but, even then, Fonda had the steady touch and knew how to hold her head and carry herself so that you root for her instead of giving up hope and thinking, "They're going to kill that girl!"
Very few actors seem to truly inhabit their characters and their space. Brando comes to mind as an exception. Fonda is another one. In stillness or in motiong, she pulls you into the frame and you feel as though you're watching a full blown person, not a sketch comedy character.
Fonda's already got the comic timing (had it Sunday in New York and Period of Adjustment), but she's filling out as an actress. Watching the film today, you're able to appreciate both what an opportunity this was for an actress and how up to the challenge Fonda was.
DVD review: The Electric Horseman
Jane Fonda and Robert Redford star in Sydney Pollack's The Electric Horseman. It's a light romantic comedy which we'll contrast with the romantic comedies of today half-way into this review. But what you need to know now is that the basic story is this, retired rodeo star Sonny Steele (Redord) now promotes breakfast cereal and does appearences with a horse named Rising Star. When in Las Vegas for a show, Sonny learns that Rising Star's being drugged and decides this ain't the life for a horse.
Riding him off the stage, Sonny heads out of the show room, out of the building and off into the wilderness with Rising Star.
Hallie Martin's interested in the corporation that puts out the breakfast cereal (among other things). When Steele rides off, reporter Hallie's interested in what made him decide to do that. Attempting to dig beneath the spin and get to the truth (which is how you know it's a movie -- Judith Miller has demonstrated that it's the absorbtion of spin that apparently makes the career), Martin goes off in search of what's being covered up.
Also in the cast are Valerie Perrine, Willie Nelson and Wilford Brimley. Brimley's doing the exact same thing he does everywhere. Hopefully, it was still fresh in 1979 when the film was made.
Perrine's never struck us in any performance. She's like Dyan Cannon without the grit or Beverly D'Angelo without the sparkle. Whether it's Lenny or Superman, Perrine's in over her head. In this film, she actually finds moments where she demonstrates real talent and turns in something close to the sort of supporting performance that Melinda Dillon rightly has won praise for. Willie Nelson proves he's a good sport and comfortable on camera. No easy task (ask Lyle Lovett.)
But Fonda and Redford are the show. You wait to see if they'll open up to each other. Reading over reviews from when the film came out, there's a lot made of how Fonda's character starts out strong and then becomes vulnerable (one reviewer compared it to a comedic take on Swept Away -- the original, not the Madonna remake). There's not a lot of remarks on Redford's transformation. It may seem less major, but Hallie epitomizes everything that Sonny stands against. He doesn't even want her around for a good part of the film. If he doesn't open up, there's no romance and probably no audience for this film, so of course he opens up. But there's a good chance he could end up the wise old, lonely road traveler Wilford Brimley plays. Hallie prevents that. Not because they end up together, but because for all his nagging and complaining, he ends up enjoying her being along for the ride.
Maybe he'll get back with his ex-wife (Perrine)? Maybe he'll take up with someone else? (The idea of Hallie & Sonny as a long term couple isn't offered because it's not believable.) But there's a way Redford's looking at her in the last third of the movie that tells you Sonny's not so damn sure he's the go-it-alone-one-for-the-road guy he thought he was.
As for Fonda, she has chemistry with Redford, that was established before this film. But thinking of other actresses he'd appeared with, you realize how reflective (that's not an insult) his acting is. And how he really needs an actress who's physical or you'll just end up watching the scenery in one of his movies and thinking "pretty postcards." (We can think of three such films, but we'll be kind and bite our tongues.) With an actress like Fonda (or Faye Dunaway in Three Days of the Condor or Barbra Streisand in The Way We Were), she's giving so much physically that he has to step up to the plate.
Redford's an underrated actor (his Oscar win was for directing Ordinary People) and that's partly because as a leading man, he's worked at a time when there were very few actual leading women. Confused? Let's stop being kind and mention the film that everyone always trashes. No, not Havana. The other one, Legal Eagles. In that film, Redford's opposite a miscast Debra Winger (who actually did have onscreen sparks with Redford, they should have trashed the script and improvised) and Daryl Hannah. Miscast? Outside of playing a mermaid in Splash, we're hard pressed to think of a film where Hannah wasn't miscast in the lead. (Her strong supporting performance in Steel Magnolias was probably the finest work she's ever done.) Hannah's a sprite, a waif. Not in the Carole Lombard sense, not with any gravity or energy. She's a lovely pin up who seems flattened out and lifeless -- Redford's got nothing to connect with.
Which is why, when you think of him as a leading man, you don't often think of him opposite actresses. If you do, it's usually opposite Streisand, Dunaway and Fonda. When a woman's cast opposite him as "the girl" in the traditional sense and she's nothing more than object of art, Redford has nothing to play off of. You remember his scenes with Newman in their films together, or you remember him on the diamond in The Natural, or in the opening scenes of Brubaker . . .
He needs a strong actor opposite him or he tends to stay in his shell and that's especially the case when he's cast opposite a woman. When that happens, as it does opposite Fonda in The Electric Horseman, his eyes take on a shading and he has a way of absorbing the performer onscreen with him, reaching out. (Though not as strong an actor as Redford, leading man Richard Gere also needs a strong actress opposite him.)
Playing the business-like Hallie, Fonda coils her body with tension. There's no "she just needed a good lay" subtext here because Hallie's not awakened to a new reality via love making. If anything, she's more suspicious and more wary after they've shared that experience. And Fonda's body movements become more tense "the morning after." (The Morning After has some incredible comedic moments by Fonda, who was rightly nominated for an Oscar for that performance, but since it's not a comedy, it's a thriller, we've taken a pass on reviewing it here.)
Sonny's not given up his pursuit for what he believes in at the end of the film. A number of reviewers seemed to think the affair had no impact on him. That's not true. But it's also not true that Hallie has been transformed. The rush she feels at the end, the joy comes from nailing the story. Like Sonny, she's enjoyed their moment together and you think she may find more moments in her life, but unlike some reviewers, we weren't left with the impression that she'd gone from get-the-scoop reporter to hearts-and-flowers pining.
Reading reviews for this film (which was a hit in 1979) or Nine to Five (a hit in 1980), you start to realize how much was being dealt with. Not onscreen, but within the nation as people debated and explored the nature the of roles in society. As one of the few established female box office stars (others included Streisand and Goldie Hawn), there seemed to be a great deal of emphasis and examing Fonda's role not only within the film but within society.
We love those conversations and think films, at their best, helps further that kind of debate. But we're not seeing Fonda's Hallie as a backlash character but reviewers who, for instance, compared the film to Swept Away apparently did. (Not all reviewers saw it that way.)
This is a light, escapist, romantic film that manages to say something about individuals, ecology and corporations. Hallie's a working woman who's not about to ditch her career to ride off into the sunset with a man who, played by Redford or not, still has a lot of searching to do on his own. But some of the commentary in the reviews echo the kind of criticism that has dogged An Unmarried Woman since it's release. (Funniest commentary would be in the film Private Benjamin where Goldie Hawn does a riff on whether Jill Clayburgh should have become "Mrs. Alan Bates.") We're not knocking the reviewers. And again, we think films should lead to these type of discussions.
And in 1979, they did. We're wondering where those discussions went? Weightier and lighter films today rarely lead to that kind of debate. (When they do, it tends to result from films where the woman plays a prostitute or is bought and sold in some other way.) In Backlash, Susan Faludi offered strong criticism (postive and negative) of various films, from a feminist perspective. That's no longer examined in most of the reviews today.
Two people who are interested in only their own paths connect briefly and you're left with the feeling that it was a step for both of them and one that they'll be taking again (with other partners).
Don't miss the scene where Hallie's pressed to reveal her source. Fonda plays it perfectly. Hallie realizes where it's going and she's not backing down. Think about Judith Miller's various public pleas, The Charlie Rose Show for one, where she tries to manage the grit and sweetness combo that Sally Field can toss off without breaking a sweat. If Miller didn't veer between that extreme and her infamous bravado ("I was proved fucking right!"), if she showed some of the spirit Fonda's Hallie does, she might make you give a damn about her plight.
Hallie's not playing it modest, but her argument is for a free press. With Miller's public announcements, it never veers from the personal, the I-Judith! (And no matter how she strives for gamine, the fact is Miller's not very likeable and she has her own reporting to blame for that.)
We tried to picture how a remake of this film might play out today. (Fonda's Fun With Dick and Jane is being remade.) Brad Pitt would artfully put a straw in his mouth and attempt to look grave while being shot as though Bruce Weber was the cinematographer. Julia Roberts (she's still the only true female star/ leading lady Hollywood's produced in the last two decades -- shh!, don't tell Reese Witherspoon!) would scrunch her brow and try to look serious before breaking out into the smile she's famous for. (Or maybe she'd go the "character route" she went for when she did team with Pitt in The Mexican -- and come off as a dull nag.)
We couldn't see anyone standing in line for that. Buying a ticket or buying Pitt as someone deeply concerned (there's too much lightness onscreen) or Roberts as an impassioned reporter.
(Remember the box office for I Love Trouble?) There was a lot of talk in the negative reviews that both Fonda and Redford came off like they were playing paragons of virtue (see especially the Newsweek review). But they were playing something (and we didn't see them as paragons of virture, Hallie's too consumed with her job, Sonny with his cause -- nothing wrong with either consumption, but not exactly adding up to a paragon on either side). Today, it's just ticket buyers that get played.
Maybe that's why films don't inspire the kind of debate that The Electric Horseman did in 1979?
Both Pitt and Roberts are capable (and have proven that) of more than flash-card acting. But they're the closest thing today to Redford & Fonda in 1979. Today's film problems have nothing to do with salaries (Fonda and Redford cleaned up on this film). It has nothing to do with trying to make a hit (this was intended to be a hit and huge amounts were spent -- including for filming the love scene). We think it has something to do with the need to be "pretty." Pretty faces, pretty characters. Rounded off edges, filtered out facial lines.
Or maybe it's just the obvious fact that we're stuck in a time when films are being made by people who's point of reference is something other than life? Quentin Tarantion can carry off the movie frame of reference. He has the ego and the ambition for that. But when you look at the films of, say, Kate Hudson, you're struck by how (with the exception of Almost Famous), she's so much more interesting in any interview than playing the half-baked, sitcom derived characters she keeps getting type cast as. Hudson's got the goods to go beyond the I-hate-him-no-I-love-him-and-look-how-cute-I-look-right-now thing that passes for characterization these days. Why no one will let her play such a character goes to the problems with the state of films today.
In a way, Bird On a Wire should have had a similar feel to The Electric Horseman but instead of allowing Goldie Hawn to play her character as she saw it, the director kept cautioning her to come off "sweet." There's far too much "sweetnees" in films today.
Which is why it's surprising to read the reviews (again, see Newsweek for a perfect example) that dismissed The Electric Horseman as pure confection and nothing more. These days, it would probably be a fall picture, released in late October with hopes of Oscar nods.
That's not what the film is. But it is an enjoyable journey with two strong actors sparking off each other and concerned with something more than a missing palm pilot. Recommended.
Riding him off the stage, Sonny heads out of the show room, out of the building and off into the wilderness with Rising Star.
Hallie Martin's interested in the corporation that puts out the breakfast cereal (among other things). When Steele rides off, reporter Hallie's interested in what made him decide to do that. Attempting to dig beneath the spin and get to the truth (which is how you know it's a movie -- Judith Miller has demonstrated that it's the absorbtion of spin that apparently makes the career), Martin goes off in search of what's being covered up.
Also in the cast are Valerie Perrine, Willie Nelson and Wilford Brimley. Brimley's doing the exact same thing he does everywhere. Hopefully, it was still fresh in 1979 when the film was made.
Perrine's never struck us in any performance. She's like Dyan Cannon without the grit or Beverly D'Angelo without the sparkle. Whether it's Lenny or Superman, Perrine's in over her head. In this film, she actually finds moments where she demonstrates real talent and turns in something close to the sort of supporting performance that Melinda Dillon rightly has won praise for. Willie Nelson proves he's a good sport and comfortable on camera. No easy task (ask Lyle Lovett.)
But Fonda and Redford are the show. You wait to see if they'll open up to each other. Reading over reviews from when the film came out, there's a lot made of how Fonda's character starts out strong and then becomes vulnerable (one reviewer compared it to a comedic take on Swept Away -- the original, not the Madonna remake). There's not a lot of remarks on Redford's transformation. It may seem less major, but Hallie epitomizes everything that Sonny stands against. He doesn't even want her around for a good part of the film. If he doesn't open up, there's no romance and probably no audience for this film, so of course he opens up. But there's a good chance he could end up the wise old, lonely road traveler Wilford Brimley plays. Hallie prevents that. Not because they end up together, but because for all his nagging and complaining, he ends up enjoying her being along for the ride.
Maybe he'll get back with his ex-wife (Perrine)? Maybe he'll take up with someone else? (The idea of Hallie & Sonny as a long term couple isn't offered because it's not believable.) But there's a way Redford's looking at her in the last third of the movie that tells you Sonny's not so damn sure he's the go-it-alone-one-for-the-road guy he thought he was.
As for Fonda, she has chemistry with Redford, that was established before this film. But thinking of other actresses he'd appeared with, you realize how reflective (that's not an insult) his acting is. And how he really needs an actress who's physical or you'll just end up watching the scenery in one of his movies and thinking "pretty postcards." (We can think of three such films, but we'll be kind and bite our tongues.) With an actress like Fonda (or Faye Dunaway in Three Days of the Condor or Barbra Streisand in The Way We Were), she's giving so much physically that he has to step up to the plate.
Redford's an underrated actor (his Oscar win was for directing Ordinary People) and that's partly because as a leading man, he's worked at a time when there were very few actual leading women. Confused? Let's stop being kind and mention the film that everyone always trashes. No, not Havana. The other one, Legal Eagles. In that film, Redford's opposite a miscast Debra Winger (who actually did have onscreen sparks with Redford, they should have trashed the script and improvised) and Daryl Hannah. Miscast? Outside of playing a mermaid in Splash, we're hard pressed to think of a film where Hannah wasn't miscast in the lead. (Her strong supporting performance in Steel Magnolias was probably the finest work she's ever done.) Hannah's a sprite, a waif. Not in the Carole Lombard sense, not with any gravity or energy. She's a lovely pin up who seems flattened out and lifeless -- Redford's got nothing to connect with.
Which is why, when you think of him as a leading man, you don't often think of him opposite actresses. If you do, it's usually opposite Streisand, Dunaway and Fonda. When a woman's cast opposite him as "the girl" in the traditional sense and she's nothing more than object of art, Redford has nothing to play off of. You remember his scenes with Newman in their films together, or you remember him on the diamond in The Natural, or in the opening scenes of Brubaker . . .
He needs a strong actor opposite him or he tends to stay in his shell and that's especially the case when he's cast opposite a woman. When that happens, as it does opposite Fonda in The Electric Horseman, his eyes take on a shading and he has a way of absorbing the performer onscreen with him, reaching out. (Though not as strong an actor as Redford, leading man Richard Gere also needs a strong actress opposite him.)
Playing the business-like Hallie, Fonda coils her body with tension. There's no "she just needed a good lay" subtext here because Hallie's not awakened to a new reality via love making. If anything, she's more suspicious and more wary after they've shared that experience. And Fonda's body movements become more tense "the morning after." (The Morning After has some incredible comedic moments by Fonda, who was rightly nominated for an Oscar for that performance, but since it's not a comedy, it's a thriller, we've taken a pass on reviewing it here.)
Sonny's not given up his pursuit for what he believes in at the end of the film. A number of reviewers seemed to think the affair had no impact on him. That's not true. But it's also not true that Hallie has been transformed. The rush she feels at the end, the joy comes from nailing the story. Like Sonny, she's enjoyed their moment together and you think she may find more moments in her life, but unlike some reviewers, we weren't left with the impression that she'd gone from get-the-scoop reporter to hearts-and-flowers pining.
Reading reviews for this film (which was a hit in 1979) or Nine to Five (a hit in 1980), you start to realize how much was being dealt with. Not onscreen, but within the nation as people debated and explored the nature the of roles in society. As one of the few established female box office stars (others included Streisand and Goldie Hawn), there seemed to be a great deal of emphasis and examing Fonda's role not only within the film but within society.
We love those conversations and think films, at their best, helps further that kind of debate. But we're not seeing Fonda's Hallie as a backlash character but reviewers who, for instance, compared the film to Swept Away apparently did. (Not all reviewers saw it that way.)
This is a light, escapist, romantic film that manages to say something about individuals, ecology and corporations. Hallie's a working woman who's not about to ditch her career to ride off into the sunset with a man who, played by Redford or not, still has a lot of searching to do on his own. But some of the commentary in the reviews echo the kind of criticism that has dogged An Unmarried Woman since it's release. (Funniest commentary would be in the film Private Benjamin where Goldie Hawn does a riff on whether Jill Clayburgh should have become "Mrs. Alan Bates.") We're not knocking the reviewers. And again, we think films should lead to these type of discussions.
And in 1979, they did. We're wondering where those discussions went? Weightier and lighter films today rarely lead to that kind of debate. (When they do, it tends to result from films where the woman plays a prostitute or is bought and sold in some other way.) In Backlash, Susan Faludi offered strong criticism (postive and negative) of various films, from a feminist perspective. That's no longer examined in most of the reviews today.
Two people who are interested in only their own paths connect briefly and you're left with the feeling that it was a step for both of them and one that they'll be taking again (with other partners).
Don't miss the scene where Hallie's pressed to reveal her source. Fonda plays it perfectly. Hallie realizes where it's going and she's not backing down. Think about Judith Miller's various public pleas, The Charlie Rose Show for one, where she tries to manage the grit and sweetness combo that Sally Field can toss off without breaking a sweat. If Miller didn't veer between that extreme and her infamous bravado ("I was proved fucking right!"), if she showed some of the spirit Fonda's Hallie does, she might make you give a damn about her plight.
Hallie's not playing it modest, but her argument is for a free press. With Miller's public announcements, it never veers from the personal, the I-Judith! (And no matter how she strives for gamine, the fact is Miller's not very likeable and she has her own reporting to blame for that.)
We tried to picture how a remake of this film might play out today. (Fonda's Fun With Dick and Jane is being remade.) Brad Pitt would artfully put a straw in his mouth and attempt to look grave while being shot as though Bruce Weber was the cinematographer. Julia Roberts (she's still the only true female star/ leading lady Hollywood's produced in the last two decades -- shh!, don't tell Reese Witherspoon!) would scrunch her brow and try to look serious before breaking out into the smile she's famous for. (Or maybe she'd go the "character route" she went for when she did team with Pitt in The Mexican -- and come off as a dull nag.)
We couldn't see anyone standing in line for that. Buying a ticket or buying Pitt as someone deeply concerned (there's too much lightness onscreen) or Roberts as an impassioned reporter.
(Remember the box office for I Love Trouble?) There was a lot of talk in the negative reviews that both Fonda and Redford came off like they were playing paragons of virtue (see especially the Newsweek review). But they were playing something (and we didn't see them as paragons of virture, Hallie's too consumed with her job, Sonny with his cause -- nothing wrong with either consumption, but not exactly adding up to a paragon on either side). Today, it's just ticket buyers that get played.
Maybe that's why films don't inspire the kind of debate that The Electric Horseman did in 1979?
Both Pitt and Roberts are capable (and have proven that) of more than flash-card acting. But they're the closest thing today to Redford & Fonda in 1979. Today's film problems have nothing to do with salaries (Fonda and Redford cleaned up on this film). It has nothing to do with trying to make a hit (this was intended to be a hit and huge amounts were spent -- including for filming the love scene). We think it has something to do with the need to be "pretty." Pretty faces, pretty characters. Rounded off edges, filtered out facial lines.
Or maybe it's just the obvious fact that we're stuck in a time when films are being made by people who's point of reference is something other than life? Quentin Tarantion can carry off the movie frame of reference. He has the ego and the ambition for that. But when you look at the films of, say, Kate Hudson, you're struck by how (with the exception of Almost Famous), she's so much more interesting in any interview than playing the half-baked, sitcom derived characters she keeps getting type cast as. Hudson's got the goods to go beyond the I-hate-him-no-I-love-him-and-look-how-cute-I-look-right-now thing that passes for characterization these days. Why no one will let her play such a character goes to the problems with the state of films today.
In a way, Bird On a Wire should have had a similar feel to The Electric Horseman but instead of allowing Goldie Hawn to play her character as she saw it, the director kept cautioning her to come off "sweet." There's far too much "sweetnees" in films today.
Which is why it's surprising to read the reviews (again, see Newsweek for a perfect example) that dismissed The Electric Horseman as pure confection and nothing more. These days, it would probably be a fall picture, released in late October with hopes of Oscar nods.
That's not what the film is. But it is an enjoyable journey with two strong actors sparking off each other and concerned with something more than a missing palm pilot. Recommended.
TV Review Living With Fran
This week was Adbusters turn off your TV week. Never ones to cross a picket line, we didn't break the boycott. But we had seen three episodes of Living With Fran (two the first week, one the week before the boycott) and had enjoyed what we saw. We had taken notes and actually done a review based on the first two episodes when we pulled that to do the entry on the e-mails we get since the edition's theme was humor.
Living With Fran stars Fran Drescher and if you're one of the people who couldn't take her in The Nanny, this won't be the show for you. But The Nanny had a long run and initial ratings for Living With Fran have been strong, so we're thinking this might be one of the few new shows that actually gets (and deserves) a second season. (We've got our fingers crossed that Joey will be cancelled. Folding Star advises it's been renewed but we can still hope.)
In this show, Fran's a mother (of two) who's left a bad marriage and taken up with a new man who's . . . considerably younger. Ryan McPartlin plays opposite Drescher and is thus far an agreeable foil. How can you not like McPartlin's Riley after he confesses to loving the sound of Fran's voice?
Fran's daughter isn't (thus far) bothered by the age difference between Riley and Fran (Drescher's character name in this show is obviously Fran). The same can't be said for her son played by the adult actor Ben Feldman. There are moments when Feldman's Josh comes off a little too much like Miles from Murphy Brown (but both had control issues when it came to women -- a theme for this edition that we hadn't even planned to touch on!). Right now Feldman's character's providing the chief tension so hopefully the writers won't rush to make him completely accepting of the relationship.
No one's yet to give a poor performance in the cast (and guest stars like Marilu Henner and Charles Shaughnessy -- as Fran's ex-husband, nobody tell C.C. that Maxwell's on the market! -- have done strong work as well). What The Nanny had going for it besides Drescher (which is quite a lot) was some of the strongest regulars guest stars around including Renee Taylor, Ann Morgan Gilbert, Rachel Chagall, Spalding Gray and Nora Dunn. Hopefully, a similar repertoire company will become a part of Living With Fran.
For those who, like us, have grown weary of the fat-man, skinny wife sitcom set-up that seems so popular these days, Living With Fran is something to be excited about. There's no whining of "Oh Ray!" from the sidelines. And miracle of miracles, Fran actually has a job, no, more than that, a career. Already we've left Yes, Dear territory. That alone is something for us to get excited about.
But it's the comedy that will entertain you and make you realize how much has been lost in the last few years as The Nanny, Murphy Brown and assorted others disappeared. It's been as though The Dick Van Dyke Show never happened. Wives weren't funny (unless they were crabby and, yes, King of Queens is a lame Honeymooners rip-off). And women didn't get much air time (repeated air time, we're not talking about the "honeys" that are out of Jon Cryer and Charlie Sheen's league on Two Laughs and a Grin On a Good Night). Drescher's steering this sitcom (on screen, she's also one of the people involved off screen) and it's so rare that we see that these days (Hope & Faith is one exception) that it's hard not to get excited about that.
That the medium that gave us Lucille Ball, Carol Burnett, Mary Tyler Moore, Lily Tomlin, Bea Arthur, Esther Rolle, Jackee, Roseanne, Susan St. James & Jane Curtain, Valerie Harper, Nell Carter, Candice Bergan and others hasn't had anything to offer other than Patricia Heaton (whose only "wacky" attribute is that ridiculous dye job), is truly sad. In better days, Heaton would be, at best, at a guest star. These days she passes for a leading lady. (Passes. When Everybody Is Supposed to Love Raymond finally leaves the air, thankfully leaves the air, she may quickly find herself in the same boat as what's her name who played Jill on Home Improvement.) (Yes, we know her name. But think quick and see how long it takes you to remember it.)
Fran Drescher is the real thing, a bonafide TV comedian who can excite an audience just by stepping into camera range. A real comedian, a genuine one, gives you a lift. Having already earned her right to stand alongside the other female greats of television via The Nanny, Drescher's returned just when sitcoms need her, when they're on the ropes as CBS tries to figure out how many C.S.I.'s they can churn out before America says enough and NBC does the same with Law & Order. In the mid-eighties, just as everyone said the sitcom format was dead (didn't TV Guide do a rest-in-peace story?), Kate & Allie and The Cosby Show came along to renew interest in the genre. (For some reason, far be it from us to suggest it's sexism -- okay, we'll suggest it, Kate & Allie is usually overlooked these days but it was CBS first hit sitcom in years and it and The Cosby Show renewed interest in the genre.)
That's a lot of weight to place on one individual's shoulders. But we were prepared to enjoy a half-baked sitcom with weak scripts and Living With Fran has already surprised us with strong scripts and a strong premise. We're looking forward to more pleasing surprises.
Living With Fran stars Fran Drescher and if you're one of the people who couldn't take her in The Nanny, this won't be the show for you. But The Nanny had a long run and initial ratings for Living With Fran have been strong, so we're thinking this might be one of the few new shows that actually gets (and deserves) a second season. (We've got our fingers crossed that Joey will be cancelled. Folding Star advises it's been renewed but we can still hope.)
In this show, Fran's a mother (of two) who's left a bad marriage and taken up with a new man who's . . . considerably younger. Ryan McPartlin plays opposite Drescher and is thus far an agreeable foil. How can you not like McPartlin's Riley after he confesses to loving the sound of Fran's voice?
Fran's daughter isn't (thus far) bothered by the age difference between Riley and Fran (Drescher's character name in this show is obviously Fran). The same can't be said for her son played by the adult actor Ben Feldman. There are moments when Feldman's Josh comes off a little too much like Miles from Murphy Brown (but both had control issues when it came to women -- a theme for this edition that we hadn't even planned to touch on!). Right now Feldman's character's providing the chief tension so hopefully the writers won't rush to make him completely accepting of the relationship.
No one's yet to give a poor performance in the cast (and guest stars like Marilu Henner and Charles Shaughnessy -- as Fran's ex-husband, nobody tell C.C. that Maxwell's on the market! -- have done strong work as well). What The Nanny had going for it besides Drescher (which is quite a lot) was some of the strongest regulars guest stars around including Renee Taylor, Ann Morgan Gilbert, Rachel Chagall, Spalding Gray and Nora Dunn. Hopefully, a similar repertoire company will become a part of Living With Fran.
For those who, like us, have grown weary of the fat-man, skinny wife sitcom set-up that seems so popular these days, Living With Fran is something to be excited about. There's no whining of "Oh Ray!" from the sidelines. And miracle of miracles, Fran actually has a job, no, more than that, a career. Already we've left Yes, Dear territory. That alone is something for us to get excited about.
But it's the comedy that will entertain you and make you realize how much has been lost in the last few years as The Nanny, Murphy Brown and assorted others disappeared. It's been as though The Dick Van Dyke Show never happened. Wives weren't funny (unless they were crabby and, yes, King of Queens is a lame Honeymooners rip-off). And women didn't get much air time (repeated air time, we're not talking about the "honeys" that are out of Jon Cryer and Charlie Sheen's league on Two Laughs and a Grin On a Good Night). Drescher's steering this sitcom (on screen, she's also one of the people involved off screen) and it's so rare that we see that these days (Hope & Faith is one exception) that it's hard not to get excited about that.
That the medium that gave us Lucille Ball, Carol Burnett, Mary Tyler Moore, Lily Tomlin, Bea Arthur, Esther Rolle, Jackee, Roseanne, Susan St. James & Jane Curtain, Valerie Harper, Nell Carter, Candice Bergan and others hasn't had anything to offer other than Patricia Heaton (whose only "wacky" attribute is that ridiculous dye job), is truly sad. In better days, Heaton would be, at best, at a guest star. These days she passes for a leading lady. (Passes. When Everybody Is Supposed to Love Raymond finally leaves the air, thankfully leaves the air, she may quickly find herself in the same boat as what's her name who played Jill on Home Improvement.) (Yes, we know her name. But think quick and see how long it takes you to remember it.)
Fran Drescher is the real thing, a bonafide TV comedian who can excite an audience just by stepping into camera range. A real comedian, a genuine one, gives you a lift. Having already earned her right to stand alongside the other female greats of television via The Nanny, Drescher's returned just when sitcoms need her, when they're on the ropes as CBS tries to figure out how many C.S.I.'s they can churn out before America says enough and NBC does the same with Law & Order. In the mid-eighties, just as everyone said the sitcom format was dead (didn't TV Guide do a rest-in-peace story?), Kate & Allie and The Cosby Show came along to renew interest in the genre. (For some reason, far be it from us to suggest it's sexism -- okay, we'll suggest it, Kate & Allie is usually overlooked these days but it was CBS first hit sitcom in years and it and The Cosby Show renewed interest in the genre.)
That's a lot of weight to place on one individual's shoulders. But we were prepared to enjoy a half-baked sitcom with weak scripts and Living With Fran has already surprised us with strong scripts and a strong premise. We're looking forward to more pleasing surprises.
Blog Spotlight: Rebecca's "I've got me a new fan"
If a theme's emerging in this edition, it's obvious that the theme is why some men think they can push around women bloggers. Not all that long ago, the blog community was jawing about "where are the women bloggers!!!" Well some of them choose to avoid politics because of nasty e-mails. Some, like Krista and Gina, sidestep the blog process and utilize e-mail as a newsletter form (gina & krista's round-robin). Some ignore the attacks, some take them in stride, and some fight back hard and strong. The e-mails that Ava and C.I. have gotten for their TV reviews has often been threatening and vicious. Going into great detail on how the e-mailer would like to harm them. That's occurred since they were first identified as the ones responsible for the TV reviews. Prior to that, the e-mails might argue, might call "you guys stupid," but that was the extent of it. Once it was identified as being written by Ava and C.I., suddenly the bullying nature of many men came out in full force. Knowing that, we'd be the last to recommend that anyone follow a path that's not their own. Rebecca's path is to fight back and she's done that from day one, rejecting "advice" to clean up her language, or "counseling" that women didn't talk about sex, or bullying on how she should have written about Social Security.
Rebecca's made it clear from the onset that she doesn't take any shit. That's one way to address this and we're spotlighting it here.
Rebecca: It was so laughable because here's this guy who's beat up on C.I. and I wouldn't have even known of him if he didn't do that. Which may have been his point, to raise his tiny profile.
And all the sudden he's e-mailing me this laughable e-mail that I passed around. I laugh this shit off. To me the e-mail was all laughable except for what reads like an admission that he was mocking C.I.'s illness in his blog entry. I don't mention him by name because if he wants to increase his profile, he'll have to find another way to do it. He seems to have gotten the message because he hasn't written since. But should he, I'll be happy to address his problems with comprehension and retention again.
i got me a new fan
well color me proud, i got me a new fan. and this little boy is just drooling over me constantly judging by his e-mail. fucking appears to be the only thing on his mind judging by the number of times he uses that word.
so we're talking about adam. the thrust of the e-mail can be boiled down to 'you're fucking stupid and c.i. is a liar.' adam has offered his opinions, so here are my opinions of adam.
adam is fucking stupid. someone, enroll him in a literacy course so he can learn to read.
unlike the e-mails to c.i., which non-careful reader adam doesn't realize i'd read at the 1st of this week, adam doesn't try to be sweet.
he starts off all bluster and passion and ... like most men of his kind, he shoots his load quickly.
he's declaring war on me.
isn't that just like a man trying to overcompensate?
what a dick.
he sat down at the computer, pulled his little noodle out, and juked all over the keyboard.
was it good for you, little boy?
i had to laugh, i know you're not supposed to laugh at men when they can't keep it up, because i've never gone to his site (does anyone?) but he comes to my site.
remember that adam, you read me, i don't read you.
that makes you my fan or stalker.
rage away adam. scream and yell and type 'fuck" this or whatever.
i love my power, adam.
i was talking to kat about this (among other people, we all enjoyed your e-mail) and she slid me the thing she wrote wednesday night. she'd just finished her kat's korner, there was supposed to be a second 1, when ava asked her to read what c.i. had just finished.
c.i. had managed to just let it go. and rise above it.
adam can't do that. are we suprised he can't rise? i mean, limp noodle and all.
but kat said she decided not to post her piece on limp noodles because she felt c.i. had really achieved something and that the kat's korner would be a set back. she told me to use anything i wanted from it. so thank you, kat. bless you, kat. you are always supremely gifted and wise and in a world with an adam in it, that's even more important.
we need our strong voices and our wise ones. or else we'll be left to the adam boys of the world. god help us all if that day comes.
the only thing any of us learned from adam's e-mail (it was heavily circulated today, especially to my female bloggers) was that indeed adam was apparently trying to mock c.i.'s health.
what a big strong man!
ladies, is he taken?
i'm sure he is and my heart goes out to the woman.
abusive and rude, adam thinks i care about his opinion.
let me repeat adam, and hold onto little adam cause he's about to shrink even smaller, i don't read you. i've never visited your site.
never would.
never linked to it.
never will.
but i'm touched that you come to my site. maybe you'll learn something here?
probably not because you need to enroll in adult literacy course 1st.
reading and comprehension isn't adam's strong suit.
but what is? besides screaming and yelling?
no wonder, as sherry noted, 'no 1 even knows who he is.' no, they don't. and sherry, they never will.
as kat wrote in her hilarious never posted entry (which may go up in full here) he's a little fish trying to play it like a big 1. kat has this whole hysterical thing about men who stand like boys in the locker room, if you get my point, and it's about little limp noodle adam.
'you try so hard to be like the big boys.'
poor adam.
adam apparently wants to fuck me judging by his constant use of the word. well, adam, keep dreaming. not going to happen, but i've often been the fantasy and it's fine that i'm your new pin up.
why don't you buy a strap on and start wearing that so you can get an idea of what the big boys pack?
and maybe at some point, you can deal with my mind?
probably not. boys like you are so angry at women that it's impossible for you to see us as anything other than slaves to order around.
adam, i ain't your slave. i ain't your whore. and you ain't going to score.
so keep jerking off on your keyboard like the nasty little boy you are.
sherry asked me if i was going to quote adam and of course not.
he's a nothing. you don't quote a nothing.
remember how he tried to marshall his "fans" to bombard c.i. with e-mails? no 1 did. days later, c.i. gets a copy and paste of adam's plea for activism from community member dallas and is shocked because adam hadn't acted that way in e-mails. how was c.i. to know? no 1 reads adam.
apparently he thought i'd give him a strong write up and maybe send some readers his way.
adam i care about my readers, i would never inflict harm on them by sending them to you.
kat had a funny line about how he's a madonna ballad gone wrong. that was so true, kat.
i also love adam's attempts at spelling and how he never seems to know which word he's trying to use.
okay, let me stop laughing because adult illiteracy is a serious concern.
and reading adam's e-mail it was as though he was robert de niro running up to the bus and screaming to jane fonda, 'teach me to read!'
i don't know where adam lives, where the rock he crawls out from under each morning is. but in my general area we have the adult literacy resource and i strongly support their work. so maybe adam can go there? or maybe he can find something in whatever circle of hell he occupies?
i don't know. but he's a joke. he's a nasty, mean spirited, little boy of a joke, but a joke none the less.
and if he thinks he can bully me around, he's also a stupid joke.
women are getting tired of this and adam should realize his act is tired and old.
if he has something to say, he can blog on at his site. now granted, no 1 will ever see it, but he does have his own site.
he's just a hateful little thing. kat compared him to a little sharpie barking and growling until a medium size dog came along, then adam runs off, tail between legs - the largest thing ever hanging between those legs probably - whimpering.
adam appears to think that he's going to p.r. his hate speech into a career.
oh adam, you are so very laughable. and this time, you didn't have to drop your pants before the laughs started!
attack me all you want adam. i won't cower. i won't even blink. i will laugh at you.
you and your little dick don't impress me.
somewhere, someone told you that when you didn't get your way, the answer was to scream and yell. that doesn't let you get your way. it just makes you a screamer with a little dick.
as readers who can comprehend (and my normal readers can) know, i don't take this shit from you guys (and why is it allways the guys?). i don't play it.
i'm no damsel in distress, little adam. plan your attack strategy. i don't give a shit.
declare war all you want. as kat pointed out in her piece, nixon had to bomb cambodia to get it up. apparently you have to beat up on female bloggers.
i don't do 'high road' so adam is going to be even more frustrated than he normally is on a friday night.
unless his thing is a 'ball buster special.' some guys are actually into it. usually they can't be honest with their wives so they go to a prostitute or sex worker, but they really seem to get off on it.
one hand down his pee-stained fruit of the looms, the other at the keyboard, imagine the damage he could do! why he might ... piss himself?
i don't know what he thinks i'm going to cower.
but it's past time that these men who think they can scream abuse at women got called on it.
and, as one female blogger told me on the phone today, 'rebecca, you are our cat woman!' you know it.
trash me on your site, adam. maybe someone looking for information on a cartoon character will accidentally stumble across your site? if so, they'll learn about the woman who didn't back down to you. who won't back down to you.
adam thinks he knows everything. don't men like that always think that? i'm told by shirley (who's never been to his site either but heard this from c.i. who heard it from ron - getting the idea that he's about as popular as a show airing on the pax network?) that he has an issue he works on but his 'work' doesn't compare with krista's on the same subject. see, even passionate, adam peters out.
ain't that the way, ladies? the biggest mouths are always the most disappointing in the sack. i know i've blogged on that before but it bears repeating.
adam, keep e-mailing. i can always use a good chuckle.
and when you dream about me tonight, and you will, remember it's only in your dreams.
in real life, not only would i not sleep with you, i'd throw a drink in your face.
now adam probably would see that as a sign that he was 'in.' you know how those guys are. ladies, you feel me on this?
adam, i'm so above anything you're even qualified to dream about.
i made the mistake of telling my ex about it. i thought he'd find it funny. he didn't. he offered to kick your ass. i told him you weren't worth it and that your nasty little e-mail full of anger and rage didn't effect me in the least. but keep writing. maybe you'll manage to get it up and cross the line? if so, my ex is 6ft 3 inches. how big are you, little one?
no, not there. we all know you've got an inch and half there. we all know your mind is blown and your mouth drooling as you picture my ex. 'over 6 feet! he must be hung!' penis envy is such a sad trait especially from little boys who fancy themselves the blog equivalent of a cute little cartoon.
i wonder if he has the cartoon character on his p.j.s?
sexual analysis: adam is the little boy who couldn't score throughout high school and was overly keen and friendly in the locker room. ron, don't drop the soap!
sexual analysis: adam is frustrated. he questions his own manhood. he knows he comes up short so he bullies women and, when not doing that, wonders if just maybe he should consider being with men but lacks the guts to.
if adam continues to e-mail, i'll offer a more detailed analysis. i can do that. these are my opinions, adam. now go to your blog and write for yourself (because you're probably the only 1 reading it) what you think of me. i don't shy from controversy, adam.
give me all the publicity you can muster (which won't be much because boys like you can't muster much).
but he'll need time to compose his reply because my guess is that on some level he was looking for a ball buster special. he was looking to be called on his actions and put in his place. mommy issues. on the 1 hand, he can't deal with women due to mommy, on the other, he still wants a woman to play mommy and let the little boy feel safe and diapered.
now adam will probably feel i have said awful things about him.
i can do that. i can offer my opinions on any thing i want. he brought it on himself by e-mailing me and trying to intimidate me. keep writing adam, i'll keep commenting.
this actually goes to the theme i've been dealing with. abusive men who want to scream and yell and bully women. tonight we focused on little adam. he'll determine how often we continue to focus on him. and honestly, he probably loves the attention.
don't go to his site. not even to find out his response to me.
little boys always think a pissing match will get them attention. that was a concern 5 women bloggers had. that he was getting attention and his behaviors were attention seeking.
but see, i love all my fans. even the stupid 1s.
besides circulating his e-mail, i also printed it put it in the notebook i keep that i call 'stupid men who can't get it up.'
adam is a nothing. he's a nobody. he wants to ride a feud into fame. so readers, continue to avoid him. i won't call him a fucking liar only because i think he's stupid. he claims c.i. lied and i've read all of adam's e-mails to c.i. c.i. didn't lie. did adam? i think adam has a functional literacy problem.
that's why he thinks he said something that he never said.
i want to thank sherry who's encouraged me to share adam's e-mail. she's right that it is important that women see what he is really like. if he'd written me this months ago i could have shared it with c.i. and prevented c.i. from taking the high road.
as readers here know, i know c.i. we have a mutual friend. she's a psychologist. i passed adam's e-mail on to her and she told me that he was 'nuts.' that's the technical term? we both laughed.
'becky, he's seeing things that aren't written, he's like a sociopath.'
just my luck to get a nut job for a fan!
but we need to be nice to the nut jobs. they're one climb away from a clock tower at any given second.
any time you can get it up long enough to rage at me, adam, please do so because your e-mail is just too funny. we've all laughed about you today, every 1 i've shared the e-mail with. send more! please!
i won't always be able to read them because i do have a lot of readers who write (sorry, didn't mean to bring up a sore subject with you there, adam, honest, wasn't trying to put you into another size competition you could only lose). that's why i didn't read your e-mail until late in the morning.
except for elaine who thinks you're nuts (and is trained to recognize nuts) and my ex who really, really wants to kick your ass (don't wet yourself adam - too late? - i told him to leave you alone), the rest of us just registered shock at how stupid you were, how threatening you were and how sad you were. while laughing, granted. but women, and any man who's been next to you in a locker room, have no doubt been laughing at you for years.
so juke on your keyboard the next time little adam goes rigid (it does happen more than once a month, doesn't it? have you considered viagra?). and keep coming back to my site, you may learn something. even the stupidist man can learn something
Rebecca's made it clear from the onset that she doesn't take any shit. That's one way to address this and we're spotlighting it here.
Rebecca: It was so laughable because here's this guy who's beat up on C.I. and I wouldn't have even known of him if he didn't do that. Which may have been his point, to raise his tiny profile.
And all the sudden he's e-mailing me this laughable e-mail that I passed around. I laugh this shit off. To me the e-mail was all laughable except for what reads like an admission that he was mocking C.I.'s illness in his blog entry. I don't mention him by name because if he wants to increase his profile, he'll have to find another way to do it. He seems to have gotten the message because he hasn't written since. But should he, I'll be happy to address his problems with comprehension and retention again.
i got me a new fan
well color me proud, i got me a new fan. and this little boy is just drooling over me constantly judging by his e-mail. fucking appears to be the only thing on his mind judging by the number of times he uses that word.
so we're talking about adam. the thrust of the e-mail can be boiled down to 'you're fucking stupid and c.i. is a liar.' adam has offered his opinions, so here are my opinions of adam.
adam is fucking stupid. someone, enroll him in a literacy course so he can learn to read.
unlike the e-mails to c.i., which non-careful reader adam doesn't realize i'd read at the 1st of this week, adam doesn't try to be sweet.
he starts off all bluster and passion and ... like most men of his kind, he shoots his load quickly.
he's declaring war on me.
isn't that just like a man trying to overcompensate?
what a dick.
he sat down at the computer, pulled his little noodle out, and juked all over the keyboard.
was it good for you, little boy?
i had to laugh, i know you're not supposed to laugh at men when they can't keep it up, because i've never gone to his site (does anyone?) but he comes to my site.
remember that adam, you read me, i don't read you.
that makes you my fan or stalker.
rage away adam. scream and yell and type 'fuck" this or whatever.
i love my power, adam.
i was talking to kat about this (among other people, we all enjoyed your e-mail) and she slid me the thing she wrote wednesday night. she'd just finished her kat's korner, there was supposed to be a second 1, when ava asked her to read what c.i. had just finished.
c.i. had managed to just let it go. and rise above it.
adam can't do that. are we suprised he can't rise? i mean, limp noodle and all.
but kat said she decided not to post her piece on limp noodles because she felt c.i. had really achieved something and that the kat's korner would be a set back. she told me to use anything i wanted from it. so thank you, kat. bless you, kat. you are always supremely gifted and wise and in a world with an adam in it, that's even more important.
we need our strong voices and our wise ones. or else we'll be left to the adam boys of the world. god help us all if that day comes.
the only thing any of us learned from adam's e-mail (it was heavily circulated today, especially to my female bloggers) was that indeed adam was apparently trying to mock c.i.'s health.
what a big strong man!
ladies, is he taken?
i'm sure he is and my heart goes out to the woman.
abusive and rude, adam thinks i care about his opinion.
let me repeat adam, and hold onto little adam cause he's about to shrink even smaller, i don't read you. i've never visited your site.
never would.
never linked to it.
never will.
but i'm touched that you come to my site. maybe you'll learn something here?
probably not because you need to enroll in adult literacy course 1st.
reading and comprehension isn't adam's strong suit.
but what is? besides screaming and yelling?
no wonder, as sherry noted, 'no 1 even knows who he is.' no, they don't. and sherry, they never will.
as kat wrote in her hilarious never posted entry (which may go up in full here) he's a little fish trying to play it like a big 1. kat has this whole hysterical thing about men who stand like boys in the locker room, if you get my point, and it's about little limp noodle adam.
'you try so hard to be like the big boys.'
poor adam.
adam apparently wants to fuck me judging by his constant use of the word. well, adam, keep dreaming. not going to happen, but i've often been the fantasy and it's fine that i'm your new pin up.
why don't you buy a strap on and start wearing that so you can get an idea of what the big boys pack?
and maybe at some point, you can deal with my mind?
probably not. boys like you are so angry at women that it's impossible for you to see us as anything other than slaves to order around.
adam, i ain't your slave. i ain't your whore. and you ain't going to score.
so keep jerking off on your keyboard like the nasty little boy you are.
sherry asked me if i was going to quote adam and of course not.
he's a nothing. you don't quote a nothing.
remember how he tried to marshall his "fans" to bombard c.i. with e-mails? no 1 did. days later, c.i. gets a copy and paste of adam's plea for activism from community member dallas and is shocked because adam hadn't acted that way in e-mails. how was c.i. to know? no 1 reads adam.
apparently he thought i'd give him a strong write up and maybe send some readers his way.
adam i care about my readers, i would never inflict harm on them by sending them to you.
kat had a funny line about how he's a madonna ballad gone wrong. that was so true, kat.
i also love adam's attempts at spelling and how he never seems to know which word he's trying to use.
okay, let me stop laughing because adult illiteracy is a serious concern.
and reading adam's e-mail it was as though he was robert de niro running up to the bus and screaming to jane fonda, 'teach me to read!'
i don't know where adam lives, where the rock he crawls out from under each morning is. but in my general area we have the adult literacy resource and i strongly support their work. so maybe adam can go there? or maybe he can find something in whatever circle of hell he occupies?
i don't know. but he's a joke. he's a nasty, mean spirited, little boy of a joke, but a joke none the less.
and if he thinks he can bully me around, he's also a stupid joke.
women are getting tired of this and adam should realize his act is tired and old.
if he has something to say, he can blog on at his site. now granted, no 1 will ever see it, but he does have his own site.
he's just a hateful little thing. kat compared him to a little sharpie barking and growling until a medium size dog came along, then adam runs off, tail between legs - the largest thing ever hanging between those legs probably - whimpering.
adam appears to think that he's going to p.r. his hate speech into a career.
oh adam, you are so very laughable. and this time, you didn't have to drop your pants before the laughs started!
attack me all you want adam. i won't cower. i won't even blink. i will laugh at you.
you and your little dick don't impress me.
somewhere, someone told you that when you didn't get your way, the answer was to scream and yell. that doesn't let you get your way. it just makes you a screamer with a little dick.
as readers who can comprehend (and my normal readers can) know, i don't take this shit from you guys (and why is it allways the guys?). i don't play it.
i'm no damsel in distress, little adam. plan your attack strategy. i don't give a shit.
declare war all you want. as kat pointed out in her piece, nixon had to bomb cambodia to get it up. apparently you have to beat up on female bloggers.
i don't do 'high road' so adam is going to be even more frustrated than he normally is on a friday night.
unless his thing is a 'ball buster special.' some guys are actually into it. usually they can't be honest with their wives so they go to a prostitute or sex worker, but they really seem to get off on it.
one hand down his pee-stained fruit of the looms, the other at the keyboard, imagine the damage he could do! why he might ... piss himself?
i don't know what he thinks i'm going to cower.
but it's past time that these men who think they can scream abuse at women got called on it.
and, as one female blogger told me on the phone today, 'rebecca, you are our cat woman!' you know it.
trash me on your site, adam. maybe someone looking for information on a cartoon character will accidentally stumble across your site? if so, they'll learn about the woman who didn't back down to you. who won't back down to you.
adam thinks he knows everything. don't men like that always think that? i'm told by shirley (who's never been to his site either but heard this from c.i. who heard it from ron - getting the idea that he's about as popular as a show airing on the pax network?) that he has an issue he works on but his 'work' doesn't compare with krista's on the same subject. see, even passionate, adam peters out.
ain't that the way, ladies? the biggest mouths are always the most disappointing in the sack. i know i've blogged on that before but it bears repeating.
adam, keep e-mailing. i can always use a good chuckle.
and when you dream about me tonight, and you will, remember it's only in your dreams.
in real life, not only would i not sleep with you, i'd throw a drink in your face.
now adam probably would see that as a sign that he was 'in.' you know how those guys are. ladies, you feel me on this?
adam, i'm so above anything you're even qualified to dream about.
i made the mistake of telling my ex about it. i thought he'd find it funny. he didn't. he offered to kick your ass. i told him you weren't worth it and that your nasty little e-mail full of anger and rage didn't effect me in the least. but keep writing. maybe you'll manage to get it up and cross the line? if so, my ex is 6ft 3 inches. how big are you, little one?
no, not there. we all know you've got an inch and half there. we all know your mind is blown and your mouth drooling as you picture my ex. 'over 6 feet! he must be hung!' penis envy is such a sad trait especially from little boys who fancy themselves the blog equivalent of a cute little cartoon.
i wonder if he has the cartoon character on his p.j.s?
sexual analysis: adam is the little boy who couldn't score throughout high school and was overly keen and friendly in the locker room. ron, don't drop the soap!
sexual analysis: adam is frustrated. he questions his own manhood. he knows he comes up short so he bullies women and, when not doing that, wonders if just maybe he should consider being with men but lacks the guts to.
if adam continues to e-mail, i'll offer a more detailed analysis. i can do that. these are my opinions, adam. now go to your blog and write for yourself (because you're probably the only 1 reading it) what you think of me. i don't shy from controversy, adam.
give me all the publicity you can muster (which won't be much because boys like you can't muster much).
but he'll need time to compose his reply because my guess is that on some level he was looking for a ball buster special. he was looking to be called on his actions and put in his place. mommy issues. on the 1 hand, he can't deal with women due to mommy, on the other, he still wants a woman to play mommy and let the little boy feel safe and diapered.
now adam will probably feel i have said awful things about him.
i can do that. i can offer my opinions on any thing i want. he brought it on himself by e-mailing me and trying to intimidate me. keep writing adam, i'll keep commenting.
this actually goes to the theme i've been dealing with. abusive men who want to scream and yell and bully women. tonight we focused on little adam. he'll determine how often we continue to focus on him. and honestly, he probably loves the attention.
don't go to his site. not even to find out his response to me.
little boys always think a pissing match will get them attention. that was a concern 5 women bloggers had. that he was getting attention and his behaviors were attention seeking.
but see, i love all my fans. even the stupid 1s.
besides circulating his e-mail, i also printed it put it in the notebook i keep that i call 'stupid men who can't get it up.'
adam is a nothing. he's a nobody. he wants to ride a feud into fame. so readers, continue to avoid him. i won't call him a fucking liar only because i think he's stupid. he claims c.i. lied and i've read all of adam's e-mails to c.i. c.i. didn't lie. did adam? i think adam has a functional literacy problem.
that's why he thinks he said something that he never said.
i want to thank sherry who's encouraged me to share adam's e-mail. she's right that it is important that women see what he is really like. if he'd written me this months ago i could have shared it with c.i. and prevented c.i. from taking the high road.
as readers here know, i know c.i. we have a mutual friend. she's a psychologist. i passed adam's e-mail on to her and she told me that he was 'nuts.' that's the technical term? we both laughed.
'becky, he's seeing things that aren't written, he's like a sociopath.'
just my luck to get a nut job for a fan!
but we need to be nice to the nut jobs. they're one climb away from a clock tower at any given second.
any time you can get it up long enough to rage at me, adam, please do so because your e-mail is just too funny. we've all laughed about you today, every 1 i've shared the e-mail with. send more! please!
i won't always be able to read them because i do have a lot of readers who write (sorry, didn't mean to bring up a sore subject with you there, adam, honest, wasn't trying to put you into another size competition you could only lose). that's why i didn't read your e-mail until late in the morning.
except for elaine who thinks you're nuts (and is trained to recognize nuts) and my ex who really, really wants to kick your ass (don't wet yourself adam - too late? - i told him to leave you alone), the rest of us just registered shock at how stupid you were, how threatening you were and how sad you were. while laughing, granted. but women, and any man who's been next to you in a locker room, have no doubt been laughing at you for years.
so juke on your keyboard the next time little adam goes rigid (it does happen more than once a month, doesn't it? have you considered viagra?). and keep coming back to my site, you may learn something. even the stupidist man can learn something
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
