Haines His Way

Archives => Archive 3 => Topic started by: bk on February 20, 2005, 11:59:03 PM

Title: WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 20, 2005, 11:59:03 PM: Well, you've read the notes, you are not amused, or you are amused, and now it is time for you to post until the amused cows come home.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 12:02:53 AM: And the word of the day is: LOXODROMIC!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 12:07:29 AM: Not only do we have the dreaded rain, we've now got extreme high winds. Call me a paranoid, but something screwy is going on here.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: George on February 21, 2005, 12:12:08 AM: Well, BK, I hope you don't live in an area that floods. Some coworkers of mine live in an area where it floods just about every time it rains. One time my former supervisor and her husband had to help her mother fill and put sandbags around her mother's house because the water got that high!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 12:17:02 AM: Has Ann caught up?

No, it doesn't really flood where I am. As I said in yesterday's posts, I would not want to live in the canyon or in Malibu right about now.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Ann on February 21, 2005, 12:23:00 AM: I have caught up.
I hope the rain lets up at some point, bk. Weather reports say it should stick around through the middle of this week, sadly.
I can't right off think of any really dramatic weather I've lived through...give me a bit, I might come up with something.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 12:54:05 AM: Well, the rain and the WUSSBURGERS have done me in. All I can say is - LOXODROMIC!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Ann on February 21, 2005, 01:07:26 AM: No late night denziens tonight, I see. Pity. I have brought my laptop to bed with me, and I hope that the sounds of a Harry Potter audio book will lull me into an early sleep. The prospect of being awake for another two or three hours is an extremely boring one.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Ann on February 21, 2005, 01:08:35 AM: Loxodromic...well, at least I can pronounce it. I'd better go look it up, though, so I know what it means
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Ann on February 21, 2005, 01:14:49 AM: Well, dictionary.com told me to "see Rhumb Line" so I did, and it read as follows -

rhumb line
n.

The path of a ship that maintains a fixed compass direction, shown on a map as a line crossing all meridians at the same angle. Also called loxodrome.

clear as mud
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Hisaka on February 21, 2005, 02:29:40 AM: HAPPY BIRTHDAY DR MATTHEW!!!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: elmore3003 on February 21, 2005, 06:10:34 AM: Good morning, all! I finally found the missing magazines around 7:00 last night, so all is well with that. Unfortantely, there's more tidying to be done before I start work on new charts for Anna Bergman's next cruise, the two Mickey-Judy Show revisions, and the continuation of DARLING OF THE DAY.

[move=left,scroll,6,transparent,100%]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~GOOD HEALTH VIBES TO JOEY'S GRANDMOTHER!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[/move]

[move=left,scroll,6,transparent,100%]
;) :D ;D :) ;) :D ;D!!!HAPPY BIRTHDAY, DR MATTHEW!!! ;) :D ;D :) ;) :D ;D [/move]

We just had a lovely snowfall, and the streets are very quiet; I'm sure a lot of it is the holiday, but the snow is probably keeping several indoors. I have to run down to the recording office, look at a few scores and accomplish more than moving junk around the apartment.

The City was crazy this weekend as well with people coming in to see what Christo and Jean-Claude did to Central Park. B&N was a zoo on Saturday, and I think it was mostly tourists. Ron Raines told me last night the Upper West Side traffic was a mess. I don't drive, so what do I know?
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: DearReaderLaura on February 21, 2005, 06:35:36 AM: Happy Happy Birthday, DR Matthew!!! I hope you have a wonderful day filled with much cake, and we want pictures of said cake.

TOD: We were visiting my sister in Maine many years ago when Hurricane Bob blew through. That was exciting. We get monsoons every summer, which are exciting, with the booming thunder, cracking lightning, and walls of blowing dust.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: DearReaderLaura on February 21, 2005, 06:41:16 AM: I have your grandma and your whole family in my prayers, DR Joey.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Stuart on February 21, 2005, 07:03:28 AM: Quote from: DearReaderLaura on February 21, 2005, 06:35:36 AM
TOD: We were visiting my sister in Maine many years ago when Hurricane Bob blew through. That was exciting. We get monsoons every summer, which are exciting, with the booming thunder, cracking lightning, and walls of blowing dust.

TOD: I was also involved in Hurricane Bob. It was the Dear Partner's and my first vacation together, and we found a charming little apartment to rent for the week, right on Provincetown Harbor....

There are several issues that stem from the above italicized words:

First and foremost, imagine going through a hurricane, and subsequent blackout, with a bunch of queens who are in Provincetown to do little more than sun themselves and dance. (OK, they're there for other things too, but they don't require sun or electricity, though both can enhance the experience...)

Second, and secondmost, we were right on the beach. We knew the best way to NOT have the large glass doors at the end of the studio blow into shards and impale us to death meant leaving the doors open a crack. Well, that meant having sand blow in, instead. It was the first time I realized how much the Dear Partner likes to vacuum. (I said vacuum, not.....never mind) Ever try vacuuuming in a blackout?

Third and thirdmost, the ingenuity of a bored queen on vacation is not to be. believed. Literally the morning after the hurricane left the Cape were there T-shirts in some of the shops proclaiming "I Was Blown by Bob." Not just one, but piles of them.

Oh, and Happy Birthday DR Matthew.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Hisaka on February 21, 2005, 07:36:51 AM: DR MATTH mentioned that he would watch The Great Ziegfeld…And it tempted me to see it. The stage scene was the largest scale I’ve ever seen and the CURTAIN was the biggest one I’ve ever ever ever (…! that is tree evers) seen before in my life. Mr. Ziegfeld in the role was charming and I liked Luise Rainer, as Anna Held, who had her own special mood. Did you watch it as you mentioned, DR MATTH?
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Hisaka on February 21, 2005, 07:42:14 AM: Dixie is lovely always, DR TD.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Hisaka on February 21, 2005, 07:45:19 AM: DR JOSE: You know even how to fold a dinosaur and a peacock!? To my shame, I’ve never seen/heard them before and I know only a crane…. :-\
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Hisaka on February 21, 2005, 07:53:24 AM: Stopped the rain but cold, about 2 degrees Celsius.
How about in Los Angeles, California, USA?
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 08:00:11 AM: Yes, I did watch the whole thing in its two parts. The first half in the afternoon and the second half in the early evening.

"A Pretty Girl Is Like a Melody" number has been featured in THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT and is usually the clip you see when this movie is discussed, but all of the production numbers after it are just as gargantuan, and I think even more entertaining. My favorite number is "You."

I did some reading on the film this morning. It was $2 million in the making, and the rights were actually bought from Universal for $250,000 who had originally planned to film it but didn't have the resources during the Depression to bring it off lavishly enough. Billie Burke was originally scheduled to play herself in the Universal version, but MGM gave her a studio contract NOT to play herself in the film, and this is how Myrna Loy ended up as Billie Burke.

The staircase in "A Pretty Girl" was so tall that it couldn't fit inside any of MGM's soundstages, so a tent was constructed to film the number.

The reference book stated that Rainer's performance is the shortest Best Actress performance in the history of the Oscars. I would think Louise Fletcher's (in CUCKOO'S NEST) might rival it.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 08:00:28 AM: Well, I'm up, because the rain is still falling and I wanted to check on the leak potential problem in the kitchen. It's still between the wall and the paint, although a little hole had opened up, which I managed to fix last night. The wetness has traveled further down the wall, but no water is present, so that's good. I'll be able to call someone about it at ten.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Jennifer on February 21, 2005, 08:00:43 AM: Happy Birthday DR Matthew.

And good vibes to DR Joey's grandmother. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 08:01:45 AM: LOXODROMIC!

I liked it because it has the word LOX in it. I find it both a Jewish and an Irish word, don't you? Lox and O'dromic.

I'm glad Hisaka is here because no one else seems to be. Most unseemly.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Jennifer on February 21, 2005, 08:02:29 AM: Question re: last night's DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES.

I know John (the guy who came on to Gabrielle) was one of the gay guys in the pool. But who was the other? Was it Zach? Was it someone we don't know. I looked away for a second and now I am unsure.

Thanks.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 08:03:49 AM: The worst weather story I have involved coming back from Mexico City. We were flying into Miami, and there was a terrible storm going on. We circled the airport for three hours waiting for the storm to pass, and even at those heights, the ride was very rough and scary. Didn't make me afraid to fly, but I was glad not to get back on a plane for awhile. Thankfully, this came at the end of a trip that involved several flights.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 08:04:21 AM: It was Bree's son, Jennifer.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 08:05:02 AM: Happy Birthday to DR Matthew!!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 08:05:21 AM: I cannot believe the dearth of postings this morning. I like the birth of postings, not the dearth of postings, and I also like the mirth of postings and the worth of postings so let us do away with the dearth. Let's put the dearth in the earth and expand the girth of our postings.

After all that, all I can say is - LOXODROMIC!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 08:06:42 AM: Quote from: bk on February 21, 2005, 08:01:45 AM

I'm glad Hisaka is here because no one else seems to be. Most unseemly.

What am I, chopped liver?
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Jennifer on February 21, 2005, 08:07:22 AM: Well I watch American Idol (although I can't vote).

Anyhow you can see David's friend here:
http://www.idolonfox.com/contestants/

Judd definitely isn't one of the contestants that they focused on too much. But I do remember hearing him sing. He is up against some very tough competition in the men's section (Anthony, Anwar, Mario, Constantine).
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 08:07:29 AM: I keep having the nagging sensation that I'm supposed to do something today or this evening, but I can't find any notations anywhere, so I hope that the nagging sensation is incorrect. I've been trying to write everything down in my iCalendar, and I've been checking it every morning.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Jennifer on February 21, 2005, 08:08:11 AM: Quote from: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 08:04:21 AM
It was Bree's son, Jennifer.

OH MY GOSH! Thanks. Wow.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 08:09:33 AM: MattH, when I started posting there were only three of us on this here site.

But, since I like chopped liver, there is nothing wrong with you being chopped liver. Especially if it goes hand in hand with LOXODROMIC. Who will be the first person to use LOXODROMIC in a sentence?
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 08:09:40 AM: I agree. We haven't seen much of Judd at all. I had to look at the newspaper article the local paper ran with the 24 semifinalists to even know who he was, and I barely remember him. I think all of the men this year that I've heard from this group are more talented than ANY of the men in last year's group.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 08:10:28 AM: Holy moley on rye - page two!

How many of you will be watching American Idol tonight. Have any of you seen Judd?
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Hisaka on February 21, 2005, 08:11:00 AM: Sorry about the leaking problem... How come you have always that kind problems? Is it for your house or for the heavy rain?

How about your spanking new TV set? It must be good lookin
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 08:11:18 AM: We've got us a quorum on the forum.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 08:13:44 AM: I'll definitely be watching AI tonight AND voting as I have always done in past years. This is when one starts picking his favorites and develops a rooting interest.

And AI is being broadcast in high definition this year which makes it even more appealing to me.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Matthew on February 21, 2005, 08:13:59 AM: Thanks for all the birthday wishes. We are winding up our stay here in Anaheim and flying home this evening, however, we'll probably rowing home at this rate... and I'm SURE the flight plans will change with bad weather here and in San Jose. Thank you all, very much for your wishes :)
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 08:14:58 AM: There are two places on the roof that need repairing. They came out six weeks ago and did something temporary with plastic up there. It seems to be holding in the bedroom, but not the one in the rear area near the doors leading to the yard. They had five weeks of good weather to deal with this problem, and yet no one showed up until last week to actively start fixing the floor in the bedroom (which has warped floorboards because of the last leak). He said he wouldn't start on the floor until he had a roofing guy out to fix the roof. That, of course, didn't happen before the rain started, and we've had no break from it since. If they had attended to this properly there would be no problems right now. My guess is that it's going to cost them quite a bit more than it would have had they done things in a timely manner.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 08:15:43 AM: And might I just add - LOXODROMIC!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 08:17:11 AM: LOXODROMIC is, of course, CIMORDOXOL spelled backwards.

CIMORDOXOL - that sound like some kind of industrial-strength cleaning solution, doesn't it?
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 08:23:04 AM: I popped a STAR TREK episode into the DVD player from Season 3, so I geuss I'll watch that at some point today. Don't know which movie will be next on the agenda. Since there is no mail today, no chance of new DVDs to pick from. It'll have to come from the ones that are already sitting here waiting to be watched.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 08:28:04 AM: Yes, microdisplay TVs, like DLP models, give a different look to shows than CRTs. Colors seem to pop rather than look creamy or soft. You should also put in a black and white film, bk, to see what you think.

DLPs often get criticized for not providing deep, dark blacks, but I certainly couldn't say that was true about my friend's DLP that I helped calibrate. I thought the blacks were very deep and shadow detail was excellent.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 08:33:02 AM: I'm thinking about having an expert calibrate this - it looks really good doing the little tweaking I did, but I know there are more specific things to do that I don't know anything about.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 08:37:40 AM: Good Morning!

Well... The rain that started here last night has finally stopped, and the sun is peeking through the clouds. The temp is supposed to get up to the mid-60s too. Perhaps I shall go for a run this afternoon over at the University - which I definitely need to do after my less than ideal dietary habits this past weekend. -And my side/back is feeling better too.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 08:41:21 AM: BK et all - I hope the rain stops out there too sometime soon. The reports of the nickel-sized rain, flooding, sinkholes, etc., have been disheartening. And the report this morning of two deaths over the weekend as a result of the flooding...

~~~SAFE AND DRY VIBES~~~
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 08:41:44 AM: LOXODROMIC!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 08:42:13 AM: And where is that reclusive Marc Chapeaux everyone is talking about?
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 08:42:45 AM: I am completely out of Diet Coke, so I shall have to brave the rain at some point soon and go to Gelson's to stock up.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 08:47:22 AM: DR Joey - BEST VIBES to your grandmother, you and your family.

And I have to say that for someone so relatively young, you really do seem to have your priorities straight, and your head in the right place. The sense of discovery and wonder in your posts is very youthful, but at the same time your sense of love and devotion towards your family and friends is very "old". A trait that I don't see in people twice - or even three times your age.

Do you think you would still be able to make it to Indy to see MAMMA MIA? I understand if you can't, but it would be great to meet you while I'm in Indy.

Again, BEST VIBES!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 08:50:49 AM: Quote from: bk on February 21, 2005, 08:17:11 AM
LOXODROMIC is, of course, CIMORDOXOL spelled backwards.

CIMORDOXOL - that sound like some kind of industrial-strength cleaning solution, doesn't it?

....Or some pharmaceutical grade drug that has various and sundried side effects... And that will be recalled by the FDA sometime down the line..
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 08:52:11 AM: HAPPY BIRTHDAY DR MATTHEW!!!!

Safe travels to you today too.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 08:57:22 AM: Oh, and speaking of travel...

I found out - well, was asked - last week if I could add another week onto my MAMMA MIA! stint. And, as luck would have it, I can and will.

So, after closing JEWISH THIGHS in NYC on March 27, I shall be heading to Memphis, TN on the 28th for a week, then up to Indy for another week. I'm very excited about heading to Memphis since I was not able to head there earlier this month for the theatre conference I usually play for this time of year. Can you say "Barbecue"? I have a feeling I'll be living off of Rendezvous Ribs, and Corky's Pulled Pork for the week! -Oh, and a trip of two to the Cupboard for a good ole-fashioned "meat and three" meal or two.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 09:00:19 AM: Of course, the extra week of MAMMA MIA! means that I will have to get a LOT of stuff done here around the apartment this week. I head down to Greensboro next week for a few days, then up to NYC on the 7th... and then I won't have a chance to get back here until I'm back from Indy! Whew!

I see plenty of trash bags and boxes in my near, very near future.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 09:01:42 AM: DR Hisaka - I shall try to take a picture of some of my "folds". There is a sort of complicated "rose" I fold that is simply stunning.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 09:03:53 AM: Oohh....

Very sobering images right now on the Noon News from Southern California... -And another two inches of rain expected today - and two feet of snow in the mountains...

Again, SAFE AND DRY VIBES.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 09:04:56 AM: Ohh... The return engagement of I AM MY OWN FRENZY!

;D
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 09:05:55 AM: DR Jane - Hope you're continuing to feel better.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 09:06:48 AM: DR JMK and Family - I hope all of you are continuing to feel better too!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 09:08:05 AM: AH!!!!

PAGE THREE!!!!

Thank you. Thank you very much!

;)

*Of course, now I have Latka Gravas in my head. 8)
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 09:10:08 AM: Hmm...

BK watching "American Idol" on his new TV... Now that is certainly something I'd like to watch! Just imagine the audio/commentary!

But as least "AI" will be broadcast in Hi-Def, so...
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 09:13:12 AM: I don't have the HiDef receiver from Direct TV. Apparently we have not yet beat the all-time rain record here in LA. Apparently we have "only" had 32 inches of rain, and the record is 38, which happened in 1887 or something.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JMK on February 21, 2005, 09:13:18 AM: HAPPY BIRTHDAY MATTHEW (I'm sorry, but which Matthew is having a birthday? Don't we have two?).

Re: bad weather story. Didn't we do this recently? I seem to remember telling my travelling through the icestorm/blizzard story with 6 month old Gabe in the backseat.

DVD Confessional Moment: I'm pretty sure this has been mentioned here some time ago, but I am watching Exodus on DVD. I have never seen the movie all the way through. Now I seem to remember BK and others complaining about the transfer, but, another confession, I am really not the videophile that a lot of you seem to be, so I wasn't expecting to see much that would drive me crazy. WRONG!! I can't believe the artifacts and especially the moire patterns that are everywhere. I mean, it's OK to get moire patterns on car grilles and herringbone suits, but how in heck did they get moire patterns on foiliage? :)
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 09:16:21 AM: Well, the rain has stopped for now, but it might start up again later this afternoon. I think I'll take this opportunity to head out for my run.

Laters...
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 09:19:12 AM: OH!

And as for bad weather stories...

There was the blizzard in Connecticut when I was nine, but.. I was nine, so I enjoyed the four feet of snow.

The past couple of hurricanes that have hit Richmond have hit while I've been out of town. So...

Once again, laters...
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JMK on February 21, 2005, 09:20:35 AM: Weird Synchronicity Department: Betsy and I just watched Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas two days ago, and now in this morning's paper it's reported that Hunter S. Thompson committed suicide yesterday. There is a very interesting supplement on the second DVD that would probably be of interest to BK, Panni & Pogue regarding WGA arbitration. Gilliam and his co-screenwriter are quite funny in it. Evidently Gilliam resigned (or whatever one does) from the WGA after this particular brouhaha and refuses to rejoin.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 09:27:11 AM: The Exodus DVD is a joke and a bad one at that. We are not amused, as some queen said. The film was stunningly shot in 70mm. MGM/UA used their old laserdisc transfer, non-anamorphically enhanced for widescreen TVs and taken from a 35mm scope element which, of course, is the wrong aspect ratio for 70mm. I so wish Warners had this title or that they'll redo it someday. The sound is also awful. Shame on them for this travesty.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 09:27:25 AM: LOXODROMIC!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JMK on February 21, 2005, 09:32:54 AM: Yes, I noticed the sound was really spotty--it sounded like some of the looped stuff was from a whole different soundtrack. There are moments on the ship when Newman sounds like he's talking inside a small tin can and Saint sounds perfectly fine. Did the laserdisc have all the weird moire stuff going on, or is that just the DVD?
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 09:36:05 AM: Laser was the same - bad. Same transfer, same problems.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Ginny on February 21, 2005, 09:36:11 AM: Birthday greetings to DR Matthew!

DR Joey - best to your grandmother and the loving family she has surrounding her.

DR's Jane, Ann, and any others not feeling well - take care!

I have been somewhat E & T lately because I have been immersed in the Benjamin Kritzer trilogy. Actually, I read all three books this weekend and now understand much better some of what goes here on this board.

At DH Richard's 40th high school reunion last August, one of his classmates looked at me and said, "And who were YOU?" That question has haunted me ever since. Would that we all had the talent to write, as BK has, such an entertaining and thought-provoking answer.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Jrand73 on February 21, 2005, 09:54:40 AM: HAPPY BIRTHDAY DR MATTHEW!

Good vibes for DR JOEY'S grandmother.

I am all for team spirit, but I just cannot watch American Idol - it makes me too mad. And - there are 12 singers - they all sing for 1 1/2 minutes, that's 18 minutes. The show is one hour long.....and the other 42 minutes sans commercials - well I would rather watch paint dry. So good vibes to Judd (thanks for the link DRJENNIFER).
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Jrand73 on February 21, 2005, 09:55:35 AM: Calibrate your tv? We ARE the Jetsons now.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Jrand73 on February 21, 2005, 09:59:05 AM: Nice hurricane story, DRKERRY.

I think and Indiana tornado has been my worst weather experience. Deep snow is not too bad. Usually we just stay in and don't go anywhere.

But one Palm Sunday in the 1960's we were expecting storms and suddenly we realized it was getting serious. I was in the dining room and I was watching a LOT of stuff blow by horizontally! Then the BIG tree right outside the window bent over with the top touching the ground. We all headed for the basement.

Nothing was badly damaged....one outbuilding collapsed to the right - we used the boards to build bookcases later after is was torn down.

VERY SCARY. We were not amused.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Jennifer on February 21, 2005, 10:24:39 AM: DR Jose, did you ever tell us which of the 24 finalists is the one you know?

Btw, I'm actually glad I cannot vote (for American Idol). It is a bit frustrating to live just north of the border and watch all American tv, yet not be able to vote. But it's also a bit freeing in that I don't have to sit there like a loser pressing redial for my favorite (like i do when Canadian Idol is on).

DR Jrand, you're welcome for the link. It will be interesting to see how many of the performers we haven't seen much of do well (did that make sense?). I actually think that MANY already have their favorites.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Jrand73 on February 21, 2005, 10:31:36 AM: I think I will have a Sandra Dee movie night tonight.

DRMATTH the movie UNTIL THEY SAIL was on TCM a few weeks ago. I hadn't seen it. I liked it a lot - it moved VERY fast! All the women were very good and there were lots of guys I had never seen before in minor parts. And John Wilder was also in it!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Charles Pogue on February 21, 2005, 10:35:34 AM: Marc Chapeaux posted a very long post around twelve-thirty AM, but thanks to the torrent of wetness going on in LA, which seem to saturate the phone lines (and hence, the DSL lines) in parts of the Hills of the Wood of Holly, the internet cut off and the post was lost.

I don't know about these words of the day. They are getting more and more outre.

I have no real great weather stories. My favourite happened to a friend of mine, Larry Drake, who was snowed-bound for a weekend in a Dinner Theatre in Columbus, Ohio once with his cast and star, Ann Miller. He said after three days of that, he was about ready to "break" Ann Miller's hair.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 10:49:58 AM: AOL, once again, is being completely retarded. I've been writing all morning, and shall now take a brief break or, at the very least, a break brief.

I think a few OUTRE words of the day are nice. For example: LOXODROMIC! Plus, you know you'll be using that in your next script. I know I will.

I've alerted the proper people about the latest leak thing, and they will have someone come out today.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Sandra on February 21, 2005, 11:03:08 AM: Well, Dear Readers, I just took a History test and am now using one of the non-working computers so that I won't have to throw out my Cherry Coke to use one of the working ones they hide away in the library's second basement. The computer is on this high counter that usually has bar-stools at it. But the bar-stools are nowhere to be seen and I am sitting on my backpack on a chair. The counter is still too high, though, with the result that I can't reach my Cherry Coke. This is a major problem. I'm about chin-level with the keyboard's space bar, which is somehow askew, like a see-saw with one fat kid and one anorexic kid.

I don't know what was in that decongestant my mom gave me this morning, but I feel GREAT! I am reminded of the time my best friend Vespi (of Kudo-head fame) was sick and his mom gave him some cough syrup just before he left for school, only to find out it was actually Ny-Quil. He was having a GREAT time in first hour English class. Kudo-head got some major bling-bling that day. I don't think Vespi even made it to second hour Chemistry.

But for all my joviality, I think my History test suffered. It was an essay test, which I maintain was invented by the devil. It didn't help that I never got around to studying last night seeing as how I was trying to soak up Niagara Falls with a Kleenex and was coughing up the Eighth through Thirteenth Natural Wonders of the World all night. (Again, this decongestant has me feeling GREAT! I'm really tired, though.) I got through the test, although I'm not sure how. I'm sure it didn't get a very good grade, unless my teacher turns it in to the Creative Writing Department.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 11:07:28 AM: But did you use the word LOXODROMIC on your history test?
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 11:07:57 AM: That's quite an outre word, according to the lovely and dapper Marc Chapeaux.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Charles Pogue on February 21, 2005, 11:14:28 AM: JMK, I don't know what the flap was about WGA arbitration, but though a lot of people complain about it, no one yet has offered a better solution than the one now in place at the guild for determining credit.

Complaints usually stem from someone who thought they deserved credit, but didn't get it. I personally have felt that all arbitrations I have been involved with have been handled fairly.

Unfortunately, there is a contingent of powerful re-writers in the guild who are trying to make the credit arbitration rules easier for re-writers to get credit.

I have been in the forefront of the debate as one of those who is vociferiously opposed to this double-dealing. It's the rich and powerful of our guild (who already get the plum original assignments) feeding off the rest of the guild. They are like Edward G. Robinson in KEY LARGO. They want "More."

I think the primacy of the first writer should be embraced and it should be harder for anyone who comes after to get credit. We should be trying to move in a direction of "one writer, one script" (That's why directors have all the power, only one director).

A laundry-list proliferation of credited writers only re-inforces the idea that writers are as disposable as toilet paper, encourages producers and studios to cavalierly throw writers off scripts (and 9 times out of ten, the writer is not the problem...but the crap notes he is forced to execute), diminishes the work and contribution of writers, and encourages writers to savage their fellow writers by leaping over their battered carcasses to gleefully re-write them.

I think writers need to respect each other more and stop this pernicious practice of re-writing each other at the drop of a hat. I personally have only re-written if the job is a page one re-write where everything before is being thrown out and I'm starting over from scratch or with the original source material or if I have consulted the previous writer and gotten his blessing to re-write him. But truth be told, I've not re-written anyone in years. I hate chewing on someone else's cud.

I advocate that we could get rid of arbitration for credit altogether, if the first writer got sole credit and everyone else who comes on, comes on merely for the fee they can negotiate as an anonymous script doctor. (Wasn't this the practice for years on Broadway?) That way everyone goes into the process knowing full well the outcome and you don't have re-writers fixing stuff that isn't broke, just so they can write enough to get credit. They know going in the they're not going to get any credit or any back-end money.

And that's why writers try to get credit on a film. Credit is tied into backend revenues...cable and DVD monies. Disconnect credit from the back-end money and you'll suddenly see a lot of writers less interested in taking re-write jobs.

These radical ideas meet with howls of protest in some quarters in the Guild, but many are in favour of it. Unfortunately, with those who currently hold the slate of politics in the WGA, will not give this idea much of a chance to be voted on by membership.

Bottom line should be fewer writing credits on a film...not more. I think writers in the Guild who re-write their fellow writers without their permission are carrion-eaters, plain and simple.

As for the guy who left the guild over the writer credit...oh big deal! I suspect he took financial core and, if he did either that or resigned, it will not be his option to re-join, it will be the guild's decision whether he can come back in or not.

But this points up one of the the things I hate about these DVD extras. People can come on and tell bullshit stories with no proof to back up their claims. And almost always these yarns are making themselves look good. If people knew how much ego, hype, and outright lies fuel these extras, I think they'd watch them with a bit more of jaundiced eye.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Charles Pogue on February 21, 2005, 11:22:45 AM: JMK, for more of my thoughts on WGA credits and writers re-writing fellow writers go to:

http://www.wordplayer.com/pros/pro6.Pogue.Charles.Edward.html

Or just go to www.wordplayer.com and click on Indy Pros and then on my article.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Charles Pogue on February 21, 2005, 11:25:25 AM: I have no idea why the this site has abbreviated the address I just wrote but after /pro6. it should read Pogue.Charles.Edward.html
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: TCB on February 21, 2005, 11:27:02 AM: [move=left,scroll,6,transparent,100%]HAPPY BIRTHDAY, DR MATTHEW[/move]
[move=right,scroll,6,transparent,100%]GOOD VIBES FOR JOEY'S GRANDMOTHER[/move]

GOOD HEALTH, FINANCIAL, AND SUNSHINE VIBES TO EVERYONE ELSE!!!
[/b]
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Charles Pogue on February 21, 2005, 11:28:03 AM: And the Rains Came Yet Again...
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JMK on February 21, 2005, 11:29:46 AM: DR Pogue, the flap was indeed about a rewritten script but (at least from the Gilliam side of things, obviously he's the only side presented on the DVD), it went a bit deeper and had more to do with the fact that a separate production company was not set up once he came aboard (which evidently would have solved things immediately, since his was the only script after a new production team came aboard). Basically what happened is there had been 13 or 14 scripts by various writers culled from Thompson's work, and the producer (who took Gilliam's side) had "creative differences" with whomever the 14th script was by (which was the script that was greenlit with Depp and Del Toro attached), so that writer left the project. Then Gilliam was hired and completely rewrote the script, which was what was filmed. However (this again according to Gilliam) the 14th script's writers demanded sole writing credit (Gilliam was willing to share), and they, because they were the "first" script authors, got to claim "points" (as Gilliam states it) for things like locale and dialogue that came directly from Thompson's source. That was what drove Gilliam crazy--that they should get "extra credit," as it were, for things that were determined by the original book. Anyway, Gilliam and his co-writer actually won the arbitration, but it so bothered Gilliam that he left the Guild. He filmed an hilarious short during the arbitration that's included as an extra that he was thinking of including in the film as a brief prelude had he lost. It's a very funny Python-esque black and white PSA by a guy saying the film you're about to see is the first film ever produced without benefit of a screenplay.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: TCB on February 21, 2005, 11:31:06 AM: Quote from: Charles Pogue on February 21, 2005, 11:25:25 AM
I have no idea why the this site has abbreviated the address I just wrote but after /pro6. it should read Pogue.Charles.Edward.html

Hmm, sounds like this site has taken to doing uncredited
rewrites on your work, Mr. Pogue!

:D :D :D :D
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JMK on February 21, 2005, 11:32:40 AM: Long URLs always get abbreviated here--the links still work. :) For instance:

http://hometown.aol.com/jmkauffman/sheddinglight.html

All you never wanted to know about Frances Farmer.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JMK on February 21, 2005, 11:34:23 AM: I should add that something else that drove Gilliam nuts was that none of the first 13 writers wanted any WGA determined credit--only the 14th.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: TCB on February 21, 2005, 11:54:55 AM: Quote from: JMK on February 21, 2005, 11:32:40 AM
Long URLs always get abbreviated here--the links still work. :) For instance:

http://hometown.aol.com/jmkauffman/sheddinglight.html

All you never wanted to know about Frances Farmer.

Thanks for the link, DR JMK. BTW (By the way in internet lingo), did I ever tell you that I was the love child of Francis Farmer and Cecil B. DeMille?
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JMK on February 21, 2005, 11:59:42 AM: Quote from: TCB on February 21, 2005, 11:54:55 AM
Thanks for the link, DR JMK. BTW (By the way in internet lingo), did I ever tell you that I was the love child of Francis Farmer and Cecil B. DeMille?

I believe that honor actually belongs to the looney-tune photographer from NYC whose Bukowski-esque emails to me I quoted here some time ago. :) No joke--he is convinced he's Frances' illegitimate child. He sends me pictures of himself with the caption: "Notice any resemblance?" Should I be scared, very scared? ::)
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 12:07:04 PM: I'm in a new section of the book - always slow going, but I seem to be in the swing of it now.

I think I shall now have to go out, whilst the rain has slowed, to get my Diet Cokes and see if there are any packages for me.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: George on February 21, 2005, 12:10:56 PM: Let me just say, Happy Birthday DR Matthew!! (and thanks again for Jeeves!!)
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Jrand73 on February 21, 2005, 12:11:54 PM: TCM is now showing the pre-1948 Paramount product that was property of MCA/Universal. We may see some Frances on TCM sooner or later! In fact I think some of those movies used to start on TV with that great MCA logo with turning letters - and I always wondered what MCA stood for.

Music Corporation of America, I later found out. Before the internet there were LOTS of mysteries.

DR CP - I think your friend Mr Harlan Ellison has written extensively about his dealings with WGA.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JMK on February 21, 2005, 12:25:01 PM: It was my late friend Evelyn Hamilton (producer of Pillars of Portland) who personally persuaded Ted Turner to start broadcasting Flowing Gold probably about 20 years or so ago, after he had acquired the Warner library (she had told me she was going to see him in Atlanta, and I begged her to beg him to show the film--guess it worked!). And, yes, not sure how it happened, since MCA owns Universal, but they had tv broadcast rights to a lot of the Paramount films. All of the LA Film and TV Archive prints of Frances' films start with the MCA logo, then go to the Paramount logo. It was very interesting for me when going through the newspaper arichive site to see that Frances' films were a mainstay on late-night television from about 1960-65. Even Border Flight and Too Many Parents!

I'm getting ready to return my MGM/UA DVDs that I know I'll never watch again, so in honor of Sandra Dee I believe I will watch The Dunwich Horror today.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Charles Pogue on February 21, 2005, 12:42:37 PM: Harlan, like myself, has served on the board of the WGA. It's a tough job. Most people try to do their best, but sometimes things can get fractious and difficult.

Harlan is in my camp about the perils of condoning and encouraging any culture that promotes writers being thrown off of scripts willy-nilly and others writers feeding off their brother writers' misery.

I think what infuriates Harlan about the guild is the same thing that infuriates me about the guild...the level of timidity and cowardice in the general membership and their mentality of victimhood. They're like that character in Li'l Abner with the perennial cloud over his head.

Worse, they want to whine about their ills, but they want to do nothing about standing up for themselves and drawing a line in the sand and make the necessary sacrifices you sometimes have to make to achieve something of real value.

I just can't believe that whenever there is talk of a possible strike you have writers whining: "But what if we're on strike for six months? How will I pay my rent? How will I put my kid through college?" I want to tell these people: "It's a little late to being worrying about that, for God's sake. You chose to be in the Arts! You could be out of work for six months and it have nothig to do with a strike...It could just be the vagaries of the business. How would you pay the rent then or put the kid through college? You'd go out and get a real job or do whatever you had to do to meet your obligations."

But there is this mentality that they want the leadership to get them everything in the world, but they aren't willing to sacrifice for it. The mentality of something for nothing.

What they don't understand is if they don't eventually get some backbone and stand up and fight occasionally, they won't have any kind of work that will sustain them over a career anyway. People didn't understand when SAG went on strike over commercials that those people were fighting for a livelihood. If they hadn't drawn their line in the sand, no actor would've have been able to make his living doing commercials again.

A lot of union members have gotten even more intimidated in this union-busting climate that we're now in. I was delighted to read the other day in Equity news that Equity would not let an actress who had left the union to go work in a non-union production of Miss Saigon back in the union when she suddenly got an offer to do a union production. She said that she only quit the union because it was too hard to get work as a union actor. Equity, God bless them, told her, well too bad. There are plenty of union members who have a tough time getting union employment but they don't betray their union and fellow union members by undermining the union to take non-union work. The woman apparently show absolutely no remorse and felt she should be able to cross back and forth over the union lines whenever it was convenient for her. Unfortunately, union membership has responsibilities and obligations that come with its privileges,which she chose to ignore and so she is now paying the price. Bravo, Equity!

JMK, by the very virtue of the fact that there had been fourteen writers on a script tells me that the problems with that movie wasn't the writing. If you've got fourteen writers on anything, you're not developing a script, you're just guessing and don't have a clue.

Nor is it unusual for the last writer on the project to claim that he wrote the draft that got the movie made. I've heard this story so many times before...most of the time it is simply sour grapes bullshit when they don't get credit. These things are more complicated than that.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 12:52:01 PM: Quote from: bk on February 21, 2005, 08:33:02 AM
I'm thinking about having an expert calibrate this - it looks really good doing the little tweaking I did, but I know there are more specific things to do that I don't know anything about.

Yes, there are hidden service menus that we mere mortals are not allowed access to but qualified technicians can tap into and do much finer tuning than lay people are allowed to do. I've never really understood why this is so, but it is.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 12:58:41 PM: I have the EXODUS laserdisc and could never get all the way through it the quality was so poor. When I read that the DVD was taken from the same limited master, I skipped on it.

I would like to see it again some day, but not unless someone gets their hands on a decent print of it. I saw it at the theater all those many decades ago, and it made me cry it was so touching and is quite a stirring film. But when you can barely stand to watch the TV screen because everything looks smeared and out of focus - forget it!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 01:01:48 PM: With twelve singers to get through tonight, I suspect their songs won't last more than a minute each. I wonder if they'll do the background pieces on each contestant as they've done in years past? Hard to squeexe all of this in for sixty minutes.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 01:02:53 PM: We've finally gotten a break in our rain. But we have more in the forecast for tomorrow. Still, even at its worst, the rain has not been heavy at all, just constant from early this morning until just about 30 minutes ago.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 01:04:45 PM: Still catching up on the films of 2003. I have COLD MOUNTAIN set to record tomorrow morning at 4 a.m. off one of the STARZ! channels. Still haven't gotten 21 GRAMS yet. It hasn't come back around in the last week.

As for the films of 2004, my friend Hal loaned me his DVD of THE VILLAGE, so at some point this week, I'll be watching that, too.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 01:07:03 PM: Good Afternoon!

Whew!

I drove over to the beautiful University of Richmond campus, and took a run on the track of their Fred Hardy Track and Field complex. I wasn't sure exactly what the distance for one lap was, but I figured four laps would equal about one mile. -There were lots of meter markings, but I couldn't remember my metric conversions.

I did 12 laps! Whew! It was another case of mind over perceived fatigue. After the first couple of laps, I stopped looking at my watch each time I pushed the lap button. I wanted to surprise myself with my average lap times. Well, when I looked down expecting to see that I only had two laps left... I had three laps left! Grrrrrr! So, I pushed through, and even pushed a little harder during the last lap. It felt great to actually do the 12 laps. And I even did my push-ups and crunches on the astro-turf infield! - very comfortable.

Once I got home, I started looking up the track info on the UR website just to see how long the track was. Well, the basic info page said it was 40m(eters). So, I pulled up a metric conversion website, entered 380m and came up with only 3/10 of a mile or so. WHAT?!?!?!?!

So, I Googled for more information on the track. On the UR Athletics website, it said the track was 400m(eters). Amazing the difference a zero makes! So, after entering 3800 meters into the conversion table.... Just under 3 miles! YEAH!

And I have to say the Spenko insoles I bought last week truly made all the difference in the world! I may go ahead an invest in another pair for my cross-trainers so I don't have to switch them out. They also have some cheaper-priced insoles for work shoes, and I may get a set for my loafers.

And running on a track was also nice too. It's been a while since I've run on a track, and I had forgotten how comfortable it is. I like the Vita-Course track in Byrd Park, but, as I found out after reading on the web, the generally uneven surface can cause back and leg muscle issues for some people. Ah! -Which is why I decided to run on a track today. My back feels fine, and the very slight pain in my side was just the usual runner's cramp/stitch.

And that's my fitness report for today!

*And, yes, I'm posting publicly about my progress and activity. The "publicity" is helping to keep me "honest" and keep me going. Ah, the things we do for motivation.

;)
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 01:18:59 PM: OK... I think I'm gonna go ahead and tackle the kitchen floor. -I made a stop at the grocery store on the way back from my run, and even bought some ammonia. And since it's not too cold outside, I can keep the kitchen screen door open.

-Otherwise, I could end up feeling like I've just taken some cold medicine.

;)
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 01:34:54 PM: Lovely postings today. No packages, but then I really wasn't expecting to see any show up via UPS or Fed Ex. I should have lots of things showing up this week, including two nice amazon orders, which will hopefully be here by Wednesday at the latest.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 01:36:50 PM: I really loathe days when the mail isn't delivered. The day seems to drag, and there is NEVER anything to anticipate. E-mail helps, of course, but I really look forward to that six-day-a-week mail delivery.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: MBarnum on February 21, 2005, 01:43:45 PM: JRand54, did you get the Ann Sothern PRIVATE SECRETARY DVD? I have been watching the episodes over the last few days and they are a lot of fun! I love, love, love Ann Tyrell...she just makes the show! I wonder what ever happened to her...I have never seen her on anything else, but she is wonderful character actress.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Kerry on February 21, 2005, 01:45:38 PM: Bruce, a LOT of queens say, "We are not amused." You are right, however, in recalling that Queen Victoria said it first. Well, it's attributed to her anyway.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MATTHEW!!!!!!!!

One of the more horrifying weather stories (other than August of every year in Phoenix) was driving home from work at night through 20 miles of flooded streets and farmland-- in a VW Karman Ghia yet. I had no brakes by the time I got home, and there was as much water in the car as there was outside the car. However, it was worth the risk because I wanted to get home to my dog. AND the rains were getting worse, so I wanted to get stuck at home and not someplace else. There were trucks and even buses stalled everywhere, but my little car made it through- maybe because the water more or less flowed THROUGH my car. OY!!! And yet, I'd probably do the same thing today to be with my dog and to be home.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 01:56:05 PM: I've written a bit more - I ended up discarding in its entirety the route I'd gone this morning - decided it didn't feel right, and went directly to the next section I'd planned, which I now know was exactly the right choice. Funny when that happens.

LOXODROMIC!

Speaking of LOXODROMIC, we've had a good hour-and-a-half of dryness. We need a lot more, but the skies in this neck of the woods are still pretty gray. In other places, the blue sky is peeking out.

I think I'm going to rustle up some grub now.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Charles Pogue on February 21, 2005, 02:02:44 PM: We are now getting hail here in the Hills of the Wood of Holly. Now no more hail. Just a torrent of wetness.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 02:15:11 PM: Is that the dashing and dapper Marc Chapeaux?

I'm praying we're done her for a few more hours, rain-wise.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: S. Woody White on February 21, 2005, 02:39:06 PM: Quote from: Stuart on February 21, 2005, 07:03:28 AM
...First and foremost, imagine going through a hurricane, and subsequent blackout, with a bunch of queens who are in Provincetown to do little more than sun themselves and dance. (OK, they're there for other things too, but they don't require sun or electricity, though both can enhance the experience...)...
Solar-powered cattle prods? WAY too kinky, thank you very much!!!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: S. Woody White on February 21, 2005, 02:48:35 PM: Quote from: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 08:04:21 AM
It was Bree's son, Jennifer.
Bree has a son named Jennifer???

::)
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: S. Woody White on February 21, 2005, 02:57:58 PM: Quote from: bk on February 21, 2005, 08:17:11 AM
LOXODROMIC is, of course, CIMORDOXOL spelled backwards.

CIMORDOXOL - that sound like some kind of industrial-strength cleaning solution, doesn't it?
It sounds more pharmaceutical. "Ask your doctor to see if Cimordoxol is right for you."

I'm not even going to speculate on the side effects.

_____

Never mind, Jose already did this joke. Like minds, and all that. ;D
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: S. Woody White on February 21, 2005, 03:02:03 PM: Quote from: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 09:10:08 AM
...at least "AI" will be broadcast in Hi-Def, so...
Shouldn't that be Hi-Deaf? :P
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 03:21:02 PM: Had some chicken, mushrooms and onions, sauteed up by me and put in two buritto-size tortillas with a touch of sour cream. Quite yummilicious and VERY low in calories. I'm now seated and I'm sated. Yes, you heard it here, dear readers, I am seated and sated, not necessarily in that order.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 03:21:40 PM: We had some sprinkles a few minutes ago, otherwise it's still dryish, and the sun even made an appearance for about twelve seconds.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: S. Woody White on February 21, 2005, 03:51:57 PM: Getting back to origami, you can find all sorts of dinosaurs here. (http://www.paperfolding.com/dinosaurs/)

And there's lots more origami to be found here. (http://www.origami.com/)

And if you really want to throw your money around, you can find some great ideas here. (http://members.cox.net/crandall11/money/)

That should keep everyone busy if they don't have solar-powered cattle prods. ;D
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: S. Woody White on February 21, 2005, 04:03:02 PM: Meanwhile, I think our esteemed BK should consider himself lucky. Or maybe...

Earlier today, whilst der Brucer kicked me off the computer before I had caught up with all the posting hither and yon (which is why I was so late with posting for the day), Fletcher decided I was exactly who he wanted to take him for a walk. This means, of course, for a run.

What Fletcher had forgotten to tell me was that it was raining. Not heavily, nothing like Los Angeles has been seeing, but wet all the same.

Fletcher had a wonderful time, running as fast as my legs could go, trying to get me to go even faster. We ran down the street to the cul-de-sac, beyond which is nothing but marshlands. We ran back up the street to the corner where a singlewide trailerhouse used to stand before a car whipped around the corner too fast and wiped out both trailer and car. And we ran back to our own house.

Half-way through this last run, Fletcher suddenly stopped, looked at me with a smile on his face, and licked my hand. To truly appreciate rain, you have to have a dog who thinks the stuff is grand.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Michael on February 21, 2005, 04:11:54 PM: My cabaret night:

Tonight is Christine Ebersole and Billy Stricth
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: S. Woody White on February 21, 2005, 04:33:44 PM: Der Brucer sends his sympathies to all weathering the Los Angeles storms. Our house in Long Beach had a leaky roof, one which got worse and worse as the years went by. And repairs are a bitch.

Speaking of which...

My mother (no, the bitch was NOT my mother, how dare you!!!) never really liked driving in bad weather, although through the years she had managed to get my sister (yeah, her, SHE'S the...) and myself to school and back when the streets of Burbank were flooded. But this story takes place years later, when she and Dad had moved to Gold Rush country up in the Sierra Nevadas.

It was Christmas, the one holiday when the family would try to gather together. I had arranged to take the train up to Modesto, my driving days already long behind me, and my Dad was going to pick me up and drive us the rest of the way to the homestead. However, my sister (the you-know-what) was driving in from Oklahoma, where she was teaching, and managed to flip her car over, totalling her vehicle while remaining unscathed. It was up to Dad to drive to Arizona, where the flip had taken place. This meant that Mom would be picking me up in Modesto instead of Dad.

Well, it started to rain sometime during that trainride. It was coming down in torrants. It was also coming down heavily in Modesto, which is quite a ways north of Torrance, but that's ... sorry, got distracted there. Mom was waiting for me at the train station, and we quickly loaded my suitcases and the presents I was bringing into the car.

By this time, it was getting late, and of course there was no moonlight, couldn't have been with the cloud cover without which we wouldn't have had the rain. Mom stuck it out, managing the winding roads but taking it slowly. We couldn't see more than twenty feet ahead of the car at times. This turned out to be a good thing, because right as we went around this one bend in the road, she had to stop real quick!!!

There, in the middle of the road in the middle of the storm, stood a cow. A bovine. One of those things from which we get milk and hamburger.

Mom and I just sat there, stunned. The cow looked at us, not sure of what to do. Eventually, we both started laughing (Mom and I, not the cow; this was in California, not France (http://www.frencheese.co.uk/glossary/cheese.cfm/cheeseID/73)), and the cow finally decided to move out of our way.

We finally made it to the homestead, without any further incident. Dad and my sister arrived the next day, and it was Christmas like most any other. My sister took me aside once more, to tell me quite firmly that I should never discuss my being gay with Mom or Dad because they would reject me, and Mom and Dad spent the rest of my visit wondering why I was so silent about talking about my life in SoCal. Which should suggest why I call my sister...well, never mind.

And that's my terrible weather story.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JMK on February 21, 2005, 04:34:39 PM: Shoot Me Now Department: MGM is re-releasing Come and Get It on DVD next week. I shudder to think how they could possibly screw this one up (already out on a great DVD, but with some errors on Frances' bio which I'm sure will be repeated), but I bet if anyone can do it, they can.

http://www.mgm.com/title_title.do?title_star=COMEANDG
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Kerry on February 21, 2005, 04:58:39 PM: Alright.......LOXODROMIC!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 05:02:42 PM: I have just spent a whopping one hour on the phone, first with Adelphia and then with Apple. All having to do with my wireless base station. I've been blaming Adelphia for these problems, but it appears, after much testing with Apple, that the real culprit may be my wireless phone, which is 2.5gh. Apparently, that frequency can occasionally block wireless devices and prevent the wireless card from seeing the network. So, the recommendation is that I get a new wireless phone that is 900gh, which is a completely different broadcast frequency. That I shall do right now, as soon as the Men of the Roof are finished.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 05:11:26 PM: Good Evening!

The kitchen floor is clean!! Amazing what some ammonia, warm water and a mop can do! The wonder of surfactants!

After cleaning the floor, I got myself cleaned up, and took a short walk just to get some air and to stretch my legs out. Unfortunately, I decided to wear a newish pair of shoes with a too-thick-ish pair of socks. So, now I have little rubbed spot on my right heel. Ah, well...

Once I got home, I got dinner started. Indian tonight. Chicken Tikka Masala. It's stewing away in the oven right now. Smells soooo good!

And now I'm watching "American Idol"... Hmmm....
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 05:15:31 PM: Quote from: bk on February 21, 2005, 05:02:42 PM
I have just spent a whopping one hour on the phone, first with Adelphia and then with Apple. All having to do with my wireless base station. I've been blaming Adelphia for these problems, but it appears, after much testing with Apple, that the real culprit may be my wireless phone, which is 2.5gh. Apparently, that frequency can occasionally block wireless devices and prevent the wireless card from seeing the network. So, the recommendation is that I get a new wireless phone that is 900gh, which is a completely different broadcast frequency. That I shall do right now, as soon as the Men of the Roof are finished.

Yep, a 2.5gh phone can cause issues. -Although, AOL has even been a little weird on my end the past few days - and I think it has more to do with AOL's "preference" for Windows over Apple/Mac.

At least 900mh phones are an older standard, so they're not as expensive as they used to be.

Happy shopping.

Are you using an Apple Airport Base Station? Or some other wireless base? Maybe you just need to go All Apple, All the Time.

;)
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 05:25:06 PM: Well, if it makes the SoCal-ers feel better, it's raining here in Richmond now.

:-\
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 05:26:06 PM: Ohhh... Just took dinner out of the oven...

;D!!!!!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Jane on February 21, 2005, 05:51:25 PM: Matthew HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

and easy traveling.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: MBarnum on February 21, 2005, 05:52:08 PM: BK, which season's of PARTRIDGE FAMILY were you in? Season #1 is being released on DVD in May.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 05:54:19 PM: I'm using the Apple Airport Extreme base, so that's as good as you can get. And this prob was not AOL or Adelphia - the cable modem simply could not "see" the wireless router because of the phone interference. I actually just purchased a 5.8gh phone - the store assured me that that is a completely different frequency than the 2.4 and that the wireless device only uses the 2.4 frequency, which is why they probably came up with the 5.8 version.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: MBarnum on February 21, 2005, 05:54:35 PM: ...and THE DORIS DAY SHOW season #1 in June...there just might be oodles of BK to see this year!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 05:55:03 PM: However, my Studio City store didn't have it in stock, so, if I can get up the energy, I must travel to the Dale of Glen in a little while to pick it up.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 05:56:23 PM: Well, "American Idol" is just about to end here on the East coast... It's gonna be an interesting show Wednesday night.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Jane on February 21, 2005, 06:00:33 PM: Joey, Good vibes to get you through this difficult time. You and your family are in my thoughts.

Jose thank you. I knew I was improving when I could read your food reports again. ;D Now I’m reading for some of your white chocolate cheese cake-well, almost ready.

Ginny thanks.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 06:00:44 PM: Oh, DR Jennifer - at least I think it was DR Jennifer who asked...

I've worked with Vonzel Soloman before. She was (is?) a relatively quiet girl, but when she opened her mouth to sing, she was truly not quiet. And then there were those times when she REALLY opened her mouth to sing, and WOW!!!! I wish her well.

-Actually, after watching tonight's round, I also realized that I know Judd Harris. I've played many an audition for him. And I also remember the big guy who got cut last week - the one who was so in shock that he couldn't get out of the chair. He's been a Nicely-Nicely candidate more than once.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 06:03:08 PM: Quote from: Jane on February 21, 2005, 06:00:33 PM
Jose thank you. I knew I was improving when I could read your food reports again. ;D Now I’m reading for some of your white chocolate cheese cake-well, almost ready.

You're welcome, Jane. Although I'm not sure I understand your last sentence. ;)
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 06:04:59 PM: OOHH!!!

The Food Network is now doing a segment on that Cream Puff place in New York.... I guess I know where I'll be eating in two weeks!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Jane on February 21, 2005, 06:06:54 PM: Sandra I hope you did better on the test than you think. Get well quickly vibes!

TCB I like the vibes you sent today. :)
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 06:08:19 PM: Well, I guess I'm going to the Dale of Glen shortly. Keep the home fries burning until my returning.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Jane on February 21, 2005, 06:14:45 PM: Jose, last time someone mentioned your cheesecak I was too sick to even read about it, let alone eat any.

JMK we have Matthew and Matt H.

I spoke to my friends in the Hills of Woodland today. They said the record rainfall in L.A. is 38 inches. So far they are only up to 33 inches.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: S. Woody White on February 21, 2005, 06:24:55 PM: Quote from: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 06:04:59 PM
OOHH!!!

The Food Network is now doing a segment on that Cream Puff place in New York.... I guess I know where I'll be eating in two weeks!
TCB, take it away!!!

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 06:25:17 PM: Oh, and my dinner tasted as good as it smelled! Even better! I accompanied the Chicken Tikka Masala with brown rice and steamed broccoli - I needed something green to go with all the brown, orange and red.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 06:30:57 PM: Quote from: Jane on February 21, 2005, 06:14:45 PM
Jose, last time someone mentioned your cheesecak I was too sick to even read about it, let alone eat any.

Well, you mix up 2 pounds of cream cheese, 4 eggs, 1/2 cup of heavy cream, a tablespoon of flour, 1 cup of sugar (or more to taste) and 1/2 pound of white chocolate (chopped fine and melted)...

;)
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 06:49:34 PM: Hmmm.... OK, now that I'm alone...

;D
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Jane on February 21, 2005, 06:58:34 PM: Sorry Jose, I had dishes to wash.

Oh, I'm not sure I'm ready for the cheesecake yet. ;D One day though. :D
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Jane on February 21, 2005, 06:59:16 PM: Goodnight.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Jrand73 on February 21, 2005, 07:16:11 PM: Hmmmmmmm.....lots of weather posts. Glad I am inside.

YES DRMBARNUM I have been watching PRIVATE SECRETARY - I liked her show better when she worked at the hotel rather than for a talent agent, but this one is pretty good. Ann Tyrell is good as Olive!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Jennifer on February 21, 2005, 07:22:21 PM: American Idol was just okay tonight. I guess I was expecting more.

DON'T READ THIS IF YOU'RE STILL GONNA WATCH AND DON'T WANT TO SEE COMMENTS FIRST.

My favorite performance was Anwar.

I think it is clear that the favorite guys will probably be Mario, Anwar, Constantine and then Anthony.

I think David's friend Judd Harris will probably make it through on Wednesday. The judges comments greatly influence the votes. Which is why I think David, Travis, and guy #11.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 07:35:33 PM: As I said earlier, the record 38" was in 1887 or something. We're running a close second, though, and it ain't over until the fat lady sings. I just got back from the Dale of Glen. I picked up my new phone and it is now charging for six hours. It even says right on the box, this frequency will not interfere with wireless Internet devices. Hoo and ray. Another annoying problem solved.

It was pouring in the Bank of Bur both coming and going, whilst it is only sprinkling here in the City of Studio.

If I like this phone, then tomorrow I shall go buy another unit to have in another room. They're not too expensive, the extra phone units and that way I won't have to run from room to room.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 08:05:48 PM: Quote from: S. Woody White on February 21, 2005, 02:48:35 PM
Bree has a son named Jennifer???

::)

That would be a strange name, but it is a strange show.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Michael on February 21, 2005, 08:09:15 PM: The Bruce Kimmel Partridge Family Episodes

The following are the episodes which Bruce Kimmel appeared on. He played a different role on each of the episodes
Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Partridge (This was from season two and episode 32 and it originally aired on October 29, 1971)

This episode was written by William S. Bickley and directed by Mel Swope. Bob Claver was the executive producer. Bruce Kimmel played the role of Freddy on this episode.

When Keith decides to be the "man of the house" and takes his job too seriously his siblings rebel and come to him with every possible problem.

The Partridge Papers. (This was from season two and episode 47 and it originally aired March 3, 1972)

(The title of the episode is a spoof on the book and film The Valachi Papers)

This episode was written by William S. Bickley and directed by Jerry London. Bob Claver was the executive producer. Bruce Kimmel played the role of Marvin on this episode.

Marvin the editor of the school newspaper accidentally gets hold of Laurie's diary. Gordon Jump later of Soap and WKRP in Cincinnati also appears as a policeman in this episode.

You're Only Young Twice (This was from season three and episode 55 and it originally aired on October 22, 1972)

(The title of the episode is a spoof on the James Bond book and film You Only Live Twice)

The Episode was written by Susan Silver and directed by Lee Phillips. Bob Claver was the executive producer. Bruce Kimmel played the role of Richard on this episode.

Danny wants to be an adult, and according to Psychologist Dr. Beecher, Shirley allows him to become one with all the responsibilities that come with it. Danny gets bored and decides he wants to be a kid again. Charlotte Rae (Different Strokes and The Facts of Life) played Dr. Beecher

Me and My Shadow (This was from season there and episode 74 and it originally aired on March 30, 1973)

The title of the episode is taken from the well known song "Me and My Shadow" co-written by Billy Rose. It was how he felt about being married to Fanny Brice

The Episode was written by Dale McRaven and directed by Jerry London. Bob Claver was the executive producer. Bruce Kimmel played the role of Delbert on this episode.

The plot of this show had been used many time in movies and television shows. Perhaps the most famous was the Most Dangerous Game. In this episode mystery writing Michelangelo Rezo will donate $25,000 to the Partridges favorite charity if they could evade being found by them.

The Last of Howard (This was from season four and episode 81 and it originally aired on October 27, 1973)

The title of this episode is a spoof on the all-star film The Last of Sheila written by composer Stephen Sondheim and actor Anthony Perkins. Sheila is the name of the boat where the action partially takes place.

The Episode was written by Dale McRaven and directed by Richard Kinnon, Bob Claver was the executive producer. Bruce Kimmel played the role of Howard on this episode.

The family are on a cruise ship where they are performing. Laurie meets Howard who is an heir to a large fortune. He gives her an expensive bracelet. Keith and Danny think it's stolen and that Howard is a jewel thief. They set out to prove it.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Michael on February 21, 2005, 08:10:50 PM: The Doris Day Show question

Young Love

Episode 80 (Aired March 15th 1971)

Doris' young niece pays a middle-of-the-night visit to seek her advice on how to patch up her marriage, which is crumbling because her college-student husband can't stand the thought of becoming a father

Guest Stars: Meredith Baxter, Bruce Kimmel, Michael Burns, Brenda Sykes, Bobby Griffin, Abbi Henderson, Alex Hentleoff

Written by Bob Sand, Directed by Reza Badiyi

Unused pilot for spinoff series starring Meredith Baxter

There is also a version of the show that Doris Day doesn't appear in.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Michael on February 21, 2005, 08:13:51 PM: As for my concert going:

Billy Stritch was there, but Christine Ebersole wasn't Karen Mason took her place.

Billy is a great piano player and an okay singer, but he was at his best when he was dueting with Karen at the end of the show.

Karen was wonderful as usual.

An audience member did how complimented me on my performance tonight. He thought I was Billy Stritch.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 08:16:01 PM: I thought Anwar was one of the worst tonight. "Moon River" never sounded so butchered.

The judges are very strange. Often, they are right on the money - saying that Bo outsang Constantine (the two rockers) but that Constantine has more charisma. Absolutely right.

Then, they overpriase Anwar and Mario to the point of lunacy. (Randy did say he wasn't sure about the start of "Moon River," and he was right; it began very, very badly; improved some by the end, but as a whole, I found it very lacking.)

My favorites were Anthony and Joseph. I thought Judd did very well and chose a song ("Travelin' Man") to "hide" his theatrical leanings since Simon in particular is known to blast guys for being "too Broadway."

All of the guys are talented; much more so than any of last year's male finalists, but I found Nikko and Mario to have almost identical voices; how on earth to pick between them?

Scott reminded me of Ruben. A lumbering, uncharismatic presence with no connection to the audience. No chance. I think he'll be eliminated on Wednesday. I thought Travis had the worst vocals of the night.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Michael on February 21, 2005, 08:17:29 PM: Don't forget if you have a question about what Bruce has done, just go over to www.brucekimmel.com (http://www.brucekimmel.com)
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 08:18:44 PM: One thing that irritates the crap out of me is the judges' condemnation of ballads as "safe songs." Do they have any idea how much vocal control it takes to sing a ballad effectively? There's NOTHING safe about it.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: MBarnum on February 21, 2005, 08:19:06 PM: Thanks for the info Michael Shayne! I guess we will have to await season's 2, 3 and 4!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 08:21:23 PM: One more AMERICAN IDOL comment. I think they must have expanded their phone lines this year. I had no trouble connecting to any of the guys I voted for during the course of two hours, and then, just to see if anyone's number was busy, I dialed everyone's number once. Not one line was busy.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 08:22:54 PM: Thanks, DR Jose, for the info on the big guy who got eliminated on AI last week (as a Nicely-Nicely auditionee). I really liked his voice and was sorry he didn't get a chance to sing tonight. I think I would have preferred him to several that I heard this evening.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 08:24:40 PM: DR MBarnum - How was your "Jose day" yesterday? Get all your cleaning done?
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 08:24:40 PM: Also enjoyed MEDIUM tonight. Amazing how they are able to work the psychic gift into the story. But, aren't they going to run out of family to have this gift at some point?
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Charles Pogue on February 21, 2005, 08:26:49 PM: Only BK would gripe about the horrors of the rain all day, but then go out in a downpour to buy a new phone.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 08:30:55 PM: Has AI aired on the West Coast yet?

;)

The one nice thing about having 12 singers tonight was that it limited the time for the judge's comments. Of course, that may have been a bad thing too.

;)

As for the over-praise of some contestants... We've discussed this before, but what comes through the TV and what happens in the studio are totally different experiences. I think it would neat to see a performer from one angle, one viewpoint the whole time - as if sitting in a seat in the audience. All the cutting away and camera to camera work just dilutes the performances - at least the "whole" performance. I know some people who've seen the show live, and they were amazed at the sonic difference between the live, in studio performances and the broadcasts.

However, some of the judge's comments did bewilder me at times. -Of course, they're no longer "judges" at this point in the game, so....
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 08:32:12 PM: ...And I'm just wondering what the ratings will be like for Fox this week.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 08:33:00 PM: OH!

DR Stuart - Great "bad weather" story!

;D
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: S. Woody White on February 21, 2005, 08:57:27 PM: Quote from: Matt H. on February 21, 2005, 08:24:40 PM
Also enjoyed MEDIUM tonight. Amazing how they are able to work the psychic gift into the story. But, aren't they going to run out of family to have this gift at some point?
Well, after a while Jessica Fletcher ran out of relatives, but the show kept right on going for years.

;)
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: George on February 21, 2005, 09:10:33 PM: I watched the last two performers on "American Idol" tonight (I was switching back and forth between "Whose Line Is It Anyway?," "Extreme Makover: Home Edition: How'd They Do That?" and "Antiques Roadshow." Anyway, I went to the A.I. website and saw the other contestants. I didn't see him perform tonight, but Constantine was the actor who played Roger in the tour of Rent that last year came to the Washington Center here in Olympia! They had two performances and a few of us working with the wardrobe people got to chat with the actors quite a bit and he was very friendly.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: S. Woody White on February 21, 2005, 09:12:42 PM: Chris Rock is talking with Jay Leno on the Tonight Show.

Y'know, for an adult male, his voice is still cracking like he's going through puberty or something.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 09:18:44 PM: Shayne - I don't think I ever played a character named "Delbert" on the Partridge Family. I'd have to check my old scripts. The episode is correct, but not the name.

It's not Richard "Kinnon" it's Richard Kinon, whom I adored.

And Reza Badiyi did not direct the Doris Day show spinoff and/or pilot - it was directed by Norman Tokar.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 09:20:37 PM: Phone will be charging until one, and then I can use it. As it is, I unplugged even that normal base phone with the 2.4gh, just in case. So, if anyone is trying to call me this evening, they ain't gettin' through until one.

I'm watching the DVD of the original Japanese version of Shall We Dance. I could watch this film once a week.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 09:22:38 PM: LOXODROMIC! An outre word, according to the dapper and dashing Marc Chapeaux.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 09:23:04 PM: What am I, doing a monologue all of a sudden?
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 09:23:24 PM: Or for those who prefer it - a monolog
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 09:24:06 PM: Of course, a monolog is merely one log. I prefer several logs, don't you. A multilog, as it were.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 09:24:26 PM: I no longer have a clew as to what the HELL I'm going on about.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 09:24:41 PM: Of course, that's never stopped me before.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 09:25:00 PM: I got a million of 'em. I can keep this up all night.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 09:25:47 PM: I see quite a few people, and yet the only posts are coming from me. What, as they say, is wrong with this picture?
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: TCB on February 21, 2005, 09:29:42 PM: Quote from: George on February 21, 2005, 09:10:33 PM
I watched the last two performers on "American Idol" tonight (I was switching back and forth between "Whose Line Is It Anyway?," "Extreme Makover: Home Edition: How'd They Do That?" and "Antiques Roadshow." Anyway, I went to the A.I. website and saw the other contestants. I didn't see him perform tonight, but Constantine was the actor who played Roger in the tour of Rent that last year came to the Washington Center here in Olympia! They had two performances and a few of us working with the wardrobe people got to chat with the actors quite a bit and he was very friendly.

How friendly, George??
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: TCB on February 21, 2005, 09:44:56 PM: Well, just so I would know what everyone was talking about, I watched the entire episode of AMERICAN IDOL tonight. I have honestly spent better evenings watching karaoke up the street at the Ruston Inn, than the hour I spent watching the twelve male finalists on AI. I thought there were some talent in the contest, but a lot of the numbers were pretty bland. I liked Anwar, Constantine, and Joseph the best.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: TCB on February 21, 2005, 09:48:43 PM: Quote from: Jennifer on February 21, 2005, 07:22:21 PM
American Idol was just okay tonight. I guess I was expecting more.

DON'T READ THIS IF YOU'RE STILL GONNA WATCH AND DON'T WANT TO SEE COMMENTS FIRST.

My favorite performance was Anwar.

I think it is clear that the favorite guys will probably be Mario, Anwar, Constantine and then Anthony.

I think David's friend Judd Harris will probably make it through on Wednesday. The judges comments greatly influence the votes. Which is why I think David, Travis, and guy #11.

Jennifer, I kept waiting for you to finish that last sentence (or did I miss it?).
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Tomovoz on February 21, 2005, 10:06:42 PM: Quote from: TCB on February 21, 2005, 09:44:56 PM
Well, just so I would know what everyone was talking about.
Lesson learned. I don't bother with the Oz version either. Not who is good and talented but who can you market!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 10:27:15 PM: Must stop eating trail mix.. Must stop... eating... tra..il.. mix...

:-X
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 10:39:49 PM: Why are evenings so damnably slow around here?
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 10:40:16 PM: I'm tellin' ya, it's enough to make a fella LOXODROMIC.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: JoseSPiano on February 21, 2005, 11:21:18 PM: Quote from: bk on February 21, 2005, 10:40:16 PM
I'm tellin' ya, it's enough to make a fella LOXODROMIC.

Well, maybe you need to take some CIMORDOXOL.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 11:34:28 PM: I need womthing when there are NO STINKING POST FOR AN HOUR! Don't make me mad, now, I'm tellin' you.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 11:35:11 PM: I slave over hot notes for an hour and this is my reward?
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 11:35:33 PM: Mother of mercy, is this the end of Rico?
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 11:36:27 PM: I only want to know why the five people who were on before made no attempt to post. I want to know before I get out the bitch-slap machine and use it in a way I've never used it before.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 11:41:47 PM: Has the cat got the tongue of Oz?
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 11:42:36 PM: If I don't see some postings I may have to eat some herring.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: S. Woody White on February 21, 2005, 11:44:33 PM: Herring? What is it, ...
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 11:45:38 PM: Of course, eating herring would be daring, especially this late at night. Of course, it doesn't matter if I'm daring and eating herring because no one is here caring. The caring, of course, has some bearing on whether I'm daring and eating herring. Of course, my temper is flaring that no one is caring that I'm daring eating herring.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 11:46:13 PM: Finally, someone came out of the woodwork and did some good work.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: S. Woody White on February 21, 2005, 11:46:26 PM: There's a bean bag chair here in the study, which Fletcher has appropriated as his special place. He's been snoring, and occasionally dreaming with the quiet woofs and foot twitches that go with that state. He's so adorable. If only he'd stop farting at times like these.

:P
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 11:46:29 PM: What am I, Ogden Nash all of a sudden?
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Ann on February 21, 2005, 11:46:41 PM: Quote from: bk on February 21, 2005, 10:40:16 PM
I'm tellin' ya, it's enough to make a fella LOXODROMIC.

I don't think a fella CAN be Loxodromic...
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 11:46:45 PM: Did Ogden Nash drive a Rambler?
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 11:47:10 PM: Ann is here. Ann has caught up.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: S. Woody White on February 21, 2005, 11:47:26 PM: I'll post a dinner report later. Right now, I need to get some fresh air. !!!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 11:47:56 PM: And Tom of Oz, as is his wont lately, just sits there like so much fish.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: S. Woody White on February 21, 2005, 11:48:02 PM: Quote from: bk on February 21, 2005, 11:46:45 PM
Did Ogden Nash drive a Rambler?
He probably appreciated a Rambler's lines.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 11:48:20 PM: Well, I'm not sitting here like so much fish. I'm dancing the Pachanga, baby!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 11:53:39 PM: All Quiet on the Western and Eastern Front.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 11:55:46 PM: I'm dancing the Pachanga, baby!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: Ann on February 21, 2005, 11:55:53 PM: I wonder if fish can do the Pachanga
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 11:57:22 PM: Ask Tom of Oz.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: George on February 21, 2005, 11:57:25 PM: At work tomorrow, the American Cancer Society Relay-For-Life team that I'm on is having our every-other-weekly bake sale. I made mini-cheesecakes and I have cherry pie filling and blueberry pie filling for topping. That's what I was doing the last hour...plus watching "Medium," then "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" and then "Distraction."
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 11:57:35 PM: And one for Mahler.
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: bk on February 21, 2005, 11:57:53 PM: Well, page eight by a nose!
Title: Re:WE ARE NOT AMUSED
Post by: George on February 21, 2005, 11:58:39 PM: Has anyone ever watched "Distraction?" It's a different kind of game show. ;)