🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 22, 10:06 pm, Hugh Jass <h.jass...@gmail.invalid> wrote:

> Does anybody know what it might be that is making sweeps less relevant? Are
> they simply trying to kill Grimm? Could CBS even be trying to kill CSI:NY?

17 eps as a season, it's days are numbered.

In article <kg9bnk$3p2$1@news.mixmin.net>,
 Hugh Jass <h.jass809@gmail.invalid> wrote:

> I don't know what's replacing Nielsen ratings as the primary way network
> shows' revenue is determined, but clearly something has, as the networks
> clearly do not give a shit about viewership during sweeps periods anymore.
> 
> Witness tonight's "lineup", if I may use that term loosely. CSI:NY is a
> rerun, smack dab in the middle of sweeps. One of the top shows on TV. A
> rerun. Even a couple of years ago they wouldn't have dared.

It's not a rerun. In fact, it's the season finale. There's been 
discussion of this in the thread about Hill Harper moving to "Covert 
Affairs", as his contract with CSI:NY is up and he's not renewing it.

> 
> And then there's the continuing absence of Grimm on NBC. It disappeared for
> Christmas ... and never came back. Rumor has it it has *not* been canceled,
> but week after week goes by and no Grimm. Not even a rerun. If this streak

Rumor has always been that it would come back in late March. Is your 
calendar broken?

Bye Seamus....

-- 
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA

On Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:00:08 -0500, Barry Margolin wrote:

> In article <kg9bnk$3p2$1@news.mixmin.net>,
>  Hugh Jass <h.jass809@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> I don't know what's replacing Nielsen ratings as the primary way network
>> shows' revenue is determined, but clearly something has, as the networks
>> clearly do not give a shit about viewership during sweeps periods anymore.
>> 
>> Witness tonight's "lineup", if I may use that term loosely. CSI:NY is a
>> rerun, smack dab in the middle of sweeps. One of the top shows on TV. A
>> rerun. Even a couple of years ago they wouldn't have dared.
> 
> It's not a rerun.

Plot synopsis in the guide said "In the Season 9 finale ...", though it's
the middle of February, and went on to sound very familiar.

And I caught the ending. Mac proposed to Christine. Didn't I see them
celebrating their anniversary with a rooftop dinner a couple of episodes or
so ago?

> In fact, it's the season finale.

It's February, not May, and it's a long-running veteran show, not some
rookie show that might conceivably have failed to get its back nine.

> There's been discussion of this in the thread about Hill Harper
> moving to "Covert Affairs", as his contract with CSI:NY is up
> and he's not renewing it.

I don't read the celebrity-gossip threads, as they don't interest me.

Wouldn't a contract have been "up" at a season boundary, such as the end of
May?

>> And then there's the continuing absence of Grimm on NBC. It disappeared for
>> Christmas ... and never came back. Rumor has it it has *not* been canceled,
>> but week after week goes by and no Grimm. Not even a rerun. If this streak
> 
> Rumor has always been that it would come back in late March. Is your 
> calendar broken?
> 
> Bye Seamus....

I don't see an answer in your post to this:

>> Does anybody know what it might be that is making sweeps less relevant? Are
>> they simply trying to kill Grimm? Could CBS even be trying to kill CSI:NY?

And I'm not Seamus.

In article <barmar-948DB1.00000823022013@news.eternal-september.org>,
 Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:

> Rumor has always been that it would come back in late March. Is your 
> calendar broken?

I saw a Grimm ad. Early March.  I quit watching it because I got so sick 
of Juliet's selective amnesia and fixation on Nick's boss, and according 
to the ad, it continues, so I don't intend to watch.

-- 
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist

erilar sent the following on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:58:14 -0600:
> In article <barmar-948DB1.00000823022013@news.eternal-september.org>,
>  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> > Rumor has always been that it would come back in late March. Is your 
> > calendar broken?
> 
> I saw a Grimm ad. Early March.  I quit watching it because I got so sick 
> of Juliet's selective amnesia and fixation on Nick's boss, and according 
> to the ad, it continues, so I don't intend to watch.

Yeah, the Juliet storyline is admittedly beyond the tedious stage, but
there's so much other good stuff with this show that I'm willing to suck
it up on that front. But hopefully they'll wrap up that silliness in the
second half of season two. There have already been indications that
she's snapping out of it, IIRC.

-- 
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Good evening. I'm a lizard woman from the dawn of time, and this is my wife." -- Madame Vastra, DOCTOR WHO

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:43:17 -0600, Jim G.
<jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>erilar sent the following on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:58:14 -0600:
>> In article <barmar-948DB1.00000823022013@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> > Rumor has always been that it would come back in late March. Is your 
>> > calendar broken?
>> 
>> I saw a Grimm ad. Early March.  I quit watching it because I got so sick 
>> of Juliet's selective amnesia and fixation on Nick's boss, and according 
>> to the ad, it continues, so I don't intend to watch.
>
>Yeah, the Juliet storyline is admittedly beyond the tedious stage, but
>there's so much other good stuff with this show that I'm willing to suck
>it up on that front. But hopefully they'll wrap up that silliness in the
>second half of season two. There have already been indications that
>she's snapping out of it, IIRC.

Yes, I feel certain they will wrap up that storyline soon.
Unfortunately we will have to deal with the infatuation that Juliet
and Nick's boss are still feeling for each other. Hopefully that won't
take too long since it seems that the facts behind it are coming out.

shawn sent the following on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:56:54 -0500:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:43:17 -0600, Jim G.
> <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >erilar sent the following on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:58:14 -0600:
> >> In article <barmar-948DB1.00000823022013@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >>  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Rumor has always been that it would come back in late March. Is your 
> >> > calendar broken?
> >> 
> >> I saw a Grimm ad. Early March.  I quit watching it because I got so sick 
> >> of Juliet's selective amnesia and fixation on Nick's boss, and according 
> >> to the ad, it continues, so I don't intend to watch.
> >
> >Yeah, the Juliet storyline is admittedly beyond the tedious stage, but
> >there's so much other good stuff with this show that I'm willing to suck
> >it up on that front. But hopefully they'll wrap up that silliness in the
> >second half of season two. There have already been indications that
> >she's snapping out of it, IIRC.
> 
> Yes, I feel certain they will wrap up that storyline soon.
> Unfortunately we will have to deal with the infatuation that Juliet
> and Nick's boss are still feeling for each other. Hopefully that won't
> take too long since it seems that the facts behind it are coming out.

You think that the infatuation will remain after Juliet snaps out of the
spell? For a viewer like me who hates the soapy stuff, that would really
suck. And Nick probably wouldn't like it, either.

-- 
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Good evening. I'm a lizard woman from the dawn of time, and this is my wife." -- Madame Vastra, DOCTOR WHO

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:54:48 -0600, Jim G.
<jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>shawn sent the following on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:56:54 -0500:
>> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:43:17 -0600, Jim G.
>> <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> >erilar sent the following on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:58:14 -0600:
>> >> In article <barmar-948DB1.00000823022013@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> >>  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> > Rumor has always been that it would come back in late March. Is your 
>> >> > calendar broken?
>> >> 
>> >> I saw a Grimm ad. Early March.  I quit watching it because I got so sick 
>> >> of Juliet's selective amnesia and fixation on Nick's boss, and according 
>> >> to the ad, it continues, so I don't intend to watch.
>> >
>> >Yeah, the Juliet storyline is admittedly beyond the tedious stage, but
>> >there's so much other good stuff with this show that I'm willing to suck
>> >it up on that front. But hopefully they'll wrap up that silliness in the
>> >second half of season two. There have already been indications that
>> >she's snapping out of it, IIRC.
>> 
>> Yes, I feel certain they will wrap up that storyline soon.
>> Unfortunately we will have to deal with the infatuation that Juliet
>> and Nick's boss are still feeling for each other. Hopefully that won't
>> take too long since it seems that the facts behind it are coming out.
>
>You think that the infatuation will remain after Juliet snaps out of the
>spell? For a viewer like me who hates the soapy stuff, that would really
>suck. And Nick probably wouldn't like it, either.

No, I just meant that we will have to deal with that infatuation for a
few more episodes before she snaps out of the spell. After that
happens I expect all we will get is awkward silence if the two meet
but no more than that.

shawn sent the following on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:43:03 -0500:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:54:48 -0600, Jim G.
> <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >shawn sent the following on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:56:54 -0500:
> >> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:43:17 -0600, Jim G.
> >> <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >erilar sent the following on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:58:14 -0600:
> >> >> In article <barmar-948DB1.00000823022013@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >> >>  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> > Rumor has always been that it would come back in late March. Is your 
> >> >> > calendar broken?
> >> >> 
> >> >> I saw a Grimm ad. Early March.  I quit watching it because I got so sick 
> >> >> of Juliet's selective amnesia and fixation on Nick's boss, and according 
> >> >> to the ad, it continues, so I don't intend to watch.
> >> >
> >> >Yeah, the Juliet storyline is admittedly beyond the tedious stage, but
> >> >there's so much other good stuff with this show that I'm willing to suck
> >> >it up on that front. But hopefully they'll wrap up that silliness in the
> >> >second half of season two. There have already been indications that
> >> >she's snapping out of it, IIRC.
> >> 
> >> Yes, I feel certain they will wrap up that storyline soon.
> >> Unfortunately we will have to deal with the infatuation that Juliet
> >> and Nick's boss are still feeling for each other. Hopefully that won't
> >> take too long since it seems that the facts behind it are coming out.
> >
> >You think that the infatuation will remain after Juliet snaps out of the
> >spell? For a viewer like me who hates the soapy stuff, that would really
> >suck. And Nick probably wouldn't like it, either.
> 
> No, I just meant that we will have to deal with that infatuation for a
> few more episodes before she snaps out of the spell. After that
> happens I expect all we will get is awkward silence if the two meet
> but no more than that.

And hopefully the writers won't spend episode after episode with Nick
and Juliet "exploring" their feelings for each other in the aftermath,
or whatnot. Get 'em back together quickly. Break 'em up quickly. I don't
care either way. Just be done with it and move on to the non-soapy
stuff. Ideally, I'd like to see Juliet in on the secret once and for
all, whether she's still with Nick or not. The current three musketeers
need a female touch, after all.

-- 
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Good evening. I'm a lizard woman from the dawn of time, and this is my wife." -- Madame Vastra, DOCTOR WHO

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:21:52 -0600, Jim G.
<jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>shawn sent the following on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:43:03 -0500:
>> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:54:48 -0600, Jim G.
>> <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> >shawn sent the following on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:56:54 -0500:
>> >> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:43:17 -0600, Jim G.
>> >> <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >erilar sent the following on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:58:14 -0600:
>> >> >> In article <barmar-948DB1.00000823022013@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> >> >>  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> > Rumor has always been that it would come back in late March. Is your 
>> >> >> > calendar broken?
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> I saw a Grimm ad. Early March.  I quit watching it because I got so sick 
>> >> >> of Juliet's selective amnesia and fixation on Nick's boss, and according 
>> >> >> to the ad, it continues, so I don't intend to watch.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yeah, the Juliet storyline is admittedly beyond the tedious stage, but
>> >> >there's so much other good stuff with this show that I'm willing to suck
>> >> >it up on that front. But hopefully they'll wrap up that silliness in the
>> >> >second half of season two. There have already been indications that
>> >> >she's snapping out of it, IIRC.
>> >> 
>> >> Yes, I feel certain they will wrap up that storyline soon.
>> >> Unfortunately we will have to deal with the infatuation that Juliet
>> >> and Nick's boss are still feeling for each other. Hopefully that won't
>> >> take too long since it seems that the facts behind it are coming out.
>> >
>> >You think that the infatuation will remain after Juliet snaps out of the
>> >spell? For a viewer like me who hates the soapy stuff, that would really
>> >suck. And Nick probably wouldn't like it, either.
>> 
>> No, I just meant that we will have to deal with that infatuation for a
>> few more episodes before she snaps out of the spell. After that
>> happens I expect all we will get is awkward silence if the two meet
>> but no more than that.
>
>And hopefully the writers won't spend episode after episode with Nick
>and Juliet "exploring" their feelings for each other in the aftermath,
>or whatnot. Get 'em back together quickly. Break 'em up quickly. I don't
>care either way. Just be done with it and move on to the non-soapy
>stuff. Ideally, I'd like to see Juliet in on the secret once and for
>all, whether she's still with Nick or not. The current three musketeers
>need a female touch, after all.

I'll be shocked if they don't bring Juliet in on the secret by the end
of the season. I suspect they will keep her and Nick together but
either way I expect her to be brought in on the secret before long.
Heck, even this sudden infatuation with Nick's boss should be raising
questions in her mind.  I do agree that whatever they are going to do
they need to do quickly. This isn't the sort of show that works as a
soap opera.

> care either way. Just be done with it and move on to the non-soapy
> stuff. Ideally, I'd like to see Juliet in on the secret once and for
I have seen far too many potentially good TV series ruined when the 
producers started adding too much "soap" and not enough hard drama or 
action (Jericho being one example I can think of)

shawn sent the following on Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:16:18 -0500:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:21:52 -0600, Jim G.
> <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >shawn sent the following on Wed, 27 Feb 2013 18:43:03 -0500:
> >> On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 14:54:48 -0600, Jim G.
> >> <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >shawn sent the following on Mon, 25 Feb 2013 16:56:54 -0500:
> >> >> On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:43:17 -0600, Jim G.
> >> >> <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> 
> >> >> >erilar sent the following on Sat, 23 Feb 2013 12:58:14 -0600:
> >> >> >> In article <barmar-948DB1.00000823022013@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >> >> >>  Barry Margolin <barmar@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> > Rumor has always been that it would come back in late March. Is your 
> >> >> >> > calendar broken?
> >> >> >> 
> >> >> >> I saw a Grimm ad. Early March.  I quit watching it because I got so sick 
> >> >> >> of Juliet's selective amnesia and fixation on Nick's boss, and according 
> >> >> >> to the ad, it continues, so I don't intend to watch.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Yeah, the Juliet storyline is admittedly beyond the tedious stage, but
> >> >> >there's so much other good stuff with this show that I'm willing to suck
> >> >> >it up on that front. But hopefully they'll wrap up that silliness in the
> >> >> >second half of season two. There have already been indications that
> >> >> >she's snapping out of it, IIRC.
> >> >> 
> >> >> Yes, I feel certain they will wrap up that storyline soon.
> >> >> Unfortunately we will have to deal with the infatuation that Juliet
> >> >> and Nick's boss are still feeling for each other. Hopefully that won't
> >> >> take too long since it seems that the facts behind it are coming out.
> >> >
> >> >You think that the infatuation will remain after Juliet snaps out of the
> >> >spell? For a viewer like me who hates the soapy stuff, that would really
> >> >suck. And Nick probably wouldn't like it, either.
> >> 
> >> No, I just meant that we will have to deal with that infatuation for a
> >> few more episodes before she snaps out of the spell. After that
> >> happens I expect all we will get is awkward silence if the two meet
> >> but no more than that.
> >
> >And hopefully the writers won't spend episode after episode with Nick
> >and Juliet "exploring" their feelings for each other in the aftermath,
> >or whatnot. Get 'em back together quickly. Break 'em up quickly. I don't
> >care either way. Just be done with it and move on to the non-soapy
> >stuff. Ideally, I'd like to see Juliet in on the secret once and for
> >all, whether she's still with Nick or not. The current three musketeers
> >need a female touch, after all.
> 
> I'll be shocked if they don't bring Juliet in on the secret by the end
> of the season.

I hope that you're right.

> I suspect they will keep her and Nick together

I agree. But then again, this *is* NBC, and if they think that the soapy
stuff will keep the non-skiffy fans coming back...

> but
> either way I expect her to be brought in on the secret before long.

Again, I hope that you're right.

> Heck, even this sudden infatuation with Nick's boss should be raising
> questions in her mind.

Yeah, she's not stupid, and now that she's got *most* of her faculties
back, she should be busy processing things...

> I do agree that whatever they are going to do
> they need to do quickly. This isn't the sort of show that works as a
> soap opera.

Amen. And I can only hope that someone is beating this point into the
NBC suited pinheads on a daily basis.

-- 
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Good evening. I'm a lizard woman from the dawn of time, and this is my wife." -- Madame Vastra, DOCTOR WHO

Jonathan Wilson sent the following on Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:05:12 +0800:
> > care either way. Just be done with it and move on to the non-soapy
> > stuff. Ideally, I'd like to see Juliet in on the secret once and for
> I have seen far too many potentially good TV series ruined when the 
> producers started adding too much "soap" and not enough hard drama or 
> action (Jericho being one example I can think of)

Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
bad.

-- 
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Good evening. I'm a lizard woman from the dawn of time, and this is my wife." -- Madame Vastra, DOCTOR WHO

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:33:24 -0600, Jim G.
<jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>Jonathan Wilson sent the following on Fri, 01 Mar 2013 10:05:12 +0800:
>> > care either way. Just be done with it and move on to the non-soapy
>> > stuff. Ideally, I'd like to see Juliet in on the secret once and for
>> I have seen far too many potentially good TV series ruined when the 
>> producers started adding too much "soap" and not enough hard drama or 
>> action (Jericho being one example I can think of)
>
>Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
>string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
>common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
>bad.

See "Revolution" as an example. 

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:33:24 -0600, Jim G.
<jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
>string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
>common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
>bad.

	Yes indeed..  It's like tissues in a woman's bra.  Always a
disappointment for the straight man who thought he was going to be
getting more than a handful...

-- 
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
   _( (_ , '_  *   .               Merrick Baldelli
  (((\ \>  /_1   `                 
  (\\\\ \_/ / 
-=-\       /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    \    _/  You can't spell 'disgust' without
    /   /    'SGU' - Anim8rFSK 

In article <fommj8ph0cpmecghhsktqj0j83efjmmkbd@4ax.com>,
 Merrick Baldelli <mbaldelli@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 14:33:24 -0600, Jim G.
> <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
> >string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
> >common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
> >bad.
> 
> 	Yes indeed..  It's like tissues in a woman's bra.  Always a
> disappointment for the straight man who thought he was going to be
> getting more than a handful...

>-- 
>-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>   _( (_ , '_  *   .               Merrick Baldelli
>  (((\ \>  /_1   `                 
>  (\\\\ \_/ / 
>-=-\       /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>    \    _/  You can't spell 'disgust' without
>    /   /    'SGU' - Anim8rFSK 

Merrick!  Yay!  :)

-- 
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

Merrick Baldelli <mbaldelli@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Jim G. <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:

>>Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
>>string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
>>common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
>>bad.

>Yes indeed..  It's like tissues in a woman's bra.  Always a
>disappointment for the straight man who thought he was going to be
>getting more than a handful...

Animal House!

In article <khh774$ofj$1@news.albasani.net>,
 "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> Merrick Baldelli <mbaldelli@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Jim G. <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> 
> >>Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
> >>string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
> >>common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
> >>bad.
> 
> >Yes indeed..  It's like tissues in a woman's bra.  Always a
> >disappointment for the straight man who thought he was going to be
> >getting more than a handful...
> 
> Animal House!

I'm only 13 ...

-- 
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 06:10:59 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>In article <khh774$ofj$1@news.albasani.net>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> Merrick Baldelli <mbaldelli@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Jim G. <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>> >>Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
>> >>string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
>> >>common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
>> >>bad.
>> 
>> >Yes indeed..  It's like tissues in a woman's bra.  Always a
>> >disappointment for the straight man who thought he was going to be
>> >getting more than a handful...
>> 
>> Animal House!
>
>I'm only 13 ...

Then don't look at this:
http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/summer-glau/videos/24670683/title/summer-glau-fhm-photoshoot-video

In article <0c5pj8hl6vdnqbo8lt683vmvlt5h7aqvm6@4ax.com>,
 shawn <nanoflower@gNOTmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 06:10:59 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> wrote:
> 
> >In article <khh774$ofj$1@news.albasani.net>,
> > "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Merrick Baldelli <mbaldelli@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >Jim G. <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >>Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
> >> >>string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
> >> >>common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
> >> >>bad.
> >> 
> >> >Yes indeed..  It's like tissues in a woman's bra.  Always a
> >> >disappointment for the straight man who thought he was going to be
> >> >getting more than a handful...
> >> 
> >> Animal House!
> >
> >I'm only 13 ...
> 
> Then don't look at this:
> http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/summer-glau/videos/24670683/title/summer-glau-fhm-
> photoshoot-video

rowr!

-- 
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:15:56 -0400, shawn wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 06:10:59 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> wrote:
> 
>>In article <khh774$ofj$1@news.albasani.net>,
>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Merrick Baldelli <mbaldelli@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >Jim G. <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>> >>Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
>>> >>string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
>>> >>common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
>>> >>bad.
>>> 
>>> >Yes indeed..  It's like tissues in a woman's bra.  Always a
>>> >disappointment for the straight man who thought he was going to be
>>> >getting more than a handful...
>>> 
>>> Animal House!
>>
>>I'm only 13 ...
> 
> Then don't look at this:
> http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/summer-glau/videos/24670683/title/summer-glau-fhm-photoshoot-video

480p?! What the fuh? This ain't the freaking nineties. We demand HDTV!!!1

In article <8mte0ov7caq3.3wja2h0we47e$.dlg@40tude.net>, Murdoc
<murdoc11@tweedledum.tweedledee.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:15:56 -0400, shawn wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 06:10:59 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >>In article <khh774$ofj$1@news.albasani.net>,
> >> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Merrick Baldelli <mbaldelli@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> >Jim G. <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> >>Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
> >>> >>string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
> >>> >>common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
> >>> >>bad.
> >>> 
> >>> >Yes indeed..  It's like tissues in a woman's bra.  Always a
> >>> >disappointment for the straight man who thought he was going to be
> >>> >getting more than a handful...
> >>> 
> >>> Animal House!
> >>
> >>I'm only 13 ...
> > 
> > Then don't look at this:
> >
http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/summer-glau/videos/24670683/title/summer-glau-fhm-photoshoot-video
> 
> 480p?! What the fuh? This ain't the freaking nineties. We demand HDTV!!!1

HDTV?! What the fuh? This ain't the freaking noughties. We demand Retina
display quality!!!!  ;-)

shawn sent the following on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:15:56 -0400:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 06:10:59 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> wrote:
> 
> >In article <khh774$ofj$1@news.albasani.net>,
> > "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Merrick Baldelli <mbaldelli@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >Jim G. <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> 
> >> >>Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
> >> >>string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
> >> >>common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
> >> >>bad.
> >> 
> >> >Yes indeed..  It's like tissues in a woman's bra.  Always a
> >> >disappointment for the straight man who thought he was going to be
> >> >getting more than a handful...
> >> 
> >> Animal House!
> >
> >I'm only 13 ...
> 
> Then don't look at this:
> http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/summer-glau/videos/24670683/title/summer-glau-fhm-photoshoot-video

Thank you for that. I owe you a beer, or something. :)

-- 
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"Good evening. I'm a lizard woman from the dawn of time, and this is my wife." -- Madame Vastra, DOCTOR WHO

Jim G. wrote:
> shawn sent the following on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:15:56 -0400:
>> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 06:10:59 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <khh774$ofj$1@news.albasani.net>,
>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Merrick Baldelli <mbaldelli@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> Jim G. <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
>>>>>> string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
>>>>>> common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost always
>>>>>> bad.
>>>>
>>>>> Yes indeed..  It's like tissues in a woman's bra.  Always a
>>>>> disappointment for the straight man who thought he was going to be
>>>>> getting more than a handful...
>>>>
>>>> Animal House!
>>>
>>> I'm only 13 ...
>>
>> Then don't look at this:
>> http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/summer-glau/videos/24670683/title/summer-glau-fhm-photoshoot-video
>
> Thank you for that. I owe you a beer, or something. :)

Did you notice, over in the "Summer Glau Pop Quiz" section:-

Summer Glau
What was here first role on TV?

I've got no idea what "here" first appeared on T.V. in ..... nor do I 
know what *her* first role was!!

Daniel

In article <_FY%s.235614$411.30504@newsfe02.iad>,
 "Daniel47@teranews.com" <dxmm@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:

> Jim G. wrote:
> > shawn sent the following on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:15:56 -0400:
> >> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 06:10:59 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <khh774$ofj$1@news.albasani.net>,
> >>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Merrick Baldelli <mbaldelli@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Jim G. <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
> >>>>>> string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
> >>>>>> common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost 
> >>>>>> always
> >>>>>> bad.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Yes indeed..  It's like tissues in a woman's bra.  Always a
> >>>>> disappointment for the straight man who thought he was going to be
> >>>>> getting more than a handful...
> >>>>
> >>>> Animal House!
> >>>
> >>> I'm only 13 ...
> >>
> >> Then don't look at this:
> >> http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/summer-glau/videos/24670683/title/summer-glau-f
> >> hm-photoshoot-video
> >
> > Thank you for that. I owe you a beer, or something. :)
> 
> Did you notice, over in the "Summer Glau Pop Quiz" section:-
> 
> Summer Glau
> What was here first role on TV?
> 
> I've got no idea what "here" first appeared on T.V. in ..... nor do I 
> know what *her* first role was!!
> 
> Daniel

That's not a real toughy; she had a bit on ANGEL and moved on to FIREFLY.

-- 
"Every time a Kardashian gets a TV show, an angel dies."

In article <anim8rfsk-BF6576.08414713032013@news.easynews.com>, anim8rFSK
<anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <_FY%s.235614$411.30504@newsfe02.iad>,
>  "Daniel47@teranews.com" <dxmm@albury.nospam.net.au> wrote:
> > Jim G. wrote:
> > > shawn sent the following on Sun, 10 Mar 2013 10:15:56 -0400:
> > >> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 06:10:59 -0700, anim8rFSK <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> In article <khh774$ofj$1@news.albasani.net>,
> > >>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Merrick Baldelli <mbaldelli@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>>>> Jim G. <jimgysin@geemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>> Soap is easy. Soap is padding. Soap is easy padding. Anyone who can
> > >>>>>> string together nouns and verbs can write soap. That's why it's so
> > >>>>>> common. But common isn't necessarily good, and padding is almost 
> > >>>>>> always
> > >>>>>> bad.
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Yes indeed..  It's like tissues in a woman's bra.  Always a
> > >>>>> disappointment for the straight man who thought he was going to be
> > >>>>> getting more than a handful...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Animal House!
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm only 13 ...
> > >>
> > >> Then don't look at this:
> > >>
http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/summer-glau/videos/24670683/title/summer-glau-fhm-photoshoot-video
> > >
> > > Thank you for that. I owe you a beer, or something. :)
> > 
> > Did you notice, over in the "Summer Glau Pop Quiz" section:-
> > 
> > Summer Glau
> > What was here first role on TV?
> > 
> > I've got no idea what "here" first appeared on T.V. in ..... nor do I 
> > know what *her* first role was!!
> 
> That's not a real toughy; she had a bit on ANGEL and moved on to FIREFLY.

Her first appearance (rather than role) on TV was probably some advert.  :-)