Jump to content

Profiles: Writers, Directors, Producers

39 topics in this forum

    • 4,332 replies
    • 235,631 views
    • 2,012 replies
    • 119,093 views
    • 1,900 replies
    • 145,465 views
    • 1,024 replies
    • 101,639 views
    • 512 replies
    • 73,651 views
    • 458 replies
    • 59,890 views
    • 382 replies
    • 44,070 views
    • 366 replies
    • 57,733 views
    • 243 replies
    • 32,285 views
    • 237 replies
    • 28,471 views
    • 211 replies
    • 28,503 views
    • 95 replies
    • 16,172 views
    • 75 replies
    • 27,137 views
    • 61 replies
    • 17,597 views
    • 0 replies
    • 6,647 views
  1. Abbott - Azar

    • 0 replies
    • 5,735 views
  2. Backus - Byrne

    • 0 replies
    • 7,827 views
  3. Carlivati - Cwikly

    • 0 replies
    • 7,723 views
  4. Dansby - Dyer

    • 0 replies
    • 5,829 views
  5. Egan - Esser

    • 0 replies
    • 5,050 views
  6. Faraldo - Freiwald

    • 0 replies
    • 5,454 views
  7. Geier - Guza

    • 0 replies
    • 7,165 views
  8. Hall - Hurst

    • 0 replies
    • 5,733 views
  9. Iacobuzio

    • 0 replies
    • 5,283 views
  10. James - Jones

    • 0 replies
    • 4,704 views



  • Posts

    • This post re James MacDonald in the Soap Hoppers thread reminded me of a pet theory I had at the time when he appeared as "Blade" on Another World in 1986. Blade was an ex-con who hung around with a gang of creeps who menaced Nancy and kidnapped Victoria (thinking she was Marley). Michael hired him to help protect Donna when he knew Reginald was on the verge of coming back from the dead, and then Quinn hired him with Mitch to renovate the Cory mansion because they needed employment as conditions of their parole. He seemed to just disappear after that, but I think there must have been something in the soap press at the time hinting that Jake might have a brother because I really thought it was possible that it would turn out that that was the case, since he seemed to keep having significant interactions with Jake as well as other people. Nothing ever came of it and if it was the idea it was dropped and Jake left town with Marley soon after.  
    • Just a reminder that NYT is problematic and has had to retract and 'amend' stories that they've done and will likely have to continue to do so.  
    • There's certainly still time for someone back in the pack to surprise us. My concerns about Warren, Sanders and Biden aren't new - I've said them for months, and they probably aren't going to go away. Whoever gets the nomination will have my vote, and if possible, my money, and I hope that whoever gets the nomination wins, but I just can't shake my unhappiness about the state of the race. After 2004 and 2016, I'm past the point where I'm able to tell myself things will be fine - I'm in a place where I just muddle through. I'm not implying you are somehow telling yourself things will be fine, in case my comments come across that way, I'm just talking about myself. If my comments are causing you pain then I will try to phrase them in a way that won't - or you can put me on ignore (not that you need my permission to be put on ignore, obviously) and I will understand.    I agree Taylor's testimony was powerful in its own right, and isn't tainted by Trump's usual tweet rage, so people who aren't distracted will hone in on the real facts. I disagree about the media focus, which does hit people who are more easily distracted, but in the end I guess what the media says doesn't matter either way. Battle lines are hardened about impeachment, and it's just a waiting game until November 2020. 
    • Agreed.   I do think a lot of centrist Dems are spooked by Warren and trying to manufacture a narrative in the press. But I don't think the real situation is as dire as they want to make people believe it will be unless we nominate someone less progressive. We can certainly differ on how viable she is or isn't, but I think the recent fishing articles are an attempt to slow her down coming both from that wing and even from the center-right Beltway media, and it won't work.
    • I hope you're not talking about that bollocks article by Maggie Haberman about the dozen Democratic donors, @DRW50 because I'd have to agree with the sentiments expressed by others. IMO, it is too damn early to be hand-wringing and making these prognostications.  Also, it's damaging psychically.  Primary voting hasn't even begun, whatever happened to waiting until the first rounds to see how this unfolds?  I don't get this type of thinking.    Also, I also have to disagree about the sentiment that somehow Taylor's testimony was undermined by Trump's ignorant lynching comments.  Yes, people were upset by his comment but also recognized it for what it was-- a deliberately provocative comment meant to obfuscate and draw attention away from Taylor's statements, which, imo, did not work.  Most people I know were talking about the "bombshell" statements given by Taylor and what that meant.  This morning the news focused more on that, as well as on the news that at least 50% of registered Independents polled are in favor of impeachment. Trump's "lynching" remarks were a very distant 3rd or 4th story.
×
×
  • Create New...