ranger1rg

Perfect example of "How To Avoid Playing The Beats."

Just a ridiculous ending to Sheila. Really sh!tful writing.

1 hour ago, Liberty City said:

... especially since I no longer feel positively about the promotion of Janet Drucker-Spellman.

I don't think we've talked enough about this. I really thought we'd see more changes / hear about more changes by now. Instead, it feels and looks like business as usual. The POS is out of the building but nothing else has changed, and no one's supposed to mention it.

With Kristina looking like she's already feeling some kind of way about the baby that belongs to Molly and TJ, I'm not ready to give new writers any credit for tweaking anything.

If we're going to get ANOTHER story where the surrogate doesn't want to give up the kid, I'm going to barf.

17 hours ago, Toups said:

Look, I'm not going to do anything about people having stupid opinions.  It's up to you guys to not reply/talk to posters who aggravate you.  As I read the last 8 pages or so, I just kept saying to myself, "STOP REPLYING!!"  LOL.   Also, if you want to reply to someone, you don't have to quote them.  You can use: @[their name].   You can do that so people won't see the post of someone they put on ignore. 

 

Toups, THANK YOU for this. Honestly, I've been dumbfounded by the complaints about other posters.

When someone disagrees with us, I don't think going scorched earth on that person -- demanding s(he) be suspended or banned or whatever -- makes any sense at all. No one made vile/dangerous/insulting comments here, and I just don't understand the discussion at all.

Then we got people complaining they had to see that person when he was quoted. I mean, GMAB. Just scroll on and ignore.

I hesitated posting this, because I don't want to make this any bigger than it is, but I want you and Errol to know that you do a good job moderating here. In the past, I've been told to dial it back, and I have no problem with that. I think you both did absolutely the right thing in doing nothing to the "aggravating poster."

And what kind of school tells you not to visit your own son???

15 minutes ago, dragonflies said:

Didn't the "head of the soaps" dept fold after AMd was fired? I don't think anyone oversees them anymore

and that like almost every single character is trotted out to talk about a kid that's offscreen is just so bad. They even trotted poor Sharon out for this

 

Why are they acting like Connor has a terminal illness? 

Exactly. Chelsea acts like Connor has terminal cancer. And yes, the fact that it's all offscreen makes it even more pathetic. Just like the deaf baby "story."

So Connor is OCD. You mean THAT'S the storyline?

I'm sorry, but it's more garbage, and it'll go nowhere. A high school sophomore could write better stories than this.

Please get Cyrus off my screen.

I know Frank V loves Jeff Korber and is awed to have a primetime actor in his cast. But Cyrus should have expired more than a year ago. The character is awful and it's not working.

2 hours ago, carolineg said:

Selena Wu does only speak in monotone and it is weird.  Just like Cyrus delivers his lines in the strangest way, I do wonder if it's some sort of acting choice?   I don't mind Selina, but she is very one note as a villain, as a character, and as a human lol.

I'd bet money that it's an acting choice -- and it just doesn't work. YOu nailed it when you called her "one note as a villain." The whole performance screams "I'M ACTING" to me.

3 hours ago, Khan said:

Playgirl is still around??

LOL I searched a little, and from what I can tell, it's basically digital now. Their archives and new stuff is at

https://playgirlplus.com/ and it's $12.95 a month to subscribe. On IG and Twitter, they have about 25k followers, which isn't exactly huge. I don't think this is some great move by DAYS actors unless they got a decent payday out of it.

10 minutes ago, Lye-C said:

She’s eating up a contract that could go to someone else, probably even two actors. She adds nothing to the show and hasn’t since the 80s. She’s a waste of space and money. If Days won’t outright get rid of her, drop her to recurring and show her once a month. 

LMAO I'm sorry, but I can't help but laugh at the idea of Suzanne Rogers' Maggie bothering someone that much.

23 hours ago, Soapsuds said:

Yesterday's episode was better than today's.

I'm already bored with Gaskill. They should've hired someone else if his character was going to work opposite powerhouses MTS and CZ.

I have to admit, I think Gaskill is really great in the part. I love the way he's playing Seth.

50 minutes ago, Lye-C said:

I’m talking about running things from home by proxy (Janet) and being paid for it under the table. 

With contempt.

Uh...I don't think you know how any of this works. No one's running things from home and getting paid under the table. LOL You're acting as if Alarr is the only one capable of running this soap.

And "with contempt"? You don't even know what happened or when. You know absolutely nothing, and yet you want us to treat an actor with contempt. Jesus.

18 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

Hmm, Dee is 76 and SR is 71, are Marlena & Maggie the same as they? Or are they 10 years younger? I know, I know, it's a non sequitur. My mind just wanders off on certain "what ifs". 

But, I love them being in a scene together since professionals should act like that. 

Suzanne Rogers is 80.

Anyone else tired of Selina Wu's low, deep -- and totally affected -- voice?

3 hours ago, Lye-C said:

Maybe I’m just paranoid but is anyone concerned Alarr could somehow still be running the show through Janet Spellman-Drucker?

The firing of Ari felt like retaliation. 

Where are you getting this? There's no way Corday and Company would keep Alarr on in any way after all that happened, let alone with this kind of subterfuge.

1 hour ago, Lye-C said:

The reason why they fell out matters. Hopefully it’ll make people look at Rogers in a different light.

Huh? Suzanne Rogers is 80. How would you like us to look at her?

That Crimson magazine that Maxie and Brook Lynn fawned over looked like it had about 8 pages.

Just now, Taoboi said:

I was wondering if that was what was going on in the scene I watched yesterday playing catch-up.

 

Yep. Don't care. I mean...why? 

There's no reason to care -- just as there isn't with any other business story on Y&R.

This might give Tessa fans something to cheer about...more appearances...but she won't get a storyline out of this. It's just another JG fail.

I like Carson Boatman, and I love looking at Carson Boatman, but that singing scene was PAINFUL.

It's not even the country voice/accent that bothered me. The lip sync did not work at all, and it just looked top-to-bottom artificial. On a 1-10 scale of lip syncs, that was a -4.

And truthfully, CB's voice is just too thin. The song itself wasn't bad, but his voice isn't resonant enough to carry any song.

The scenes with Tessa and Abby were dreadful.

We're supposed to care about Tessa taking over Society? I guess to Josh Griffith, this is a business story.

3 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

There is a total disconnect between what I said & your reply. I won't concern myself anymore. It would be useless. I am done. 

There is no disconnect, and calling it one doesn't make it so.

I responded directly to what you said. If you disagree with me, fine, but don't act as if I'm in some parallel universe, making comments out of nowhere.

I made multiple posts here -- probably too many -- because the discussion went beyond the storyline to implications that I condone and excuse rape. Pushing back against that does not mean I think "it's all about me," and I'm not going to run away when someone thinks of me as a rape apologist.

3 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

What you've said is what lead me to believe that you are caught up in Bradley's net. Do you disagree that he exploits his fans with writing like this? And as for being offended, you are siding with rape & with rapists. Given a chance to reconsider, you do not. Given an out where you could say something different, you say the same things. When it's pointed out that the issue of criminality is moot. You say nothing. You just repeat what you've already said about criminality as if this were a case that would ever see the inside of a courtroom, which it would not. What would you say if you completely left the issue of criminality out of a single reply? 

Yet you did & you do excuse this rapist.

-- Not caught up in "Bradley's net." Anyone who reads my posts here knows that. I have said multiple times that this storyline is horrendous.

-- I NEVER sided with rape and rapists. That is a lie.

-- Reconsider what? I've listened to both of you and I disagree. You gave me the chance to say something different? Huh???

-- Leave criminality out of the discussion? I do not believe that's even possible. If you're telling me this case would   never reach a courtroom, it's because there was no crime. There was no rape.

-- Do I "excuse this rapist"?  I reject your premise. Zende is not a rapist.

18 hours ago, Althea Davis said:

Is this for real?  You read and understand only WHAT you want to. You take things out of context and twist them as you want. No, no, no, this is not OK.

1. - Nobody attacked you. You were rude to ME - did you forget how you came at me calling me HONEY and HOW I am not so witty and clever... ? And before that you told me I am contradicting myself and that I am scared to answer questions... 

2. - YOU DID NOT apologize directly to me. You said sorry if a victim was triggered. That is not a direct apology. 

3. - THE CONVERSATION is nasty - NOT YOU. This is a conversation about RAPE, not your character. I don't care about your personal character, I am sorry - you are not the topic here. The DO NOT excuse rapists is a message TO EVERYONE, not YOU. Read my words again. It was my last message to ANYONE READING THIS. Not everything is about YOU. There are actual more important issues here. Like rape, like victims.

But since you are so willing to fight and argue with everyone here, this is the last time I respond to your negative comments. Lose someone else's free time. I am done with reading how we are doing you wrong, all while we have been nothing but TRY TO be polite and you DID NOT.

Farewell.

-- I took nothing out of context. I twisted nothing.

-- I was rude to you when I called you "honey"? Dude, do you understand this board and how people talk. I was responding to your gif of someone banging their head against a desk. I responded to a gif. Did I call you rude? No, because on the "rudeness scale," neither of us was.

-- My apology was clear and direct: "I am sorry this Zende/Luna storyline has triggered any rape survivor, and I am sorry if my comments triggered any rape survivor." I think it was clear that YOU were included in that apology because you shared your story.

-- I never made this topic or this discussion about me.

-- I am not arguing and fighting with "everyone here." The number of people discussing this is really small -- because it's become a catfight.

1 hour ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

Right & I went on to say that of course there could be need for discussion about other situational aspects. Did you see where I said that? 

To you I'm just going to say that I tried but I think you are just intent on being right instead of actually being people talking to each other. Again, you immediately turn to criminality. Surely you've noticed that's not what other people are focused on. But, to you it is the be all & end all of this discussion. To others it is about rape & victims & people's feelings & that is what is essential, not criminality.

So, here is where I leave it with you. You can consider yourself one of Bradley's accomplices. You play right into his kind of exploitational crap. 

 

I did see where you said that -- because I've listened to you. I wish you'd have done the same for me.

Instead, I'm "one of Bradley's accomplices" and "exploitational." Thanks a lot, Donna. I've written long, detailed posts here to explain my viewpoint -- not to insist on being right. I'm offended that I've been reduced to siding with rapists.

1 hour ago, Althea Davis said:

And I am shocked that this person wants this nasty conversation to continue in this tone accusatory, doubting and arguing.

But I am happy. Why I am happy -  I think the overall reaction was pretty much universal, the right and humane one... and there is only one person arguing and wanting to be right.

And only one person deflecting and shifting the focus to places we were never going.

I will say this to anyone, reading this- beware excusing rapists. You don't know what would happen if it was your child at Luna's place.

Nasty conversation? I was never nasty to you. I apologized directly to you and was never accusatory.

Doubting and arguing? I put forth my POV on a serious topic. That's not arguing. I did not "deflect" and I did not shift the focus to "places we were never going." That did not happen.

Most importantly, I DID NOT EXCUSE RAPISTS. I'm happy to end this discussion, but not when someone accuses me of something so awful.

You are free to disagree with me about what we saw on our screens. I will not listen to you denigrate my character because you disagree with me.

1 hour ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

I just want to say one thing. It is not at all uncommon for soap fans to discuss specific rapes when there is no question of there being a winnable legal case. Rape is an issue that stands on its own, with or without someone being charged, accused, indicted, found guilty, sentenced, etc. Rape is not only a legal issue. It is also a moral issue & a philosophical one, to boot. If the victim cannot give informed consent, it IS rape. There is no need for any further question or discussion about whether it is or not. By definition, it is. Any other situational aspects can of course be discussed. But not that one question. 

@ranger1rg you & I know each other. Does what I am saying make any kind of sense to you at all? 

Anyway, if this helps, good, and if not, just ignore me. 

Donna, I'm probably crazy for answering you, because I'm just going to continue being trashed.

Rape is an issue that stands on its own? So does every crime. I know that rape is a moral and philosophical issue as well as a legal one.

But then you end the conversation, saying there's no need for further question or discussion about whether it's rape. By definition? Yes -- but our system of justice does not end with the definition. You said "If the victim cannot give informed consent, it IS rape." That is true, but the phrase "informed consent" not only needs context, but is open to interpretation.

SHOULD Zende have known Luna was under the influence? Yeah, but that doesn't mean he did. She didn't smell of alcohol, she wasn't falling-down-drunk. He had also been drinking at the party -- a party where he told her she could go to his place if she wanted to.

Zende has been flirting with Luna for weeks. No, she has not encouraged him, but neither has she shut him down. (That is NOT a criticism of Luna. I am NOT saying she had to shut him down). She's clearly been into RJ, but she's been pleasant with Zende all along -- and she knows he likes her.

So Zende goes home and finds Luna in his bed -- reaching out to him. I see both of them as being impaired. Yes, she thinks it's RJ. Zende DID NOT see Luna drinking heavily and has no reason to believe she's out of it. He has no reason to think she believes she's with RJ in that bed.

Luna CONSENTS to sex with RJ. The story is horrifically written,,,,it's an abomination. But Zende DOES NOT know he's taking advantage of Luna. He DOES NOT know she thinks she's with RJ. He thinks she's changed her mind and wants to be with him. Is he dumb? Out of it? I don't know, but he's not a criminal.

Zende likes Luna a lot. We live in a hookup culture. It's not hard to believe he'd have sex with a woman he invited back to his place and found in his bed, reaching out to him. Zende thought Luna wanted HIM and was saying yes to HIM. Saying "he should have known" is bullshit -- or at least that gray area I wrote about.

Soapsuds calls it a rape, but adds that Zende probably wouldn't serve time (and get community service, etc.) because he has a clean record. Well, that still means he ends up with a record of committing sexual assault. He's now a sex offender.

When I look at the context of all that happened, when I look at what was said and done, I do not think Zende should be charged with a crime, especially one as heinous as rape. What happened to Luna is awful. It's not justice to do something awful to another person to somehow respond to what happened to her.

2 minutes ago, Soapsuds said:

Pretty much this. Your aren't clueless but uninformed. 

It is.

Soapsuds, I think we have a lot in common, and you make me laugh more than anyone here.

However, I'll be honest: just telling me I'm "uninformed" and that "it is" a rape doesn't respond to anything.

I am always willing to learn and even be lectured to, but just telling me I'm wrong doesn't cut it. I tried to write a sincere, thoughtful, respectful post that explained my point of view. I was hoping that others would take me seriously in return.