Anyway, Rauch was the EP & it was on his head to decide about the firings. Never that I know of in his whole career did he ever have any problem with his authority or power. I do not accept some idea that Pete undermined him in this way. Pete recommended. Paul decided. 

But I consider Pete to be a truthful person with integrity.I fully realize that not everyone shares that opinion.

It's not a problem with me to agree to disagree. 

5 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

I do not accept some idea that Pete undermined him in this way.

You are basing your reply on an erroneous misinterpretation of what I actually said. I neither wrote nor implied that Lemay "undermined" Rauch. Where you got that idea, I have no idea.

5 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

But I consider Pete to be a truthful person with integrity.I fully realize that not everyone shares that opinion.

I'd counter that his snide and untruthful commentary about certain people would contradict that statement, but...

5 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

It's not a problem with me to agree to disagree. 

...it's true: you have every right to disagree.

There is not, nor should there be, forced conformity of opinion.

55 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

Haven't you read Lemay's book more than once? 🤣

Yes, as I said, here tonight, in this thread. 

33 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

You are basing your reply on an erroneous misinterpretation of what I actually said. I neither wrote nor implied that Lemay "undermined" Rauch. Where you got that idea, I have no idea.

You said: Raunch could have fought against it, perhaps, but he did not

So I concluded that Pete's opinion won over Paul's. I honestly thought that was what you meant. If you didn't, sorry. 

29 minutes ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

Yes, as I said, here tonight, in this thread. 

You said: Raunch could have fought against it, perhaps, but he did not

So I concluded that Pete's opinion won over Paul's. I honestly thought that was what you meant. If you didn't, sorry. 

Sometimes the wires of communication get tangled. it happens.🤷‍♂️

I hope we can put a moratorium on the semi-annual retrial of Virginia Dwyer's firing.  The interpretation that any writer had enough power in a production to dismiss an actor on their own because they didn't like the way that they read their lines is simply too literal. I am not quoting anyone in particular, I am just voicing my frustration that we keep circling back to the same disagreement.

3 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

Sometimes the wires of communication get tangled. it happens.🤷‍♂️

We is cool. Or as Yoda would say, "Cool, we are." 

1 minute ago, j swift said:

I hope we can put a moratorium on the semi-annual retrial of Virginia Dwyer's firing.  The interpretation that any writer had enough power in a production to dismiss an actor on their own because they didn't like the way that they read their lines is simply too literal. I am not quoting anyone in particular, I am just voicing my frustration that we keep circling back to the same disagreement.

Uh-oh. Now we've done it. Been caught being repetitious. How boring. Seriously You make a fine point. Also valid. 

21 minutes ago, j swift said:

I hope we can put a moratorium on the semi-annual retrial of Virginia Dwyer's firing.  The interpretation that any writer had enough power in a production to dismiss an actor on their own because they didn't like the way that they read their lines is simply too literal. I am not quoting anyone in particular, I am just voicing my frustration that we keep circling back to the same disagreement.

Saying that Lemay pushed hard for Dwyer's dismissal cannot be taken to mean that Paul Rauch did not agree. Obviously the move was okayed by TPTB.

That being said, I had no interest in getting into another extended discussion about it, which is why I cut it short.

 

4 hours ago, j swift said:

I hope we can put a moratorium on the semi-annual retrial of Virginia Dwyer's firing.  The interpretation that any writer had enough power in a production to dismiss an actor on their own because they didn't like the way that they read their lines is simply too literal. I am not quoting anyone in particular, I am just voicing my frustration that we keep circling back to the same disagreement.

I think it is unrealistic to expect an end to the occasional discussion the firings of 1975 (Dwyer, Reinholt, and Courtney).  This is after all, an Another World discussion thread.  Those firings were shocking at the time, and very unique decisions in the entire history of daytime.  Fans, especially long-term fans, have strong opinions about something that was very important to them at the time, and we enjoy speculating and revisiting that part of AW's history.  I understand it can seem repetitive, but nearly every topic on this entire message board has been discussed ad infinitum. Frankly, there isn't much new to discuss in the history of cancelled soap operas.  If we criticize every repetitive topic, there won't be much action here in the future.  Of course not every topic is of interest to everyone, that should be expected.  Just my opinion.   

5 hours ago, vetsoapfan said:

hat being said, I had no interest in getting into another extended discussion about it, which is why I cut it short.

1. Good Morning

2. I'm gonna have to say that if this was cutting it short, I cannot wait to see how many volleys might occur if you really dig in!!!

😉🤣🤣🤣👏👏👊👌

1 hour ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

1. Good Morning

2. I'm gonna have to say that if this was cutting it short, I cannot wait to see how many volleys might occur if you really dig in!!!

😉🤣🤣🤣👏👏👊👌

What I meant was, that I tried twice to put my participation in the discussion to rest by posting, "...it's true: you have every right to disagree. There is not, nor should there be, forced conformity of opinion." And then later, "Sometimes the wires of communication get tangled. it happens." Both comments were designed to let the issue drop, since agreeing to disagree and then moving on works best when different people have opposing, firmly-held viewpoints.

2 hours ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

I think it is unrealistic to expect an end to the occasional discussion the firings of 1975 (Dwyer, Reinholt, and Courtney).  This is after all, an Another World discussion thread.  Those firings were shocking at the time, and very unique decisions in the entire history of daytime.  Fans, especially long-term fans, have strong opinions about something that was very important to them at the time, and we enjoy speculating and revisiting that part of AW's history.  I understand it can seem repetitive, but nearly every topic on this entire message board has been discussed ad infinitum. Frankly, there isn't much new to discuss in the history of cancelled soap operas.  If we criticize every repetitive topic, there won't be much action here in the future.  Of course not every topic is of interest to everyone, that should be expected.  Just my opinion.   

Perfectly said, from top to bottom. 👏

I daresay that certain debates will rage on forever among internet commentators:

https://neal.fun/lets-settle-this/

For soap fans, in particular, viewers have been rehashing and debating Maureen Bauer's death on TGL for decades. Ditto: "Who was the better Rachel on AW: Strasser or Wyndham?" And, "Do sci-fi and camp elements belong on daytime TV?" Not to mention, "Should ailing, long-suffering soaps just be cancelled and put out of their misery?" 

The list (and the debates!) go on.

You are 100% right when you point out that not every subject will be of interest to every person. But that's just the way message boards work.🤷‍♂️

25 minutes ago, vetsoapfan said:

What I meant was, that I tried twice to put my participation in the discussion to rest by posting, "...it's true: you have every right to disagree. There is not, nor should there be, forced conformity of opinion." And then later, "Sometimes the wires of communication get tangled. it happens." Both comments were designed to let the issue drop, since agreeing to disagree and then moving on works best when different people have opposing, firmly-held viewpoints.

Now, this I understand 💯 & in fact, I, too, was trying to bring things to a close. But, there are simply times when some of us are fascinated with talking to each other. It's a kind of conversational rapport that is delightful. And, so, each of us kept saying perhaps just one little thing that would cause the other one to make just one more reply, but that gets repeated. And, I do not think that is a bad thing. In fact, I think it is a good thing. And, after all, it is simply time & if the time we spend here is not discretionary, then I don't know what it is.

3 hours ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

I think it is unrealistic to expect an end to the occasional discussion the firings of 1975 (Dwyer, Reinholt, and Courtney).  This is after all, an Another World discussion thread.  Those firings were shocking at the time, and very unique decisions in the entire history of daytime.  Fans, especially long-term fans, have strong opinions about something that was very important to them at the time, and we enjoy speculating and revisiting that part of AW's history.  I understand it can seem repetitive, but nearly every topic on this entire message board has been discussed ad infinitum. Frankly, there isn't much new to discuss in the history of cancelled soap operas.  If we criticize every repetitive topic, there won't be much action here in the future.  Of course not every topic is of interest to everyone, that should be expected.  Just my opinion.   

This is & was very well said, my friend. 

8 hours ago, j swift said:

I hope we can put a moratorium on the semi-annual retrial of Virginia Dwyer's firing.  The interpretation that any writer had enough power in a production to dismiss an actor on their own because they didn't like the way that they read their lines is simply too literal. I am not quoting anyone in particular, I am just voicing my frustration that we keep circling back to the same disagreement.

Or you could scroll past any conversation you do not want to take part in like the rest of us do.

3 hours ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

I think it is unrealistic to expect an end to the occasional discussion the firings of 1975 (Dwyer, Reinholt, and Courtney).  This is after all, an Another World discussion thread.  Those firings were shocking at the time, and very unique decisions in the entire history of daytime.  Fans, especially long-term fans, have strong opinions about something that was very important to them at the time, and we enjoy speculating and revisiting that part of AW's history.  I understand it can seem repetitive, but nearly every topic on this entire message board has been discussed ad infinitum. Frankly, there isn't much new to discuss in the history of cancelled soap operas.  If we criticize every repetitive topic, there won't be much action here in the future.  Of course not every topic is of interest to everyone, that should be expected.  Just my opinion.   

Well said!

2 minutes ago, Efulton said:

Or you could scroll past any conversation you do not want to take part in like the rest of us do.

@Efulton @Mona Kane Croft @robbwolff @vetsoapfan @j swift @Paul Raven @Xanthe @Althea Davis @danfling @asafi @Sapounopera @Aragorn @ranger1rg @FrenchFan @MichaelGL @Dr Neil Curtis @DramatistDreamer @kalbir @DRW50 @AbcNbc247 @janea4old @carolineg @soapfan770 @Taoboi 

This is not strictly AW, so sorry about that, up front. This is more meta. I have an idea for a new discussion thread. It would be named something like this: 

ALL SOAPS ALL Channels Cross Talk & Meta

I think we keep going OT in specific soap threads on discussions that cross over different shows & perhaps we need a thread where this would always be on topic. On my way home yesterday I put this all together in my head & planned to implement it. Well, instead the GH current discussion thread had blown up & I got distracted. So, today, I thought I would toss this idea out & ask, What do any of you think? I could say more in terms of examples of discussing, but I'm not sure that is needed. So, I open the floor for discussion. 

2 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

@Efulton @Mona Kane Croft @robbwolff @vetsoapfan @j swift @Paul Raven @Xanthe @Althea Davis @danfling @asafi @Sapounopera @Aragorn @ranger1rg @FrenchFan @MichaelGL @Dr Neil Curtis @DramatistDreamer @kalbir @DRW50 @AbcNbc247 @janea4old @carolineg @soapfan770 @Taoboi 

This is not strictly AW, so sorry about that, up front. This is more meta. I have an idea for a new discussion thread. It would be named something like this: 

ALL SOAPS ALL Channels Cross Talk & Meta

I think we keep going OT in specific soap threads on discussions that cross over different shows & perhaps we need a thread where this would always be on topic. On my way home yesterday I put this all together in my head & planned to implement it. Well, instead the GH current discussion thread had blown up & I got distracted. So, today, I thought I would toss this idea out & ask, What do any of you think? I could say more in terms of examples of discussing, but I'm not sure that is needed. So, I open the floor for discussion. 

I don't think this is necessarily a bad idea.  I assume you're talking about -- when a conversation begins to go off-topic, it would be moved to this new thread.  The only problem I see is, I've noticed that when OT conversations are moved currently, they often just die because the participants don't move along it.  But I understand your idea, I think.   

Personally, it doesn't bother me when a conversation goes off-topic because so many things in the world of soap opera are meta anyway.  All soaps share many of the same creators, writers, executive producers, fans, actors, and even plots.  So to me, it seems only natural when discussing ATWT, that the conversation might veer to GL or AMC or AW.  And if I get bored by an off topic discussion, I just scroll on by.  But I do realize some folks do not like OT discussions.  So I'm cool with whatever decision is made.  

Edited February 28, 20241 yr by Mona Kane Croft