12 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

A while back there was discussion about the NBC affiliate in the San Francisco area not airing AW. I posted about it elsewhere. I knew a friend had lived there & watched the show but she is no longer online. So, today I got a reply from an AW fan who says she's lived & worked in San Francisco since 1983. This is what she said: 

 

I would hardly expect the NBC affiliate to tell their viewers to turn to another channel

If they were loyal fans, surely it wouldn't be that hard to find out the show was airing in their city?

2 hours ago, Paul Raven said:

I would hardly expect the NBC affiliate to tell their viewers to turn to another channel

If they were loyal fans, surely it wouldn't be that hard to find out the show was airing in their city?

Oh, obviously the NBC affiliate was not going to provide that information. Seems like fan naïveté to think that they would have!

Edited November 18, 20232 yr by Donna L. Bridges
just had a thought

7 hours ago, Donna L. Bridges said:

@j swift   

1. The way things work here is if you do not wish to engage with another patron, you put them in a killfile, known as "Ignored Users". It is not the responsibility of the other party to "not connect with your content". 

2. Because you threw such a fit I have attempted to follow your wishes. 

3. As I do so, you have begun a campaign of taking potshots at me. 

4. This simply will not do. You either cease & desist or all bets are off. 

Yes, the "Ignore" feature has been misunderstood by many (or at least by me).  The Ignore feature here is not a true "Block" option, as you might have on other sites, or even Facebook.  The Ignore option here simply means you will not see the ignored person's posts.  But they will still see your posts, and can still comment.  Anyone who expects "Ignore" to function as a "Block" option will be disappointed.   I'm just trying to clarify, without stirring-up trouble.   

54 minutes ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

Yes, the "Ignore" feature has been misunderstood by many (or at least by me).  The Ignore feature here is not a true "Block" option, as you might have on other sites, or even Facebook.  The Ignore option here simply means you will not see the ignored person's posts.  But they will still see your posts, and can still comment.  Anyone who expects "Ignore" to function as a "Block" option will be disappointed.   I'm just trying to clarify, without stirring-up trouble.   

I understand what you're saying & why. The Ignore function here is not exactly a killfile either. A good killfile means you don't see them & they don't see you, both functions, or maybe ALL! 

One thing about FB, their Block & Delete takes care of the issue in mere seconds! Now FB's mechanical censors are incredibly stupid! So compliment with one hand & damn with faint praise with the other. 

On 11/16/2023 at 4:55 PM, teplin said:

Iris makes reference to that toward the end of this scene. She's saying it to torment Rachel, but I suspect Lemay wrote it deliberately to help explain why Iris was the way she was.

And I can still remember Rachel referring to Mac as an "aging playboy" in one of their titanic arguments.

 

God, what an excellent clip! Laughing ... 

I wonder if there was ever a reference to the spin-off characters once they were cancelled?

Does Robert ever reference his family or their business?  Does Ada ever wonder what happened to Rachel's father?  Did Rachel never call the Cushings to see how their marriage turned out after she and Mac counseled them?  I mean, it would make sense why Rachel would ignore Pam, but as you mentioned @Mona Kane Croft unfortunately ignoring people doesn't just make them go away.

I don't even recall them referencing Somerset or Point Clair as geographical locations after their cancellations.

BTW Point Clair being in Illinois does nothing to solve the debate of which state Bay City was in at the time, (or when it moved), because it was within driving distance for Mac and Rachel either way.

 

Edited November 18, 20232 yr by j swift

2 minutes ago, j swift said:

I wonder if there was ever a reference to the spin-off characters once they were cancelled?

Does Robert ever reference his family or their business?  Does Ada ever wonder what happened to Rachel's father?  Did Rachel never call the Cushings to see how their marriage turned out after she and Mac counseled them? 

I don't even recall them referencing Somerset or Point Clair as geographical locations after their cancellations.

BTW Point Clair being in Illinois does nothing to solve the debate of which state Bay City was in, (or when it moved), because it was within driving distance for Mac and Rachel either way.

Interesting question about character references.  I do remember Robert often referenced his dead wife and the son they had lost (from Somerset) while he was on AW.  He did this often with Lenore, but not sure he mentioned them again after Lenore left the show.  Regarding Gerald Davis, you probably know he came to AW as a contract character in 1973-74 and stayed for a year or so. And when he left, he was sent to prison. He did not return to Somerset -- at least not in the script.  After Gerald's exit from AW, he wasn't mentioned often -- and soon not at all, at least by name.  In 1979 Rachel and Ada had a very poignant scene about Rachel growing up without a father, and Gerald was mentioned but not by name.  Also, Ada referenced Gerald in 1989 during the Valentine To Singles stand-alone episode (yuck!), but again, she did not say his name.   

I'm confident the Cushings were never mentioned again on AW.  Somerset was almost never mentioned on AW after Cenedela left the head-writing job. Ogden became a nearby city during Hardling Lemay's run on the show, and Ogden was mentioned continuously.  It's likely only Robert Delany and Sam Lucas ever mentioned Somerset while Lemay was writing.   

Here's 2 pictures of Rachel's other half-sister, Pammy. 

 

Actually, it is kinda strange how Gerald was just left in prison lol 

We need a good term for the stasis that occurs when other characters are SORASed

For example, it is wild that Matthew wound up in a romantic triangle with Cass given their age discrepancy, yet within the soap universe Cass remained in his late 30s to early 40s for over a decade while Matthew aged dramatically.

Similarly, it was accepted that Vicky and Amanda became contemporaries, although Victoria was clearly older both in her backstory, and from when we saw Amanda born on screen.

I miss Soap Opera Weekly's influence on discourse, so I still wish one of those editors would coin a term for this "only on a soap" issue.

Final thought of the morning, it is a shame that the characterization of both of Rachel's sons was so fluid.  I prefer Matt when he was an artist, over Matt as a corporate raider, just as I prefer Jamie as an author over Jamie as saintly doctor.  In both cases there was an attempt to make them more like their mother, but it didn't stick

Edited November 18, 20232 yr by j swift

2 minutes ago, AbcNbc247 said:

Actually, it is kinda strange how Gerald was just left in prison lol 

Yes, especially for such a minor offense, perjury.  And such a shame he never returned to AW.  Gerald was always after Steve Frame's money.  Can you imagine how he would have reacted if he knew Rachel had married the even wealthier MacKenzie Cory??!!

@Mona Kane Croft I am bemused that you still insist Mac was wealthier than Steve three years after you sparked a huge debate on the topic of Mac vs Steve's estimated incomes

Although, at this point I would agree that even though Steve bought Iris's mansion, and owned a big company, his wealth was fleeting and Mac's was generational.

 

Edited November 18, 20232 yr by j swift

55 minutes ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

Yes, especially for such a minor offense, perjury.  And such a shame he never returned to AW.  Gerald was always after Steve Frame's money.  Can you imagine how he would have reacted if he knew Rachel had married the even wealthier MacKenzie Cory??!!

It does make you wonder if any of TPTB ever thought of bringing Gerald or Pammy Davis back to Bay City.  It would have been a good plot twist to have Gerald be Justine’s father and have him plotting with Justine against Rachel.  At least it would have explained the resemblance between Rachel and Justine.

8 minutes ago, watson71 said:

It does make you wonder if any of TPTB ever thought of bringing Gerald or Pammy Davis back to Bay City.  It would have been a good plot twist to have Gerald be Justine’s father and have him plotting with Justine against Rachel.  At least it would have explained the resemblance between Rachel and Justine.

ITA, but do we also have a consensus that Diana Frame never needed to return?

1 hour ago, j swift said:

@Mona Kane Croft I am bemused that you still insist Mac was wealthier than Steve three years after you sparked a huge debate on the topic of Mac vs Steve's estimated incomes

Although, at this point I would agree that even though Steve bought Iris's mansion, and owned a big company, his wealth was fleeting and Mac's was generational.

 

Just my opinion but here is my logic:  The people who wrote Steve Frame's return from the dead obviously knew almost nothing about Steve's real history. And I'd speculate, very little about Mac Cory's real history.   So when they tried to say Steve was richer than Mac, it just seemed ridiculous to me, and I had no respect for those writers. They wrote Steve almost as if he was an entirely new character, with an existing name. So when I talk about Steve and Mac and their history, I am usually referring to their history until about 1979-80 -- really their origin stories. And at that point Frame Enterprises was a significantly smaller company than Cory Publishing, which had offices all over the world.  Plus Steve was a self made millionaire, while Mac's fortune went back at least two generations before him.   I do realize much of that was altered by later writers.  There were some idiot writers who even tried to say Mac had been a self made millionaire.  I'm really not trying to insist on anything, I am just old and grumpy.  LOL

3 minutes ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

I'm really not trying to insist on anything, I am just old and grumpy.  LOL

Te he, aren't we all...

I just appreciate/find humor in an adherence to consistency in your opinions.