I'll attempt to be brief...

About your point, Bellcurve: What exactly IS her agenda?...What is this scheme she's cooking up?

I'm not bellcurve (although we're lovers in another lifetime ), but since I specifically brought up the "Agenda," I will comment and say that the agenda is trying to get Lorraine Broderick as head writer -- if not, then get her to be co-head writer along with Swajeski and Kreizman.

For me, her agenda consists of praising people she either got along with or that she loved in her soap magazine heydey to either currently promote them(in the way R Sinclair just mentioned) or more importantly promote herself to make her arguments(on her blog and on the board here) hold more weight and validity and to create some sort of "I wish I had met them" or "Oh wow, you met ****" envy between herself and those "intelligent soap fans" she wishes to force her personal tastes, dislikes, views and beliefs.

I admit, I am still bothered by the previous post and maybe you're right YurSoakingInIt, that I have no reason to bring that to another thread. Her saying that we can't judge what a Head Writer projects onto his/her shows because they write for money is completely and utter BS. She raked the story ideas of Carlivati and Guza over hot coals because of their alleged misogyny, yet some blogger in 2003 refers to McTavish and Reilly as psychos because of their own record of misogyny(among other areas of sucktitude) and that's ridiculous?

I honestly don't take it as being arrogant. She possesses knowledge and perspective that most of us don't have. RSinclair, if I laid my cards more on the table here, you'd probably characterize me as being on a high-horse as well. Conveying our experiences can sometimes come off as bragging, and often how that's received depends on the disposition of the recipient.

Then I wish to GOD she, Sara Bibel, Tom Hackiello and every other blogger/tweeter/hasbeen would convey that experience in a way that makes some sort of interesting point about why daytime is abysmal instead of spouting off these ridiculous facts and pointless stories("Jim and Megan WAS PO' FOKES!," "Galen Gering was SO cute, I forgave him for being a douche and I still forgive him for talking [!@#$%^&*] about my dead writer friend's weight") that have absolutely nothing to do with the questions she raises or the questions that are posed to her.

She wants to talk about establishing a dialogue between herself and "the intelligent soap fan"? Well my advice is to act like it and quit talking down to and playing moral police to the exact people you want to appeal to.

For me, her agenda consists of praising people she either got along with or that she loved in her soap magazine heydey to either currently promote them(in the way R Sinclair just mentioned) or more importantly promote herself to make her arguments(on her blog and on the board here) hold more weight and validity and to create some sort of "I wish I had met them" or "Oh wow, you met ****" envy between herself and those "intelligent soap fans" she wishes to force her personal tastes, dislikes, views and beliefs.

I admit, I am still bothered by the previous post and maybe you're right YurSoakingInIt, that I have no reason to bring that to another thread. Her saying that we can't judge what a Head Writer projects onto his/her shows because they write for money is completely and utter BS. She raked the story ideas of Carlivati and Guza over hot coals because of their alleged misogyny, yet some blogger in 2003 refers to McTavish and Reilly as psychos because of their own record of misogyny(among other areas of sucktitude) and that's ridiculous?

Then I wish to GOD she, Sara Bibel, Tom Hackiello and every other blogger/tweeter/hasbeen would convey that experience in a way that makes some sort of interesting point about why daytime is abysmal instead of spouting off these ridiculous facts and pointless stories("Jim and Megan WAS PO' FOKES!," "Galen Gering was SO cute, I forgave him for being a douche and I still forgive him for talking [!@#$%^&*] about my dead writer friend's weight") that have absolutely nothing to do with the questions she raises or the questions that are posed to her.

She wants to talk about establishing a dialogue between herself and "the intelligent soap fan"? Well my advice is to act like it and quit talking down to and playing moral police to the exact people you want to appeal to.

Edited March 29, 201015 yr by R Sinclair

Ohh.... well I'm sorry, I screwed up! You see, all along, I was thinking more along the lines of this...

....and this!

EDIT: Your hero is trying to rescue you again, so I'm addressing his concern. The photos aren't about frailty or femininity... they're about attitude and "fabulousness," meant as a humorous reponse directly to the photos you used in the previous post. I love this movie, and this character...

(from Bellcurve) R strikes me as someone who would definitely meet you outside.

Seriously? Your mind actually went there?

Let's just say that no one's planning to strike anyone.

Edited March 30, 201015 yr by YurSoakinginit

Ohh.... well I'm sorry, I screwed up! You see, all along, I was thinking more along the lines of this...

....and this!

I'd take that back if I were you. That's not keeping the discussion "above water."

And besides, R strikes me as someone who would definitely meet you outside.

Aww I think Soaking's sae, it's not like he implied that R Sinclair might have actually enjoyed or anticipated a storyline written by Megan McTavish or something