Jump to content

As The World Turns Discussion Thread


edgeofnik

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 17.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • DRW50

    2970

  • DramatistDreamer

    1958

  • Soapsuds

    1716

  • P.J.

    823

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

Martha's husband looks so much older since the last time I saw him. He reminds me of my cousin's husband.

Martha was on Facebook just the other day talking about Liz and asking for prayers for her family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've only read a little bit, but - I still don't exactly understand why he wouldn't be found guilty of at least harassment.  (I actually don't understand most of it) - if I was working for someone, I guess it's possible to not really know who you work for?  I guess if dirty money is paying you and you don't really know where the money came from?  But you're happy to get paid so you wouldn't care?  I guess I understand that.  But what I don't understand is I've seen where he voluntarily gave advice and expertise on how to effectively harass someone, things to do to make them uncomfortable.  Not any of my business but - I don't know how that make you a great investigator.  There's a difference in doing an investigation and finding someone - as that's what you were tasked to do.  Then once you've found the person - is that part of your job?  To then harass them or basically stalk them?  You found the dude or dude-ette, isn't your job done there?  I feel like someone could totally see that line being crossed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This case seems incredibly sketchy to me, in terms of the defenses being mounted. Let’s take the defendants at their words, that they believed they were collecting a debt or seeking recompense for a “theft”— they are hoping to benefit from a loophole, what I suspect has to do with the incredibly lax laws in the U.S. as it concerns debt collection where collectors seemingly are allowed to harass those deemed to be indebted, in some cases, even harassing people who have no debt. It seems like everyone has been “siloed” where no party knew what the others were doing at the team, so there can be a plausible deniability by the people orchestrating this activity. Also, it seems as if the Chinese aren’t the only ones who believe that it’s okay to extend their idea of justice into sovereign nations. Apparently, people in the U.S. now think this is normal. Just last year, I read a news item about a Chinese police outpost operating in NYC undiscovered by the authorities for some time https://www.npr.org/2023/04/17/1170571626/fbi-arrests-2-on-charges-tied-to-chinese-outpost-in-new-york-city local people, mostly Chinese mistakenly believed that it was some sort of cooperation with local police and had no idea it was a breach of sovereignty.

 As far as this case is concerned, why wouldn’t someone who had been in law enforcement check to see if their investigation was being conducted in accordance with the state and federal laws? Just sketchy and suspect afaic but I am no legal expert, what’s unethical is not always illegal.

It will be interesting to see how the law is interpreted. If there are indeed loopholes that have been exploited, hopefully they are tightened up by now because it is dangerous to allow uninvited officials claiming to represent law enforcement in to just collar people like this, especially by subterfuge.

Edited by DramatistDreamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is exactly what I do not understand.  If you were a police officer wouldn't you be somewhat wary of the "ask" here??  Wouldn't you know - wait, what am I doing?  What's my job here?  Because I think I'm finished.  But I do not think that happened.

And see, this is why I'm sketchy with the police.  They don't know they also have boundaries in MANY instances, and I feel like maybe he thought his status as a retired police meant - basic principles don't apply to me.  Or, I don't need to worry about some basic due diligence because of who I am.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Finland seemed such an odd choice for a location shoot. ATWT went to Greece and later Spain while GL had Tenerife and there were others in that timeframe. But Finland not being a known tourist destination or offering the tropical/sunny atmosphere usually associated with location shoots seems off brand. Maybe they were negotiating a deal with a tourist association and it fell through.
    • I was talking about 1986, but the glimpses of 1982 are about the same. 
    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
    • Brooke did ads before ATWT too. That probably helped get her the job. After ATWT she seemed to branch more into hosting, along with ads.  I think I saw Kelley in an ad or two, but you're right she wasn't on as much. 
    •   Thanks for sharing these. I wonder if Charles might have been in the running for Adam. I know Preacher was a bit of a bad boy at times on EON, but Neal seemed to be a step down, and Robert Lupone had played a similar part on AMC. Given the huge cast turnover at this point I wonder who thought they had been there long enough to go.  Laura Malone/Chris Rich would get a remote within the next year. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy