Well, I sincerely appreciate you taking the time and effort to compose a thoughtful response to my post, Esbea.

>On another thread, I encouraged you
>to stay around.

Yes, and I never did acknowledge that, but I did take your advice, and I stuck around a while longer. So thanks for that, too. You seem like a nice person...

>If
>youre interested in discussing whether
>or not Tim will end
>up in therapy...start a thread
>about it.

However, the next time you write a post trying to show that no one is mocking me, could you please try to do it without mocking me? That would be really helpful. Thanks.

>I
>would be curious to know
>what your sweeping generalizations about
>the site and the people
>in the community are based
>on. I have no
>idea how long you read
>before you joined the site,
>but 10 posts suggests to
>me that you havent checked
>out enough of the site
>to insult the membership in
>such a manner.

Fair enough question. Actually I haven't been anywhere except the "Joe Schmo" area of this site, so my impressions are solely based on the cross section of the membership that is interested in that series. I really didn't even think outside this particular box. My sweeping generalizations are indeed not about the whole membership of Reality TV World, but only about the members who frequent the "Joe Schmo" area.

Because I didn't have anyone in my personal life that loved - or even liked - "Joe Schmo 2", I went on the Internet searching for people I could share my love of the show with - looking for sympatico people in all the wrong places. But nothing could be more wrong than this.

Meet Paradise Lost, a reality TV fan that has signed up for a "Joe Schmo" fan site that he thinks is real. While the clues that it isn't are all around him from day one - the writer of the first episode summary said "The whole spoof is so over the top that even the stupidest government employee could figure out the joke. The “acting” is pathetic. No better than really bad soap opera, the sophomore class play, or those sniveling wannabes we saw two hours ago on Next Action Star. And the dialogue, while intended to be cheesy, is beyond processed cheese food; so laughably bad that it elicits sniggling from the two folks who are supposed to find it believable." and even called called Executive Producer/Co-Creator/Writer Rhett Reese "Brite Weaselfeces" - he still doesn't catch on. In fact, Paradise Lost is so clueless and in love with the show that he really can't see that this summary writer is ripping the show to pieces, and he posts a serious response to the review as if the writer were a sympatico ally! Oddly enough, the writer posts a respectful, serious reply. So Paradise Lost, while disturbed on a subconscious level about the review's tone, maintains the illusion that he is in the right place.

Then he reads SableBunny's post, which rings loud bells about why he is feeling that subconscious discomfort:
The recaps are for those of us who watch the show and want to make fun of it as well as for those of us who don't watch the show and want to remember why. This entire board, in fact, serves that purpose for all reality TV. If you want serious, I suggest going to the show's official pages...you won't find it here. If you're looking to fill in some gaps in the storyline, you can always just post your question and I'm sure someone who saw the show can give you the answer. Probably even the recapper...since it's usually certain they watched the show.
Between the snarking lines, you can usually get the gist of what the show was about. In the case of this particular episode, that recap pretty much nailed the content. The funny stuff is the spoon (and sometimes cup) full of sugar that makes the medicine go down.

Now, SableBunny has 80-some posts, and familiarity with other areas of the site. What SableBunny said seemed to jive with what I'd seen and felt. For instance, I_AM_HE wrote a summary and felt obligated to not only leave his positive feelings out of the summary but to put them in tiny print at the end as if apologizing for them. Why? WHY??

>I wasnt sure
>when you started the thread
>about Everett if you were
>serious or not.

I was quite serious, tho not out of any overconcern for the well-being of an amphibian. At a couple of other sites I was surprised to learn that there was a fairly widespread misconception that the frog had died in real life, and that this had inspired the writers to put the frog's death into the show and have the acting and reality casts react to that. It was apparently based on the phrasing of one of the actors in a candid interview about the frog on the show. TV Tome even added to the end of its summary, "And no, the frog didn't really die." So I figured if any of my buddies back at RTVW were also under that misconception, that I could clear it up. But of course everyone here was far too savvy for that, so all I got was sarcasm and inanity. That was my 5th post, I think, so how many sarcastic reactions do you need at that point to solidify an already growing impression?

> Youve expressed your dismay
>at the summaries posted here,
>yet when we had 3
>up for grabs last week,
>where were you?

I was over at SpikeTV.com chatting with Austin.

Seriously, tho, I was under the impression that there were dozens of people on the waiting list to write these summaries - I am apparently mistaken. I actually did consider putting my name in as a candidate to write a summary, but I didn't think anyone here would want to read what I would want to write about this show. I am in awe of the creators, I think Ralph Garman is one of the most talented people working in television, I think Amanda is the sweetest cutest thing, I think Tim is a genuinely noble person, I think Ingrid is a far better actress than she gives herself credit for (I'm referencing her chat at Spike), I think the editors on this show deserve an Emmy, I think the Preview Editors deserve not only an Emmy but a large portion of the credit for what makes this show so good - along with Ralph's voice-overs on those same previews.

These are my feelings and they would color any summary I would write. I can't hide my love of the show, and the fact that I am both tickled and touched by it, in small print at the bottom.

Nobody here wants to read that stuff. Though the styles of the summaries vary, and some - including yours - add some very funny observations, there is a uniform tone of being "above" liking or appreciating the work of these talented people.

schmoe, the guy who I was responding to here, found Eleanor's dissing of Austin "very funny".

It made me cry.

>But
>when you choose to voice
>those differences in a certain
>tone and manner, dont be
>suprised when you get it
>back as good as you
>gave it. As it says
>at the top of the
>page, "If you disagree with
>something I write, tell me
>so, argue with me, correct
>me--but don't tell me to
>shut up. That's not the
>American way."

I never told anybody to shut up. I never set out to insult anybody, either. Is there anyone here who has even tried to hide that they are here to sneer, here to mock, here to make fun of, here to laugh at? Is there anyone who doesn't in fact wear their cynicism as a badge of pride? So if I observe this, why should anyone feel insulted?

This is the feeling I have about the majority of the people that I have encountered here. But "thin skinned" or not, I won't need therapy for my experiences here, any more than Tim will need it for his experiences on "Joe Schmo 2".

But if you guys want to give me $100,000 to ease the pain, my PayPal name is (removed by moderator)