LAST EDITED ON 08-10-04 AT 11:45 AM (EST)
"Exactly! That's a 20% sarcasm reply rate. My posts complimenting the show have about an 80% NO-reply rate."
I have to say that after going back and researching that comment, I am confused at how you reached your conculsion. I found 2 posts on summaries where you pointed out things missed by the summarizer coupled with a "good job" type statement. Similar, I might point out, to many other posts on the threads that did not seem to warrant a reply. I found and pleasant exchange with Joisey on his summary. I found 2 replies to you on Tiger Lilys summary both noting that they agreed with you with regard to liking the show. Our exchanges here have been civil and postive, so Im not sure where your coming from with the (about) 80% figure.
"That really burned me up. Because when someone posts a short comment that appears pithy and tart, but which is also obscure, without explaining the reasoning behind it, the suggestion is that anyone as "smart" as them will immediately be able to unravel the thought processes that led to the comment, and everyone else isn't worth bothering to communicate with."
While the onus for clarity on this site lies with the poster, it seems to me that a whole lot is being read into what was posted.
"That superior attitude is infuriating to me. My only comfort is that with that kind of post, the probability that there is NO reasoning behind it is 50%. Because some people will say things like that just to appear smart. And there's a 100% probability that this person is a poor communicator."
This comment could be seen by some as a personal attack on a fellow poster, which the moderators take a very dim view of. I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and suggest that if you dont understand why someone posted something in particular, it might be less infuriating to ask them what they meant or why they are taking a certain position rather than assuming the worst. Unless you know someone well, its impossible to know exactly what their motivation is for anything. By deciding on ones own what someone else feeling/thinking/saying/implying/inferring doesnt make one any better at communication than the original offender.
"Wow, I had not heard of any serious damage that had resulted from that show. I do know that Rocket Science Laboratories, which made the show, was sued by a couple for psychological damages on another of their shows, "Temptation Island". And I wanted to sue them for bad TV on "The Next Joe Millionaire". Were they sued for MBFOF, too? Heck, they already gave the family a million."
Not that Im aware of. I was using that as an example as discussions that had been brought up. Badly done perhaps. It was to illustrate the point that I wasnt mocking you, but that people DO discuss things like that.
"If you mock "Joe Schmo", you're mocking the hard, creative work of writers and actors and a crew that are working their butts off to both entertain you AND keep it real enough to make the show's central joke work. It seems to me that to mock these fellow mockers of reality TV can only come out of a need to feel superior to everyone. I may be wrong about that, but I'm quite surprised that these pretty clever guys pointing out the same reality TV absurdities that people on this site have probably busted on many times aren't considered "one of us" instead of people to find fault with."
Or possibly, we are just mocking ourselves for being so completely entertained by what certainly cant be considered high-brow programming. Theres no question that its easy to say "Id have never done that...Id have caught on...". When the reality is that, if given the chance, theyd have been there, doing the exact same thing. Its human nature to Monday Morning Quarterback, and lets face it.....its nice to see someone else be an idiot for an hour. Everyone does stupid things, its fun for an hour NOT to be the only one.
"And the acclaim for her performance was very widespread - so widespread that it even made it onto this site! Not in the episode summary but in the fine print at the end."
Like I said...fine print is a good thing.
"Well, thank you, Esbea. Is it too late for me to volunteer to write up the final hour?"
Youre welcome. I believe that woeisme1 has offered to do the finale. The last time that I heard from her, she was willing to collaborate with someone else because it was a 2 hour episode. You might try PMing her. Shes a lovely, gentle soul. Im sure shed be grateful for the help if no one has already offered to help her out.
To PM:
You would need to find one of her posts, in the upper right hand corner there is an envelope. If you click on it, it will take you to the sites message center and allow you to type in a message. When youve finished, click "send" and it will go to Woe's private on-site mailbox. Its usually a good idea to post on an active thread that youve sent PM with the recipients name in the subject line. You can tell if you have gotten a reply by going to a main forum page (I usually click on Off Topic in the blue column to the left of this page) and there will be a red flag waving at the top saying that you have new messages.
EDITED TO ADD: Regarding Everett? They took him away from Cammy and put him in a closed environment with a natural predator. TO ME, "nature took its course" says that Montecore did what came naturally and killed the frog, not that Everett died a natural death. Hence, the only way for Everett to "really" be dead, in my mind, was for him to be intentionally killed by the production team. Besides being incredibly inhumane, Im sure SPIKEs got enough special interest groups on their back without adding PETA.
Thanks for the digression in your original post. I have mild dyslexia and my brain goes faster than my fingers. Catching ALL the typos sometimes is too much work.