HIGHLA-L Digest - 10 Jan 2006 to 11 Jan 2006 (#2006-6)
HIGHLA-L automatic digest system (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Wed, 11 Jan 2006 22:00:08 -0500
There are 3 messages totalling 109 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. This one's for you. (2)
2. HIGHLA-L Digest - 9 Jan 2006 to 10 Jan 2006 (#2006-5)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 23:10:51 EST
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: This one's for you.
In a message dated 1/10/2006 9:26:15 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
mac.westie@VERIZON.NET writes:
>>Book of Daniel is, at worst & so far, adulterated crap.
LOL what do you know, I can agree :)
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 23:25:11 EST
From: Donna Sorenson <DonnaS4@aol.com>
Subject: Re: HIGHLA-L Digest - 9 Jan 2006 to 10 Jan 2006 (#2006-5)
In a message dated 1/10/2006 9:01:48 PM Central Standard Time,
LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu writes:
> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:44:46 -0700
> From: Pat Lawson <plawson@webleyweb.com>
> Subject: Re: This one's for you.
>
> Dotiran wrote:
>
>
> >It truly is a wonder however, how different we all are. I haven't found
> >anyone else yet who watched it who didn't come away with one word for it:
> >stupid. Your mileage obviously varied.
>
> As did mine. I rather enjoyed it. Had a few problems, but then most pilot
> episodes do.
>
> So now you have found someone else who watched it and didn't think it was
> stupid.
>
> Pat
>
Here's another whose mileage varied. I watched mainly because of all the
hooplah over the show. Now I have it scheduled on my DVR to record each episode.
I'm afraid there won't be many episodes though. I'm hoping the network and
sponsors will stand strong, but if not, there's always DVD.
At least you actually watched it, Dotiran, rather than condemning it unseen.
Donna
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:00:11 -0600
From: Ginny Gibbs <red57metoo@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: This one's for you.
Dotiran@aol.com wrote:
>I watched the show because of my admiration for several of the actors,
>especially Aidan Quinn, but even his baby blues couldn't convince me on this one.
>I was embarassed for him and for all the actors who were in such
>stereotypical roles. The characters weren't deep or riveting or even much fun, just
>"types."
>
>It was a bit like watching Adrian Paul in some of the dreck he has been in
>these last few years. You want to root for him, you know he is doing the best
>job he can with the material, but ultimately, the "vehicle" drags even the
>best down with it.
>
>In both cases you walk away feeling like you've been slimed.
>
>De gustibus non est disputandum
>
>
>
>
Disclaimer: I'm an Episcopalian, so I really wanted to like this show.
There were moments, but...
Dammit, I really wanted to like this show. Besides the "Desperate
Housewives" meets "Seventh Heaven" aspect, and in spite of a few details
that I chuckled and nodded at, I kept getting distracted by "fantasy"
aspects of the show. Not the portrayal of "Hippie Jesus, but of
completely silly details that most people will miss. Like, two too many
bishops hanging around the parish, plus they're having an affair. And
news flash: the rectory is way, way, way too nice. No rectory has a
gorgeous kitchen like that (granted, the premise is "money in the
family," but come on!
Some of the problems depicted (embezzlement, drinking, "PK's" out of
control) can and do happen, but a more realistic problem is "How do we
pay the heating bill AND get the roof repaired AND reduce expenses
elsewhere?"
Trust me, that's real - it's a conversation I was involved with last
night. ;)
Still, our vicar thought it was funny, so go figure.
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 10 Jan 2006 to 11 Jan 2006 (#2006-6)
*************************************************************