HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: maven@lerc.nasa.gov (Larry Fishbach)
Subject: Re: The Stalker/This weeks Spoiler
Reply-To: maven@hercules.lerc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:14:41 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.084550.4591@memstvx1.memst.edu>, mcsweinberg@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
> -----
> 
> Well I suppose next week we will get the "low-down" on the "stalker" and put
> this to rest. Why? Because in the previews for this weeks episode they show
> Gwen confronting the "stalker", I assume, by chastising the person dressed up
> as SANTA at the Christmas party to stay away from her!
> 
> Ok the Stalker--
> 
> Stewart- Well I can't believe she accused him, no I don't think it's him!
> 
> Daniel- 
> 	He would fit I mean he could have paid someone to scare her in the
> 	garage the timing was to perfect.
> 	
> 	But they wouldn't bring in an Actor like him just to do away with him
> 	so quickly!
> 
> 	Here's an idea what about someone from Daniel's past?
> 
> The X-Wife of the man she helped get the divorce settlement. This would work
> but:
> 
> 	The "Santa" theory leaves that it looked like a man, and why would
> 	someone who doesn't work at the firm be the parties Santa!
> 
> Any other ideas???
> 
> Rai.
> 
I believe it was Ann who told Gwen that the person knew so
much about her schedule that he/she had to be from the office.

-- 
*******************************************************************************
maven@hercules.lerc.nasa.gov   Larry Fishbach @ NASA Lewis Cleveland Ohio
"Everything here is my own opinion"   Quoth the Maven "Evermore"
*******************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.tv.la-law:870 rec.arts.tv:24294
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:30:01 EST
From: Julia E. Hawley <JH8414A@auvm.american.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: LAW'n'ORDER Group??
 <1992Dec17.131847.27910@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>

Still, this is a great show and there are no groups for criminal justice--at le
ast I haven't seen any.  This show is realistic and accurate and not media hype
like COPS, et al.

my 2 cents...begin one!
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
From: maven@lerc.nasa.gov (Larry Fishbach)
Subject: The Stalker
Reply-To: maven@hercules.lerc.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland, OH
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 13:21:54 GMT

If I remember correctly, Morales was getting off the elevator
in the garage when the "stalker" drove off after frightening Gwenn.
-- 
*******************************************************************************
maven@hercules.lerc.nasa.gov   Larry Fishbach @ NASA Lewis Cleveland Ohio
"Everything here is my own opinion"   Quoth the Maven "Evermore"
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
From: epstein@cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein)
Subject: Re: The Stalker/This weeks Spoiler
Reply-To: epstein@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:04:02 GMT


[Note the "SPOILER" in the subject line -- nothing major though for
people who have been following this discussion.]




In <1992Dec14.084550.4591@memstvx1.memst.edu> mcsweinberg@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:

>Well I suppose next week we will get the "low-down" on the "stalker" and put
>this to rest. Why? Because in the previews for this weeks episode they show
>Gwen confronting the "stalker", I assume, by chastising the person dressed up
>as SANTA at the Christmas party to stay away from her!

Interesting, but this may be another red herring.  I say that because
in a local TV schedule for last week I saw a picture of Gwen and
Daniel together, with Daniel in a Santa suit.  I wondered about it,
because there was no such scene in that week's show.  Putting it
together with what you say above makes me think that:

   o  Daniel is going to be Santa

   o  Gwen accuses him (wrongly!) [I say this because from the end of
      last week's show, Gwen seems to think it's Daniel, but as most
      people here seem to agree, it's probably not him -- plus the
      fact that I suspect they will tease us about this even longer.]

Although I suppose it's possible they could have more than one person
dressed up as Santa, and draw the whole thing to a close here.

Anyway, I'm currently as lost as everyone seems to be on the identity
of the gift-sender.  None of the theories mentioned here have struck
me as realistic (but who says the show is going to be realistic about
this :-), and I can't think of anyone else it might be.

-- 
Milt Epstein
Department of Computer Science
University of Illinois
epstein@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
From: jswartz@mbunix.mitre.org (Swartz)
Subject: Re: The Stalker/This weeks Spoiler
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 15:42:50 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.215119.6957@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh2j@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Im a Joker Im a Smoker Im a Midnight Toker) writes:

>and be confronted by the real stalker (whoever it may be). But I would be
>willing to bet that it is someone who is not currently on the show, and will
>make a special appearance...none other than that world class backstabber
>himself:
>                FRANK KITRICH!!!!!!!!!!-formerly of Mackenzie/Brackman
>
>just a thought....I think I have finally figured out how they try to keep it
> interesting in the previews
>

How about Susan Bloom?


-- 
--JOHN A. SWARTZ---The MITRE Corporation---Bedford, Massachusetts--
   "Just call me Desdinova - I'm sure to be the lucky one
   when destiny assigns wisdom - known to me, this starry wisdom . . .
   I am the one you warned me of"                     Blue Oyster Cult
From: cho@ucbeh.san.uc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
Subject: Re: The Stalker
Date: 14 Dec 92 13:41:42 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati

In article <1992Dec14.132154.23256@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>, maven@lerc.nasa.gov (Larry Fishbach) writes:
> If I remember correctly, Morales was getting off the elevator
> in the garage when the "stalker" drove off after frightening Gwenn.
> -- 
> *******************************************************************************
> maven@hercules.lerc.nasa.gov   Larry Fishbach @ NASA Lewis Cleveland Ohio
> "Everything here is my own opinion"   Quoth the Maven "Evermore"
> *******************************************************************************

But Martinez (isn't it?) could have paid someone to 'scare' her, so that she
couldn't hold him responsible.  He would need an alibi, and that could be it.
He's really the only logical person to be the stalker, actually.  

Did they have their alleged date yet?
-Pamela Cho-
From: skitchen@pilot.njin.net (Sco3tt Kitchen)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
Subject: Stalker Stuff Re: I missed it! (Spoilers for 12/17 episode)
Date: 19 Dec 92 22:14:19 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

There are spoilers and leaps of logic ahead, so, like, consider
yourselves warned...













In article <1gtausINNb4k@gap.caltech.edu> roder@cco.caltech.edu (Brenda J. Roder) writes:

> Stalker:  no resolution yet.  no more presents.  Gwen accused Daniel and he
> denied it plus Rox was telling her it couldn't be him because he is such a 
> good father and so on.
> 

I disagree on this assessment.  I think they're approaching a
resolution for the stalker thread.  When Gwen first started receiving
presents anonymously, I had no clue as to what was going on.  When she
received the heart, I tried to make a leap of logic about who would
dislike Gwen that much.  The first person who came to mind was our old
friend, Mr. Kittredge.

Having seen the episode on 12/17, I have formed a new opinion.  I
think it's Romney, the guy who opposed Brackman and sent him to jail.
First, the ring (a diamond no less -- or so he claims).  Then when he
dressed up as Santa to fool Gwen into kissing him.  I think he's
trying to set up Morales as a fall guy to get Gwen for his very own.

Any opinions?

Scott
-- 
Scott Kitchen  |  Net.handsome.lug  |  ICBM: 40.88 N  74.56 W
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kitman's Law: Pure drivel tends to drive away ordinary drivel.
From: kat@banach.WPI.EDU (Flame's Passion)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
Subject: Re: Thoughts/Spoilers on 12/11 Show
Date: 11 Dec 1992 22:19:29 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: banach.wpi.edu

In article <1992Dec11.163902.3315@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gjh2j@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (Im a Joker Im a Smoker Im a Midnight Toker) writes:

>I'm going to go out on a limb, and say that the stalker is a female, and that
>it is the new associate (played by Lisa Zane). YOu want a motive? I'll give
>you one: she doesn't want to be threatened by this night school, second
>rate attorney who just waltzes in and gets the job while she has been
>slaving for years to get a position like this. Most of the fairy tales
>mentioned have an evil FEMALE as the lead villain. Yeah, it's a stretch,
>but since the character will probably only be around for one season why not
>
>She could also have a crush on A MArtinez, and followed him in here,
>hey they're both hispanic, why not have it tie in some way, as is always
>the case with this show...
>
>I'd personally like to see Zane replace Sheila Kelly on the show, she seems
>more realistic, and not some hormone plagued teeny-bopper, riding her
>way to the top.

Who?  The new chick from last night? (who in my opinion is quite a *#$!@...)
Although this sounds like a nifty storyline, I doubt that the writers of
LA Law would be that creative.  (Way back when, they may have, but not now...)

>Thgen again, it could be Frank Kitrich, seeking revenge on Gwen for getting
> him
> fired, that he treated her like a prince in a fairy tale and she ripped
> his heart out (proverbially speaking)

Again, who?  

I know, I missed something around here..... *sigh*  

kat
 ***************************************************************************
      Christina Freeman                                 kat@wpi.wpi.edu
		"Was there not, from the first, more poison in
 			  your nature than in mine?" 
                           - _Rappaccini's Daughter_ 
			      Nathaniel Hawthorne
                  ********************************************


Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
From: rakesh@svcdudes.com (Rakesh Chabra)
Subject: 12/10 Episode on Tape??
Reply-To: rakesh@svcdudes.com
Organization: Software Ventures, Inc.
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 18:37:16 GMT

Does anyone have the episode on tape that I could borrow and watch?

The power went out in the area and my VCR forgot its programming.  Sigh...

I would appreciate it if anyone could help me.

Thanks,

Rakesh
From: dpotts@sw.stratus.com (David Potts)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
Subject: Re: Thoughts/Spoilers on 12/11 Show
Date: 11 Dec 92 15:18:15 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pdp.sw.stratus.com

I'm not usually one to comment on this show, it's merits, it's artistic
quality, etc., but after last night I felt I have to, at least in part.

I agree with many of the readers of this newsgroup that the evolution of
Stuart's character is pretty ridiculous.  Last night takes the cake.  Remember
the scene in E.T., where Elliot lets all the frogs loose?  Dogs, frogs,
not too different, if you ask me.  Similarly, I've felt for quite a while
that Stuart is just so much window dressing on this show.  What does he
do, anyway?  Sure, he's argued a case or two over the years, but I can't
remember him doing much legal work over the course of the show.  Certainly,
he's there now as half of a husband-wife team, ostensibly to showcase such
relationships in settings such as a law firm.  However, he's now much more
of a second incarnation of Benny (and doesn't play the part nearly as well
as does Larry Drake).

Then, too, is this business between Tommy/Roxanne.  Geez, LA Law folks, get
these two a life, please.  Seeing Tommy fawn all over Roxanne was/is
revolting, considering his previous crustiness and exacerbating personality.
And Roxanne as the main love interest on the show?  Please!  I admit that
the old storyline with Dave Myers was good, and it was also a natural that
she and Becker would wind up together, if only for a short time, but this
current storyline is more than a little bit silly.

Gwen?  Stalker?  Realistic?  You be the judge.  

And the old Arnie Becker would have immediately employed a sleazy yet
effective private detective to determine whether or not the woman could
walk, instead of staging such a hokey scene which was GUARANTEED to come off
as it did.

This show was exemplary in its presentation of courtroom drama, sort of
upscale Perry Mason.  Now, it's sunk to a daytime soap which is on at
night.  I'll continue to watch, unfortunately, in the hope that it will get
better, and maybe they'll somehow get back to what made the show a success in
the first place.

Stephen Bochco, where are you???????
From: mcsweinberg@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
Subject: I liked it!
Date: 11 Dec 92 14:56:39 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

Well I liked most of last night's episode. Of course, I watched it at 1 AM
never the less. But: 

1) I'm so glad the4 gun incident didn't involve Mathew.
2) I was p'od at Rox she need to not feel so sorry for herself.
3) The new associate dresses like she's from another decade.
4) I can't believe Gwen accused Stuart!
5) Why didn't Daniel offer to walk Gwen to her car or anything. Why didn't
anyone offer!
6) I like the way Tommy fell for Rox.
7) Is "Fliker"the movie guy a young guy in makeup?

Yes, I'm still a fan! But I watch Law & Order too!

Rai.
From: ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu (Kaveh R. Ghazi)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
Subject: Ann's chair problems ...
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:42:07 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


	Regarding the chair stuff with the new associate at the staff meeting,
does anyone remember Ann having a chair problem with Rosalind too?
		--Kaveh
-- 
Kaveh R. Ghazi			CAIP Center, Rutgers University.
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu		rutgers!caip.rutgers.edu!ghazi
Xref: sparky alt.tv.la-law:875 rec.arts.tv:24332
From: mcsweinberg@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law,rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: LAW'n'ORDER Group??
Date: 20 Dec 92 14:12:34 -0600
Followup-To: poster
Distribution: world
Organization: Memphis State University

I love Law and Order and L A.  Law.
I see no problem in letting them share a group along with (Civil Wars not that
i watch it)

Rai.
_______________________________________________________________________________

"Damn, I wish I was your lover,                          R A I
I'd rock you till the daylight comes                Raina Weinberg
make sure you are smiling and warm,          _Memphis State University_
I am everything tonight I'll be your              Memphis, Tn USA
mother do such things to ease your pain
free your mind and you won't be the         MCSWEINBERG@MSUVX1.MEMST.EDU
same."   Sophie B. Hawkins
_______________________________________________________________________________
In article <BzKHBr.F6I@world.std.com>, dmb@world.std.com (Deborah M Brown)
writes:
> In article <92353.173001JH8414A@auvm.american.edu> Julia E. Hawley <JH8414A@auvm.american.edu> writes:
>>Still, this is a great show and there are no groups for criminal justice--at le
>>ast I haven't seen any.  This show is realistic and accurate and not media hype
>>like COPS, et al.
> 
> There IS misc.legal for one.  That episode where the religious couple
> let their daughter die by not calling the doctor (against their
> religion) generated metric tons of postings for weeks on the tv, legal 
> and civil liberties groups.  It was great!
> 
> While the pilot grabbed me immediately, it took me a while to warm up to
> the characters, as they don't go out of their way to tell us anything
> about them, least of all show us their private lives.  I kind of like 
> it that way actually.  
> 
>>my 2 cents...begin one!
> 
> This is one of three shows I will not miss for ANY reason, but I think
> the net.volume it generates and the small number of people who I see posting 
> about it when there ARE articles to rea lead me to believe that we wouldn't
> get enough votes to get it passed per usenet guidelines.
> 
> -- 
> *********** "Oh shut up, Frank!"  Dr. Clayton Forrester, MST3K *********
> Disclaimer: "Disclaim THIS, pal!" (Crow bit me - it IS fun!)
> Internet:   dmb@world.std.com   -or-   dmb7229@ultb.isc.rit.edu 
> Debbie Brown | Prodigy: NCNX32A | America OnLine: misty15930@aol.com
From: amy@vineland.pubs.stratus.com (Amy McNulty)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
Subject: Re: Thoughts/Spoilers on 12/11 Show
Date: 11 Dec 92 16:34:13 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer Inc, Marlboro MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: blueheron.pubs.stratus.com

In article <DOEL.92Dec11094456@bbq.bae.bellcore.com>  
doel@bae.bellcore.com (Michael Doel) writes:
> 
> Pamela Cho writes:
> [other items deleted for brevity.]
> > 7.  Jonathan's now heading to Africa, maybe he'll head to Somalia  
to lend a
> > hand?
> 
> A pointless plot device if you ask me.  Unless they intend to have  
Jonathan
> transformed while in Africa (ala Arnie), there's no reason for him to  
go
> there.

Unless they're going to write him out of the show too.
His character really seems to be floundering for a plotline
these days....
______________________________________________________________
amy_mcnulty@vos.stratus.com  or  amy@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Amy McNulty -- Stratus Computer, Marlboro, MA
Stratus pays me to write, but not to write this!
From: glazier@isr.harvard.edu (Andrew Baker Glazier)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.simpsons
Subject: Re: Snowball I and Re: Prank calls to Moe: a starter list
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:42:30 GMT
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge, MA

>Far be it from me to flame someone else, but I was struck by this.
>
>In article <1992Dec14.155659.5667@burrhus.harvard.edu>, glazier@isr.harvard.edu (Andrew Baker Glazier) writes:
>|> In article <622@blue.cis.pitt.edu> mxsst1+@pitt.edu (Michael   Stroucken) writes:
>|> >
>|> >Anybody know who Snowball I was and what happened to her?
>|> 
>|> DON'T POST QUESTIONS UNLESS YOU'VE READ THE FAQ!!!!!!!!!!!!
>|> 
>|> Has this been said enough times for you now?
>|> 
>|> Snowball I was Lisa's first cat, and it was hit by a car.
>
>And then the very next article on my newsserver was from Mr. Glazier, and
>read:
>
>|> Please feel free to add to or revise this; it's just what I remember off
>|> the top:
>|>
>|> Seymour Butts
>|> Ivana Tinkle 
>|> I. P. Freely
>|> Homer Sexual
>|> Amanda Huggenkiss
>|> Mike Rotch
>|> Oliver Clothesoff
>|> Hugh Jass
>
>Which, of course, is in the FAQ. This struck me as being *just* a little 

Well, the copy *I* have (which I did not get from this newsgroup, but from
another user, and may well have been edited by them) *does* mention
Snowball, and does not contain any list of Bart's calls to Moe. Needless to
say, if it did I wouldn't have posted the above

>(Actually, strangely enough, there's no mention of Snowball I in my
>copy of the FAQ, which admittedly is a little out of date, being the
>10/12/92 version.)
>
>One other thing. Snowball I was indeed Lisa's first cat (1988-1990)
>and was killed by a car driven by the mayor's brother Clovis.
>(From ``Treehouse of Horror III''.)
>
 Could someone please mail me the FAQ, or post it?

-- 
"A horse! A horse! Somebody give me a horse, man, because|glazier@ 
I come to bury this dirtball, not to praise him. Whaddya |harvard.isr.edu
think I am? Whether it's nobler for the mind to make people suffer with all
these totally outrageous arrows arrows for a fortune, or what!" -- D.R.
Newsgroups: alt.tv.simpsons
From: eric@milton.u.washington.edu (Eric Hirst)
Subject: DYN for One Eyed Space Monster fans
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:37:27 GMT

While skimming through my father's upcoming Xmas present, Drawing on the
Right Hand Side of the Brain, (c)1989 by Betty Edwards, I stumbled on the
likely source of the One Eyed Space Monsters.  On page 72, there is a drawing
by P. Nameche (?? - the signature is hard to read) of the original OESM itself,
complete with a dagger stuck into a bleeding wound in its head.  The text
indicates that the P. Nameche(?) was an adolescent.  The book was a bestseller,
so I assume that some of the animators would have seen it.  I am also assuming
that the first halloween episode (October 1990) was the first appearance of
OESM's on the show.

I'd be curious to see whether anybody named _. _ameche wound up in that show's
credits. 

Eric Hirst
eric@u.washington.edu
From: KitchenRN@ssd0.laafb.af.mil
Newsgroups: alt.tv.simpsons
Subject: FOX pregnancies
Date: 15 Dec 1992 12:45:19 -0500
Organization: Widener University Mail/News Gateway
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.widener.edu

ctalbott@mksol.dseg.ti.com (christopher j talbott) writes:

>Married...With Children:  Last season, Peg was pregnant, and so was
>Marcy.  Yet, this season, no infants...

You mean you didn't see the episode where Al found out that the whole 
pregnancy thing was a dream?  (Was this an homage to "Dallas", or was 
Benjamin Franklin really the father of Peg's baby? :-) )

Seriously, though, the end of the pregnancy storyline was necessitated 
because Katie Segall, the actress who plays Peg, miscarried her baby in real 
life, and I guess the writers decided it wouldn't be very sensitive to try to 
get her to continue a pregnancy storyline at that point.  Thus the "dream" 
episode.
From: KitchenRN@ssd0.laafb.af.mil
Newsgroups: alt.tv.simpsons
Subject: Re: Continuity error spotted.
Date: 11 Dec 1992 18:57:35 -0500
Organization: Widener University Mail/News Gateway
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.widener.edu

cal@ee.ryerson.ca (Calvin Henry-Cotnam) writes:
>I don't know if anyone has noticed this before, but since Globas shows
>two episodes on Thursday night here in Canada, I noticed this last night.
>
>In the episode with Homer's low sperm count, when the couch is broken,
>he remembers all the fond memories on the couch.  One such memory is that
>of finding out who shot J.R. on Dallas.
>
>At 8:30, the episode where Marge thought she might be pregnant was shown.
>While she was visiting the doctor's, Homer was telling the kids about when
>they got married.  In the scene where Homer was working at a fast food
>restaurant, Marge came through the drive through to ask that he return
>home.  He tore off his uniform and underneath the shirt, was a T-shirt
>that said, "I shot J.R.".
>
>How could he have such a shirt at such a young age (with hair) when
>he watched the episode telling who shot J.R. when he was older (and balder)?

Well, this is just a *suggestion*, but:
J.R. was shot on the last episode of the season (what year was that, 
anyway?), but his assailant wasn't revealed until the first episode of the 
following season, which I think was shown in October.  During that summer, 
lots of those shirts appeared.  So, maybe Homer got old and bald between the 
time that he bought the shirt, and the time he found out who shot J.R..
Like I said, just a suggestion. ;-)
From: winnipg@sys6626.bison.mb.ca (Winnipg)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.simpsons
Subject: Re: Hello, Joe!
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 03:17:00 CST
Organization: System 6626 BBS, Winnipeg Manitoba Canada

boo@willow25.cray.com (Pete Bucheger) writes:

> 
> In article <1g3aelINNs0n@morrow.stanford.edu>, AH.PBL@forsythe.stanford.edu (
> > 
> >   Mighty alt.tv.simpsons Reference Queens:  None of you has
> > told the rest of us where "Grandma (Hello, Joe!) Flanders"
> > comes from.  Now, I know what you're thinking:  "Oh, you
> > just look for references *everywhere*, don't you"?  But I
> > don't, really.  I just feel, deep down in my bosom, that that
> > old lady must exist in literature, film, TV, *somewhere*!
> > (Besides the Flanders' attic.)
> > 
> > -- Mark (Not a Reference Queen, but trying. Okay: a princess.)
> > " Read the bosom part again, dad! "
> > 
> 
> Isn't it a reference to the witch from the hit musical Damn Yankees?
> 

A certain Bogart/Elton John cola commercial comes to mind.
Newsgroups: alt.tv.simpsons