HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: riddle@brahms.udel.edu (Tammy Riddle)
Subject: Re: DOOL: Kim is Road Pizza
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 13:27:46 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.011545.5907@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> stapleto@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Kathy Stapleton) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.202449.14959@chpc.utexas.edu> peea224@chpc.utexas.edu (Joanna L. Castillo) writes:
>>In article <BrqvGH.2D5@news.udel.edu> riddle@brahms.udel.edu (Tammy Riddle) writes:
>>>In article <1992Jul20.215957.4739@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mins@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (timothy.j.mizerak) writes:
>>>what is his connection with Lisanne and all this other stuff?  I know I've
>>>missed a couple of shows, and I haven't been too intentive during the ones
>>>I've watched, but if he and Lisanne are old friends, why don't we ever see
>>>them together?
>>
>>Where'd you get that idea?  I don't think they've had any scenes
>>together...why do you think Austin and Lisanne are old friends?  
>
>     Well Lemon-Fresh, Canty will attempt to answer your question
>about Austin and Lisanne..I think it was brought up because in SOD,
>when Austin was new to the show, it said that he "is an old friend of
>Lisanne's"...


Yep Canty, you got it right.  I thought they might use Austin to go after
John, but I guess not.


>
>>Help, Peachy Pie...I don't understand!  As for the fake cop stuff, 
>>they're apparently setting things up so Austin's a bit of a thug or
>>something -- in one of the episodes last week when he was hanging
>>around the Bradys a lot he called his bookie (sp? -- I guess you can
>>tell I don't have one, eh?) to place a bet and said that the new
>>Brady pub would be a great place to do some business.
>>
>
>     I think it was also mentioned that Carrie might get mixed up with
>this gambling ring?  And I think Austin is at the forefront of the
>ring.

Now this I didn't know!!!  Thanks for the info, Lemon and Canty.


>
>>
>>>>|  What is it up in the air for?                :   Timothy Mizerak        |
>>>
>>>--Peach
>>
>>Joanna.
>
>Canty :)

--Peach
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps
From: thompson@waldron.Stanford.EDU (Sharon Thompson)
Subject: Re: AMC:  General Musings
Organization: Psychology Dept, Stanford Univ.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 00:20:51 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.162349.15443@Synopsys.Com> karen@synopsys.com (Karen Vahtra) writes:
>
>5.  Dixie and Brian.  Why do these relationships have to 
>    start so fast?  I would like to see a couple banter for
>    a lot longer first.  Some of the best romances were those
>    like Cecily and Nico, where they didn't really fall in
>    love right away.  Galen and Steven aren't appealing IMHO
>    because they just jumped into the sack without any
>    real lust or anything.  Let's see more friendships and
>    other story lines on this show.

Be careful what you wish for -- remember that's how the punk-Hayley and
the wimpy-Brian got started -- it was months (and one character change)
before it turned into more. Definitely NOT one of the better AMC
romances.

SHARON
STANFORD, CA




Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps
From: debbiek@rruxc.uucp (25670s-kennedy)
Subject: Re: AMC: Thanks
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 14:14:24 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.233939.6340@EE.Stanford.EDU>, campbell@EE.Stanford.EDU (Martha C. Campbell) writes:
> know if its been covered (if so SORRY).  A couple of weeks ago (maybe
> longer) when Halo returned the ring to Brian, did she swim the deep
> waters of the ocean to find the ring.  I thought that after their
> major fight on the beech she tossed it into the ocean.  Or was it a
> different ring she mailed to him.  Just wondering.
>    Martha C. Campbell                    |One of the biggest challenges for
Actually, Brian was the one who threw the ring 
into the ocean, Duh!  The ring she mailed to
him was his High School Ring that she's had
for about a year.
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Friday, 24 Jul 1992 10:41:01 EDT
From: <DESHANE@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps
Subject: Re: ATWT: other roles
Distribution: na
 <23JUL199207381841@ducvax.auburn.edu> <12430@inews.intel.com>
 <182769@pyramid.pyramid.com>

The guy who played the character of Craig Montgomery was in Lethal
Weapon III - he played a man who was interested in buying Sargeant
Murtoch (sp?)'s house.
Margaret Colin a.k.a Margo was in the Butcher's Wife.  She plays a
girl who is told by Demi Moore that her boyfriend is gonna ask her
to marry him and ends up that the character played by Colin is a
lesbian anyway!!!
And let us not forget how great Kevin Bacon and Meg Ryan have been!!!
From: C0043@vmcms.csuohio.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps
Subject: Re: Hugo's will
Date: 27 Jul 92 23:48:39 GMT
Organization: CSU

Aleta:
 
    Don't forget Rule 613.759.c which says that someone, somewhere also
has a copy of this document and will surface with it at exactly the
right moment to rescue/condemn/control/bribe/mortify, etc., etc. the
appropriate person.
 
    :-) :-P :-)
 
Beth (gotta figure this sig thing out) Cunningham
 
 
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps
From: kjs@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (kelly.smith)
Subject: DOOL
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:16:30 GMT


Hola folks.  I have just a few comments.

For starters, I still dislike Kimberly immensely and am not
looking forward to any story involving her.  I have never
liked her (or Shane for that matter).  I think both characters
are one dimensional.  I don't understand how TPTB can write
some wonderful story for her and not Kayla.  Now some folks
(Tim) say that this was not a 'trade'.  Maybe not really but
now they're bringing in a love interest for her???  Excuse me,
but Classic Rob and Kayla could have been a story.  Kayla could
have felt guilty for leaving Shane, sought solace in Rob's arms,
.....etc, etc.  I just don't buy this at all.  And how long
will Kim stick around this time?  The whole thing just stinks.

The news of Ginger, Brian, Molly and Tanner leaving sucks.
Before the past couple of weeks I might not have minded but,
I now think they have (or should I say had) potential.  What
are they going to do with Vern?  It's a shame and a waste of
talent.  I think they have improved tremendously since their
debuts.  I would have rather they get rid of Jesse and Scarrie
as the teen couple.

BTW, did anyone see the commercial for Days with
Tanner and Molly talking about getting closer?  IMHO Molly
look absolutely gorgeous.

Oh well must get back to work.

Boysies.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps
From: admn@quads.uchicago.edu (Bonnie J. Black)
Subject: Re: GL: AM & Blake's Age
Reply-To: admn@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:10:17 GMT

In article <1992Jul28.134918.18888@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> dvw@cbnewsh.cb.att.com (diane.v.wilkerson) writes:
>
>And has anyone ever seen Mary Lou Retton and Sherry Stringfield in the same 
>room?  Well, have you?

	Nice theory, Diane, but Sherry Stringfield can *act*.  It's true, 
though, that I've never seen them both in the same room.
-- 
Bonnie J. Black	(admn@midway.uchicago.edu)
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (312) 702-2555 (9-5 CST)
(But headed for Pittsburgh soon; Beat 'em Bucs!)
From: steveh@grafex.cupertino.ca.us (Steve Harding KA6ETB)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps
Subject: Re: ATWT-lurker revelation
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 16:40:19 PDT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The GRAFex Company

slowther@ducvax.auburn.edu (Sam Lowther) writes:

> In article <76720@ut-emx.uucp>, bluberry@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Sonya Trevino) w
> 
> >I am 19, a public relations junior at the University of Texas, and
> >have long brown hair and brown eyes.
> >I have been watching ATWT off and on since I was young.
> 
> 19?  Since you were young?  When was that, young'un, last week?  You trying 
> to make the rest of us feel bad?

I caught that, too.  I just didn't want to scare her away.  Seems I have this
well-earned DOM reputation.
 
> Welcome aboard, anyway, Sonya (love those exotic names).  We probably have
> someone in here who can help you with that math handicap you have.
>
> Hey, is anyone keeping a scorecard out there?  With so many new inmates, 
> it's getting hard to breathe in here, much less keep the identities straight.

The ward secretary is will have to post an inmate list soon.  I lost count
myself.
 
> (I refuse to respond to anyone who points out that I rushed to stake my claim
> on the first acknowledged teenager we got.  Besides, we have a lot in common:
> I had long hair, back in the seventies.)

You and Doc Susan have something in common.  Both studying to be doctors of
adolescence.  Actually, Sonya, 19 isn't so bad.  You will soon grow out of it.

Welcome to the ward.
 
> --Sam
> 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Sam Lowther       |INTERNET:slowther@ducvax.auburn.edu |"I'm not a doctor, bu
> Auburn University |BITNET:  slowther@auducvax          | I play one on r.a.t.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

steve
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 30 Jul 1992 17:29:41 CDT
From: John R. Andrews <U14780@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps
Subject: RE: OLTL: Dr. Larry needs a rest + thoughts
Distribution: na

In article <51170@dime.cs.umass.edu>, corinne@freya.cs.umass.edu (Corinne Roy)
says:
>
>I think he meant 0.30 BAL , and technically, 0.30 is the same as 30%.  A
>neighbor of mine got DWI
>with a BAL of .29...
>--
Except when they talk DWI they talk .1% that is one TENTH of one percent.
If your friend was .29, it was .29% i.e. .0029 BAL in any case
he/she would be VERY intoxicated, probably unconscious.
If the show is going to preach about drinking, they ought to get their
information correct.
From: laviers@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Cocotte Minute)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps
Subject: Re: AMC: TAN: unlurking day
Keywords: lurkers post
Date: 29 Jul 92 22:24:56 GMT
Reply-To: laviers@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Cocotte Minute)
Organization: Universite de Montreal

In article <1992Jul28.171239.10075@ll.mit.edu> gibbsm@ll.mit.edu (MargARET D. Gibbs) writes:
>In article <1992Jul28.134323.20223@athena.mit.edu> zaccaria@mtl.mit.edu (Carolyn Zaccaria) writes:
>>Speaking of coming out of lurking, so when do yall wanna have our
>>day at the beach? How about Monday Aug. 3? When all you lurkers can
>>come out and tell us all about yourselves, what you do, your pets,
>>your SO, your life and esp. what you like or dislike about AMC!
>
>Hi everyone!  I think an "unlurking day" is a great idea, too... 
>you know what they say about great minds :-)!  I hope a lot of lurkers 
>will post.  Once you start posting, it's hard to stop!  
>
Hi yall! I was thinking that it would be nice for all to post bios
(lurkers and rats veterans). I know it would make a lot of bios, 
but us new-er posters don't know about old-er posters or new-er
posters. So, I thought it would be nice for everyone to say a few
words so we could get to know each other better.

What do you think?

Genevieve
>
>-- 
>Margaret D. Gibbs		"Practice random kindness and 
>Assistant Staff			 senseless acts of beauty"
>MIT Lincoln Laboratory
>gibbsm@ll.mit.edu


--
_____________________________________________________________________________
|Sebastien Lavier [Calimero]    | Centre de recherche, Hopital du Sacre-Coeur  
|laviers@iro.umontreal.ca       | "The opinions expressed here are mine and  
|Universite de Montreal, Canada |   should also be yours!"
From: bohannon@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Brynne Bohannon)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps
Subject: Re: B&B : Brooke being a slut.
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:48:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center

In article <1992Jul23.155940.21027@cs.wayne.edu> faa@artemis.cs.wayne.edu (Felicitas A. Atabong) writes:
>I agree with another poster who feels that Brooke really never was a
>slut. I think most people who feel this joined the show a little later
>than when it began. Brooke never had the easiest of times. Okay, so
>maybe Taylor is a lot more "good" than she is, but most of Brooke's
>actions have been encouraged by none others but the Forresters
>themselves, to satisfy their greedy wishes. Thorne was the one who
>convinced Brooke to keep certain things from Caroline, since he wanted
>her for himself, and we all know how Stephanie influenced Brooke in
>pushing Eric away, just so she could have him to herself. As for Ridge,
>I think he's simply used Brooke more than enough times. I'm tired of
>so many people thinking Brooke is a slut. She is not perfect, but I
>think Stephanie is far more manipulative than her.


I've never posted to B&B but have lurked for a long time.

I too have watched B&B from the beginning and totally agree with the
above comments.  I would actually love to see Brooke tell the Forrester
clan to get lost and then proceed to have a good relationship with some
new character.

Brynne
From: conner@zax.teraida.UUCP (Tom Conner)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps
Subject: Re: Do You Remember any Gay/Lesbian Characters on TV Series?
Date: 22 Jul 92 18:18:34 GMT
Organization: Teradyne, Inc. Boston MA

Sorry if someone already mentioned this one, but...

thirtysomething had at least a couple or a few gay characters.  There was
one that was sort of a regular for a while, but not one of the core
characters.  If memory serves, he became friends with Melissa and did
artwork for Michael's ad agency.  I can't remember much about what the
story line was.


-- 
Tom Conner					   conner@sky.dnet.teradyne.com
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps
From: gck@hector.uucp (24641-kemmerling)
Subject: Re: AMC: TAN: YEARBOOK!!!
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 92 12:02:00 GMT

> copies made).  Email me if you're interested, and I'll tell you where 
> you can send your check.  After that, I think I'll hop on a plane to 
> Bermuda.  :-)  Just kidding, folks!
> 
> 
> -- 
> Margaret D. Gibbs		"Practice random kindness and 
> Assistant Staff			 senseless acts of beauty"
> MIT Lincoln Laboratory
> gibbsm@ll.mit.edu

I don't know how to email.  Help...

thanx


Gayle
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 21:04:23 EDT
From: <MZ6@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps
Subject: Re: Y&R - comments!

In article <1992Jul28.171315.11945@dmntor.UUCP>, toni@dmntor.UUCP (Toni
Spurgeon) says:
>
>>
>>Wasn't I right when Jill and Nina got together yesterday?
>>(today for you guys!) I jsut love to see them go at each
>>other... when Nina says "Are you DONE???" it was so realistic!
>>I think these two have a great acting rapport... and I'm
>>glad Jill's sticking her nose in someone else's business
>>besides Dru's. Jill's such a great actress and when they
>>don't have her mooning over John, I'm much happier!
>>The Ryan-Victoria marriage is going to be interesting!
>>

Yup--you were right.  As I've posted before, this Jill took me a long
time to get used to, but I love this bitter bigmouth dearly now.

Jill doesn't work well with Blade--but I happen to like her mooning overr
John--because that is the only real hint of her vulnerability.
But she excels in clashes--least with Dru, because that seems so
unmotivated, and because Dru doesn't backtalk to Jill like she does
to everyone else.  Jill and Kay fighting is the best, and Jill's
big mouth with Nina is a hoot.  I wish for the old days, when Nina
was an equal adversary for Jil.

Ryan-Victoria is interesting, but I found myself hoping--all through
the episode--that the marriage WOULDN'T happen.  I can sort of
understand why Victoria, blinded by love and needing stability, is
pushing this.  I don't really understand Ryan.  This isn't a purely
"I want money" motive--he genuinely cares for the girl.  But he is
too smart to be lured into the marriage.  Why do you think he is doing this.

I rather like Brandon.  The kid is a nerd-geek (so was I!  :-} ), but
he rings true as a nerd-geek.  Vikki is probably the first girl who
looked twice at him, and so he is smitten.  I think it is "cute", and
I actually don't like what the devious Victoria is doing to him.
I'm afraid he's going to end up hurt.  I really wish Ryan would
smarten up.  I frankly don't think he is ready to marry anyone just
now.

Mike
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps
From: zaccaria@mtl.mit.edu (Carolyn Zaccaria)
Subject: Re: AMC: Update Wed. July 22
Organization: MIT Microsystems Technology Laboratories
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 13:54:06 GMT

In article <1992Jul25.152218.8338@IRO.UMontreal.CA> laviers@IRO.UMontreal.CA (Cocotte Minute) writes:

>Argh!!! How could Angelique NOT insist to find out what Helga wanted to say?
>Here is her mother wanting to tell her "something she does not know" and
>that seems rather distressing, and her husband says "no! don't tell her
>Geez Angelique, wake up! Don't you realize what's going on? Dimitri
>is obviously hiding something!!

Good question! The strange gapes in the storylines constantly amaze me
but I still love it!!!! And most times, these people almost seem to
have ESP (when the writers want them too). A character has something
bothering him/her but they look absolutely normal and the other person
says to them "ok what is the matter with you? what is wrong? I can
tell something is bothering you". Right.

On Monday show Helga mumbles "Edmund couldn't have read the letter...!"
when the damn woman GAVE IT TO HIM!  

Ok well, I'd love to respond to *everyBUDDies* posts but I'm gonna 
give the rest of you a chance now! :-) for an hour ha ha.

CAZ

Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps
From: mins@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (timothy.j.mizerak)
Subject: Re: DOOL:roger lombard, etc.
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:17:04 GMT

In article <0eQ5SV600WB8EjTEUx@andrew.cmu.edu> Jeffrey Todd Blankenship <jb93+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>tim, thanks for the warning.  however, i have not compromised my position on
>the lombards, i have strengthened it.  stella and jesse are such easy targets.
>in order to give roger my full attention, some sacrifices had to be made.  it
>all goes back to darwin.  joanna has treated me with nothing but kindness to 
>this point and as yet, i have done nothing to bring her "fire and brimstone"
>upon me. --i will watch out though.


Yes, do watch out.  :-)


>*i may have just started posting, but i have been reading for some time now.
>i know some of the terrors that are out there and i shall not be led to the
>slaughter*
>
>ENOUGH of that.  i reference darwin they start to preach.


You sure lost me here.


>i was the one who saw vern on the waltons. -- i posted about it (i think, so
>many posts, so many rolling rocks, everything starts to jumble in the mind.--

Uh oh, I think we might have to cite you for P.W.I.  [Posting While
Intoxicated, you know.]


>come on now, look at the man.  he is great.  i have begun my campaign to 
>champion vern. 


Oh please, you really must be kidding.  I can see "amusing" or "endearing"
even, but "great".  He doesn't do anything!!!  The only time I ever liked
Vern was once when Jack was rambling on and on about being kinder and
gentler.  Vern freaked out and screamed "What the HELL are you talking
about!?!?!"  It was pretty funny.


>now, about this "anxiously waiting" thing.  marc gave me gruff about it also.
>it did have a purpose.  first, it was something different. -- i hate to end
>posts the same boring way.

OK, that's cool.  


>-- second, i wanted to see if someone (different)
>would reply. finally (and most importantly) -- tim you asked for it -- what
>am i anxiously waiting for...i am waiting for roger's next scene of course.


You should be in your glory today!  :-)


>the count is now up to two days and a highlight and no roger.
>
>hope you can make heads or tails of this jumble,
>jeff


Well, barely in some spots, but that's ok too.  Hey, I just thought of 
something.  Wouldn't a whodunnit be cool w/ Roger as the victim?  All
the Bradys would be suspects because of what he did to Kim, Stella and
Jessie would be suspects for obvious reasons, Lisanne, Larry, .....

Whaddya think Jeff?  :-)

Tim
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  What is it up in the air for?                :   Timothy Mizerak        |
|  It's going to fall if it's there for long.   :   tm@mhnmc.att.com       |
|  It's over, it's over me.             R.E.M.  :                          |
From: bjag@nwu.edu (Bharathi Jagadeesh)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps
Subject: Re: ATWT-lurker revelation
Date: 29 Jul 92 17:23:44 GMT
Followup-To: rec.arts.tv.soaps
Organization: Northwestern University

In article <76720@ut-emx.uucp>, bluberry@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Sonya Trevino)
wrote:
> 
> MY name is Sonya Trevino and I am a lurker.  I tried to write in a 
> few posts but no one acknowledged my existence, so I went back to 
> lurking.  

> I like Courntey, Hutch, Holden, Barbara, and Evan.  I like Tess a lot
> too.  Her jealousy is amusing.  

Welcome Sonya!

I'm glad I've found someone else who likes Tess, too. I think that she's
pretty, and that her jealousy is amusing, but also warranted. She's not
just a crazy jealous person, Hutch really is giving her confusing signals
about Roseanna. What is she to do but be jealous?

Also, I think the Hutch/Tess/Roseanna and Evan/Courtney/Emily pairings are
an interesting, sorto of odd contrast. Courtney & Tess look kind of like
(thin, short, young looking teenagers) and Roseanna & Emily are both tall,
statuesque blondes. Both Evan & Hutch are being tempted away from their
child women to the others. But for some reason, we're supposed to have no
symapthy for Tess but have sympathy for Courtney. Of course their
characters are different--Tess is scheming and Courtney is perfect,
Roseanna is sweet and Emily is scheming. But I still think they're missing
something. 

Bharathi Jagadeesh                 bjag@nwu.edu
From: zaccaria@mtl.mit.edu (Carolyn Zaccaria)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps
Subject: Re: AMC: Questions???
Date: 30 Jul 92 15:27:55 GMT
Article-I.D.: athena.1992Jul30.152755.7577
Distribution: na
Organization: MIT Microsystems Technology Laboratories

In article <1992Jul29.135332.23742@ll.mit.edu> gibbsm@ll.mit.edu (MargARET D. Gibbs) writes:

>Interesting idea!  you're right, tho, there *must* be an extra
>copy laying around.  Of course, at this point Edmund doesn't
>even want the property, but he may change his mind.

I say there is NO extra copy. I think that will be the point, when
EdmundO tries to prove it he will have no proof! But I think someone
posted a soap opera rule is that things that get burned never get
totally burned. I bet there's a part of it left. hey but I could
be wrong!

CAZ
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv.soaps