HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peea224@chpc.utexas.edu (Joanna L. Castillo)
Subject: TV Guide summary for November 11, 1992
Organization: The University of Texas System - CHPC
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 06:55:49 GMT

Episode #4 of the 1992 season.

Sorry to be late this week...I forgot.  :)

TV Guide summary (reproduced without permission) follows:


Episode title:  Wine Knot

Markowitz returns to the firm, perhaps prematurely, and goes on an
impromptu excursion with Benny; in Ann's absence, Gwen takes the reins
in a divorce case; Becker's case is one of sour grapes between sibling
winemakers; and Roxanne yearns for something to give her life purpose.
Sam:  Ted Marcoux.  Greg:  Jeff McCarthy.  Alec:  Kale Browne.
Richards:  Steven Gilborn.  Elaine:  Dee Wallace Stone.

Joanna.

| \____ ----- ____/           |  "Let's just be friends -- friends   |
|      ( o o )                |  who never talk or see each other."  |
|       \   /   Gus-ball!!    |      - David Letterman, 7-22-92      |
|        (_)  Hook 'em Horns! |       peea224@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu |
From: 9073hammesm@vms.csd.mu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
Subject: Re: (Possible SPOILER) Smashing Window in the office
Date: 13 Nov 1992 19:10:46 GMT
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Distribution: alt
Reply-To: 9073hammesm@vms.csd.mu.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: vmsa.csd.mu.edu

>
>As I watched Stewart break the window of the conference room, I had 
>a deja vue (sp?).  Doesn anyone remember how many other times that window
>has been broken (I am sure it was more than once) and under what circumstances
>it was broken.  Everything seemed so familiar..I know that that window has
>been broken before in older episodes.
>--
>


Wasn't it shot out once by one of Arnie's clients (played by Patricia Wettig
I believe) who was gunning for her soon-to-ex husband because Arnie showed her
some pictures of her husband with her sister?

Mary H.
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
From: aland@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Alan D.)
Subject: Re: Sudden changes (spoilers)
Reply-To: aland@cs.brandeis.edu
Organization: As little as possible
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 00:57:47 GMT

latenite@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Marc) writes:

>Is it just me or does it seem that things change almost instantly?
>For example, one minute Stuart can't even remember that his
>boy's name is Matthew, then one second later, he remembers the entire
>birth.  And one minute Arnie has long hair, the next he's back to his 
>old self.

Well, Stuart's (beginning) recovery isn't that out of line for
amnesiacs...  It's common that they see something which 'triggers' the
memories' return...  And having Matthew in bed with Stuart & Ann,
hearing him cry, etc. would definitely be an emotional trigger...

As for Arnie's looks, we saw Rox _chop_ off a big lock in front...
Made _ME_ cringe...  But with that much missing in front, he pretty
much had to get rid of the rest of the hair, & once that was gone, why
keep the beard... *grin*

>One really has to stay on their toes these days to know what's
>going to happen next.

Always... :)

	-=Alan
From: mdm@bnr.ca (Diane MacMartin)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
Subject: Re: 2nd episode
Date: 5 Nov 92 17:59:13 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa

In article <vamcnair.921102144345@lab5.eng.auburn.edu> vamcnair@eng.auburn.edu (Valerie A. McNair) writes:
>In article <1crc61INNjah@bigboote.WPI.EDU> beuf@wpi.WPI.EDU (Richard J Fuller) writes:
>>
>>October 29,1992 Episode #2
>>
>>I do not like the idea of Stewart being 'BRAIN DEAD' he looked
>>well pathetic and I have too much sympathy for him.  I think that
>>if he 'snaps out of it' that will be unbelivable, and if he stays
>>like that : then that is just as bad.  IMHO this was a bad corner
>>for the writers to get into.
>
>I wonder if Stewart will fear Black people as a result of the attack!
>This will make for an interesting storyline.  I am glad that the writers did
>not make Ann resentful towards the attackers of Stewart.  I can't believe he
>was in the hospital for five months!!

Well I missed ep no. 1, saw no.2, and this whole Stewart thing is giving
me deja vu.   Is anyone else bothered by the fact that this whole
"husband forgets everything" storyline was very adequately treated in
Regarding Henry (where Harrison Ford even played a lawyer!), and also a
movie called Shattered?

I agree with the original poster that this is a very bad corner for the
story to get into.  There seems to be no way for Stewart's life to
return to "normal" that will be believable.

-- 
Diane MacMartin       Bell-Northern Research, Ltd     Ottawa, Canada
mdm@bnr.ca            Any opinions are my own and do not represent BNR.
=========>> If this is printed on paper, please recycle it <<==========
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
From: cs17530@gaia.ecs.csus.edu ()
Subject: Re: Jonathan
Organization: California State University, Sacramento
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 11:01:32 GMT

In article <vamcnair.921027131046@lab5.eng.auburn.edu> vamcnair@eng.auburn.edu (Valerie A. McNair) writes:
>
>As for Zoe, why did Jonathan desert her when she was in the hospital.  I don't
>like the way they are developing his character. 

Yeah, he's not always doing the right thing, but that's what happens to
people.  Jonathan is "burning bridges," especially with this election, but
you can't blame him for being human because I think/hope he is realizing
what this election is doing for him.  I think it's okay that we and he
see him doing things wrong because that's what we all do.


L8r,

Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
From: edc@dna.bchs.uh.edu
Subject: Re: 2nd episode
Organization: University of Houston
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 16:43:39 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.175913.17236@bcrka451.bnr.ca> mdm@bnr.ca (Diane MacMartin)  
writes:
> In article <vamcnair.921102144345@lab5.eng.auburn.edu>  
vamcnair@eng.auburn.edu (Valerie A. McNair) writes:
> >In article <1crc61INNjah@bigboote.WPI.EDU> beuf@wpi.WPI.EDU (Richard J  
Fuller) writes:
> >>
> >>October 29,1992 Episode #2
> >>
> >>I do not like the idea of Stewart being 'BRAIN DEAD' he looked
> >>well pathetic and I have too much sympathy for him.  I think that
> >>if he 'snaps out of it' that will be unbelivable, and if he stays
> >>like that : then that is just as bad.  IMHO this was a bad corner
> >>for the writers to get into.
> >
> >I wonder if Stewart will fear Black people as a result of the attack!
> >This will make for an interesting storyline.  I am glad that the writers did
> >not make Ann resentful towards the attackers of Stewart.  I can't believe he
> >was in the hospital for five months!!
> 
> Well I missed ep no. 1, saw no.2, and this whole Stewart thing is giving
> me deja vu.   Is anyone else bothered by the fact that this whole
> "husband forgets everything" storyline was very adequately treated in
> Regarding Henry (where Harrison Ford even played a lawyer!), and also a
> movie called Shattered?

Is anyone else out there just plain bored to tears with this whole storyline?

IMHO, this is made worse by the horrible "I can be Rain Man" acting.  The bit
where Stewart calculated the "17% increase over your previous best time" was  
just the capper.  What next "Gotta fly Quantus"  or "Sorry judge, have to  
leave.  Time for Wapner.   3pm.  Definitely time for Wapner".   I sense the
end is near.   I'll be surprised if the show makes it out of this season.

<ESC>
--
..You either kiss the future or the past goodbye...
                          -- Ringo Starr (written by O'Deherty / Velez)

                                
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
From: tmartin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Thomas Martin)
Subject: Re: Sudden changes
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 21:56:24 GMT

Just a couple of notes about the "quick changes" in the show...

I think the Stuart thing is meant to be done that way because of the
nature of his affliction. There are anecdotal evidences about people
getting bumped on their heads and becoming walking calculators. The
whole episode with his child though was nice.

As for Arnie's transformation, we'll see what happens. He still wants
to do entertainment law and I think he'll get the chance.

Don't count Jonathan out of politics. He may not be too welcomed back
at the office, so we'll see what happens with his political life. The
results aren't in yet. :-)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
From: tmartin@nyx.cs.du.edu (Thomas Martin)
Subject: Re: (Possible SPOILER) Smashing Window in the office
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 92 00:59:43 GMT

khoover@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (kent.d.hoover) writes:
>In article <BKUHN.92Nov13003717@cs.loyola.edu> bkuhn@cs.loyola.edu (Bradley " b " Kuhn) writes:
>>
>>As I watched Stewart break the window of the conference room, I had 
>>a deja vue (sp?).  Doesn anyone remember how many other times that window
>>has been broken (I am sure it was more than once) and under what circumstances
>>it was broken.  Everything seemed so familiar..I know that that window has
>>been broken before in older episodes.

	Well, I dont' know about Ted Danson's reflection but I do know
that the glass cracked in the Rona vs. Gradinger case that allowed
Abbie to become a partner in the firm. (That was the partnership that
failed and then Abbie got them together again.)

	That was one incident that I recall. Maybe because the case
involving the brothers reminded me so much of the case. I thought that
Arnie's talk to younger brother was great! (He's become fun to watch)

	As for a real whacko prediction, I think that Stuart sent the
flowers. :-)
From: latenite@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Marc)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
Subject: Sudden changes
Date: 7 Nov 92 20:44:27 GMT
Organization: MIT Laboratory for Computer Science

Is it just me or does it seem that things change almost instantly?
For example, one minute Stuart can't even remember that his
boy's name is Matthew, then one second later, he remembers the entire
birth.  And one minute Arnie has long hair, the next he's back to his 
old self.

One really has to stay on their toes these days to know what's
going to happen next.

Marc Hathcock
latenite@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Friday, 6 Nov 1992 13:32:19 EST
From: Michael Petersen <IO20721@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
Subject: Re: DEPRESSING!!!

I used to like the show.  But that was when it WAS "L.A. LAW."  What has
happened to the show?  Where's the law?  They used to have some great
cases...  Now it's more like a daytime soap opera!
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
From: khoover@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (kent.d.hoover)
Subject: Re: (Possible SPOILER) Smashing Window in the office
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:09:28 GMT

In article <BKUHN.92Nov13003717@cs.loyola.edu> bkuhn@cs.loyola.edu (Bradley " b " Kuhn) writes:
>
>As I watched Stewart break the window of the conference room, I had 
>a deja vue (sp?).  Doesn anyone remember how many other times that window
>has been broken (I am sure it was more than once) and under what circumstances
>it was broken.  Everything seemed so familiar..I know that that window has
>been broken before in older episodes.
>--
..and the wierd part of it is (if you've taped it, check this out), just 
before the chair hits the window, you can see Ted Danson's reflection in it.
Cheers,
Kent Hoover

Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
From: conrad@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Conrad)
Subject: Re: The look on Roxanne's face
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:43:53 GMT

Conceivable SPOILERS:





Ok, are we all agreed now that Roxanne is not pregnant and has not been,
and that she isn't HIV-positive either?  Either subject would definitely
have come up when she said she wanted a baby.  That "look on her face"
from last year was exactly what it seemed, stunned relief at being
told good news, after being braced for the worst.

And this speculation can go into the same repository that contains
  The nanny is going to molest Stuart and Ann's child.
  Victor abused Grace [and caused the miscarriage].
  Roz is secretly plotting to destroy Leland while dating him.
  Roz is really alive.
And all the others.  Whew.  That's a relief.  :-)

Jon Alan Conrad
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
From: jefrank@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jason E Frank)
Subject: Re: The look on Roxanne's face
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:00:12 GMT

In article <Bxnsx5.IM6@news.udel.edu> conrad@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Conrad) writes:

>
>Ok, are we all agreed now that Roxanne is not pregnant and has not been,
>and that she isn't HIV-positive either?  Either subject would definitely
>have come up when she said she wanted a baby.  That "look on her face"
>from last year was exactly what it seemed, stunned relief at being
>told good news, after being braced for the worst.
>
>And this speculation can go into the same repository that contains
>  The nanny is going to molest Stuart and Ann's child.
>  Victor abused Grace [and caused the miscarriage].
>  Roz is secretly plotting to destroy Leland while dating him.
>  Roz is really alive.

How is this last one ruled out?  Not only do I see it as still remotely
possible (considering what a bad soap opera LA Law has turned into), we
need Rosalind to come back and put some life into an otherwise worthless
series (and this coming from someone who thought even last season was
great!).
--jason


Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
From: bkuhn@cs.loyola.edu (Bradley " b " Kuhn)
Subject: (Possible SPOILER) Smashing Window in the office
Organization: Loyola College in Maryland
Distribution: alt
Date: 13 Nov 92 00:37:17

Possible spoiler below


















As I watched Stewart break the window of the conference room, I had 
a deja vue (sp?).  Doesn anyone remember how many other times that window
has been broken (I am sure it was more than once) and under what circumstances
it was broken.  Everything seemed so familiar..I know that that window has
been broken before in older episodes.
--

 -- Bradley M. Kuhn    Computer Systems Development, Inc.

     INTERNET: bkuhn@cs.loyola.edu, bkuhn@loyola.edu, kuhn@cpwsca.psc.edu,
               rhlab!bkuhn@uunet.uu.net (take your pick :-)
     BITNET:   bkuhn@loyvax.BITNET
     UUCP:     ...uunet!rhlab!bkuhn
     SNAIL:    100 W. Cold Spring Lane, Box: 141, Baltimore, MD   21210
     VOICE:    (410) 617-(4343 || 4497), (x4343 || x4497 on Loyola Campus)
From: koumis@husc4.harvard.edu (Anthony Koumis)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
Subject: Some lalaw history please
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:25:15 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center



Someone on the net said that s/he didn't know why Stuart would want 
to be Brachman's Best Man after the way Brachman and his wife behaved
at Sturats and Anne's wedding.  Please fill me in on when their actuall
wedding took place.  In the second season I recall they almost got married
by an Elvis minister in Las Vegas.  They are now in the third season on
the LIfetime Repeats and Anne and Stuart are already married.  Was it
during the second season that they got married and I missed that episode.
I know I missed about two of them.  And what did the Brachmans do that was
bad at the wedding?
From: kat@banach.WPI.EDU (Christina Lynne Freeman)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
Subject: Re: Sudden changes
Date: 10 Nov 1992 23:24:38 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: banach.wpi.edu
Originator: kat@banach.WPI.EDU


In article <BxEu63.tu@cs.uiuc.edu>, epstein@cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein) writes:

|> I don't know how they're going to handle Stuart's
|> situation though (I agree with those who said that that is somewhat of
|> a dead-end situation).
|> 

The whole plot with Stuart is slightly reminiscent of the plot of the
movie _Regarding Henry_.  It's kinda annoying.

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: milo@athena.mit.edu (Cole D Robison)
Subject: Arnie's transformation
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:59:37 GMT

I missed the October 29 episode.  Could someone fill me in about what the heck
happened to Arnie?  If this has already been discussed to death in this group,
just reply by email.

Thanks.
-- 

                                     Cole D. Robison
                                     internet: milo@athena.mit.edu

===================================================================
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end."
                                     -- Spock
                                     Star Trek VI
===================================================================
From: pefv702@perv.pe.utexas.edu (Joanna L. Castillo)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
Subject: Re: Some lalaw history please
Date: 10 Nov 92 20:35:32 GMT
Organization: UT Petroleum Engineering Dept.
X-Xxdate: Tue, 10 Nov 92 21:31:57 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12

In article <1992Nov9.182516.17266@husc3.harvard.edu> Anthony Koumis,
koumis@husc4.harvard.edu writes:
>Someone on the net said that s/he didn't know why Stuart would want 
>to be Brachman's Best Man after the way Brachman and his wife behaved
>at Sturats and Anne's wedding.  Please fill me in on when their actuall
>wedding took place.  In the second season I recall they almost got married
>by an Elvis minister in Las Vegas.  They are now in the third season on
>the LIfetime Repeats and Anne and Stuart are already married.  Was it
>during the second season that they got married and I missed that episode.
>I know I missed about two of them.  And what did the Brachmans do that was
>bad at the wedding?

I don't know which season it happened in but it was priceless.  They
were holding the wedding in someone's house (Stuart's?) and had chairs
set up in the living room and it was really a very confined area.  As
the wedding is taking place, Douglas and Shiela just start bickering 
and they get louder and louder and everyone is trying to get them to 
quiet down and pay attention.  Finally Shiela stands up and yells 
something about how awful marriage to Douglas is and storms out.  I 
think she even slugged him.  Anyway...it was quite disruptive and not
at all proper wedding behavior -- it was, however, very funny.

Joanna.

| \____ ----- ____/           |  "Let's just be friends -- friends    |
|      ( o o )                |  who never talk or see each other."   |
|       \   /   Gus-ball!!    |      - David Letterman, 7-22-92       |
|        (_)  Hook 'em Horns! |           pefv702@perv.pe.utexas.edu  |
From: beuf@wpi.WPI.EDU (Richard J Fuller)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.la-law
Subject: Weddings
Date: 10 Nov 1992 13:01:48 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu


I do not think the Brackman's were married on the show.

It seems to me that their Divorce was played out well, and 

that their marriage was a pre-existing condition.

Newsgroups: alt.tv.simpsons
From: torsten@cwis.unomaha.edu (Torsten Wesley Adair)
Subject: Re: Bart's dog ...
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:43:20 GMT

Well, here in Nebraska, Springfield is only thirty miles away.  We have horse
racing, and dog racing is held across the river in Council Bluffs, Iowa.
Nebraska has the variation in climate that is seen on the Simpsons, and a good
demographic mix (even if the state voted for Bush).

Torsten at Omaha
From: nowikoam@ucbeh.san.uc.edu (Tony Nowikowski)
Newsgroups: alt.tv.simpsons
Subject: More I&S -- TM
Date: 5 Nov 92 07:31:15 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati

Another first-time poster here ...

"Itchy & Scratchy: The Movie" was an excellent episode, but there were a couple
of things that kinda bothered me ...
Mrs. Krabapple pulling out these *nasty* weapons ... doesn't seem to be Bart's
style.  Pranks like switching her birth control pills, or sending her love
letters from "Woodrow" (a.k.a. Gordie Howe!) yeah, but weapons and violence? 
Those looked to be more Nelson's speed.
Likewise, some of the nasty stuff Bart was doing at home seemed out of
character.  Like hammering packets of mustard while whistling a Christmas tune,
or tearing up the carpeting for *no* good reason.  Bart's devious, sneaky,
lazy and underhanded, but completely nihilistic?  Especially when the thing
that cooks his goose is something as *in*-character as being inattentive to
Maggie's whereabouts.

Other than that, though ... great!  I'm glad I read the FAQ list just a couple
days earlier, or I wouldn't have caught Lisa's line about guest stars!

Question:  the WWII-era I&S ... did it seem more like Disney, Warners, or MGM
style to everyone else? (I thought Warners .. but that's my built-in bias...8*)

-- 

+-----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
|  Tony Nowikowski            | "They say a mind is a terrible thing to waste, |
|  University of Cincinnati   |  but I don't mind being terribly wasted."      |
|  nowikoam@ucbeh.san.uc.edu  |  -- Rob Fetters                                |
+-----------------------------+------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: alt.tv.simpsons
From: tait@cs.columbia.edu (Carl Tait)
Subject: "I Regret Nothing" (was Re: Miscellaneous other references and DYN's)
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 01:32:17 GMT

In article <92311.145818MSB101@psuvm.psu.edu>
Mike Berman <MSB101@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>
>No one has come up with an explanation yet for "I regret nothing" as the man
>falls off the drawbridge.

"Non, je ne regrette rien" was Edith Piaf's signature tune during the
last few years of her life, following a period of accidents and bad
health that made it appear unlikely she would ever perform again.
Don't know if this is what the writers were referring to, but it's
certainly the best-known use of the phrase.

Carl Tait
From: chris.burgess@outlan.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Chris Burgess) 
Newsgroups: alt.tv.simpsons
Subject: OOPS!
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:14:00 GMT
Reply-To: chris.burgess@outlan.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Chris Burgess) 
Distribution: world
Organization: Outland BBS  UUPCB  403-475-9588

>> chris.burgess@outlan.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca (Chris Burgess)  writes:

>>"Marge Gets a Power Plant Job" [9f05]???
>>
>>Isn't the title "Marge gets a power plant job"???
>>
>>(I have heard both titles from various sources on USENET...)

>What???  Is this an optical illusion.  Try as I may both titles look
>the same to me (except for capitalization).
>
>I've read those two sentences enough times to get eye fatigue.  A joke?
>
>--
>
>*********************************************************************
>   Chuck Anderson                uucp    :     uunet!nyx!canderso
>   Boulder, Co. (303) 494-6278   internet:     canderso@nyx.cs.du.edu
>*********************************************************************

Oops! I must have goofed. What i meant to post for the first title was
"Marge Gets A Job", and the second one "Marge Gets A Power Plant Job."
My error...

Speaking of "Marge gets A [Power Plant] Job," I assume most folks know
this is the Tom Jones episode, right?

chris.burgess@outlan.ersys.edmonton.ab.ca