weberm@polaris.net wrote:
Neil Gaiman's Scandal DESTROYED Good Omens And The Reviews PROVE It!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmRF8OohEk0
The show tanked during S2. It's no coincidence that this was when they >decided to make the two main characters into a gay couple.
On 5/16/2026 9:26 AM, The True Melissa wrote:
Ubiquitous wrote:
What did you watch?
Nothing interesting.
Silver Linings Playbook (DVR) 2012 movie directed by David O. Russell
and starring an ensemble cast including Bradley Cooper and Jennifer >Lawrence. Cooper plays a man freshly out of a mental hospital who moves >back home with his parents. His father played by Robert DeNiro is a >superstitious gambling addict. Lawrence plays a neighbor who has her
eyes on Cooper, but Cooper is obsessed with his ex-wife who has a >restraining order against him. It's an OK movie.
The Boys (Amazon streaming) "The Frenchman, the Female, and the Man
Called Mother's Milk" - Penultimate episode. Can't say much about this >without getting into spoiler territory. I am curious to see how they
wrap things up in the finale.
Obsession (theatrical) New horror movie written and directed by Curry >Barker. The film follows a young man who buys a novelty toy that grants
the buyer one wish. As it turns out it works, but with a monkey's paw >effect. The young man wishes that a woman he likes would love him more
than anyone else. She then becomes obsessed with him in ways that I
can't say due to spoilers.
thetruemelissa@gmail.com wrote:
weberm@polaris.net wrote:
Neil Gaiman's Scandal DESTROYED Good Omens And The Reviews PROVE It!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmRF8OohEk0
The show tanked during S2. It's no coincidence that this was when they >decided to make the two main characters into a gay couple.
Were those allegations ever proven? At this point, I am assuming
it's another pound MeToo thing.
did weberm@polaris.net deliver unto us this message: >>thetruemelissa@gmail.com wrote:
weberm@polaris.net wrote:
Neil Gaiman's Scandal DESTROYED Good Omens And The Reviews PROVE It! >>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmRF8OohEk0
The show tanked during S2. It's no coincidence that this was when they >>>decided to make the two main characters into a gay couple.
Were those allegations ever proven? At this point, I am assuming
it's another pound MeToo thing.
You mean the Neil Gaiman ones? I don't think anyone has hard evidence,
but Gaiman has essentially admitted it by being vague and cagey, then
going silent.
Yes, yes, yes. Innocent men are never falsely accused, and the very
bestest way to resolve anything is in the court of public opinion.
It doesn't occur to you that defending one's self in public with natural human emotion makes one sound defensive and unpersuassive?
And his
lawyer told him that he must shut the fuck up to avoid putting him in a
worse legal situation with respect to a civil suit?
Since you admitted above that no one not privvy to the controversy has
hard evidence, I don't think you can draw any useful conclusions.
Unlike, say, that athlete turned actor, accused of beating up his
current girlfriend, and then it came out that there were a series of
prior girlfriend convinced to remain silent to avoid hurting his acting career.
In other words, he wasn't disputing the earlier complaints, even
if the public hasn't seen evidence in the most recent accusation. What I found shocking is that some of the later girlfriends knew how earlier
ones had been treated.
did ahk@chinet.com deliver unto us this message:
Yes, yes, yes. Innocent men are never falsely accused, and the very
bestest way to resolve anything is in the court of public opinion.
It doesn't occur to you that defending one's self in public with natural >>human emotion makes one sound defensive and unpersuassive?
That's not what he did, though.
And his
lawyer told him that he must shut the fuck up to avoid putting him in a >>worse legal situation with respect to a civil suit?
I'm pretty sure all of those careful statements were crafted with legal >help. He's not an idiot.
Since you admitted above that no one not privvy to the controversy has
hard evidence, I don't think you can draw any useful conclusions.
I didn't "admit" it. I *said* it.
These things don't produce evidence by their nature. Gaiman isn't
accused of forcibly assaulting anyone. The accusations are that he
coerced them. How could evidence of that exist? Recordings? They didn't
know they'd need a recorder running.
There's no way for either of us to know. If I were on his jury, I'd want
the prosecution to prove it. Since I'm not, I think it's okay to go with
the odds.
. . .
Unlike, say, that athlete turned actor, accused of beating up his
current girlfriend, and then it came out that there were a series of
prior girlfriend convinced to remain silent to avoid hurting his acting >>career.
Who?
There are several former pro athletes who beat women. Unless they also
run dogfights, we barely notice any more.
In other words, he wasn't disputing the earlier complaints, even
if the public hasn't seen evidence in the most recent accusation. What I >>found shocking is that some of the later girlfriends knew how earlier
ones had been treated.
It's amazing how often that happens. He tells her that they were crazy
and drove him to it. "You're different, baby." If she's naive enough,
she may be flattered to think that she can please him where so many
others failed. Then she finds out, then she leaves, then he finds
another one.
I once dated a man who, after a few dates, confessed that he had
battered his previous girlfriend. He seemed to understand it was wrong,
but also said she "made" him hit her. "I can't explain it, but she made
me." So, in theory, I should be okay as long as refrain from making him
hit me? No thank you.
arthur@alum.calberkeley.org wrote:
On 5/16/2026 9:26 AM, The True Melissa wrote:
Ubiquitous wrote:
What did you watch?
Nothing interesting.
Silver Linings Playbook (DVR) 2012 movie directed by David O. Russell
and starring an ensemble cast including Bradley Cooper and Jennifer
Lawrence. Cooper plays a man freshly out of a mental hospital who moves
back home with his parents. His father played by Robert DeNiro is a
superstitious gambling addict. Lawrence plays a neighbor who has her
eyes on Cooper, but Cooper is obsessed with his ex-wife who has a
restraining order against him. It's an OK movie.
What? Isn't this about Jennifer Lawrence and her husband adopting a
troubled black kid and turnig his life around via highschool football?
The Boys (Amazon streaming) "The Frenchman, the Female, and the Man
Called Mother's Milk" - Penultimate episode. Can't say much about this
without getting into spoiler territory. I am curious to see how they
wrap things up in the finale.
Spoiler alert; They totally fucked it up.
Obsession (theatrical) New horror movie written and directed by Curry
Barker. The film follows a young man who buys a novelty toy that grants
the buyer one wish. As it turns out it works, but with a monkey's paw
effect. The young man wishes that a woman he likes would love him more
than anyone else. She then becomes obsessed with him in ways that I
can't say due to spoilers.
What's there to spoil? This is a trope from the original Twilight Zone.
On May 30, 2026 at 8:30:04 AM PDT, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote: >>arthur@alum.calberkeley.org wrote:
Obsession (theatrical) New horror movie written and directed by Curry >>>Barker. The film follows a young man who buys a novelty toy that grants >>>the buyer one wish. As it turns out it works, but with a monkey's paw >>>effect. The young man wishes that a woman he likes would love him more >>>than anyone else. She then becomes obsessed with him in ways that I >>>can't say due to spoilers.
What's there to spoil? This is a trope from the original Twilight Zone.
"The Monkey's Paw" has been around a lot longer than THE TWILIGHT ZONE.
Yet you expected him to make a series of public statements reacting to
the accusations so you could say to yourself, That's how a falsely
accused man would react.
People document scenarios. They write a memo to themselves. They makea
journal entry. As long as it's done as soon as possible, it has
evidentiary value. They tell a friend. They call 911.
There's no way for either of us to know. If I were on his jury, I'd want >the prosecution to prove it. Since I'm not, I think it's okay to go with >the odds.
There's no crime here and no prosecution unless she was prevented
from leaving. Otherwise, it's entirely civil and the standard of
evidence is lower and a lower burden on the accuser. The weirdness is
how she's attempting to try the case everywhere but where the incident
took place.
I'm relieved that your instinct for self preservation kicked in and that
he didn't stalk you.
I'll never understand human psychology.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On May 30, 2026 at 8:30:04 AM PDT, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote: >>> arthur@alum.calberkeley.org wrote:
Obsession (theatrical) New horror movie written and directed by Curry >>>> Barker. The film follows a young man who buys a novelty toy that grants >>>> the buyer one wish. As it turns out it works, but with a monkey's paw >>>> effect. The young man wishes that a woman he likes would love him more >>>> than anyone else. She then becomes obsessed with him in ways that I
can't say due to spoilers.
What's there to spoil? This is a trope from the original Twilight Zone.
"The Monkey's Paw" has been around a lot longer than THE TWILIGHT ZONE.
W.W. Jacobs, Harper's Monthly, September 1902, since I looked it up.
And it was on the anthology series hosted by Alfred Hitchcock, not The Twilight Zone. I was thinking I saw it on Night Gallery, but it could
have been a similar story.
Verily, in article <10vi2hh$1o9ib$1@dont-email.me>, did ahk@chinet.com deliver unto us this message:
Yet you expected him to make a series of public statements reacting to
the accusations so you could say to yourself, That's how a falsely
accused man would react.
I expected nothing. He decided, probably on the advice of lawyers, to
make a careful public statement which asserted very little.
People document scenarios. They write a memo to themselves. They makea
journal entry. As long as it's done as soon as possible, it has
evidentiary value. They tell a friend. They call 911.
That's not usual with sex crimes. There's often shock and shame. The victims, if victims there were, may well have just wanted to go home and
get in their own beds.
There's no way for either of us to know. If I were on his jury, I'd want >> >the prosecution to prove it. Since I'm not, I think it's okay to go with >> >the odds.
There's no crime here and no prosecution unless she was prevented
from leaving. Otherwise, it's entirely civil and the standard of
evidence is lower and a lower burden on the accuser. The weirdness is
how she's attempting to try the case everywhere but where the incident
took place.
It doesn't have to be a crime for people to find it sleazy and decide
they don't want to support his art.
It's also quite possible that he will recover from this. Many cancelled people have bounced back eventually. Graham Linehan is now writing
comedy again. Rob Lowe was famous twice, once before cancellation and
once years afterward.
On May 31, 2026 at 12:56:34 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On May 30, 2026 at 8:30:04 AM PDT, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote: >>>> arthur@alum.calberkeley.org wrote:
Obsession (theatrical) New horror movie written and directed by Curry >>>>> Barker. The film follows a young man who buys a novelty toy that grants >>>>> the buyer one wish. As it turns out it works, but with a monkey's paw >>>>> effect. The young man wishes that a woman he likes would love him more >>>>> than anyone else. She then becomes obsessed with him in ways that I >>>>> can't say due to spoilers.
What's there to spoil? This is a trope from the original Twilight Zone.
"The Monkey's Paw" has been around a lot longer than THE TWILIGHT ZONE.
W.W. Jacobs, Harper's Monthly, September 1902, since I looked it up.
I wouldn't even have thought it had an attributable author. I just assumed it >was one of those folk tales passed down over the years that no one knows who >originally came up with it.
And it was on the anthology series hosted by Alfred Hitchcock, not The
Twilight Zone. I was thinking I saw it on Night Gallery, but it could
have been a similar story.
did ahk@chinet.com deliver unto us this message:
Yet you expected him to make a series of public statements reacting to
the accusations so you could say to yourself, That's how a falsely
accused man would react.
I expected nothing. He decided, probably on the advice of lawyers, to
make a careful public statement which asserted very little.
People document scenarios. They write a memo to themselves. They make
a journal entry. As long as it's done as soon as possible, it has >>evidentiary value. They tell a friend. They call 911.
That's not usual with sex crimes. There's often shock and shame. The >victims, if victims there were, may well have just wanted to go home and
get in their own beds.
There's no way for either of us to know. If I were on his jury, I'd want >>>the prosecution to prove it. Since I'm not, I think it's okay to go with >>>the odds.
There's no crime here and no prosecution unless she was prevented
from leaving. Otherwise, it's entirely civil and the standard of
evidence is lower and a lower burden on the accuser. The weirdness is
how she's attempting to try the case everywhere but where the incident
took place.
It doesn't have to be a crime for people to find it sleazy and decide
they don't want to support his art.
It's also quite possible that he will recover from this. Many cancelled >people have bounced back eventually. Graham Linehan is now writing
comedy again. Rob Lowe was famous twice, once before cancellation and
once years afterward.
. . .
You shifted gears again. If there's a lack of evidence and
documentation, then why is anybody obliged to find it sleazy and decide
they don't want to support his art? The reverse is also true. Why should anyone support him?
did ahk@chinet.com deliver unto us this message:
You shifted gears again. If there's a lack of evidence and
documentation, then why is anybody obliged to find it sleazy and decide >>they don't want to support his art? The reverse is also true. Why should >>anyone support him?
I'm not really using a gear, just responding to what you're saying.
Support him or don't, as you please. Am I assuming he's guilty? No, but
the story seemed credible and was being investigated seriously. At this >point, he looks guilty to me.
You said there was no crime. That may be so, but some people might still >find his actions distasteful enough to lead them to give up his work.
This is the relevance of his popularity already having waned. It's
easier to drop an artist we kind of like, or used to like, than one we >really like.
Are you a Gaiman fan, or are you coming at this more from a men's rights >angle? My main reservation is that people love to say bad things about >celebrities. This isn't just some wild rumor, though. It's a real case.
Ubiquitoius wrote:
thetruemelissa@gmail.com wrote:
weberm@polaris.net wrote:
Neil Gaiman's Scandal DESTROYED Good Omens And The Reviews PROVE It!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmRF8OohEk0
The show tanked during S2. It's no coincidence that this was when they >>>decided to make the two main characters into a gay couple.
Were those allegations ever proven? At this point, I am assuming
it's another pound MeToo thing.
You mean the Neil Gaiman ones? I don't think anyone has hard evidence,
but Gaiman has essentially admitted it by being vague and cagey, then
going silent.
"Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
arthur@alum.calberkeley.org wrote:
On 5/16/2026 9:26 AM, The True Melissa wrote:
Ubiquitous wrote:
What did you watch?
Nothing interesting.
Obsession (theatrical) New horror movie written and directed by Curry
Barker. The film follows a young man who buys a novelty toy that grants >>> the buyer one wish. As it turns out it works, but with a monkey's paw
effect. The young man wishes that a woman he likes would love him more >>> than anyone else. She then becomes obsessed with him in ways that I
can't say due to spoilers.
What's there to spoil? This is a trope from the original Twilight Zone.
"The Monkey's Paw" has been around a lot longer than THE TWILIGHT ZONE.
I've enjoyed a few things and have disliked others.
Are you never going to watch his two Doctor Who-scripted episodes again?
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 14 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 176:20:08 |
| Calls: | 218 |
| Files: | 21,503 |
| Messages: | 81,788 |