Hello all. I've seen that since my last post regarding tags has gone
rather oddly...
Although I appreciate your enthusiasm with tagging your posts, I do
not feel that a tag like [FUCK] and [HEAD] are quite what I had in
mind for such a high quality sight such as this.
I have three recommendations...
1.) We abandon tags all together.
2.) We adandon BAD tags, like [mommy] and [MI] (or if michigan gets
one, ohio does too).
3.) We keep these 'bad' tags and adopt a new attitude on this
newsgroup suitable to rediculous tags and changing subject names every
other post. This would change the feel of the Newsgroup to match out
tagging trend.
More on the third solution:
I've already seen one thread starting with "Dear fucker." This is good
news for a more aggresive nazi-esk newsgroup, and I encourage this
behavior if the third recommendation is to be followed.
This is also the beginnings of a flame war.
Clearly what we need to determine is a group of regulars and trolls.
Also we need a 'regular' that we all hate and all flame each time he
posts. This person would also be a person we would devote a new tag
for, such that we can kill file his posts.
So what have you RGTJ? Shall we return to the ways of the old, be
civil, or flame on?
:)
~SV
vermillian wrote:
> Clearly what we need to determine is a group of regulars and trolls.
OK. We'll start with Derek as captain of the Trolls and Andrew
Davidson as captain of the Regulars. Whichever one of them uses the
most obscure word in their next post (heh, "puling"...that's a good
one...even my roommate who writes for a living had to run for a
dictionary on that one) gets first choice. We will continue to
divide up until only James is left and nobody wants him. LSJ can
referee and call the excessive crossposting fouls.
Remember, the "on-topic" [OT] and "off-topic" [OT] tags look exactly
alike so always be conscious of which one you're using.
Fred
In message <f987c6cd.0203232141.6d48d65c@posting.google.com>,
vermillian69@yahoo.com (vermillian) mumbled something about:
>Hello all. I've seen that since my last post regarding tags has gone
>rather oddly...
I dunno about that... it went just about how I expected it.
>Although I appreciate your enthusiasm with tagging your posts, I do
>not feel that a tag like [FUCK] and [HEAD] are quite what I had in
>mind for such a high quality sight such as this.
It's spelled "site", and it's a "newsgroup" on "USENET".
Frankly, I considered it quite the appropriate tag, considering the word
(and variants thereof) are used some 16 different times in the message,
and while there IS actual content cleverly concealed there, the real
point could probably have been gotten across by simply repeating the
word (and/or variants thereof) 16 times. Or, alternatively, as much of
the point as will EVER get across to such a blockhead as Talonz is.
>I have three recommendations...
>
>1.) We abandon tags all together.
Bright lad. Full marks, this one.
>2.) We adandon BAD tags, like [mommy] and [MI] (or if michigan gets
>one, ohio does too).
So, who gets to pick which tags are bad? This, again cleverly
concealed, was the point of my original tag parody. I consider all
mandatory tags bad, and all optional ones good.
Apparently such a subtle thrust was entirely TOO concealed.
>3.) We keep these 'bad' tags and adopt a new attitude on this
>newsgroup suitable to rediculous tags and changing subject names every
>other post. This would change the feel of the Newsgroup to match out
>tagging trend.
If you get a newsreader which can competently handle threading, then you
don't have to worry about subject names changing. Free Agent is one
such -- I believe you can configure it to "hang onto" the thread even
when the subject line changes.
Look into it. Oh, and delete Outlook. You'll just end up with virii.
>More on the third solution:
>
>I've already seen one thread starting with "Dear fucker." This is good
You left out the "stupid".
>news for a more aggresive nazi-esk newsgroup, and I encourage this
>behavior if the third recommendation is to be followed.
And here we see the oh-so-clever use of the word "nazi" in an attempt to
overdramatize the situation far beyond its needs.
This is also called "playing the _____ card" <-- fill in the blank.
>This is also the beginnings of a flame war.
Congratulations. Your post has served no useful purpose except to add
to the flames. Suggestions for future posts:
1) Think.
2) If you really want things to calm down, don't go overboard being
clever and sneak words like "nazi" into your message.
3) Oh, and that reminds me -- you don't moderate this group. There is
no "mandate" whatsoever for anything you say. "What you had in mind for
such a sight [sic] as this" isn't relevant, because there are a whole
lot of other minds that have something in them, too (with at least one
notable exception). So quit talking down to us as though you know
what's best for our fragile little innocent selves. You don't, nobody
does, and it's painfully obvious.
--
"There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.
"Derek Ray" <lorimer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pdqq9u0ahb3in5rtmqhvtmidmcc24rrqil@4ax.com...
> In message <f987c6cd.0203232141.6d48d65c@posting.google.com>,
> vermillian69@yahoo.com (vermillian) mumbled something about:
>
> >Hello all. I've seen that since my last post regarding tags has gone
> >rather oddly...
>
> I dunno about that... it went just about how I expected it.
>
Oh... wow... vermillian was actually serious?
Umm... it went how you expected it because you pushed it in that direction,
Derek (insert *tsk-tsk* sounds here). Although I would have thought the only
*other* way it could go was in a flamefest, "wtf is this crap" sort of way, so
the way it turned out was much funnier.
> >Although I appreciate your enthusiasm with tagging your posts, I do
> >not feel that a tag like [FUCK] and [HEAD] are quite what I had in
> >mind for such a high quality sight such as this.
>
> It's spelled "site", and it's a "newsgroup" on "USENET".
>
It's certainly a sight. If by sight you mean sound, and by sound you mean
"collection of text."
> Frankly, I considered it quite the appropriate tag, considering the word
> (and variants thereof) are used some 16 different times in the message,
> and while there IS actual content cleverly concealed there, the real
> point could probably have been gotten across by simply repeating the
> word (and/or variants thereof) 16 times. Or, alternatively, as much of
> the point as will EVER get across to such a blockhead as Talonz is.
>
Yeeeessss.... and we all appreciate your level-headedness and maturity in that
post. I'm sure that it would not have done with FUCK only used 15 times in the
message. Luckily, my 8-year-old cousin was reading over my shoulder as I
browsed the newsgroup and it pushed her into flurry of experimental swearing.
I really had some fun explaining that one to her mother. ;) But I should know
not to open a Derek Ray post when sensitive eyes might be watching.
> >I have three recommendations...
> >
> >1.) We abandon tags all together.
>
> Bright lad. Full marks, this one.
>
Screw that. I'm gonna tag friggin' everything.
> >2.) We adandon BAD tags, like [mommy] and [MI] (or if michigan gets
> >one, ohio does too).
>
> So, who gets to pick which tags are bad? This, again cleverly
> concealed, was the point of my original tag parody. I consider all
> mandatory tags bad, and all optional ones good.
>
> Apparently such a subtle thrust was entirely TOO concealed.
>
Heh. So you're saying that your apparent approval of tags was actually a
cleverly concealed *disapproval*? Wow, my poor head may never stop spinning.
Personally, I'm in favour of mandating all tags that have been duly approved by
a Tag Standards and Approvals committee. The committee should meet on
alternate Thursdays and consist of no less than 17 members of mixed
nationalities and philsophies on dental hygiene, led by a team of midget
porn-star acrobats. Preferrably, the midgets should form some sort of human
pyramid.
> Look into it. Oh, and delete Outlook. You'll just end up with virii.
>
The accepted plural is viruses.
On 23 Mar 2002 21:41:57 -0800, vermillian wrote:
>Although I appreciate your enthusiasm with tagging your posts, I do
>not feel that a tag like [FUCK] and [HEAD] are quite what I had in
>mind.
The [FUCK] tag isn't good because it is offensive in itself. My
suggestion was [PG13] and Chris's case shows that there is a real need
for this. The [HEAD] tag is probably too obscure but I liked the
double-entendre of the poster using the newsgroup like a head (toilet)
- pouring bile into it from one end or the other. Or just groaning,
"oooh my head...", of course.
>[MI] (or if michigan gets one, ohio does too).
Ohio would obviously be [OH]. The same system works for countries
too, e.g. [UK]. But there are some pitfalls - is [CA] California or
Canada? [DE] is Germany (Deutschland) not Denmark.
Usenet actually supports this with a Distribution field but I doubt
that anyone uses this.
>Clearly what we need to determine is a group of regulars and trolls.
>Also we need a 'regular' that we all hate and all flame each time he
>posts. This person would also be a person we would devote a new tag
>for, such that we can kill file his posts.
But why would such a hate-figure flag his own posts with a [KILL] tag?
I find that the author field is a good way of specifying entries to be
killed. Some posters such as "J Bond" change this from time to time
but it's easy to just kill the new address again.
Now my ob. VTES already has some references to computing in it such
as Computer Hacking. Please can we have some more. New York by Night
describes a Nosferatu VPN called SchreckNET whose servers are located
beneath Fort Tryon Park in north Manhattan. That's all the excuse we
need to have cards like "Flame War" and "Killfile". It'd be good if
it was left ambiguous as to whether the flames/killing/etc were real
or virtual ...
Andrew
"Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
> Ohio would obviously be [OH]. The same system works for countries
> too, e.g. [UK]. But there are some pitfalls - is [CA] California or
> Canada? [DE] is Germany (Deutschland) not Denmark.
>
> Usenet actually supports this with a Distribution field but I doubt
> that anyone uses this.
... and if no one uses tags, what's the difference?
The people who suggest tags (that no one uses) to accomplish what
other established headers (that no one uses) can do should probably
be advocating the use of the established headers, instead.
--
LSJ (vtesrep@white-wolf.com) V:TES Net.Rep for White Wolf, Inc.
Links to revised rulebook, rulings, errata, and tournament rules:
http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/
Andrew S. Davidson <ad@csi.com> wrote in message news:<6FF1AD685BD37FB0.EB8940FA6A652DEF.F4DEB3438BF2B2F9@lp.airnews.net>...
> On 23 Mar 2002 21:41:57 -0800, vermillian wrote:
> > >Clearly what we need to determine is a group of regulars and trolls.
> >Also we need a 'regular' that we all hate and all flame each time he
> >posts. This person would also be a person we would devote a new tag
> >for, such that we can kill file his posts.
>
> But why would such a hate-figure flag his own posts with a [KILL] tag?
> I find that the author field is a good way of specifying entries to be
> killed. Some posters such as "J Bond" change this from time to time
> but it's easy to just kill the new address again.
Oh. I'm sorry. WHat I meant was check out
Rec.games.miniatures.warhammer
On this group they change the subject of a thread to include [Erik]
whenever he, or another of his aliases, reply of start a thread.
Usually they include that tag when they start to specifically talk
about how much of a luser troll Erik is.
> Now my ob. VTES already has some references to computing in it such
> as Computer Hacking. Please can we have some more. New York by Night
> describes a Nosferatu VPN called SchreckNET whose servers are located
> beneath Fort Tryon Park in north Manhattan. That's all the excuse we
> need to have cards like "Flame War" and "Killfile". It'd be good if
> it was left ambiguous as to whether the flames/killing/etc were real
> or virtual ...
Sure.
Flamewar
Action
Nosferatu
1 blood
+1 stealth action
Put this card into play. Name a minion controlled by another meth. Any
minion may enter combat with any minion named by this card as a D
action. Any minion that blocks that action gets named by this card.
Something like that.
~SV
In message <1Cfn8.117326$uA5.94355@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Chris Berger" <arkayn@ugcs.caltech.edu> mumbled something about:
>"Derek Ray" <lorimer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:pdqq9u0ahb3in5rtmqhvtmidmcc24rrqil@4ax.com...
>>> I dunno about that... it went just about how I expected it.>
>Oh... wow... vermillian was actually serious?
Yeah. I kind of got that impression from his original post, actually.
>Umm... it went how you expected it because you pushed it in that direction,
>Derek (insert *tsk-tsk* sounds here). Although I would have thought the only
>*other* way it could go was in a flamefest, "wtf is this crap" sort of way, so
>the way it turned out was much funnier.
...which is largely why I posted what I did originally, to pre-empt any
serious discussion (cf. "flamewar") of whether or not tags are
appropriate.
>> Frankly, I considered it quite the appropriate tag, considering the word
>> (and variants thereof) are used some 16 different times in the message,
>>>Yeeeessss.... and we all appreciate your level-headedness and maturity in that
There's a reason I didn't tag it [MATURE THOUGHTFUL], you know =)
>post. I'm sure that it would not have done with FUCK only used 15 times in the
>message. Luckily, my 8-year-old cousin was reading over my shoulder as I
>browsed the newsgroup and it pushed her into flurry of experimental swearing.
>I really had some fun explaining that one to her mother. ;) But I should know
>not to open a Derek Ray post when sensitive eyes might be watching.
Yes, you should. Especially one that had been tagged appropriately.
>> So, who gets to pick which tags are bad? This, again cleverly
>> concealed, was the point of my original tag parody. I consider all
>> mandatory tags bad, and all optional ones good.
>>
>> Apparently such a subtle thrust was entirely TOO concealed.
>>>Heh. So you're saying that your apparent approval of tags was actually a
>cleverly concealed *disapproval*? Wow, my poor head may never stop spinning.
And while your head is spinning, I bleed for three! three! six! Gain 6
pool. mwahahaah. My Jedi Mind Trick has worked.
>nationalities and philsophies on dental hygiene, led by a team of midget
>porn-star acrobats. Preferrably, the midgets should form some sort of human
>pyramid.
mmm... midget pr0n. Almost as good as goat pr0n.
>> Look into it. Oh, and delete Outlook. You'll just end up with virii.
>>>The accepted plural is viruses.
I never take McAfee's word for anything. =)
--
"There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.
LSJ wrote:
>
> "Andrew S. Davidson" wrote:
> > Ohio would obviously be [OH]. The same system works for countries
> > too, e.g. [UK]. But there are some pitfalls - is [CA] California or
> > Canada? [DE] is Germany (Deutschland) not Denmark.
> >
> > Usenet actually supports this with a Distribution field but I doubt
> > that anyone uses this.
>
> ... and if no one uses tags, what's the difference?
>
> The people who suggest tags (that no one uses) to accomplish what
> other established headers (that no one uses) can do should probably
> be advocating the use of the established headers, instead.
Yea!
What he said.
And of course the other big problem is that no one ever changes the
Subject line, even after the first hundred posts or so.
Raille
I am new to newsgroups, still grasping how they function (changing threads?
Sounds painful to track), but I like the post. Always good to start the day
with a smile.
-Merto
Derek wrote:
>>And here we see the oh-so-clever use of the word "nazi" in an attempt to
overdramatize the situation far beyond its needs.>>
What is the name of the common internet theory that states "as soon as anyone
compares someone to a nazi, the conversation is at an end"?
I always liked that one.
Peter D Bakija
PDB6@aol.com
http://www.geocities.com/bakija6
"We have no pages lefted.
It is too deep."
-The deeply bizzare and inexplicable error message my junky windows
machine at work gave me one day.
"Chris Berger" <arkayn@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote in message news:<1Cfn8.117326$uA5.94355@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>...
> "Derek Ray" <lorimer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:pdqq9u0ahb3in5rtmqhvtmidmcc24rrqil@4ax.com...
> > In message <f987c6cd.0203232141.6d48d65c@posting.google.com>,
> > vermillian69@yahoo.com (vermillian) mumbled something about:
> >
> > >Hello all. I've seen that since my last post regarding tags has gone
> > >rather oddly...
> >
> > I dunno about that... it went just about how I expected it.
> >
> Oh... wow... vermillian was actually serious?
Dear sir.
I would like it to be known that part of the original message in
question may or may not have been serious. Your remark on my
seriousness is seriously trivializing my seriousness (or lack there
of). By sarcastically (or no) remarking that I was being serious, you
have put a blatant stereotype of (non?) seriousness to my name.
Please desist.
Yours in ambivalence
Vermillian
> Umm... it went how you expected it because you pushed it in that direction,
> Derek (insert *tsk-tsk* sounds here). Although I would have thought the only
> *other* way it could go was in a flamefest, "wtf is this crap" sort of way, so
> the way it turned out was much funnier.
Funny is good.
> > >Although I appreciate your enthusiasm with tagging your posts, I do
> > >not feel that a tag like [FUCK] and [HEAD] are quite what I had in
> > >mind for such a high quality sight such as this.
> >
> > It's spelled "site", and it's a "newsgroup" on "USENET".
> >
> It's certainly a sight. If by sight you mean sound, and by sound you mean
> "collection of text."
Babey. My m@d grammer skillz are outta s^ght.
> Heh. So you're saying that your apparent approval of tags was actually a
> cleverly concealed *disapproval*? Wow, my poor head may never stop spinning.
>
> Personally, I'm in favour of mandating all tags that have been duly approved by
> a Tag Standards and Approvals committee.
Which from now on shall be known as TSA.
> The committee should meet on
> alternate Thursdays and consist of no less than 17 members of mixed
> nationalities and philsophies on dental hygiene, led by a team of midget
> porn-star acrobats. Preferrably, the midgets should form some sort of human
> pyramid.
Are these meetings catered? I'll have nothing to do with it unless
there's food involved...
~SV
Derek Ray <lorimer@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<pdqq9u0ahb3in5rtmqhvtmidmcc24rrqil@4ax.com>...
> In message <f987c6cd.0203232141.6d48d65c@posting.google.com>,
> vermillian69@yahoo.com (vermillian) mumbled something about:
>
> >Hello all. I've seen that since my last post regarding tags has gone
> >rather oddly...
>
> I dunno about that... it went just about how I expected it.
I was actually hoping someone would realize that other newsgroups do
it, too, and seem to have no problem with maintaining ones. However, I
don't think that I could have seriously been meaning that someone
become a Tag patrol officer and enforce it, nor was I expecting it to
become an instant club hit. I WAS expecting to get 'flamed' or mocked
about it, but that's alright. I just wanted to bring the topic out
there for consideration.
That said and done, there really aren't that many different topics to
warrant tags...
See rec.games.miniatures.warhammer for a site I'm used to seeing
(some) tags (most of them containing [OT]).
> >Although I appreciate your enthusiasm with tagging your posts, I do
> >not feel that a tag like [FUCK] and [HEAD] are quite what I had in
> >mind for such a high quality sight such as this.
>
> It's spelled "site", and it's a "newsgroup" on "USENET".
Thank you. I forget that sometimes.
> >I have three recommendations...
> >
> >1.) We abandon tags all together.
>
> Bright lad. Full marks, this one.
Score!
> >2.) We adandon BAD tags, like [mommy] and [MI] (or if michigan gets
> >one, ohio does too).
>
> So, who gets to pick which tags are bad?
The regulars of course!
> This, again cleverly
> concealed, was the point of my original tag parody.
I had NO idea you were mocking it. That's quite a revelation. Thank
you. I would now like to look at your hand a discard a card of my
choice.
<snip>
> Apparently such a subtle thrust was entirely TOO concealed.
Perhaps my original tag post was rediculed before it was seriously
discussed. And perhaps I don't care if its adopted or not. Hence,
tagging it [Noise] is probably worth while. :)
> >3.) We keep these 'bad' tags and adopt a new attitude on this
> >newsgroup suitable to rediculous tags and changing subject names every
> >other post. This would change the feel of the Newsgroup to match out
> >tagging trend.
>
> If you get a newsreader which can competently handle threading, then you
> don't have to worry about subject names changing. Free Agent is one
> such -- I believe you can configure it to "hang onto" the thread even
> when the subject line changes.
Actually I don't. I use public connections and deja.com. I'm a poor
college student who likes free stuff and complaining about it. :)
> >More on the third solution:
> >
> >I've already seen one thread starting with "Dear fucker." This is good
>
> You left out the "stupid".
Thank you for the correction. Its a attention to details like these
that makes this place great!
> >news for a more aggresive nazi-esk newsgroup, and I encourage this
> >behavior if the third recommendation is to be followed.
>
> And here we see the oh-so-clever use of the word "nazi" in an attempt to
> overdramatize the situation far beyond its needs.
Thanks. I've always been told I'd make a good drama queen.
> This is also called "playing the _____ card" <-- fill in the blank.
Poopy? Minion Tap? Second Tradition? Freaky?
> >This is also the beginnings of a flame war.
>
> Congratulations. Your post has served no useful purpose except to add
> to the flames.
Sweet!
> Suggestions for future posts:
>
> 1) Think.
I forget to sometimes. Once again. Thanks for the advice.
> 2) If you really want things to calm down, don't go overboard being
> clever and sneak words like "nazi" into your message.
I don't think I really DO want things to calm down. I was just
commenting on how something innocently stupid, like my suggestion for
tags, turned into something that was actually DONE (even if it was in
jest).
> 3) Oh, and that reminds me -- you don't moderate this group. There is
> no "mandate" whatsoever for anything you say.
Damnit. That sucks.
> "What you had in mind for
> such a sight [sic] as this" isn't relevant, because there are a whole
> lot of other minds that have something in them, too (with at least one
> notable exception).
Oh how clever.
> So quit talking down to us as though you know
> what's best for our fragile little innocent selves. You don't, nobody
> does, and it's painfully obvious.
SO obvious it hurts.
Dear Derek:
I'm just having fun. It was in mock seriousness that I wanted to
suggest standards for discipline abbre. Then I decided to add more to
the post, and decided to talk about tags. Without giving it TOO much
thought I began to right the second part of that post. I sent it,
without thinking twice. Then, after you posted, I realized that
perhaps tags wouldn't work too hot on this group. Now I'm just having
a bit of fun with the accidental 'maddness' I created.
My apologies if I've misled people, or offended anyone.
Later
~SV
pdb6@aol.comANTISPAM (Peter D Bakija) wrote:
>> Derek wrote:
>> And here we see the oh-so-clever use of the word "nazi" in an
attempt to
>> overdramatize the situation far beyond its needs.>>>
> What is the name of the common internet theory that states "as soon as anyone
> compares someone to a nazi, the conversation is at an end"?
That would be Godwin's Law.
If you're interested in this amusing piece of Usenet trivia, you
should read the Godwin's Law FAQ or "How to post about Nazis and get
away with it." It's pretty amusing.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7earrm%2421m%241%40nnrp1.dejanews.com
Regards,
Noal
vermillian69@yahoo.com (vermillian) wrote:
> 2.) We adandon BAD tags, like [mommy] and [MI] (or if michigan gets
> one, ohio does too).
Actually, Michigan should be [NJL]. :-D
> I've already seen one thread starting with "Dear fucker." This is good
> news for a more aggresive nazi-esk newsgroup,
I hereby invoke Godwin's Law. Derek wins.
Regards,
Noal McDonald
VEKN Prince of Metro Detroit
Frederick Scott wrote:
> OK. We'll start with Derek as captain of the Trolls and Andrew
> Davidson as captain of the Regulars.
You got that backwards. Andrew is the Troll and Derek is the Regular.
Regards,
Noal
"Noal McDonald" <dharzhak@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:bb705c59.0203261411.575251d8@posting.google.com...
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> > OK. We'll start with Derek as captain of the Trolls and Andrew
> > Davidson as captain of the Regulars.
>
> You got that backwards. Andrew is the Troll and Derek is the Regular.
>
Maybe it should be Derek as the captain of the Trolls, and Andrew as the
captain of the Super-Trolls.
In article <1Cfn8.117326$uA5.94355@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net>,
"Chris Berger" <arkayn@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>The committee should meet on alternate Thursdays and consist of no
>less than 17 members of mixed nationalities and philsophies on dental
>hygiene, led by a team of midget porn-star acrobats. Preferrably, the
>midgets should form some sort of human pyramid.
I believe there's a group of midget performers in New York that
will do that for you. You can hire them to do everythinng from
impersonate KISS in miniature to have sex on your table as a performance
art piece during your next dinner party.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: santiago [at] umug [dot] org || Web: http://santiago.umug.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ceci n'est pas un 'sig block'."
In message <bb705c59.0203261411.575251d8@posting.google.com>,
dharzhak@my-deja.com (Noal McDonald) mumbled something about:
>Frederick Scott wrote:>> OK. We'll start with Derek as captain of the Trolls and Andrew
>> Davidson as captain of the Regulars.>
>You got that backwards. Andrew is the Troll and Derek is the Regular.
Technically, I was born a troll. But Andrew can't be a yooper, so we'll
have to enlist someone else from the appropriate area.
--
"There's no gray. There's just white that's got grubby." -- T.P.
Noal McDonald wrote:
>
> Frederick Scott wrote:
> > OK. We'll start with Derek as captain of the Trolls and Andrew
> > Davidson as captain of the Regulars.
>
> You got that backwards. Andrew is the Troll and Derek is the Regular.
Ah, Noal! All the psychologists on all the network situation comedies
I've ever seen say that role-reversal would be just the thing to get
these two kids communicating again. I think that would be peachy.
Fred