An alternative FAQ...

alt.tv.friends Alternative Frequently Asked Questions v1.0

On-topic discussion
	1. What is the topic of this newsgroup?
	2. What's "Friends"?
	3. Does anyone here actually *like* "Friends"?

Off-topic discussion 1. What happens if I go off-topic?

Spoilers
	1. What's a spoiler?
	2. How do I know what's a spoiler and what isn't?
	3. Who are the "Spoiler Police"?

On-topic discussion:

1. What is the topic of this newsgroup? This newsgroup is dedicated to discussion of "Friends".

2. What's "Friends"? "Friends" is a sitcom set in New York City, about six 30-somethings attempting to be six 20-somethings, sitting around drinking so much coffee I'm surprised they've not got caffeine poisoning and never actually going to work. They consist of Ross Geller, a university professor driven to insanity by bad writing; Rachel Green, a rather schizophrenic girl who is either incredibly bitchy or just plain boring; Phoebe Buffay, a woman who has issues with... everything; Joey Tribbiani, an actor who is quite a nice person really, if a little too much of a ladies' man; and Mondler Binler, an odd combination of two people called Chandler Bing and Monica Geller, who individully strangely disappeared around the time they started dating.

3. Does anyone here actually *like* "Friends"? It may not seem like it at times, but most of us actually *have* liked Friends at one time or another. Of course, you get the odd complete prat who's never liked the show and attempts to wreck the group, but never mind about that...

Off-topic discussion

1. What happens if I go off-topic? This newsgroup is strictly for the discussion, and ONLY the discussion, of the TV show "Friends". As a result, off-topic discussion is a violation of Bandwidth Law section 2.34757 and is punishable by a very nasty telling off by the Bandwidth Cops.

Spoilers

1. What's a spoiler? A spoiler is where plot details of an upcoming episode are revealed before the episode has aired.

2. How do I know what's a spoiler and what isn't? Generally speaking, if it's not been shown in America yet, it's a spoiler. As for what *isn't* a spoiler... well, duh, *everything* is a spoiler to *someone*! So basically... a spoiler could be any damn thing, according to the Spoiler Police.

3. Who are the "Spoiler Police"? The Spoiler Police are a group of people who go around monitoring "illegal" spoilers on the newsgroup. However, they take the line of logic that what's a spoiler to some may not be a spoiler to others, and so censor essentially *every* on-topic post on the newsgroup. (Actually, *all* posts, seeing as off-topic is strictly prohibited.) So to avoid pissing off the Spoiler Cops: put oodles of excessive spoiler space in every single post you make, and make sure every post you make contains the subject heading "SPOILER! SPOILER! I SAID THIS IS A GODDAMN SPOILER!!!"

***** Please bear in mind that this is based on what the group is like lately. It's not intended to be taken literally, but this seems to be the only way that I can think of to get certain people to realise just what the group has turned into lately, and who's to blame... bear in mind this is a last resort after my antics of yesterday failed to get the message across.

Really? I havent read any of their posts..

Just season 6..and just plot spoilers.

I have said I dotn like the "Police" part. Not illegal just alerting others of spoilers.

However, they take the line of

what?

I dont get mad by spoilers as long as its not some troll putting in spoilers that havent even aired yet in the US.

~Act

We can change it to Spoiler Warners, what do you say? What do you say, Kacia, Ariel, Sesame?

Adeline. aka SWS <beep> #002 ===== "Your timing couldn't be better, I'm puttin' out fires all over the place." ~Joey Tribbiani, "Friends"

"I'm right! I'm right! Am...I...right??" ~Chandler Bing, "Friends"

Kacia, Ariel, Sesame?

it barely matters now. the ATF silly season is almost over. Everyone seems to have forgotten this sort of thing blows up for about a month every year around finale time. Since it only lasts a while your work is good work, but I wouldn't want to see it all year around, it appears to double traffic. By mid-June nobody will be talking about season 6 episodes, just season 6 as a whole, and how it compared to previous seasons, as well as the odd "most asked question".

Tom (unofficial analyst <g>)

In article , "Adeline" wrote:

Which translates as follows...

Lol!  :)

Tennant, who hopes Adeline will get her newsreader fixed soon. :)

In article , Tina wrote:

Tina, nobody is stopping you posting or reading whatever you wish.

Tennant

On Mon, 22 May 2000 20:48:57 +0100, Tina wrote:

Ever since I started lurking here it has seemed like 90% of the people hate the show. Can anyone who has been here for a long time please tell me whether this has always been the case? Just wondering.... BTW, I also think it is very sad that it has come to a point where some of this ng's most loyal posters can't stand one single episode.

I read for instance a couple of old posts at Deja a while ago, and some of you were talking about Chandler and Monica's new relationship. (It was about episode 505, I think.) You predicted it would end rather quickly, and it was just awful to see how they were keeping secrets from their friends. Apparently, people hated C+M already back then.

~Ariel
-------------------------------
"Money isn't everything, but it's right up there with oxygen"

"Betre b�r du ber kje i bakken enn mannevit mykje" - H�vam�l

drives me crazy

and now they say that they loved that part of season 5 and think it was the best.

~Act

On Mon, 22 May 2000 18:34:06 -0400, Activia wrote:

I'm under the impression that there are just a couple of us (including you and me) who are still focusing on the good stuff.

I know!! Who knows, a few years from now they'll be saying that "season 6 wasn't so bad after all...."

~Ariel
-------------------------------
"Money isn't everything, but it's right up there with oxygen"

"Betre b�r du ber kje i bakken enn mannevit mykje" - H�vam�l

Ariel wrote:

I certainly hope not. Many of us are afraid that we'll be longing for the good ole days of season 6 after the next couple years. You're statement could also be used to show that season 6 has made season 5 look great in comparison. If I drive a beat up old Chevy truck with a bad muffler and breaks and I say, "Gee, I guess I had it pretty good when it was only my muffler that was bad," does that mean that having a bad muffler was a great situation? No, it means it was better than now. I would still wish I could go back to when nothing was broke on the truck.

they said they liked the beginning of season 5 better than the previous seasons.. But at least you have a car that goes.

~Act

Activia wrote:

My point is that seasons 7 & 8 could be bad. Does that mean season 6 will then be considered good? Our standards shouldn't drop just because the quality does for a time. I hope their good and that this season was a fluke. I think all the seasons should be just individually and not compared to each other.

First of all, "can't stand *one single* episode" is a gross caricature of anyone you or Ariel might be talking about here. *No one* here has said they can't stand *one single* episode. Even the worst critic can find 3 or 4 season 6 episodes to like, and we all *have* said so here.

As for why we like so few, I honestly don't know what the heck you expect from us Activia. We don't like the way the series has gone. Get over it. I for one have explained why in elaborate and excruciating detail, and so have the others.

For heaven's sake, please don't let this drive you crazy.

Nope, we said it then too. I don't know who Ariel is referring to, but no one I can recall.

exactly, "you have explained why in elaborate and excuricating detail" that's the part that bothers me. Why talk about the things you hate about the show so much in detail and hardly at all on the things you do like.

and if you don't like it that much then why do you call yourself a fan.

~Act

Because there is so little for me to like!

Here's a scene from "Cry Freedom" that in a completely different context illustrates my reaction to your question:

Biko (played by Denzel Washington) is being interrogated in a courtroom about some of his writings critical of the government. The prosecutor and the Judge both are sincerely flabbergasted that in his writings Steve Biko has nothing whatsoever good to say about the government, and they want to know why he is so negative. His response: "Well, my Lord, the government does so little that is good that it is hardly worth mentioning."

Now, please know I am not comparing Friends to Apartheid in South Africa, nor myself, Claire, and others to Nelson Mandela ;-) Not by a long shot ;-)

My point Activia is this:

Let them put out more good episodes, and I'll gladly applaud them.

You act as if what is good about the show and what is bad about the show is universally agreed upon. It is not. I am not negative because I enjoy it. I am negative because I am honest. It's a bit like Hawkeye Pierce in an early M*A*S*H episode: "You want me to apologize to Frank Burns? Like, say something like, 'I'm sorry Frank, you are a fine doctor and a great surgeon.'? If I tried to say that, my tongue would snap off it's roller" - again, a much more dramatic example than the situation we have hear, but the point is the same.

The problem is not that people like me are just trying to rain on your parade. The problem is you like things about Friends that I find regrettable.

So what? More great fodder for vigorous discussion, wouldn't you say? What's wrong with that?

Because I love this show and hate how it has debased itself. I once had high hopes for it. Plus I am hooked - still. Have been ever since TOW Rachel Finds Out.

It is *precisely* because I am a fan that I criticize the show for falling short. If I wasn't a fan, I wouldn't even be here, because I wouldn't care.

In article , James Squire wrote:

Ooh yes - that's the episode that turned me from a viewer into a fan.

Tennant

thats bizzarre. Me too.

(as dryly as possible) That's because it's a great episode.

The title scene is almost... art.

In article , "Tom Hawley" wrote:

The cliffhanger was heartbreaking, and for a guy to admit that shows that this was no mere tear-jerking sentiment, but a true drama that lifted the new sitcom above its peers...

Was this a defining moment for anyone else? :)

Tennant

Tennant Stuart wrote:

This episode is exactly what hooked me to the show also! I had been a sporadic viewer up until this moment and a non-stop fan since.

Laurie

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Laurie doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

It *kinda* hooked me - the first episode I saw was TOW The Ick Factor, during a time when my dad had pretty much barred me from my room during the first major computer catastrophe, and TOW Rachel Finds Out was the one which made me think to myself "Right, I *must* find out what happens here", but I wasn't truly hooked until TOW Ross Finds Out (which to this day is still my favourite episode).

In article , Tina wrote:

Hmmm....  :)

Rachel is fantastic, esp dunking the phone in the ice bucket; and of course Chandler & Monica are *so* the couple; but Joey & Phoebe just get this stupid little story to do.

Tennant

1. Ya know, as much as TOW The Prom Video turns me to jello, the sight of Rachel riding piggy back on Ross trying to grab the phone out of his hand, and then trying to hide in the couch and then the two of them ... working hard to understand what was happening but at the same time surrendering to the reality of it, that scene has to be the most touching, endearing, priceless, moment of the entire Ross and Rachel relationship for me, plus I think they have never looked so grown up since.

2. And guess what folks???? That same scene was absolutely loaded with humor!!! Imagine that. Next person who claims the two things can't mix is hereby directed to go read this scene at thecfsi.com, dag nabbit.

3. J&P: It was worse than stupid, Tennant. But if you can view Joey as Mr. "Object Lesson in spite of himself" with his final line to Pheobe, maybe you'll like it better. I know that's what I resort to. I swear, the next time Pheobe complains about not having anyone (not that she has), someone should remind her of Scott.

In article , James Squire wrote:

I think there are some episodes where a weak storyline exists just to give remaining members of the cast something to do. A prime example of this is Rachel solving a crossword puzzle in 406 "TOW the Dirty Girl". They should let spare characters just sit on the couch in Central Perk as Phoebe did in 520 "TOW the Ride Along".

Tennant

Yes but that was funny!!

~Act

Funny, that one (406) worked great for me. Go figure ....

On Tue, 23 May 2000 18:23:52 -0400, Activia wrote:

Relax, what Act and I are trying to say is that we want to try to focus on the good stuff. I can't talk for her, but I know that I still enjoy the show a lot, and so do my fellow Norwegians. I think it's rather interesting that in the USA Friends has experienced a drop in ratings of 13% during this season, while here in Norway the show has *never* been more popular than it is right now. And I guess you guys all think like Scally told me in a post here... He said something like nothing outside of New York mattered, but I can't help it. I'm an optimist and a Friends-fan. A rare combination nowadays. :)

~Ariel
-------------------------------
"Money isn't everything, but it's right up there with oxygen"

"Betre b�r du ber kje i bakken enn mannevit mykje" - H�vam�l

Who is stopping you? Please, by all means do so.

Indeed, it *is* interesting - exactly my point - not a cause for concern or a reason for leaving.

You mean that clod who stuck it to the spoiler police???? Nestled safe in my killfile. I have no interest in what he said, and don't lump me in with him. I would never say such a thing.

On Tue, 23 May 2000 20:13:01 -0500, James Squire wrote:

Thanks! I was just joking about him. I think that's the only way we should deal with him anyway. :)

~Ariel
-------------------------------
"Money isn't everything, but it's right up there with oxygen"

"Betre b�r du ber kje i bakken enn mannevit mykje" - H�vam�l

Activia wrote:

We do it to back up our opinions. How constructive is it to bitch about the show and then not explain why? Right now, it's easier to find the faults of the show than it has been in previous seasons. We're not going to kid ourselves into thinking it's still at the same level as it once was. It's natural for people to be more critical than not. How many times do people bitch about service at a restaurant compared to talking about how good it was?

Because we care about it and hate to see it go downhill. If you don't like something that a friend is doing and you care about that friend, you'll speak up and not just let it go like their isn't a problem.

Activia wrote:

It drives me crazy when ...

spoiler space for what drives me crazy...

when people want everyone to just ignore some of the problems this show is facing. I'm not a complacent person. I always look to improve on different things that I do, whether it's school, work, playing sports or coaching sports. It's natural to see problems and comment on them because we want to see them improve. We're backing up our positions with evidence so that we can debate. I hate it when people say "it's still better than any other sitcom" and use that as a way of saying we shouldn't complain because this show is losing ground to other shows. You can keep telling yourself how much better it is until it's finally obvious that other shows have passed it. The ratings for the show have declined for a reason and some people don't realize how big of an indication that is.

I think you're generalizing an awful lot. I can only speak for myself, but I thought the secret part of C&M's relationship was good. I didn't find myself too interested in them and I didn't particularly care what happened to them, but at least it was funny. I would never say it was the best, only that it was much better than what we're seeing now.

Jay

You are missing a point here. YOU can change how you do at school and work. You can not change how the show is run, it's not in your hands, its in the writers hands.

~Act

Activia wrote:

Which gives him even *more* reason to complain and voice his opinion. You said it, the show is completely in the writers hands. The problem is that they don't realize that they've turned this show into something that alot of people don't care too much for anymore. Comments and opinions from people like J. and others are thrown out there with the hope that the writers might "hear" how they feel if the opinions become prevalent enough.

Very few people here are complaining for the sake of complaining. They are complaining because each and every one of them have been dedicated, loyal fans from the get-go and have had to watch the quality of a show that they care about go down the drain. The bottom line here is that most people want the quality of the show to *improve* and would like to do *whatever* they can to help that happen(regardless of whether it actually helps or not).

Proclaiming that something is inadequate or not good enough is usually a good motivation for improvement which is what J. and others have been hoping to achieve. Proclaiming what something *does* have(which is basically what you have been telling everyone to do all along) very seldom provides motivation for improvement(which again is what most people want in this case).

Your way of thinking regarding the current quality of "Friends" is like trying to sell a a beat-up chevy truck with no transmission to someone by emphasizing what a great stereo system it has. I don't care how great that stereo system is, I'm still not buying the truck. I'm not buying it until someone fixes what's "wrong" with it.

Chris

I really don't believe this. I think many are just sitting here complaining and complaining and complaining simply to get it off their chest. I feel like Janice felt when Ross just kept complaining and complaining and complaining..

I hate to say this. But it is very unlikely that they are reading this newsgroup and taking in people's suggestions. Sure there is a chance. But does that mean that you can only talk about the things you want to improve?

Yes but should you only say what's wrong with it and not what's good with it?

Then don't buy it, no one is making you.

No, that's not true. I have admitted when I say I don't like an episode and why, but I dont do it all the time like most of the people on here.

It would be nice if for once a decent thread could go on ONCE IN AWHILE about something you like about your supposivily favorite show. If I couldn't find anything I liked about my favorite show, than I would say it's no longer my favorite show.

Activia wrote:

I'm done trying to explain why people have valid reasons for complaining. You just don't get it. We're being realistic about this show. That's all. If I didn't care about this show, would I take the time to write about it? The quality is down and we feel bad about that and want to see it improve.

In article , Activia wrote:

There's a lot about Season 6 that I've disliked, but only the Joey's fridge episode failed to make me laugh. The other sitcoms I watch can make me laugh, sometimes a lot, but for many episodes I'm merely entertained, not laughing out loud. And there's a *lot* of sitcoms I just don't watch.

My point (which is not very original) is that even when Friends is poor it's still far superior to any other sitcom. However I'm greedy, and want it to be better than that.

Tennant

Activia wrote:

No, I think you're missing MY point. I'm saying that I have a certain standard of quality that I expect from this show and when I don't see it, I'll talk about it. I'm not gonna just ignore it. No, I can't change how it's run, but I can talk about why I think it's run wrong. Just because I'm not a writer and I don't have a direct say in how it goes doesn't mean I have to sit back and say, "It's fine. I really like everything about it."

The viewers decide how it's run by watching it or not. If viewership goes down, at some point the producers have to ask themselves why. That's what would change the direction of the show.

I didn't say that you should ignore all of your thoughts. It's just that THATS ALL YOU TALK ABOUT ALL THE TIME!! Whenever I say I like an episode you pick apart things that I said and try to make me undestand why it's bad it feels like. It's my opinion.

~Act

Activia wrote:

That's completely untrue. If you think that, you certainly haven't been reading my posts very thouroughly.

I'm not trying to change your opinions. I'll debate some of the reasons behind your opinions. I don't pick things apart so that you'll think it's bad. I do it so people will understand why some people don't think a particular episode is the greatest episode ever. Not everyone can see an episode and focus on just the good things.

Not everyone can see an episode and focus on just the good things.

But could you, sometimes? I think you should pick the good things and the bad out of every episode.

~Act

Activia wrote:

I'm beginning to think you don't read my posts much at all. If you read my rhetorical questions for new episodes, I would always make my opinions on episodes very obvious. Many of my opinions that were expressed were positive. Maybe you're only paying attention to the negative things in my posts. I'm certainly not going to change how I judge an episode because someone thinks I'm too critical. I'll express my thoughts on it no matter if they're positive or negative ones.

Oh but you sees I was thinking of the posts as a whole you were right sometimes I cant distinguish in my mind who said what.. sorry

~Act

No it has not always been the case, although I can recall a few stints during season 2 when some people were so pissed off at the (non-existant) Ross & Rachel show and who felt like season 1 was the only authentic season of Friends that would ever be.

Yes it is sad. Talk to the writers. We're all trying as hard as we can to conjure up the old enthusiasm. But you can't fake what isn't there.

Au contraire. Everyone I recall who was not enthusiastic about C&M thought the hiding part in the first half of season 5 was the most fun we expected to ever have out of the story arc. It was when everyone finally found out that people started bemoaning the C&M story.

zw(u禊튉ÿ­é¨½ç\šYÚÏȃBŸÚ[™\ˆš[™Ë‘œšY[™ȃBƒBƒB

Hellooooo!!! After getting drunk in Vegas, Adeline doodled cat whiskers on his/her face and miaowed this little lot at a statue...

Read my disclaimer at the end. I *said* it wasn't intended to be taken literally - it was a deliberately tongue-in-cheek take on what's going on here lately. (And in actual fact, the "off-topic" stuff was an indirect jibe at UMTF.) It's called "satire" - and the definition of satire means that it's *bound* to offend people at some point, otherwise the point it's trying to make can't get across. The whole point is that this is what it must look like to an outisder - a place which has obsessively crazy spoiler rules whereby anyone who discusses *anything* that has happened in the last couple of years gets chastised for posting a spoiler, even if it's aired in the majority of the world. This place has become a warzone because people have taken it upon themselves to moderate an unmoderated newsgroup (even if they say they're not, that's what they're doing). I'm not *nearly* this stringent on my own message board, which actually *is* a moderated board! If I don't like what's going on, I give people a telling-off, but I don't go around re-editing everyone's posts so that mistakes which people wouldn't normally notice are now glaringly obvious! The whole point of the alternative FAQ is that THIS NEEDS TO STOP. If it doesn't, all that's going to happen is that people are going to be driven away.

If one thing has been made clear by all of this, it's that the spoiler rules *need* to be gotten back into perspective, and gone over again.