This is the kind of crap you get when you rely on Tennant's version of events. I did an exhaustive search with Google Advanced Search and there wasn't one single post (among 600+) where 'Maynotlast' (MNL) claimed he would prove his connection to the show with a message on Joey's magnadoodle prior to the episode airing Oct. 15/98. A poster called Joanne (email eviljo@...) had the courage to ask what evidence there was that this person was connected to the show. MNL took umbrage and others claimed he must be genuine simply because he had some superficial knowledge of how the show is put together. The myth of MNL was created when he and others claimed retroactively that the 'Evil Joe' words on the magnadoodle in TOW Phoebe Hates PBS was his "proof" that he was in fact Michael Curtis who wrote the episode. In fact it was just a coincidence. Phoebe described Joey as an "evil genius" in that episode, so we could safely infer it was Joey or Chandler wrote the message in a spirit of triumph. Another interesting tidbit: Maynotlast posted a message that day (Oct. 15) claiming he was quitting the newsgroup, claiming it was all "junk and crap." Curious behavior for someone with a covert plan to prove himself. He didn't make another post for about two months. More evidence that Maynotlast was a fraud: 1) He claimed in one post, "I received the title of Executive Producer on condition of a 75% salary cut, down to $250 a month." That's absurd. The WGA minimum for writing a episode is something like $25,000 per episode. 2) He claimed in one post he didn't know the address of Warner Bros. Apparently he forgot he works there. 3) In another post he says, "What are Tag Lines, and what kind of inside info are people looking for? Dirt? Not a chance." All writers know what tag lines are. It's how movies get promoted. This whole phenomenon is just sad. What does it say when people on this newsgroup are so desperate for some familial connection to the show they are willing to believe in these obvious phonies years after they left?
Well, quite so Andr�; I guess Bryan just loves to attack me.
BTW, if you want to see what MNL looks like, check out the episode 203 "TOW Heckles Dies"; he's the police officer who's taking notes, while the gang watch the dead body of Mr.Heckles being taken away.
On 23 Apr 2003 13:33:20 -0700, [email] (Bryan) wrote:
All you've done is to call Tennant, MNL and pretty much everyone on this newsgroup liars and make a moron of yourself while doing so.
Why is it so hard for you to believe that writers hang out in newsgroups. I've read interviews where the writers have found amusing little things like the Friends drinking game and showed it to the cast.
You keep saying that the magnadoodle says Evil Joe not Evil Jo. Did you miss the posts that says the camera shift slight when Phoebe moves slightly so you see just the Evil Jo bit? I went through these posts two years ago and pretty much anyone who has hung out here and found out about Michael Curtis probably did. So, before you come here thinking that you are out here exposing frauds, you might as well do your research properly.
The camera shift was a co-incidence or an error as there were an unusual number of errors on the set in this episode 504. The writer does not control the camera either. That would have required the collaboration of the director, cameraman and writer including others to make the point. Michael Curtis could have easily had 'EvilJo' on the magnadoodle if he could. It is quite unlikely that the exectutives would allow as MNL claimed a reference to a poster on ATF on a magnadoodle on the set. It just seems petty and vindictive for them to do so. I doubt even that was the writer's intention either.
Anway coming back to the errors on 504, it started right from the beginning. I'll point the first one out. In the opening scene when Monica is waiting for Chandler in her room, Jennifer Aniston goes into the room wearing pumps but comes out of the room wearing heeled sandals instead. Watch this episode and see if you can spot the rest. :-)
On 25 Apr 2003 22:53:54 -0700, [email] (Sonny Black) wrote:
Fine, it could have been co-incidence. But Lora said that Michael Curtis knew her screen name. Interestingly, Bryan snips that bit out in his reply. You cannot carry cameras into the studio. I doubt that Michael Curtis would be clicking snaps for anyone who asked.
If he was a fraud, then why did Michael Curtis give me and my friend a tour of the set after a Friends taping we went to? how did he know my screen name? And how was he able to gossip about the people on the newsgroup at the time with me?
EvilJo was the fraud, not MNL.
Tenants reccount of the stroy is pretty much accurate.
And right after the taping of that episode, MNL was on the hunt for EvilJo and stated that he had proof. No one understood until that episode aired.
If you don't want to believe it, fine, but I know it is true. I was here during that time. Many times when you do searches for old messages, half of them get lost.
My deaer friend Al had a site about this newsgroup. It had all the myths and legends on it. I think everything was very well documented on that site but whenever I do a search for stuff on google, half the threads are missing.
Amazing! My separate tour of the Friends set a few weeks later was given by the same guy. :) I liked our Universal tour the next year too, 'cause we got to ride in his golf cart. And going to the set of the new show and all that. Remember Ethan Embry? "He's married?!" Ah, memories.
<< I liked our Universal tour the next year too, 'cause we got to ride in his golf cart. And going to the set of the new show and all that. Remember Ethan Embry? "He's married?!" Ah, memories. >>
Yes, that was a lot of fun. I still have that pic of us by the Bates Motel. Hahaha. And Ethan was a sweetie.
Hello Lora! It's so lovely to hear from you again. :)
How have you been? What's happening?
Thankyou so much for your kind support, Lora.
Well, I kept a copy of the infamous "Spank Sock" thread in which EvilJo battled it out with MayNotLast, if anyone is interested. It's a bit rude, but very funny, and it contains MNL insisting that he's correct since he is a writer on the show, and EvilJo challenging him to prove it - first of all by linking Monica & Chandler up...
In tow where pete and monica kiss, chandlers' sock which lies under his bed is brought to subject, when monica tries to find out what phoebe knows. If I can recall correctly, "the sock" was mentioned before. probably a dirty story... Whoo can help me out...
Nicole Replies on Feb 12:
It's funny because I was thinking about the same thing! But I'll be damned if I know what the alleged tale was... unless it's one of those mentions where they leave the audience to guess at what it could have been. I admit I've missed a couple of episodes this year (not my fault, folks <g>) so I could have just missed the one where they talked about that sock--but I suspect there IS no story. It's an enigma... <ggg>
MayNotLast replies on Feb 20th:
This is a reference to Chandler's "spank sock." i.e.: the sock he masturbates into and cleans up with.
This is no joke.
On Feb. 24th TiaGina responds:
was this every actually confirmed in the show's dialogue? i think it was just left up to our dirty-minded speculation
Nikki responds on Feb 24th:
I think this was speculation. Never have I heard such a reference in the show. I don't know, I've seen prime-time shows really push the envelope on sexual references and double-entendres but I can't really imagine how they would incorporate THAT explanation into the dialogue... yikes... ;)
On Feb 25th Richard says:
The suggestion that this is Chandler's 'spank sock' is pure speculation, and surely far too vulgar for Chandler. I can't believe a man who wears moisturiser would keep such a thing by his bed.
My preferred explanation, though also pure speculation, is that the sock is a child's comfort thing, like Linus's (I think - from Peanuts I mean) blanket. Given Chandler's disrupted childhood this is surely an entirely possible weakness for him.
MayNotLast replies to this on the 26th:
Well isn't that sweet. But nope, it's his Spank Sock.
Graham then replies on the 25th:
Sorry, disagree, Chandler shares Joey's obsession with the sort of female dynamic motion available on 'Baywatch'.
But he is intelligent and sensitive enough to keep a lid on that side of his nature when in public, whereas Joey is much less so.
Even nice guys get urges...
Tnov21 adds on Feb 25th:
Maybe that's why Chandler wears moisturizer.
To which Rhinhold replies:
um, I wear moisturiser... ;)
And on Feb 28th, Graham adds:
Maybe that's WHERE Chandler wears moisturiser...
Jonny then says:
Haven't you heard the story of Chanderella?
Chandlerella was a poor guy who couldn't get a date. One day he helped an old lady across the road. The old lady changed Chanderella into a super guy who gained a secret job as a super spy with a cover story as a data processor. He went to an ambassador's banquet where he met a stunning girl doing the catering. He was chatting along to her quite nicely when the guards spotted him, he managed to escape with the documents but knocked his head causing him to forget most of his spy life. All he had to remember the catering girl by was her sock, he lives in hope as he waits till he can come out of hiding that he will soon one day find the girl that fits the sock. All his friends think of it as a blanket.
JonX - Hopefully Chandlerella will find that this catering girl lives closer than he thinks.
In steps EvilJo on feb 28th:
My dear sweet Chandler, never! I'd stop now becase if I get my hands on you Sugar you May Not Last.
Jo (Who warns everybody never to mock her babe Chandler.)
To which ME SNARO responds:
If there's ANYBODY who deserves mocking more, it's Chandler. Hey, if the guy has to spew-off into a sock, who are we to condemn him.
To which EvilJo responds on March 4:
Chandler does not deserve mocking, Rachel deserves it more. Chandler is the sweetest guy, he mocks himself but is the guy I'd like to pair up with. No matter how you try to blame your own little problem on this cute character I wont listen, no matter how many times you email me.
Jo (Who has just given MNL some more material to have some *fun* with.)
The lovely Shelly agreed with Richard from Feb 25th...
Thats alot nicer! ;) Well done- I totally Agree!
But then... ME SNARO wrote
Eegads!! Who predicts a new newsgroup for Shelly, Richard, and Winnie-ther-Pooh? Me!
If Chandler needs a place to keep and/or clean up his sperim, well...
So Richard posted on March 3:
To which I feel I really must reply. Setting aside the question of what 'sperim' is, and who is Winnie-ther-Pooh, I would like first of all to ask why anyone would think Chandler would want to KEEP the stuff???
My point was not so much that Chandler is too perfect to want to 'spank', but that I imagine him to be sufficiently fastidious in his personal habits (as befits one who wears moisturiser, since the two seem in my experience to go together) not to want to keep his bodily effluents lying around in a stinking fetid sock for days on end. I would put him down as a tissue man myself.
On March 9th, Dargo Adds:
Nora Bing gave away the reason for it (I forget the episode), It IS a comfort thing - and that's all !
On the 10th, Richard replies:
Ha! I knew it! When I first read this message, I thought, 'What does she (Nora) know?', but in fact she is not as other mothers, and would be far more likely than most to (a) know the unpleasant truth and (b) reveal it in public. So I think this is conclusive. Though I have to say, I don't remember the episode either.
Going back to Feb 26th, MayNotLast replies to TiaGina:
Trust me on this one, folks. Of course it could never be confirmed with dialogue, but THIS IS the mystery behind "Chandler's Sock."
Then, Ilene innocently asks:
Oh really? Then how may I ask do YOU know this? It was only mentioned in one episode! Please, that's disgusting! If it wasn't confirmed by dialogue then what was it confirmed with?
Your sick mind?
To which MNL replies:
Mine and the other 12 writers on the show.
Sorry... (shrugs)
On March 4th, EvilJo gathers up the troops and says:
Without proof, your story isn't believeable. In fact I may be a writer of the show but let's not start that one again.
If you are a writer, write it into the show the proof that your claims are lacking. But of course you can't as there are the Network censers. This newsgroup doesn't have any of them, it isn't moderated and there isn''t a watershed. Anybody could be reading this newsgroup, a young kid under supervision of their parents. You are discussing a topic that will cause harm. Chandler fans won't want to hear it and some wont believe it. However this could cause little ones to be banned from here or the entire net. I'm not exactly the right person to be lecturing you because I come close to the line quite often. However I will never make up damaging pieces of information about the characters. Please refrain from referring to a totally inocent sock in this crude manner. If you have something against Chandler take it elsewhere.
We've been arguing the case strongly against it being what you think it is and I know there are more of us than you. You have flatly denied al the plausible reasons and come up with a juvenile 'it isn't'.
You will be.
Jo (Who is with me?)
To which Jonny says:
You go girl!
Jonny - Now that was good stuff, can't we see a little more of it?
In Response to EvilJo, MayNotLast replies:
WhatEVER!
And then writes in response to Denise joining the troops:
Yeah, you guys get your story straight, then get back to me. I know what Chandler's Sock is. I'm here. You watch it on tv.
Sorry. (shrugs, winks, laughs at you)
To which EvilJo replies:
We have, you haven't even got a story.
Wrong, you think you know what it is. We don't even know if it exists.
And, your point Sugar?
That we do. We also read a jerk here who has to put Chandler down because they can't be as great a guy as him. You can't even compete with a fictional character, Sugar you are pathetic.
Jo (Who shrugs, picks up a baseball bat and knocks MNL's head off then laughs.)
On March 8th, Nik posts:
Jo wrote:
Jo, don't look at the bad man. Look at me for a sec. Good. <gg> Okay, The reason he "knows" about that sock is because he (grimacing) probably does it, himself. Wait, don't faint or puke, I gotcha. Close your eyes and take a nice deep breath.... atta girl. <lol>
I know. It's sick and WRONG..... <ggggggg>
EvilJo replies:
Don't know me very well do you. I'd came to the same conclusion last week. MNL isn't worth the modem time he uses to send these messages. We know the truth and they can't admit they have a problem. ;)
ME SNARO says on March 10th:
Wow! Sounds like Jo has a serious crush on the fictional character of "Chandler." I hope her electric pleasuring device exists in the Real World, cause it sounds like she's gonna need it.
I think her "quote" says it all...... "The woman is insane."
Run, MNL! Run for your very life!!!
To which EvilJo replies:
Sugar I don't know what you're on but you haven't got a clue have you? I like Matthew Perry and I put him on my list. At the moment I'm happy with my boyfriend Tom.
The baseball bat exists in real life and don't think you're not going to get your head bashed in.
It's called a sig file Sugar. If it said the woman is evil just maybe I would of left you off lightly.
<Yvonne> Aren't you the same person? </Yvonne> We all know where Snaro comes from.
Funny how you both are with AOL that wonderful <cough> service <cough> provider <cough> with a reputation for you two and never more has this insult meant more . . . .
A N Y B O D Y
U N D E R
15
P L E A S
GO
A W A Y
Wankers. Now before I get bashed by all the nice people on AOL, let me tell you something, I used to be part of AOL I moved on and others can to, with my video 'How to leave AOL' . . . . . . . .
Jo (Who advises whoever this Me Snaro is to get running as well.)
On March 11th, Claire posts:
Oh, Jo, honey. Let it go. The trolls ain't worth your time.
To which MNL replies:
Finally, MY turn to say "Hear, hear!"
See you in England, BABY!!!
On March 12th, Ojata adds:
Claire's rigth, Jo. This moron doesn't worth your time (I shouldn't have replied his crap, but he just pissed me off)
Then Jonny adds:
Let's face it, when is she ever wrong? :) How are you Claire?
Yeah, Jo I know you have to have the last word but be the bigger person and just leave these two (?) sad lowlifes alone
And EvilJo replies:
Well if the queen of the group says I should leave it alone I will do so.
You want to leave it alone but they've got you so annoyed you just have to say something. Correct?
Consider my dealings with MNL and Me Snaro closed here from now on.
Jo (Who knows it just isn't worth it.)
On March 12th, Ojata adds:
YOU should run for your life, because there are people who will kill you after trolling like that. Do you have nothing to do apart from being trolling and posting your rubbish ???. You're wasting your time and our time...In fact, I don't know why I'm wasting MY time replying your s**t. I should have ignored you.
*** DANGER ***
*** TROLL ALERT ***
Mas then posts:
well said. *applauds* (I'd've said it myself - but I never seem to get the delivery right - which means I should probably take up cricket) Of course, electric pleasuring device does cover (excuse the double- meaningness of this) a variety of avenues. And who's to say Chandler is fictional - like most 'realistic' characters he is based in part on numerous people who actually exist. In fact, you may know some like that. And a crush on someone on Tv - fictional or otherwise is a natural thing. Just look at the x-files - the number of quite rational men and women who have soft spots for either 'mulder' or 'scully' or even 'skinner'!!! It's one of those things that happen. If it makes people happy, and doesn't turn them into homacidal stalking maniacs its a good thing.
In the words of Sheryl Crowe "if it makes you happy - it can't be that bad"
[snips the rest - but agrees kinda]
On March 19th MayNotLasts posts this note:
All right, all right... I seem to have hit a nerve here. I'm sorry I've pissed off so many Chandler fans. (You all know he's not real, right?) I am one of the writer's of the show. Myself and all the other writers know what Chandler's sock in for. Obviously we can't say on-air that he uses it for masturbating, but that's what it's used for.
Jo has asked that I prove I am a writer on the show by linking Monica and Chandler up. All I can say is.... stay tuned!
To which Claire replies:
Baloney. I suspect a real writer would know that you don't put an apostrophe before the s of a plural. The apostrophe is for possession, dummy. I don't normally go after grammar errors, but I have a personal reason for disliking people who impersonate the staff untruthfully and you are asking for it.
And EvilJo replies:
Go Claire!!!!!!
MNL can't even respect decent privacy either he just wants attention. Because he's so sad and has a personal problem he has drempt up a scheme which he thinks will make girls like him. Well MNL it hasn't worked.
Jo (Who hands Claire the baseball bat.)
Then MNL says:
So-rry! I'm not the one who named this letter so you can go after someone else. However, in response to your grammatical hissy-fit, I will attempt to correct the problem. Also, you're right about the staff impersonation thing... it's pretty obnoxious -- however, I've come to realize jumping around the "Friends" newsgroup bragging about being a writer for the show tops it in obnoxiousness by far, so from now on, I will stop.
Anyone who would like to privately chat or e-mail abou the show can do so with me at [email].
Please excuse any typos or, god forbid, misplaced apostrophes.
In response to EvilJo, MayNotLast posts On March 20th:
Dear Jo,
Thanks awfully much for such an obvious attempt to gain my romantic attentions, however, alas, I'm happily married -- yes, to a woman! As I've already mentioned to Claire, I have come to agree that the only thing lamer than someone going around claiming to be a writer on the show, is an ACTUAL writer on the show going around claiming to be a writer on the show.
However, since we seem to have developed a sort of Love/Hate relationship (a la "Sam" and "Diane" on "Cheers" -- DEEPEST apologies for the non- "Friends" show reference) if you'd like to talk about the show privately, you are certainly free to e-mail me at [email]. That's my offer -- take it or leave it. I promise we won't talk about Chandler's Spank Sock (the sock he masturbates into) if you don't want to. However, I must again point out, I am a happily married writer for "Friends," so any "cyber" must be kept to a bare minimum.
Sincerely,
MNL
On April 17th, EvilJo posts the following composition:
This post contains references to masturbation, anybody who is to young to view this article or does not wish to read an article about it please stop now. It also contains a reference to Season 4 Finale. By continuing you are at your own risk.
S P O I L E R
S P A C E
Since TOW The Chick And A Duck when Monica said, "Does it have to do with-with Chandler and that sock that he keeps by his bed?" there has been a question of why Chandler keeps a sock by his bed. Some including MNL believe it to be his 'spank-sock' a sock Chandler masturbates into.
MayNotLast claims to a writer and while there is a lot of evidence to support that he is telling the truth can any of us really prove our existence. MNL may well be a writer but it doesn't mean he is telling the truth about the sock. Friends isn't just a one writer show either and this view on the sock may not be the same for each writer.
Why a sock? Does Chandler want to keep his seamen for any particular purpose? I would have thought something disposable, like tissues would have been better. I'm not saying it makes Chandler any less of a regular guy, it's fair enough if he has to relieve his sexual tensions like this.
But is the sock really used for masturbation? Monica knows that the sock is by his bed. Which brings up two points. Why keep it by his bed instead of in a draw near it or under his bed? If he's going to have it out all the time in clear view why doesn't he frame it? How would Monica find out about it, granted the way they live in each others pockets so much they'll find out stuff about each others. But aren't people who masturbate just like people who suffer from bulimia, they won't admit they have a 'problem.'
Chandler doesn't seem to be infatuated with porn until TOW All The Jealousy when he organises the bachelor party. His reaction to the pen he picks up there gives the impression he hasn't seen a lot of it. This seems to be contradicted because he has seen Joey's porno video. Wouldn't a guy who is jerking off need material to do it with?
Chandler went to an all boys boarding school, this is where the masturbating could have first started. However it could be where another idea for the sock started. Chandler's parents broke up when he was nine and we know he didn't take it very well. Chandler may have been seeking comfort and security but he couldn't take a blanket or a cuddly toy to boarding school where he would be teased for it, so he used a sock something that no-one would have expected. He might have opened up to Monica about this once.
Remember Chandler has never used questionable things for their normal uses. Rachel's bra as a catapult and the inflatable sheep as a pillow when he went camping.
Now presumably Chandler wouldn't be masturbating when he's with a girlfriend like Janice and Kathy because he's having the real thing. So if he got together with Monica, the sock would become unneeded again. But would it mean the end for the sock? Monica as we all know is obsessed with keeping things tidy and neat. Monica knows about the sock, so she would probably get rid of it because it probably hasn't been washed and is just lying around in his bedroom. So if we don't see her throw it out it probably used for something else.
In the end this is a fictional character. (Jo waits for all the screams of 'Nooooooooooo' to finish.) Because of network censors the writers can't say what it is for on the show. So we are left to choose what it is for, you all know my views on the subject.
JoX (Who thanks Claire.)
MNL RESPONDS...
Good Lord!!!!!!!! I didn't think the debate on Chandler's "spank sock" would go as far as the Oxford Union. At least, it seems that's where it's headed, based on EvilJo's breaktaking thesis.
I dug up some MNL / Sock history. I've bookmarked all the interesting threads, maybe others will enjoy them as well. The "Chandler's Sock" thread's in it too, although fragmented.
Here they are:
Thread that suggests MNL to write something on the magnadoodle:
Same thread continued, different subject: http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&frame=right&th=4070dd84da2120f0&seekm=35096103.345643%40news.integrityonline.com#link1
Even if you met Michael Curtis - and I still haven't seen the proof you did - where is the evidence in the old posts to this group that he was Maynotlast? In fact, there is none. The only thing you're offering is your word.
It's NOT RELEVANT what happened after the episode aired. It is simply too convenient for an imposter to use the Evil Joe message on the magnadoodle as an excuse when if fact those words were clearly linked to Phoebe on that episode. The message did NOT say Evil Jo. Furthermore, assuming the episode was filmed about a month before it aired, we would have to see some post from Sept. 15/98 or earlier where Maynotlast said he would demonstrate his connection to the show in an upcoming episode. There is none. It would be very easy for someone who attended the taping of the episode to notice the message on the magnadoodle and then invent this connection to Maynotlast.
Yes, and your dog ate your homework. Excuses, excuses.
Yes, that's right. That's what I have, my word. I was not allowed to bring a camera to the set. I didn't Have Michael sign anything in writing. If you dig hard enough, there is a post somewhere where he said if you come to a taping, be sure to say "Hello". That's what I did. He was very nice to me and my friend. When Larissa went a few weeks later, he snapped shots of her on the set with the set camera.
There was a girl from the newsgroup who went the week before I did and her taping ran until about 2am. She didn't get a tour, but he did say hello to her.
You refuse to listen to all the people who were around here at the time. We know he wasn't a fraud. If you don't believe that, I don't know what your agenda is and why it matters so much.
I am starting to think maybe this is Jon. Or mayeb this is even Michael just tryong to have some fun. LOL!
More...
Um, I remember clearly that that episode was taped the week before I went to my first taping (not the one where I had the tour, that came a few months later). I remember checking this newsgroup and there were all these posts from MNL asking where Jo was. And don't forget, Michael was teh one who wrote that PBS episode, so he could have written that line in just so he could make that reference.
At thispoint, all these baseles assumptions you are making are really what NOT RELEVANT
I'm long out of school buddy.
You can probably even search long and hard and find the three spoilers I wrote for the episodes that I went to. I didn't ask Michael to sign something in writing that I actually met him and that he was who he says he is.
Open your mind just a little, you hav more than enough proff and evidence from those that were here at the time that he was who he says he is.
I don't understand why you refuse to believe it. although, I do see that you did not jump all over Larissa who had pictires from the set. So, I guess that means that you take her word that it is true.
That's right! I remember just before that PBS episode aired, MNL was all over this group asking for Jo. He told us all to "keep watching" when we wanted proof and I almost fell out of my chair when I saw that episode and the magnadoodle! Ah, the memories...
Tennant's version of events is actually correct! MNL was really who said he was... if he wasn't, then who took these pictures and how would I have gotten here?
http://www.geocities.com/peachlilli/set.html
Nobody laugh! This is me about 4 years ago! ;)
If you knew him, you'd know that was sarcasm!
Why did someone want the address? Fanmail? My guess would be that they get enough fanmail there and don't want more.
Yeah, but in TV shows, you don't really have tag lines, just "tags" at the end.
Hmm... 'Cause they're not phonies? :) I know it's hard for some people to believe without actually meeting him in real life. If I hadn't, I'd probably be skeptical too.
Me too, Marie. I would love to actually stand in Joey's apartment, with TENNANT WAS HERE written on the Magnadoodle board. Sigh...
But if anyone deserves it, Larissa does - she & Tina were very kind to me when I was a newbie; and she made a valuable contribution to Friends fandom, not just with her posts to ATF, but also her very informative & entertaining newsletter, "Across The Hall".
<< Me too, Marie. I would love to actually stand in Joey's apartment, with TENNANT WAS HERE written on the Magnadoodle board. Sigh.. >>
Tennant, this reminds me. I was walking by the building on Bedford & Grove and the door was wide open and I snapped a pic on my digital. I didn't go in because they were doing work on it and there were too many people around. But I thought of you.
I stand by my words. Your version of events was completely unsupported by the old posts to this newsgroup. There was no evidence before or after TOW Phoebe Hates PBS that could prove Maynotlast was Michael Curtis other than unsubstantiated claims. 1) He never "promised to prove himself in an upcoming episode" before the episode was filmed (assuming around Sept. 15/98). As I stated earlier, anyone who attended the taping, including the imposter Maynotlast, could have seen the Evil Joe message on the magnadoodle and then posted a "prediction". It is far more logical that the message is attributed to the Phoebe storyline in the episode itself. The message did NOT say Evil Jo, afterall. 2) I found precious few posts and replies between Maynotlast and Jo/Joanne (eviljo) or anyone else challenging his claims. He tried to contact her after the episode aired, apparently in order to claim credit posthumously, and without success. But according to you, he was scared off by a little girl. 3) Why did he post a message Oct. 15/98 saying he was quitting the group, the night "his" episode aired, saying it was all "junk?" Apparently he forgot about his plan to prove himself or - more likely - only "remembered" it after the episode aired. 4) As I pointed out earlier, there were other strange posts from this "writer" indicating a lack of knowledge of what they are paid, where they work, or their jargon. Most of his posts were noticeably brief. My impression is most writers would never write ten words when a hundred come to mind. How much of his posts contain any information that could not be gleaned from other sources? 5) I'm willing to accept people have visited the Friends set and may have actually met Michael Curtis. I would like to see some evidence other than their word that he was Maynotlast, and no such evidence ever existed on this group.
Not a little girl. A weird guy pretending to be a little girl who then posted a thread saying that she had died and causing all sorts of trouble (around the end of the fifth season).
What is this? Are you Evil Jo yourself? This is a ridiculous thread. I read the board at the time, when MNL was posting consistently for a year - until he left the show - and I genuinely believe he was Michael Curtis. I was sceptical for a while just like everyone else on the board (and there were far more posters back then than there are now) until over time and in many ways he proved he was who he said he was. If you had been around at the time you would have realised the same. Now, when you're dredging this up five years later why do you shoot down anyone who's trying to come up with a reasonable answer to your question? Why are you so opinionated on this subject when you've only read a handful of archived posts? Just because you haven't found the evidence now doesn't mean we didn't all see and read it back then. MNL was Michael Curtis. Get over it. It's not a big deal.
Oh, yes, he was Michael Curtis. I was around here then, also, and obviously there's really no way to prove it to Bryan's satisfaction. He seemed to enjoy answering questions we had about the show and eventually convinced the numerous skeptics on this group. We knew who he was at the time and that's about all that can be said.
When you grow up you will learn in order for something to be true, you must back it up with something more than "I believe it was true."
Yeah? Name six.
You're deluding yourself. All the old posts are available and NONE will establish Maynotlast was Michael Curtis.
Pardon me, but I think it is a big deal. For someone to represent themselves as a writer on the show is an extraordinary claim. I went looking through the old posts for the proof and there was none. The ONLY evidence people on this group are relying on is the supposition that Maynotlast left the Evil Joe message on the magnadoodle. However, that claim can easily be shot down because he never said he would leave a message there before the episode was filmed. Common sense (perhaps not so common) should tell you that message was part of the episode and not a covert communication with this newsgroup.
Yes, it is. Nontheless, it does happen. One of the producers of Frasier is well-known to hang out in the Frasier newsgroup, and Larry Gelbart seems to enjoy answering questions and comments from fans of MASH in that newsgroup. I was reading the newsgroup at the time, and have been covering online issues since 1991 for a variety of publications, and I certainly agreed at the time that MayNotLast was a writer on the show.
But you can cleary tell by the message that the suggestion to use the magnadoodle as a means to prove his identity had been stated prior to that.
Funny thing--I distinctly remember suggesting the use of the magnadoodle as a possible way for MNL to prove himself, yet I was unable to find that particular article while looking through my own posts from Google's archive. (I was, however, able to find my later suggestion of incorporating the message to the storyline...)
Right! And of the +600 posts by MNL no one so far has been able to post a single concrete evidence connected him to the writer. Everything so far has been superficial or based on heresay. Next we are going to argue that google has erased all evidence posted by MNL or did him a favor by not archiving them.
Geez...
This is getting ridiculous. We must all be a bunch of liars,
especially the ones who actually MET Michael at the tapings and
reported about their experiences in detail. The evidence was
there for those on this group, we saw it, end of story. Now
years later you want absolute concrete proof that could be used in
a court of law of something. You can believe it or not. It
really doesn't matter.
Meeting Michael Curtis at tapings does not automatically make him MNL. Sure MNL claimed and went into extremes to attempt to proof he was indeed the writer Curtis, which he clearly failed to albeit some 600+ posts - but had Michael Curtis ever claimed he was indeed MNL?
Your expect everyone to believe you when the claim is a flimsy one on a magnadoodle. Had at least it said "EvilJo' and not EvilJoe' I would say you have a basis for making the claim.
I don't need concrete proof, just one post out of the 600+ posted by MNL will do. So far no one has been able pointed any out.
There have been writers or at least postings by people who have worked on the set before. There has at least been one such case in alt.tv.northern-exp in 1995. But the poster was never obsessed with proving himself to be the writer or anyone connected with the show. Unlike the EvilJo obssessed MNL, that individual had let his post do the talking.
You have to understand and respect the fact in the face of the lack of any evidence or at least a substaintial post by MNL whatsoever, there will be skeptics amongst us. Unlike you not everyone swallows everything they read and hear hook, line and sinker.
Ok, meeting Michael Curtis at tapings does not automatically make him MNL but he TALKED about the newsgroup with the people who met him (who also had been long time posters around here), see? Can it be proven? It's impossible. So you can believe what you want and call these people liars if you are so inclined. They will not be able to prove their conversations with him to you and they don't have to.
Why would I lie and say that I met him? It really isn't a big huge deal. It's too bad I wasn't allowed to bring a camera, I could have gotten a picture to prove to you. but how was I supposed to know that 5 years later I would need that kind of evidence.
I agree with you on this Bryan. There really isn't any credibility on a virtual forum as anyone can claim to be whom ever they desire to be. Wonder what that link to the pictures in this thread actually proves. That Michael Curtis took those photos and therefore he is MayNotLast? :-)
Michael Curtis apparently went through an awful lot of trouble on ATF claim he was indeed MayNotLast.
Perhaps this might be more to the point. Joseph Goebbels' unique contribution to his chosen field as Nazi Germany's malicious genius of propaganda was the Big Lie -- the idea that when you lie, lie so outrageously that people can scarcely believe anyone would make such a thing up.
Oh, yeah? I say I am Wendy M. Grossman, the writer for Scientific American, New Scientist, the Daily Telegraph, the Independent, and author of a number of books and a weekly column published on the Net in two places called net.wars. I met the man who became the publisher/editor of net.wars on Usenet, just next door in rec.sport.tennis.
My Web site is http://www.pelicancrossing.net. You will note that the email address on this message is not the one on the Web site. But if you actually want to prove that's who I am, there are a number of ways, one of which is searching the archives at Google Groups and comparing the results and my Web site information to a couple of Web sites.
Or, of course, you could just ask the folks in rec.sport.tennis, some of whom have met me personally. :)
I am Jennifer Aniston and I'm an actress. Some of my work includes 'Picture Perfect', 'She's the one', the 'Rockstar' and the forgettable 'Leprechaun' - I hated that gig but badly needed the money.
My Web site is http://www.jenniferaniston.com. You will note that the email address on this message is not the one on the Web site. If you have nothing better to do you can always send me a fanmail at:
Jennifer Aniston Bright/Kauffman/Crane Productions 300 South TV Plaza Building 136, Rm. 226 Burbank, CA 91505
Or better yet come down to Marix Caf� at West Hollywood and I'll sign an autograph just for you :)