Well, this is going absolutely nowhere

Fine.

Things were going along smoothly, people posting questions and comments to the newsgroup, others responding. Once in a while a twit would post something absurd, and a few of us would take pot shots at 'em. Sometimes a thread would drag on for an extra long time, because some idiot wasn't reading the newsgroup thoroughly, raising an issue that was already dealt with. No big deal.

However, lately things have gotten way out of hand. There's this big rift between those who have been upset with Susan being killed off, and those who've been laughing joyously at her death. Those who celebrate her untimely passing, seem to be mostly people who don't know how to spell or avoided learning the rules of grammar. And they repost and repost, totally ignoring the arguments that have been made that are contrary to their position.

"Lighten up. It's just a show" What a STUPID reply. OF COURSE it's a show. We're debating the validity of what's happened in an episode. If you're going to take an opposing position, at least back it up with a viable argument, rather than totally ignoring the spirit of Seinfeld and the characters that have been developed in it.

But what's the point... you can't reason with people like this. There's nothing more to do than just "wait" them out, until they get tired of posting the same old drivel. Your turn, Monty...

-Gary K.

In article , [email] (KOERBER DUNCAN DANIEL) wrote:

Would you feel this way if your wife were on that plane?

In article ,

Umm, you don't get it, do you? If I had a wife, and she died in that plane crash, of course I'd be devastated, but I wouldn't by any means ask that TV SHOWS ban talking about plane crashes. If my wife died by a drive-by shooting I wouldn't ask TV SHOWS to ban depictions of drive-by shootings, just for my sake.

Okay, there was a plane crash in Florida, I feel bad for the people that died, but does that mean the writer's on Seinfeld can't write about a plane crash? That's crazy. While a lot of people were affected by the plane crash, there's a 1000x more who could care less.

The X-Files season finale had a crazed man shoot at innocent people in a fast-food restaurant. I've heard of this happen in real life in the United States. Maybe not LAST WEEK, but it has happened and there must be somebody who's still affected by it. So should the X-Files be flamed for hurting the feelings of people who were affect by a real-life rampage? If so, then where do you draw the line? Can we not talk about anything anymore because it will hurt SOMEONE in the world?

In article , [email] (KOERBER DUNCAN DANIEL) wrote:

Did I say they should never mention a plane crash? No, but I think it would be tasteful to at least wait until they find the bodies.

I guess it would have been *hilarious* if George had said "I hope someone parks a Ryder truck outside the building where she works and blows it up."

In reference to the X-Files, I don't watch the show, but I'm pretty sure the shooting spree wasn't depicted as a funny way to get rid of someone.

Sorry if a little sensitivity to what's going on in the world around you would interfere with your "must see TV."

Michelle

In article ,

Why is finding the bodies one day, and joking about it the next, acceptable?

That's a faulty comparison. Did George say "Oh I wish she'd go down in a Valujet in South Florida"?? Umm, nope.

The point I'm trying to make is that why does a plane crash in Florida have to affect the comments of a national (make that international) TV show?

If the plane crash had happened here in Toronto, where Seinfeld is a big hit, would the writer's be compassionate towards us? I don't think so. So the real solution is not to bother trying to satisfy everyone, otherwise you water down the comedy to the point that you have another Family Matters on your hand.

I didn't know that comedies had to pander to the little sensitivities of everyone, including yourself.

In article , [email] says...

(KOERBER

mentioned a

right now.

south

the world?

If my wife were on that plane, I can tell you I wouldn't have been spending the evening watching sitcoms.

If you don't like sick humor, then Seinfeld certainly isn't the show for you, over its course it has managed to make fun of the following:

death and illness: bubble boy, Junior Mints. Alcohol/drug addiction: Susan's mother, "On-the-wagon/off-the-wagon" Homosexuality, Nazis, etc etc. And suddenly one character dies and the whole world comes to a stop...I just don't get it.

THAT'S RIGHT JIM! YOU--->DON'T<---GET IT!! THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU!!!

In article [email] (Michelle Darrah) writes:

I'm pretty sure the season finale was filmed long before the plane crash

occurred. So there are two choices left: 1) No season finale 2) Season

finale after the T.V. God decides that a period of mourning has passed, and

the episode can be shown, at which time another plane will probably have

crashed. Get over it.

[email] (Michelle Darrah) wrote:

Yes. I would not expect the world to change for two or three days due to my family's misfortune.

Car wrecks happen every day. People die in them. Are they taboo?

Muggings happen every day. People die in them. Are they taboo?

No, because only one or two die at a time. If that had been a cargo plane with one pilot, no one would give a damn about a joke on Seinfeld. Why is it so different if several people die at once?

I feel sympathy for the families of the people who died. I routinely provide services to the Emergency personnel who respond to incidents like this. It's not like I'm a cold hearted ass who has no idea what grief people are experiencing.

But to expect a dumb little TV show to re-shoot or edit scenes with a stupid joke in them is a little ridiculous.

Shimbo (I mean, it's not like George said "Maybe I can get her a flight on ValueJet. Those things are dropping like flies!")

In article ,

mentioned a

now.

world?

No, but the show was in the can long before the crash. While channel hopping, I saw a SMALL bit of "The Nanny". It looked like they were in a plane that was getting ready to crash....

A notice to ignorant fans of Seinfeld, while having obviously not watched any episodes this season, feel the need to comment on George and Susan's relationship:

George did not hate Susan and Susan did not hate George. George feared the commitment of marriage. Everytime George was with Susan he was afraid of the relationship being permanent, not of being with her. If you watch the old episodes where George dates Susan for six to eight episodes, you'll see the same thing. When he breaks up with her at the end, he regrets it. When she becomes a lesbian and leaves him in the Odor episode, he regrets it. At the premiere this season (how quickly people forget a show on less than a year ago) George remembers Susan in a positive way. His only direct comment on the relationship between him and her (not the engagement mind you) is that "She doesn't even like me." Never that he doesn't like her. Watch the show once in while before making stupid posts. George doesn't hate Susan. Any drooling half wit with a shred of sentiency can see he is afraid of commitment. (You can see this with his other girlfriends, for God's sake). "Kill all the Prussians and we'll have peace." A Saxon-German Soldier, 1914

<<A notice to ignorant fans of Seinfeld...>>

I resemble that remark!

<I resemble that remark!

That wasn't even a complete remark but I whole heartedly agree.

In article ,

George has always been shown as a selfish, lying, jerk. But in a funny way. He'd lie for stupid reasons, he'd become selfish and oversensitive about dumb things like his car being owned by John Voight and such. But now he's a cold hearted psychopath who has no regard for life, not even a woman who he was going to marry. Sure, he didn't love her. But you'd think if he lives with her, slept with her, initially asked her to become his wife, and dated her, he would at least be a little...well...at least not happy about her death.

{snip}

Hey Monty, is this yet another example of the 'If I don't agree with your viewpoint, you must be stupid' argument?

<Hey Monty, is this yet another example of the 'If I don't agree with your

<viewpoint, you must be stupid' argument?

I take it by this brilliant retort that you don't agree? Please, enlighten me as to one instance where George gives any indication that he doesn't like Susan. There aren't any, I can assure you. I've seen every episode with Susan about four hundred times (except the Opera, which I've seen only twice and the Finale, which I've only, thankfully, seen once) and can tell you that George only refers to the relationship negatively, never Susan. In fact, in the Pick he goes on about how great she is.

"Kill all the Prussians and we'll have peace." A Saxon-German Soldier, 1914

In article , [email] says...

There are so many things that George doesn't like about Susan. There's the "Seven" incident, her love of that wierd doll that looks like George's mom, when she made him but wear that horrible red shirt, etc.

How can you not have negative feelings about someone that you despise? - which George clearly shows.

the

mom,

The fact that George liked the name Seven and Susan didn't isn't something that George hated about Susan. Remember also that Susan had started to give on that issue before the other group stole the name. The fact that George didn't like the shirt and Susan did is also not a quality of Susan that George doesn't like. Susan didn't think the doll looked like Mrs. Constanza and George did. It was the doll that George didn't like, not Susan. George does not despise Susan. Once again I encourage you to actually watch the episodes with Susan. You are listing actions not qualities, anyway. If George hated Susan, why did he ask HER in particular to marry him? If George hated Susan why did he continue to date her in the earlier season and why did he restart their relationship in the Pick. The answer is, of course, that he didn't hate Susan and that he hated any type of commitment. He kept going back to Susan because he liked her and he kept breaking up with her because he hated commitment.

"Kill all the Prussians and we'll have peace." A Saxon-German Soldier, 1914

I think the first poster's point is that George CAME TO hate Susan after they became engaged. The existence of George's hatred in the present does not necessarily mean that it has existed since time began. I agree with JCS that George certainly did NOT hate Susan before this season. But with the lifelong committment of marriage looming over him, and being too wussy to own up to his fears and break the engagement, George began looking for -- and finding -- reasons to dislike her. A typical wuss behavior -- subconsciously he KNEW that he would never go through with the wedding, and he wanted to have reasons to blame her instead of himself, when the inevitable breakup finally happened.

Bo

<I think the first poster's point is that George CAME TO hate Susan after they became engaged. The existence of George's hatred in the present does

not necessarily mean that it has existed since time began. I agree with JCS that George certainly did NOT hate Susan before this season. But with

the lifelong committment of marriage looming over him, and being too wussy

to own up to his fears and break the engagement, George began looking for -- and finding -- reasons to dislike her. A typical wuss behavior -- subconsciously he KNEW that he would never go through with the wedding, and he wanted to have reasons to blame her instead of himself, when the inevitable breakup finally happened.>

As reasonable and intelligent as your point is, I still will disagree. I think that George showed tons of signs that he hated commitment but few signs that he hated Susan. I think he may have grown to resent her as the object of his commitment but I don't think there was anything about Susan that would cause him to hate her. But, what you say makes sense except that if she hadn't been murdered and the wedding was broken off, I'd be willing to say that George would try at some point to get back together with her (he'd done it three times before: the Pick, the Odor, and the Season Premiere this season).

"Kill all the Prussians and we'll have peace." A Saxon-German Soldier, 1914

Murdered? Which episode did you watch? Susan may have died a freak death, but to say she was murdered inplies that it was intentional...which it clearly was not. And, if you're looking for signs that George didn't like Susan, what about the fact that he wished she would die in a plane crash???? I think that qualifies as hatred...

-Greg "Jimmy crack corn, and I don't care!"

You assume that I think George hated Susan? What would make you think that. I did not state that, all I did was point out that in your own way, the JCS way, as I and others like to call it, respond to every post in an arrogant condescending way. While it is okay for YOU to insult people who do not agree with you, by telling them they must be idiots since they wrote that "..it is just a TV show." you do not like to be treated in the same way.

Why don't you watch a few more episodes and YOU come up with some proof that it is NOT just a TV show. I know, I'm just asking for a long dissertation about how TV as a medium affects the masses. You can keep that stuff, because it's still just a TV show. If it was shown in a movie theater, it would be just a movie, and if it was on the radio, it would be just a radio show.

How about another assignment for you. Why don't you find a plot line that WAS carried over the summer break. I know you can give me a list of plot lines that were NOT continued. That's because those are the facts that will back up your point of view. Open your mind a bit, not so much that your brains fall out, mind you, but don't shut out all ideas that run contrary to yours, you might learn something. Here's one plot line that has run over the summer break to get you started. George's employment status.

<How about another assignment for you. Why don't you find a plot line that WAS carried over the summer break. I know you can give me a list of plot lines that were NOT continued. That's because those are the facts that will back up your point of view. Open your mind a bit, not so much that your brains fall out, mind you, but don't shut out all ideas that run contrary to yours, you might learn something. Here's one plot line that has run over the summer break to get you started. George's employment status.>

I'm not going to bother to respond to the rest of you nearly coherent statement (but thank you for the glowing references to my own character), I will say that the employment status of George was never a major storyline. By plotline I meant a series of episodes, each relating to each other in a major way. The examples of this from Seinfeld are the Pilot, the Kramer as a Murderer plotline, the Engagement, and the Elaine/Mr Pitt relationship. Each of these never carried over the summer break and was restricted to one season. A fact is a fact is a fact.

"Kill all the Prussians and we'll have peace." A Saxon-German Soldier, 1914

This is very typical of you. Ignore anything that does not directly support your theory. That, by the way, is a fact. You want 'glowing' references to your character? Everything that I have said is a fact. You continue to respond to one tiny item in someones post, and ignore anything that runs contrary to your position. The strange thing about this is that you not only halt all intelligent conversations, you also drive away people like myself that agree with some of your ideas.

Oh, I see, George's relationship with George Steinbrenner is of little consequence, yet Elaine being employed by Mr. Pitt is a HUGE plotline. I don't expect a response to this, since you'll most likely choose a smaller more insignificant part of the post to respond to. I'll chalk this one up for me, since you were obviously wrong.

<Oh, I see, George's relationship with George Steinbrenner is of little consequence, yet Elaine being employed by Mr. Pitt is a HUGE plotline. I don't expect a response to this, since you'll most likely choose a smaller

more insignificant part of the post to respond to. I'll chalk this one up

for me, since you were obviously wrong.>

If I regarded what you say as being worthwhile, I would go through and count the lines of dialogue Mr. Pitt has had compared to Steinbrenner and then you would see its about five or six to one. If I regarded what you say as being intelligent, I would also point out that Steinbrenner only signficantly influences the plot of two episodes (the one where George "dies" and the one where he wants the calzones all the time) whereas Mr. Pitt plays a large role in almost all the episodes he is in. But since I don't, I will only say that you failed to respond to MY post as a whole, so I would say that you really ought not to criticize me for doing the same thing.

"Things wil never so bad that we cannot defeat the Italians." Emperor Franz Josef, 1859

JCS21212's whole message was:

You still have not convinced me. You are throwing around statements such as "...five or six to one." as if it is a fact. The fact is, you don't know how many lines there have been. Even if you were willing to count them, I'd be willing to bet that we couldn't agree what consisted of a line. Maybe one of us would be foolish enough to suggest timing the characters, to see how long they talked, or how long they were on the screen. In the end, we would agree that this was all a silly argument that was way off track. The original argument was whether plot lines had been continued across summer breaks in the past, since you felt this FACT would prove that the "Susan's demise" would not continue next season.

It's not really that hard to imagine the plotline NOT continuing, as you have said, since they didn't even continue the plotline that Jerry's car was stolen between episodes. (The Bottle Deposit)

On the other hand, it could continue, as I stated in previous posts, since other plot lines were continued across the summer break. The Yankees was one. By your logic, this wasn't a major plotline because it didn't play a big role, while Mr. Pitt was a major plotline. Now please bear with me, I'm trying to warp logic too see it your way, since the whole Susan 'plotline' was continued over a season break.... Nope, couldn't do it.

In the end, while you throw around generalizations that you misrepresent as facts, you can't seem to accept the fact that the continuation of a plotline across a season break was done in the past, and it is only your opinion that it won't.

Also, please substantiate your claim that I responded to only part of your last post, and in order that it not happen again, I'll even quote your tag-line, spelling error and all.

JCS ended with:

"Things wil never so bad that we cannot defeat the Italians." Emperor Franz Josef, 1859

The previous post attempted to assert that plotlines continued over the summer break. I will continue to say that this false. But I will concede that your definition of a plot line is not congruent to mine. You define plot lines as states of being (that is Susan was killed the first time they dropped her from the show, George stayed with the Yankees from one season to the next, some minor characters periodically reappear) while I define plot lines as episodes intrinsicially linked together in both storyline and theme (the Mr. Pitt episodes, the Engagement Storyline, the Kramer as a Serial Killer episodes, the ones with the NBC Pilot). The Engagement Storyline will probably not continue next season because it fits this billing and it has never happened before. Incidentally, my logic is not warped, if anything my definitions might be but I think that your's are a bit off. Oh, and while I'm writing the original argument was in fact if George hated Susan, something you have not commented on once.

"Don't you worry Mr. Simpson. I've argued in front of every judge in this state, often as a lawyer." Lionel Hutz

In article , [email] (JCS21212) wrote: The

it

that

argument was

once.

Well, we'll see this fall. How you can believe that the engagement plotline won't be carried over is beyond me.

While we're on the subject, now that Susan's dead, why do you even bother to watch the show or post here? Are you still going to continue trying to convince everyone that the entire show revolves around Susan? She's dead. Get over it. Move on.

I still contend that the writers were tired of reading your pitiful postings and killed her off just to shut you up.

JCS21212:

Hogwash. You've proven that you don't know, and that you are unwilling to back up your statements with hard facts. If someone wrote that "Newman had more lines than Susan, thats a fact!" you would ask for proof. Making up a number weakens your position.

OK. It now appears that we are having an intelligent conversation. Maybe my definition of a plot line is too loose. Here is the reason that I can not change it at this time. You repeat that the Mr. Pitt is a plot line. Why is this a plot line, while the Yankees is not. Many episodes show George at work, just as Elaine was at work. George has interactions with players, coworkers, the secretary, and Steinbrenner. Why is it that the Yankees is not a plot line. There were numerous episodes where George working at the Yankees was as involved in the plot as Mr. Pitt was when Elaine worked for him. Do you feel that the Mr. Pitt episodes were somehow linked together in a way other than just the fact that Elaine worked there? I do agree that the NBC Pilot was a plot line. The Serial Killer episodes, culminating in The Trip 1 & 2 was also a smaller continuing plot line.

"will probably not" are the key words. We'll have to wait and see. My guess is that it will at least have to be mentioned, but it could be blown over with a line similar to "it didn't take."

The original thread was over whether George hated Susan, in which you made statements about how plot lines were not continued. I wrote back to argue that they had, therefore, the original argument was over the continuation of plotlines over a summer break. QED

Did George hate Susan? I guess I could mention it here, but lets stick with one thing at a time.

<Hogwash. You've proven that you don't know, and that you are unwilling to back up your statements with hard facts. If someone wrote that "Newman had more lines than Susan, thats a fact!" you would ask for proof. Making up a number weakens your position.>

Brilliant deduction, Holmes.

"Don't you worry Mr. Simpson. I've argued in front of every judge in this state, often as a lawyer." Lionel Hutz

JCS21212 responded:

You've let me down. After a couple of weeks of discussion, this is the best you can come up with? It's hardly insulting at all. I guess we'll see you disappear again, now that your conversation has run it's course.

That's the one thing I like about you, you're only here for a couple of months at a time.

<Did George hate Susan? I guess I could mention it here, but lets stick with <one thing at a time.

Please read the subject heading and then reconsider your logic here. As for plotlines continuing, I continue to assert that they don't. I will, again, concede your definition is different and the plotlines you mention do continue from one season to the next. You may have a point about the Mr. Pitt episodes, I can't logically substantiate my argument there except by saying that the Mr. Pitt episodes were confined to one season and he was a more significant character for that season than Steinbrenner and the Yankees have been over their's. The real fact is that the Pilot storyline like the Engagement one was unceremoniously dropped in the last episode of the season and this is why I think the Engagement won't continue (this and the fact that Susan was murdered not dismissed).

Incidentally, George DID NOT hate Susan.

"Don't you worry Mr. Simpson. I've argued in front of every judge in this state, often as a lawyer." Lionel Hutz

JCS21212 wrote: {snip}

{snip}

While I don't agree that Mr. Pitt was more important than the Yankees in the story lines, the actual 'value' is probably not as important as a general categorization. Mr. Pitt, Pendant Publishing, and the Yankees were all about the same importance, while the engagement and the pilot were much more important. One reason that they stand out in my mind, is that the season finale was based around resolving the plotline.

You're right, George did not hate Susan. Incidentally, George DID NOT love Suasan either.

Everyone in my house is big Seinfeld fan, and we all were really turned off by how the writers got George out of his engagement. Heck, were they so unimaginative that all they could do was kill her off. She couldn't run off with Kramer's long-lost twin brother (he's the kind of guy who could have one) or go running back to the women with whom she once had an affair? Sorry, though death by glue poisoning was imaginative, I don't find death funny. Heck, they didn't kill off Elaine's boyfriend Tony when the guy went rockclimbing with Kramer and George--that was an easy kill. Instead, he came back bandaged up. Sorry guys, death in a sitcom is not funny. It's a downer.

<The fact is, you don't know how <many lines there have been.

I do. I did count them. It comes out as around 5.62 lines for Pitt for every one line of Steinbrenner. Watch the episodes and see for yourself.

"Don't you worry Mr. Simpson. I've argued in front of every judge in this state, often as a lawyer." Lionel Hutz

You have WAY too much time on your hands.

<The strange thing about this is that you not only <halt all intelligent conversations, you also drive away people like myself <that agree with some of your ideas.

If you're not completely with me, you're completely against me.

On a more serious note, if what I say drives you away from my position then you were never there in the first place. Most of what I have said is true, regardless of what you construe it to be, and thus if the facts push you away, you had no business being there ni the first place.

Each statement in your second paragraph is untrue. I won't take up further space in ats with this, if you are interested in a followup on this, send me email.

<Each statement in your second paragraph is untrue. I won't take up further space in ats with this, if you are interested in a followup on this, send me email>

You can't take up further space with it, if you haven't taken up space with it to begin with. If I'm not mistaken, you haven't made one substantive comment yet, preferring to attack my character and myself.

.

"Don't you worry Mr. Simpson. I've argued in front of every judge in this state, often as a lawyer." Lionel Hutz

On 23 May 1996 22:19:10 -0400, [email] (JCS21212) wrote:

I think you need to get out more if you watch the show that much

<I think you need to get out more if you watch the show that much

When baseball's out of season and its winter, there's very little to go out and do, but thank you for the advice. I don't watch Seinfeld at all anymore, not even the reruns. I probably will watch the Susan reruns in the future, but I won't be able to enjoy them as much.

"Either you are completely for me, or you're completely against me."

<< Since when does one incident in the deep south dictate the way the writer's write a show that is shown around the world?>>

Now, if it was in the mid-South, perhaps Memphis, that would be a different story. Any place lower than Jackson, Miss., definitely shouldn't dictate the way the writer's write. (sic)

Enough sarcasm. Let's all get back to hashing out Susan's death now.

Well, let's see ... as one who did not oppose her death, I will try to avoid any spelling errors or grammatical inconsistencies. Of course, regardless of how you feel about Susan or Seinfeld, half the Web is filled with those kinds of errors. Ooops, sorry, I *thought about it* for a moment.

">Lighten up. It's just a show" What a STUPID reply. OF COURSE it's a show.

If that was important, we could debate most eps. The best Seinfeld episodes (in my opinion) have always been the ones that revolve around a small, believeable event and the plausible reactions of the main characters to that event. However, for some time the show has increasingly brought in silly events or over-the-top reactions that have severely affected the ep's "validity." My feeling has been that this evolution is the result of the writers trying too hard to find new ideas, which is understandable. Anyway, Susan's death is just a continuation of that trend. It isn't like we suddenly found ourselves in the realm of unbelievability here. I find the indignance of the pro-Susan posters to be surprising and amusing.

See above comment. The "spirit of Seinfeld" is constantly expanding to include new possibilities. The characters have evolved, and so has the writing.

Here's my two cents on Susan's death ...

Killing her was SO extreme it was meant to be WAY over the top, so far over the top that the writers hoped it would be funny (Did you see Monty Python's "The Meaning of Life"? Remember the barfing scene? That's what I mean.)

However, I think they didn't go FAR ENOUGH. If they were going for over the top, they should have had George celebrating in the hospital hallways. But, he almost seemed like he cared a bit.

So, I believe the reason Susan's death didn't work was because it was half-assed. The idea of her dying because George was too cheap to buy more expensive invitations was hilarious. That was true to the show's spirit all the way back to its beginnings. But when Susan died, the focus became hazy. The writers seemed like they couldn't decide whether it was funny or sad. However, the reactions of Jerry and Elaine were right on ... they had their usual selfish "oh, well." Kramer, however, usually cares about these things. He was a little odd in that scene.

Mac

In article , Mac wrote:

<much stuff snipped for brevity, sorry Mac>

half-assed.

writers seemed

reactions of

well." Kramer,

I think this was the essential problem with the plot. Her death was a little too weird, but I guess it could have been pulled off. The reaction was much too weird. An extreme reaction either way, an "I'm out, baby" or extreme guilt/sadness on George's part (the latter would probably not have been very funny) would have helped. But the whole thing just got shrugged off like the writers started the plot and didn't feel like finishing it.

I too found Kramer's reaction the most out of character. He reacts strongly to *everything*. Even though he is opportunistic, he does care about other people (eg. going out of his way to keep people from saying anything to make Lloyd Brawn have another nervous breakdown, visiting the woman who got hurt as a result of them taking the handicap spot, helping the Pigman escape). Even though whenever he intervenes he usually makes things worse, he's the least selfish of the characters.

Oh, well, here's hoping the writers have something really big in mind next season to make it all make sense. I hope it doesn't turn out to be a dream though, that would be just too much.

Michelle

I agree with what you say here. I think it is way out of hand these days. Everyone is so worried about being disrespectful to events such as the plane crash in Florida. Melrose Place had this same problem when they filmed the season finale episode (last year I believe) where their building gets blown up by a bomb. The finale appeared around the same time as the Oklahoma Bombing.

I feel as much sorrow as any decent human being at the tradegy of the Oklahoma bombing and the Florida plane crash. But we turn to sit-coms for stress relief from the sad events of daily life and I think we should stop nitpicking at their political incorrectness and just enjoy the shows.

I do have to say one thing in order to clarify here: I disagree with the political incorrectness that is displayed in sit-coms when they are blatently racist or something along those lines. As long as it is good clean fun, then why nit pick? Just enjoy the show!!

Shelley

a

world?

I can't remember if it was you I wrote before. But people were joking about the ValuJet thing in the Deep South. It's a plane with a smiley face cartoon plane logo, so you can imagine. I think people just get sick of car crash reporting, frankly, so they joke about it. I mean, more people die in car crashes and shootings every month than car crashes. It's the dumbest thing. Several months ago, I found a paper from my hometown in Mississippi -- populatioin 7,500 or so -- in which the editors spoke against cars, saying they cost more lives than train wrecks and plane crashes ever do, yet they get all the attention. Sound familiar? Anyway, South Florida is NOT the Deep South. Also, you're right. The show was just a show. And besides, the way she died was totally preposterous. I certainly laughed at Marisa hanging up. What was unfunny about that? Clue me in. Later, Ray