Question on DVDs

During interviews, the cast are all at separate locations. Looks like Jerry and Julia are in their homes, Michael is in what looks like a theater, and Jason on a nearly empty stage set.

Jerry is sometimes seen with Larry David, and they speak together on episode commentaries.

Jason, Julia, and Michael are never ever seen together. Yet they provide episode commentary as though they are together. For example, at the start of an episode commentary you might hear, "Hello, this is Michael Richards. To my left is Julia Louis-Dreyfus, and to her left is Jason Alexander."

I am suspicious that they are in fact not in the same room, and they are doing something like a teleconference to put their commentaries together as though they were together, since they are never together during interviews.

Thoughts? Discuss.

"Dimitrios Paskoudniakis" wrote in message news:[email]...

Jerry

episode

as

interviews.

Wouldn't it have been much easier to fly them to a central locale than have a crew travel to them all?

db

It's possible that the "to my left" stuff is a farce. Commentaries can be done with people at different locations; Conan O'Brien did his Simpsons commentaries from New York while the rest of the crew was in the Los Angeles studio (there's a negligable bit of time delay through the connection).

"XPeeple" wrote in message news:[email]...

and

provide

start

Richards.

are

together

done

commentaries

(there's

I thought that the "left" and "right" are the channels.... because Jason seems to be in the centre speaker, Julia in the left speaker and Michael's in the right speaker... so that could have been recorded anywhere, however, there seems to be some interactions between them in certain spots that could only be done if they were all in the same room.

Er

are

together as

interviews.

Don't you think that the interviews were done at a separate time from the commentaries?

Which begs the question, why are there NO commentaries with all 4 main characters??? It's very disappointing.

wrote in message news:[email]...

It doesn't beg the question at all.

"Beg the question" is a quaint term that is often misused by illiterates.

It actually means to use a false assertion to bolster your argument.

On Sat, 22 Jan 2005 03:17:43 GMT, "Kevin V. Russell" wrote:

You're correct, but only in so far as the poster you've upbraided here has misused the term 'begging the question'. In fact his misuse is a popular one and almost certainly you will find the definition will adapt over time to suit concensus use - i.e. his definition will become the accepted one - perhaps 20-30 years or so.

In the meantime you should get your own head straight on this issue - you are quite wrong in your definition.

It is not that an argument is premised on a FALSE assertion but that the intended conclusion of the argument is actually premised on the conclusion itself and hence is circular. The premise may indeed be TRUE if s genuine argument can be proposed which supports it.

(a quick googling will demonstrate your error).

Now, here is a logical argument for you:-

Premise: Someone who misuses the term 'beg the question' is illiterate (see above - your comment) Observation: You have misused the term 'beg the question'. Conclusion: You are illiterate.

Thank you.

On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 15:49:21 +0100, nnnnn wrote:

Where does that put someone who misspells consensus?

- - LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

Well put.

"LRod" wrote in message news:[email]...

Well put.

"LRod" wrote in message news:[email]...

Well put.

"LRod" wrote in message news:[email]...

"Dr. Van Nostrand" wrote in message news:[email]...

find

I think, what Dr. Van Nostrand is trying to say is, is that that was well put.

Er