�Yellowstone� is one of the most popular shows on television, so the
concept of a spinoff was probably inevitable. The new series �1883� is
a prequel that explores the roots of Montana rancher John Dutton (Kevin
Costner) and his family more than a century before the �Yellowstone�
narrative takes place.

Tim McGraw stars in the new series as family patriarch, James Dutton,
alongside Faith Hill as his wife, Margaret, and kids Elsa (Isabel May)
and John (Audie Rick). The series premiered Sunday with two episodes
and is already generating a lot of buzz.

The proof is in the numbers. The Hollywood Reporter wrote that the
premiere from Taylor Sheridan scored 6.4 million viewers, which was a
series premiere record for Paramount Network. And that�s not even
including streaming numbers. This made �1883� the most-watched series
premiere on cable in more than six years, falling in behind the 10
million people who tuned in for the 2015 premiere of �Fear the Walking
Dead.�

Fan reviews for the country Western drama are overwhelmingly positive,
though audiences can�t help but compare the new series to
�Yellowstone.� Overall, the show feels more like a classic Western with
less of a focus on interpersonal relationships compared to the
original. This is seen as both positive and negative depending on who
you�re talking to.

Meanwhile, some critics are not thrilled with a series that paints
early settlers as anything but evil. IndieWire reporter Tambay Obenson
panned �1883,� saying the series �offers little intrinsic value to the
narrative chronicling of one of the most transformative periods in U.S.
history.� And that critique has a lot to do with how the show depicts
Native Americans.

�An opportunity to disrupt present-day comprehension of a
transformative period in U.S. history is wasted on yet another
narrative from the point of view of white settlers,� Obenson writes in
his review.

The writer goes on to discuss how Native Americans have been
�neglected� with �maligned characterizations� in most of Hollywood and
that this series is no different.

He compares the new series to �Little House on the Prairie,� saying
both depict a �white family�s struggle to build a new life for
themselves on the American Frontier of the latter half of the 19th
century, with a �family values� conservatism that still resonates among
many Americans today.�

Ultimately, the reviewer gives �1883� a D+, concluding that, �stories
of those who sought better futures are certainly worth telling; a
problem is that they�ve been chronically incomplete. And in what has
been described as a global historical reckoning, as statues and
monuments to racism, colonization, and legacies of injustice continue
to fall around the world, �1883� just feels like a series out of time.�

It�s a sentiment that�s likely shared across Hollywood, but with the
audience that �Yellowstone� and �1883� command, it�s clear that the
general public has a different take on classic Westerns. �1883�
currently has an 88% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. It�s also rated
as 86% fresh.

--
Let's go Brandon!

On Monday, 27 December 2021 at 07:06:56 UTC-5, Ubiquitous wrote:
> “Yellowstone” is one of the most popular shows on television, so the
> concept of a spinoff was probably inevitable. The new series “1883” is
> a prequel that explores the roots of Montana rancher John Dutton (Kevin
> Costner) and his family more than a century before the “Yellowstone”
> narrative takes place.
>
> Tim McGraw stars in the new series as family patriarch, James Dutton,
> alongside Faith Hill as his wife, Margaret, and kids Elsa (Isabel May)
> and John (Audie Rick). The series premiered Sunday with two episodes
> and is already generating a lot of buzz.
>
> The proof is in the numbers. The Hollywood Reporter wrote that the
> premiere from Taylor Sheridan scored 6.4 million viewers, which was a
> series premiere record for Paramount Network. And that’s not even
> including streaming numbers. This made “1883” the most-watched series
> premiere on cable in more than six years, falling in behind the 10
> million people who tuned in for the 2015 premiere of “Fear the Walking
> Dead.”
>
> Fan reviews for the country Western drama are overwhelmingly positive,
> though audiences can’t help but compare the new series to
> “Yellowstone.” Overall, the show feels more like a classic Western with
> less of a focus on interpersonal relationships compared to the
> original. This is seen as both positive and negative depending on who
> you’re talking to.
>
> Meanwhile, some critics are not thrilled with a series that paints
> early settlers as anything but evil. IndieWire reporter Tambay Obenson
> panned “1883,” saying the series “offers little intrinsic value to the
> narrative chronicling of one of the most transformative periods in U.S.
> history.” And that critique has a lot to do with how the show depicts
> Native Americans.
>
> “An opportunity to disrupt present-day comprehension of a
> transformative period in U.S. history is wasted on yet another
> narrative from the point of view of white settlers,” Obenson writes in
> his review.
>
> The writer goes on to discuss how Native Americans have been
> “neglected” with “maligned characterizations” in most of Hollywood and
> that this series is no different.
>
> He compares the new series to “Little House on the Prairie,” saying
> both depict a “white family’s struggle to build a new life for
> themselves on the American Frontier of the latter half of the 19th
> century, with a ‘family values’ conservatism that still resonates among
> many Americans today.”
>
> Ultimately, the reviewer gives “1883” a D+, concluding that, “stories
> of those who sought better futures are certainly worth telling; a
> problem is that they’ve been chronically incomplete. And in what has
> been described as a global historical reckoning, as statues and
> monuments to racism, colonization, and legacies of injustice continue
> to fall around the world, ‘1883’ just feels like a series out of time.”
>
> It’s a sentiment that’s likely shared across Hollywood, but with the
> audience that “Yellowstone” and “1883” command, it’s clear that the
> general public has a different take on classic Westerns. “1883”
> currently has an 88% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. It’s also rated
> as 86% fresh.
>
One thing I still don't get; if the colonization of North America by a superior race was such a crime, why are the Left still here? Why haven't they left this continent, or given their homes to the Indians?

On 2021-12-27 5:06 a.m., Ubiquitous wrote:
> “Yellowstone” is one of the most popular shows on television, so the
> concept of a spinoff was probably inevitable. The new series “1883” is
> a prequel that explores the roots of Montana rancher John Dutton (Kevin
> Costner) and his family more than a century before the “Yellowstone”
> narrative takes place.
>
> Tim McGraw stars in the new series as family patriarch, James Dutton,
> alongside Faith Hill as his wife, Margaret, and kids Elsa (Isabel May)
> and John (Audie Rick). The series premiered Sunday with two episodes
> and is already generating a lot of buzz.
>
> The proof is in the numbers. The Hollywood Reporter wrote that the
> premiere from Taylor Sheridan scored 6.4 million viewers, which was a
> series premiere record for Paramount Network. And that’s not even
> including streaming numbers. This made “1883” the most-watched series
> premiere on cable in more than six years, falling in behind the 10
> million people who tuned in for the 2015 premiere of “Fear the Walking
> Dead.”
>
> Fan reviews for the country Western drama are overwhelmingly positive,
> though audiences can’t help but compare the new series to
> “Yellowstone.” Overall, the show feels more like a classic Western with
> less of a focus on interpersonal relationships compared to the
> original. This is seen as both positive and negative depending on who
> you’re talking to.
>
> Meanwhile, some critics are not thrilled with a series that paints
> early settlers as anything but evil. IndieWire reporter Tambay Obenson
> panned “1883,” saying the series “offers little intrinsic value to the
> narrative chronicling of one of the most transformative periods in U.S.
> history.” And that critique has a lot to do with how the show depicts
> Native Americans.
>
> “An opportunity to disrupt present-day comprehension of a
> transformative period in U.S. history is wasted on yet another
> narrative from the point of view of white settlers,” Obenson writes in
> his review.
>
> The writer goes on to discuss how Native Americans have been
> “neglected” with “maligned characterizations” in most of Hollywood and
> that this series is no different.
>
> He compares the new series to “Little House on the Prairie,” saying
> both depict a “white family’s struggle to build a new life for
> themselves on the American Frontier of the latter half of the 19th
> century, with a ‘family values’ conservatism that still resonates among
> many Americans today.”
>
> Ultimately, the reviewer gives “1883” a D+, concluding that, “stories
> of those who sought better futures are certainly worth telling; a
> problem is that they’ve been chronically incomplete. And in what has
> been described as a global historical reckoning, as statues and
> monuments to racism, colonization, and legacies of injustice continue
> to fall around the world, ‘1883’ just feels like a series out of time.”
>
> It’s a sentiment that’s likely shared across Hollywood, but with the
> audience that “Yellowstone” and “1883” command, it’s clear that the
> general public has a different take on classic Westerns. “1883”
> currently has an 88% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. It’s also rated
> as 86% fresh.
>
> --
> Let's go Brandon!
>
>

We are watching Yellowstone despite its multiple, major plot holes and
ridiculously exaggerated characterizations. I was anticipating 1883 as
another series that we could watch but it's pretty disappointing so far.
We're up to the point in Ep 1 where the Dutton family has arrived in Ft.
Worth and is bedding down for the night, but it's been a slog to get
here. It's very sloooowww moving and there isn't much to recommend that
we continue.

--
Bill Idgerant
(Not a real person)

On Mon, 27 Dec 2021 07:06:52 -0500, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

>“Yellowstone” is one of the most popular shows on television, so the
>concept of a spinoff was probably inevitable. The new series “1883” is
>a prequel that explores the roots of Montana rancher John Dutton (Kevin
>Costner) and his family more than a century before the “Yellowstone”
>narrative takes place.
>
>Tim McGraw stars in the new series as family patriarch, James Dutton,
>alongside Faith Hill as his wife, Margaret, and kids Elsa (Isabel May)
>and John (Audie Rick). The series premiered Sunday with two episodes
>and is already generating a lot of buzz.
>
It's essentially a modern western - how 'woke' do you expect it to be?

After all - even 1960s Bonanza had 'Hop Sing' whose actor IMDB puts #6
on their cast list behind all the Cartwrights :)

> Bill Idgerant
> > Ubiquitous
> >
> > Ultimately, the reviewer

Is a self-hating prog and thus his opinion is of no value.

> We are watching Yellowstone despite its multiple, major plot holes and
> ridiculously exaggerated characterizations. I was anticipating 1883 as
> another series that we could watch but it's pretty disappointing so far.
> We're up to the point in Ep 1 where the Dutton family has arrived in Ft.
> Worth and is bedding down for the night, but it's been a slog to get
> here. It's very sloooowww moving and there isn't much to recommend
> that we continue.

Watched S01E01 last night and while I'll agree it's really slow, I'm thinking
that's just the set-up episode and the show will become more interesting
in later episodes.

Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Bill Idgerant
>>>Ubiquitous

>>>Ultimately, the reviewer

>Is a self-hating prog and thus his opinion is of no value.

christ, you are a sockpuppet. Fuck off, Johnston.

> Adam H. Kerman
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Is a self-hating prog and thus his opinion is of no value.
>
> christ, you are a sockpuppet. Fuck off, Johnston.

Actually, that's BTR1701.

Unless he (and thus me) is a sockpuppet for Johnson?...

Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Adam H. Kerman
>>>Ed Stasiak

>>>Is a self-hating prog and thus his opinion is of no value.

>>christ, you are a sockpuppet. Fuck off, Johnston.

>Actually, that's BTR1701.

>Unless he (and thus me) is a sockpuppet for Johnson?...

Johnston is the master of the out-of-context cheap shot on Usenet.

On 12/27/2021 2:15 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman
>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>
>>> Is a self-hating prog and thus his opinion is of no value.
>>
>> christ, you are a sockpuppet. Fuck off, Johnston.
>
> Actually, that's BTR1701.
>
> Unless he (and thus me) is a sockpuppet for Johnson?...

Can an all-powerful God be His own sockpuppet? Convocation at 11...

On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 2:36:58 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
> On 12/27/2021 2:15 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> >> Adam H. Kerman
> >>> Ed Stasiak
> >>>
> >>> Is a self-hating prog and thus his opinion is of no value.
> >>
> >> christ, you are a sockpuppet. Fuck off, Johnston.
> >
> > Actually, that's BTR1701.
> >
> > Unless he (and thus me) is a sockpuppet for Johnson?...

> Can an all-powerful God be His own sockpuppet? Convocation at 11...

And God said, Let us make usenet postings in our image, after our likeness

.... and God saw that it was good

----------

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbD8dbrB1TM

On 12/27/2021 2:57 PM, chromebook test wrote:
> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 2:36:58 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
>> On 12/27/2021 2:15 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>
>>>>> Is a self-hating prog and thus his opinion is of no value.
>>>>
>>>> christ, you are a sockpuppet. Fuck off, Johnston.
>>>
>>> Actually, that's BTR1701.
>>>
>>> Unless he (and thus me) is a sockpuppet for Johnson?...
>
>
>> Can an all-powerful God be His own sockpuppet? Convocation at 11...
>
>
> And God said, Let us make usenet postings in our image, after our likeness
>
> ... and God saw that it was good

....and Facebook postings, after our 'UNLIKE'-ness.

On 12/27/2021 1:20 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>> Ed Stasiak
>
>>>> Is a self-hating prog and thus his opinion is of no value.
>
>>> christ, you are a sockpuppet. Fuck off, Johnston.
>
>> Actually, that's BTR1701.
>
>> Unless he (and thus me) is a sockpuppet for Johnson?...
>
> Johnston is the master of the out-of-context cheap shot on Usenet.

Then that would make you the master baiter Verman.

On 12/27/2021 9:42 AM, Bill Idgerant wrote:
> On 2021-12-27 5:06 a.m., Ubiquitous wrote:
>> “Yellowstone” is one of the most popular shows on television, so the
>> concept of a spinoff was probably inevitable. The new series “1883” is
>> a prequel that explores the roots of Montana rancher John Dutton (Kevin
>> Costner) and his family more than a century before the “Yellowstone”
>> narrative takes place.
>>
>> Tim McGraw stars in the new series as family patriarch, James Dutton,
>> alongside Faith Hill as his wife, Margaret, and kids Elsa (Isabel May)
>> and John (Audie Rick). The series premiered Sunday with two episodes
>> and is already generating a lot of buzz.
>>
>> The proof is in the numbers. The Hollywood Reporter wrote that the
>> premiere from Taylor Sheridan scored 6.4 million viewers, which was a
>> series premiere record for Paramount Network. And that’s not even
>> including streaming numbers. This made “1883” the most-watched series
>> premiere on cable in more than six years, falling in behind the 10
>> million people who tuned in for the 2015 premiere of “Fear the Walking
>> Dead.”
>>
>> Fan reviews for the country Western drama are overwhelmingly positive,
>> though audiences can’t help but compare the new series to
>> “Yellowstone.” Overall, the show feels more like a classic Western with
>> less of a focus on interpersonal relationships compared to the
>> original. This is seen as both positive and negative depending on who
>> you’re talking to.
>>
>> Meanwhile, some critics are not thrilled with a series that paints
>> early settlers as anything but evil. IndieWire reporter Tambay Obenson
>> panned “1883,” saying the series “offers little intrinsic value to the
>> narrative chronicling of one of the most transformative periods in U.S.
>> history.” And that critique has a lot to do with how the show depicts
>> Native Americans.
>>
>> “An opportunity to disrupt present-day comprehension of a
>> transformative period in U.S. history is wasted on yet another
>> narrative from the point of view of white settlers,” Obenson writes in
>> his review.
>>
>> The writer goes on to discuss how Native Americans have been
>> “neglected” with “maligned characterizations” in most of Hollywood and
>> that this series is no different.
>>
>> He compares the new series to “Little House on the Prairie,” saying
>> both depict a “white family’s struggle to build a new life for
>> themselves on the American Frontier of the latter half of the 19th
>> century, with a ‘family values’ conservatism that still resonates among
>> many Americans today.”
>>
>> Ultimately, the reviewer gives “1883” a D+, concluding that, “stories
>> of those who sought better futures are certainly worth telling; a
>> problem is that they’ve been chronically incomplete. And in what has
>> been described as a global historical reckoning, as statues and
>> monuments to racism, colonization, and legacies of injustice continue
>> to fall around the world, ‘1883’ just feels like a series out of time.”
>>
>> It’s a sentiment that’s likely shared across Hollywood, but with the
>> audience that “Yellowstone” and “1883” command, it’s clear that the
>> general public has a different take on classic Westerns. “1883”
>> currently has an 88% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. It’s also rated
>> as 86% fresh.
>>
>> --
>> Let's go Brandon!
>>
>>
>
> We are watching Yellowstone despite its multiple, major plot holes and
> ridiculously exaggerated characterizations. I was anticipating 1883 as
> another series that we could watch but it's pretty disappointing so far.
> We're up to the point in Ep 1 where the Dutton family has arrived in Ft.
> Worth and is bedding down for the night, but it's been a slog to get
> here. It's very sloooowww moving and there isn't much to recommend that
> we continue.

What's something comparable that's better?

On 2021-12-27 11:07 a.m., Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> Bill Idgerant
>>> Ubiquitous
>>>
>>> Ultimately, the reviewer
>
> Is a self-hating prog and thus his opinion is of no value.
>
>> We are watching Yellowstone despite its multiple, major plot holes and
>> ridiculously exaggerated characterizations. I was anticipating 1883 as
>> another series that we could watch but it's pretty disappointing so far.
>> We're up to the point in Ep 1 where the Dutton family has arrived in Ft.
>> Worth and is bedding down for the night, but it's been a slog to get
>> here. It's very sloooowww moving and there isn't much to recommend
>> that we continue.
>
> Watched S01E01 last night and while I'll agree it's really slow, I'm thinking
> that's just the set-up episode and the show will become more interesting
> in later episodes.

We're through eps 1 and 2 now and things are picking up. We're going to
stick with it. I like the daughter...and Sam Elliot. I keep seeing Faith
Hill singing "Wild One" and the NFL intro. Billy Bob Thornton is one
mean Marshall!!

--
Bill Idgerant
(Not a real person)

On 12/27/2021 2:55 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 12/27/2021 2:57 PM, chromebook test wrote:
>> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 2:36:58 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 12/27/2021 2:15 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is a self-hating prog and thus his opinion is of no value.
>>>>>
>>>>> christ, you are a sockpuppet. Fuck off, Johnston.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, that's BTR1701.
>>>>
>>>> Unless he (and thus me) is a sockpuppet for Johnson?...
>>
>>
>>> Can an all-powerful God be His own sockpuppet? Convocation at 11...
>>
>>
>> And God said, Let us make usenet postings in our image, after our
>> likeness
>>
>> ... and God saw that it was good
>
> ...and Facebook postings, after our 'UNLIKE'-ness.

"Unlike" is an option. You can like, or rescind the like.

On 12/27/2021 9:19 PM, Bill Idgerant wrote:
> On 2021-12-27 11:07 a.m., Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>> Bill Idgerant
>>>> Ubiquitous
>>>>
>>>> Ultimately, the reviewer
>>
>> Is a self-hating prog and thus his opinion is of no value.
>>
>>> We are watching Yellowstone despite its multiple, major plot holes and
>>> ridiculously exaggerated characterizations. I was anticipating 1883 as
>>> another series that we could watch but it's pretty disappointing so far.
>>> We're up to the point in Ep 1 where the Dutton family has arrived in Ft.
>>> Worth and is bedding down for the night, but it's been a slog to get
>>> here. It's very sloooowww moving and there isn't much to recommend
>>> that we continue.
>>
>> Watched S01E01 last night and while I'll agree it's really slow, I'm
>> thinking
>> that's just the set-up episode and the show will become more interesting
>> in later episodes.
>
> We're through eps 1 and 2 now and things are picking up. We're going to
> stick with it.

Praise God.

On 12/27/2021 1:36 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 12/27/2021 2:15 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>
>>>> Is a self-hating prog and thus his opinion is of no value.
>>>
>>> christ, you are a sockpuppet. Fuck off, Johnston.
>>
>> Actually, that's BTR1701.
>>
>> Unless he (and thus me) is a sockpuppet for Johnson?...
>
> Can an all-powerful God be His own sockpuppet?  Convocation at 11...

Asking a sockpuppet about a sockpuppet? I've never tried that one.

On 12/27/2021 1:12 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Bill Idgerant
>>>> Ubiquitous
>
>>>> Ultimately, the reviewer
>
>> Is a self-hating prog and thus his opinion is of no value.
>
> christ, you are a sockpuppet. Fuck off, Johnston.

Another bad guess by Verman. What new?

On Monday, 27 December 2021 at 07:06:56 UTC-5, Ubiquitous wrote:
> “Yellowstone” is one of the most popular shows on television, so the
> concept of a spinoff was probably inevitable. The new series “1883” is
> a prequel that explores the roots of Montana rancher John Dutton (Kevin
> Costner) and his family more than a century before the “Yellowstone”
> narrative takes place.
>
> Tim McGraw stars in the new series as family patriarch, James Dutton,
> alongside Faith Hill as his wife, Margaret, and kids Elsa (Isabel May)
> and John (Audie Rick). The series premiered Sunday with two episodes
> and is already generating a lot of buzz.
>
> The proof is in the numbers. The Hollywood Reporter wrote that the
> premiere from Taylor Sheridan scored 6.4 million viewers, which was a
> series premiere record for Paramount Network. And that’s not even
> including streaming numbers. This made “1883” the most-watched series
> premiere on cable in more than six years, falling in behind the 10
> million people who tuned in for the 2015 premiere of “Fear the Walking
> Dead.”
>
> Fan reviews for the country Western drama are overwhelmingly positive,
> though audiences can’t help but compare the new series to
> “Yellowstone.” Overall, the show feels more like a classic Western with
> less of a focus on interpersonal relationships compared to the
> original. This is seen as both positive and negative depending on who
> you’re talking to.
>
> Meanwhile, some critics are not thrilled with a series that paints
> early settlers as anything but evil. IndieWire reporter Tambay Obenson
> panned “1883,” saying the series “offers little intrinsic value to the
> narrative chronicling of one of the most transformative periods in U.S.
> history.” And that critique has a lot to do with how the show depicts
> Native Americans.
>
> “An opportunity to disrupt present-day comprehension of a
> transformative period in U.S. history is wasted on yet another
> narrative from the point of view of white settlers,” Obenson writes in
> his review.
>
> The writer goes on to discuss how Native Americans have been
> “neglected” with “maligned characterizations” in most of Hollywood and
> that this series is no different.
>
> He compares the new series to “Little House on the Prairie,” saying
> both depict a “white family’s struggle to build a new life for
> themselves on the American Frontier of the latter half of the 19th
> century, with a ‘family values’ conservatism that still resonates among
> many Americans today.”
>
> Ultimately, the reviewer gives “1883” a D+, concluding that, “stories
> of those who sought better futures are certainly worth telling; a
> problem is that they’ve been chronically incomplete. And in what has
> been described as a global historical reckoning, as statues and
> monuments to racism, colonization, and legacies of injustice continue
> to fall around the world, ‘1883’ just feels like a series out of time.”
>
> It’s a sentiment that’s likely shared across Hollywood, but with the
> audience that “Yellowstone” and “1883” command, it’s clear that the
> general public has a different take on classic Westerns. “1883”
> currently has an 88% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. It’s also rated
> as 86% fresh.
>
> --
> Let's go Brandon!

You mean the people settling the West weren't out there spreading the gospel according to Karl Marx? What a shock.

On 12/28/2021 3:20 AM, RichA wrote:

> You mean the people settling the West weren't out there spreading the gospel according to Karl Marx? What a shock.

Your mind must be deteriorating very rapidly at this point.

On 12/28/2021 3:50 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 12/27/2021 2:55 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 12/27/2021 2:57 PM, chromebook test wrote:
>>> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 2:36:58 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
>>>> On 12/27/2021 2:15 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is a self-hating prog and thus his opinion is of no value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> christ, you are a sockpuppet. Fuck off, Johnston.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, that's BTR1701.
>>>>>
>>>>> Unless he (and thus me) is a sockpuppet for Johnson?...
>>>
>>>
>>>> Can an all-powerful God be His own sockpuppet? Convocation at 11...
>>>
>>>
>>> And God said, Let us make usenet postings in our image, after our
>>> likeness
>>>
>>> ... and God saw that it was good
>>
>> ...and Facebook postings, after our 'UNLIKE'-ness.
>
>
> "Unlike" is an option.  You can like, or rescind the like.

I don't Facebook, but, can you not DISLIKE?

On 12/28/2021 8:42 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 12/28/2021 3:50 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 12/27/2021 2:55 PM, moviePig wrote:
>>> On 12/27/2021 2:57 PM, chromebook test wrote:
>>>> On Monday, December 27, 2021 at 2:36:58 PM UTC-5, moviePig wrote:
>>>>> On 12/27/2021 2:15 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is a self-hating prog and thus his opinion is of no value.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> christ, you are a sockpuppet. Fuck off, Johnston.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, that's BTR1701.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless he (and thus me) is a sockpuppet for Johnson?...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Can an all-powerful God be His own sockpuppet? Convocation at 11...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And God said, Let us make usenet postings in our image, after our
>>>> likeness
>>>>
>>>> ... and God saw that it was good
>>>
>>> ...and Facebook postings, after our 'UNLIKE'-ness.
>>
>>
>> "Unlike" is an option.  You can like, or rescind the like.
>
> I don't Facebook, but, can you not DISLIKE?
>

No. https://www.facebook.com/brand/resources/facebookapp/reactions

Reactions

Reactions are an extension of the Like Button to give people more ways
to share their reaction to a post in a quick and easy way. The
collection of Reactions includes Like, Love, Care, Haha, Wow, Sad and
Angry. To ensure accurate and consistent use, never alter, rotate,
embellish or attempt to recreate the Reactions. Never alter the
proportions and shape of the Reactions (and surrounding UI) for any
reason. Reactions are not emojis or individual icons, and they cannot be
used in this way. It's important to show Reactions in the way they are
intended to be used on Facebook - as a quick and easy way to express how
you feel.

Knowledge is power.

On 2021-12-28 1:55 a.m., trotsky wrote:
> On 12/27/2021 9:19 PM, Bill Idgerant wrote:
>> On 2021-12-27 11:07 a.m., Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>> Bill Idgerant
>>>>> Ubiquitous
>>>>>
>>>>> Ultimately, the reviewer
>>>
>>> Is a self-hating prog and thus his opinion is of no value.
>>>
>>>> We are watching Yellowstone despite its multiple, major plot holes and
>>>> ridiculously exaggerated characterizations. I was anticipating 1883 as
>>>> another series that we could watch but it's pretty disappointing so
>>>> far.
>>>> We're up to the point in Ep 1 where the Dutton family has arrived in
>>>> Ft.
>>>> Worth and is bedding down for the night, but it's been a slog to get
>>>> here. It's very sloooowww moving and there isn't much to recommend
>>>> that we continue.
>>>
>>> Watched S01E01 last night and while I'll agree it's really slow, I'm
>>> thinking
>>> that's just the set-up episode and the show will become more interesting
>>> in later episodes.
>>
>> We're through eps 1 and 2 now and things are picking up. We're going
>> to stick with it.
>
>
> Praise God.

Like I said, "Snarky."

--
Bill Idgerant
(Not a real person)

On 12/28/2021 4:44 PM, Bill Idgerant wrote:
> On 2021-12-28 1:55 a.m., trotsky wrote:
>> On 12/27/2021 9:19 PM, Bill Idgerant wrote:
>>> On 2021-12-27 11:07 a.m., Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>> Bill Idgerant
>>>>>> Ubiquitous
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ultimately, the reviewer
>>>>
>>>> Is a self-hating prog and thus his opinion is of no value.
>>>>
>>>>> We are watching Yellowstone despite its multiple, major plot holes and
>>>>> ridiculously exaggerated characterizations. I was anticipating 1883 as
>>>>> another series that we could watch but it's pretty disappointing so
>>>>> far.
>>>>> We're up to the point in Ep 1 where the Dutton family has arrived
>>>>> in Ft.
>>>>> Worth and is bedding down for the night, but it's been a slog to get
>>>>> here. It's very sloooowww moving and there isn't much to recommend
>>>>> that we continue.
>>>>
>>>> Watched S01E01 last night and while I'll agree it's really slow, I'm
>>>> thinking
>>>> that's just the set-up episode and the show will become more
>>>> interesting
>>>> in later episodes.
>>>
>>> We're through eps 1 and 2 now and things are picking up. We're going
>>> to stick with it.
>>
>>
>> Praise God.
>
> Like I said, "Snarky."

(From a dispassionate bystander) That one isn't snarky. In fact, it's
practically a love poem...

On 12/28/2021 3:44 PM, Bill Idgerant wrote:
> On 2021-12-28 1:55 a.m., trotsky wrote:
>> On 12/27/2021 9:19 PM, Bill Idgerant wrote:
>>> On 2021-12-27 11:07 a.m., Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>>> Bill Idgerant
>>>>>> Ubiquitous
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ultimately, the reviewer
>>>>
>>>> Is a self-hating prog and thus his opinion is of no value.
>>>>
>>>>> We are watching Yellowstone despite its multiple, major plot holes and
>>>>> ridiculously exaggerated characterizations. I was anticipating 1883 as
>>>>> another series that we could watch but it's pretty disappointing so
>>>>> far.
>>>>> We're up to the point in Ep 1 where the Dutton family has arrived
>>>>> in Ft.
>>>>> Worth and is bedding down for the night, but it's been a slog to get
>>>>> here. It's very sloooowww moving and there isn't much to recommend
>>>>> that we continue.
>>>>
>>>> Watched S01E01 last night and while I'll agree it's really slow, I'm
>>>> thinking
>>>> that's just the set-up episode and the show will become more
>>>> interesting
>>>> in later episodes.
>>>
>>> We're through eps 1 and 2 now and things are picking up. We're going
>>> to stick with it.
>>
>>
>> Praise God.
>
> Like I said, "Snarky."

Utter lack of self awareness duly noted. Here are the salient points:

a) You're an anonyshit.

b) Your commentaries are perfunctory and lack any real intelligence.

c) You utterly lack self awareness.

d) This is all subjective, but if you're going to comment, you better
bring some wit, verve, intelligence and valid obvservations otherwise
myself and others will comment on your comments and you'll whine like a
bitch yet again.

Any questions?