After an arduous workout, I watched:

Nothing.

What did you watch?

--
Let's go Brandon!

On 4/19/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:

> What did you watch?

Soaps, and a Lifetime flick:

soaps: DOOL - Thur's ep. Alex again puts the fashion magazine down after
its (re-)launch fails, and NuTheresa quits (correct move!). Later,
Constantine tells Theresa his news, and continues to try to blackmail
Theresa about Alex. EJ again acts like a complete ass, so Stefan throws
in with Kristen to take him down; he also asks for Kristen's help to get
Gabi out of jail, and she suggests they look for Li's real killer. (I
wonder if it will turn out to be Wendy?!?!) Wendy is still freaking out,
this time due to Ava moving out, and kind of threatens to go back to China.
GH - Wed's ep. Laura goes to Anna to talk about Sonny, and they both
agree that they've been seeing Sonny through rose-colored glasses, and
it needs to stop. Later, in some really good scenes, Laura talks with
Cyrus about pressing charges against Sonny, which Cyrus is reluctant to
do as Cyrus goaded Sonny into attacking him, which Cyrus seems genuinely
remorseful about (no bullshit this time!!). Ava continues to move on
Sonny. The rest was Brook Lynn/Chase, Alexis, and Gregory stuff.

Locked in My House (LMN) - The subject matter was tough - an ob/gyn
(Damon Runyan) who sexually assaults fertility patients. But the rest of
this was mostly over-the-top fun malarkey, as one of his victims
(Natalie Brown) ends up kidnapping the doctor to get him to confess
and/or to get the evidence she needs to take him down! But other stuff
also happens, as other victims get involved, and waylay her kidnapping
scheme! I like how, at the end, the flick, through the lead detective,
just handwaves away her kidnapping crime, for which she would surely
have done as much time in the clink as the guilty doctor would!!

What did you watch?

Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
> On 4/19/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>> What did you watch?
>
> Soaps, and a Lifetime flick:
>
>
> What did you watch?

Hey, thanks for asking!

Another absolutely terrible episode of the new Law & Order. I don’t know
why the DVR won’t let me cancel the recording of it. A celebrity chef gets
murdered and they try the wrong guy and realize he must be innocent without
having any idea who the real killer is so they tell the judge to cancel the
trial and let the guy go and then as he’s walking away, the DA has a
literal lightbulb go off over his head, and suddenly knows for no possible
reason they Told us who the real killer is and they arrest her. With no
evidence at all. And it stops dead right there.

The NCIS 1000 behind the scenes special. It was way more interesting than
the actual episode.

In the background I watched some NCIS episodes I never seen and some CSI
Horatio reruns. The streamers are really ugly for trying to watch the
stuff.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:38:44 -0700, "Ian J. Ball" <ijball@mac.invalid>
wrote:

>On 4/19/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>> What did you watch?
>
>Soaps, and a Lifetime flick:
>

Snip

>What did you watch?

I watched another animated flick JUSTICE LEAGUE vs THE FATAL FIVE

In this movie we have a trio of bad guys from the future travel into
the past to free two of their group that are trapped in a prison in
the time of the Justice League. A hero from the future also manages to
travel into the past to stop them but he has a fatal weakness. He
needs regular doses of a drug or else he tends to forget who he is. A
drug that doesn't exist in the JL time. So he forgets most of his
mission other than that there is a Fatal Five and that he needs to
find the Limelight before getting locked away in a mental institution.
The story then proceeds from there as the trio of bad guys proceed to
do bad things.

I'll leave the rest of the story for your enjoyment when watching the
flick as it's a good story. There are some bits that didn't make sense
within the story like an axe that can cut Superman but doesn't cut
Wonder Woman's sword but it was still an enjoyable watch.

I also watched TOP CHEF where the contestants had to join into teams
to prepare a Supper Club based menu. Each team ran into issues because
of the restrictive budget. Which is always an issue every time they do
one of these challenges because they want the chefs to prepare great
dishes but then present a budget that makes it tough to do. In this
challenge they had a $1000 budget to prepare five dishes for 40 people
plus the judges. Which sounds like a lot but then one piece of beef
that one chef was using costs $160 (this is always from Whole Foods
otherwise known as Whole Paycheck for a very good reason.) That's just
for the protein.

What did you watch?

On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:03:33 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>> On 4/19/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>
>>> What did you watch?
>>
>> Soaps, and a Lifetime flick:
>>
>>
>> What did you watch?
>
>Hey, thanks for asking!
>
>Another absolutely terrible episode of the new Law & Order. I don’t know
>why the DVR won’t let me cancel the recording of it.

Your DVR hates you and wants you to suffer. You agree to suffer by
continuing to watch the things it records.

> A celebrity chef gets
>murdered and they try the wrong guy and realize he must be innocent without
>having any idea who the real killer is so they tell the judge to cancel the
>trial and let the guy go and then as he’s walking away, the DA has a
>literal lightbulb go off over his head, and suddenly knows for no possible
>reason they Told us who the real killer is and they arrest her. With no
>evidence at all. And it stops dead right there.

Have they ever needed evidence to arrest someone?

>The NCIS 1000 behind the scenes special. It was way more interesting than
>the actual episode.
>
>In the background I watched some NCIS episodes I never seen and some CSI
>Horatio reruns. The streamers are really ugly for trying to watch the
>stuff.

On 4/19/24 6:03 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:

> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>> On 4/19/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>
>>> What did you watch?
>>
>> Soaps, and a Lifetime flick:
>>
>>
>> What did you watch?
>
> Hey, thanks for asking!
>
> Another absolutely terrible episode of the new Law & Order. [snip]
>
> The NCIS 1000 behind the scenes special. It was way more interesting than
> the actual episode.
>
> In the background I watched some NCIS episodes I never seen and some CSI
> Horatio reruns. The streamers are really ugly for trying to watch the
> stuff.

What do you mean? - Do you mean the episodes *look* bad?! That is
definitely true when trying to watch CSI:HORATIO!!1!!11!!! off a source
like one of the 480i secondary channels. But I don't find that to really
be true when trying to watch it off, say, a streamer like Pluto TV.

It really shouldn't be ugly if it's not 480i.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:38:44 -0700, "Ian J. Ball" <ijball@mac.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/19/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>
>>> What did you watch?
>>
>> Soaps, and a Lifetime flick:
>>
>
> Snip
>
>> What did you watch?
>
> I watched another animated flick JUSTICE LEAGUE vs THE FATAL FIVE
>
> In this movie we have a trio of bad guys from the future travel into
> the past to free two of their group that are trapped in a prison in
> the time of the Justice League. A hero from the future also manages to
> travel into the past to stop them but he has a fatal weakness. He
> needs regular doses of a drug or else he tends to forget who he is. A
> drug that doesn't exist in the JL time. So he forgets most of his
> mission other than that there is a Fatal Five and that he needs to
> find the Limelight before getting locked away in a mental institution.
> The story then proceeds from there as the trio of bad guys proceed to
> do bad things.
>
> I'll leave the rest of the story for your enjoyment when watching the
> flick as it's a good story. There are some bits that didn't make sense
> within the story like an axe that can cut Superman but doesn't cut
> Wonder Woman's sword but it was still an enjoyable watch.
>

Wonder Woman's sword is magic and blessed by Hephaestus. I guess
Hephaestus is tougher than the Persuader. Nominally the atomic ax can cut
through anything.

>
> I also watched TOP CHEF where the contestants had to join into teams
> to prepare a Supper Club based menu. Each team ran into issues because
> of the restrictive budget. Which is always an issue every time they do
> one of these challenges because they want the chefs to prepare great
> dishes but then present a budget that makes it tough to do. In this
> challenge they had a $1000 budget to prepare five dishes for 40 people
> plus the judges. Which sounds like a lot but then one piece of beef
> that one chef was using costs $160 (this is always from Whole Foods
> otherwise known as Whole Paycheck for a very good reason.) That's just
> for the protein.
>
> What did you watch?
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
> On 4/19/24 6:03 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>
>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 4/19/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>
>>>> What did you watch?
>>>
>>> Soaps, and a Lifetime flick:
>>>
>>>
>>> What did you watch?
>>
>> Hey, thanks for asking!
>>
>> Another absolutely terrible episode of the new Law & Order. [snip]
>>
>> The NCIS 1000 behind the scenes special. It was way more interesting than
>> the actual episode.
>>
>> In the background I watched some NCIS episodes I never seen and some CSI
>> Horatio reruns. The streamers are really ugly for trying to watch the
>> stuff.
>
> What do you mean? - Do you mean the episodes *look* bad?! That is
> definitely true when trying to watch CSI:HORATIO!!1!!11!!! off a source
> like one of the 480i secondary channels. But I don't find that to really
> be true when trying to watch it off, say, a streamer like Pluto TV.
>
> It really shouldn't be ugly if it's not 480i.
>
>
>

No, I mean the streamers themselves and the interfaces and the way they
work. Or don’t work. Like putting up subtitles on every episode in a
different language and there’s no way to select the button to change them.
Or stopping between episodes and asking if you want to keep watching the
next Episode, and there’s no way to select the button to say keep going,
and you just have to force quit out of the app completely. Paramount+ is
particularly egregious.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 4/19/2024 6:03 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>> On 4/19/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>
>>> What did you watch?
>>
>> Soaps, and a Lifetime flick:
>>
>>
>> What did you watch?
>
> Hey, thanks for asking!
>
> Another absolutely terrible episode of the new Law & Order. I don’t know
> why the DVR won’t let me cancel the recording of it. A celebrity chef gets
> murdered and they try the wrong guy and realize he must be innocent without
> having any idea who the real killer is so they tell the judge to cancel the
> trial and let the guy go and then as he’s walking away, the DA has a
> literal lightbulb go off over his head, and suddenly knows for no possible
> reason they Told us who the real killer is and they arrest her. With no
> evidence at all. And it stops dead right there.
>

You liked the episode a lot more than I did!
I was about ready to throw something at the TV during the trial scene
when the defense had a monitor set up and proceeded to show images that
the DA had never seen before. So why exactly did the DA think there was
a TV in the court room for? Why didn't the DA object *before* he
started to show the images? And once the surprise pictures were shown,
why did the judge let them in? We just got the pictures last night is
not a reason! And we just got them the night before doesn't mean the
pictures aren't fake!

> The NCIS 1000 behind the scenes special. It was way more interesting than
> the actual episode.
>
> In the background I watched some NCIS episodes I never seen and some CSI
> Horatio reruns. The streamers are really ugly for trying to watch the
> stuff.
>
>
>

I watched:

Star Trek Discovery (Paramount+) - "Face the Strange" - As the crew
continues what will be a season long race against time to find the
McGuffin device before the two villains, Burnham is stuck in a time
distortion field that causes her and two others to be unstuck in time on
board the Discovery. Pretty good bottle episode and excuse to bring
back people from previous seasons. I especially liked the clash between
old and current Burnham. The two of them really didn't get along at
all. :-)

The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare (theatrical) New World War II
movie written and directed by Guy Ritchie based on true events. The
movie stars Superman (Henry Cavill) and Jack Reacher (Alan Ritchson) as
two men recruited by the British government (Ian Fleming and "M" played
by Cary Elwes) to recruit a team of Inglourious Basterds to hunt and
kill Nazis as part of a plan to disrupt Nazi U-boat operations in the
Atlantic. If you don't like Nazis and want to watch a movie where Nazis
are gleefully slaughtered left and right, then this is the movie for
you. I absolutely need to pair this movie with Inglourious Basterds
which would feel almost like a sequel. They are in the Killin' Nazi
business and business is a boomin!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvwDen1Wrx8

On 4/19/24 8:45 AM, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:

> I watched:
>
>
> The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare (theatrical) New World War II
> movie written and directed by Guy Ritchie based on true events.  The
> movie stars Superman (Henry Cavill) and Jack Reacher (Alan Ritchson) as
> two men recruited by the British government (Ian Fleming and "M" played
> by Cary Elwes) to recruit a team of Inglourious Basterds to hunt and
> kill Nazis as part of a plan to disrupt Nazi U-boat operations in the
> Atlantic.  If you don't like Nazis and want to watch a movie where Nazis
> are gleefully slaughtered left and right, then this is the movie for
> you.  I absolutely need to pair this movie with Inglourious Basterds
> which would feel almost like a sequel.  They are in the Killin' Nazi
> business and business is a boomin!

I'm in!!! :)

(Now they just need to make another movie like that with Russians. Like
"Rambo 3"!!)

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvwDen1Wrx8

On Apr 19, 2024 at 8:45:39 AM PDT, "Arthur Lipscomb"
<arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:

> On 4/19/2024 6:03 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 4/19/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>
>>>> What did you watch?
>>>
>>> Soaps, and a Lifetime flick:
>>>
>>>
>>> What did you watch?
>>
>> Hey, thanks for asking!
>>
>> Another absolutely terrible episode of the new Law & Order. I don’t know
>> why the DVR won’t let me cancel the recording of it. A celebrity chef gets
>> murdered and they try the wrong guy and realize he must be innocent without
>> having any idea who the real killer is so they tell the judge to cancel the
>> trial and let the guy go and then as he’s walking away, the DA has a
>> literal lightbulb go off over his head, and suddenly knows for no possible
>> reason they Told us who the real killer is and they arrest her. With no
>> evidence at all. And it stops dead right there.
>>
> You liked the episode a lot more than I did!
> I was about ready to throw something at the TV during the trial scene
> when the defense had a monitor set up and proceeded to show images that
> the DA had never seen before. So why exactly did the DA think there was
> a TV in the court room for? Why didn't the DA object *before* he
> started to show the images? And once the surprise pictures were shown,
> why did the judge let them in? We just got the pictures last night is
> not a reason! And we just got them the night before doesn't mean the
> pictures aren't fake!

You can't just show evidence to the jury that hasn't been authenticated,
accepted by the court, and marked and logged first. If you do something like
that, you'll trigger a mistrial and get yourself reported to the bar by the
judge for sanctions, and likely have to serve some type of contempt charge.

EVERYONE in court should have been asking what that TV was for since nothing
that could be shown on it had been introduced to the court as evidence. The
judge, the court clerk, the prosecutors... everyone.

On 4/19/24 11:13 AM, BTR1701 wrote:

> On Apr 19, 2024 at 8:45:39 AM PDT, "Arthur Lipscomb"
> <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>> On 4/19/2024 6:03 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 4/19/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What did you watch?
>>>>
>>>> Soaps, and a Lifetime flick:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What did you watch?
>>>
>>> Hey, thanks for asking!
>>>
>>> Another absolutely terrible episode of the new Law & Order. I don’t know
>>> why the DVR won’t let me cancel the recording of it. A celebrity chef gets
>>> murdered and they try the wrong guy and realize he must be innocent without
>>> having any idea who the real killer is so they tell the judge to cancel the
>>> trial and let the guy go and then as he’s walking away, the DA has a
>>> literal lightbulb go off over his head, and suddenly knows for no possible
>>> reason they Told us who the real killer is and they arrest her. With no
>>> evidence at all. And it stops dead right there.
>>>
>> You liked the episode a lot more than I did!
>> I was about ready to throw something at the TV during the trial scene
>> when the defense had a monitor set up and proceeded to show images that
>> the DA had never seen before. So why exactly did the DA think there was
>> a TV in the court room for? Why didn't the DA object *before* he
>> started to show the images? And once the surprise pictures were shown,
>> why did the judge let them in? We just got the pictures last night is
>> not a reason! And we just got them the night before doesn't mean the
>> pictures aren't fake!
>
> You can't just show evidence to the jury that hasn't been authenticated,
> accepted by the court, and marked and logged first. If you do something like
> that, you'll trigger a mistrial and get yourself reported to the bar by the
> judge for sanctions, and likely have to serve some type of contempt charge.
>
> EVERYONE in court should have been asking what that TV was for since nothing
> that could be shown on it had been introduced to the court as evidence. The
> judge, the court clerk, the prosecutors... everyone.

Wow - this sounds like Days of Our Lives/General Hospital-level of
televised courtroom inaccuracy!!

Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> On 4/19/2024 6:03 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 4/19/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>
>>>> What did you watch?
>>>
>>> Soaps, and a Lifetime flick:
>>>
>>>
>>> What did you watch?
>>
>> Hey, thanks for asking!
>>
>> Another absolutely terrible episode of the new Law & Order. I don’t know
>> why the DVR won’t let me cancel the recording of it. A celebrity chef gets
>> murdered and they try the wrong guy and realize he must be innocent without
>> having any idea who the real killer is so they tell the judge to cancel the
>> trial and let the guy go and then as he’s walking away, the DA has a
>> literal lightbulb go off over his head, and suddenly knows for no possible
>> reason they Told us who the real killer is and they arrest her. With no
>> evidence at all. And it stops dead right there.
>>
>
>
> You liked the episode a lot more than I did!
> I was about ready to throw something at the TV during the trial scene
> when the defense had a monitor set up and proceeded to show images that
> the DA had never seen before. So why exactly did the DA think there was
> a TV in the court room for? Why didn't the DA object *before* he
> started to show the images? And once the surprise pictures were shown,
> why did the judge let them in? We just got the pictures last night is
> not a reason! And we just got them the night before doesn't mean the
> pictures aren't fake!

Yeah, that was just awful. Somebody walks in and hands the lawyer,
something in the middle of trial so he wants to put in evidence and the
other side objects that they hadn’t been told about it and he says “I just
found out about it myself” so the judge says fine Present it to the jury.

I can hear BTR howling from here.

>
> I watched:
>
>
>
>
> The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare (theatrical) New World War II
> movie written and directed by Guy Ritchie based on true events. The
> movie stars Superman (Henry Cavill) and Jack Reacher (Alan Ritchson) as
> two men recruited by the British government (Ian Fleming and "M" played
> by Cary Elwes) to recruit a team of Inglourious Basterds to hunt and
> kill Nazis as part of a plan to disrupt Nazi U-boat operations in the
> Atlantic. If you don't like Nazis and want to watch a movie where Nazis
> are gleefully slaughtered left and right, then this is the movie for
> you. I absolutely need to pair this movie with Inglourious Basterds
> which would feel almost like a sequel. They are in the Killin' Nazi
> business and business is a boomin!
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvwDen1Wrx8
>

I saw an ad for this that looked really cool, and was disappointed that I
couldn’t go watch it someplace. :-(

Glad you liked it!

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
> On 4/19/24 8:45 AM, Arthur Lipscomb wrote:
>
>> I watched:
>>
>>
>> The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare (theatrical) New World War II
>> movie written and directed by Guy Ritchie based on true events.  The
>> movie stars Superman (Henry Cavill) and Jack Reacher (Alan Ritchson) as
>> two men recruited by the British government (Ian Fleming and "M" played
>> by Cary Elwes) to recruit a team of Inglourious Basterds to hunt and
>> kill Nazis as part of a plan to disrupt Nazi U-boat operations in the
>> Atlantic.  If you don't like Nazis and want to watch a movie where Nazis
>> are gleefully slaughtered left and right, then this is the movie for
>> you.  I absolutely need to pair this movie with Inglourious Basterds
>> which would feel almost like a sequel.  They are in the Killin' Nazi
>> business and business is a boomin!
>
> I'm in!!! :)
>
> (Now they just need to make another movie like that with Russians. Like
> "Rambo 3"!!)

You realize Pedro Pascal said you were a Nazi?

>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvwDen1Wrx8
>
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2024 at 8:45:39 AM PDT, "Arthur Lipscomb"
<arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>
>> On 4/19/2024 6:03 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 4/19/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What did you watch?
>>>>
>>>> Soaps, and a Lifetime flick:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What did you watch?
>>>
>>> Hey, thanks for asking!
>>>
>>> Another absolutely terrible episode of the new Law & Order. I don’t know
>>> why the DVR won’t let me cancel the recording of it. A celebrity chef gets
>>> murdered and they try the wrong guy and realize he must be innocent without
>>> having any idea who the real killer is so they tell the judge to cancel the
>>> trial and let the guy go and then as he’s walking away, the DA has a
>>> literal lightbulb go off over his head, and suddenly knows for no possible
>>> reason they Told us who the real killer is and they arrest her. With no
>>> evidence at all. And it stops dead right there.
>>>
>> You liked the episode a lot more than I did!
>> I was about ready to throw something at the TV during the trial scene
>> when the defense had a monitor set up and proceeded to show images that
>> the DA had never seen before. So why exactly did the DA think there was
>> a TV in the court room for? Why didn't the DA object *before* he
>> started to show the images? And once the surprise pictures were shown,
>> why did the judge let them in? We just got the pictures last night is
>> not a reason! And we just got them the night before doesn't mean the
>> pictures aren't fake!
>
> You can't just show evidence to the jury that hasn't been authenticated,
accepted by the court, and marked and logged first. If you do something
like
that, you'll trigger a mistrial and get yourself reported to the bar
by the
judge for sanctions, and likely have to serve some type of contempt charge.
>
> EVERYONE in court should have been asking what that TV was for since nothing
that could be shown on it had been introduced to the court as evidence. The
judge, the court clerk, the prosecutors... everyone.
>

I can hear BTR howling from here!

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
> On 4/19/24 11:13 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>> On Apr 19, 2024 at 8:45:39 AM PDT, "Arthur Lipscomb"
>> <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>> On 4/19/2024 6:03 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/19/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What did you watch?
>>>>>
>>>>> Soaps, and a Lifetime flick:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What did you watch?
>>>>
>>>> Hey, thanks for asking!
>>>>
>>>> Another absolutely terrible episode of the new Law & Order. I don’t know
>>>> why the DVR won’t let me cancel the recording of it. A celebrity chef gets
>>>> murdered and they try the wrong guy and realize he must be innocent without
>>>> having any idea who the real killer is so they tell the judge to cancel the
>>>> trial and let the guy go and then as he’s walking away, the DA has a
>>>> literal lightbulb go off over his head, and suddenly knows for no possible
>>>> reason they Told us who the real killer is and they arrest her. With no
>>>> evidence at all. And it stops dead right there.
>>>>
>>> You liked the episode a lot more than I did!
>>> I was about ready to throw something at the TV during the trial scene
>>> when the defense had a monitor set up and proceeded to show images that
>>> the DA had never seen before. So why exactly did the DA think there was
>>> a TV in the court room for? Why didn't the DA object *before* he
>>> started to show the images? And once the surprise pictures were shown,
>>> why did the judge let them in? We just got the pictures last night is
>>> not a reason! And we just got them the night before doesn't mean the
>>> pictures aren't fake!
>>
>> You can't just show evidence to the jury that hasn't been authenticated,
>> accepted by the court, and marked and logged first. If you do something like
>> that, you'll trigger a mistrial and get yourself reported to the bar by the
>> judge for sanctions, and likely have to serve some type of contempt charge.
>>
>> EVERYONE in court should have been asking what that TV was for since nothing
>> that could be shown on it had been introduced to the court as evidence. The
>> judge, the court clerk, the prosecutors... everyone.
>
> Wow - this sounds like Days of Our Lives/General Hospital-level of
> televised courtroom inaccuracy!!

Oh, yeah, the new Law & Order doesn’t have any kind of advisors anymore.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 06:03:33 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 4/19/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>
>>>> What did you watch?
>>>
>>> Soaps, and a Lifetime flick:
>>>
>>>
>>> What did you watch?
>>
>> Hey, thanks for asking!
>>
>> Another absolutely terrible episode of the new Law & Order. I don’t know
>> why the DVR won’t let me cancel the recording of it.
>
> Your DVR hates you and wants you to suffer. You agree to suffer by
> continuing to watch the things it records.

I only record like three things a week now or it would be easier to toss
it.

Oh, that reminds me I forgot this weeks collectors call, which was a bunch
of people that like action figures.

>
>> A celebrity chef gets
>> murdered and they try the wrong guy and realize he must be innocent without
>> having any idea who the real killer is so they tell the judge to cancel the
>> trial and let the guy go and then as he’s walking away, the DA has a
>> literal lightbulb go off over his head, and suddenly knows for no possible
>> reason they Told us who the real killer is and they arrest her. With no
>> evidence at all. And it stops dead right there.
>
> Have they ever needed evidence to arrest someone?

Yeah, they arrested her under the “who else” statute.

>
>
>> The NCIS 1000 behind the scenes special. It was way more interesting than
>> the actual episode.
>>
>> In the background I watched some NCIS episodes I never seen and some CSI
>> Horatio reruns. The streamers are really ugly for trying to watch the
>> stuff.
>

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Apr 19, 2024 at 12:13:19 PM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>> On 4/19/24 11:13 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>> On Apr 19, 2024 at 8:45:39 AM PDT, "Arthur Lipscomb"
>>> <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>> On 4/19/2024 6:03 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/19/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What did you watch?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Soaps, and a Lifetime flick:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What did you watch?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, thanks for asking!
>>>>>
>>>>> Another absolutely terrible episode of the new Law & Order. I don’t know
>>>>> why the DVR won’t let me cancel the recording of it. A celebrity chef gets
>>>>> murdered and they try the wrong guy and realize he must be innocent without
>>>>> having any idea who the real killer is so they tell the judge to cancel the
>>>>> trial and let the guy go and then as he’s walking away, the DA has a
>>>>> literal lightbulb go off over his head, and suddenly knows for no possible
>>>>> reason they Told us who the real killer is and they arrest her. With no
>>>>> evidence at all. And it stops dead right there.
>>>>>
>>>> You liked the episode a lot more than I did!
>>>> I was about ready to throw something at the TV during the trial scene
>>>> when the defense had a monitor set up and proceeded to show images that
>>>> the DA had never seen before. So why exactly did the DA think there was
>>>> a TV in the court room for? Why didn't the DA object *before* he
>>>> started to show the images? And once the surprise pictures were shown,
>>>> why did the judge let them in? We just got the pictures last night is
>>>> not a reason! And we just got them the night before doesn't mean the
>>>> pictures aren't fake!
>>>
>>> You can't just show evidence to the jury that hasn't been authenticated,
>>> accepted by the court, and marked and logged first. If you do something like
>>> that, you'll trigger a mistrial and get yourself reported to the bar by the
>>> judge for sanctions, and likely have to serve some type of contempt charge.
>>>
>>> EVERYONE in court should have been asking what that TV was for since nothing
>>> that could be shown on it had been introduced to the court as evidence. The
>>> judge, the court clerk, the prosecutors... everyone.
>>
>> Wow - this sounds like Days of Our Lives/General Hospital-level of
>> televised courtroom inaccuracy!!
>
> Oh, yeah, the new Law & Order doesn’t have any kind of advisors anymore.

Or they're like I was on CSI:HORATIO and give their advice, which is
immediately rejected, and say, "Oh, well. Where's the craft services table?
I'm hungry."

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2024 at 12:13:19 PM PDT, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 4/19/24 11:13 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Apr 19, 2024 at 8:45:39 AM PDT, "Arthur Lipscomb"
>>>> <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/19/2024 6:03 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>> Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/19/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What did you watch?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Soaps, and a Lifetime flick:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What did you watch?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, thanks for asking!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another absolutely terrible episode of the new Law & Order. I don’t know
>>>>>> why the DVR won’t let me cancel the recording of it. A celebrity chef gets
>>>>>> murdered and they try the wrong guy and realize he must be innocent without
>>>>>> having any idea who the real killer is so they tell the judge to cancel the
>>>>>> trial and let the guy go and then as he’s walking away, the DA has a
>>>>>> literal lightbulb go off over his head, and suddenly knows for no possible
>>>>>> reason they Told us who the real killer is and they arrest her. With no
>>>>>> evidence at all. And it stops dead right there.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You liked the episode a lot more than I did!
>>>>> I was about ready to throw something at the TV during the trial scene
>>>>> when the defense had a monitor set up and proceeded to show images that
>>>>> the DA had never seen before. So why exactly did the DA think there was
>>>>> a TV in the court room for? Why didn't the DA object *before* he
>>>>> started to show the images? And once the surprise pictures were shown,
>>>>> why did the judge let them in? We just got the pictures last night is
>>>>> not a reason! And we just got them the night before doesn't mean the
>>>>> pictures aren't fake!
>>>>
>>>> You can't just show evidence to the jury that hasn't been authenticated,
>>>> accepted by the court, and marked and logged first. If you do something like
>>>> that, you'll trigger a mistrial and get yourself reported to the bar by the
>>>> judge for sanctions, and likely have to serve some type of contempt charge.
>>>>
>>>> EVERYONE in court should have been asking what that TV was for since nothing
>>>> that could be shown on it had been introduced to the court as evidence. The
>>>> judge, the court clerk, the prosecutors... everyone.
>>>
>>> Wow - this sounds like Days of Our Lives/General Hospital-level of
>>> televised courtroom inaccuracy!!
>>
>> Oh, yeah, the new Law & Order doesn’t have any kind of advisors anymore.
>
> Or they're like I was on CSI:HORATIO and give their advice, which is
immediately rejected, and say, "Oh, well. Where's the craft services table?
I'm hungry."
>

I’ve been that guy. And then they were horrified when they brought the
useless background plates to me to add effects and I told them my Bid was
no longer valid. The Director claimed to have no memory of telling me to
stop showing them how to set stuff up because I was just confusing them and
“believe it or not we know what we’re doing“

Guess what? They didn’t.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>Ian J. Ball <ijball@mac.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 4/19/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:

>>>> What did you watch?
>>>
>>> Soaps, and a Lifetime flick:
>>>
>>> What did you watch?
>>
>>Hey, thanks for asking!
>>
>>Another absolutely terrible episode of the new Law & Order. I don’t know
>>why the DVR won’t let me cancel the recording of it.
>
>Your DVR hates you and wants you to suffer. You agree to suffer by
>continuing to watch the things it records.

Oh, Neil!

--
Let's go Brandon!

On 4/19/2024 7:59 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:38:44 -0700, "Ian J. Ball" <ijball@mac.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/19/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>
>>>> What did you watch?
>>>
>>> Soaps, and a Lifetime flick:
>>>
>>
>> Snip
>>
>>> What did you watch?
>>
>> I watched another animated flick JUSTICE LEAGUE vs THE FATAL FIVE
>>
>> In this movie we have a trio of bad guys from the future travel into
>> the past to free two of their group that are trapped in a prison in
>> the time of the Justice League. A hero from the future also manages to
>> travel into the past to stop them but he has a fatal weakness. He
>> needs regular doses of a drug or else he tends to forget who he is. A
>> drug that doesn't exist in the JL time. So he forgets most of his
>> mission other than that there is a Fatal Five and that he needs to
>> find the Limelight before getting locked away in a mental institution.
>> The story then proceeds from there as the trio of bad guys proceed to
>> do bad things.
>>
>> I'll leave the rest of the story for your enjoyment when watching the
>> flick as it's a good story. There are some bits that didn't make sense
>> within the story like an axe that can cut Superman but doesn't cut
>> Wonder Woman's sword but it was still an enjoyable watch.
>>
>
> Wonder Woman's sword is magic and blessed by Hephaestus. I guess
> Hephaestus is tougher than the Persuader. Nominally the atomic ax can cut
> through anything.
>
>>

As far as I'm concerned, *nothing* cuts or breaks that lasso. Period!

Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
> On 4/19/2024 7:59 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:38:44 -0700, "Ian J. Ball" <ijball@mac.invalid>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/19/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What did you watch?
>>>>
>>>> Soaps, and a Lifetime flick:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Snip
>>>
>>>> What did you watch?
>>>
>>> I watched another animated flick JUSTICE LEAGUE vs THE FATAL FIVE
>>>
>>> In this movie we have a trio of bad guys from the future travel into
>>> the past to free two of their group that are trapped in a prison in
>>> the time of the Justice League. A hero from the future also manages to
>>> travel into the past to stop them but he has a fatal weakness. He
>>> needs regular doses of a drug or else he tends to forget who he is. A
>>> drug that doesn't exist in the JL time. So he forgets most of his
>>> mission other than that there is a Fatal Five and that he needs to
>>> find the Limelight before getting locked away in a mental institution.
>>> The story then proceeds from there as the trio of bad guys proceed to
>>> do bad things.
>>>
>>> I'll leave the rest of the story for your enjoyment when watching the
>>> flick as it's a good story. There are some bits that didn't make sense
>>> within the story like an axe that can cut Superman but doesn't cut
>>> Wonder Woman's sword but it was still an enjoyable watch.
>>>
>>
>> Wonder Woman's sword is magic and blessed by Hephaestus. I guess
>> Hephaestus is tougher than the Persuader. Nominally the atomic ax can cut
>> through anything.
>>
>>>
>
>
> As far as I'm concerned, *nothing* cuts or breaks that lasso. Period!
>
>
>

I would watch this but once again nothing is free on Apple TV. $3.99 to
rent, $12.99 to buy.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 4/21/24 4:18 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:

> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>> On 4/19/2024 7:59 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:38:44 -0700, "Ian J. Ball" <ijball@mac.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/19/24 1:30 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What did you watch?
>>>>
>>>> Snip
>>>>
>>>>> What did you watch?
>>>>
>>>> I watched another animated flick JUSTICE LEAGUE vs THE FATAL FIVE
>>>>
>>>> In this movie we have a trio of bad guys from the future travel into
>>>> the past to free two of their group that are trapped in a prison in
>>>> the time of the Justice League. A hero from the future also manages to
>>>> travel into the past to stop them but he has a fatal weakness. He
>>>> needs regular doses of a drug or else he tends to forget who he is. A
>>>> drug that doesn't exist in the JL time. So he forgets most of his
>>>> mission other than that there is a Fatal Five and that he needs to
>>>> find the Limelight before getting locked away in a mental institution.
>>>> The story then proceeds from there as the trio of bad guys proceed to
>>>> do bad things.
>>>>
>>>> I'll leave the rest of the story for your enjoyment when watching the
>>>> flick as it's a good story. There are some bits that didn't make sense
>>>> within the story like an axe that can cut Superman but doesn't cut
>>>> Wonder Woman's sword but it was still an enjoyable watch.
>>>
>>> Wonder Woman's sword is magic and blessed by Hephaestus. I guess
>>> Hephaestus is tougher than the Persuader. Nominally the atomic ax can cut
>>> through anything.
>>
>> As far as I'm concerned, *nothing* cuts or breaks that lasso. Period!
>
> I would watch this but once again nothing is free on Apple TV. $3.99 to
> rent, $12.99 to buy.

Interesting - this is not available on Max, even though it should be.

Checking IMDb, it looks like it was even an "HBO Max original"... I
wonder if this was one of the things that was purged off Max in Zaslav's
"tax write-off" "purge" of Max original content...

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>> On 4/19/2024 7:59 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:38:44 -0700, "Ian J. Ball" <ijball@mac.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What did you watch?
>>>>
>>>> I watched another animated flick JUSTICE LEAGUE vs THE FATAL FIVE
>>>>
>>>> In this movie we have a trio of bad guys from the future travel into
>>>> the past to free two of their group that are trapped in a prison in
>>>> the time of the Justice League. A hero from the future also manages to
>>>> travel into the past to stop them but he has a fatal weakness. He
>>>> needs regular doses of a drug or else he tends to forget who he is. A
>>>> drug that doesn't exist in the JL time. So he forgets most of his
>>>> mission other than that there is a Fatal Five and that he needs to
>>>> find the Limelight before getting locked away in a mental institution.

Is it new that he’s insane? For that matter is it new that Jessica Cruz is
insane?

>>>> The story then proceeds from there as the trio of bad guys proceed to
>>>> do bad things.
>>>>
>>>> I'll leave the rest of the story for your enjoyment when watching the
>>>> flick as it's a good story. There are some bits that didn't make sense
>>>> within the story like an axe that can cut Superman but doesn't cut
>>>> Wonder Woman's sword but it was still an enjoyable watch.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wonder Woman's sword is magic and blessed by Hephaestus. I guess
>>> Hephaestus is tougher than the Persuader. Nominally the atomic ax can cut
>>> through anything.
>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>> As far as I'm concerned, *nothing* cuts or breaks that lasso. Period!
>>
>>
>>
>
> I would watch this but once again nothing is free on Apple TV. $3.99 to
> rent, $12.99 to buy.
>

The gray web to the rescue! Thank you, Al Gore.

This was OK. It wasn’t as good as the newer stuff that I’ve praised that
looks to be 3-D for 2-D. But it balances that out by having the older voice
cast.

I’m completely confused by the continuity. The justice league that had
Supergirl certainly knew about the Legion. But these guys don’t.

I take it we actually see the end of the green lantern corp in this movie.

I don’t know who the Legion we see at the end of the movie is, but it’s
certainly not the Legion we saw the beginning. Jessica Cruz thanks for them
for coming to the funeral because the dead guy thought so highly of them.
But in fact, the dead guy never would’ve met these people.

I liked Mano (the hands of fate) accidentally burning off the Empress’
face. Wikipedia says Jessica killed them all? I guess I blinked. Certainly
Saturn girl should be pissed at her.

Actually, the Empress plan has another fatal flaw. Almost all those other
worlds were settled by travelers from earth. Destroying the solar system in
the 21st-century is going to un-create everybody on her team.

There’s no way Batman should have been able to go mano on mano on Mano.

So the ax can slice a ring in half! And Jessica uses Hal’s oath, and
somehow saying it without a power battery or a main power battery or a
ring, or any green energy at all manages to reform the ring and power
herself? I don’t think so.

Thanks for the recommend!

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Sun, 21 Apr 2024 16:56:09 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>> Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote:
>>> On 4/19/2024 7:59 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 05:38:44 -0700, "Ian J. Ball" <ijball@mac.invalid>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What did you watch?
>>>>>
>>>>> I watched another animated flick JUSTICE LEAGUE vs THE FATAL FIVE
>>>>>
>>>>> In this movie we have a trio of bad guys from the future travel into
>>>>> the past to free two of their group that are trapped in a prison in
>>>>> the time of the Justice League. A hero from the future also manages to
>>>>> travel into the past to stop them but he has a fatal weakness. He
>>>>> needs regular doses of a drug or else he tends to forget who he is. A
>>>>> drug that doesn't exist in the JL time. So he forgets most of his
>>>>> mission other than that there is a Fatal Five and that he needs to
>>>>> find the Limelight before getting locked away in a mental institution.
>
>Is it new that he’s insane? For that matter is it new that Jessica Cruz is
>insane?
>

I don't know. Not familiar with either of those characters. Perhaps
they were introduced to the comics after I quit reading them. Much
like with Hal Jordan turning truly evil in that other animated flick.
That was never my Hal Jordan.

>>>>> The story then proceeds from there as the trio of bad guys proceed to
>>>>> do bad things.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll leave the rest of the story for your enjoyment when watching the
>>>>> flick as it's a good story. There are some bits that didn't make sense
>>>>> within the story like an axe that can cut Superman but doesn't cut
>>>>> Wonder Woman's sword but it was still an enjoyable watch.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wonder Woman's sword is magic and blessed by Hephaestus. I guess
>>>> Hephaestus is tougher than the Persuader. Nominally the atomic ax can cut
>>>> through anything.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As far as I'm concerned, *nothing* cuts or breaks that lasso. Period!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I would watch this but once again nothing is free on Apple TV. $3.99 to
>> rent, $12.99 to buy.
>>
>
>The gray web to the rescue! Thank you, Al Gore.
>
>This was OK. It wasn’t as good as the newer stuff that I’ve praised that
>looks to be 3-D for 2-D. But it balances that out by having the older voice
>cast.
>
>I’m completely confused by the continuity. The justice league that had
>Supergirl certainly knew about the Legion. But these guys don’t.
>
>I take it we actually see the end of the green lantern corp in this movie.

We don't know why it ends but they clearly aren't around in this
future.

>I don’t know who the Legion we see at the end of the movie is, but it’s
>certainly not the Legion we saw the beginning. Jessica Cruz thanks for them
>for coming to the funeral because the dead guy thought so highly of them.
>But in fact, the dead guy never would’ve met these people.

What do you mean? Those are among the people that he worked with.
Hell, one of them even asked him at the beginning of the movie if he
had taken his shot and warning him that "You know what happens if you
don't take your shot." So of course they knew him.

>I liked Mano (the hands of fate) accidentally burning off the Empress’
>face. Wikipedia says Jessica killed them all? I guess I blinked. Certainly
>Saturn girl should be pissed at her.

Given that they aren't normal humans who knows if they were actually
killed or not. Not sure how dangerous the Empress would be without her
EYE.

>Actually, the Empress plan has another fatal flaw. Almost all those other
>worlds were settled by travelers from earth. Destroying the solar system in
>the 21st-century is going to un-create everybody on her team.

Yeah, I don't know what the rules are in that universe for time
travel, but normally what you say is how time travel would work.

>There’s no way Batman should have been able to go mano on mano on Mano.
>
>So the ax can slice a ring in half! And Jessica uses Hal’s oath, and
>somehow saying it without a power battery or a main power battery or a
>ring, or any green energy at all manages to reform the ring and power
>herself? I don’t think so.

Yeah, they were going with her being somehow more powerful than anyone
else in the GL, perhaps because she conquered her fears. Sort of like
Batman dealing with his fears of bats by becoming the Night. Notice
how when she powers up she gets that aiming reticule around her eye. I
had thought she was going to somehow get this magical power up by
gathering up the remnants of power on Oa or Mogo, but nope. She just
becomes ultra powerful because she becomes ultra powerful.

>Thanks for the recommend!

You are welcome.