FLM films - My Webpage

1998-07-26 00:00:00 - Do We Exist? - (CIELO1@webtv.net)


The question of whether "The Net" is deserving of a Discussion Group has spilled over to questioning (by some) of the legitimacy of the Nowhere Man Discussion Group. Is this a valid question? Even as an unapologetic NowhereManiac, let me say that it is. But the answer lies within the question itself- is "Nowhere Man" still a deserving entity. WHICH Nowhere Man? The Nowhere Man that was Larry Hertzog's vision? The Nowhere Man that was UPN's vision? Or the real Nowhere Man, the living, thriving, on-going entity of individuals who have been challenged, excited, energized and mystified by this magnificent creative vision? NowhereManics ARE Nowhere Man now. The tapes will gather dust and wear out, the scripts will yellow with age, and the entity that owns the franchise will continue to ignore it. But we living, breathing, THINKING human beings which now form the body and life blood of this show will always deserve a place to gather and discuss it's timeless issues and eternal concepts. I don't think cyberspace will ever be so cluttered as to not have a space for this, one of the finest programs ever created. And if cyberspace ever IS that crowded, it's time to throw your keyboards into the trash can.

1998-07-27 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (lh@xmindspring.com)


In article <9229-35BC02D1-62@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net>, CIELO1@webtv.net says... > The question of whether "The Net" is deserving of a Discussion Group has > spilled over to questioning (by some) of the legitimacy of the Nowhere > Man Discussion Group. > > Is this a valid question? Even as an unapologetic NowhereManiac, let me > say that it is. > > But the answer lies within the question itself- is "Nowhere Man" still a > deserving entity. WHICH Nowhere Man? The Nowhere Man that was Larry > Hertzog's vision? The Nowhere Man that was UPN's vision? Or the real > Nowhere Man, the living, thriving, on-going entity of individuals who > have been challenged, excited, energized and mystified by this > magnificent creative vision? > > NowhereManics ARE Nowhere Man now. The tapes will gather dust and wear > out, the scripts will yellow with age, and the entity that owns the > franchise will continue to ignore it. But we living, breathing, > THINKING human beings which now form the body and life blood of this > show will always deserve a place to gather and discuss it's timeless > issues and eternal concepts. > > I don't think cyberspace will ever be so cluttered as to not have a > space for this, one of the finest programs ever created. And if > cyberspace ever IS that crowded, it's time to throw your keyboards into > the trash can. Time for me to rant just a tad. I've never had a truck with anyone's "take" on NwM. All are valid, all are in the "to each his own" variety. But it amuses me to no end to hear comparisons between shows like NwM and "The Net." For those who thought NwM was a conspiracy show -- good luck to you. As I said above, "you're entitled." But some of the "hold outs," the folks who remain here to post, have a much deeper and insightful look into the show. There is no conspiracy. There is no "crime" to unravel. There is no DIRECTOR to find. Stand in front of the mirror, folks. When you're not watching The Net, or X-files, or Babylon Five you might stare into that glass for a few moments. Most of what NwM was about will be in what you see. Larry -- Larry to send email remove the "x" in my address

1998-07-27 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (CIELO1@webtv.net)


Larry wrote "Stand in front of the mirror...most of what NwM was about will be in what you see". Something I heard years ago always stayed with me (sorry, I don't know who wrote it)... "When the truth of your life is too terrible, that truth becomes your enemy". So many people NEED the Director. So many people are glad to have THEM around as the source of their pain. And if THEY didn't really exist, we'd have to create them. The real truth is just too painful.

1998-07-28 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (sandra@enteract.com)


On Mon, 27 Jul 1998 22:04:12 -0500 (CDT), CIELO1@webtv.net (D CILLO) wrote: >So many people NEED the Director. So many people are glad to have THEM >around as the source of their pain. > >And if THEY didn't really exist, we'd have to create them. The real >truth is just too painful. Or, maybe all of us have a bit of Them in us and are striving to be more like Tom. Sandra >

1998-07-28 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (sandra@enteract.com)


On Mon, 27 Jul 1998 22:04:12 -0500 (CDT), CIELO1@webtv.net (D CILLO) wrote: >So many people NEED the Director. So many people are glad to have THEM >around as the source of their pain. > >And if THEY didn't really exist, we'd have to create them. The real >truth is just too painful. Or, maybe all of us have a bit of Them in us and are striving to be more like Tom. Sandra >

1998-07-28 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (lh@xmindspring.com)


In article <8196-35BD3FAC-36@newsd-121.bryant.webtv.net>, CIELO1@webtv.net says... > So many people NEED the Director. So many people are glad to have THEM > around as the source of their pain. > > And if THEY didn't really exist, we'd have to create them. The real > truth is just too painful. I guess I'm feeling "chatty" and like "mouthing off" tonight. Though I never expected anything other than NwM received (in truth, it was BETTER received than I ever thought it would be) I am still sometimes stunned by the human need to look outside ourselves for the cause of everything -- pain, fear, joy, pleasure, etc. (BTW, in many respects I do not put myself above this.) But the "need" to turn NwM into a "mystery to be solved" show was always cause for a good deal of head-shaking. (I'm prone to that anyway!) I do believe that the creator of something has to turn that "something" loose. And how it fares and how it's received and how it's interpreted is not up to them. That's the truth of painting, writing, composing, etc. But that's never prevented me from having my opinion. I'm pleased that some of you folks who have stuck around have such a deep appreciation (not just a fan's fervor) for what NwM was really about. Frankly, being an alienated type (could ya tell?) it reminds me that there are, indeed, some comrades in the journey. That is truly appreciated. All that said (sheesh, what got into me tonight?) everyone who enjoyed the show, for ANY reason -- everyone who participated then and now in the "conversations" is near and dear to me. Some of the folks who came aboard early on have heard me say this time and time again. To all of you -- (but a scoonch more to the current crop) -- I consider you all "family" and "friends." But do me a favor -- if you're coming over for dinner -- call first! Hugs, Larry -- Larry to send email remove the "x" in my address

1998-07-28 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (lh@xmindspring.com)


In article <35be4e58.23678721@news.earthlink.net>, abc777w@earthlinkw.net says... > I still enjoy the scenes where "they" demand the negatives from him, > and poke their pencils into the cigars. I just find the whole "false > conspiracy" sub-plot very amusing. > > The show was very well done overall, and should win some kind of > award.. at least "Best Television Series in History". (continuing my longwindedness) --- Tom did possess a certain amount of arrogance about "the truth." He passed it off as a kind of modesty when he (in the pilot) brushed off his "art" as a mere "recording of the truth." Yeah right, Tom -- YOU know the truth. I'm not surprised that he was going to be taught a lesson. But, if his negatives, in one way or another, are "the truth" it would have been interesting to see what was really on them. Wouldn't it have been ironic if it was just Daisy Fuentes last photo shoot?! As for "The Best Television Series in History --- " you probably never saw, "I'm Dickens, He's Fenster" or "My Mother the Car." Larry -- Larry to send email remove the "x" in my address

1998-07-28 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (lh@xmindspring.com)


In article <35bd69d5.6891356@news.enteract.com>, sandra@enteract.com says... > Or, maybe all of us have a bit of Them in us and are striving to be > more like Tom. > Sandra, Are you saying that Them is in me?!!!! ICK! -- Larry to send email remove the "x" in my address

1998-07-28 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (Mark Ottow <mottow@rocketmail.com>)


Here's my 2 cents worth... For me Nowhere Man was about what a [reasonably] ordinary guy is forced to cope with when put under constant, incomprehensible duress. What I liked best was how his emotions were constantly being pulled back and forth. I think it kind of lost that towards the end, because the more Tom learned about 'them' the less he was left just hanging in that wonderfully confusing limbo. I think I differ with some of the people here in that I don't want Tom to find the truth. Weird huh? I hate the fact that there was only one season, but if there were more I would still prefer them to end with questions left unanswered. While Tom certainly deserves to find the answers, I think it would a mistake for the show to give them to him. It would be a tacky, and very mainstream ending to a show that deserves better. I guess what I'm saying is I kind of like the way the show ended. I just wish there was more of it before it did. Mark. BTW, In response to this from Larry: > I consider you all "family" and "friends." But do me a favor -- > if you're coming over for dinner -- call first! Try as I might, I just can't seem to make myself think of you as an ordinary guy. I'd put you in the same league as Marc G. Millis and Captain Paul Watson, both of whom I admire greatly. (If you don't know who they are, do a search on the internet... :-) Just like Larry, they're men who deserve much more funding and recognition then they get.)

1998-07-28 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (lh@xmindspring.com)


In article <35BDCD2C.72EAF905@rocketmail.com>, mottow@rocketmail.com says... > Just > like Larry, they're men who deserve much more funding and recognition > then they get.) Okay, you can come to dinner WITHOUT calling first! -- Larry to send email remove the "x" in my address

1998-07-28 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (David Sheedy <sheedy@netcom.ca>)


> Now *this* is what a newsgroup should be for - letting the show's creator > rant, and then having a chance to respond! > > Time for me to rant just a tad. I've never had a truck with anyone's > "take" on NwM. All are valid, all are in the "to each his own" variety. I have to say, Larry, that this statement alone surprises me. I don't have a show or anything, but I'd have to imagine that I'd have trouble with letting go of what *I* thought it meant. Good for you that you can. > But it amuses me to no end to hear comparisons between shows like NwM and > "The Net." > > There is no conspiracy. There is no "crime" to unravel. There is no > DIRECTOR to find. Stand in front of the mirror, folks. When you're not > watching The Net, or X-files, or Babylon Five you might stare into that > glass for a few moments. Most of what NwM was about will be in what you > see. > And therein lies both the appeal of the show for a lot of us who have stuck around, and the reason that it didn't last five years and win 34 Emmys. People *want* a show to be about something, they want the fight, the clues the good guys and the bad guys. When you say 'hey the show is just a mirror', people go blank (I don't mean this group, by the way. On the contrary, this group probably spends a lot of time in front of the mirror :-) The whole appeal (for me) was looking at what Tom was doing/reacting to, and asking if I would have reacted as well (or as poorly, depending on the circumstances). Larry you may remember me asking you about this, asking how much of this was asking yourself if you would be as determined, as noble, as single-minded as Tom was in his search. To me that's the thing that draws me back to the show time and time again. Not figuring out the conspiracy, or guessing the ending, or wondering if Alyson is real, or a clone, or drugged, or.... Its asking "would I have done that, were I in his place?". And as you pointed out Larry, I'm not always comfortable with the answer to that question. david sheedy > Larry > > -- > Larry > to send email remove the "x" in my address

1998-07-28 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (David Sheedy <sheedy@netcom.ca>)


Larry Hertzog wrote: > In article <35BDCD2C.72EAF905@rocketmail.com>, mottow@rocketmail.com > says... > > > Just > > like Larry, they're men who deserve much more funding and recognition > > then they get.) > > Okay, you can come to dinner WITHOUT calling first! > Tell you what Larry, I'll bring a single malt *and leave it behind when I go*. > -- > Larry > to send email remove the "x" in my address

1998-07-28 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (David Sheedy <sheedy@netcom.ca>)


> I guess I'm feeling "chatty" and like "mouthing off" tonight. pretty sure I speak for everyone when I say that we like you chatty... > Though I never expected anything other than NwM received (in truth, it was > BETTER > received than I ever thought it would be) I am still sometimes stunned by > the human need to look outside ourselves for the cause of everything -- > pain, fear, joy, pleasure, etc. (BTW, in many respects I do not put > myself above this.) > I'm surprise that either of these things surprise you. First, that the show would not be this well received (and it depends upon your definition, doesn't it? In context, we are a loyal following, but a small one.) Isn't it said that if you just write what you like, you'll probably do okay? Writing on the theme of alienation, the struggle to know one's self, and the ability to fight for something should be universal. As to our tendency to look outside of ourselves... its so much easier, isn't it? Why blame ourselves when there is not only a wealth of other people to blame, but encouragement from every corner to do so! I do that as well, and appreciated, in the character of Tom, someone who asked those kind of questions (though I would agree with you that he wasn't so good at asking them of himself). > But the "need" to turn NwM into a "mystery to be solved" show was always > cause for a good deal of head-shaking. (I'm prone to that anyway!) my brother watched a couple of shows at me urging, and gave up on it. Said it moved to slow, that he couldn't understand why the org didn't just kill him. All attempts to explain to him that the org/chase/negatives were just a medium, a vehicle to house the engine of self-examination, fell on deaf ears. (sound like a story conference or two you had with the Mouse, Larry?) > I'm pleased that some of you folks who have stuck around have such a deep > appreciation (not just a fan's fervor) for what NwM was really about. > Frankly, being an alienated type (could ya tell?) it reminds me that > there are, indeed, some comrades in the journey. That is truly > appreciated. > Ya ever hear the story Ringo Star tells, about feeling left out of the band (this is circa 1968), like the others were doing things without him, and didn't want him around any longer? He claims he went asking at the doors of the other group members about this, only to find them feeling the exact same thing about themselves. Alienation is a pretty common denominator. *Examining* alienation and its causes, is not. > All that said (sheesh, what got into me tonight?) everyone who enjoyed > the show, for ANY reason -- everyone who participated then and now in the > "conversations" is near and dear to me. > thanks. We like you too. Seriously, there are few creative people out there doing this (and the ones who have are having serious problems - see the B5 group for details on that). As far as I'm concerned, it is just an incredible kick to be able to talk with you here, Larry. - I consider you all "family" and "friends." But do me a favor -- if you're coming over for dinner -- call first! > Ask yourself this, Larry - would you come over to our house(s) for dinner? > If you will, then the next time you're in Toronto let me know. We'll cook > you up some good Canadian food, enjoy some scotch, show you some sights.... david sheedy

1998-07-28 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (David Sheedy <sheedy@netcom.ca>)


Larry Hertzog wrote: > (continuing my longwindedness) --- Tom did possess a certain amount of > arrogance about "the truth." He passed it off as a kind of modesty when > he (in the pilot) brushed off his "art" as a mere "recording of the > truth." Yeah right, Tom -- YOU know the truth. > See, this is what makes Tom so interesting. The fact that he *isn't* the perfect hero. He has blind spots. Big ones. He has little tact, and an egocentricity that, if it didn't cause his situation, has certainly aggravated it. Closest tv character I can think of to this, is Hawkeye Pierce, in that he was a borderline alcoholic, mysoginstic, self-centered, pious, hypocrite - that people thought was this terrific character. The best characters *always* have flaws, because they are the closest to us. Tom's relentless pursuit of truth (before and after his 'erasure') is his signature, and his greatest strength AND weakness. I always think of the choice he had with Emily, to stay with her and be happy, or continue the chase. And he CHOSE to stay in it. > I'm not surprised that he was going to be taught a lesson. Exactly. I've long maintained that the single-mindedness that characterized Tom was probably what got him into this situation in the first place - and it never occured to him. david sheedy

1998-07-28 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (lh@xmindspring.com)


In article <35BE16FB.5D9F2D16@netcom.ca>, sheedy@netcom.ca says... > Tell you what Larry, I'll bring a single malt *and leave it behind when I > go*. Hey, I've got some in the cupboard. C'mon by. -- Larry to send email remove the "x" in my address

1998-07-28 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (lh@xmindspring.com)


In article <35BE19AF.948A52BB@netcom.ca>, sheedy@netcom.ca says... > Ask yourself this, Larry - would you come over to our house(s) for dinner? > > If you will, then the next time you're in Toronto let me know. We'll cook > > you up some good Canadian food, enjoy some scotch, show you some sights.... Canadian Food? Sounds like episode 25. :-) -- Larry to send email remove the "x" in my address

1998-07-28 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (lh@xmindspring.com)


In article <35BE1B19.11E50CB6@netcom.ca>, sheedy@netcom.ca says... > Exactly. I've long maintained that the single-mindedness that characterized > Tom was probably what got him into this situation in the first place - and it > never occured to him. David, Looks as if we've got our own little newsgroup here. Perhaps it should be renamed alt.tv.lagavulin -- Larry to send email remove the "x" in my address

1998-07-28 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (CIELO1@webtv.net)


Larry wrote "...I never expected anything other than NwM received (in truth, it was BETTER received than I ever thought it would be)." Larry- as rich as the compliments about Nowhere Man have been, do you fully grasp the significance of what you've brought forth? This is a program that will be studied, reviewed and analyzed for generations to come because the issues are timeless. As you point out, Nowhere Man was always more of an exploration of the human quest for meaning and purpose in the universe than it was ever about THEM. Hmmm. the exploration of the human quest for meaning in the universe...One must remember, not even the prophets fully understood what they were doing when they were writing what became Holy Scripture. And while I'm not ready to add Nowhere Man to the Torah or Holy Bible...there are countless less deserving candidates for such consideration than Nowhere Man. And besides, how many timeless classics can any person write in one lifetime?!

1998-07-28 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (lh@xmindspring.com)


In article <11809-35BE52C5-73@newsd-121.bryant.webtv.net>, CIELO1@webtv.net says... > This is a program that will be studied, reviewed and analyzed for > generations to come because the issues are timeless. Enthusiasm registered and taken to heart. Now, really -- it doesn't stand a chance next to E.R. Nowhere Man had it's "day in the sun." T'is over. Perhaps WE will think about it -- other than that -- -- Larry to send email remove the "x" in my address

1998-07-28 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (CIELO1@webtv.net)


Writing about Tom's photo negatives, Larry wrote "...if his negatives...are 'the truth' it would have been interesting to see what was really on them". That's an easy one. The negatives would show a person pointing a camera at a mirror taking a picture of him/herself.

1998-07-28 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (CIELO1@webtv.net)


Larry wrote "...being an alienated type...it reminds me that there are, indeed, some comrades in the journey." Does that mean that if I find and communicate with another alienated person- that I can't call myself "alienated" anymore? God, I hope not.

1998-07-28 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (CIELO1@webtv.net)


Larry wrote "Enthusiasm registered and taken to heart". Do I indulge in a bit of dramatic overstatement? You bet. But only because NOBODY will be looking at E. R. or Seinfeld or Melrose Place 50 years from now (not even "TVLand" will bother with these). But Nowhere Man has a chance. The episodes have a parable-like quality to them which will stand up to time. And as my "Holy Scriptures" reference points out, what are the most dramatic and truth-containing elements of Scripture but parables? For future generations who care to look in at what we were like back here in the late 20th Century, does any other program carry so much of us...the confusion, paranoia, quest for identity and individuality? If you want to know we who are living today, you'll have to look at Nowhere Man. And it's doubtful whether our more sophisticated descendants will have any better handle on these issues than we did. I'm satisfied with the run Nowhere Man had and its "unresolved" ending. But unlike most things in our throw-away culture today, this program is one for the ages.

1998-07-28 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (Ingrid Deiwiks <ingrid@sherlock.stanford.edu>)


Ken Robertson wrote: > A few watched the show, and love it because > you ask yourself.. > " stripped of everything, would I still be ' me ' " Yes, exactly, that's what the show and Tom was all about. And what a difficult question to answer for yourself! Tom wasn't all that successful (although he probably was as good as one could expect) and who of us would be? Ingrid

1998-07-29 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (Ken Robertson <krobert@NOSPAMdhc.net>)


Tom Veil was a man who found out ( probably always knew ) that He didn't need... His Friends His Job His Wife His Dog His Credit Card His House His Car His Mother His Father His etc... to know " Who he is " A few watched the show, and love it because you ask yourself.. " stripped of everything, would I still be ' me ' " Most changed the channel real fast, because " this looser doesn't even have a cool car, and a sexy sidekick "

1998-07-29 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (lh@xmindspring.com)


In article <16813-35BE6EFB-17@newsd-124.bryant.webtv.net>, CIELO1@webtv.net says... > Does that mean that if I find and communicate with another alienated > person- that I can't call myself "alienated" anymore? God, I hope not. Who are you and how did you get in here? Go away! :-) -- Larry to send email remove the "x" in my address

1998-07-29 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (Douglas Ratcliff <douglasp@itis.com>)


David Sheedy wrote in message <35BE167E.5997E4BA@netcom.ca>... >> Now *this* is what a newsgroup should be for - letting the show's creator >> rant, and then having a chance to respond! >> >> Time for me to rant just a tad. I've never had a truck with anyone's >> "take" on NwM. All are valid, all are in the "to each his own" variety. > >I have to say, Larry, that this statement alone surprises me. I don't have a >show or anything, but I'd have to imagine that I'd have trouble with letting >go of what *I* thought it meant. Good for you that you can. > [snip] Here's a game for anyone who wants to play: Write something, a play, a poem, a musical score, but make it about something. Next put it away for five years and pull it out and reread it. Has its meaning changed? Even if the meaning hasn't changed, perhaps you can see another interpretation of it? If nothing happens, maybe i'm just weird. Anyway, we can convien in five years, y2k permitting, and discuss the results. Douglas P. Ratcliff "no more I follow, no more obedience pay." --Boston's Angel

1998-07-29 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (sandra@enteract.com)


On Tue, 28 Jul 1998 17:38:25 -0700, lh@xmindspring.com (Larry Hertzog) wrote: >Enthusiasm registered and taken to heart. Now, really -- it doesn't >stand a chance next to E.R. Nowhere Man had it's "day in the sun." T'is >over. Perhaps WE will think about it -- other than that -- > >-- Larry, the only thing to compare between ER and NwM is ratings, not content. ER never made me think the way NwM does (I've only watched a few episodes of ER -- I was that bored with it.) But after nearly three years, I still love NwM. Last night I watched "Absolute Zero" again and it was so much more of a rich experience, having had so many conversations about it, seeing so much depth there that others wouldn't. I highly doubt that ER fans have the type of intellectual discussions we have on the NG or the mailing list where nearly every phrase is parsed. The only "problem" with watching the episodes is it raises sooooo many questions -- like "Why did Eddy want Tom to ask Bellamy about David Powers and what did Eddy think Bellamy would say and why did Tom's not asking Bellamy show that Tom still didn't 'get it' according to Eddy?" <g> Sandra

1998-07-29 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (sandra@enteract.com)


On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 08:30:45 -0700, lh@xmindspring.com (Larry Hertzog) wrote: >In article <16813-35BE6EFB-17@newsd-124.bryant.webtv.net>, >CIELO1@webtv.net says... > >> Does that mean that if I find and communicate with another alienated >> person- that I can't call myself "alienated" anymore? God, I hope not. > >Who are you and how did you get in here? Go away! :-) > Now, Larry, be nice. <g> You not taking your medication again? Sandra, who finds curmudgeon's irresistable.

1998-07-29 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (David Sheedy <sheedy@netcom.ca>)


Larry Hertzog wrote: > In article <35BE1B19.11E50CB6@netcom.ca>, sheedy@netcom.ca says... > > > Exactly. I've long maintained that the single-mindedness that characterized > > Tom was probably what got him into this situation in the first place - and it > > never occured to him. > > David, > > Looks as if we've got our own little newsgroup here. Perhaps it should > be renamed alt.tv.lagavulin You see, that's what we need, its what Tom needed. If Tom had been a scotch drinker, he'd have avoided the whole mess (probably by being passed out in the washroom, but why split hairs?) David, who is suddenly...thirsty

1998-07-29 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (sandra@enteract.com)


On 29 Jul 1998 04:08:33 GMT, "Ken Robertson" <krobert@NOSPAMdhc.net> wrote: >Tom Veil was a man who found out >( probably always knew ) >that He didn't need... >His Friends <<<<<snip>>>>>>>> >" stripped of everything, would I still be ' me ' " > >Most changed the channel real fast, because >" this looser doesn't even have a cool car, > and a sexy sidekick " > Very good take on the average television viewer. I guess, in a way, we should all be heartened that this series was not widely appreciated. Sure, I wish the series were still going on. I'd love to know all the ideas tucked away in LH's mind (at least regarding the series <g>) But there's something wonderfully delicious about being a member of a small, select, intelligent group that is still discussing the nuances of the series. Sandra

1998-07-29 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (David Sheedy <sheedy@netcom.ca>)


Larry Hertzog wrote: > In article <35BE16FB.5D9F2D16@netcom.ca>, sheedy@netcom.ca says... > > > Tell you what Larry, I'll bring a single malt *and leave it behind when I > > go*. > > Hey, I've got some in the cupboard. C'mon by. That's it, I'm cashing in my air miles right now (oh, wait - Larry forgot to give out his address. I'm sure its easy to find his place in L.A.... I'll just ask some nice person on Sunset Blvd. to point it out to me....

1998-07-29 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (sandra@enteract.com)


On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 14:19:37 -0400, David Sheedy <sheedy@netcom.ca> wrote: > >You see, that's what we need, its what Tom needed. If Tom had been a scotch >drinker, he'd have avoided the whole mess (probably by being passed out in the >washroom, but why split hairs?) > >David, who is suddenly...thirsty > David, why would you want Tom to drink lighter fluid? <g> Hey, it's been a long time since I gave you a hard time about that. Sandra

1998-07-29 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (scorpio4@mindspring.com)


lh@xmindspring.com (Larry Hertzog) wrote: >There is no conspiracy. There is no "crime" to unravel. There is no >DIRECTOR to find. Stand in front of the mirror, folks. When you're not >watching The Net, or X-files, or Babylon Five you might stare into that >glass for a few moments. Most of what NwM was about will be in what you >see. Is this possibly what the broken glass in the show actually meant, Larry? That we're broken and need to look to ourselves to fit all our pieces back together again? But what if every time someone was trying to glue the pieces of their mirror back together again, "They" kept knocking it out of their hands because They were the ones who broke it in the first place and they want it to stay broken? I think this is what happened to Tom. In Spider Webb, Max -- who I thought was supposed to be you -- tells Tom that the Lenny Little show is supposed to be about the individual up against a faceless, oppressive society. That's close to being exactly how I saw the show. Society doesn't want anyone to be an individual. It wants you to fit in and be just like everybody else. It wants you to "reflect" it. And if you won't, it gets insecure and bent out of shape, and it will break your mirror, or at the very least put a lot of deep scratches in it. I think one of the scariest scenes of the whole series was when Tom asked Max why he wanted the negatives and Max said, " We don't. We want *you*". And I'll bet if Tom had asked him why, Max would've just said something like, "We just do". But wouldn't it be funny if the reason Tom was targeted by Them in the first place was because he didn't want to participate in his studio opening? Instead he wanted to *withdraw* from that societal microcosm and go home. Maybe that's when they knew he didn't fit in! Because of that, they erased him! Maureen

1998-07-29 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (Rick Ellis <RickEllis@compuserve.com>)


Larry Hertzog <lh@xmindspring.com> wrote in article <MPG.10271853d52837aa989717@news.mindspring.com>... > I guess I'm feeling "chatty" and like "mouthing off" tonight. Though I > never expected anything other than NwM received (in truth, it was BETTER > received than I ever thought it would be) I am still sometimes stunned by > the human need to look outside ourselves for the cause of everything -- > pain, fear, joy, pleasure, etc. (BTW, in many respects I do not put > myself above this.) > > But the "need" to turn NwM into a "mystery to be solved" show was always > cause for a good deal of head-shaking. (I'm prone to that anyway!) > Well, I remember that all that talk about "clues" drives you nuts[gg]. But I just have always attributed people's obsessions with clues as the byproduct of the fact that the most successful shows--creatively anyway--are compelling on several levels. And even though the clues aspect of the show wasn't that important for you, I think it's one of the ways that viewers connected with the show on a week-to-week basis. It was like a puzzle, and people love to feel that they're working it out ahead of everyone else. And besides, the story you created had a nice tapestry to it--whether or not you really wanted to look at every interlocking piece, it's a tribute to your work that other people did want to follow that path. But you're right that the show had a deeper meaning. And for me, what always struck me about the story was the way that it reinforced how easy it is for inherently good people to follow the path of evil becuase it's easier, or convenient, or just more interesting. NwM had a number of characters who were basically good folks, but had willingly sold their souls at some point. An organization like that doesn't exist in a vacuum, or grow strictly due to raw power. It thrives because people let it thrive, and because they give up their freedom for convenience, or access, or fear. It's a variation of your theme about the real enemy being us. I look at it as the real enemy being what we could be. I feel "chatty" myself, but after spending close to three weeks in Pasadena with a bunch of tv critics, it's hard to turn off that "thinking about television" gene<gg> It's been awhile, but it's nice to "see" you again. >>> But do me a favor -- if you're coming over for dinner -- call first! <<< How about if I just buy you lunch at Jerry's Deli.... Rick Ellis www.edrive.com www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/9722

1998-07-29 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (lh@xmindspring.com)


In article <35bf63cf.6712299@news.enteract.com>, sandra@enteract.com says... > The only "problem" with watching the episodes is it raises sooooo many > questions -- like "Why did Eddy want Tom to ask Bellamy about David > Powers and what did Eddy think Bellamy would say and why did Tom's not > asking Bellamy show that Tom still didn't 'get it' according to Eddy?" > <g> Sheesh, Sand -- you sure do ask a lotta questions. :-) As far as Eddie saying, "you still don't get it," I think he was merely referring to the fact that Tom still had some "faith" in the establishment -- in this case -- Dr. Bellamy. Don't think it goes too far beyond that. Maybe he knew that Tom followed the Neilsen ratings and was commenting, "you just don't get it." In that case, who does? -- Larry to send email remove the "x" in my address

1998-07-29 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (CIELO1@webtv.net)


Larry wrote "Who are you and how did you get in here? Go away! :-)" Thanks Larry for telling me to leave- that means now I can STAY! -Cielo1 aka Another Alienated One aka "I refuse to be part of any group that would have me as a member" (apologies to Groucho)

1998-07-29 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (CIELO1@webtv.net)


Maureen wrote "Is this possibly what the broken glass in the show actually meant...that we're broken and need to...fit all our pieces back together again?" And also, how about- Every glass we attempt to view the world through distorts our vision. It must be shattered if we're ever to see the truth (whatever that is). And should that glass be a mirror- a mirror always looks BACKWARD at the world. You must shatter it to ever view what is behind it, in front of you.

1998-07-31 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (CIELO1@webtv.net)


Maureen wrote "...maybe the thing to do is to find the most flawlessly clear piece of glass...so our vision won't be so distorted..." No doubt this will help. But the problem lies in looking THROUGH anything from any single point of view. The act of looking from any one vantage point is itself the distortion, the problem. Truth is found through a tapestry, a synthesis of all that is. The old proverb about "You must lose yourself to find yourself" applies here. Somehow, we must get beyond ourselves, outside of ourselves. It is only when we stop looking that we'll ever see clearly.

1998-07-31 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (scorpio4@mindspring.com)


CIELO1@webtv.net (D CILLO) wrote: >And also, how about- > >Every glass we attempt to view the world through distorts our vision. >It must be shattered if we're ever to see the truth (whatever that is). >And should that glass be a mirror- a mirror always looks BACKWARD at the >world. You must shatter it to ever view what is behind it, in front of >you. Not bad. :-) Or maybe the thing to do is to find the most flawlessly clear piece of glass or mirror as possible to peer through so our vision won't be distorted in the first place. :-) Maureen

1998-08-01 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (sandra@enteract.com)


On Wed, 29 Jul 1998 16:05:27 -0700, lh@xmindspring.com (Larry Hertzog) wrote: > >Sheesh, Sand -- you sure do ask a lotta questions. :-) Yep, dear, I do. <g> If you ever get bored, give me a call and I'll keep you answering questions for hours! > >As far as Eddie saying, "you still don't get it," I think he was merely >referring to the fact that Tom still had some "faith" in the LOL Lar, I had to laugh at this. <g> Ummm, you wrote this, hon. You're supposed to know what he meant. j/k >establishment -- in this case -- Dr. Bellamy. Don't think it goes too >far beyond that. Okay, I can see that making sense. I guess too many of us see way too much in each word. You should have seen the discussions we've had about the names that Eddy called Tom and the meanings and how they could relate to other names in the series. Hey, we even had an extended conversation about the significance of the tea kettles in a few episodes and there was a long debate as to if Eddy said "Here's to Nam" or "Here's to numb" when he takes Tom's meds in Absolute Zero. Amazing. <g> > Maybe he knew that Tom followed the Neilsen ratings and >was commenting, "you just don't get it." In that case, who does? I sure don't get it. Wish I did get a Neilson box or diary. Things would look a lot different on prime time: Hertzog all the time! *snicker* Sandra

1998-08-01 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (lh@xmindspring.com)


In article <35c2bbc2.60634149@news.enteract.com>, sandra@enteract.com says... > Okay, I can see that making sense. I guess too many of us see way too > much in each word. You should have seen the discussions we've had > about the names that Eddy called Tom and the meanings and how they > could relate to other names in the series. > > Hey, we even had an extended conversation about the significance of > the tea kettles in a few episodes and there was a long debate as to if > Eddy said "Here's to Nam" or "Here's to numb" when he takes Tom's meds > in Absolute Zero. Amazing. <g> Poor, poor baby. I'm making arrangements for the telethon now. Until then, this might be covered under one or another medical plans. -- Larry to send email remove the "x" in my address

1998-08-01 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (sandra@enteract.com)


On Sat, 1 Aug 1998 09:29:44 -0700, lh@xmindspring.com (Larry Hertzog) wrote: >Poor, poor baby. I'm making arrangements for the telethon now. Until >then, this might be covered under one or another medical plans. > Does this mean you'll be my Sugar Daddy now? *wink* Sandra

1998-08-01 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (lh@xmindspring.com)


In article <35c37b3e.25780050@news.enteract.com>, sandra@enteract.com says... > Does this mean you'll be my Sugar Daddy now? *wink What's the wink for? *wink -- Larry to send email remove the "x" in my address

1998-08-02 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (sandra@enteract.com)


On Sat, 1 Aug 1998 17:31:31 -0700, lh@xmindspring.com (Larry Hertzog) wrote: >> Does this mean you'll be my Sugar Daddy now? *wink > >What's the wink for? *wink > The same thing your wink is for. :)

1998-08-03 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (scorpio4@mindspring.com)


CIELO1@webtv.net (D CILLO) wrote: >No doubt this will help. But the problem lies in looking THROUGH >anything from any single point of view. The act of looking from any one >vantage point is itself the distortion, the problem. But if your glass or mirror is clear enough, nothing will be distorted. Now you really didn't think I was going to make this easy for you, did you? >Truth is found through a tapestry, a synthesis of all that is. The old >proverb about "You must lose yourself to find yourself" applies here. >Somehow, we must get beyond ourselves, outside of ourselves. First we break our mirrors and then we have an out of body experience? Seriously, though, losing oneself can be a risky thing. It can make you more susceptible to Them. >It is only when we stop looking that we'll ever see clearly. No, when you stop looking is when They get you. :-) How about this: Everyone has their own special piece of glass to look through. If the glass becomes distorted, all you have to do is take it to the special glass clarification center and have it restored to it's previous peak condition. So there's no need for any violent smashing. :-) Maureen

1998-08-03 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (CIELO1@webtv.net)


Maureen wrote "If your glass...is clear enough, nothing will be distorted". Even if you could get glass that clear, it would still act as a BARRIER to the reality behind it. Maureen also wrote "...Losing oneself can be a risky thing?" Yes, you must do this with care- but the alternative is even riskier. Maureen continued with a reference to the "Special Glass Clarification Center". COSMIC WINDEX? I like it! -Cielo1, glad that Maureen isn't going easy on me

1998-08-04 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (scorpio4@mindspring.com)


CIELO1@webtv.net (D CILLO) wrote: >Even if you could get glass that clear, it would still act as a BARRIER >to the reality behind it. Why? :-) What if it's a *protective* barrier? >Maureen also wrote "...Losing oneself can be a risky thing?" > >Yes, you must do this with care- but the alternative is even riskier. What happens if one chooses the alternative? >Maureen continued with a reference to the "Special Glass Clarification >Center". > >COSMIC WINDEX? I like it! Well, the SGCC is actually owned and operated by Lenscrafters, so it's more like a "glasses in about an hour" type thing. But you may have to wait longer if you're trading in your special glass for one of the more exotic styles, and/or if you're getting it specially tinted with one of the many appealing colors that are available. >-Cielo1, glad that Maureen isn't going easy on me Heeheeheeee... Maureen

1998-08-04 00:00:00 - Re: Do We Exist? - (CIELO1@webtv.net)


Maureen asks "What if it's a 'protective' barrier?" Unless you get "outside" of the influence of the glass, you don't know if this is something you should "protected" from or not! Maureen further asks "What happens if one choses the alternative?" (to not "lose" yourself) What a terrible prospect- to be stuck with just yourself for all eternity? God, nobody is that wonderful (apologies to all fellow NowhereManiacs). No one can acquire all the wisdom and beauty in the universe (you have to be AS BIG as the universe to do so). But still- sign me up for some of that Cosmic Windex. Everyone I know (including myself) needs it every day. Heeheeheee "back at 'chya" Cielo1, drawing upon insider Nowhere Man references