FLM films - My Webpage

1996-07-15 00:00:00 - ATGB: Fans seem to be split! - ("P. Orbach" <pom@grfn.org>)


Anyone else notice that there seems to be a 50-50 split on liking or hating "As Time Goes By". There are always different opinions, but usually there is a solid majority. Normally you can tell much more easily the reaction to a episode whether it be approval or disapproval. For 7/12 ATGB I've read and heard both ways. Not just that--the extreme of both ways( i.e. "THAT WAS THE BEST EP EVER!" or "THAT SUCKED!") Hmmmm. Well let the debates continue... pom A word is dead, | Smile... | This is just to When it is said; | Tomorrow will | fill in this Some say. I say | be WORSE. | e m p t y It just began | | s p a c e. to live that day. | -- Murphy's | -- P.M. Orbach --Emily Dickinson | Philosophy | pom@grfn.org

1996-07-16 00:00:00 - Re: ATGB: Fans seem to be split! - (zikzak23@usa.pipeline.com)


On Jul 15, 1996 16:10:49 in article <ATGB: Fans seem to be split!>, '"P. Orbach" <pom@grfn.org>' wrote: >Anyone else notice that there seems to be a 50-50 split on liking or >hating "As Time Goes By". There are always different opinions, but >usually there is a solid majority. No, I think if you go back, you'll see this is always the case. I can't think of a single episode that's aired where at least one person (usually more) didn't say it was a fantastic episode. People are different, and like different things.

1996-07-17 00:00:00 - Re: ATGB: Fans seem to be split! - (denmar@ix.netcom.com)


In <Pine.SOL.3.91.960715155939.10327A-100000@freenet.grfn.org> "P. Orbach" <pom@grfn.org> writes: > >Anyone else notice that there seems to be a 50-50 split on liking or >hating "As Time Goes By". There are always different opinions, but >usually there is a solid majority. Normally you can tell much more easily >the reaction to a episode whether it be approval or disapproval. For 7/12 ATGB >I've read and heard both ways. Not just that--the extreme of both ways( >i.e. "THAT WAS THE BEST EP EVER!" or "THAT SUCKED!") Hmmmm. Well let the >debates continue... > It's split along the same lines on which fans of the show appear to be split: some want the show to be more hardcore science fiction, others want it to be more of a social, historical, and cultural commentary. The writers and producers of the show also seem to be split. We've seen the polar extremes of this in the last two episodes: Invasion and ATGB.

1996-07-19 00:00:00 - Re: ATGB: Fans seem to be split! - (kalelfan@aol.com)


In article <4shkt3$aog@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, denmar@ix.netcom.com(DENMAR) writes: >some want the show to be more hardcore science fiction, others >want it to be more of a social, historical, and cultural commentary. >The writers and producers of the show also seem to be split. I think they should be split, because the show can be both. Above all, I think it's a story-driven show. The really excellent part of As Time Goes By, IMHO, was Quinn seing the different incarnations of his childhood sweetheart and that guy she ended up with, the one world where he phoned his double in Seattle and sent his girlfriend to him, and even the ending where Quinn thinks about the worlds he's been to, and wonders whether he should try again on another world. It was a great personal story, but was overshadowed to some extent (and unnecessarily) by the confusing aspects of the backward time business. Does this mean you can never mix science fiction or fantasy into the human interest type stories? No. I think they did it pretty well in Obsession, for example. Especially in light of the Invasion episode that preceded it in North America, I'd rather have substituted the backward time world with a Kromagg world in As Time Goes By. KalElFan@aol.com

1996-07-22 00:00:00 - Re: ATGB: Fans seem to be split! - (Danny Chiang <#jedd168@ix.netcom.com>)


KalElFan wrote: > > In article <4shkt3$aog@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>, > denmar@ix.netcom.com(DENMAR) writes: > > >some want the show to be more hardcore science fiction, others > >want it to be more of a social, historical, and cultural commentary. > >The writers and producers of the show also seem to be split. > > I think they should be split, because the show can be both. Above > all, I think it's a story-driven show. The really excellent part of As > Time Goes By, IMHO, was Quinn seing the different incarnations > of his childhood sweetheart and that guy she ended up with, the > one world where he phoned his double in Seattle and sent his > girlfriend to him, and even the ending where Quinn thinks about > the worlds he's been to, and wonders whether he should try again > on another world. It was a great personal story, but was overshadowed > to some extent (and unnecessarily) by the confusing aspects of the > backward time business. > > Does this mean you can never mix science fiction or fantasy into > the human interest type stories? No. I think they did it pretty well > in Obsession, for example. Especially in light of the Invasion episode > that preceded it in North America, I'd rather have substituted the > backward time world with a Kromagg world in As Time Goes By. > > KalElFan@aol.com > I agree. I have posted many other messages in support of the episode. The personal stories are much more interesting than the episode where the sliders are trying to alter the world to be more like ours. The fact is that personal issue episodes of a television series are always the best. A science fiction element only serves to set up the event and otherwise make it more interesting. For example: the classic Star Trek episode "The City at the Edge of Forever" delt with Kirk falling in love and sacrificing it for a better future. Time travel as well as other science fiction elements help out. This is seen by many as the best Trek episode ever. Quinn having a second chance with Daelin but sacrificing it for her child was a equaly dramatic dilema. Sliding and the different worlds only make it better...if not more confusing. If I was writting the episode, it would be about Quinn seeing her in a world and all the terrible memories of losing her come back to him. He spends the next few slides looking for her, but discovers that she is different in every world. In some see may not be a good person, she may be deeply in love with someone else (Arturo stealing his girl?), and in others she may not even exist. When he finally does find a Daelin similar to the one he remembers, he losses her because she has a child and cannot slide (like in the real episode). Quinn helps her out. He slides knowing that, somewhere, doubles of him and Daelin are together. He is heartbroken, but Wade is there to help him through it. Quinn gets over Daelin and learns to move on, Daelin is but a sweet memory to him now, but he knows that another great person is with him now. One who slides with him and he will hopefully not lose. The episode ends with Quinn asking Wade to dinner or something. What do you think?

1996-07-23 00:00:00 - Re: ATGB: Fans seem to be split! - (Silverwind <silver@dazed.nol.net>)


On 17 Jul 1996, DENMAR wrote: > It's split along the same lines on which fans of the show appear to be > split: some want the show to be more hardcore science fiction, others > want it to be more of a social, historical, and cultural commentary. > The writers and producers of the show also seem to be split. We've > seen the polar extremes of this in the last two episodes: Invasion and > ATGB. I'd personally like to see both. I wouldn't want the writers to exclude either aspect of the show.. furthermore, I'd really like to see more of the humor that the show used to have. -silver-

1996-07-24 00:00:00 - Re: ATGB: Fans seem to be split! - (pom@grfn.org)


I don't know when nor who said: : > : > >some want the show to be more hardcore science fiction, others : > >want it to be more of a social, historical, and cultural commentary. : > >The writers and producers of the show also seem to be split. : > But this hits the nail on the head! I started this thread and just came back in the middle of it but who ever said the above answerd my question. Wow! I hope everyone realizes the implication this has. ***Torme and Weiss have created a show that attracts different types of viewers.*** What shows ever do that? The people that watched "Murder-she-wrote" weren't the same group as those that watched "Space-above-ect."(Although there may be some people that watched both but not a whole group.) You will find "Sliders" posts in alt.rec.tv.sf but also alt.history.what-if. But maybe it's not so good. "Sliders" doesn't have a solid audiance. Writers must switch their focus from episode to episode. AND THAT is why **there will always be a group that likes the episode, BUT also a group that always dislikes it.** Well, maybe not always...but it now makes sence. Thanks whoever said it. POM -- A word is dead, | Smile... | This is just to When it is said; | Tomorrow will | fill in this Some say. I say | be WORSE. | e m p t y It just began | | s p a c e. to live that day. | -- Murphy's | -- P.M. Orbach --Emily Dickinson | Philosophy | pom@grfn.org

1996-07-25 00:00:00 - Re: ATGB: Fans seem to be split! - (zikzak23@usa.pipeline.com)


On Jul 23, 1996 12:58:27 in article <Re: ATGB: Fans seem to be split!>, 'Silverwind <silver@dazed.nol.net>' wrote: >I'd personally like to see both. I wouldn't want the writers to exclude >either aspect of the show.. furthermore, I'd really like to see more of >the humor that the show used to have. Perfect example: I like the humor, but I thought they overdid it sometimes last season. "The People's Court?" ___ The use of this email address for the purpose of unsolicited email advertisements and/or entry in any mailing list for resale is forbidden without written consent from the user. Any unsolicited email that arrives in this user's mailbox for the purpose of marketting will result in a complaint to the sender's service provider, as well as retribution from various members of the Internet community. - service provided by Watchdog

1996-07-25 00:00:00 - Re: ATGB: Fans seem to be split! - (zikzak23@usa.pipeline.com)


On Jul 24, 1996 12:35:16 in article <Re: ATGB: Fans seem to be split!>, 'pom@grfn.org (Pinchas Orbach)' wrote: >***Torme and Weiss have created a show that attracts different types of >viewers.*** > >What shows ever do that? Hit the nail on the proverbial head! The range of fans in terms of interests varies wildly among Sliders. That's part of the problem with fans of the show. For everyone who loved the scifi aspect of "Invasion," there was someone who hated it, and for everyone who loved the comedy of "Good, Bad, and Wealthy," there was someone who hated it, etc. ___ The use of this email address for the purpose of unsolicited email advertisements and/or entry in any mailing list for resale is forbidden without written consent from the user. Any unsolicited email that arrives in this user's mailbox for the purpose of marketting will result in a complaint to the sender's service provider, as well as retribution from various members of the Internet community. - service provided by Watchdog

1996-07-29 00:00:00 - Re: ATGB: Fans seem to be split! - (gharlane@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu)


On 17 Jul 1996, DENMAR wrote: > > It's split along the same lines on which fans of the show appear to be > split: some want the show to be more hardcore science fiction, others > want it to be more of a social, historical, and cultural commentary. > The writers and producers of the show also seem to be split. We've > seen the polar extremes of this in the last two episodes: Invasion and > ATGB. Since the show has yet to achieve anything even remotely resembling "SF," much less "hardcore science fiction," asserting that the writers and producers are "split" on this subject is silly; there are no writers or producers *working* on the show who have the vaguest idea what SF is. As for 'social, historical, and cultural commentary,' what the BLOODY <EXON> do you think SCIENCE FICTION bloody *IS* ?????? Are you yet another of these twits that think hardware props is what SF is all about? In <Pine.GSO.3.95.960723125729.10182A-100000@dazed.nol.net> Silverwind <silver@dazed.nol.net> writes: > > I'd personally like to see both. I wouldn't want the writers to exclude > either aspect of the show.. furthermore, I'd really like to see more of > the humor that the show used to have. And what would you like, *IM*personally? (The use of "personally" in that construction is rather highly redundant.) Since you can't *make* an SF show without correct hard science and "social, historical, and cultural commentary," if you've not got all of the above, you have no chance of crafting SF. The best you can do is superficial fantasy. Try to learn this: The presence of space ships, or ray guns, or aliens, does *NOT* make something "science fiction," although it certainly might qualify as "fantasy" or "Sci-Fi."

1996-07-30 00:00:00 - Re: ATGB: Fans seem to be split! - (Ron Courtright <rcourt@best.com>)


Hi, Gharlane, Is this your definition of science fiction? It is rigorous. What about fantasy and/or 'speculative fiction?' Gharlane of Eddore <gharlane@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu> wrote in article [...] > Since the show has yet to achieve anything even remotely resembling "SF," > much less "hardcore science fiction," asserting that the writers and > producers are "split" on this subject is silly; there are no writers or > producers *working* on the show who have the vaguest idea what SF is. > [...] > Since you can't *make* an SF show without correct hard science and "social, > historical, and cultural commentary," if you've not got all of the above, > you have no chance of crafting SF. The best you can do is superficial > fantasy. > > Try to learn this: The presence of space ships, or ray guns, or aliens, > does *NOT* make something "science fiction," although it certainly might > qualify as "fantasy" or "Sci-Fi." > > > <html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#F0F0E1"><p><font size=3D3 = color=3D"#0000FF" face=3D"Times New Roman">Hi, Gharlane,<br><br>Is this = your definition of science fiction? &nbsp;It is rigorous. &nbsp;What = about fantasy and/or 'speculative fiction?'<br><br><font = color=3D"#000080">Gharlane of Eddore &lt;<font = color=3D"#0000FF"><u>gharlane@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu</u><font = color=3D"#000080">&gt; wrote in article <font = color=3D"#0000FF"><br>[...]<br><font color=3D"#000080">&gt; Since the = show has yet to achieve anything even remotely resembling = &quot;SF,&quot;<br>&gt; much less &quot;hardcore science fiction,&quot; = asserting that the writers and <br>&gt; producers are &quot;split&quot; = on this subject is silly; there are no writers or<br>&gt; producers = *working* on the show who have the vaguest idea what SF is.<br>&gt; = <br><font color=3D"#0000FF">[...] <font color=3D"#000080"><br>&gt; Since = you can't *make* an SF show without correct hard science and = &quot;social,<br>&gt; historical, and cultural commentary,&quot; if = you've not got all of the above,<br>&gt; you have no chance of crafting = SF. &nbsp;&nbsp;The best you can do is superficial<br>&gt; = fantasy.<br>&gt; <br>&gt; Try to learn this: &nbsp;&nbsp;The presence of = space ships, or ray guns, or aliens,<br>&gt; does *NOT* make something = &quot;science fiction,&quot; although it certainly might<br>&gt; qualify = as &quot;fantasy&quot; or &quot;Sci-Fi.&quot;<br>&gt; <br>&gt; <br>&gt; = </p> </font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></body></html>

1996-07-31 00:00:00 - Re: ATGB: Fans seem to be split! - (denmar@ix.netcom.com)


In <4tjhob$iu5@news.csus.edu> gharlane@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu (Gharlane of Eddore) writes: > >On 17 Jul 1996, DENMAR wrote: >> >> It's split along the same lines on which fans of the show appear to be >> split: some want the show to be more hardcore science fiction, others >> want it to be more of a social, historical, and cultural commentary. >> The writers and producers of the show also seem to be split. We've >> seen the polar extremes of this in the last two episodes: Invasion and >> ATGB. > >Since the show has yet to achieve anything even remotely resembling "SF," >much less "hardcore science fiction," asserting that the writers and >producers are "split" on this subject is silly; there are no writers or >producers *working* on the show who have the vaguest idea what SF is. > >As for 'social, historical, and cultural commentary,' what the BLOODY ><EXON> do you think SCIENCE FICTION bloody *IS* ?????? > >Are you yet another of these twits that think hardware props is what SF >is all about? > Really, Gharlane. Your insults are most amusing. I was simply stating that the writers and producers of Sliders cannot decide on which direction to take the series- not assessing the quality of the finished product. When I watch Sliders, I accept it for what it is: an amusing and sometimes entertaining television fantasy, no more and no less. The concept behind Sliders is a great one, but I know that the show will probably never live up to its potential. Sliders is obviously targeted to a young audience, and the episodes will continue for the most part to be more akin to the Splash Mountain ride at Disneyland, than to something more thought-provoking. There are obviously better science fiction television shows out there- past and present- and I watch some of those too. But whenever I want the real stuff, I won't troll the cable on a Friday night- I'll head straight to the book store. As for your comment on social/historical/cultural commentary, it is true that much of science fiction is just that. And there are also times when it is simply a surrealistic journey into the imagination of the author, with no attention given to such commentary. Like Quantum Leap before it, Sliders simply uses the science fiction element as a literary device to get the characters into the various worlds they encounter. It's really just an updated version of The Wizard of Oz; the Sliders might just as well click their heels together as opposed to switching on their timer device. Of course, that doesn't mean that the science fiction part of it can't be done better; it most certainly can. But, as I said above, it ain't gonna happen, so I just enjoy what's good about the show and forget about the rest. Because, after all, it's just television!

1996-08-01 00:00:00 - Re: ATGB: Fans seem to be split! - (gharlane@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu)


In <01bb7df4$ec0ba920$0100007f@locutus> "Ron Courtright" <rcourt@best.com> writes: >This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > >------=_NextPart_000_01BB7DBA.443195F0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ron, you need to find out how your News posting software works. Sticking in MIME-format headers is just a waste. > Hi, Gharlane, > > Is this your definition of science fiction? > It is rigorous. What about fantasy and/or 'speculative fiction?' Note: ======================================================================= || "It's Science Fiction, if, presuming technical competence on the || || the part of the writer, he genuinely believes it could happen." || || --- John W. Campbell, Jr. || ======================================================================= Campbell usually defined "technical competence" as a four-year degree in Physics, Engineering, Medicine, or any of the "hard sciences;" or equivalent experience. The term "Science Fiction" was first used in print by Hugo Gernsback around 1929, who coined it as an alternative to his earlier generic referent, "ScientiFiction." Note that Gernsbach's version of SF was considerably more rigorous, and tended to be tedious technical tracts rather than actual fiction. Campbell took over editorship of "ASTOUNDING" in 1937, and single-handedly created the entire field of modern SF. He was the first to insist on scientific accuracy *and* literate prose, and although his writers often didn't achieve the marks he set for them, he set the tenor of the SF field, and kept editing his magazine until his death in 1971. "Science Fiction" specifically refers to fiction in which science and technology are an integral part of the story and plot. You can't write decent SF without decent science, and you can't write decent SF without competent storytelling. This is way it's the hardest literary form to master, and is usually only done well by people with formal training in the sciences and considerable literary talent. "Fantasy" is a literary endeavor based on a situation that is very unlikely to occur, using literary conceits and nonexistent, unlikely- to-exist, things as plot points. Thus, "HARVEY," Mary Coyle Chase's wonderful play about a 6' invisible rabbit, while it's one of the best plays and movies of the last half century, is a Fantasy. Re-framing "HARVEY" as a movie about a drunk with an invisible space-alien buddy would probably not qualify as SF. (Think: "MY FAVORITE MARTIAN," "TOPPER," "MORK & MINDY." "ALF," on the other hand, had a couple of scripts that actually qualified as borderline SF.) "Speculative Fiction" is a generic term that embodies all forms of literary endeavor concerning things that have not happened. It's a catch-all for legitimate S(cience)F(iction), Fantasy, and even Sci-Fi. ("Sci-Fi" refers to Fantasy that uses SF props.) Most people who actually make an effort to use referential terms correctly use "SF" to refer to Science Fiction, and "Spec-Eff" for a short-hand referent to anything from "VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA" to "DUNE." Japanese monster movies, "EARTH 2," and "POWER RANGERS" all get categorized as "kiddie movies" or "kiddie fantasies." The hallmarks of illegitimate crud masquerading as SF are lack of internal consistency, lack of correlation with known science (and no explanation for violations!) and capricious use of dei ex machini to solve problems. ( Think: "technobabble." ) If the tech isn't reasoned, consistent, and part of the plot generation/solution, it's not tech, and it's not "science;" it's MAGIC. Something that *looks* like SF, but has off-the-wall tech and science points, used like Magic Wands, is not SF. It's silly Fantasy, or Sci-Fi. (Pronounced "SkiFfy.") "SLIDERS" is "Sci-Fi." It uses superficially SF props and plot elements, in a Fantasy setting. The producers and writers have demonstrated repeatedly that they don't understand the most basic points of the science they purport to be using in their series; the result is a crazy-quilt patchwork of subliminally disquieting contradictions. You get the milieu and the framework into place FIRST, and *THEN* write your story. You do not think up a story and then bend your framework to let you do what you want; when you do, the result is nothing new, nothing impressive, and nothing very worthwhile. =========================================================== ......<deletia> Ahh, more Incompetent Poster Tracks. Do you realize how silly these things look in MIME encapsulations, HTML documents posted to TEXT topics in ASCII? Do you know how to use your NewsReader interface? Do you know how silly this entry looks? > ------=_NextPart_000_01BB7DBA.443195F0 > Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > <html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#F0F0E1"><p><font size=3D3 = > color=3D"#0000FF" face=3D"Times New Roman">Hi, Gharlane,<br><br>Is this = > your definition of science fiction? &nbsp;It is rigorous. &nbsp;What = > about fantasy and/or 'speculative fiction?'<br><br><font = > color=3D"#000080">Gharlane of Eddore &lt;<font = > color=3D"#0000FF"><u>gharlane@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu</u><font = > color=3D"#000080">&gt; wrote in article <font = > color=3D"#0000FF"><br>[...]<br><font color=3D"#000080">&gt; Since the = > show has yet to achieve anything even remotely resembling = > &quot;SF,&quot;<br>&gt; much less &quot;hardcore science fiction,&quot; = > asserting that the writers and <br>&gt; producers are &quot;split&quot; = > on this subject is silly; there are no writers or<br>&gt; producers = > *working* on the show who have the vaguest idea what SF is.<br>&gt; = > <br><font color=3D"#0000FF">[...] <font color=3D"#000080"><br>&gt; Since = > you can't *make* an SF show without correct hard science and = > &quot;social,<br>&gt; historical, and cultural commentary,&quot; if = > you've not got all of the above,<br>&gt; you have no chance of crafting = > SF. &nbsp;&nbsp;The best you can do is superficial<br>&gt; = > fantasy.<br>&gt; <br>&gt; Try to learn this: &nbsp;&nbsp;The presence of = > space ships, or ray guns, or aliens,<br>&gt; does *NOT* make something = > &quot;science fiction,&quot; although it certainly might<br>&gt; qualify = > as &quot;fantasy&quot; or &quot;Sci-Fi.&quot;<br>&gt; <br>&gt; <br>&gt; = > </p> > </font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></body></html> > ------=_NextPart_000_01BB7DBA.443195F0-- > Please stop using a Web Browser to post with; you apparently can't figure out how to handle it. I suggest you try escaping to a UNIX shell prompt, and then running "rn" to execute the classic "readnews" program. This will work much faster than a Web-graphics interface, and save you a lot of lifespan; always presuming, of course, that your ISP bothers to support the older programs. "rn," "tin," and "rtin" are the most common variants of reliable, debugged, spartan News interfaces. The "tin" variants allow you to use threaded-topic interfaces, while the older "rn" simply provides sequenced access to the entries. (I use "rn," handled through a customized EMACS front end, but trust me, you don't wanna get involved in that!) Of course, you'll have to learn how to use a computer without touching a mouse and having cute little pushbuttons provided for you, but the help-files are on-line, if your ISP carries those newsreaders. Good luck in learning how to use a computer!

1996-08-02 00:00:00 - Re: ATGB: Fans seem to be split! - (Ron Courtright <rcourt@best.com>)


Whoops, sorry, folks, about that HTML nonsense. I was playing with a new news reader that offers HTML support and forgot to change the style back to text when I changed news groups. It was careless. Hey, Gharlane, I like 'tin', but I'm lazy and the WIMP interface can be like eating lotus blossoms at time and, besides, they won't let me take Sparc home. By the way, I prefer the simplicity of 'vi' to the configuration jungle of 'emacs' any day of the week. Ron Gharlane of Eddore <gharlane@ccshp1.ccs.csus.edu> wrote in article > [...] > Ron, you need to find out how your News posting software works. > Sticking in MIME-format headers is just a waste. > > ......<deletia> > > Ahh, more Incompetent Poster Tracks. > Do you realize how silly these things look in MIME encapsulations, > HTML documents posted to TEXT topics in ASCII? > > Do you know how to use your NewsReader interface? > Do you know how silly this entry looks? > > > Please stop using a Web Browser to post with; you apparently can't > figure out how to handle it. > > I suggest you try escaping to a UNIX shell prompt, and then running > "rn" to execute the classic "readnews" program. This will work > much faster than a Web-graphics interface, and save you a lot of > lifespan; always presuming, of course, that your ISP bothers to > support the older programs. "rn," "tin," and "rtin" are the > most common variants of reliable, debugged, spartan News interfaces. > The "tin" variants allow you to use threaded-topic interfaces, while > the older "rn" simply provides sequenced access to the entries. > (I use "rn," handled through a customized EMACS front end, but trust > me, you don't wanna get involved in that!) > > Of course, you'll have to learn how to use a computer without touching > a mouse and having cute little pushbuttons provided for you, but the > help-files are on-line, if your ISP carries those newsreaders. > > Good luck in learning how to use a computer! > > > >