Old Article

[LoveAtFirstBITE]

I came across this interesting article in an old issue of Daytime TV.   I'll just let it speak for itself (get out the barf bags).......

[jennifer]

everyone has their fans Love
jennifer[puke]

pass the antiemetics please!

[Julianka7]

everyone has their fans Love
jennifer[puke]

pass the antiemetics please!

That's true

[Blue_Whale_Barfly]

I knew Rosemary.  She loved to be manhandled.

[Accomplice_To_Cass]

I came across this interesting article in an old issue of Daytime TV.   I'll just let it speak for itself (get out the barf bags).......

Well if someone as beautiful as Jaclyn Smith can marry Roger Davis..whats the harm in having Rosemary have a crush on him?

[Mysterious Benefactor]

Well if someone as beautiful as Jaclyn Smith can marry Roger Davis..whats the harm in having Rosemary have a crush on him?

Yes, but Jaclyn came to her senses very quickly and divorced him. In fact, nowadays she doesn't even consider it to have been a real marriage.

And BTW, Accomplice_To_Cass, love your new username.

[Accomplice_To_Cass]

Yes, but Jaclyn came to her senses very quickly and divorced him. In fact, nowadays she doesn't even consider it to have been a real marriage.

And BTW, Accomplice_To_Cass, love your new username.

Thank you, I thought it was time for a change and I decided that "Pig Pen" went well with my avatar.

[kuanyin]

Oh my, she wants her husband to take POINTERS  in how to be romantic from..... I can't even say the name!   This is the scariest ever. [shckd]

[Cassandra]

I came across this interesting article in an old issue of Daytime TV.   I'll just let it speak for itself (get out the barf bags).......

That poor woman!!  She actually wants her husband to take some pointers on how to be "Romantic" from this guy?   I wonder what her idea of Romance is??

[dom]

Maybe Rosemary meant passionate?

I just hope she is not a current forum member or guest with hurt feelings...one never knows.

dom

[Connie]

I just hope she is not a current forum member or guest with hurt feelings...one never knows.

Hi Dom...  (I've gotten addicted to the wavey thing)  LOL

This question has been on my mind for awhile.  I keep dismissing it and telling myself to mind my own business, but it's popped into my head again after reading your previous post.  How come there are a couple of DS people who seem to be exempt from the board guidelines regarding personal attacks?  It's like, it's not considered appropriate to post something that could be hurtful to someone, but it's allowed if it's something about Roger Davis??  You know what I mean?  LOL.   I've also noticed that Dan Curtis seems to be pretty fair game occasionally, and then there was Betsy Durkin a little while ago.  But as far as Roger Davis goes, I don't know how many threads I've seen over the last few months (alot) specifically about him - not just his characters - HIM.  So, I wonder, well...how does anyone know someone close to him, or a family member doesn't see this board occasionally?  Apparently he married a fan, so it's conceivable his wife could read this board.  Not likely, but possible nonetheless.  No?  I mean, if I were his wife, I would find a great many things said about him on here, quite hurtful.  I know it could be said, "well, even a couple of actresses from the show have made disparaging comments about him in public, so it's all right".  But does that make it all right then?  See?  I'm confused.

Please don't get me wrong.  I'm not making a statement about this AT ALL.  I know a lot of people have fun with the Roger Davis bashing - it's a popular pastime on here - LOL, and it certainly doesn't bother ME in the least, but I can't quite reconcile in my head (a confusing place to be lol), the guidelines and Davis' seeming exclusion from them.  I guess I'm wondering if I'm totally missing something or my interpretation of things is off.  For example:  There's a popular actress from the show whose acting I think is quite poor.  I don't think I would ever post that opinion though, because it doesn't seem appropriate and it might fall under a guideline.  Would it??
I dunno....what's YOUR take on all this?  Am I being too confusing here?

-CLC      

[Luciaphile]

How come there are a couple of DS people who seem to be exempt from the board guidelines regarding personal attacks?  It's like, it's not considered appropriate to post something that could be hurtful to someone, but it's allowed if it's something about Roger Davis??  You know what I mean?  LOL.  

Yes, I do but I think there's a distinction to be made between critiquing his performance and critiquing his personal life. Most of what I've seen on the boards has to do with his acting--be it his delivery (shouts his lines), his physical gestures (touches his hair) or the way he interacts with his co-stars on the screen (fondles the actress playing his sister). That's all fair game as far as I'm concerned. If he or any other actor didn't want that kind of notice and attention, then he should never have become an actor.

I've also noticed that Dan Curtis seems to be pretty fair game occasionally, and then there was Betsy Durkin a little while ago.  But as far as Roger Davis goes, I don't know how many threads I've seen over the last few months (alot) specifically about him - not just his characters - HIM.  So, I wonder, well...how does anyone know someone close to him, or a family member doesn't see this board occasionally?

We don't. I don't know how many of you here are familiar with Television Without Pity (Josette and Scout75 a few others are 'cause I've seen you there ) but they are merciless and it's public knowledge that producers and performers have read their recaps and their forums. What we do here is really pretty gentle and IMHO, well within the bounds of decency.

I see what you're saying and I understand it, but again, I don't think we're attacking these people on a personal level. I mean, let's say that I don't like the acting of Joan Bennett. That doesn't mean I am making a judgment on her personally or on her family or on her life. It just means I don't like her acting.

I think what we have to realize (or we'll all go mad ) is that performers or people close to a performer have already or have to develop some kind of a second skin to ignore this stuff.
off.  

Luciaphil
(TwoP addict and unofficial critic )

[Mark Rainey]

A performer who willingly steps into the spotlight but can't take a little bashing now and then is in the wrong profession (not that this necessarily applies to Roger). Poking fun at someone isn't the same thing as a personal attack, especially when you consider how benign the stuff that goes on in here is -- unlike so many unmoderated groups. So yes, it's possible someone on the star end of the spectrum might see the posts, and in fact, anytime you post something about anyone in any forum, you should pretty much take it for granted the person in question is going to see it. (Unless they're dead. But some of them may be watching too.) By the nature of the business, people in the public eye have to take the knocks (which are oftentimes nasty) or their own longevity is seriously compromised. I think in most cases, stars couldn't give a rat's ass what kind of exchanges go on in a fan forum.

One of my recent stories got utterly trashed in a fairly big-name publication. I disagree vehemently with the reviewer's point of view; but he said nothing about me personally, which is as it should be, and I respect his right to dislike my story. He could've said something like "Rainey can't write his way out of a paper bag," and that would be personally insulting but -- hey -- I put my story out there for people to read, and they're certainly free to express their opinions.

If the reviewer had said "Rainey's story clearly indicates he is a pedophile with sadomasochistic tendencies," then we'd be stepping beyond the bounds of reasonable review. I think our guidelines clearly differentiate something like the latter example from the kind of Davis/Durkin/Powell-type bashing that goes on here as a rule.

--Mark[/b][/color]

[dom]

Hi Dom... This question has been on my mind for awhile.  I keep dismissing it and telling myself to mind my own business, but it's popped into my head again after reading your previous post.  How come there are a couple of DS people who seem to be exempt from the board guidelines regarding personal attacks?  It's like, it's not considered appropriate to post something that could be hurtful to someone, but it's allowed if it's something about Roger Davis??  You know what I mean?  LOL.   I've also noticed that Dan Curtis seems to be pretty fair game occasionally, and then there was Betsy Durkin a little while ago.  But as far as Roger Davis goes, I don't know how many threads I've seen over the last few months (alot) specifically about him - not just his characters - HIM.  So, I wonder, well...how does anyone know someone close to him, or a family member doesn't see this board occasionally?  Apparently he married a fan, so it's conceivable his wife could read this board.  Not likely, but possible nonetheless.  No?  I mean, if I were his wife, I would find a great many things said about him on here, quite hurtful.  I know it could be said, "well, even a couple of actresses from the show have made disparaging comments about him in public, so it's all right".  But does that make it all right then?  See?  I'm confused.

Please don't get me wrong.  I'm not making a statement about this AT ALL.  I know a lot of people have fun with the Roger Davis bashing - it's a popular pastime on here - LOL, and it certainly doesn't bother ME in the least, but I can't quite reconcile in my head (a confusing place to be lol), the guidelines and Davis' seeming exclusion from them.  I guess I'm wondering if I'm totally missing something or my interpretation of things is off.  For example:  There's a popular actress from the show whose acting I think is quite poor.  I don't think I would ever post that opinion though, because it doesn't seem appropriate and it might fall under a guideline.  Would it??
I dunno....what's YOUR take on all this?  Am I being too confusing here? -CLC

Hi Connie,

Eloquence isn't my strong point so please bear with me. I am going to take for granted that what you wrote is what you meant and respond accordingly. I've been active on the forum just a few weeks and have started paying strict attention to each and every post as a "moderator in training," if you will, for less than two weeks so I am bringing to the table little knowledge of what has transpired here before my arrival concerning issues about personal attacks on Roger Davis. I may have to defer to Midnite to answer your concerns regarding that issue specifically. I don't recall seeing any such posts.

The bulk of the forum guidelines (which I've read at least six times since I read your post above, LOL.) IMHO are there to protect us from each other. Guidelines directed toward the Dark Shadows cast and crew are as follows:

7. These boards are not forums for the spreading of gossip or innuendo, or the slandering of the DS actors' private lives. Comment on their public behavior, whether it be a personal appearance or in the course of some other form of public exposure (i.e. a talk show, Fest appearance, etc.) is perfectly acceptable, however.

What I recall being posted negatively of Roger Davis, Betsy Durkin, and Dan Curtis were attacks of their character portrayals, and in Curtis' case his being a spendthrift and on the choices he made concerning the shows development, etc. Such statements fall well within the forum's guidelines. When an actor performs a role it is considered a public presentation and therefore open to scrutiny and debate. And Curtis' reputation as a spendthrift is well documented in DS books and videos and can be directly attributed to his own words. When many people are of the same negative opinion it takes on the appearance of being hurtful and vicious. But they do not qualify as such under the forum guidelines.

And Connie, you certainly have the right to judge an actors ability and post your opinions. It is the intent of a post that one needs to be concerned with when trying to stay within the guidelines of the forum. And of course the way it is stated is in direct proportion to the way it is received. Many forum members choose not to post negatively, but that is a choice we all make within ourselves.

How did I do? LOL. I hope I helped you to sort this out somewhat.
dom

[Nancy]

This question has been on my mind for awhile.  I keep dismissing it and telling myself to mind my own business, but it's popped into my head again after reading your previous post.  How come there are a couple of DS people who seem to be exempt from the board guidelines regarding personal attacks?  It's like, it's not considered appropriate to post something that could be hurtful to someone, but it's allowed if it's something about Roger Davis??

In the case of Roger Davis, he gets up at conventions and says some pretty unkind things about his colleagues' abilities so I doubt very much he would be bothered by people doing the same.  However, I did see a thread here once, but I think it was removed, that implied Roger Davis engaged in sexual harrassment and that was, in my opinion, a personal attack.  There is no way anyone here would know that to be the case one way or the other and if the cast members working with him really did have a problem with I doubt they would sit on the stage with him at conventions and openly make fun of him.  There isn't any rancor with the DS ladies regarding Davis: they give him as good as they get.  

I know that there are DS actors and other personnel and those who know them who read the boards.  I agree with Mark that I doubt any of them really much care what goes on a fan board.  They might peruse it to see what general feelings are about some things and maybe that will help them make a decision, who knows?

However, the differences that Luciaphil and Mark draw between criticizing someone's abilities and their personal life is a distinction that the moderators of this board chooses to distinguish. I am one of the very few people who believes that just because someone is an actor they do not automatically lose the fundamental right to privacy and respect.

Since Dan Curtis is a producer, his vision, attitudes towards DS and his owrk,  and other views are fair game for discussion,IMO.  That's what he does for a living.  However, if the discussion turned into speculation about how he might treat his wife or IF he uses his business to front a mafia operation - then you have crossed the line and are making personal attacks.

If you think one of the more popular actresses on the show is poor, it's fair to say so because you are commenting on her ability (or lack of it) in your opinion.   It's not a smear on her as a person.  As you can see from the posts here and elsewhere, no two people can look at the same actor, scene or TV show and see the same thing.  The same actor can be called "brilliant" by one poster and "Lousy" by another.

Nancy
(who has probably only added to Connie's confusion)