Originally posted by Midnite on the Dark Shadows: General Discussion Forum on February 04, 2002 at 22:10:10:

Gerard,

Did you know that on the same day you made this post, Jeopardy had category called "The 70s" in which they wanted the name of the movie with Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis that was remade in 1999 with Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn? Of course the answer, er, question was fresh in my mind thanks to you! If I were to ever appear on Jeopardy, I'd want you as my tutor.

Posted by Midnite on February 02, 2002 at 13:20:27:
In Reply to: Re: Spoiler warnings posted by RingoCollins on February 02, 2002 at 11:26:12:

[but i don't think most read my more obtuse stuff, anyway!]

The new board (we'll be there soon, I puhROMise!) will display the number of times a thread is read, so as for suspecting that people aren't reading your stuff, you may be pleasantly surprised to find it's not true, Ringo!

- and i mean that as a compliment, too!

Indeed-- a huge compliment!

One thing I should've mentioned (if I'd thought of it sooner, hee hee) that may make Wadjet and Latisha feel better is that tne new board will allow administrators to modify posts, and while we don't at all intend to make changes indiscriminately, it'll be very useful for inserting spoiler warnings.

It's probably annoying that I keep mentioning the new board instead of showing it to everybody, but because MB is customizing the program to meet our needs exactly, it's still being tweaked a bit. We also don't want to rush the move (thank you very much, VantageNet) so you'll find a test board in place for posters to practice getting used to the bells and whistles. But it's not hard to use, cuz if I can do it, anybody can. 

Posted by Midnite on February 02, 2002 at 10:01:26:
In Reply to: Donna Wick - u spoiled something for me posted by Wadjet on February 02, 2002 at 00:42:25:

Wadjet,

I'm sorry that a future plot turn was spoiled for you.

As Bob mentioned, SPOILER warnings are usually added as a courtesy to first time viewers and also anyone that may not remember an upcoming plot after not seeing the show in many years-- a category I fit into during the mid 90's. However, the warnings are not mandatory and are sometimes forgotten in the course of a discussion, as I'm sure was the case with Donna Wick's post, and I think it's particularly easy to make that mistake since the show is over 30 years old and has been presented in syndication several times. I'm not saying that the rest of us choose to not respect your wishes; we're all aware that newbies are coming here all the time and we welcome your input, as it can be very exciting to see the show again through a new viewer's eyes, and it often infuses old topics with fresh blood (pardon the pun) and helps insure the future of fandom.

I usually intervene when spoilers are accidentally given and in hindsight I probably should've done so when that post was first made, but I assumed that the title of the post would alert first time viewers. So if there's any blame to be handed out, I'm willing to assume the responsibility, and I apologize to you for my lack of foresight and am sure DW meant no harm.

Posted by Midnite on January 29, 2002 at 22:24:17:
In Reply to: New DS series??? posted by Linda on January 29, 2002 at 10:21:05:

The previous message was not written by the regular Linda.

• To the poster-- This author name is already in use. I'm glad you chose to join in our discussions but I must ask you to please post under a name that's available. The author name you used prior to posting this message is fine.
• For all posters-- The search feature on the board's main page can be very helpful in determining if a name has been taken, or you can email me if you have a question about the availability of user names or any other matter about the board. Thanks!

Posted by Midnite on January 27, 2002 at 19:14:28:
In Reply to: 'ello, 'ello!!!! posted by RingoCollins on January 27, 2002 at 18:02:35:

Well, like it or not, I'm back [somebody grab my email and let me know when ya move again, please!!]

Consider it done.

Actually, we WILL be moving soon to better digs (yay MB!), but I promise that it'll be a smooth transition.

It's great to see you again!

Posted by Midnite on January 26, 2002 at 17:17:12:
In Reply to: Re: Willie's Hospital Stay posted by Midnite on January 26, 2002 at 16:27:46:

I must be really old, because I remember the days when smoking in a patient's hospital room (even one with an oxygen tent) wasn't given a second thought.

I don't think anybody was careless enough to smoke around an oxygen tent, even then. Not twice, anyway. {Kaboom!}

MrsJ, I didn't mean to make it sound like I doubted your memory and I'm sorry if my response came off that way.

Posted by Midnite on January 26, 2002 at 16:27:46:
In Reply to: Re: Willie's Hospital Stay posted by MrsJ on January 26, 2002 at 15:58:43:

I must be really old, because I remember the days when smoking in a patient's hospital room (even one with an oxygen tent) wasn't given a second thought.

I don't think anybody was careless enough to smoke around an oxygen tent, even then. Not twice, anyway. {Kaboom!}

There's a scene in the movie "Wall Street" in which Martin Sheen's character lies in Intensive Care with an oxygen cannula in his nose, and his son (real and pretend) stands at his bedside with a lit cigarette. It's supposed to be touching but I think the smoking makes it ridiculous.

Isn't it odd that Woodard has completely dropped the theory that Maggie got her microscopic "unholy union" of blood cells from her attacker?