Re: Mad Men "Three Sundays" (S2XE4) spoilers
- From: "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 10:42:04 -0500
Hunter <buffhunter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
ahk@xxxxxxxxxx says...
Hunter <buffhunter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
ahk@xxxxxxxxxx says...
Hunter <buffhunter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Spoiler space..
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
How sneaky was the Peggy's sister was to reveal to the Father what Peggy
had done regarding having a son out of wedlock?
Why didn't Father say something? That was gossip, not confession. I'm
not a Catholic, but I always assumed one was supposed to confess one's
own sins, not someone else's.
True, but perhaps a voicing of why she committed those sins is worthy
of being explored. However, her ulterior motive was to sabotage Peggy I
believe for both good and bad reasons. The good one is probably to head
off a improper relationship between the priest and her sister.
I didn't read that much into it, beyond jealousy that Peggy gets
attention that the sister does not. I also think the sister was merely
name calling when she claimed Peggy tempted a married man. She did tempt
Pete, of course, but it was unconsciously. Peggy is no Jezebel.
Campbell showed up on her doorstep either just before or just after he
was married (I
forgot which) and she knew that he was about to become or just was
married. She still
invited him in and she had sex with him. It was a mutual "temptation".
In any case,
she knew full well that Campbell was in a committed relationship.
For the 12th time, could you PLEASE change your font? Select a fixed font.
Every line you send gets broken. Your messages are difficult to read.
They had sex before Pete married. My question was if it was the one time
or if there were a few more instances.
We judge them by their actions and inactions. If [Don] had either hit
[Betty] with a slap or a close fist we, I would had one more reaction to
that, just like how he grabbed the private parts of the comedian's agent
[Bobbie Barrett] at the "make up dinner" were the caustic comedian had
to apologize-making jokes as a set up-to the Utz couple the week prior
(incidentally Utz Potato Chips seems to haven't changed the graphics
on their potato chip bags in at least 46 years years).
[Bobbie] thought she had Don by the balls, almost literally. Don reacted
in kind. However I thought less of Don this week for accepting the
proferred blow job. She's too high maintenance to have an affair with.
I think that is the type of women he goes for. Despite what he says
about them, he
wants assertive women, hence his affair with the Department store
Heiress. He is
attracted to them and wants to dominate them at the same time.
Good heavens. The department store heiress was intelligent and actually
trying to make good business decisions against decades of intransigence
at her family's company. The store would have failed five years earlier
if she hadn't taken over from her father. She was a fascinating woman.
Bobbie is really sleazy, at best, trying to use sex to manipulate men.
The blow job scene merely demonstrates that, at times, Don's mind is in
the gutter with the rest of us.
I would think that even in the early 1960's was beyond the pale even
with the assumptions of "male possession" of females.
What planet do you live on? That's how men behave with their women.
Always have, always will.
That's not about possessing women (as the
corrupt psychiatrist thing was last season). That's about Don accepting
a certain amount of grief from a woman. She pushes up to Don's limit,
who then pushes back in kind.
By violating her sexually? Sorry I don't see that, not so overt to the point of
physical violation. I am not arguing that it wasn't or isn't done but it
is still
wrong.
She violated his. She offered Don sex in exchange for a business deal
that was against his client's interests and his advertising firm's
reputation. The scene was about Don forcefully demonstrating to her that
he wouldn't prostitute himself.
But this week, Don certainly did that and we'll see the consequences of
that indiscretion in a future episode.
I have never done that to a woman no matter how much I desired
her, no matter
how much I hated her, no matter how much she provoked me.
Um, have you ever made a very bad business decision as she attempted to
force upon Don because sex was offered? Has a woman ever tried to get
you to prostitute yourself like that?
I'm no Rhett Butler and selfish Scarlett O'Hara hasn't been teasing me
sexually for years, so, gosh, I cannot say for a fact that I wouldn't
have dragged her upstairs.
These are classic melodramatic scenes from romance movies and
literature, not exactly meant to be realistic. I also confess that I
don't look as good naked as the models they use for the covers of those
novels either.
I think you're taking this a bit too seriously.
That was a
violation and
just plain wrong no matter era it is. If she mentally antagonizes him
just walk away
either physically or keep her mentally at arms length. That would be the
gentlemently
thing to do and that is judging him within the context of his time.
Don is a gentleman?
That says something about Draper as does his does his restraint with
Betty and his distance from his son.
Definitely, but as you observe, he wasn't all that restrained with
either woman.
Relative restraint with his wife with the retalitory push,
Uh, no, you're ignorning what led up to that. While Betty was dead wrong,
both about her son and deciding to provoke Don at what she could see was
the worst possible moment, if we have to label one of them the aggressor
for the physical manifestation of the portion of the fight, it was Don. He
threatened to throw Betty out the window if she wouldn't shut up. Betty
made a retaliatory push. Don's push was, well, re-retaliatory. Betty
finally shut up.
a violation with the
comedian's agent and again I am judging him within the character's time period.
I think you have to see Bobbie as a stereotypical character, a plot
device. Now, she's a Jezebel. That makes the character's timeless.
Any news about a dedicated "Man Men" USENET group being formed?
Yet another spam trap Usenet doesn't need. We hardly talk about the show
enough in this newsgroup to split it off during the season. Please don't
suggest it.
Actually the groups I semi-regularly go to has very little spam,
Good, but that's a function of the anti-spam measures taken by your News
administrator, not the groups. "Spamtrap" generally refers to a group
expected to have negligible on-topic traffic, as this one would.
I am familiar tih the term and I am truely not familiar with the anti
spam efforts of
my News group administrator.
Heh. It's the type of thing you only become aware of when they don't
implement sufficient spam countermeasures.
The only overt one is for the site for a "nip slip" webpage (which
incidentally aren't accidents by the actress's part which most people
should know by now).
He's not a spammer. He's posting off-topic ads on Usenet. It's hard to
say it's not welcome since his ads usually start a thread along the
lines of, "That's 20 years old and we've all seen it. Don't you even get
anything new?"
Assuming your not kidding it is still spam. Whether you are or not
kidding I don't
mind it either. :-)
I don't mind it too much and old nudity is still nudity. But spam has a
specific definition that has to do with quantity and repetition. This
advertiser doesn't approach the thresholds.
With a dedicated USENET group we have some place to go to specifically
without having to sort through other post not concerning "Mad Men".
"We" don't want to move the discussion, of which there's very little, to a
group that's sure to do badly. As I am one of the people on Usenet who
enjoys discussing this topic, I'd sure appreciate it if you would take my
wishes into account that this will not improve discussion, that I don't
want current discussion disrupted.
How are you sure it will go badly?
alt groups started for little-discussed topics on Usenet always fail.
There really aren't any exceptions. There's a bigger audience for this
low-volume topic here in rec.arts.tv than there would be in a separate
newsgroup that will be created on very few servers.
Ae I pointed out there are some low
traffic groups
with surprisingly little spam and how would having a proposed
alt.tv.mad-men group be
disruptive?
If some of the messages are posted in that proposed group and others are
posted in r.a.t, there will be less total discussion because it's
divided among two groups, so users will stop interacting with each
other.
Again, you have got to recognize just how little discussion there is of
"Mad Men", even during a period in which there are new episodes. There
was absolutely no discussion between seasons. Sometimes it's a really
bad idea for tv shows to have a dedicated newsgroup.
Learn how to use your newsreader to search a newsgroup by Subject. One
thing about this newsgroup, regulars are very good about naming the
series, sometimes the episode, in the Subject.
I know how to search through subject very much, I just don't feel that I
should.
That's one of the worst rationales for starting a newsgroup. It's only
worth doing if it would improve discussion, not the case here.
There are dedicated groups for a reason. I presume your news group
administrator
don't have anti spam defences?
Spam is an irrelevant issue. I'm talking about that the audience on
Usenet is far too small to make this newsgroup a success.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Mad Men "Three Sundays" (S2XE4) spoilers
- From: Hunter
- Re: Mad Men "Three Sundays" (S2XE4) spoilers
- From: Hunter
- Re: Mad Men "Three Sundays" (S2XE4) spoilers
- From: Adam H. Kerman
- Mad Men "Three Sundays" (S2XE4) spoilers
- Prev by Date: Re: Obama/Biden vs McCain/Romney
- Next by Date: Re: Joe Biden put-through the "anti-bankruptcy" bill.
- Previous by thread: Re: Mad Men "Three Sundays" (S2XE4) spoilers
- Next by thread: Re: Mad Men "Three Sundays" (S2XE4) spoilers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
