General TV trivia
- Thread starter unassuming
- Start date
Agreed. I thought you were trying to keep me engaged so I wouldn't be able to collect my stump points.
El Asso Wipo.
@downbound123 identified him the second time he appeared in a What's his name? question. That's like a blown save by a relief pitcher.
Secrets of Midland Heights.
One season, (1980-81), eight episodes, (+3 unaired).
Linda Hamilton's first series role after a single episode guest-starring role on Shirley and two TV movies in 1980.
Ursula.
She was George of the Jungle 's girlfriend.
Many people think she had a twin sister, based on the theme song and opening credits:
"...then away he'll schlep on his Elephant Shep while Fella and Ursula stay in step..."
but this is a fallacy. George called Ursula 'Fella'.
I think the opening credits and theme song may have been made for the series pitch, and some parts of the original concept were later changed.
Exactly the opposite. I thought it was generally unavailable, unless one patronizes Doug Miller Books on Bloor West. It's unlikely that you'd find it on the shelves at Indigo.
What I didn't care about was having a conversation with you while I'm collecting stump points.This is why I don't have a cell phone.
Last edited:
You're on a forum, bucko.
You posted it was banned.
I thought that sad and discovered it isn't.
You seem to really want it to be, though, so keep finding ways it is maybe kind of banned.
Doug Miller told me that the book was banned, which was why he bought the remaining warehouse stock.
What have I said, EVER, which would lead YOU to believe that I was personally in favor of ANY kind of censorship????
Take a pill.
I put that last part in purple, because I'm challenging YOU to answer it with a link to ANYTHING I've posted online, ANYWHERE.
"Bucko???"
Last edited:
Seven former main cast or featured players on Saturday Night Live were also part of the cast of The National Lampoon Radio Hour in 1973-74.
Name as many as you can.
Name as many as you can.
Name BOTH of the actors in this TV show production still, other than Mickey Rooney.
Answered correctly by unassuming.
Last edited:
Why would they make up something like that?
Such a weird thing to do to you.
Just the opposite.
You seemed to be looking for a reason to be mad that the "woke" people had banned something.
I don't know, Davey.
I'm genuinely flabbergasted that you would ask ME that question. One would assume that only Doug Miller himself would know his motivation, with any certainty whatsoever.
I can count on fingers the number of times I've heard a man ask a question like that to another man, and in all but one case the answer was "How the fuck should I know?'
Women, of course, ask each other questions like this multiple times daily, and they never say "How the fuck should I know?", unless both are 'street people'.
What's up, dude? 'Take a pill' is an expression, not a direction, or did you get the flu shot? Not every dose would pass quality control tests HERE.
What is 'a beauty pageant answer', Alex.
Show me the link. 'Seem' is a 'feel word'. Give us a link, any link at all, which supports your conclusion reached without evidence.
There is some possibility that Doug Miller meant that The Five Chinese Brothers was 'banned' from mainstream chains which sell only new books by what was once called a 'gentlemen's agreement', (and I have no idea what the weasel word for THAT would be now); he might not have actually used the word 'library'. That's a trivial difference to anyone who isn't a lawyer.
If you can find a store within an 80 kilometre radius of where you live which has even one copy of The Five Chinese Brothers in stock OR on order prior to your inquiry, the store or chain's web homepage will qualify as a link, but I'd need the address with that outlet, unless it's a .'mom and pop '. Amazon and any other online only services are excluded, as are digital copies. We're talking about real books, which can't be altered after they're published.
Neither the Left nor the Right has a monopoly on book banning; you know that. They just ban different kinds of books.
If you re-read your posts and mine re: The Five Chinese Brothers "without prejudice", and I mean that in the legal sense, ie: objectively, what did I say which lead you to 'feel' that I was mad?
Is it perhaps understandable that I might legitimately be mildly annoyed by off topic 'chat' while I'm working?
The only reason The Five Chinese Brothers was mentioned was because it was part of one of unassuming's questions on the same page as some of my unanswered questions from months ago. My motive was only to notify the readership of where this difficult-to-find book may be purchased in Toronto.
I was, to a small extent, shilling Doug Miller Books, but with no motive for personal gain. You don't even live in Toronto, so your motive to involve yourself in this may be called into question. Any suggestion that I WANTED the book to be banned is entirely a fabrication of your imagination, if you don't see it in MY WRITTEN WORDS.
If you can quote anything which I said on the subject which is inconsistent with my version of motive, then so do, but your interpretation of 'what you felt I meant' isn't evidence. That's called bias. Don't give me no bias.
