Subject: Re: Replies and thoughts
From: goomcb32@vulcan.anu.edu.au (Miles Goodhew)
Date: 1991-09-26, 09:50
Newsgroups: alt.tv.twin-peaks

I vaguely remember article <1991Sep26.122820.9853@cc.curtin.edu.au>, where you
said something like:
> >
> >   Sorry if I sounded flamey in my criticism of the Diane...it is now 1.17pm
> >articles, but there have been some articles posted in code(eg in rec.humour) -
> >and this gets a bit annoying at times.  I have had mail from people all over
> >the planet and beyond explaining about the sound files and there may be a way
> >for me to use them so thanks.

I don't know if you know this, but the code (usually) used to garble these
(potentially offensive) articles is called ROT-13. It ROTates the letters of the
alphabet by 13, so two applications of rot13 will give you the original message.
Most news readers allow you to view messages using a rot13 filter (i.e. nn and
rn, the two readers I've ever used). With nn, I think you press "d", and with
rn it's "^X" (Control-X).

If this is old-hat to you, then please don't abuse me for insulting your
intelligence, I'm only trying to help.

> >    As for those people who decided to flame back - remember that everyone has
> >to start somewhere and as I admitted - I really don't know that much about the
> >systems at all.  So please contain the flames as alt.tv.twin peaks is too good
> >a newsgroup to be spoiled by such things.

Yeah, I feel that most of the Netdwellers are far too eager to fire-up the
flamethrower.

> >    Some people out there have been hastling the second series quite a bit.  I
> >think this was a pretty popular thing to do at the time, but I don't think it
> >is justified at all.  The way I see it, the first series was a lot more
> >constructed in terms of plot while in the second series David let himself go a
> >bit more into the creative side.  I must agree though that the first and second
> >series should definately be separated.  I think the reason people first hastled
> >the second series is because they had just come off from the "high" of the
> >first series ending only to begin again it seemed in the second series.  Just
> >an opinion though...

There were three (I thought 4 at first) series of TP, I think you mean:
"just come off from the "high" of the second series ending only to begin again
it seemed in the third".
No?

> >    Is it definate about the 3rd series?  I think I had read that somewhere.  I
> >would love it if someone would confirm this.  I also think it's about time TV
> >stations stopped worrying about ratings ALL the time and started worrying more
> >about the quality of TV in general.  If this were so, then TP would still be
> >running and probably would continue so for a long time.

*QUITE* definite, as in been and gone. As for a fourth (if indeed there are
already three), I don't think anybody's got the ball rolling, but I think it's
more likely that there would be another series NOW, than it was likely at the
END of the last series.

Somebody mentioned that David Bowie was given a "walk-on" part in the current
movie, so that he hould have a much-fuller role in the SECOND movie. I'm still
being pessimitic about the existance of any plans for a second movie, but if it
were to eventuate, it couldn't be squeezed between the first movie, and the
first series. So this leaves two possibilities (from my point of view):

1) the Theresa Banks murder ("Somewhere in the south-west of the state" ??)
 - before the first movie. not too likely, I don't think.
2) Continuation of the series'.
 - after the third series. the best bet, IMHO.

MHG.


-- /--------------------------+------------------------------------------\ | goomcb34@boris.anu.oz.au | FROM std IMPORT witty_comment; | +--------------------------+------------------------------------------+