Season 2, Episodes 21–22: Miss Twin Peaks / Beyond Life and Death — June 10, 1991–August 27, 1992

In article <VRJB81w163w@zitt>, joe@zitt (Joe Zitt) writes:
> > lr1b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lisa M. Roraback) writes:
>> > > He was also sleeping with her up at One Eyed Jack's, now
>> > > Ben would have to be pretty sick to be sleeping with his own daughter.
> > 
> > How is it too obvious? If it's because Donna is Ben's daughter too...

I bet that's why.  He isn't "sick" -- it's just that in his earlier years,
Ben cut such a swath through town that now there's no one in town left to 
sleep with who ISN'T related to him.  :-)
-- cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company, OR cdt@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...

On 27-Aug-91 in Pie and Coffee for Everyone! 
user 2fowgodson@kuhub.cc.ukan writes:
> > 
> >WHY DID EVERYONE'S (EVERYONE LIVING IN TWIN PEAKS, THAT IS) HAND SHAKE
> >WHEN WINDAM EARL WAS ATTEMPTING TO ACCESS THE PETROGLYPH AT OWL CAVE?
> > 
> >AND WHAT EXACLY DID THE LOG LADY'S HUSBAND HAVE TO DO WITH THE BURNT
> >MOTOR OIL AND GLASTONBURY GROVE, OR DID I MISS THE POINT?
> > 
As far as I remember they never explained either of these things. Maybe
the hand tremors had something to do with the energy felt by accessing
the Lodges? 

--lisa

On 27-Aug-91 in Re: More on THE MOVIE...     
user Joe Zitt@zitt writes:
> >How is it too obvious? If it's because Donna is Ben's daughter too, I might
> >discount that, as the Donna plotthread spun up from out of nowhere in the
> >last few episodes. This leads me to think that that (like just about 
>> >>everything< that happened after Leland's death) was tossed in late in the
> >game; I would be extremely surprised if anyone back in the early planning
> >stages had a clue that Donna's parentage was in doubt.


Now this is only an opinion. Ben already had a weird infatuation with
Laura, I think that Lynch would want something that would catch everyone
by surprise. Ben was to close to Laura and the murder (he was at one
time a suspect). If Leland wasn't her father I think Lynch would chose
someone we wouldn't already suspect. It's just a thought. Maybe we will
know more when the movie comes out.

lisa

In article <VRJB81w163w@zitt> joe@zitt (Joe Zitt) writes:
   lr1b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Lisa M. Roraback) writes:

   > told Audrey. He was also sleeping with her up at One Eyed Jack's, now
   > Ben would have to be pretty sick to be sleeping with his own daughter. I
   > still think its possible that Leland wasn't Laura's father, but I don't
   > think it would be Ben, its to obvious.

   How is it too obvious? If it's because Donna is Ben's daughter too, I might
   discount that, as the Donna plotthread spun up from out of nowhere in the
   last few episodes. This leads me to think that that (like just about 
   >everything< that happened after Leland's death) was tossed in late in the
   game; I would be extremely surprised if anyone back in the early planning
   stages had a clue that Donna's parentage was in doubt.

Well, there is that curious scene back in 1001 (not sure of the
episode; not too much later than this) in which Donna visits Mrs.
Palmer to comfort her and Sarah sees Laura's face descend over
Donna's.  Could be an indication that there's a closer relation of
Laura and Donna than just best friends.

-30-
Bob

Some of you have expressed an extreme dislike for the possibility that Laura 
Palmer's father molested and then killed her.  But I must remind you that we 
are dealing with an individual (David Lynch) such that if TV was not as 
conservative as it is he probably would have done many other strange,
grotesque, if not unsettling things.  Have you seen wild at heart?  What about
Blue Velvet.  The only reason Lynch did not do more is that the Censors would
not have  allowed it.  This is one reason I am looking forward to a Movie about
TP because it will not be as restricted as the series was.


But then this is just my opinion and I as a liberal humanist
am obligated to honor everyone elses.  And I do.  


BOB!  BOB-OH!  BOBAAAY!  BOBARAMMAVITCH!   THE BOB MAN!


SINCERELY, 2FOWGODSON@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU

furesz_t@wums2.wustl.edu writes:

> > As others have mentioned recently, I do think we should look at the
> > possibility that Ben killed Laura.  The line as others have pointed
> > out that Coop heard in his dream is "My father killed me."  Not
> > Leland or Leland Palmer killed me but my father.  In the land
> > of Peaks one should never assume that LEland is LAura's father.  I
> > believe the secret bio hints at the fact that Ben is Laura's father.
> > Remember the line about someday I am gonna tell the world about 
> > Ben.  Most jump to the conclusion that LP and Ben were lovers but
> > what about the chance that he was her father (also add into the mix that
> > he probably fathered Donna).  What do others think?

Well, "I'm going to tell the world about Benjamin" was, I believe, 
referring to his ownership of One Eyed Jacks. Ben admitted that he was 
sleeping with her, and he doesn't seem to be the type for incest.

**************************************************************************
"I especially hate guidance counselors.                       Demosthenes
If they knew ANYTHING about career moves,              18004 146th Ave NE 
Would they have ended up as guidance                Woodinville, WA 98072 
counselors?"                                                (206)487-1312 
   - Happy Harry Hard-On, PUMP UP THE VOLUME        Compulsive Polemicist
                                       (with apologies to Bruce Sterling) 
UUCP: hikaru@halcyon.uucp  Internet: halcyon!hikaru@seattleu.edu  
Alternate: hikaru@halcyon.wa.com  or: hikaru%halcyon.uucp@seattleu.edu

I have been hearing rumors from many sources that there will be movies.  
And from other sources there will be no movies.  I am just glad to see 
that a full uncut version of the pilot movies is being released, 
including the murder of Laura Palmer, which should be quite interesting 
to see after we have all imagined it a zillion different ways.  

leem@admiral.uucp (Lee Murawski) <uunet!areyes!admiral!leem>
The Grid/Magpie and /Waffle BBS
(HST/V32) 203-661-1279 (PEP/V32) -2873 (V32) -0450 (V29/MNP6) -2967
Multiplayer Games, Multicolor Chat, Multibbses, Multifun!

> >In article <1991Aug22.220620.3157@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> clc5_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Booo Yaaaa!) writes:
>> >>Did anyone see the article in entertainment weekly 2 weeks ago, the one
>> >>before the cover with Bonnie Rait, that quoted Bob Iger as saying that
>> >>DL's new sit-com "On the Air" about the early days of television would be
>> >>used as a mid season replacement for ABC? I saw this and waited and was
>> >>surprised nobody else posted about it.

Miguel Ferrer (Albert Rosenfield--the Don Rickles of forensic science) will
be starring in 'On The Air'.

ferenc

Yup. You missed a lot of good stuff.  You shoulda seen the traffic on
this group after the last episode.  To coin a phrase, "Whoa!"
Things have settled down quite a bit since then, of course, what
with many people home from college for the summer, and vacations and
all.  We're all eagerly waiting for the movie to fire us up (if you'll
pardon the metaphor).

As I recall our discussions about your questions, the shaking hands
represented a foreshadowing of the Bobmeister, and the log lady's oil
was used by Coop to confirm his suspicion that when he found some 
burnt engine oil in Glastonbury grove, he would find the entrance to
the Lodge that he sought.

Brian WOOD    *House address 710 -- same as Blue Lady's apt in Blue Velvet
              *Just got through studying major religious works like Ben Horne
              *Live next to a grove of TREES
              *My wife's aunt's name is Annie; my sister's name is Anne
              *My wife grew up next to a forest; next street - Glastonbury

I don't know how many of you have checked out the present
type of television the major networks are coming out with
these days.  (no names of shows, lest I offend)

It just seems to me that they are variations on a theme.
More of the pie-in-the-face Lucille Ball humor.  Understand
that I have nothing wrong with Lucille Ball or that type of
humor, but since they removed the really interesting shows
(30-something, Twin Peaks, etc.)  the trend has been toward
making shows of less intellectually captivating genre.

What does this say about the television audience, that we
as television consumers can't handle cerebral humor or 
intricate plotlines.  

I don't know about the rest of you, but it hurts me that
the basis for a show's greatness is the Neilson families, 
and the decisions based on them.

As far as advertising, it seems to me that the majority
of people who watched TP were upper middle class (based 
on TV guides estimates), so what is the problem?



*******Goodnight, Officer Lawnmower!!********
-Hollywood Knights_

Godson

In article <1991Aug28.054403.7162@risky.ecs.umass.edu> giovin@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo) writes:
> >Did anyone see the recent Ron Reagan talk show featuring 
> >Bob Iger of ABC, Steven Bocchco, Diane English and some other
> >tv people?  Apparently, there are only 4000 Nielson households in the
> >country (USA)!  I thought it was 1/1000 households but its only 1/23000 !!!
> >Holy Cow!  (The guests admitted that this representation was extremely
> >low but didn't seem to really care much -- except maybe Diane English,
> >creator of Murphy Brown).  
> >
Statistically speaking, such a small sample is really not much of a
problem.  You'd be surprised how little the accuracy would be improved
by adding lots of homes.  The problem with the ratings is more how the
homes are selected, how Neilsen measures whos watching what program, and
the absence of any measuring of non-traditional places where tv is watched.
(Bars, College Dorms, etc.)

In article <1991Aug28.131005.33038@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> 2fowgodson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:

> >It just seems to me that [new tv shows] are variations on a theme.
> >More of the pie-in-the-face Lucille Ball humor.  Understand
> >that I have nothing wrong with Lucille Ball or that type of
> >humor, but since they removed the really interesting shows
> >(30-something, Twin Peaks, etc.)  the trend has been toward
> >making shows of less intellectually captivating genre.

> >I don't know about the rest of you, but it hurts me that
> >the basis for a show's greatness is the Neilson families, 
> >and the decisions based on them.

It's even worse than you mention.  A large number of the fall programs
are "real TV" programs similar to Cops and Emergency 911 which involve a
minimal (if any) amount of creativity since they are usually just
narrated news-like stories.

> >As far as advertising, it seems to me that the majority
> >of people who watched TP were upper middle class (based 
> >on TV guides estimates), so what is the problem?

The problem is that 4000 "households" are being used to 
represent the opinions of 92,000,000 households-- which is
being used to represent 200,000,000 viewers (so says Bob Iger).
This means that all of those boxes together speak for
0.002% of the US TV viewers.  (Yet people get on my case when I 
say that the Nielson's are skewed and misrepresentative of the
population.)

Rocky Giovinazzo

In article <1991Aug28.054403.7162@risky.ecs.umass.edu> giovin@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo) writes:
> >Did anyone see the recent Ron Reagan talk show featuring 
> >Bob Iger of ABC, Steven Bocchco, Diane English and some other
> >tv people?  Apparently, there are only 4000 Nielson households in the
> >country (USA)!  I thought it was 1/1000 households but its only 1/23000 !!!
> >Holy Cow!  (The guests admitted that this representation was extremely
> >low but didn't seem to really care much -- except maybe Diane English,
> >creator of Murphy Brown).  

I didn't see the show, but I do know that it can be shown 
mathematically that a seemingly small sample if chosen scientifically (i.e.
represents the whole well) can very accurately represent the whole group.

That is, a tiny proportion can give results closely approximating
the results that would be gotten if everyone was sampled.

I'm not saying that the Nielsen families ARE a statistically valid
sample.. they probably aren't. But simply saying it's 1/23000-th of the 
population doesn't necessarily mean it's going to give incorrect results.

Someone else can probably give out a more thorough explanation.
-- /I'm just a summer contractor. Don't take any of my personal ramblings as \ |official Apple ramblings. unknown@cats.ucsc.edu Apple IIGS Forever!| |Matt_Ackeret@gateway.qm.apple.com unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu unknown@apple.com | \To get ULTIMA VI GS or ARMOR ALLEY GS written-mail me. CHEAP CD info-mail me./

In article <1991Aug28.201327.4230@risky.ecs.umass.edu> giovin@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo) writes:
> >It's even worse than you mention.  A large number of the fall programs
> >are "real TV" programs similar to Cops and Emergency 911 which involve a
> >minimal (if any) amount of creativity since they are usually just
> >narrated news-like stories.

Because they're DIRT CHEAP.  You can accept a lower rating for such
a show than a show that costs more.

> >The problem is that 4000 "households" are being used to 
> >represent the opinions of 92,000,000 households-- which is
> >being used to represent 200,000,000 viewers (so says Bob Iger).
> >This means that all of those boxes together speak for
> >0.002% of the US TV viewers.  (Yet people get on my case when I 
> >say that the Nielson's are skewed and misrepresentative of the
> >population.)

That's the point of STATISTICS and PROBABILITY.  

Mere numbers don't skew the Nielsens. Anybody who trots out that
old chestnut just shows that they don't know what they're talking about.
What skews it are the assumptions behind the stratified sampling.





-- Roger Tang, gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu; Uncle Bonsai Memorial Fan Club "Originally, I got into theatre to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I found were women."

In article <56693@apple.Apple.COM>, unknown@Apple.COM (Matt Ackeret) writes:

|> I'm not saying that the Nielsen families ARE a statistically valid
|> sample.. they probably aren't.

I don't want to get in to the position of defending A.C. Nielsen, but
for what reason do you blithely assume that the Nielsen families
"probably aren't" a statistically valid sample?  Do you have any idea
at all what method the company uses to select those homes?

William LeFebvre
Computing Facilities Manager and Analyst
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Northwestern University
<phil@eecs.nwu.edu>

In article <1991Aug28.131005.33038@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, 2fowgodson@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
> > What does this say about the television audience, that we
> > as television consumers can't handle cerebral humor or 
> > intricate plotlines.  

Maybe it says that the people who are most responsive (susceptible?) to 
advertising are people who thrive on pie-in-the-face humor.  Well, maybe 
that doesn't explain Neilsen numbers.  How about this:  in my house, at 
least, the bulk of the TV time gets logged by my 11-year-old.  Like 95% 
of it.  Maybe that's the case in Neilsen households, too.  We'll know for
sure as soon as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Superboy go prime-time.
-- cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company, OR cdt@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...

halcyon!hikaru@seattleu.edu writes:

> > Well, "I'm going to tell the world about Benjamin" was, I believe, 
> > referring to his ownership of One Eyed Jacks. Ben admitted that he was 
> > sleeping with her, and he doesn't seem to be the type for incest.

And what, pray tell, does "the type for incest" look like?

It is happening again.      It is happening again.      It is happening again.
Joe Zitt ...cs.utexas.edu!kvue!zitt!joe (512)450-1916

In article <1991Aug28.222140.18463@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
> >In article <56693@apple.Apple.COM>, unknown@Apple.COM (Matt Ackeret) writes:
> >
> >|> I'm not saying that the Nielsen families ARE a statistically valid
> >|> sample.. they probably aren't.
> >
> >I don't want to get in to the position of defending A.C. Nielsen, but
> >for what reason do you blithely assume that the Nielsen families
> >"probably aren't" a statistically valid sample?  Do you have any idea
> >at all what method the company uses to select those homes?
> >

The problem with the Nielson sample is probably not the size, but
that the sample is not changed rapidly enough...to have statistical
relevant information, you cannot sample the same miniscule subset
of the population over and over...considering the size of the
population, to be sampling properly, one would expect essentially
zero overlap between the subsequent samples. 


The other problem is whether the sample they choose is really
representative of the TV audience, or only particular segments
of the viewing audience.

Gerald

In article <1991Aug25.011450.28601@risky.ecs.umass.edu> giovin@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo) writes:
> >My old Chemistry prof. had AB- (I think) and told me that less
> >than 5% of the population has this type.  According to the Access
> >Guide, of the 5120.1 people in Twin Peaks (whatever that means), you
> >could maybe presume that less than 256 people have this type-- and we

Seems to me a lot of kinky stuff was going on.  If many townfolks are
related (not implausible) the incidence of AB- might be much, much
higher than 5%.  By the way, 256 = 2**8 if that sheds any light for you!?

In article <56693@apple.Apple.COM> unknown@Apple.COM (Matt Ackeret) writes:
> >In article <1991Aug28.054403.7162@risky.ecs.umass.edu> giovin@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo) writes:
>> >>Did anyone see the recent Ron Reagan talk show featuring 
>> >>Bob Iger of ABC, Steven Bocchco, Diane English and some other
>> >>tv people?  Apparently, there are only 4000 Nielson households in the
>> >>country (USA)!  I thought it was 1/1000 households but its only 1/23000 !!!
>> >>Holy Cow!  (The guests admitted that this representation was extremely
>> >>low but didn't seem to really care much -- except maybe Diane English,
>> >>creator of Murphy Brown).  

> >I didn't see the show, but I do know that it can be shown 
> >mathematically that a seemingly small sample if chosen scientifically (i.e.
> >represents the whole well) can very accurately represent the whole group.
> >That is, a tiny proportion can give results closely approximating
> >the results that would be gotten if everyone was sampled.
> >I'm not saying that the Nielsen families ARE a statistically valid
> >sample.. they probably aren't. But simply saying it's 1/23000-th of the 
> >population doesn't necessarily mean it's going to give incorrect results.


I didn't mean to say that having only 1/23000 of the households in a sample
is too small to be accurate.  What I meant was that *given the
debatable possible problems* with the Nielson's ability to accurately choose
households, this small percentage makes it seem even less likely that the many 
viewing groups in such a diverse population are well represented.

Rocky Giovinazzo

Bob Iger:  "Boy, I'd sure love to see them [the Nielsons] eliminated."

I don't think the intent of any of our grumblings was to indict the 
system (flawed though it may or may not be). 

ooh, how was that for being spineless?

No, rather, we are a group (albiet a BIG 'ole group) of individuals
who may or may not have written to a Big 'ole company about a 
really interesting television program that they killed pretty much 
without a second glance.  

Not only that, they had the gall to say that the program just didn't
draw the numbers.  How they expected it to draw when they flip-flopped
it's time slot so much.  What show could stand up to that kind of 
punishment, especially such a specialized type of show.

I just hope that Lynch will try to revive this idea when its time
is right ( and I hope we are all alive when that happens).

After all, David Lynch is immortal, isn't he?

GODSON (no, I do not have a messianic complex)

In article <1381@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> barry@macadam.mqcs.mq.oz.au (Barry Sanders) writes:

> >Seems to me a lot of kinky stuff was going on.  If many townfolks are
> >related (not implausible) the incidence of AB- might be much, much
> >higher than 5%.  By the way, 256 = 2**8 if that sheds any light for you!?

That's right 256 = 2**8.  This of course indicates the 8 primary
dualities in Twin Peaks.  Maddy/Laura, Giant/LMFAP, Necklace Halves, 
2 diaries, 2 ledgers, White/Black Lodges, Twin Mountains, and 
Jade/Emerald. And of course since our computers work in binary on the most
basic level, we can infer that alt.tv.twin-peaks was ingrained into 
the script from the very beginning.

Rocky Giovinazzo

Regarding Leland vs. Ben as Laura's father and murderer:

* Yes, Laura did write in her diary that one day she would tell the world
about Ben Horne.  But that entry was right around the time she spent her
first and only weekend at One-Eyed Jack's.  We know that Ben liked to visit
all the "new girls", and Ben admitted sleeping with Laura to Audrey.
Undoubtedly, Laura learned from her time at OEJ that Ben was its owner,
and this, I believe, is what she was considering telling to the world.
The fact that Ben Horne was not the model citizen he purported to be is
supposed to be a shock to the locals, because they don't know about all
the evil scheming that we, as the audience of TP, have been privy to.
I surely would have liked to see the moment when Ben first discovered
that Laura was the new girl de joure!

* Yes, Ben did say he loved Laura.  But so did everyone in town.  This was
a very Lynchian, running thread throughout TP.  Everyone loved Laura, and
this was the first thing that came to the lips of almost everyone accused
of murdering her.  Bobby says it to Cooper in frustration over being
questioned and accused; Dr. Jacoby also says it to Cooper once he has
been revealed to have the half-heart charm; and Ben says it to Audrey when
she questions him about murdering Laura.  This doesn't really imply that he
was her father.  Other signs of his affection for Laura are given, but
don't require, IMHO, any interpretation other than further expressions of
his love for her.  Remember that Ben felt that he had lost Audrey years
ago... Laura may have seemed like the daughter he wished he had.

* As others have pointed out, Ben had Catherine as an alibi for the night
of Laura's death - this was a major story element, with Catherine using
her advantage in this to wrest ownership of the Packard Sawmill and the
Ghostwood Estates from Ben's hands while he was in jail, which led to
his mental breakdown.

* Also as others have pointed out, Leland's blood type was used to tie
him to the murder through the "Fire walk with me" note.  This was clearly
intended to show Leland as the murderer.  However, they did have a
continuity error, as Rocky (I think) was trying to remember.
Basically, if I remember correctly, an early show (2005?) told us that
Jacque Renaud's blood type was AB-.  Later (in 2008?), however, Cooper
remarks that the blood on the blood-stained rag found by Hawk and on
the "Fire walk with me" note were both AB-, and that this was a rare
blood type, and known *not* to be the type of Leo, Jacques, Laura, or
Ronette.  Oops!
 
* Finally... granted it's been a long time now since I read the Secret
Diary, so I can't quote specifics, but it seemed pretty clear that Leland
was implicated as the person molesting Laura.  I think Lynch wanted us to
have to face the horror of parental molestation of children.  And the
book brought out this particular aspect of Laura's troubles more directly
and forcefully than the TV series (possibly because it was too delicate
a subject to broach on network TV).

Ah well.  Everyone's entitled to their own opinions of course, but I think
that trying to make Ben into Laura's father and murderer is reading too
much into limited clues, and ignoring some pretty big clues to the
contrary.  Just my HO, though.
-- -larryy@apple.com "You wouldn't recognize a *subtle plan* if it painted itself purple, and danced naked upon a harpsichord, singing, 'Subtle Plans are Here Again'." - Edmund Blackadder

In article <2846@tekig7.MAP.TEK.COM>, stevenh@tekig1.PEN.TEK.COM (Steven C Herring) writes:
> > 
> > Just returned from Snoqualmie/North Bend and ...
> > 
> > The movie starts filming September 3 in Snoqualmie/North Bend, Washington.
> > It is a prequel and takes place seven days before the murder of Laura Palmer.
> > 
> > This information from the owner of the Alpine Blossom & Gift Shoppe in North
> > Bend, WA. As mentioned before, this shop is the best place in the area for
> > Twin Peaks merchandise.
[deletions]

Any idea how long they will be shooting? I would like to take a trip up there. Also, I would assume that they shoot everyday, weather permitting, including weekends because of the desire to get finished as quickly as possible, but if not, is there a day of the week that it is common to take off (e.g., live theaters and some restaurants are frequently closed on Mondays)?

-Rich Haller

In article <56731@apple.Apple.COM> larryy@Apple.COM (Larry Yaeger) writes:

   * Yes, Laura did write in her diary that one day she would tell the world
   about Ben Horne.  But that entry was right around the time she spent her
   first and only weekend at One-Eyed Jack's.  We know that Ben liked to visit
   all the "new girls", and Ben admitted sleeping with Laura to Audrey.
   Undoubtedly, Laura learned from her time at OEJ that Ben was its owner,
   and this, I believe, is what she was considering telling to the world.
   The fact that Ben Horne was not the model citizen he purported to be is
   supposed to be a shock to the locals, because they don't know about all
   the evil scheming that we, as the audience of TP, have been privy to.
   I surely would have liked to see the moment when Ben first discovered
   that Laura was the new girl de joure!

Speaking of which, is anybody else here annoyed that Ben wasn't
arrested?  Not for Laura's murder, but for the host of other crimes he
committed.  There's solicitation for prostitution (documented by
Laura's diary (maybe, if those pages survived) and by Audrey Horne's
experience; and also by Ronette, when she recovered).  Some of these
high school girls, at least, were minors, which adds another charge.
There's Ben's ownership of One-Eyed Jack's; if he did not report
income from it, there's a charge of income tax fraud.  (His ownership
by itself was presumably not illegal.)  There's also the obvious fact
that he stood to profit from the burning of the mill, which was known
to be a case of arson, which should have prompted investigation along
those lines.

A major problem I have with developments after Ben Horne was brought
in with regard to Laura's murder is that the testimony of Laura's
diary and of Audrey Horne that came to light as part of the murder
investigation also revealed many of Ben's shady dealings and pointed
to others.  Even though TP law enforcement would have had to drop the
murder charge, there were other things for them to charge him with,
just on the basis of the evidence they had, as well as clues that
should have led to further investigations.

-30-
Bob

``You make the rest of us look like primates.''

For those out there who still doubt that Ben is Laura's father ("My
Father Killed Me") how do you explain Troy?  Ben had Leland give
Troy to Laura for her birthday and made it look like it was a gift
from Leland.  Laura was a bit upset when she did find out where
Troy really came from.  Does that hint at all at a parents love for
a child that he/she can't be with?

Todd

|> The problem is that 4000 "households" are being used to 
|> represent the opinions of 92,000,000 households-- which is
|> being used to represent 200,000,000 viewers (so says Bob Iger).
|> This means that all of those boxes together speak for
|> 0.002% of the US TV viewers.  (Yet people get on my case when I 
|> say that the Nielson's are skewed and misrepresentative of the
|> population.)

I certainly don't disagree with you.  The Nielson ratings have destroyed
many a fine show (indirectly) and have most definately made mistakes.

As much as I'm not thrilled with the system, it does (unfortunately) work.
The Neilsons do a spot sample of peoples viewing habits.  Assuming the
number of 4,000 is accurate, yes that is an extremely small sample
number, but the rating system has also proven itself to be reasonably
accurate in guaging an overall viewer preference.  Good or not in the
end, this is what it's all about.

Also, when referring to a sample size of 4,000, it must be remembered
that the 4,000 households are not permanent Neilson-family households.
The sample base is constantly changing.  By the end of several months
we are talking about a much larger sample size than just 4,000.  Also,
since the stats appear to hold true for various samples, it tends to
further the claim that the ratings system _is_ accurate to an acceptable
degree.  It's not as representative as anyone would like, but it does
do a good job of it.

I don't like the system.  But we do live in a market system that will
strive to generate the biggest return on the investment.  If the formula
that works this year is to run a zillion "911" type shows, that's what
will happen until we, as a large mass of people, support the better
shows by watching them.  (Not that the networks haven't been known to
hose a show - by constantly moving its time slot for one example...)

-- Robert J. Granvin School of Statistics rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu University of Minnesota

I watched "All that Jazz", Bob Fosse's movie cum confession, and was
shocked to see that the *actress* (not the character) who played the
lead Fosse-figure's ex-wife was named "Leland Palmer".  What are the 
chances, eh? (Canadian content?)
I think this deserves to go on platt@csu.umanitoba.edu's list.
Comments?

Article 16546 of alt.tv.twin-peaks: barry@macadam.mqcs.mq.oz.au
(Barry Sanders) writes:
]In article <1991Aug25.011450.28601@risky.ecs.umass.edu> ]giovin@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo) writes:
]>       My old Chemistry prof. had AB- (I think) and told me that less
]>than 5% of the population has this type.  According to the Access
]>Guide, of the 5120.1 people in Twin Peaks (whatever that means), you
]>could maybe presume that less than 256 people have this type-- and we
]
]Seems to me a lot of kinky stuff was going on.  If many townfolks are
]related (not implausible) the incidence of AB- might be much, much
]higher than 5%.  By the way, 256 = 2**8 if that sheds any light for you!?

It always struck me that the whole town was slightly inbred, anyhow.

-Theron Trowbridge
trowbrid@usc.edu
AppleLink: D7029
^

In article <1991Aug28.222140.18463@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
> >In article <56693@apple.Apple.COM>, unknown@Apple.COM (Matt Ackeret) writes:
> >
> >|> I'm not saying that the Nielsen families ARE a statistically valid
> >|> sample.. they probably aren't.
> >
> >I don't want to get in to the position of defending A.C. Nielsen, but
> >for what reason do you blithely assume that the Nielsen families
> >"probably aren't" a statistically valid sample?  Do you have any idea
> >at all what method the company uses to select those homes?

Well, let's start with the pitifully small sample size, and then continue
on the the fact that , last time i heard, all the Nielsen Families were
mom, dad, and 2 kids (preferably a dog and a white picket fence as well).
That is a DEFINATE minority in this age of 50% divorce rates and people
staying single until well into thier 30's. 

 -=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
        Becki Tants    RETANTS@SUNRISE.BITNET RETANTS@RODAN.ACS.SYR.EDU   
And now, the NEW and IMPROVED UserID:  TANTS@DTPVX2.NCIFCRF.GOV
 The problem with society is that Stupidity is no longer a self-curing disease
 -=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-

In article <1991Aug29.181319.15006@rodan.acs.syr.edu> retants@rodan.acs.syr.edu writes:
!In article <1991Aug28.222140.18463@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
!!I don't want to get in to the position of defending A.C. Nielsen, but
!!for what reason do you blithely assume that the Nielsen families
!!"probably aren't" a statistically valid sample?  Do you have any idea
!!at all what method the company uses to select those homes?
!Well, let's start with the pitifully small sample size,

Let's not.  Sample size of 4,000 is perfectly adequate.  Folks who've
taken statistics know this.

 and then continue
!on the the fact that , last time i heard, all the Nielsen Families were
!mom, dad, and 2 kids (preferably a dog and a white picket fence as well).

I think you've heard wrong.




-- Roger Tang, gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu; Uncle Bonsai Memorial Fan Club "Originally, I got into theatre to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I found were women."

In article <1991Aug29.174139.11037@cs.umn.edu> rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin) writes:
> >Also, when referring to a sample size of 4,000, it must be remembered
> >that the 4,000 households are not permanent Neilson-family households.
> >The sample base is constantly changing.  By the end of several months
> >we are talking about a much larger sample size than just 4,000.  Also,
> >since the stats appear to hold true for various samples, it tends to
> >further the claim that the ratings system _is_ accurate to an acceptable
> >degree.  It's not as representative as anyone would like, but it does
> >do a good job of it.

What do they (Nielsen) mean by household? When I think of household,
I think of one or two parents with one or more kids, living in a single-family
home. There are certainly other large segments of the population that this
does not represent. I'd like to know how the Nielsen people choose the
demographics of its sample population, and if they are biased to any
particular portion of the population.

> >(Not that the networks haven't been known to
> >hose a show - by constantly moving its time slot for one example...)

Which show would this be? Also, I have noticed the tendency of the
networks to destroy shows by doing the following: the show does ok,
but isn't #1 so it isn't good enough, cancel the show, and bring back
reruns on Friday nights to see if they should continue. That the show
does even worse than on its original time slot is of course a self-fulfilling
prophecy, so the show gets permanently cancelled. I suspect that the
network execs do this to kill shows they don't like, but I cannot prove this.
-- James Buster bitbug@btr.com

In <1991Aug29.181319.15006@rodan.acs.syr.edu> retants@rodan.acs.syr.edu writes:

> >Well, let's start with the pitifully small sample size, and then continue
> >on the the fact that , last time i heard, all the Nielsen Families were
> >mom, dad, and 2 kids (preferably a dog and a white picket fence as well).
> >That is a DEFINATE minority in this age of 50% divorce rates and people
> >staying single until well into thier 30's. 

Nope.  My household was a Nielsen Family a little while ago.

They did ask us for some demographic information and we let them know 
that 

* there were three of us, two males, one female,
   all unrelated, all unmarried

* that none of us were gainfully employed at the 
  moment

* that between us there was one PhD and two in progress
 
* that we rarely watched network television and listened
  to no commercial radio station.

And in a week our notebook arrived with our crisp new dollar bill.

Boy, was there ever a battle over that.

-- Clay

                               "When would he learn not to plunge into the
glad@csli.stanford.edu          labyrinths of an opinion when he had not 
glad@unix.sri.com               the slightest idea of how he was to emerge?" 

                                --- Sam Beckett, for Usenet

In article <1991Aug29.181319.15006@rodan.acs.syr.edu>, retants@rodan.acs.syr.edu writes:
|> In article <1991Aug28.222140.18463@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
|> >In article <56693@apple.Apple.COM>, unknown@Apple.COM (Matt Ackeret) writes:
|> >
|> >|> I'm not saying that the Nielsen families ARE a statistically valid
|> >|> sample.. they probably aren't.
|> >
|> >I don't want to get in to the position of defending A.C. Nielsen, but
|> >for what reason do you blithely assume that the Nielsen families
|> >"probably aren't" a statistically valid sample?  Do you have any idea
|> >at all what method the company uses to select those homes?
|> 
|> Well, let's start with the pitifully small sample size, and then continue
|> on the the fact that , last time i heard, all the Nielsen Families were
|> mom, dad, and 2 kids (preferably a dog and a white picket fence as well).
|> That is a DEFINATE minority in this age of 50% divorce rates and people
|> staying single until well into thier 30's. 

"...Last time I heard..."   Well that's certainly enough evidence to
convince me!  And where did you hear this great tidbit from, the
National Enquirer???  C'mon people, I want FACTS, not unsubstantiated
RUMOR!

I feel very confident in stating that the Nielsen family pool is
very diverse.  One of their goals in picking people to survey is
diversity.  The people (at Nielsen's, that is) that do this stuff
aren't *stupid*!  They know you need a diverse and statistically
representative sample for the results to be worth anything at all.
How do *you* think they pick these people, via friends, relatives
and neighbors????

And something most people probably don't realize:  there are several
different methods used to do the polling.  One method involves putting
a monitor in the house (this is the method that most people are familiar
with).  Naturally they don't want to be moving these boxes around alot,
so families with monitors tend to stay part of the sample for awhile.
But an OTHER method that they employ is the two-week diary.  The family
is sent a diary and in it they log everything they watch for two weeks,
then mail it back.  This method is not as reliable, but this group can
change each time a sample is taken, since there is no equipment to
install and remove.

So would someone who really knows what he's talking about like to comment
on the effectiveness of Nielsen's techniques?

William LeFebvre
Computing Facilities Manager and Analyst
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Northwestern University
<phil@eecs.nwu.edu>

In article <1991Aug29.181319.15006@rodan.acs.syr.edu> retants@rodan.acs.syr.edu writes:
> >Well, let's start with the pitifully small sample size, and then continue
> >on the the fact that , last time i heard, all the Nielsen Families were
> >mom, dad, and 2 kids (preferably a dog and a white picket fence as well).

Make that 1.8 kids and 0.5 cat.

One possible new point on the cancellation of the series.  Twin
Peaks might eclipse Star Trek on the cult baramoter.  We already
have a movie in the works.  Perhaps soon we will see Twin Peaks:
The Next Generation.  A whole new cast of wackos picking up where
their anscestors left off, fighting the "evil in the woods".  I 
wonder if they will all be AB-

Greg T.




-- ******************************************************** Greg T. Goin' blind analyzing simulation data

> >I don't like the system.  But we do live in a market system that will
> >strive to generate the biggest return on the investment.  If the formula
> >that works this year is to run a zillion "911" type shows, that's what
> >will happen until we, as a large mass of people, support the better
> >shows by watching them.  (Not that the networks haven't been known to
> >hose a show - by constantly moving its time slot for one example...)
> >
> >-- 
> >Robert J. Granvin                                       School of Statistics




With the networks using these ratings to generate advertising dollars based
upon the statistically perceived viewers of shows, they should realize their
invalidity based on one fact. They have experienced a major loss of market
share to the pay cable channels due to the fact they are not delivering the
shows people really want to watch. The cable channels have stepped up to the
challenge by televising to viewers in the niche markets which has caused this
erosion of network market share. Otherwise, why would people pay $20 for cable
plus the charges for the "premium" channels if the networks were delivering
the shows people were willing to watch.

=============================================================================

        Greg Kull                          gkull@sumax.seattleu
                                           
=============================================================================
> >rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu                             University of Minnesota

In article <1991Aug28.222140.18463@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
> >In article <56693@apple.Apple.COM>, unknown@Apple.COM (Matt Ackeret) writes:
> >|> I'm not saying that the Nielsen families ARE a statistically valid
> >|> sample.. they probably aren't.
> >I don't want to get in to the position of defending A.C. Nielsen, but
> >for what reason do you blithely assume that the Nielsen families
> >"probably aren't" a statistically valid sample?  Do you have any idea
> >at all what method the company uses to select those homes?

For one thing, we didn't quite define what we are attempting to take
a statistically valid sample OF.

Is it all TV owning families?  Where do they get the people to join?
Telephone books? While it is rare for someone to not have a telephone nowadays,
there was a poll in the early 1900s that came out to be vastly incorrect 
since they used telephone books back then, and then only rich people (mainly
Republicans) had phones... So the poll wasn't an accurate representation.

I cannot prove that it isn't a statistically valid sample, I just 
would guess that the determination of who becomes a Nielson family is 
skewed to a more affluent crowd in some way or another. Unfortunately, in the
higher income brackets, then different races aren't always as prevalent as
the proportions are in the general US population..

There are just lots of things that come to mind that could very well
affect the choice of families.

I very well could be wrong... but I don't THINK that I am.
-- /I'm just a summer contractor. Don't take any of my personal ramblings as \ |official Apple ramblings. unknown@cats.ucsc.edu Apple IIGS Forever!| |Matt_Ackeret@gateway.qm.apple.com unknown@ucscb.ucsc.edu unknown@apple.com | \To get ULTIMA VI GS or ARMOR ALLEY GS written-mail me. CHEAP CD info-mail me./

Over here in New Zealand we have heard about the SHIT programmes that
are replacing TP, 30 something etc.

What was said, was that Americans are getting away from such dramas (see
above) and instead they are being replace with more light hearted
situation comedies  - DON'T you have enough of them already?

Save the networks from killing themselves.  We can't do anything from
over here but we don't need more situation comedies either!!!

I must admitt the very same paper did compare LA Law and Law and order
with Quantem Leap as really great drama.......  Well I don't know about
you but the first too are far more superior.  Maybe it was just the
paper I was reading.....?


Carolyn

From article <1991Aug29.214356.2037@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>, by phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre):

>
> So would someone who really knows what he's talking about like to comment
> on the effectiveness of Nielsen's techniques?
>

Well, I'll try. (Especially because you are one of the few people who
know how to correctly spell Nielsen.)

I was Program Director for an NBC affiliate for 11 years. We were measured
4 times a year by Nielsen and also by Arbitron. Two companies...two
different random samples...both VERY small random samples. Yet, the
ratings and shares were very similar. Consistently, with only rare
exceptions.

I've offered this "two companies get the same measurement with different
small samples" argument before on this newsgroup. I find it compelling.
Here's another compelling argument: Why would advertisers spend $140
billion a year to sell their wares, and allow shoddy research? Simple.
They don't. Their statisticians check and verify Nielsen and Arbitron
and Simmons and Birch and the rest.

Sad but true: The ratings, though imperfect, are generally accurate.

Even sadder: Whiny fans of oddball shows like Twin Peaks can't seem
to understand that "normal TV viewers" don't want oddball shows.
These "normal" viewers number in the tens of millions: They want
sappy sitcoms and predictable shoot-em-ups.

If you don't enjoy most of what's on American TV, it's because you're
not part of the normal society that likes garish cars, greasy fast food,
and Tony Danza.

But don't kill the messenger. Nielsen just calls 'em as it sees 'em.


-- 
Dr. Douglas Ferguson, BGSU, Bowling Green, Ohio (419) 372-6007
Internet: ferguson@andy.bgsu.edu * Opinions expressed are not
Bitnet: ferguson@bgsuopie * those of BGSU. Trust me !

From article <3172@sumax.seattleu.edu>, by gkull@sumax.seattleu.edu (Greg Kull):
>
> With the networks using these ratings to generate advertising dollars based
> upon the statistically perceived viewers of shows, they should realize their
> invalidity based on one fact. They have experienced a major loss of market
> share to the pay cable channels due to the fact they are not delivering the
> shows people really want to watch. The cable channels have stepped up to the
> challenge by televising to viewers in the niche markets which has caused this
> erosion of network market share. Otherwise, why would people pay $20 for cable
> plus the charges for the "premium" channels if the networks were delivering
> the shows people were willing to watch.
>
People don't watch cable because the programs are better! Look at what's
on cable! Reruns of network shows, for the most part.

People buy cable because it promises "choice" ... something networks
can't deliver because they're just one voice. The networks are truly
experiencing a major loss of market share, but not because the cable folks
are geniuses at programming. Oddly enough, people watch more cable because
they are PAYING more for cable. And it's fun to graze through 40 channels.

Last year the networks decided to put on the offbeat shows that it thought
the public wanted. And the public didn't watch. (Except for a very
vocal minority)

This year the networks are back to the tried-and-true. Tartikoff got out
while the getting was good. Brandon would be just as inept as his
successor in 1991-92, given the sorry state of commercial TV (more and
more cable channels, a video store on every corner, HBO and MTV subdividing
like amoeba). There are so many competitors for the public's video
attention that no one can assemble a mass audience large enough to
support free over-the-air TV. Ten years from now we'll all be paying
$50 a month just to get what we got in 1980 for free.


> =============================================================================
>
> Greg Kull gkull@sumax.seattleu
>
> =============================================================================
>>rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu University of Minnesota
-- 
Dr. Douglas Ferguson, BGSU, Bowling Green, Ohio (419) 372-6007
Internet: ferguson@andy.bgsu.edu * Opinions expressed are not
Bitnet: ferguson@bgsuopie * those of BGSU. Trust me !

"The Golden Child", starring Eddie Murphy was shown here the other
night, and while in terms of artistic merit, it may not rank alongside
the other films alluded to in Twin Peaks, there were a couple of
things which rang bells in my head:

1.  Eddie Murphy wakes up and finds himself in a strange room.  He walks
out the door, and immediately sees a white horse walking past him.  He
then meets the devil (in the form of Charles Dance), who proposes him a
deal.  Eddie Murphy says that because this is a dream, he can say and do
what he wants, and tells the Devil to go away, in somewhat more modern
language.  The Devil burns a line in Murphy's forearm as a reminder of
what has happened in the dream, and when he wakes up, Murphy finds a 
line burnt into his arm.

I guess that the echoes in this for me were
a) the dream as plot device
b) the white horse (Was it Maddy or Mrs Palmer who saw this?)
c) later on in the film they all go to Tibet
d) Eddie Murphy is called the Chosen One, and is not unlike Cooper, although
lacking his wisdom

I don't know what the rest of you think of this, but to my mind, the white
horse, if not actually alluded to in TP, is maybe some kind of preecho
in the collective unconscious (Damn! I promised myself I wouldn't go all
mystic and Jungian!  Now I have to stand in a bucket of water and sing
Jerusalem..)

Tom Adshead

In article <66036@bbn.BBN.COM>, ingria@bbn.com (Bob Ingria) writes:
> > In article <56731@apple.Apple.COM> larryy@Apple.COM (Larry Yaeger) writes:
> > 
> > Speaking of which, is anybody else here annoyed that Ben wasn't
> > arrested?  Not for Laura's murder, but for the host of other crimes he
> > committed.  There's solicitation for prostitution (documented by
> > Laura's diary (maybe, if those pages survived) and by Audrey Horne's
> > experience; and also by Ronette, when she recovered).  Some of these
> > high school girls, at least, were minors, which adds another charge.
> > There's Ben's ownership of One-Eyed Jack's; if he did not report
> > income from it, there's a charge of income tax fraud.  (His ownership
> > by itself was presumably not illegal.)  There's also the obvious fact
> > that he stood to profit from the burning of the mill, which was known
> > to be a case of arson, which should have prompted investigation along
> > those lines.
  The problem with your idea is that the TP Sheriff's office has little
law enforcement duties in Canada.  Sure most if not all of the goings
on at OEJ were illegal and Ben is to blame for most of them but OEJ is
in Canada.  That might explain why Sheriff Truman never arrested Ben.

Todd

Noticed in the News and Views section of 8/30 USA TODAY that Kiefer
Sutherland will "soon" begin filming his role in the new Twin Peaks movie.
It gave no further detail.

-Greg Shrewsberry-

On 29-Aug-91 in Troy                         
user furesz_t@wums2.wustl.edu writes:
> > 
> >For those out there who still doubt that Ben is Laura's father ("My
> >Father Killed Me") how do you explain Troy?  Ben had Leland give
> >Troy to Laura for her birthday and made it look like it was a gift
>from Leland.  Laura was a bit upset when she did find out where
> >Troy really came from.  Does that hint at all at a parents love for
> >a child that he/she can't be with?
> > 

Or it could just be obsession, Laura being the child Ben wished he had.
She was from the outside nearly perfect, the beautiful little girl every
parent dreams of. Its also possible that Ben had a crush on her even
then (the whole town seemed to). The fact that he gave her Troy doesn't
prove anything. It just raises more questions.

lisa

Another thing that may have had a big part to play in the death of TP
(as well as shows like 30Somthing) is the fact they are expensive to
make. Visually these shows are striking, they are well (or were)
scripted and well acted. It must be a hell of a lot cheaper to make
something like Married w/Children or Cops. So if the rating dropped at
all they would have reason to pull the plug.

From article <1991Aug29.214356.2037@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> Douglas writes:
> Even sadder: whinny fans of oddball shows like Twin Peaks can't seem
> to understand that "normal TV viewers" don't want oddball shows.
> These "normal" viewers number in the tens of millions: They want
> sappy sitcoms and predictable shoot-em-ups.

> If you don't enjoy most of what's on American TV, it's because you're
> not part of the normal society that likes garish cars, greasy fast food,
> and Tony Danza.

This is by far the best explanation I have heard. Let's face it, most of
America schedules their life around such ground breaking tv as Full House.

--
John Owen
University Of Lowell
grljo@cs.ulowell.edu

In article <56773@apple.Apple.COM>, unknown@Apple.COM (Matt Ackeret) writes:
|> For one thing, we didn't quite define what we are attempting to take
|> a statistically valid sample OF.
|> 
|> Is it all TV owning families?

I believe that it is all TV *watching* families (Nielsen doesn't care if
you own the TV you are watching).  But I know that they also collect
statistics on how many families (or maybe I should say "residences")
actually own, or have in their residence, a TV.

|>  Where do they get the people to join?

They select them at random (see my previous post).  They probably use
information on property ownership from various governmental agencies
to determine what is a residence.  Then they call them on the phone.
What if they don't have a phone?  I imagine (I'm making an educated
guess here) that they visit the home in person.

|> I cannot prove that it isn't a statistically valid sample, I just 
|> would guess that the determination of who becomes a Nielson family is 
|> skewed to a more affluent crowd in some way or another.

Wrong.  I know that they have families in government subsidized and
low-income dwellings.

|> There are just lots of things that come to mind that could very well
|> affect the choice of families.
|> 
|> I very well could be wrong... but I don't THINK that I am.

I THINK you are.  Look people, A.C. Nielsen Company has in its employ
a large team of statisticians and actuaries to make sure that its
sampling techniques are reasonably valid.  Do you think that such
result-skewing possibilities haven't occurred to these people?  Of
course they have, and the sampling technique is designed to eliminate
such possibilities:  it is designed to be as representative as possible.

I'm NOT saying that the Nielsen ratings are representative.  And in
fact I would be interested in hearing any educated arguments for or
against their accuracy.  What I AM saying is that the company is at
least trying to make it representative.

William LeFebvre
Computing Facilities Manager and Analyst
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Northwestern University
<phil@eecs.nwu.edu>

Ben loved Lorra. You could even say he was enfactuated with her. Thats good 
enoulgh reason fr him to give her Troy even if he wasn't her father. He was 
a friend of the famaly, and e loved her.

In article <1991Aug30.152230.7602@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>, phil@eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes:
> > |>  Where do they get the people to join?
> > 
> > They select them at random (see my previous post).  They probably use
> > information on property ownership from various governmental agencies
> > to determine what is a residence.  Then they call them on the phone.

One man's experience:  I was wandering through the Springfield (VA) mall one
day when I saw a new shop with a name something like Opinion Research.  I went
in and asked them what they were.  They were a marketing research firm (don't
ask me why they were in the middle of a mall -- I don't know!)  I put my name
down on their list of people who offered to have their opinions polled.

About two weeks later, Arbitron chose our household for a week-long survey.
I have reason to believe the two circumstances here were intimately connected.
(Turns out they didn't get the survey after all, because our TV was stolen 
on Monday of the week we were supposed to report.)

Anyway, I wouldn't give these clowns high marks for randomness, but then
I suppose I'm statistically insignificant myself.
-- cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company, OR cdt@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...

|> With the networks using these ratings to generate advertising dollars based
|> upon the statistically perceived viewers of shows, they should realize their
|> invalidity based on one fact. They have experienced a major loss of market
|> share to the pay cable channels due to the fact they are not delivering the
|> shows people really want to watch. The cable channels have stepped up to the
|> challenge by televising to viewers in the niche markets which has caused this
|> erosion of network market share. Otherwise, why would people pay $20 for cable
|> plus the charges for the "premium" channels if the networks were delivering
|> the shows people were willing to watch.

Perhaps, but it appears to take 40 cable channels to siphon off viewers 
from 3 (and a half :-) networks.

Are there any individual cable channels that are actually "larger" than 
any of the commercial networks?  (I mean this as a genuine question...)

-- Robert J. Granvin School of Statistics rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu University of Minnesota

In article <1991Aug30.175631.1342@cs.umn.edu> rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin) writes:
> >Are there any individual cable channels that are actually "larger" than 
> >any of the commercial networks?  (I mean this as a genuine question...)

Off the top of my head  I think one of the turner networks (probably TBS)
reaches ~50 million tv homes...but the lack of cable penetration will 
prevent any cable company from reaching the "Nielson Universe" of 92 million
tv homes.  The big 3 have an upper 98%-99% representation in the Nielson
universe.  Fox, I think, is in the upper 80 percentile (it might be 90% now).

--Ken

        In this weeks TIME, in the People section, there is
        a picture of Dave and a coffee table. In the blurb
        that follows.. it tells you that Dave is making
        furniture.. (kinda Peakish looking!!) It also says
        that Dave is currently working on the Movie????!!!??

        Is this so??
 
        -Jay
     """\                           Jay Jansen 
     @ ~0    Computervision,        UUCP: {decvax|linus|sun}!cvbnet!jjansen
         )   keeping Prime alive    Internet: jjansen@cvbnet.prime.com 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In article <1991Aug30.122622.4530@wums2.wustl.edu> furesz_t@wums2.wustl.edu writes:
   In article <66036@bbn.BBN.COM>, ingria@bbn.com (Bob Ingria) writes:

   > Speaking of which, is anybody else here annoyed that Ben wasn't
   > arrested?  Not for Laura's murder, but for the host of other crimes he
   > committed.  There's solicitation for prostitution (documented by
   > Laura's diary (maybe, if those pages survived) and by Audrey Horne's
   > experience; and also by Ronette, when she recovered).  Some of these
   > high school girls, at least, were minors, which adds another charge.
   > There's Ben's ownership of One-Eyed Jack's; if he did not report
   > income from it, there's a charge of income tax fraud.  (His ownership
   > by itself was presumably not illegal.)  There's also the obvious fact
   > that he stood to profit from the burning of the mill, which was known
   > to be a case of arson, which should have prompted investigation along
   > those lines.
 
     The problem with your idea is that the TP Sheriff's office has little
   law enforcement duties in Canada.

The solicitation was in the United States, in Horne's Department
Store.  And whether or not One Eyed Jack's was in Canada, Ben would
still have to report his earnings from it.  And there were enough
clues pointing to other shady dealings within TP (like the arson at
the mill), which should have been followed up.

      Sure most if not all of the goings
   on at OEJ were illegal and Ben is to blame for most of them but OEJ is
   in Canada.

I'm not even sure that what took place in One-Eyed Jack's was illegal.
Prostitution is legal in at least some Canadian provinces.  (I don't
know about the gambling.)  The one indisputably illegal thing
connected with One-Eyed Jack---the dope running---was never connected
to Ben.  I don't believe it was illegal for Ben to own One Eyed
Jack's; but it would be illegal to fail to report profits from it and
to solicit minors for it.

       That might explain why Sheriff Truman never arrested Ben.

No, there was no satisfactory explanation for why no one followed up
all the leads they had.  If Harry and/or Cooper had tried to follow up
and been blocked by technicalities or by lack of evidence that could
stand up, that would have been fine.  But after they realized Ben had
not killed Laura, they simply let him go, without paying any attention
to the other criminal activities and hints of criminal activities that
had come to light.  Hell, even though I don't think Ben was tied in
with the dope running across the border, if I were local TP law
enforcement and found out that Ben Horne was as shady as he turned out
to be AND had connections across the border, I would certainly have
looked into the possibility that Ben Horne had something to do with
it.  Don't forget that Harry, in one of the early shows of the first
season, had been trying to bust the ring that had been running dope:
``Nobody walks.''  Given that background, you would have thought that
Sheriff Truman would have been at least a little interested in seeing
if maybe Ben had a connection to it.

My point isn't that there couldn't have been a reasonable explanation
for Ben going free and not being prosecuted for his illegal
activities.  It's just that there was not even an attempt at an
explanation.  After the revelations from Laura's diary and from
Audrey, it was pretty egregious to just let Ben go without any further
investigation.

-30-
Bob

In article <66067@bbn.BBN.COM>, ingria@bbn.com (Bob Ingria) writes:
> > The solicitation was in the United States, in Horne's Department
> > Store. 

Yeah, but that was done by Aubrey whatsisname, not Ben -- and he's
beyond prosecution.

> > And whether or not One Eyed Jack's was in Canada, Ben would
> > still have to report his earnings from it.

How would anybody but the IRS know whether he had or hadn't.

> > No, there was no satisfactory explanation for why no one followed up
> > all the leads they had.  
> > ...they simply let him go, without paying any attention
> > to the other criminal activities and hints of criminal activities that
> > had come to light. 

What other criminal activities came to light?  Cooper visited OEJ while
Ben was the owner, but he never knew this.  By the time he went looking
for the owners, the place had been taken over by Renault.  And yes, the
fire was suspicious, but there was no obvious link between Leo and Ben
(other than the tape Bobby found).

> > After the revelations from Laura's diary and from
> > Audrey, it was pretty egregious to just let Ben go without any further
> > investigation.

Audrey's revelations implicated the current owners.  I don't remember
Audrey ever accusing Ben except to Ben himself.  As for Laura's diary,
I have to pass on that one since I haven't read it.  Maybe that is why
nobody on the TV show followed up on the "evidence" in the book -- it
would have confused / been unfair to the rest of us.  Besides, didn't
I hear here that excerpts from the diary they read on the air didn't
necessarily have any connection with what was in the diary they printed?
-- cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company, OR cdt@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...

There seems to be some doubt on whether the a.tv.tp net has a future. I have 
another possibility.

How about starting a David Lynch network?

There are several advantages to this:
1. It wouldn't just be limited to TP.
2. Lynch projects are many and someone rents one of his movies every day. This
would allow for more traffic than TP, movie or not.
3. While traffic would increase, it would still not be as congested as general
newsgroups like rec.arts.movies.
4. We wouldn't lose the great amount of networking and archives that some
people have taken a great time on, and may even expand it. 
(Actually a better argument for saving the newsgroup in its current form)
5. If anything, it would stimulate interest and activity in TP and Lynch. I know
that my own interest has grown since I discovered the newgroup.
(Also another argument for saving the TP newsgroup)
Another possibility could be a alt.cult.tv newsgroup, which would allow
discussions of Golden Years and (ugh) Northern Exposure, which 
sometimes turn up on a.tv.tp.
The details need to be worked out (if you want, we could make it a Lynch-Frost
group), but I personally think a Lynch-based newsgroup could be a good
alternative to getting rid of alt.tv.twin-peaks completely.

Dave Platt Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
"Secrets are dangerous things, Audrey" -Dale Cooper

Has anybody ever determined for sure who was bankrolling Jacques and Leo's drug
operations? I guess everybody assumed it was Ben, but I have some reasons to 
disbelieve this. I've compiled a list of suspects and the evidence for 
against their involvement in the cocaine trade.

Ben Horne
For: He's been involved in everything else; he hooked Blackie onto heroin. He
_certainly_ has the money.
Against: Ben owned One-Eyed Jack's; therefore Jacques worked for him. Jacques 
said  to Cooper that he didn't know who the money man was; if Ben was dealing, 
wouldn't it be easier to go through Jacques instead of Leo? Also, he wouldn't
need Leo to truck the drugs to Twin Peaks, because Jerry travels so much. Also,
in 1004, Ben chided Leo for being involved in "chicken-feed drug deals".

Jerry Horne
For: Gave heroin to Blackie; travels everywhere.
Against: See above notes on Ben.

Leland Palmer
For: This one's a real shot in the dark, but could Leland have been that shadowy
figure hiding behind Leo? Remember, Leland (the non-BOB one, that is) was not
completely innocent when it came to Ben's devious plans.
Against: While Leland isn't above some illegal acts, this may be too much for
him.

Jean Renault
For: He was the only one with a connection to Canada other than Jacques.
Against.Jacques would know if his own brother was paying for the drugs.

Dave Platt
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

> >Besides, didn't
> >I hear here that excerpts from the diary they read on the air didn't
> >necessarily have any connection with what was in the diary they printed?

Are you talking about the Twin Peaks/Cop Rock thing hosted by Alan
Thicke (sp) last fall?  That's the only time I heard anything read from
the diary.  It was read by Sheryl Lee and I remember noting that it
wasn't something I had read in the diary.

Rocky Giovinazzo

In article <1991Aug30.103258.1621@vax.oxford.ac.uk> tgma@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
> >
> >"The Golden Child", starring Eddie Murphy was shown here the other
> >night, and while in terms of artistic merit, it may not rank alongside
> >the other films alluded to in Twin Peaks, there were a couple of
> >things which rang bells in my head:
> >
> >I don't know what the rest of you think of this, but to my mind, the white
> >horse, if not actually alluded to in TP, is maybe some kind of preecho
> >in the collective unconscious (Damn! I promised myself I wouldn't go all

And continues to be symbolic.  I quote from an Ozzie Osbourne
song from the early 1980's (Osbourne, by the way is actually a good 
songwriter despite his reputation and choice of medium) called 
"Mr. Crowley" about Aleister Crowley, the witchcraft/Satanist
guy from 19th century England:

"Mr. Crowley, can I ride your white horse?
 Mr. Crowley, it's symbolic, of course."

Todd.

-- ------------------------------------------------------------- | bradleyt@spot.Colorado.EDU | (303) 443-6317 home | | BRADLEY_T@CUBLDR.COLORADO.EDU | (303) 530-9000 office | -------------------------------------------------------------

In article <1991Aug30.214442.28776@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, platt@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
> > There seems to be some doubt on whether the a.tv.tp net has a future. I have 
> > another possibility.
> > 
> > How about starting a David Lynch network?
> > 

I strongly second this idea. The newsgroup as it is is deteriorating
into a forum for Nielsen ratings discussions. Perhaps a Lynch
newsgroup will put the group back on track, and provide a perspective
for discussions on twin peaks. Face it - twin peaks is dead but David
Lynch is still out there.

Hardeep.


-- **************************************************************************** Hardeep Johar hjohar@rnd.stern.nyu.edu Work phone: (212) 998-4205. ****************************************************************************

I read in Friday's USA Today that Keifer Sutherland has a role in the
upcoming Twin Peaks movie.

It made no reference to what character he might play...

-- Joel Tscherne Cleveland Free-Net: ac985@cleveland.Freenet.Edu ====================================================================== "I found I could FLY, that I had TREMENDOUS STRENGTH. I was INVULNERABLE to all harm...I was MIRACLEMAN!" "Liz, you're LAUGHING!"

I had to do a School progect on critical TV viewing. During this I realised 
that now that Twin Peaks has been cancelled there is only one show on TV 
that I realy like (by realy like I meen look falwerd to whatching and tape 
if I miss not just enjoy when I see it) that is LA 
Law. I know that the shows I like arn't the shows everyone elce does, but it 
does seem that there is  a lack of quality programing in the US.

A have a friend who is very anilitical in nature and I got him interested in 
TP untill a few episodes after BOB was revieled to be Lealand when he gave 
up on the show. He did raise some good argumants that havn't yet been 
resolved. One: The FBI wouldn't be involved in a simple murder 
investigation, Two: Cooper was aperently sent to TP to investigate Rhona 
Palaskie NOT Lara Palmer infact he didn't even know her name untill he was 
told by Harry. Three: When Peat discovered Lara's body he told Harry "She's 
dead rapped in plastic." How was Harry suposed to know it was Larra unless 
they had been resently discussing that she was missing or somthing. She 
wasn't discovered to be missing untill later. Fore: If cooper was sent to TP 
he would be sent to investigate one case. He wouldn't take over the entire 
sheruffs office. I don't nesseseraly agree whith all this, but I thought it 
would be interesting to discuss.

For the truly TP starved, Michael Ontkean (Harry S Truman) apparently
has a contract with Andrew Fezza (menswear) and is doing shots
for magazine ads.

Rocky Giovinazzo

There's been a lot of debate about the validity of TV ratings and the demise of
TV since the cancellation of Twin Peaks posted here lately.  My first response
was "Oh, no, not again", but then I got into the whole circular Zen spirit of
the thing and decided to post my comments as well.

1. Commercial TV has been basically crap for a long time.  If you're looking
for intellectual stimulation, you chose the wrong medium.  I certainly
wouldn't claim that "Twin Peaks" was a consistent tonic for the intellect
either. It had its moments with some memorable images and some (early) cute
dialogue, but had its share of dross as well.  It was one of the three or
four network TV shows I made a point of watching (along with "Northern
Exposure", "Murphy Brown", and "The Simpsons"), but I was never under the
impression I was watching a great work of art.  They should have ended the
series after Leland's death, the quality of the late episodes wasn't up to
the earlier snuff.  

2. The Nielson ratings are probably valid for average shows watched in
average ways by average households.  They will, of course, underestimate the
audience for cult shows like Twin Peaks which tend to be viewed in packs. I
think that entirely too much is claimed for statistics these days, what with
political analysis being largely replaced by the gentle art of polling (i.e.
instead of discussing the merits of giving aid to the Soviets, all we hear is
the results of public opinion polls) but I stray from my topic.  The basic
idea of rating shows is to allow the networks to set advertising rates, isn't
it?  Most TV advertising makes me nauseous, and I try to avoid the products
of sponsors with particularly egregious ads.  In fact, the most cost efficient
way for a corporation to attract my consumer dollar is to sink its funds into
shows I don't watch.  That way, I won't be repelled by their insipid ads and
will be less likely to avoid their products.  I may be atypical, but I don't
think I'm sui generis.  Do the Nielson ratings take all this into account?

3.  I don't think the proliferation of "real drama" shows is signalling the 
demise of intelligent viewing alternatives.  I'm actually far more alarmed by:

1. Info-mercials
2. Local news broadcats
3. Pro wrestling

but it's always been a pretty mixed bag.  If you habitually view more than 
four or five network shows a week, you're probably watching too much TV 
anyway.  There's always PBS and cable, and they're still printing books the
last I heard.  

4.  The major problem with  TV (and with most general release) movies is that
scheduling is driven by marketing and economics.  It made perfect economic
sense for ABC to cancel Twin Peaks, although you could argue against the 
aesthetics of the decision.  The free market is a great way to run an economy,
but don't expect it to stimulate your mind.  The entertainment industry is
a moneymaking machine, just like the auto industry, the electronics industry or
the chemical industry.  You wouldn't expect Chrysler to continue producing a
car at a loss just because you and a select group of your friends thought it
was spiffy, would you?  It's too bad, but I don't think it's going to 
change anytime soon - not till the Revolution, anyway :^).  There are talented
people in Hollywood, however, and some worthwhile series and films will 
continue to be produced.  Pick your spots and don't expect too much from the 
main.
  
 
 
_______________________________________________________________________________
C. Kurt Svihla                            |                                   |
cksvih01@ulkyvx.bitnet                    |                 Pax               |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After summarizing some TP-evocative bits in "The Golden Child,"
Tom Adshead writes:
> >I don't know what the rest of you think of this, but to my mind, the white
> >horse, if not actually alluded to in TP, is maybe some kind of preecho
> >in the collective unconscious (Damn! I promised myself I wouldn't go all
> >mystic and Jungian!  Now I have to stand in a bucket of water and sing
> >Jerusalem..)

I don't know what a "preecho" is, but you're close to the money on your
collective-unconscious idea.  I think this surely must have been
mentioned way long ago in this newsgroup: the image of a white horse
(or a "pale" horse) is commonly seen as a harbinger of death--not neces-
sarily death to the person who sees the horse--just death hovering nearby.
In Irish mythology this creature is known as a "pooka."  We had a huge
discussion of pookas and death omens and legends about pale horses,
many months ago on alt.pagan.  Lots of serious scholarship emerged,
so by the time I first saw the Maddy's-death episode of TP, I must
admit I was primed to interpret the horse vision in this mythological
light.

And boy does that last sentence sound lame... (-: (-:  Howdy y'all,
I just got back from a jaunt to the Northwest, but didn't quite make
it as far west as Snoqualmie Falls.  Instead, I was taking it easy in
northwestern Montana.  I know: a true Peakhead would have sacrificed
vacation time to make the pilgrimage.  Where were my priorities, huh?

    --Fiona Oceanstar

In article <1991Aug31.203653.1117@ulkyvx.bitnet> cksvih01@ulkyvx.bitnet writes:
> >They should have ended the
> >series after Leland's death, the quality of the late episodes wasn't up to
> >the earlier snuff.  
That's your opinion and it's wrong! :)  You forgot to write "IMHO"-- 
the idea that TP should have ended here is probably not the consensus
of this group.

> >3.  I don't think the proliferation of "real drama" shows is signalling the 
> >demise of intelligent viewing alternatives.  I'm actually far more alarmed by:

> >1. Info-mercials
> >2. Local news broadcats
> >3. Pro wrestling

Of course, #1 and #3 are only on during weekend afternoons and at insane
hours of the day (for the most part) when they can corrupt the fewest 
number of people. 

I think you should look at the fall line-up
of dramas and then get an old tv guide to compare it to.  Drama shows
(i.e. 30 something, china beach, tp, dallas, et al) have been cancelled
in large numbers and are not being replaced by new ones.  In fact,
this shrinking of the number of dramas is so out of the ordinary
that I've seen reports about it over the last 3 months on several
shows (Entertainment Tonight for one-- I think there were 2 other similar
shows).  There was even sort of a reference to it during the Emmy's.

Anyway, my point was that shows that require creative talent to 
produce (i.e. drama) are being replaced by ones that require very _little_
creative talent, namely "real drama" (Emergency 911-like), making
tv even less worthwhile.  I might as well remove the tuner from mine
and use it strictly as a monitor.  I'm starting to believe Star
Trek's prediction that television will be no more than history by
the early 21st century.

> >It made perfect economic
> >sense for ABC to cancel Twin Peaks, although you could argue against the 
> >aesthetics of the decision. 
There are really 2 cases to consider here though.  1 is that
with the advertising rates TP was getting, ABC was losing money and
couldn't convince advertisers to pay more by showing them 10,000
letters from fans.  In that case, it does make sense to cancel the
show.  If, however, ABC had just a small profit from TP,
then they would also have to consider possible long term benefits
of having the image of carrying such a show (and also how significant
those benefits would be).  Bob Iger himself has admitted that 
moving TP to Sat. and having a long hiatus in Dec. were mistakes--
(and even apologized) making it evident that the low ratings weren't 
simply due to a lack potential.
 
Rocky Giovinazzo

In article <2s4J81w164w@whitebase.ukp.com> salmieri@whitebase.ukp.com (Gregory Salmieri) writes:
> >I had to do a School progect on critical TV viewing. During this I realised 
> >that now that Twin Peaks has been cancelled there is only one show on TV 
> >that I realy like (by realy like I meen look falwerd to whatching and tape 
> >if I miss not just enjoy when I see it) that is LA 
> >Law. I know that the shows I like arn't the shows everyone elce does, but it 
> >does seem that there is  a lack of quality programing in the US.

Have you seen NBC's ad promoting LA Law?  They start out with the logo
of an ABC show and say it's name followed by "cancelled" (like this:
China Beach.  Cancelled.  Twin Peaks.  Cancelled.  Thirty Something.
Cancelled.)  Then they say something like, "Watch NBC for quality drama.
"  And then they show LA Law, Quantum Leap, and maybe some others
while mentioning some stuff about how great NBC is.

It's sort of sad, but it was nice to see the Twin Peaks logo on 
television again. :)  :(

Rocky Giovinazzo

Hello,
Next week (on Australian TV) the two final 
episodes of TP will be shown...
This has been advertised on TV as THE
FINAL episodes.

Is this really the end of the series
or is there another one ?
The group keeps referring to the series
so I get the impression that it is
still going on.

So will there be any episodes after
the MISS TWIN-PEAKS/WINDHAM EARLE
business ?

Thanks,
Richard.

In article <richard.683711059@melomys> richard@cs.uwa.oz.au (Furry Wuckins) writes:

> >   Is this really the end of the series
> >   or is there another one ?
> >   The group keeps referring to the series
> >   so I get the impression that it is
> >   still going on.
> >
> >   So will there be any episodes after
> >   the MISS TWIN-PEAKS/WINDHAM EARLE
> >   business ?

Sigh...Don't we wish.  One important thing to bear in mind is that the
FINAL episodes that you will be watching were intended to end a
SEASON, not the whole show.  It is likely to leave you asking more
questions than it answers.  It is partly because the questions that the
series raised are still there that we are still talking.  When you've
seen it, why not post your impressions and give us another go-round.

Barb Miller

In article <1991Sep1.071723.13793@risky.ecs.umass.edu> giovin@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo) writes:

   In article <1991Aug31.203653.1117@ulkyvx.bitnet> cksvih01@ulkyvx.bitnet writes:
   >They should have ended the
   >series after Leland's death, the quality of the late episodes wasn't up to
   >the earlier snuff.  
   That's your opinion and it's wrong! :)  You forgot to write "IMHO"-- 
   the idea that TP should have ended here is probably not the consensus
   of this group.

Just to see if I can get some talk going here, I would like to say
something about the White Lodge/Black Lodge story that built up after
the death of Leland.  While I would not make a statement that "they
should have ended the series after Leland's death", I do remember
thinking when it became clear that they were going to focus on the
Lodges that the show was in over its head, and for me that story never
had the epic sense that a story like that has in some of the
literature and mythology which has also treated it.

I realize I risk being flamed unmercifully, so I am trying to tread
carefully here.  I  don't really have time to carefully analyze just
why it might have fallen short for me, but a few possibilities
include:

1. That there was not a single writer or perhaps even a strong individual
creative vision by that time which could carry the theme through.  

2.  That Lynch's talent for showing quirky characters and bizarre everyday
details of life fit much better into showing how all the members of a
small town could be tied in with the death of its homecoming queen
than into an epic and rather abstract story like the Lodges.

3.  That it was never clear whether the Lodges were psychological (the
confrontation of the Dream Souls), spiritual (concentrating on the
Souls rather than the Dream), or moral (basic good/evil dichotomy), so
it never could completely treat any of these.

4. (Discussed earlier on the net) That showing so much of Windom Earle
to the audience in some way diminished his power, compared with BOB,
who remained a mystery all the way through.

5. That I almost never watch TV so I am not able to really evaluate
the medium realistically--there may have been things going on that I
missed because I have more of a literary and psychological approach to
things than is perhaps appropriate for TV.  

6. That the subplots didn't fit in as well with the main Lodge story
as the earlier subplots fit with the Laura Palmer story. (i.e. it was
easier to see Harold Smith or One-Eyed Jack's in the context of "there
is a dark and mysterious side to this seemingly idyllic small town"
than to accept Little Nicky or Evelyn Marsh or Audrey's love affair as
being intimately tied in with the Black Lodge or White Lodge)

Anyway, I would very much like to hear what other people think of
this.  What did people particularly like about the Lodge story?  I
should hasten to point out that I watched Twin Peaks with interest
through to the end, and I was very glad that they were even ATTEMPTING
such a theme.  But I'm trying to figure out why it is that I feel as
though it never quite managed to live up to the theme's possibilities
in the way that it brilliantly treated the murder.

Flame away..."Fire, walk with me."

Barb Miller

Just because Twin Peaks was cansiled doesn't meen it has to end. Other 
people could write books on the subject, continuations of the plot, etc. 
Infact if any one is interested we could try to brain storm up a few 
episodes via this net and E-mail. Then we could put it in a files and mail 
it to who ever is interested, or board enoulgh to read it. If any one is 
interested contact me. I'me shore we could set somthing up. Maby come up 
with the plot and have diferent people write diferent sections? What ever If 
you don't think TP should end just continue it. I'me shore that we have 
enough deluded creativity here to come uo ith an episode or two worth of 
text. Then we can do whatever we want with it including sendit out to people 
who are interested as a TP sirial or send it to Lnch.

In article <8w5J83w164w@whitebase.ukp.com>, salmieri@whitebase.ukp.com (Gregory Salmieri) writes:
> > One: The FBI wouldn't be involved in a simple murder investigation

Sure they would, if the murderer did his thing across state lines.  The FBI
gets involved in drug running, tax evasion, and kidmapping.  Is murder less
important?

> > Fore: If cooper was sent to TP 
> > he would be sent to investigate one case. He wouldn't take over the entire 
> > sheruffs office.

He STAYED on that case until the FBI suspended him.  The exception was his
excursion into Canada to rescue Audrey, which was a personal thing rather than
a professional thing.  (Renault ASKED for him by name; if he didn't go, nobody
else could have substituted.)  After he was suspended by the FBI, Truman gave
him a JOB; so the business of the sheriff's department WAS his job.
-- cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company, OR cdt@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...

From article <8w5J83w164w@whitebase.ukp.com>, by salmieri@whitebase.ukp.com (Gregory Salmieri):

> A have a friend who is very anilitical in nature and I got him interested in
> TP untill a few episodes after BOB was revieled to be Lealand when he gave
> up on the show.

Oh well...his loss...that's when it got good!

> One: The FBI wouldn't be involved in a simple murder
> investigation, Two: Cooper was aperently sent to TP to investigate Rhona
> Palaskie NOT Lara Palmer infact he didn't even know her name untill he was
> told by Harry.

Yes...Cooper was sent to investigate both crimes, because they were linked.
The FBI was called in because it became an interstate crime. As Truman said to
Cooper in the pilot epsiode, "It's a good thing Ronette stepped out accross the
state line." This made it a crime under the federal juristiction, not just
local TP law enforcement.

Someone please correct me if I am wrong....I often am! ;^)

> Three: When Peat discovered Lara's body he told Harry "She's
> dead rapped in plastic." How was Harry suposed to know it was Larra unless
> they had been resently discussing that she was missing or somthing. She
> wasn't discovered to be missing untill later.

Did you actually watch the show or just think you did? Peat, as you call him,
never said who 'she' was, and in the very same scene, Harry said to lucy,"we
have a body"...no name. It was actually Dr. haward who first mentioned Laura's
name...he turned the body over and said "Good God, Laura!" He looked at Harry,
and then Harry said "Laura Palmer".

> Fore: If cooper was sent to TP
> he would be sent to investigate one case. He wouldn't take over the entire
> sheruffs office. I don't nesseseraly agree whith all this, but I thought it
> would be interesting to discuss.

I don't understand this point at all. They were pretty sure that Laura and
Ronnette were linked, they just didn't know how. They didn't figure it out
100% till they loked at the Fleshworld in Laura's Safe Deposit box. And
any other crime he investigated was DIRECTLY linked to the original case.
If you ALSO remember, Cooper was kicked out of the FBI for a while, and DID
become a TP Deputy...that would make him eligible to investigate any thing in
TP he damn well pleased.

I think you need to re-watch the show!

Just MHO!

That is all!

Bob 'BOB' Cappel


--
Robert D. Cappel, Iowa City,IA ||Windom Earle: "What is your greatest
aka "BOB", eager for fun! || fear...?"
||Major Briggs: "The idea...that....love
czahrt@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu || is not enough...!"

In article <1991Sep1.071723.13793@risky.ecs.umass.edu>, giovin@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo) writes:
> > In article <1991Aug31.203653.1117@ulkyvx.bitnet> cksvih01@ulkyvx.bitnet writes:
>> > >3.  I don't think the proliferation of "real drama" shows is signalling the 
>> > >demise of intelligent viewing alternatives.  I'm actually far more alarmed by:
> > 
>> > >1. Info-mercials...
> > 
> > Of course, #1 and #3 are only on during weekend afternoons and at insane
> > hours of the day (for the most part) when they can corrupt the fewest 
> > number of people. 

Um... I read a recent article explaining how the Home Shopping Club is going to
create an all-day info-mercial CHANNEL.  Nobody would be stupid enough to watch
that, right?  That's what I said initially about Home Shopping Club.
-- cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company, OR cdt@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...

In article <BARB.91Sep1104236@chamarti.ai.mit.edu>, barb@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Barb Miller) writes:
> > Anyway, I would very much like to hear what other people think of
> > this.  What did people particularly like about the Lodge story? 

It was different from anything else you are likely to see on TV.  The show
started out as a detective drama, turned into a "new age" detective drama,
then a horror show, then something entirely mystical.  Once I got over and
accepted the fact that Lynch was NOT going to stick to one original formula,
I actually began to enjoy this.  (Sort of "crossing mental-state lines.")
One regret I have with all this is that as the show changed states, the
characters changed in ways they shouldn't have (I mentioned this before).
Coop started out as a kinky Sherlock Junior, but ended up rather mushy,
etc.  I think it would have been much more interesting showing the original
characters running the entire gamut of situations, rather than having the
characters change to enhance them.
-- cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company, OR cdt@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...

salmieri@whitebase.ukp.com (Gregory Salmieri) writes: (though sometimes
difficult to read)

> >A have a friend who is very anilitical in nature and I got him interested in 
> >TP untill a few episodes after BOB was revieled to be Lealand when he gave 
> >up on the show. He did raise some good argumants that havn't yet been 
> >resolved. One: The FBI wouldn't be involved in a simple murder 
> >investigation, 

As stated numerous places in the show and the related books, this was not
a "simple murder case."  Cooper originally investigated the Teresa Banks
murder, which, as he claims, had every making of a serial killing except for
a second body.

> >Two: Cooper was aperently sent to TP to investigate Rhona 
> >Palaskie NOT Lara Palmer infact he didn't even know her name untill he was 
> >told by Harry. 

Cooper came to Peaks to investigate the murder of Laura Palmer.  There were
several points regarding her murder that related to the Teresa Banks case.
Also, you'll find in the Cooper tapes, and I believe even in the first 
episode, though I haven't seen it, that Coop names Laura as the victim.

> >Three: When Peat discovered Lara's body he told Harry "She's 
> >dead rapped in plastic." How was Harry suposed to know it was Larra unless 
> >they had been resently discussing that she was missing or somthing. She 
> >wasn't discovered to be missing untill later. 

Huh?  (scratches head)

> >Fore: If cooper was sent to TP 
> >he would be sent to investigate one case. He wouldn't take over the entire 
> >sheruffs office. 

If, in the line of duty, an agent needs to enlist assistance from the local
authorities (who called in the big guns, anyway), he/she has the authority
to "take over" leadership of the locals, in the respect of the case being
investigated.  Besides that, Harry and the others respected and trusted Coop
and voluntarily aided him whenever they could.

(sigh)  Would that I could get my TV soon and rewatch the whole show.  It's
been too long.  :)

}lips


-- Eric N. Lipscomb, Lab/Network Manager Academic Computing Services Email: comb@sol.acs.unt.edu"Golf is something you do to make lips@vaxb.acs.unt.eduthe rest of your life look good."

In article <1991Aug31.174106.25924@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> ac985@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Joel Tscherne) writes:
> >
> >I read in Friday's USA Today that Keifer Sutherland has a role in the
> >upcoming Twin Peaks movie.
> >
> >It made no reference to what character he might play...
> >

My guess is he'll play an evil spirit who torments Julia, a newcomer to TP
from Georgia.  :-) 


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Melnyk                                         rmm@ipac.caltech.edu
Infrared Processing and Analysis Center             
JPL/Caltech

 ceblair@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Charles Blair)  writes in message
<1991Aug23.145054.16948@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> :


> >   Just my guess:  there won't be a TP movie.  The ratings, the cancellation
> >of the show, and the traffic on this group all make it clear there just
> >isn't enough interest to make it fly.  Too bad!

Die, infidel!   I think you just posted that to see how many angry fans
would respond.  I think that maybe David Lynch borrowed your account and
your name just to see how much support there really IS.   So, David, I
would really like to take this time to encourage you to go ahead and
make the movie.  I'll even go and see it more than once.....

__________________________________________________________
| Christopher "ris" Culver
| cc4c@andrew.cmu.edu
| (412)363-7439 (machine)
| "Ho! Ha ha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Thrust! <*Boiiing!*>"

rmm@baldwin.ipac.caltech.edu (Mike Melnyk) writes:

> > In article <1991Aug31.174106.25924@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> ac985@cleveland.Freen
>> > >
>> > >I read in Friday's USA Today that Keifer Sutherland has a role in the
>> > >upcoming Twin Peaks movie.
>> > >
>> > >It made no reference to what character he might play...
>> > >
> > 
> > My guess is he'll play an evil spirit who torments Julia, a newcomer to TP
> > from Georgia.  :-) 

I thought that maybe he could be play a young MIKE in flashbacks...

**************************************************************************
"I especially hate guidance counselors.                       Demosthenes
If they knew ANYTHING about career moves,              18004 146th Ave NE 
Would they have ended up as guidance                Woodinville, WA 98072 
counselors?"                                                (206)487-1312 
   - Happy Harry Hard-On, PUMP UP THE VOLUME        Compulsive Polemicist
                                       (with apologies to Bruce Sterling) 
UUCP: hikaru@halcyon.uucp  Internet: halcyon!hikaru@seattleu.edu  
Alternate: hikaru@halcyon.wa.com  or: hikaru%halcyon.uucp@seattleu.edu

Hi

Finally, Twin peaks comes to Holland, with subtitles that are
BAD, but nevertheless we will discover what you all have been discussing
for so long.

Oh those Douglas Furs


        Bye

==TheWilf== aka Wilfried G.J.H.M. van Sark, (email: vansark@fys.ruu.nl) 
  w     wUtrecht Univ., Dept. of Atomic and Interface Physics,
   w w wP.O. Box 80000, 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands.
    w w(tel: +31 - 30 532964)(fax: +31 - 30 531601)

"Anything CAN be music, but it doesn't BECOME MUSIC until someone WILLS it to
 be music, and the audience listening to it decides to PERCEIVE IT AS MUSIC"
Frank Zappa in "The Real Frank Zappa book" (1989).

I agree the lodge plot was very weekand they may have been able to carry it 
out more realolisticly. IE not having pine trees turn into curtains and (s 
it) Venis and Mars(?) recieve Cooper.

In article <8w5J83w164w@whitebase.ukp.com> salmieri@whitebase.ukp.com (Gregory Salmieri) writes:
> >A have a friend who is very anilitical in nature and I got him interested in 
> >TP untill a few episodes after BOB was revieled to be Lealand when he gave 
> >up on the show. He did raise some good argumants that havn't yet been 
> >resolved.

> >One: The FBI wouldn't be involved in a simple murder 
> >investigation, 

Your friend hasn't watched carefully enough.  Cooper had
previously investigated the Theresa Banks murder for whatever reason
and found possible similarities.  He mentioned this in the show, but
I happen to have a related tape quote:
"Note possible correlation to a murder last year of one Theresa Banks
in the southwest corner of the state.  Had all the trappings of a serial
killing, except for one, a 2nd body.  Maybe this is it.  Theresa Banks
died a year ago, almost to the day."
        The FBI is certainly interested in stopping
serial killers especially when they suspect they can do it before
there's a second murder.

> >Two: Cooper was aperently sent to TP to investigate Rhona 
> >Palaskie NOT Lara Palmer infact he didn't even know her name untill he was 
> >told by Harry. 
Big deal! He forgot Laura's name in the hospital upon his
arrival.  He certainly knew about her.  He _was_ sent for both Laura and 
Ronnette.  Each was part of uncommon events in the town, so there was reason 
a possible relationship between the two.
If you pay attention to the rest of the conversation in the
hospital:  "I'm at the Twin Peaks county morgue with the body of the 
victim, what's her name?  Laura Palmer.  I got here before the autopsy.
Diane, it's the same thing.  I told you I had a feeling we'd see this again.
Ring finger, under the nail.  Let's see what he left us. It's an R."

See also from before he arrived:
"Victim, 17 years old, white female, dead, found, and wrapped in plastic.  
Cause of death, unknown.  Says here she was the homecoming queen. Second
victim discovered alive was discovered across the state line which is
why it is our business now."

> >Three: When Peat discovered Lara's body he told Harry "She's 
> >dead rapped in plastic." How was Harry suposed to know it was Larra unless 
> >they had been resently discussing that she was missing or somthing. She 
> >wasn't discovered to be missing untill later. 
Here's the conversation you're talking about:

[We see Harry answer the phone.]
Harry: 'morning Pete.  Harry.
[came
ra show Pete on the phone]
Pete:   She's dead.  Wrapped in plastic.

[camera goes to Harry]
Harry:  Whoa, whoa, now hold on.  Hold on a second Pete.  Where?  You stay 
right there.  I'm on my way.

Obviously, Pete said things that the audience didn't get to hear. 
Nevertheless, we didn't find out that Laura was dead until Doc, Harry, 
and Andy went to see her and we heard:

Doc:    Good Lord Laura!
Harry:  Laura Palmer. 


> >Fore: If cooper was sent to TP 
> >he would be sent to investigate one case. He wouldn't take over the entire 
> >sheruffs office. I don't nesseseraly agree whith all this, but I thought it 
> >would be interesting to discuss.
Why do you think he took over the sheriff's office?  He did say
to Harry at the beginning that when the bureau comes in, the bureau's
in charge, but he didn't get involved in work outside of the case until
Audrey was kidnapped and when he was made a bookhouse boy.

Rocky Giovinazzo

"There may be no such thing as coincidence."  - SADC

In article <7517@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>>> >> >3.  I don't think the proliferation of "real drama" shows is signalling the 
>>> >> >demise of intelligent viewing alternatives.  I'm actually far more alarmed by:
>>> >> >1. Info-mercials...

> >Um... I read a recent article explaining how the Home Shopping Club is going to
> >create an all-day info-mercial CHANNEL.  Nobody would be stupid enough to watch
> >that, right?  That's what I said initially about Home Shopping Club.
Wow!  Maybe they can sponsor their informercials with television
shows.  :}

Rocky Giovinazzo

In article <1991Sep2.024505.1124@ulkyvx.bitnet> cksvih01@ulkyvx.bitnet writes:
> >In article <BARB.91Sep1104236@chamarti.ai.mit.edu>, barb@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Barb Miller) writes:
>> >> In article giovin@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo) writes:
>> >> 
>> >>In article cksvih01@ulkyvx.bitnet writes:
>> >>   >They should have ended the
>> >>   >series after Leland's death, the quality of the late episodes wasn't up to
>> >>   >the earlier snuff.  
>> >>   That's your opinion and it's wrong! :)  You forgot to write "IMHO"-- 
>> >>   the idea that TP should have ended here is probably not the consensus
>> >>   of this group.

> >I'm trying to cut down on traffic, so let me respond to Rocky's comment even
> >though this is Barb's post.  First of all, of course it was my opinion, but
> >that goes without saying, doesn't it?

Umm. Did you miss my smiley face?  Of course it was your opinion.

> >Secondly, I have never liked the
> >tendency of American TV to drag shows out long after their vitality has been
> >dissipated.  Leland's death made a logical stopping point for the show - in
> >terms of the story and in terms of the apparent decline in the creative juices
> >of the writers.  There were some diverting moments in the post-Leland era -
> >Annie was a nice character, for example - but there was a lot of sludge as well.
I sort of think of the pre and post-dead Leland episodes almost
as 2 different shows.  What's the difference between altering the characters
and plot of an established show and starting from scratch?  It's not
always true that a new show will have even the vitality of a show
with "sludge."  Anyway, the point of wanting to drag out Twin Peaks is the fact
that _we_, the audience, know that we may never see anything like Twin
Peaks on television again and might as well take what we can now. 

> >I could go on.  So much of what happened in the later episodes was unoriginal.
> >The dialogue wasn't nearly as sharp and the repetitive use of some of the
> >earlier motifs began to approach self-parody:  BOB began popping up so often
> >he began to resemble a homicidal Waldo, and they really ran the backwards
> >talk into the ground in the season ender.  
Before Leland died, BOB appeared in Coop's 
dreams.  Then we saw him in the railroad scene.  We saw him posses 
Leland, scare Maddy, and kill Maddy.  After Leland died, am I mistaken
or did we only see BOB when Josie died and then in the Black Lodge?
If you didn't like BOB's appearances, then maybe the show should have
ended even before Leland's death (according to your logic).

> >They painted themselves into a 
> >corner with the Black Lodge plotline and Windom Earle was about as scary
> >as my Aunt Martha.  The most compelling moments in the show (my list
> >includes Laura in the train car, Maddie's murder, and Leland's death) involved
> >the death or murder of major characters. 
Wait a minute... you just said BOB appeared too often, yet the
"compelling moments" were ALL BOB scenes.  I agree with you about Windom
Earle however.  There were some good scenes like the chaos going on
when WE was going crazy with his computer while Leo and the major were
drugged and making weird noises & faces.  I did like the Black Lodge
plotline and was completely shocked to actually _see_ the Black Lodge in
the end.  

Rocky Giovinazzo

To all of you Fenn fans out there I came across something that might interest
you.  Last week I found a Twin Peaks poster at a campus poster sale.  Here is
a discription:
David Lynch's

  TWIN PEAKS


( black & white photo of sherilyn Fenn)

   Featuring

SHERILYN FENN


The poster really adds another dimension to the room.  The problem is I don't
have any idea where you can pick up one for yourself.

I can't wait to buy some of that furniture that David Lynch has designed.    

dtburton@uokmax.ecn.uoknor.ecn
Darren Burton
University of Oklahoma
EECS
Norman, OKlahoma

BOB apparently killed Laura Palmer through Leland.  It was the same type of
murder as Theresa Banks.  So, we must assume that Theresa Banks was killed
by BOB.  What we don't know is, was she killed by BOB the spirit or BOB 
inhabiting a host.  And, if so, who was this host?  Leland?  Maybe I just
don't remember (it seems like it's been so long).  If not Leland, then
who?  Does this mean BOB is capable of inhabiting more than one person
since Theresa Banks died approximately a year before Laura and Laura was
being haunted by Leland/BOB since at least her early teenage years?

Basically, I don't remember TP much clarifying the Theresa Banks aspect of
the show.  Also, where did Theresa live?  TP?  Another town?  Could BOB be
anywhere?  Must he be in close proximity of the woods?  Could he be in my
roomate right NOW???

Perhaps this was all explained and I just can't remember or wasn't paying
attention.  Perhaps someone could clue me in.

Keith
-- "Gotta get away, away from Z..." The B-52's

Hi,

I dont't know if this has come up before;  we get to see the final double
episode this week and in the meantime I have been archiving the newsgroup
to try and avoid too many spoilers (-:

The Melbourne Fringe Film and Video Festival is about to get under way. One
title which immediately got my attention was

FOR ONE WEEK ONLY
Jonathon Ross Presents David Lynch
Producers: Channel X for Channel 4, U.K.
VHS199053 mins.
"For One Week Only" probes David Lynch, the creator of
"Eraser Head", "Blue Velvet" and "Twin Peaks". Lynch
discusses his successes and failures, whilst denying
and nurturing the favourite rumours about his
lifestyle. Includes rare footage of Lynch's early short
works.

In an article on the Festival, the following information is given -

"Television interviewer Jonathon Ross talks at length with the enigmatic
director about his work that dates back to his earliest forays into animation.
The creator of 'Twin Peaks' speaks with conviction of his love of lumber and
plumbing while confirming his preference for button-down collars.
Numerous interviewees include Lynch's daughter, Jennifer, Laura Dern, the
ubiquitous Dennis Hopper and 'Eraserhead' star Jack Nance."

If anyone has seen this, would they like to give their opinions?

ADVthanksANCE......Shane
-- Shane Youl _--_|\ CSIRO Division of Mineral Products / \ \_.--._/ sfy@dmp.CSIRO.AU v

In <1991Sep3.063942.16864@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> keb3@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith E. Bitely) writes:


> >BOB apparently killed Laura Palmer through Leland.  It was the same type of
> >murder as Theresa Banks.  So, we must assume that Theresa Banks was killed
> >by BOB.  What we don't know is, was she killed by BOB the spirit or BOB 
> >inhabiting a host.  And, if so, who was this host?  Leland?  Maybe I just
> >don't remember (it seems like it's been so long).  If not Leland, then
> >who?  Does this mean BOB is capable of inhabiting more than one person
> >since Theresa Banks died approximately a year before Laura and Laura was
> >being haunted by Leland/BOB since at least her early teenage years?

> >Basically, I don't remember TP much clarifying the Theresa Banks aspect of
> >the show.  Also, where did Theresa live?  TP?  Another town?  Could BOB be
> >anywhere?  Must he be in close proximity of the woods?  Could he be in my
> >roomate right NOW???

> >Perhaps this was all explained and I just can't remember or wasn't paying
> >attention.  Perhaps someone could clue me in.

> >Keith

Well, it was brief, but this was mentioned and solved.  Leland admits
to killing "That girl" Theresa during his confession in the jail cell.
I don't remember the exact quote, if he mentions her name or not, but
I know it was obvious that is what he meant.  Watch it again, if for
no other reason than to just see one of the greatest scenes of the
show once again.

Enjoy,

s
j

Look, I don't usually post grammatical and spelling corrections; it's
a waste of bandwidth, and everyone makes mistakes.  But I can only take
so much.  Jeez!  If you're going to post something, get it at least
SOMEWHAT right!

> >Ben loved Lorra. You could even say he was enfactuated with her. Thats good
           Laura                            infatuated            That's
> >enoulgh reason fr him to give her Troy even if he wasn't her father. He was
 enough         for
> >a friend of the famaly, and e loved her.
                 family      he

Brian

Not again!

> >I had to do a School progect on critical TV viewing. During this I realised
               school project                                       realized
                                                >>> OK, maybe in Britain ^^
> >that now that Twin Peaks has been cancelled there is only one show on TV
> >that I realy like (by realy like I meen look falwerd to whatching and tape
        really         really       mean "look forward to watching and tape
> >if I miss not just enjoy when I see it) that is LA
 if I miss,"        "..."                - that is "L.A.
> >Law. I know that the shows I like arn't the shows everyone elce does, but it
 Law."                             aren't                   else
> >does seem that there is  a lack of quality programing in the US.
                                            programming       U.S.

By the way, I agree with your conclusion, but I think there are several
good, thought provoking shows on TV.

Brian (self-appointed, ego-maniacal, hypercritical guardian of English) Wood

Come on dude.  Spend a few minutes with your friend and work on your
spelling and grammar.  Please?

> >A have a friend who is very anilitical in nature and I got him interested in
                             analytical
> >TP untill a few episodes after BOB was revieled to be Lealand when he gave
    until                               revealed       Leland
> >up on the show. He did raise some good argumants that havn't yet been
                                        arguments      haven't
> >resolved. One: The FBI wouldn't be involved in a simple murder
> >investigation, Two: Cooper was aperently sent to TP to investigate Rhona
  ^^-- (WHY NOT?)               apparently                          Ronnie
> >Palaskie NOT Lara Palmer infact he didn't even know her name untill he was
 Pulaskie,    Laura      . In fact                            until
> >told by Harry. Three: When Peat discovered Lara's body he told Harry "She's
                            Pete            Laura's    ,
> >dead rapped in plastic." How was Harry suposed to know it was Larra unless
     -wrapped                           supposed               Laura
> >they had been resently discussing that she was missing or somthing. She
               recently                                    something
> >wasn't discovered to be missing untill later. Fore: If cooper was sent to TP
                                 until         Four     Cooper
> >he would be sent to investigate one case. He wouldn't take over the entire
> >sheruffs office. I don't nesseseraly agree whith all this, but I thought it
 Sheriff's                necessarily       with
> >would be interesting to discuss.

Huh?

Brian

> >Just because Twin Peaks was cansiled doesn't meen it has to end. Other
                             cancelled        mean
> >people could write books on the subject, continuations of the plot, etc.
> >Infact if any one is interested we could try to brain storm up a few
 In fact,  anyone                                brainstorm
> >episodes via this net and E-mail. Then we could put it in a files and mail
                                                             file
> >it to who ever is interested, or board enoulgh to read it. If any one is
       whoever (whomever)         bored enough                 anyone
> >interested contact me. I'me shore we could set somthing up. Maby come up
                        I'm  sure               something    Maybe
> >with the plot and have diferent people write diferent sections? What ever If
                        different             different (fragment) Whatever
> >you don't think TP should end just continue it. I'me shore that we have
                                                 I'm  sure
> >enough deluded creativity here to come uo ith an episode or two worth of
                                        up with
> >text. Then we can do whatever we want with it including sendit out to people
                                                         sending it
> >who are interested as a TP sirial or send it to Lnch.
                            serial               Lynch <<<PLEASE! NO!!!>>>

---------
Oh great.  Do you think anyone would actually READ something that was
typed with so many spelling errors, grammatical errors, sentence
construction errors and punctuation errors?  I don't.

I'm sorry, I really am.  I hate doing this to you.  But I can't get
through one of your postings and remember what you were trying to say.
I get lost in the mistakes.

Brian

In article <8w5J83w164w@whitebase.ukp.com>, salmieri@whitebase.ukp.com (Gregory Salmieri) writes:
> > Three: When Peat discovered Lara's body he told Harry "She's 
> > dead rapped in plastic." How was Harry suposed to know it was Larra unless 
> > they had been resently discussing that she was missing or somthing. She 
> > wasn't discovered to be missing untill later. 

Your friend needs to watch more carefully.

Pete tells Harry, "She's dead -- wrapped in plastic."  He doesn't know who she
is, and neither does Harry.  Harry arrives and tells Andy to take some pictures.
Then Harry opens the plastic and sees who it is.  MEANWHILE, Sarah Palmer is
calling all around town trying to find out where her daughter is.  She even
calls Leland at work and says Laura is missing.  It's then that Harry comes in
to Leland with a long face and says, "It's about your daughter."  You've got
this all out of order.  Watch it again.
-- cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com --If you believe that I speak for my company, OR cdt@vos.stratus.com write today for my special Investors' Packet...

In article <8w5J83w164w@whitebase.ukp.com> salmieri@whitebase.ukp.com (Gregory Salmieri) writes:
(blah blah blah)

> >wasn't discovered to be missing untill later. Fore: If cooper was sent to TP 
> >he would be sent to investigate one case. He wouldn't take over the entire 
> >sheruffs office. I don't nesseseraly agree whith all this, but I thought it 
> >would be interesting to discuss.

Is there a golf game going on somewhere here ?

-Gian

In article <0kLN85w164w@whitebase.ukp.com> salmieri@whitebase.ukp.com (Gregory Salmieri) writes:
> >I agree the lodge plot was very weekand they may have been able to carry it 
> >out more realolisticly. IE not having pine trees turn into curtains and (s 
> >it) Venis and Mars(?) recieve Cooper. 

AHHHHHHHH!!!!

If you think the lodge plot was week how can you watch the show at all ?

THE LODGE IS THE WHOLE THING!!

next you're going to say you don't drink coffee .....

-Gian

hjohar@rnd.GBA.NYU.EDU (Hardeep Johar) writes:

> >In article <1991Aug30.214442.28776@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, platt@ccu.umanitoba.ca writes:
>> >> There seems to be some doubt on whether the a.tv.tp net has a future. I have 
>> >> another possibility.
>> >> 
>> >> How about starting a David Lynch network?
>> >> 

> >I strongly second this idea. The newsgroup as it is is deteriorating
> >into a forum for Nielsen ratings discussions. Perhaps a Lynch
> >newsgroup will put the group back on track, and provide a perspective
> >for discussions on twin peaks. Face it - twin peaks is dead but David
> >Lynch is still out there.
> >
> >Hardeep.

Count me in!  Just think---soon we'll all be able to discuss the living shit outof ERASERHEAD, "On the Air," and, of course, the TP movie.  Sounds fun.
===========================================================================  

   Captain Frank A. Lauro
(whose .sig file is apparently on the fritz....)

Hi everyone.  Just wanted to let everyone who wanted a shirt know that I got
some in from the printer today and will be sending them out tomorrow
(Wednesday).  Things are pretty hectic here with the beginning of the
semester and all, so please allow for a bit of slack.  If you have any
problems or questions, please contact me via email.

Peace and damn good furniture.
--- Mike

---
Mike.Carvalho@COMM.UMass.edu   21-B Old Amherst Road, Belch MA 01007-9735
---

Very briefly (I will try to post something more elaborate later but we
*just* got back and I am beat!):

Just returned from a trip to the Snoqualmie Valley.  There is movie-
making activity going on, but it is being kept VERY quiet.  The crew
is holed up in the building across the street from the Mar-T (Double
R) in North Bend, an old store that was used in the pilot? for some
random interior shots (the Jail, I believe).  The building is full of
props and what not, and very busy (people coming and going, studio
trucks, etc.)  Several motorcycles were parked inside.

Many of the local people we spoke to about it claimed not to be aware
of any new TP activity occurring, but finally one person admitted that
"everybody knows it's happening, but they've just asked us not to tell
anyone."

The owner of Windstreamers (Big Ed's Gas Farm) said that she'd "been
approached about three times about the Movie", that it was "on again
off again", but that this time was "for real".  She also said that
(I'm not sure how she knew this, but...) Lynch was making this film
on a budget comparable to the TV pilot's budget (this is INSANELY low
for a feature film!).

A survey of all the known TP sites didn't find the TP film crew in
action (and at times that they were *not* at the HQ), so I'm guessing
that they're using several new locations in the area.

Lastly, the directions posted earlier to the Abandoned Train Car
aren't very clear:  there're only about two dozen such in three
separate bunches in that 1/2 sq. mile!  After spending a few minutes
photographing what we thought was the appropriate bunch, my wife and
I were run off the property by a crotchity old man!  Be careful if you
go to look at them;  unlike the earlier poster, I found that I should
have payed attention to the trespassing signs.  At any rate, I
believe the "real" cars that were used in the shooting are the bunch
located closest to the Salish, furthest off the road and behind a big
dump of transformers and electrical equip.  These are also posted No
Trespassing, but access is easier and less public.

All in all (and quite aside from its Peaksish appeal) we had a great
trip (for the second year in a row!).  I really recommend the area to
anyone who's looking for a quirky, relaxing Getaway Vacation.  And -w-
Seattle just down the road, you can even go shopping/clubbing!


Yrs Not So Briefly After All,


JB


 
--
---- jbone@Sun.COM --------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------ Jeff Bone ----
                                                                   --

In article <1991Sep3.065948.8566@dmp.csiro.au>, sfy@dmp.csiro.au (Shane Youl) writes:
|> The Melbourne Fringe Film and Video Festival is about to get under way. One
|> title which immediately got my attention was
|> 
|> FOR ONE WEEK ONLY
|> Jonathon Ross Presents David Lynch
|> Producers: Channel X for Channel 4, U.K.

This was shown on British TV about a year ago, shortly before the BBC
began to show Twin Peaks. At the time, incidentally, it was followed by
a screening of Dune.

I would certainly recommend seeing it, indeed I'd like to see it again
now that Twin Peaks has come and gone. I well remember Lynch saying
something like "there's nothing quite like re-directing hot water" to
explain his plumbing fixation, and the description of his sugar-filled
lunchtimes between shooting. Never mind his days of wearing three ties...

There was also some good stuff about the making of Eraserhead, including
some shots of the locations used in the film and the enormous time-gap
in its filming.

I believe this was one of a series of Jonathon Ross films where he
interviewed certain non-mainstream directors; others featured the
director of Santa Sangre (sp?) and more besides - sorry, names escape me.

Anyway, all good stuff and well worth a look.

Ed Broom

..but smart old Blue he took the Milky Way.