PeterDavid.net

I believe that you are right when you say the demands are reasonable. But I believe that the WGA leadership has botched this strike. From the the way they dealt with Leno to the individual deals they are making, I just think that this is jus one huge mess.

The demands are reasonable. The WGA leadership's choices are not.

Please tell me how the AMPTP has been reasonable? I have yet to see it.

Oh Mike I so disagree. We all want people back to work.

Though I do agree about Leno.

Anyone catch Daily Show and Colbert Report - watching this morning, and, well, it's quite the train wreck.

Did anyone catch Jon Stewart asking for a deal?

If Viacom joins on the WGA bandwagon, that'd break the AMPTP.

Osbo, how do you mean train wreck? I thought they were very enjoyable.

By the way, I got impatient and posted about Jon Stewarts comments on A Daily Show in an older thread. PAD replied with this:

"I haven't seen the Daily Show yet; I was at a bowling league last night and intend to catch it on a morning repeat. But my assumption is that, if the WGA was unwilling/unable to cut a separate deal with Stewart, it's because technically they didn't cut a deal with David Letterman either. They cut a deal with a production company, "Worldwide Pants." They can't start cutting individual deals with individual TV shows; it's unwieldy and also would lessen pressure on the producers. However, I have absolutely no doubt that if Viacom, which owns the Daily Show, approached the WGA to cut a deal similar to what Worldwide Pants or UA has done, the WGA would do so in a heartbeat.

PAD"

Please tell me how the AMPTP has been reasonable? I have yet to see it.

Craig, you mean other than storming out, refusing to negotiate, and then claiming it's the WGA that's doing that, while meanwhile spreading lies about the strike and what's at stake? Perfectly reasonable, that AMPTP.

From the the way they dealt with Leno to the individual deals they are making, I just think that this is jus[t] one huge mess.

Mike: how did they deal with Leno poorly? I think the man's gotten a rough shake, all things considered -- he's in a lose-lose situation, in a show where he's already being pushed out -- but I don't think that was a concerted effort by the Guild. And I don't see how these individual deals do anything except strengthen the WGA's position.

Osbo, how do you mean train wreck? I thought they were very enjoyable.

Having just seen it this morning, I have to agree. Speaking as a biased individual, I particularly liked the notion of strikers walking in a picket line for so long that we wind up being transformed into Conan the Barbarian. I'm almost tempted to show up at the pickets on Wednesday with a sword strapped to my back.

PAD

Craig, you mean other than storming out, refusing to negotiate, and then claiming it's the WGA that's doing that, while meanwhile spreading lies about the strike and what's at stake? Perfectly reasonable, that AMPTP.

I particularly like the thing on their website in which they assert, "The Average Working WGA writer Make More than a family doctor/airline pilot/surgeon." Notice the brilliantly deceptive phrasing of that: "Average Working Writer." Except doctors and pilots presumably have steady jobs that pay them year in, year out, working 52 weeks a year, whereas the majority of WGA writers, just like SAG actors, are unemployed at any given moment. The entire concept behind residuals is to try and provide writers some sort of income during the inevitable gaps when their shows are canceled or their movies have wrapped and they're trying to find other employment (just as actors receive residuals for the same reason.) Yet the AMPTP remains interested only in trying to skew public perception against the writers rather than sit down like reasonable bargaining partners and settle this thing.

PAD

Mark Evanier and some others have commented that in previous negotiations, the AMPTP worked to set writers against one another and let that divisiveness work to their advantage. It seems that that latest proclamation is an attempt to do that, setting the writers who are working against the writers who are picketing. But if the general solidarity of the WGA is stronger than they expect--and it seems to be--that might not work for them.

A question: after David Letterman's Worldwide Pants and Tom Cruise et al.'s United Artists have struck interim deals with the WGA, anyone care to make any predictions on the next producer who can and will do so?

There was obviously some planning that went into the shows. The bit with Colbert's beard, the clips they had lined up, all that stuff. I'm interested where the dividing line between 'planning' and 'writing' is. Thinking up funny things to talk about ahead of time doesn't seem so bad. Taking notes so you don't forget them seems like a good idea, but is that writing? Is there a certain level of detail to the notes that is okay? It seems like a comedy skit could be done over the union arguing about whether or not bullet points are crossing the line.

Perhaps I should clarify - I meant it was an enjoyable train wreck :)

In a good way.

It was respectful to the writers, but also emphasized well that he wants their writers back. I actually was rather impressed.

Tommy:

The last rumor I heard was The Weinstein Company.

Yeah, I also heard that, that the Weinsteins were on the bubble.

PAD

And I heard that negotiations are going on with Lionsgate

Hear, hear, PAD! Let's get a fair deal for the writers in a hurry - I want the second half of Battlestar in 2008!

R&D Productions next up after Lionsgate, one hopes...?

It's been my belief that the AMPTP has been stalling because they don't want to set a precedent for residuals when the SAG and DGA contracts expire, and those groups ask for a bigger share than the WGA does. It seems if that's the case, the AMPTP should have notified their members that such was their thinking, and likewise told the WGA.

Even if that's the case, that's no reason why the AMPTP have been acting like spoiled 8 year olds. I'm glad that individual studios are coming to the table...the WGA requests are very reasonable, and it seems that a minimal amount of negotiating would allow a compromise that all parties can agree to.

I find it interesting that the AMPTP tries to characterize these agreements as interim...they may very well contain langauge that would allow a more general agreement with all of the AMPTP to superceded it, but those agreements are binding for their term. They are no more interim than that last contract was.

I wonder if the studios smart enough to sign on with the WGA will go on a buying spree, free to pick from a wide selection of choice scripts and treatments from writers eager to lock in the only deal in town.

If it looks like UA or the Weinsteins are gaining an advantage, the other producers will desert like rats on a sinking ship.

"Except doctors and pilots presumably have steady jobs that pay them year in, year out, working 52 weeks a year, whereas the majority of WGA writers, just like SAG actors, are unemployed at any given moment. The entire concept behind residuals is to try and provide writers some sort of income during the inevitable gaps when their shows are canceled or their movies have wrapped and they're trying to find other employment (just as actors receive residuals for the same reason.)"

What about all the lighting, sound, camera, make-up, etc. people who are currently out of work because of the WGA strike? Do those folks, who also have to worry about finding their next job, get residuals? Are they going to be compensated in any way for the money they've lost?

Mike

What about all the lighting, sound, camera, make-up, etc. people who are currently out of work because of the WGA strike? Do those folks, who also have to worry about finding their next job, get residuals? Are they going to be compensated in any way for the money they've lost?

Yeah...the AMPTP should deal with THAT, as well!

bobb alfred: It's been my belief that the AMPTP has been stalling because they don't want to set a precedent for residuals when the SAG and DGA contracts expire, and those groups ask for a bigger share than the WGA does. It seems if that's the case, the AMPTP should have notified their members that such was their thinking, and likewise told the WGA.

Why should they tell their opponents their strategy? It might seem obvious what they are doing and easy to surmise why. But in a negotiation I don't see why either side is obligated to tell the other.

"Hey, I want you to think twice about attacking my ship, so my strategy will be to make up a story about it having a 'Corbomite device'. You cool with that?"

However, I have absolutely no doubt that if Viacom, which owns the Daily Show, approached the WGA to cut a deal similar to what Worldwide Pants or UA has done, the WGA would do so in a heartbeat.
A few weeks back, Comedy Central was saying that they had tried to reach a deal with WGA and was rebuffed - similar, actually, to what Dick Clark Productions was accusing over the weekend (that WGA was refusing to deal with them). The last thing I read, Sunday night, suggested that they were going to lodge a complaint because they weren't being treated fairly, and that the WGA was being selective in who they would make any sort of agreements with.

Now, granted, since my only way of tracking this is via the media, it's going to carry a bias. Does anyone here have any further information on that, or the WGA being selective in production companies it's negotiating with?

Do you have a link to that, Kelly? I'd like to read the details.

Here's a link to part (not all) of what Kelly was referring to:
http://www.zap2it.com/tv/news/zap-nbcgoldenglobeschanges,0,7095513.story?coll=zap-news-headlines

That article does say Viacom or Comedy Central, which is the part I'm interested in at the moment.

Are they going to be compensated in any way for the money they've lost?

Isn't just about everybody in Hollywood unionized?

I haven't been following this anywhere near as closely as most of you here, but I'm curious about something. Is unionization of animators still a sticking point? If that's the case, then side deals may not matter all that much. Letterman's company produces late night talk shows and the occasional TV series. UA and the Weinsteins would simply avoid animated features (which, in the case of the Weinsteins, is probably something they should be doing anyway given their track record in the area).

I think the AMPTP has been pretty cunning in their negotiations. By negotiating a few side deals it's definitely going to pit writers (and crews) for the shows that resumed production against the shows that didn't. Not at first, but in time. I think they've laid the ground work for a long, cold winter. This won't be settled until the Directors and Actors are all on strike.

The producers have all the cash. They could easily even bypass the 2009 season without too much financial hardship. The same cannot be said of 95% of the writers, directors and actors and probably 99.9% of the rest of the crew members.

I truly hope this isn't the case, but it seems the obvious path based on everything that's happened so far.

I think the AMPTP has been pretty cunning in their negotiations. By negotiating a few side deals it's definitely going to pit writers (and crews) for the shows that resumed production against the shows that didn't.

Maybe, but two questions/observations:

(1) To what degree is it the AMPTP that's making these side deals? It doesn't quite seem like the larger AMPTP organization is making side deals on behalf of a few of its constituent members; it seems more like some AMPTP members (or producers that aren't AMPTP members) are breaking from the organization saying, in essence, "I don't want you to represent me in these negotiations. I'm going to negotiate directly."

(I note that the AMPTP website includes a link at http://www.amptp.org/aboutus.html to those producers it represents in the negotiation. It's a huge list, 350+ lines long, but it may not be exhaustive, either.)

(2) You say that the result of these side deals will pit writers against one another, perhaps eroding the solidarity of the WGA. But isn't it just as easy to think that the result will be to pit producers against one another--those that're able to work reasonably normally vs. those who are writerless--perhaps eroding the solidarity of the AMPTP membership?

"Why should they tell their opponents their strategy?"

Because this isn't war...it's a business negotiation, and at the end of all this, the AMPTP needs the WGA. They're going to have to work together once the deals are all signed. If it were war, yeah, tell your opponent all kinds of lies. But when it's a business partner, and you know going into a situation like this that you have no intention of making any kind of real agreement until months from now, why waste everyone's time and patience? Just be up front..."we want to negotiate, but we don't want to get burned in 6 months when the other unions come in and use our agreement with you as leverage for their own deals. The truth is, we can and are willing to sit out until next year, so let's just meet later in the spring, 'kay?"

It's good business. What the AMPTP is doing isn't.

"What about all the lighting, sound, camera, make-up, etc. people who are currently out of work because of the WGA strike? Do those folks, who also have to worry about finding their next job, get residuals? Are they going to be compensated in any way for the money they've lost?"

For the money they aren't making on whatever show's not being produced because of the strike? No. Then again, they don't get residuals because: 1) they don't contribute in a unique way to the creative process, and; 2) it's far easier for them to find steady paying work throughout the year.

On top of that, there's nothing stopping a boom or camera operator from continuing to work. Reality and game shows are exempt from the WGA strike, and production on those continues. The technical and support for those shows is probably identicle to that of a scripted show...they all need sets, lights, cameras, booms, mikes, sound, makeup, wardrobe, etc. There may not be as many jobs as normally would be, but I'd also guess that there's work to be found if they look hard enough.

I would assume that there are a limited number of lighting, sound, camera, make-up, etc., jobs available at any time, and also that the shows not affected by the WGA strike have already hired the workers they need right now, so those put out of work by the strike won't have the easiest time in the world getting jobs. Their skills are more mobile than the writers', I'm sure, but they are being more than inconvenienced. Many of the WGA demands are just, but it would be foolish to discount the ill-will that will remain should the strike continue much longer. The writers may prevail, but I'm not sure they'll win as much as they think.

I was talking to a union camera operator last night, right at the beginning of her career. She had work on hour dramas and the occasional feature. She's had trouble securing work, mainly because she doesn't want to do reality shows - and she recognizes it's been her choice.

What has she been doing?

Accounting.

I would assume that there are a limited number of lighting, sound, camera, make-up, etc., jobs available at any time,

True. But that's because of limited air time. Which has to be filled due to shut downs. And those replacements will still need the tech people that the closed-down shows possessed.

"I was talking to a union camera operator last night, right at the beginning of her career. She had work on hour dramas and the occasional feature. She's had trouble securing work, mainly because she doesn't want to do reality shows - and she recognizes it's been her choice.

What has she been doing?

Accounting."

I went to college with someone that ended up working crew for Days of Our Lives. I'm not sure what his degree was, but it wasn't theater or tech involved. He makes great money. Point being, he's probably not the only one that's got some kind of degree to fall back on during times like these.

"I would assume that there are a limited number of lighting, sound, camera, make-up, etc., jobs available at any time, and also that the shows not affected by the WGA strike have already hired the workers they need right now, so those put out of work by the strike won't have the easiest time in the world getting jobs."

By the same logic, there's only so many people to fill those jobs at any given time. The tech side of production is just another resource, although one more fungible than say the writing or acting talent are. While you CAN fill any roll with any actor, producers will spend a lot of energy looking for just the right person for key positions. Even walk-ons and extras aren't as fungible as say a boom operator. The strike hasn't changed the number of broadcast hours the networks need to fill. While re-runs and movies account for some of that, generally, it seems to me that the same amount of tech work that existed pre-strike either still exists, or shortly will, as reality and game shows get up and running. Those shows don't pull from a different base of tech labor...it'll be the same folks that were working on WGA projects. Some, like Osbo's acquaintence, will choose not to cross lines and support the WGA by not working. Others will make the decision to work. While they are going through imposed hardship, it's not as hard as the WGA members. Likely, they'll need to keep writing...have to be ready to sell when the strike ends...so their ability to work out-of-industry jobs will be limited.

I don't follow these things all that closely, so forgive my ignorance, but doesn't Marvel have a production company now (putting out Iron Man and Hulk)? If so, any notion being floated of Marvel striking a deal?

I don't follow these things all that closely, so forgive my ignorance, but doesn't Marvel have a production company now (putting out Iron Man and Hulk)? If so, any notion being floated of Marvel striking a deal?

Wait, isn't it back-asswards that studios negotiated as a union themselves? When I worked as a cashier and we struck, we picketed one chain, not all supermarkets. What's stopping the unions from portraying the studios as a trust?

Jon Stewart asked his guest about the studios working together on A Daily the other night.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=147139&title=ron-seeber-pt.-2&to=2

From Wiki: "The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP) is a trade association based in Encino, California that represents over 350 American film production companies and studios in negotiations with entertainment industry trade unions in collective bargaining."

My guess is that it exists in large part to prevent exactly what's happenening now...individual studios entering into contracts with the WGA, reducing the bargaining power of any studio considerably.

The last thing I read, Sunday night, suggested that they were going to lodge a complaint because they weren't being treated fairly, and that the WGA was being selective in who they would make any sort of agreements with.

It wouldn't surprise me if the WGA were being selective. Negotiators are walking a fine line between wanting to be flexible and making things too "easy" on the major producers. For instance, it would benefit the WGA greatly if Viacom wanted to cut a deal, because Viacom is huge and owns many properties that employ writers. Cutting a separate deal with Comedy Central would be, as the saying goes, penny wise and pound foolish. It would benefit a small number of writers and a lucrative venue for Viacom in the short run, but in the long run just makes it that much easier for Viacom to then hold out the rest of the properties that it owns.

Why Letterman then? Well, I suppose because the feeling was that it's better to have Letterman on your side than it is not to have him there. Leno was going back with or without writers, and since NBC owns "The Tonight Show," there was no negotiation permissible. But by working out a deal with Worldwide Pants, they could have an ongoing outlet for the writers and their interests. Yeah, short term, Leno is still getting higher ratings. But let's see what happens several weeks from now, or a month from now, or two months from now, if high-profile guests continue to refuse to cross picket lines and Leno is scraping for non-scripted material.

PAD

"What about all the lighting, sound, camera, make-up, etc. people who are currently out of work because of the WGA strike? Do those folks, who also have to worry about finding their next job, get residuals? Are they going to be compensated in any way for the money they've lost?"

For the money they aren't making on whatever show's not being produced because of the strike? No. Then again, they don't get residuals because: 1) they don't contribute in a unique way to the creative process, and; 2) it's far easier for them to find steady paying work throughout the year.

Understand, Bobb, that Bunge isn't *really* interested in answers. He's interested in picking fights with me, which was his major passtime over on Comicon.com. But he hasn't been able to since I stopped frequenting that board, so he had to crawl over here to try and recommence his compulsive hostilities.

His question is, of course, completely irrelevant to my post. I was commenting on how the AMPTP puts forward how important the below-the-line employees are in the absence of jobs...until all fo the sudden the WGA cuts deals to bring people back to work, at which point suddenly the achievement is diminished because it only means that "some writers will be employed."

Whether or not the below-the-line folks receive residuals is beside the point for a very simple reason: It's not in their contracts. Their union didn't negotiate deals in which they received residuals. Once upon a time, writers didn't either. Neither did actors. Unions forged deals with producers to make that happen. If the technical and teamster unions are able to likewise forge such deals for their people, hey...more power to 'em. The fact that, to the best of my knowledge, they currently don't receive residuals is hardly the WGA's fault.

PAD

This is sllllightly off topic, but (insert Jerry Seinfeld voice here) what's the deal with the new shows on right now? Tonight had a new episode of CRIMINAL MINDS, and tomorrow night there are new episodes of MY NAME IS EARL and 30 ROCK. Were these shows that were completed before the strike and are now being aired? Were they finished in advance, in anticipation of the strike? Is there a WGA deal letting the writers do them? Inquiring redhead wants to know!

(I also think that, even if the strike were settled tomorrow, there'll be two long-term consequences. The first will be that this could hurt DVD sales for the shows currently affected, if the releases only have half as many episodes as the "normal" sets. The second is that shows that are struggling (30 ROCK, shamelessly filling itself with guest stars to get ratings; still funny though) or newer shows (the brilliant and quirky PUSHING DAISIES) may be *really* hurt, as their potential audience and loyal fans may lose interest or forget about them with the strike on.)

Peter -

As a fellow member of the WGA East, please accept my thanks for your ever-cogent commentary on the matter of the strike. After a long day of standing in place (if ever there was proof that writers need directors, come see us all try to walk in a loop in front of Viacom), it's nice to see someone put our quandary into such clear and simple terms. Keep it up.

On a fanboy note: I collected comics up until I hit high school, or when the comics hit the $1.25 mark (sorry to say, the habit could not then co-exist with my budding social life). Nearly fifteen years later I am rediscovering comics and loving it. Among my favorites is X-Factor. I remember well your first run with Madrox and Polaris (broken jaw and all) and the rest but this second turn is whupping nostalgia's ass. I look forward to what you have in store.

Chris

As a fellow member of the WGA East, please accept my thanks for your ever-cogent commentary on the matter of the strike. After a long day of standing in place (if ever there was proof that writers need directors, come see us all try to walk in a loop in front of Viacom), it's nice to see someone put our quandary into such clear and simple terms. Keep it up.

Well, I was there too, so I wish you'd come over and said hi. Mostly I was standing around being bored.

This is sllllightly off topic, but (insert Jerry Seinfeld voice here) what's the deal with the new shows on right now? Tonight had a new episode of CRIMINAL MINDS, and tomorrow night there are new episodes of MY NAME IS EARL and 30 ROCK. Were these shows that were completed before the strike and are now being aired?

Sure. You're not seeing anything this season that you don't typically see. In the old days, when networks ordered 30 or so episodes, they had enough to air new shows every month. With the typical order now down to 22, they have to make them last. So they typically schedule repeats for December, when viewership is usually down, so that they can have new episodes for January. You're seeing them now. By February or March they'll be done with new episodes of series that began in September.

PAD

PAD says that the welfare of the crew members is irrelevant to his own post. That is probably true. He is concerned with the best interests of the WGA members, as is his right, and has no objection to the inconveniencing of non-WGA personnel. That's just fine, but why should any of them honor and respect a strike which has no concern for them? A lot has been made of the disrespect producers, staff and crew show the WGA by not honoring their strike (despite the fact that many of them are bound by their own contracts to do so) - but why shouldn't they if it is made clear to them that their interests are irrelevant to the great good of looking out for WGA members' wallets? People who are crude enough not to be WGA members are being put out of work by this strike - an unavoidable side effect, probably - but it leaves a very bad taste to say they are irrelevant. Try producing a program without actors, crew and staff, and see how well the writers can get by without those peons.

On a different subject, how much autonomy do the WGA East and West have? If one found a proposal acceptable and the other didn't would there remain only a regional strike? I would expect the interests of WGA East members, many working on the stage and in nonfiction programming, would not be identical to those in the West, with many working in comedic and dramatic television and film.

"PAD says that the welfare of the crew members is irrelevant to his own post."

PAD said that a certain question was irrelevant to his post because his post dealt with how the AMPTP was portraying the welfare of crew members. He has not said that he has no objection to the inconveniencing of non-WGA personnel.

PAD says the question of whether crew members receive residuals is irrelevant, because it is not in their contracts to do so. I'm not sure I agree that it is irrelevant, because if they ask for residuals in the future that will be a relevant matter, but still, fine - PAD seems to be saying that discussion of matters not already determined by contracts is irrelevant. If that is so, then what is the relevance of the current WGA strike? There was a preexisting contract which the WGA now contends was not satisfactory concerning residuals for writers. By PAD's line of reasoning, the producers should feel free to say "Hey, jerks - The sort of residuals you want were not in your previous contract! What's wrong with you, talking about such irrelevancies? Go back to work, and be glad we're even talking to you." I don't think they should, and neither does PAD, I bet. If I read him correctly, he says that questions of crew welfare are a matter of the relevant unions not previously negotiating residual deals with the producers - but I think that's wrong. Questions of crew welfare are matters of non-WGA members being laid off during the WGA strike. This is analogous to this situation. Suppose the truck drivers at a publisher of PAD's work went on strike, and the pressmen and editors honored the strike and refused to print or edit his writings, so he was forbidden to write during the strike (not a perfect example, because there are important free speech issues, of course - but still a matter of one group of workers being inconvenienced by the labor disputes of another). He'd certainly think something of value had been taken away from him because of other people's disputes.

PAD says that the matter of the crews' welfare is not relevant to his argument - That it's a new subject brought up to cloud the argument, I suppose. I say this: If the welfare of the crew and staff is of no concern to him and other members of the WGA, it's difficult to see why the crew members and staff should feel any solidarity with the writers' union or honor its strike.

"PAD says the question of whether crew members receive residuals is irrelevant"

No. He said that it was irrelevant to his post. He did not say that it was irrelevant, he said that it was irrelevant to a specific point that he was making. He does not say that it is irrelevant to the larger issue and his comment about their contracts was in regards to why they don't get residuals, too.

If you wish to discuss something that someone actually said, then I will talk with you at that point.

There was a preexisting contract which the WGA now contends was not satisfactory concerning residuals for writers.

Umm, in case you failed to notice, that contract is over, which means it is no longer applicable.

So, your argument utterly fails.

The contract is over, which is why they're renegotiating. The strike is the result of a failed renegotiation. So of course it's applicable. They met initially at the end of said contract.

As for the crew...

There are difficulties. Another guy I work with is an IATSE local member, we were talking and he was focusing on the one op-ed piece of one (former) WGA member who left the union (I forget his name). I pointed out that that's just one guy, and it's hard to have complete solidarity when one is not working. As he should probably know.

I actually don't like the argument the WGA is using that they should get these residuals because they're out of work. I should think it's a better example to say that writers contributed uniquely to the creative process of a product that makes money. And by "uniquely" I mean they structured, broke the story, and wrote the thing. If the product continues to make money, they get a cut as reward. That's a big "if" and an unlikely "if". Especially with the way net profits get reported - according to that, the Simpsons hasn't made any money in its entire run. Creative accounting.

The technicians that are out of work right now are out of work because AMPTP refuses to buy scripts to produce new shows, NOT because the WGA are striking. They're taking a strong stance for their writers, demanding a lot of what they didn't get before.

The AMPTP don't have a bad position, really. They're looking for the most money for their shareholders and the like, unfortunately it looks like it might cost them more to have the writer's strike than to be back at the negotiating table now.

Technicians out of work is a smokescreen. If they needed better pay, if they want residuals (which has been suggested), more vacation, etcetera, they're unionized and they have full rights to do what they need to do to get those things. It's also a bit of a straw-man - a way to say - the spoiled writers are ruining it for the hard-working below-the-line workers. As suggested, though, they could work reality, game show, etcetera. Those shows are being put into production - more than before.

The AMPTP haven't negotiated for weeks, and seem to be stalling for the DGA and SAG to strike.

Craig J. Ries, if a contract previously existed (which it did) then there was a previously existing contract. PAD's argument was that discussion of residuals for crew members was irrelevant, because their contract does not call for residuals. Perhaps that is so, but how is that argument different from "Discussion of increased residuals for writers is irrelevant, because they don't have a contract calling for increased residuals"? When the WGA had a contract, members worked under the terms of that contract; After the contract expired but prior to the strike members worked under the terms of the previous contract; Now, during the strike, the union and its members want something they have not been guaranteed under any previous contract. In this case, it appears appropriate that they should receive it, but there is no current contract enforcing it. The crew members do not presently have residuals either, but the question of whether they should is not irrelevant - to them, if not to PAD.

"So, your argument utterly fails." You probably should know what my argument is before determining that. Here goes:

PAD says that discussion of the plight of the crew members is irrelevant to his argument about the excellence of the WGA demands, because the crew members do not have any terms regarding residuals in their contract. I must admit that is correct, but then, as Craig J. Ries reminds us, the WGA doesn't have anything in any contract regarding any subject at all - It doesn't have any contract, so should we say that any discussion or consideration of anything regarding the writers' interests is irrelevant? The subject PAD dismissed as irrelevant was the fact that the current strike has had an effect on the employment and income of non-WGA members. If he does not consider that subject relevant to discussion, the electricians, carpenters and other crew members should understand how much their efforts mean to him (and by extension other WGA members). It all comes down to this: If the WGA dismisses the interests of the crew members, why should the crew members offer any support at all to the WGA strike?

It all comes down to this: If the WGA dismisses the interests of the crew members, why should the crew members offer any support at all to the WGA strike?

If I thought for a moment that you were interested in an honest answer, rather than just being interested in twisting everything I say, I would answer that. But I don't, so I won't, other than to say that your response is laced with distortions and untruths.

PAD

Agreed. Jeff you're pointing the finger at the wrong straw-man.

The argument at hand is between the AMPTP and the WGA. It's negatively affecting others' livelihood, yes, but it's the fault of the parties who aren't reaching an end to negotiations.

By negotiating with Worldwide Pants and United Artists, the WGA have shown that they can actually be reasonable. By not coming to the table at all since December, the AMPTP are showing they're not, and also not competent negotiators.

Jason - I've been looking, but I'm not having a lot of luck finding what I read last week (in part because I wasn't reading it on my computer, but my father's while mine was in the shop, and that cache is now several thousand miles away). However, PAD provides a very sound explanation for why WGA wouldn't negotiate with Comedy Central.

However, PAD, from the Dick Clark Productions article on Sunday night, they were intimating that by refusing to negotiate fairly and equally with all people who came to the table, WGA was breaking some sort of established... strike... rules? I'm grasping for language here primarily because I am not terribly familiar with labour markets and law, but the newspaper article (found in O'Hare, so probably a Chicago paper, but who knows) made it sound like you can't do certain levels of specific negotiations during a strike, shutting out some people, elsewise government agencies could be looped in?

Times like these actually make me wish I'd taken a couple of labour and law courses.

This is sllllightly off topic, but (insert Jerry Seinfeld voice here) what's the deal with the new shows on right now? Tonight had a new episode of CRIMINAL MINDS, and tomorrow night there are new episodes of MY NAME IS EARL and 30 ROCK.
JamesLynch - some shows were held in reserve, like The Sarah Connor Chronicles and Law & Order - while others (Law & Order: SVU, Bones, House, the CSIs, etc) have a handful of finished episodes to air in the new year. When they're aired depends on the network; Fox won't need to air episodes of House until after American Idol does its first month or so of mega-episodes, and they're not bringing other shows back to finish until the (April)May sweeps.

Over at TVGuide, the Strikewatch Blog has an updated Strike Chart, showing how many episodes of popular shows were written before the strike (keeping in mind that they could produce all the episodes that were written prior to the strike), produced, and how many are remaining to air:
http://community.tvguide.com/blog-entry/TVGuide-Editors-Blog/Ausiello-Report/Strike-Chart-Long/800026937

However, PAD, from the Dick Clark Productions article on Sunday night, they were intimating that by refusing to negotiate fairly and equally with all people who came to the table, WGA was breaking some sort of established... strike... rules?

Sorry. I got nothing there. I'm no lawyer; hell, I'm not even a member of the negotiating committee. I'm just one guy speculating with a layman's knowledge of what's been going into this, plus extrapolation of stuff that's been said in various e-mails sent to WGA members.

I would have to think that if DC productions has a legit beef and the government agrees, they'll compell the WGA to negotiate with everyone who is interested in carving a deal. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with that. The more people we can cut out from under the AMPTP, the better.

If we're going to talk violations, the finger would really have to be pointed first at the AMPTP. The way good-faith negotiations are supposed to go, one side presents their demands--requests A through F--the other side counters, and there's a back and forth. Instead the AMPTP decided to toss standard negotiation out the window--in a move that shatters good faith and perhaps, for all I know, legality--by demanding that the WGA take demands A through C off the table before they would even DISCUSS D through F. When the WGA responded by saying, Well, we're not going to cripple our negotiating position before we even start negotiating, the AMPTP seized that as an excuse to walk away.

To my mind--and again, I emphasize, I'm not on any negotiating committee--the WGA's demands boil down to two major points: 1) Unionizing writers on currently non-union endeavors such as animation, and 2) getting residuals for new markets. Personally my speculation is that they're willing to give in on the former in order to achieve the latter. But the AMPTP's response was to insist that (1) be removed entirely from consideration before they would even discuss (2). It's bizarre not to discuss an entire package of demands, and the WGA said they wouldn't just toss out (1) without even an initial discussion of (2). The AMPTP seized upon that to walk away and declare that this was *entirely* about (1) when they know perfectly well that's BS.

PAD

PAD - The very best way to refute someone is to actually do so. Saying "I could answer that, but I won't" is amusing to the people who already agree with you, but does nothing to make a point. Osbo says I am tilting at the wrong straw man (One has to look hard to find a "right" straw man, but I'll let that pass.), but in fact I was taking issue with you - the person who posted that the question of crew members' condition was irrelevant to your argument. I think that gives the impression of not giving a damn about the people you are depending on to support the WGA strike; I also think that it would be worth your while to refute that. Whatever you really think about the crew members, it is foolish to take their support for granted.

PAD - The very best way to refute someone is to actually do so. Saying "I could answer that, but I won't" is amusing to the people who already agree with you, but does nothing to make a point.

The point is that there's no reason to discuss anything with you because you're not worth discussing things with. You're not interested in an actual exchange of ideas. You're interested in taking what I say and twisting it into something I did not say and then attacking that. In essence, you're arguing with yourself. Life's too short to waste energy in such discussions where I spend most of the time saying, "No...I didn't say that." Your persistence in twisting and distorting my words indicates one of two things: Either you're too stupid to understand what I say, or you are deliberately twisting what I say in order to perpetuate an argument out of a bizarre need to sustain attacks. Either way, you're worth neither the time nor the effort.

The larger problem is that when someone distorts your position, you're then compelled to repeat the distortion in order to refute it. "No, I did not say X, what I said is Y." Except when you repeat it, you are reinforcing it in the minds of the readers, so that ultimately they don't remember your refutation; they just remember the repeated charge. It's a popular debating tactic when you're trying to make the opposition look bad. Sorry; I'm not going to fall for it.

Get the point?

PAD

PAD, based on your actual words, directly above, written by you and not distorted by me, I think you are a contemptible, arrogant creep. What you actually say seems selfish and poorly-considered. The most consistent thread I see in your comments is that you cannot imagine that anyone could really disagree with you or be offended by your statements if they just understood what you REALLY meant. I can tell you that I have read many of your comments, understood what you were trying to say, and still disagreed. In this particular thread, you dismissed the question of the effect the WGA strike is having on non-WGA crew members as irrelevant to the point you were making. I suppose your point was that the WGA's demands were reasonable and the producers were behaving inappropriately. It is certainly possible that you were correct about that. The question of the effect on other personnel is still completely valid and important. You, speaking for yourself and not the WGA, dismissed that question as irrelevant. Let's turn that around. Suppose the actors were on strike and the writers were being laid off. If you read some self-satisfied actor spouting "Oh, we actors are right about everything! ...The writers? I don't care; shut up about them. We actors want this, and that, and more of something else... No, the question of the writers being paid is not relevant to the question. Let me repeat: We want..." would you feel like supporting the actors' strike? I know that in any strike there may be unintended consequences; I know that those strikes must still sometimes continue nonetheless; You should know that dismissing those consequences as meaningless makes for a lot of bad feelings.

"Get the point?" (you ask) Yes, I get it very clearly that you are both myopic and arrogant when it comes to the interests of people who are not exactly like you. You don't have any idea whether something will offend, and when you find out that it will, you don't care.

PAD, based on your actual words, directly above, written by you and not distorted by me, I think you are a contemptible, arrogant creep.

Oh, the irony, considering you seem to be the only one who has such a consistent problem understanding what PAD is saying, who enjoys twisting his every post to fit your own worldly view.

Getting back on topic, and maybe Jeffrey can twist this around, the Weinsteins are now on board, and rumors are floating of an agreement with CBS now as well.

(Osbo) "The argument at hand is between the AMPTP and the WGA. It's negatively affecting others' livelihood, yes, but it's the fault of the parties who aren't reaching an end to negotiations."

This is entirely true! There are two parties to the negotiations, Osbo. The AMPTP is not reaching an end to negotiations; The WGA is not reaching an end to negotiations (If it had done so, negotiations would have reached an end). You could make a strong argument that the AMPTP should give in to the WGA's demands. You could make a less worthy argument that the WGA could surrender and return to work. Neither party, however, has "reach(ed) an end to negotiations," so by your argument, the AMPTP and WGA are both at fault. I wouldn't go that far. The strike and the WGA's demands appear to be appropriate. So long as the WGA recognizes that the strike affects other workers and regrets the necessity, it has the high ground. When loudmouths not speaking on behalf of their union insist that the plight of the crew members is irrelevant to the issue they make their union look bad.

The most consistent thread I see in your comments is that you cannot imagine that anyone could really disagree with you or be offended by your statements if they just understood what you REALLY meant.

See, whereas to me the consistent thread is that you deliberately misunderstand, twist, or distort what I say in order to perpetuate an argument.

I can tell you that I have read many of your comments, understood what you were trying to say, and still disagreed.

Big shock there. Thanks for making my point for me yet again.

Getting back on topic, and maybe Jeffrey can twist this around, the Weinsteins are now on board, and rumors are floating of an agreement with CBS now as well.

I've known about the pending Weinstein deal for a while now. Hadn't heard anything about CBS, though. That would be huge, if that happened.

PAD

Craig J. Ries: Let's draw a distinction between "a consistent problem understanding what PAD is saying"[your words] and "agreement with what PAD is saying"[my preference]. You are assuming that to understand his point is to agree with it, but that is wrong. I know very well what he thinks about a number of things, but I disagree with him.

(Me) "I can tell you that I have read many of your comments, understood what you were trying to say, and still disagreed."

(PAD) "Big shock there. Thanks for making my point yet again."

So PAD's point is that I understand and yet disagree with him? I had the impression (because he said so) that he thought I misunderstood him. If his point is only that I disagree with him, oh yes, that is true. The only way I can understand PAD's previous statements is that he thinks so highly of his own opinions that it is incomprehensible to him that anyone could understand them and still disagree. Several people here seem to feel the same way. I do not, and do not have to. What he calls deliberate twisting of his words I would call taking him at his word and disagreeing.

Craig J. Ries: Let's draw a distinction between "a consistent problem understanding what PAD is saying"[your words] and "agreement with what PAD is saying"[my preference]. You are assuming that to understand his point is to agree with it, but that is wrong.

There. Right there. You did it again. It's not that his "assumption" is wrong. It's that your interpretation of his "assumption" is wrong. He never said to understand me is to agree with me. He said that your own (re)wording of my sentiments is so far away from any reasonable interpretation that you're doing it with deliberate intent in order to fit into your world view.

The point, Jeffrey--and very likely the last time I will bother with you on this thread--is that I believe you do not read my posts with an eye toward assessing whether you think I'm right or wrong. You read them predisposed to disagree and then put your comments together accordingly. The reason I believe this is that your comments are so aggressively twisted that either there is purpose behind it, or you're just monumentally stupid. I don't think it's the latter, so I'll take it to be the former.

You are, of course, free to disagree with this assessment, as I know you will.

PAD

PAD, just let it go. Responding to Jeffrey about why you don't want to respond to Jeffrey isn't going to work.

As for the AMPTP, I have a question. Who's actually running it? When they make a decision to walk away from the table, is that 20 actual producers, 10 moguls who've never actually worked directly with writers, or 5 business guys who don't make movies at all because their full time job is the AMPTP? Do all the production companies that are part of the AMPTP get a say in these tactics, or do they just meet every once in awhile and elect officials?

I ask because I'm beginning to wonder just how much the AMPTP actually represents the production companies. With more and more defections, it's getting unclear.

PAD, just let it go.

It's gone.

As for the AMPTP, I have a question. Who's actually running it?

The President, chief negotiator and figurehead of the AMPTP is a guy named Nick Counter. Here's the interesting thing: Unlike the president of the WGA who is a writer, or the DGA being a director, or SAG being an actor, Nick Counter is not a producer. At least he has no producing credits that I can find. Counter is a lawyer. I would assume he takes his marching orders from the assembled studio heads, although I don't pretend to know the actual hierarchy.

PAD

From Peter David:

As I understand it, crew personnel do get residuals. They get them as payments into their union health-insurance and retirement-pension funds rather than as checks sent to individual members.

You are assuming that to understand his point is to agree with it, but that is wrong.

And here's yet *another* example of your twisting.

Perhaps it's time you stop making assumptions about what other people are thinking? You're not very good at it.

PAD understands what I'm saying, I understand what PAD's saying.

You're merely twisting around what both of us are saying so it fits whatever you want our statements to mean. Yet, you apparently cannot grasp that you are doing that.

Counter is a lawyer.

And I believe we have found the root of the problem. ;)

You're right PAD, it is very interesting that every organisation involved is run by someone who does the job, except the AMPTP. It makes my wonder if he's more likely to value winning in itself over making good shows and movies.

Jeffrey, just to respond:

"This is entirely true! There are two parties to the negotiations, Osbo. The AMPTP is not reaching an end to negotiations; The WGA is not reaching an end to negotiations (If it had done so, negotiations would have reached an end). You could make a strong argument that the AMPTP should give in to the WGA's demands. You could make a less worthy argument that the WGA could surrender and return to work. Neither party, however, has "reach(ed) an end to negotiations," so by your argument, the AMPTP and WGA are both at fault."

Not necessarily what I meant, but I understand the misinterpretation. The WGA is the party actually working to make interim deals such that some companies can work. The AMPTP hasn't made any such concessions or returned to the negotiating table, which the WGA negotiating team claims to be at every day.

There are levels of fault here for what you seem to be saying.

There you go.

(Craig J. Ries) "Oh, the irony, considering you seem to be the only one who has such a consistent problem understanding what PAD is saying"

PAD, whether you like it or not, this statement is an assumption that I do not understand what you are saying - that my response comes from misunderstanding rather than disagreement. You know very well that I do disagree with you, and you discount the possibility that I am just too dense to understand. There is no "consistent misunderstanding (of) what PAD is saying." You interpret this as personal animus, and I won't argue with that. The question remains - do I disagree with you because I dislike you, or dislike you because I disagree with you? On this subject, I will quote you: "You are, of course, free to disagree with this assessment, as I know you will." I disagree with your previous claim that no one can ever convince anyone else of anything, but on this subject it does apply.

Osbo, I don't think there is any misinterpretation. The AMPTP and the WGA are in negotiations and have not reached an agreement. The WGA has a more reasonable position, but that's a different matter. Neither has "reached an end to negotiations," which is what you said was the cause of the crew members' situation. Certainly, as you said, there are levels of fault here, but your initial claim was only that failure to reach an agreement was the cause of the situation, rather than anything to do with the justice of the situation.

Craig J. Ries: Would it be twisting your words to say you claimed I misunderstood PAD's words? Would it be a stretch to say that by claiming I misunderstood you assumed I misunderstood? Here's one for you: I assumed you meant what you wrote. That may have been a stretch.

Zzzzzzzzzzz.

Jason...

One of the problems of the AMPTP is that their strategy is to treat writers as an interchangeable set of resources to be used to make money.

I think that works better in manufacturing industries and commodity industries, but not when what you're producing are basically one-offs. What the producers are selling are unique products and the value is in their uniqueness in characterization and presentation--but they themselves are not the source of this uniqueness. Writers, directors and actors are.

PAD, I've got a question for you.

This morning, in a talk with the LA Times, Dodgers 2B Jeff Kent came out and say he wants blood testing for MLB players. Of course, his union, the MLBPA, is really against this.

So, since you're in the WGA, I'm curious: if some famous writer in the union came out and said something akin to what Kent has said, like, you guys should just suck it up and take whatever the AMPTP offers, what recourse does the guild have with such a member?

I'm guessing Kent is going to be a private rebuke for his comment, but is there anything beyond that the guild can do?

Granted, the situations are not identical, but I'd be interested in hearing what you know about this with, since it's the closest equivalent I can directly ask somebody about. :)

Somebody upthread was asking who at the AMPTP made decisions about the negotiating and what there relationship to the studios was. Below is (I hope) a link to an artical by a former lawyer and current WGA member giving his POV on the what's actually driving the decisions going on at the AMPTP and his opinions of what strategy would be effective in advancing the position of the WGA. I'd recommend it to anyone who was interested in the Strike.

http://unitedhollywood.blogspot.com/2008/01/strike-is-lawyers-game-how-to-play-to.html

I'd also like to point to one of the best summaries of the WGA's position, reasons behind the strike, as well as why the WGA didn't wait for the DGA. It is on the blog of John Rogers: Kung Fu Monkey. Specifically at:

http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2007/11/why-strike-ii.html

I'd also point to his blog on general principles as he's got a good one.

Arrrgh!. I don't believe I misspelled "article!"

Spit! Dirty fingernails! Dandruff!

To Jeffrey S. Frawley,

First, I will refer tou you as 'Jeff' until such time as you ask me not to. I do so not out of familliarity or intended disrespect, but simply because I am not the greatest typist and it's just easier.

I believe that a little background on the relationship between myself and one Peter David may be of some use to you.

Peter and I have never met in person and the times that we heve engaged in one-on-one discourse via this weblog can be counted on one hand or less. This is primarily a result of two governing factors:

1. I lurk here far more than I post, thus the opportunity for the one-on-one discouse is limited by my prefered level of parcipitation.

2. Peter and I have an unwritten, unspoken, and unconcious agreement that is quite simply that he writes his weblog without the slightest consideration of how Mitch Evans may take it and if I need clarification I ask. Maybe a debate will ensue and maybe it wont. Hopefully a better understanding of eash others position develops.

Jeff, I'm not suggesting that you are so self-centered that you believe Peter must write his weblog for you bennefit.

I am, however, currious about your motivations because I'm left with the impression that you come here with an agenda and that it's showing in your posts as an intent to conflict with Peter over any detail, regardless of it's size. That impression is causing me to take you less seriously.

As always, I could be totally of base. I made a decission long ago that I can always be right if I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong. Because it's the right thing for me to do.

Regards,

M

Thanks, David. That's a really interesting article from the lawyer.

Mitch Evans: You can call me what you like (within reason - If you called me some of the things I've edited out of some of my posts that would not be my favorite thing). I suspect that you are really accusing me of each of the things you say you are not, but everyone's entitled to his own opinion. Your approach to PAD's columns is just fine, but everyone should know that any time a blogger in this format posts an opinion there is an unspoken invitation for response - even disagreement. I've been cautioned about drawing conclusions about people's assumptions, but will stand behind any I've made on this string. You like and respect PAD, which is fine. I don't know him any better than you do, but I do not respect him - because I think he is contemptuous of people unfortunate enough to disagree with him. I am pretty confident of my opinions, but know I can be mistaken; I have never yet seen any instance of PAD reversing himself on anything - Perhaps it has happened, but I never saw it. That raises a lot of my hackles.

So, since you're in the WGA, I'm curious: if some famous writer in the union came out and said something akin to what Kent has said, like, you guys should just suck it up and take whatever the AMPTP offers, what recourse does the guild have with such a member?

Recourse? I don't know that the WGA has any partiuclar recourse. Moreover I think they'd look terrible if they tried to take some sort of punitive action against a member writer just because he said something publicly that the WGA board of directors disagrees with.

I mean, if he said, "I think the WGA should just take whatever's offered and shut up, and to prove it I'm willing to work for struck companies," *then* he'll probably get tossed out of the WGA. But that's a far cry from saying that he just disagrees with the WGA's position.

PAD

Jason,

No problem. I found the article useful for my own edification so I thought others interested in the Strike would as well. The flow of the thread just reminded me of so just went and got it.

de nada

What he calls deliberate twisting of his words I would call taking him at his word and disagreeing.

So taking him at his word and disagreeing required you to paraphrase "Who cares" into "Oooh, lesbians!! Hot!"? Right.

When the supposed prurient interest of lesbians is the only point of his post, "Oooh, Lesbians!! Hot!" is a pretty accurate paraphrase, yes.

If a writer were punished by the union supposedly representing his interests for writing or saying something the union management disliked, that would open the union up for a great deal of abuse. I understand that the management would rightly believe that writer was acting against the union's interests, but the situation could get much uglier than any member would want. Free speech is the sort of thing writers' unions should generally support.

(I used "supposedly" in the first sentence not to suggest the WGA does not represent the interests of its members, but rather because any union representing a large group acts for the general good rather than what is best for one member.)

douga: a post that begins by speculating about a stranger's sexuality and concludes by joking about an attempted presidential assassination is not really on such a high moral level that it must be guarded against ME demeaning it. Some have argued that PAD's purpose was to snicker at CNN for wasting time talking about Jodie Foster's sexuality - He did this by wasting time talking about Jodie Foster's sexuality: What a very clear distinction that is! Joking about John W. Hinckley's insane fascination with her (and the oh, so amusing way he acted out) was quite low. Several people here insisted that assassinations are hilarious, but they're pathetic buffoons.

Hi Jeff,

No, I was sincere when I wrote that I don't believe that you are that self-centered. If that is the accusation I didn't make that you believe I may have. If it is something else then I missed it when I read your post.

I don't believe the fact that having a public weblog invites commentary is lost on anyone, especially at this stage of internet proliferation.

When your wrote that you will stand behind any assumptions you've made on this string were you suggesting that continued discourse is irrelevant after the initial assumption or unless further discourse gives you reason alter said assumption?

I should clarify something because I think I was not clear before. Yes, I respect Peter David. Yes, I'm fond of the work he's done that I have exposed myself to. Certainly I have fun here reading the miriad posts from people, with 2 exceptions (Lingster and Mike). That does not equate to my liking Peter David the man. It's just that I don't know him well enough to like or dislike him. Now, I've heard alot of good things about him and a couple of not so good things. Since the good that I've heard is in greater numbers than the bad I'll admit that I'm predisposed to like the man as well as the entity (the 'entity' being the writer of many works entertaining).

I make a genuine effort with myself to keep the fanatic seperate from the fan.

I don't recall, Jeff, if I saw you post on "I Knew There Was A Reason I Detested Dr. Phil," but in that thread Peter did reverse himself. Peter commented on Dr. Phil acting contrary to the Hypocratic Oath. Upon discovering that Dr. Phil wasn't required to take that oath (I'm operating from memory, the entries in that thread are more specific) he reversed himself on that point.

I hope that helps your hackles. I know that hackles can be an irritant. Last time mine were raised it took an herbalist, two fully dressed strippers and a seeing eye dog to get them back down.

The whole process lasted four hous. It was quite a mess.

Regards,

M

Wow. Ok, I guess it’s my turn to try.

Jeff, this is a perfect example of just what everyone here is talking about when they mention your seemingly deliberate misreading or misunderstanding almost everything Peter writes here.

Peter wrote: ” Recourse? I don't know that the WGA has any partiuclar recourse. Moreover I think they'd look terrible if they tried to take some sort of punitive action against a member writer just because he said something publicly that the WGA board of directors disagrees with.”

” I mean, if he said, "I think the WGA should just take whatever's offered and shut up, and to prove it I'm willing to work for struck companies," *then* he'll probably get tossed out of the WGA. But that's a far cry from saying that he just disagrees with the WGA's position.”

To which you responded with…

” If a writer were punished by the union supposedly representing his interests for writing or saying something the union management disliked, that would open the union up for a great deal of abuse. I understand that the management would rightly believe that writer was acting against the union's interests, but the situation could get much uglier than any member would want. Free speech is the sort of thing writers' unions should generally support.”

… and seemed to either completely ignore or just not understand the portion where PAD said that it would likely take thumbing your nose at the rules and actually working for a struck company before punitive recourse would be engaged in by the union.

Oh, and then there’s this.

” When the supposed prurient interest of lesbians is the only point of his post, "Oooh, Lesbians!! Hot!" is a pretty accurate paraphrase, yes.”

Don’t you think that maybe, just maybe, you’re the only one here who saw that post that way for a reason? Like, say, the point was the overall irony of the entire situation and making fun of the silly way that the national press overreacts to a star “coming out” about his or her personal life?

Oh, and in regards to this line of yours:

” Joking about John W. Hinckley's insane fascination with her (and the oh, so amusing way he acted out) was quite low. Several people here insisted that assassinations are hilarious, but they're pathetic buffoons.”

Again, the humor was more in the irony of the overall situation. And I really have to say that moral outrage over that topic is hilariously funny when put forward by the man who said these things:

http://www.malibulist.com/mt/mt-commentsantispam.cgi?entry_id=5544

Jeffrey Frawley finds the drowning death of an innocent girl funny!

Posted by Jeffrey Frawley at July 23, 2007 12:32 PM

The Chappaquiddick reference was obvious enough, and pretty funny.

Jeffrey Frawley makes a joke about a plane full of people going to their deaths!

Posted by Jeffrey Frawley at July 24, 2007 03:10 PM

Bill Myers: It is also worth noting that he crashed into the ocean and died. Very unfortunate, isn't it? Perhaps his training was not quite up to the challenge. Saying that he was cleared to fly by the FAA is about as persuasive as noting that a high percentage of fatal car crashes involve people with driver's licenses.

His eyes looking at the displays
His hands and feet on the controls
His, His wife's and his sister-in-law's bodies hitting the ocean.
Boom!

Jeffrey Frawley makes a cutesy remark about the death of a president!

Posted by Jeffrey Frawley at July 27, 2007 08:51 PM

Did Lauren Bessette deserve anything less than the average person because her sister's husband's father is immensely beloved for losing a big piece of his head?

Jeffrey Frawley gets vemomously snarky when he's losing the argument!

Posted by Jeffrey Frawley at July 29, 2007 03:55 PM

Perhaps someone here does worship at the altar of the little prince.

Yeah, you've really got the moral high ground here, Jeffrey...

Bye now.

Wow. Ok, I guess it’s my turn to try.

Jeff, this is a perfect example of just what everyone here is talking about when they mention your seemingly deliberate misreading or misunderstanding almost everything Peter writes here.

Peter wrote: ” Recourse? I don't know that the WGA has any partiuclar recourse. Moreover I think they'd look terrible if they tried to take some sort of punitive action against a member writer just because he said something publicly that the WGA board of directors disagrees with.”

” I mean, if he said, "I think the WGA should just take whatever's offered and shut up, and to prove it I'm willing to work for struck companies," *then* he'll probably get tossed out of the WGA. But that's a far cry from saying that he just disagrees with the WGA's position.”

To which you responded with…

” If a writer were punished by the union supposedly representing his interests for writing or saying something the union management disliked, that would open the union up for a great deal of abuse. I understand that the management would rightly believe that writer was acting against the union's interests, but the situation could get much uglier than any member would want. Free speech is the sort of thing writers' unions should generally support.”

… and seemed to either completely ignore or just not understand the portion where PAD said that it would likely take thumbing your nose at the rules and actually working for a struck company before punitive recourse would be engaged in by the union.

Oh, and then there’s this.

” When the supposed prurient interest of lesbians is the only point of his post, "Oooh, Lesbians!! Hot!" is a pretty accurate paraphrase, yes.”

Don’t you think that maybe, just maybe, you’re the only one here who saw that post that way for a reason? Like, say, the point was the overall irony of the entire situation and making fun of the silly way that the national press overreacts to a star “coming out” about his or her personal life?

Oh, and in regards to this line of yours:

” Joking about John W. Hinckley's insane fascination with her (and the oh, so amusing way he acted out) was quite low. Several people here insisted that assassinations are hilarious, but they're pathetic buffoons.”

Again, the humor was more in the irony of the overall situation. And I really have to say that moral outrage over that topic is hilariously funny when put forward by the man who said these things:

www.malibulist.com/mt/mt-commentsantispam.cgi?entry_id=5544" rel="nofollow">http://www.malibulist.com/mt/mt-commentsantispam.cgi?entry_id=5544

Jeffrey Frawley finds the drowning death of an innocent girl funny!

Posted by Jeffrey Frawley at July 23, 2007 12:32 PM

The Chappaquiddick reference was obvious enough, and pretty funny.

Jeffrey Frawley makes a joke about a plane full of people going to their deaths!

Posted by Jeffrey Frawley at July 24, 2007 03:10 PM

Bill Myers: It is also worth noting that he crashed into the ocean and died. Very unfortunate, isn't it? Perhaps his training was not quite up to the challenge. Saying that he was cleared to fly by the FAA is about as persuasive as noting that a high percentage of fatal car crashes involve people with driver's licenses.

His eyes looking at the displays
His hands and feet on the controls
His, His wife's and his sister-in-law's bodies hitting the ocean.
Boom!

Jeffrey Frawley makes a cutesy remark about the death of a president!

Posted by Jeffrey Frawley at July 27, 2007 08:51 PM

Did Lauren Bessette deserve anything less than the average person because her sister's husband's father is immensely beloved for losing a big piece of his head?

Jeffrey Frawley gets vemomously snarky when he's losing the argument!

Posted by Jeffrey Frawley at July 29, 2007 03:55 PM

Perhaps someone here does worship at the altar of the little prince.

Yeah, you've really got the moral high ground here, Jeffrey...

Bye now.

On a sadder entertainment note...

The news making the rounds right now is that Maila Nurmi, better known to the world as Vampira, passed away in her sleep yesterday.

http://cinefantastiqueonline.com/2008/01/11/vampira-rip/

Re: whether the WGA's fight concerns other entertainment unions, here's a germane piece of information from the WGA's FAQ section:

"We (the WGA) stand in solidarity with our fellow union members and are fighting for their rights along with ours. Fifty-five percent of the health insurance and pension funds for members of IATSE, the Teamsters, and the basic craft unions are paid for by residuals, but currently none of those unions receive residuals on content distributed through new media. As audiences move from traditional outlets to new media, the health and pension benefits of those unions are increasingly at risk. We care about all the members of our community, but if we and the other Hollywood unions accept an unfair deal, it will hurt everyone, including businesses that depend on a thriving entertainment industry. We HATE that others might be suffering because of this strike, but the conglomerates have left us no alternative."

In other words, if we can set a precedent for internet residuals, many many non-writing workers may end up benefiting.

As far as why the WGA made a deal with Letterman, and not with Leno or Comedy Central, it's pretty simple. Letterman owns Worldwide Pants, not NBC. CBS and/or Viacom own Leno and Comedy Central. Viacom needs to make a deal with the WGA, not the individual shows. I'm pretty sure that if CBS reached out to make such a deal, the WGA would be EXTREMELY receptive. (And yes, NBC collects the ad revenues generated by Letterman's show, so nothing's clean and simple, but making deals with a few significant players shows the numbers on the table aren't industry-busting ravings but actually doable.)

Finally, please remember one thing through all the discussion. The AMPTP has walked out on negotiations with the WGA not once, but twice. There are always two sides to every story, but there's only side to that.

Mark Verheiden

On the references to JFK Senior, I may have to plead guilty. On those to JFK Junior, perhaps not: He wasn't President - ever. You can check that out. Nor was he assassinated. You probably knew that. I don't think Senior's death was funny; I also don't think it gives any special priority to Junior. On that string, many people were SO upset that Junior died, when it is a fact that two other people died because of his pilot error. You can check that one out, too (Carolyn Bessette Kennedy and Lauren Bessette, for those who don't recall). On the matter of the WGA punishing, or not punishing, disobedient writers, you are reading too much into my post. PAD's suggestion was the correct one, as I never denied. The alternative, punishing writers for disloyalty, is a bad idea, for the reasons I stated. In the future, Jerry Chandler, the next time someone says "You're right. To do otherwise would be a really stupid idea." that is not criticism. Criticism is more like "You're wrong, dumb-ass." The difference is not trivial.

Mitch Evans: On PAD supposedly reversing himself regarding Dr. Phil, the bulk of his point was that Dr. Phil was a low, opportunistic scumbag taking advantage of a celebrity client (a point with which I must agree). The matter of the Hippocratic Oath was a minor question of fact which didn't substantially change the overall thrust. It appears that I am wrong about PAD never reversing himself at all, but I still cannot recall any instance in which he has actually reversed the thesis of any of his posts, or of him being persuaded of anything new. What I meant by standing behind my assumptions was exactly this: Thus far, I still believed everything I had said in this string to be accurate - I still believed it - definitely not that further discourse was useless. I've been caught in some errors from time to time on this site, and I have confessed to some of them; At the point of that post, I had no confessions to offer - nothing more than that. One (and perhaps the only) area in which I strongly agree with PAD is promotion of maximum free speech, and that has not changed.

Mark Verheiden: I think everything in your post is accurate. Apparently the WGA itself has addressed the issues of collateral damage pretty well. PAD's remarks with which I disagree were made purely on his own, as he was very clear in stating.

Letterman owns Worldwide Pants, not NBC. CBS and/or Viacom own Leno and Comedy Central. Viacom needs to make a deal with the WGA, not the individual shows. I'm pretty sure that if CBS reached out to make such a deal, the WGA would be EXTREMELY receptive. (And yes, NBC collects the ad revenues generated by Letterman's show, so nothing's clean and simple

Hi, Mark.

Long time, no MC.

Last i looked, Leno was on NBC and Letterman was on CBS...

Jeffrey S. Frawley: “In the future, Jerry Chandler, the next time someone says "You're right. To do otherwise would be a really stupid idea." that is not criticism. Criticism is more like "You're wrong, dumb-ass." The difference is not trivial.”

Well, the way you wrote that post, neither explicitly stating support nor offense, the apparent “hypocrisy” attack it read like you were building and the overall tone you’ve taken to PAD’s other posts here lead me to read it as “against” rather then “for” PAD’s point. Now, you, the author of the post in question, the man who actually knows what you were thinking when you typed it and knows what you meant to convey, say that you meant that as support for PAD and not as an attack. Hey, I can accept that. You say that you meant A and that I misunderstood it to be B. Fine. However, if you expect such treatment from others, then maybe you should do the same yourself. The very obvious point that was made and that you missed has been explained and re-explained to you and you still shut your eyes, cover your ears and scream at the top of your lungs that you can’t hear us and that we’re all wrong.

Jeffrey S. Frawley: “On that string, many people were SO upset that Junior died, when it is a fact that two other people died because of his pilot error.”

You know, I’m not going to rehash that entire thread all over again here. Anybody that wants to can go back and read it. However, this line perfectly underscores what’s often wrong with you when you go off the rails. It was not, as was repeatedly explained to you in the thread by many of us, that people were upset about JFK JR’s death. The nut of the matter was the glee you almost seemed to express in his death, the fact that you made factual error after factual error about the circumstances of his death, the fact that after someone chimed in and said that they knew him you ratcheted up the venom and glee factor and the fact that that every fact presented to you that destroyed one of your “facts” was just ignored and blown of by you as idol worship or some other insulting garbage.

The reaction to you wasn’t about JFK JR at all. The reaction that you provoked was purely to the fact that you were being, and are increasingly being, a dick. And that actually sucks since, when you’re not predisposed to distorting other people’s arguments and picking fights, you’re actually fairly smart, clever and funny. And, no, that isn’t a line that you should now take and remold to claim that you’re only liked by some here if you agree with them. You and I have disagreed and I’ve been fine with you at those times. But it honest to god seems like you’re fine half the time and then the other half of the time you’re off your meds. And the off your meds moments are growing in frequency. You’re not at Mike levels of misrepresenting other’s statements or forcing your interpretations of what people mean on people over what they’re actually saying yet, but you’re getting more and more Mike-like more and more often of late.

Jeffrey S. Frawley: “On the references to JFK Senior, I may have to plead guilty. On those to JFK Junior, perhaps not: He wasn't President - ever. You can check that out.”

So, your excuse, Jeff, is that our making fun of the stupidity of a guy who tried to kill a U.S. president is bad, but that you’re making fun of a man’s death is ok since that man wasn’t a president.

Oh, yeah. That’s much better.

I once (I think back in the OSC/Trek thread where you first really stuck on my radar) posted the notion that you were in fact PAD himself doing some odd piece of work that would later become the revival of one Vic Chalker, fanboy from hell. You know, maybe a Vic Chalker: The Blog Years type of thing. It was said in jest, but the sad thing is, through what’s becoming an almost irrational desire to distort and attack PAD at almost every turn and anyone else here who may be on the same side of the argument as PAD, you’re living up to the joke.

On the references to JFK Senior, I may have to plead guilty. On those to JFK Junior, perhaps not: He wasn't President - ever. You can check that out. Nor was he assassinated. You probably knew that. I don't think Senior's death was funny; I also don't think it gives any special priority to Junior. On that string, many people were SO upset that Junior died, when it is a fact that two other people died because of his pilot error. You can check that one out, too (Carolyn Bessette Kennedy and Lauren Bessette, for those who don't recall).

I think what made people upset was your flippancy over his death, not that his death was so much more terrible than others. Since you have made it a point to make some topics off limits for any attempt at humor you can't be too surprised if people wonder why drownings, plane crashes, etc don't meet that high standard. If you're gonna talk the talk...

MIKE WEBER>> Last i looked, Leno was on NBC and Letterman was on CBS...

Oops. Substitute "GE" for "Viacom" and it's the same point. Letterman (and Ferguson) are still owned by Letterman, not by CBS/Viacom. Leno is owned by NBC/Universal. (As is Battlestar, so I should remember this stuff.)

Mark Verheiden

Hi Jeff,

I agree that the Hippocratic Oath thing was a minor point in the overall thread. I pointed in that direction because it was fairly recent and, minor though it may be, it is demonstrative of the fact that PAD doesn't claim absolute rightness when new information is gained. As far as his changing his position in whole, I don't recall that happening. That's not to say that it hasn't happened, though. Sure I frequent peterdavid.net, but not enough to state for certain when such things may or may not have happened.

I figure if someones position hasn't changed then I have not met a... burden of proof criterion, if you will. Like if I wanted to change your mind about, say, the best car to buy then the burden is on me to prove my case to you.

Thank you for clearing up that whole 'assumption' thing. Your clarification has helped me to better understand your position.

I, too, am a huge fan of free speech. I do, however, recognize that one instance when speech is no longer free and can carry a rather hefty price whether speech itself is used or not.

Regards,

M

Recourse?

Perhaps recourse was the wrong word to use, particularly when talking about the WGA, as they haven't struck me as that type of group to date.

The MLBPA, on the other hand...

Jeff:

Osbo, I don't think there is any misinterpretation.

I disagree.

I'll try this some more since, well, I guess it's friday night and I have some sexual frustration to work out.

Let me go over the discussion thus far - and I'll try to use different tactics in order to explain myself.

1) You mentioned that the WGA were keeping technicians and such out of work.

2) PAD said such a thing was irrelevant.

3) You appeared to have taken offense to that, implying that PAD said that the technicians themselves were irrelevant. To me this was obviously not PAD's intent.

4) The context of this discussion also involves my personal contact with other television and film workers who happen to be out of work - writers, technicians, and otherwise. This is information you were not originally privy to:

Myself, I'm a non-union editor, so I get to hear about a lot of these while I've been working my way into this industry. I am one of these technicians that is getting less work as a result. At the moment, I have to accept non-union jobs (industrials, infomercials, news) in my local area right around the time I've been searching for union-eligible jobs. This hasn't happened yet, but my livelihood will be threatened soon in the coming months.

During this time, I've heard a lot of IATSE members, technicians and the like blame the WGA for their woes. I, on the other hand, hadn't seen it exactly like that. Note, that by "a lot" I don't mean "most", I merely mean "some", but more than "a few". I also hear a lot of IATSE members, technicians and the like blame the AMPTP.

Further, the AMPTP has amped up the same line of argument. They've been posting ads and spinning PR that point to the WGA as the ones in the wrong. They created a straw man.

5) I read your loaded questions toward PAD, questions that imply that he simply doesn't care about these technicians. Reading this, and within the context of everything else, I misinterpret you.

Yes, I misinterpreted you. I can admit to that. I say that you're looking at the wrong straw man. You wittily responded that I didn't point you toward the "right" straw man. I actually laughed.

6) However, you continue to misinterpret my and other posts. This latest example was very simple:

The AMPTP and the WGA are in negotiations and have not reached an agreement. The WGA has a more reasonable position, but that's a different matter. Neither has "reached an end to negotiations," which is what you said was the cause of the crew members' situation. Certainly, as you said, there are levels of fault here, but your initial claim was only that failure to reach an agreement was the cause of the situation, rather than anything to do with the justice of the situation.

I didn't say it was the cause of the crew members' situation. It was a cause, certainly. It's an added pressure to lining up work. Since I'm in post production, however, there will still be some time before the strike directly affects my workload. I'm literally on the back-end of a writers' front-end.

There are currently a spattering of unproduced scripts currently in production, signed, sealed, and delivered before the strike. There is plenty of reality material out there if people wish to participate. Quite a few are actually in production at the moment.

There is still some work.

From this, a few companies have signed interim agreements with the WGA. They've done this because they want to go back into production, and they want to get shows on the air. Writers are a small part of their payroll, but they need said writers to provide material that they can produce. They circumvented their negotiating representative - the AMPTP - and dealt directly with the union in order to reach an agreement. Further, the WGA sought them out. They came up with this plan, knowing that some shows were either going to go back on the air or they would have to lay off the staffs of those shows. So they offered willing companies a way out.

The AMPTP has printed ads blaming the WGA for costing hollywood its money.

Out of the two negotiating parties, one seems to have done more to help bring the technicians back to work than the other.

Now to the question of relevance, which is the most important point because that seems to be the issue that sparked most of your comments here.

The livelihood of technicians (like me) is irrelevant to one thing - the particular disagreement between the WGA and the AMPTP. My well-being has nothing to do with the well-being of the WGA as a whole. The WGA isn't negotiating for me, the AMPTP isn't renegotiating the terms of my contract.

It is not, however, irrelevant to the workings of the world and Hollywood at large. It is certainly not irrelevant to the parties that the AMPTP represents, the producers.

The following is a grave simplification, but it works for the purposes of this argument:

A producer's job is to produce. That is, they must create entertainment, shepherded from inception (when the producer buys a pitch) to eventual production and distribution, and compensate the people involved accordingly. In doing so, that producer must negotiate with several parties - for equipment, for film stock, for labor, and for creative content. The producer must solicit the services of several people. Finally, the producer must sell the product at the most profitable rate possible. If the producer is not doing this, he or she is simply not doing his or her job. Ultimately, the responsibility of putting shows into production likes upon the shoulders of those in charge.

In other words, if there are levels of fault, the ones with the most fault are the ones whose job it is to develop, produce, and sell the products in the first place.

The WGA strike is just another problem getting in the way of a producer, well, producing. One of many. For example, if a location that a movie had planned to falls through (and believe me, this happens more often than not), does the film suddenly end and everyone on it turned away jobless? No. The producer finds a way around it. He renegotiates, searches for an alternative location, or builds a new one in his garage.

And the show goes on.

So, by saying that the WGA is the sole party responsible for other film and television workers being out of work is not only false, but grossly missing the appropriate target.

Also, if we're talking levels of responsibility here, one certainly has more than the other.

The point of my posts were that a) the WGA is not the cause of crew-members woes, though it does make things harder, b) the WGA aren't solely responsible, c) if we should look to anybody it should be to the party that has refused to come to the negotiating table, and d) the whole "other people out of work because of the strike" statement is a straw-man, a smokescreen, a reason to point at the WGA and say "look! bad!" which I happen to disagree with.

As I misinterpreted your post as one that placed the WGA as the only one responsible for technicians' woes, you seem to consistently misunderstand my various responses to you. Much like many people are saying.

I would call that a hint.

Oh wow.

Though I did mean to rant, I did not mean to double post. If you wish to remove it, please do!

(Kath the Wife here. Done and a note to the rest of the group, let some time go by before hitting the button again. We are still dealing with some board issues so we are running a bit slow)

Osbo: I don't want to have anything to do with your sexual frustration, so I'll just leave that one alone.

(OSBO, January 10) "The argument at hand is between the AMPTP and the WGA. It's negatively affecting others' livelihood, yes, but it's the fault of the parties who aren't reaching an end to negotiations."
This is the post to which I responded. I agree with you that the AMPTP is largely at fault for the continued strike, but that's not what you were talking about. You claimed that the worker's plight was "the fault of the parties who aren't reaching an end to negotiations." There are two parties to the negotiations - the AMPTP and the WGA. Neither of them has reached an end to negotiations, as you know. They are "the parties who aren't reaching an end to negotiations." Contrary to my own thinking, your argument lays the same responsibility on both of them. You are mistaken in claiming I have said the WGA has sole responsibility for the situation. You are mistaken in thinking your own argument does not (wrongly) assign it equal responsibility.

Jeffrey, what do you want the WGA to do that they aren't doing?

1. Although they haven't established how money received over the internet spends any differently than money as we otherwise know it, the AMPTP wants to treat the money received in a new medium differently than money received in established media to the benefit of only their interest.
2. The WGA is simply holding out for treating money received from a new medium as money received in established media.

There are careers devoted to providing work for others -- and writing isn't one of them. This means your citing the people being put out work by the strike isn't relevant to holding out against AMPTP coercion.

What are you demonstrating a fidelity to other than protectionism, coercion, and domination? How is that not the very soul of sniveling?

Mike, as I thought I had made clear, I don't want the WGA to do anything it isn't doing. I was taking issue with two things - 1. PAD's dismissal of the crew members' plight as a valid issue. In this, he has been very clear that he was speaking only for himself, so this has nothing to do with the WGA; and 2. OSBO's statement that the problems of the crew members come from the failure of the two sides to reach an agreement. To be accurate, OSBO's statement is correct. The crew members would not be out of work if the strike ended, and the strike would end if the two sides came to an agreement. His formulation didn't leave any room for the issue of which side is in the right. Most or all here are confident the WGA is that side. It seems very clear that OSBO spoke for himself rather than representing the WGA, so again this has nothing to do with the union's conduct. As for your statements, Mike, it is true that the WGA has no obligation to provide work for the crew members. It is also true that if the crew members believed the WGA was indifferent to their situation the ill will would be a serious problem (strikes, boycotts, work slow-downs, ill will, etc.). It seems, from official WGA statements, that the union is entirely aware of this and making serious efforts to remain friendly with those affected by the strike. The WGA is doing the right thing, no thanks to the poor advice offered here by PAD and you. (I imagine neither you nor PAD finds that linkage flattering - Maybe at least one of you is dead wrong.)

I was taking issue with two things - 1. PAD's dismissal of the crew members' plight as a valid issue. In this, he has been very clear that he was speaking only for himself, so this has nothing to do with the WGA; and 2. OSBO's statement that the problems of the crew members come from the failure of the two sides to reach an agreement. To be accurate, OSBO's statement is correct. The crew members would not be out of work if the strike ended, and the strike would end if the two sides came to an agreement. His formulation didn't leave any room for the issue of which side is in the right. Most or all here are confident the WGA is that side. It seems very clear that OSBO spoke for himself rather than representing the WGA, so again this has nothing to do with the union's conduct. As for your statements, Mike, it is true that the WGA has no obligation to provide work for the crew members.

Jeffrey, review the bolded text. You've admitted that there's nothing to be done by the people you're complaining about. Not only do we not know what you're doing here, you don't know what you're doing here.

Mike, review my post, and see about whom I was complaining (Here's a hint: PAD, OSBO, Mike). Then review again and see about whom I was not complaining (WGA).

1. The WGA has no statutory obligation to preserve crew jobs.
2. If it doesn't at least mouth the words of caring about crew jobs, it will alienate people it is best not to alienate.
3. As far as I can tell, the WGA is saying and trying to do the right things.
4. Some people here, who acknowledge they do not speak for the WGA, think it is irrelevant, at least for the purpose of discussion, to consider the effect the current strike has on non-WGA members. (Perhaps they feel all rosy about such peons in the privacy of their own hearts, but think it gauche to let on.)
5. It's a good thing the the WGA negotiators have better judgment than to ignore the feelings of crew members who are integral to the WGA members' continued employment.

Jeffrey, I took you at your word you have no grievance against the WGA, and my last post did not depend on you having any such grievance to be true. As such, you haven't in any way contradicted it.

(Mike) "You've admitted that there's nothing to be done by the people you're complaining about" indicates that you believed I was complaining about the WGA, when in fact I was complaining about PAD, Osbo and you. There's much to be done about PAD, Osbo and you.

Oops. Substitute "GE" for "Viacom" and it's the same point. Letterman (and Ferguson) are still owned by Letterman, not by CBS/Viacom. Leno is owned by NBC/Universal. (As is Battlestar, so I should remember this stuff.)

Thanks for swinging by to clarify matters, Mark. Also, Mark Evanier was making some of the same points about how residuals serve some unions by benefiting their respective health plans. Folks may want to check out Evanier's blog as an excellent ongoing commentary on the strike. Basically, I guess any comics-related writer named "Mark" is a good source of info.

The sad thing is that had I posted word for word what Mark V said, Jeff would have been jumping all over it.

PAD

Mike's defending me in posts that actually make sense.

I'm going back to bed.

PAD

(PAD) "Mike's defending me in posts that actually make sense."

I don't think he defended you at all, so your mental equilibrium is safe. He took my post disagreeing with you and Osbo as a criticism of the WGA. Perhaps he still feels that way, and perhaps not. It's always difficult to know whether one has convinced him of something. What I was saying (and I don't doubt you know it, whether you agree with it or not) is that the WGA appears to be making the appropriate gestures toward the crew members affected by the strike, but that your own statements, clearly designated as your own and not made on the WGA's behalf, were far more dismissive. An additional thing Mike read as criticism of the WGA was Osbo's claim that the blame for the crewmembers' situation was with those who failed to reach an agreement. That formulation ignores the matter of which side's demands are correct. As an analogy, if I demanded that you pay me $70,000 or I would do harm this blog (more than I have, I suppose), and you told me to go to Hell, the blame for nonresolution of the problem would not fall evenly on us. You would not be a schmuck for not offering me half of what I had demanded - despite neither of us agreeing to what the other wanted. In the case of the WGA strike, it would end if the producers gave the WGA what it has demanded; It would end if the WGA gave up on its demands. Neither side has brought the negotiations to an end, so by Osbo's reasoning both are at fault. By my own reasoning (and God help you, probably your own), the producers are being obstructionist and the WGA is only demanding what is fair, so that dual responsibility claim seems foolish.

This is what Mike took as an attack on the WGA.

Well, you know PAD, Mark V DID say what he said, and I already said I agreed with it. It may not be apparent to you, but every time I have disagreed with you you have said something I think is wrong or insensitive. If you said something I agreed with, I wouldn't be at all upset (and it has happened a few times, too).

I was taking issue with two things - 1. PAD's dismissal of the crew members' plight as a valid issue. In this, he has been very clear that he was speaking only for himself, so this has nothing to do with the WGA; and 2. OSBO's statement that the problems of the crew members come from the failure of the two sides to reach an agreement. To be accurate, OSBO's statement is correct. The crew members would not be out of work if the strike ended, and the strike would end if the two sides came to an agreement. His formulation didn't leave any room for the issue of which side is in the right. Most or all here are confident the WGA is that side. It seems very clear that OSBO spoke for himself rather than representing the WGA, so again this has nothing to do with the union's conduct. As for your statements, Mike, it is true that the WGA has no obligation to provide work for the crew members.

Jeffrey, review the bolded text. You've admitted that there's nothing to be done by the people you're complaining about. Not only do we not know what you're doing here, you don't know what you're doing here.

(Mike) "You've admitted that there's nothing to be done by the people you're complaining about" indicates that you believed I was complaining about the WGA, when in fact I was complaining about PAD, Osbo and you. There's much to be done about PAD, Osbo and you.

My response was true for you complaining about "1. PAD" and "2. OSBO." You have nothing to complain about. Your sniveling is nauseating.

The bolded text refers to statutory obligations. Good judgment is a different matter.

If I were to see Mike about to be eaten by a python I would have no obligation to rescue him, but it could be argued (not by me) that I really should.

Jeff:

Wow. Thanks for proving my point for me.

Mike:

Thanks for stepping in when you did not have to.

-Osbo

Osbo, your point was that the plight of the crew members was the fault of those not coming to an agreement. I haven't proved that and don't believe it. Your model ignores the question of which side is making reasonable demands and which is not. It is true that a surrender by either side would end the strike, but most here think one side has justice on its side.

...(not by me)...

You are invoking a privilege you are denying those you are complaining about. There is no defense against your personal agenda.

Thanks for stepping in when you did not have to.

It has the quality of a game, so I make no claim of altruism.