David Morrissey in Viva Blackpool

I caught the first episode of Viva Blackpool last night on BBC America, a six-episode mini-series that features the most wonderfully vile lead character since The Sopranos.

The show's a funny drama about Ripley Holden, an Elvis-loving Brit trying to bring Vegas-style excess to Blackpool, England, in the form of the Yankee Dollar Casino. When a dead body turns up one morning, a Scottish detective shows up poking around Ripley's business (and his wife).

The comparisons to Tony Soprano are unmistakeable -- Ripley's a larger-than-life oaf ruling the lives of his wife, son and daughter, and he mixes bullying and charm in a way that makes me think the U.S. will steal actor David Morrissey the way we've absconded with Ricky Gervais.

The strangest and most amazing thing about the show was the occasional use of musical numbers a la Cop Rock. The first episode ends with a "These Boots are Made for Walkin'" dance between Holden and the detective, and though it sounds excruciatingly bad, it was so great I scrambled for the TiVo to record the show for my wife.

I try to avoid watching television aside from Law & Order and football, because it robs me of time I could be wasting on the web. But I'm in for the next five hours of Blackpool, which airs Mondays at 10 p.m. and has one last repeat airing of the first episode at 7 p.m. tonight.

-- Rogers Cadenhead

Comments

and still I have to search the web for new episodes of Doctor Who....


 

Fair is fair, Rogers. I'll give you 24 hours to bar this IP, too. . .


 

Your IP address was banned by mistake. I was deleting and banning comment spammers and deleted one of yours. I've unbanned that address.


 

Not 'my' comment, per se, though, right? As you alluded to on the Drudge Retort?

You wouldn't want to give the appearance that I was the miscreant, now, would you?


 

And, for Gal, you'll notice that my comments won't be appearing on that blog, now. What a den of. . .well. . .miscreants!


 

I do want to apologise for diverting the thread, though.

On subject: "U.S. will steal actor David Morrissey the way we've absconded with Ricky Gervais."

And, an actor which is Britain's greatest loss, Tim Roth, someone who is outstanding in any genre. However, I believe I have seen Morrissey before, as a heavy, but I can't vouch for it having been made here; perhaps in Canada.

"But I'm in for the next five hours of Blackpool, which airs Mondays at 10 p.m. and has one last repeat airing of the first episode at 7 p.m. tonight."

Nice to find an interesting show. I hear they are planning a Star Wars series on broadcast, with lots of production values. I could sacrifice and hour of reading for that, I think.


 

Say Rogers, this guy tadowe "gives" you 24 hours to ban someone, and you capitulate. What's up with that? He's made thinly veiled threats before. I wouldn't put up with that, he'd be banned from my site forever.


 

I saw the same thing. Tadowe has a bad rep, but he's like the house attack dog around here. Why do you put up with him?


 

Even if I did capitulate (does he have you compromised?), I would have deleted the little exchange. Why advertise that you gave in to him?


 

Joe says, "Say Rogers, this guy tadowe "gives" you 24 hours to ban someone, and you capitulate. What's up with that?"

I thought of it as a courtesy, and in no way implied any demands. I meant for it to mean that I would continue to use that IP to continue discussing the various issues raised.

"He's made thinly veiled threats before."

Not that I consider it of any importance to me, Joe, but this is a libel. It not only reveals your willingness to lie, but it embarrasses Rogers, who if he continues to broadcast such things, could be held liable; again, not that it would ever happen from my action.

"I wouldn't put up with that, he'd be banned from my site forever."

You are doing the same thing you accuse me of doing, making threats about how readily you would 'ban' me.

I can't tell you how pleased that makes me, and you get the recognition of being a right fine PH. Congratulations!

(Sorry for continuing this particular diversion, Rogers.)


 

Drudge Reporter writes, "I saw the same thing."

I was fooled up to and including the 'period (.)' because I thought you were responding to my comment about the Star Wars series, and in relation to the subject of this thread. Boy was I a fool, eh?

"Tadowe has a bad rep, but he's like the house attack dog around here. Why do you put up with him?"

Okay, it is a pseudonym and you aren't actually associated with the site. I thought you might be, to rob your words, the 'house attack dog,' But, I see you are another PH of a dog, who accuses others of your own actions: projection.

In an obsessive urge to bark, the Reporter posts another comment:

"Even if I did capitulate (does he have you compromised?), I would have deleted the little exchange. Why advertise that you gave in to him?"

It astounds me that your emotional state forces you to disrespect Rogers' motives, as if he was some yellow dog coward? He explained that it was a mistake -- no need for any strawman 'capitulation.'

Believe me, you aren't helping Rogers, in any way with stuff like this. I can't be embarrassed by insults from idiots, but Rogers sure can. . .


 

Who are kidding, tadowe? You live for exchanges like this, and you resort to scurrilous little epithets all the time.
My saying that you (tadowe) have made veiled threats is hardly libel, any more than your saying I have a "willingness to lie".
And you are disrepecting Roger's intelligence.I'm sure if any thing I say embarasses Rogers, or makes him liable for charges of libel, that he would quickly delete it, and most certainly wouldn't continue to broadcast such things.
The contents of this blog would be a lot less if all off-point comments were deleted. Your crime is fuzzy thinking.


 

I'm confused by this exchange. An IP address Tadowe posted from was banned by mistake as I deleted some comment spam. When he called it to my attention, I reinstated the address.

I haven't banned anyone from Workbench aside from spammers.


 

Joe goes on, "Who are kidding, tadowe? You live for exchanges like this, and you resort to scurrilous little epithets all the time."

I like debate, Joe. However, I learned in debate that it was self-defeating to attack your opponent, personally, rather than attack the data or the logic used to express their point.

The only time ad hominem was permitted, even given points, was when your opponent attempted to attack you, personally, first, and you could demonstrate from his words that he was a [insert adjective][insert noun] who didn't have enough common sense not to make personal attacks in debate.

Having said that, I'm sure you'll recognize the rest:

"My saying that you (tadowe) have made veiled threats is hardly libel, any more than your saying I have a 'willingness to lie'."

I agree, your statement is hardly anything to go to court over, and I've already said that, but it is libel because you declare as a fact that I have made threats, and with your attempt to modify it as 'veiled' adding even more of a sinister image.

I don't make threats, veiled or otherwise. I don't do that because it is a stupid, sophomoric thing to do and can get you into a lot of trouble when it becomes (wake up Joe) PUBLISHED!

My opinion is that you have a willingness to lie. My opinion is not a declaration of fact, Joe. . .see the difference?

"And you are disrepecting Roger's intelligence."

Another declaration, Joe, and in my opinion another indication of your willingness to lie. I have complimented Rogers in his successful efforts to manage the internet resources he does, and those who have worked with him. I have even directly bragged on their superior intelligence; albeit sometimes lefthandedly.

"I'm sure if any thing I say embarasses Rogers, or makes him liable for charges of libel, that he would quickly delete it, and most certainly wouldn't continue to broadcast such things."

It appears to me as if you are making excuses, now. I've already said that it wasn't anything like actionable, but strictly speaking a libel. It is a false declaration of fact intented to demeand and revile another private citizen and published/broadcast: a libel. Go cry in your beer.

As far as the test being whether Rogers has removed it because it might be actionable? Are you for real? Now, your excuse is Rogers some decision you claim he has made because he didn't remove your personal attack? Are you for real?

"The contents of this blog would be a lot less if all off-point comments were deleted. Your crime is fuzzy thinking."

The contents of this blog would be a lot less if my comments weren't attacked by making personal comments about me. My own comments, those which are insulting, are generalities and reasoned from the issue at hand that I attempt to address, directly. The imperious 'tone' is a result of experience in military and scientific writing.

You don't like it, tough -- just stick to the subject and you won't permit me to demonstrate that you appear to be a self-apologetic fool. . .


 

Looks like tadowe has forgotten all about being on topic. Since the thread haas been taken over by this subject, I feel free to say this. We're on to you, tadowe. Say hello to your friends spamy and spumy for us, and try not to push the page over so far, next time.

The alert is on.


 

Robert ducks in to deliver a riposte, "Looks like tadowe has forgotten all about being on topic."

I feel it is my right to respond to comments directed at me. Are you an arbiter of some limit to that freedom? Some responsibility on my part that you seemingly allow another; my detractor? Are you one of the judges qualified to partisanly join those critics, sans any right on my part to legitimately reply; else, I am the guilty party by consensus?

That's what I like about criticism of criticism, the irony inherent in realizing the unconsciousness of the flamer. It is doubly apparent when it is partisanly motivated, and reaches the power of ten when emotionally driven.

Lol, at you kid.


 

I'm glad somebody finally brought this up. I've often wondered why Rogers allowed tadowe to do his little routine here, when he's so unfriendly and abusive to so many people.

I read a comment of Rogers' once where he mused, "What is it about the internet that makes people ask questions in the most offensive way possible?" (My apologies if that's not an exact quote, but it's close).

Good question, Rogers, so why do you allow someone as offensive as tadowe is, to do his schtick here?

I got the alert, and I've also noticed the late night 'spamy'(sic) and 'spumy', and the "ain't life a bitch" that pushes the page over. There's a clue right there.

It's laughable how he keeps telling everybody to stay on topic. If you look at this thread, who has generated the most off-topic verbiage? What a joke.

We're on to you tadowe, and we're passing the word.


 

Sam steps in, "I'm glad somebody finally brought this up. I've often wondered why Rogers allowed tadowe to do his little routine here, when he's so unfriendly and abusive to so many people."

I speak directly to the subject(s) at hand, however formally. When it deserves an insulting conclusion to reason, I make it. If the shoe fits, wear it.

The 'unconscious' part that I mentioned, involves an understanding that when the insult is not reasoned and directed at the messenger, rather than the message, then you get a glimmer that by doing so, you are simultaneously making yourself into an hypocrite; crying about how unfriendly I might be, while you demonstrate your own variety -- not any different in kind; and, ergo a puling one.

And, apparently issuing veiled threats that your collective agreement, in criticising about criticism, can have my presence banished and if Rogers bowed to your political 'pole.' Rule by the divided talents -- Too funny, indeed.


 

Tadowe's own speech convicts him. Tell those little buggers, Spamy and Spumy, hello for me, too. Oh, and let's not forget the dirty b bitch.

I wonder if Rogers gets spam in his RSS feeds, like some of us?

Hmm...


 

Tadowe's own speech convicts him. Tell those little buggers, Spamy and Spumy, hello for me, too. Oh, and let's not forget the dirty b bitch.

I wonder if Rogers gets spam in his RSS feeds, like some of us?

Hmm...


 

Good question, Rogers, so why do you allow someone as offensive as tadowe is, to do his schtick here?

This is a personal weblog where I goof around and have some fun. I find it a little strange that comments here can veer so wildly off-topic, but I've never considered jumping in and moderating the site in response.


 

Rogers says, ". . .I've never considered jumping in and moderating the site in response."

If you did, you would have a situation, as before, where the only comments left, are mine -- confusing and, may I say, an inadvertant highlight of whatever it is I do say in writing. Of course, sans context.

I'm sure others would experience some chagrin, but I actually enjoy the exercise of reviewing them and noticing that I usually say something, on subject; while my seemingly endless collective of dependent detractors can only make their subject, me.

Still, however unbalanced the contest in general, on ocassion the posters seem somewhat less than rabid.

Thanks for the moderate moderation.


 

I forgot about that situation -- one IP address posted around a dozen comments, signed with different names, and I did shut that down. Conversation became impossible.


 

Robin says, "Tadowe's own speech convicts him."

I know you won't believe me, but I post for others to find the errors in the opinions I express.

. . .so far no luck. . .

All I get is 'conviction' with any attempt to provide the 'evidence.' You can 'get me,' if that is your intent, by finding fault with what I write about the subject, or opinion expressed in regard to it.

However, personal attacks are to me like accolades and demonstrate that the poster is responding out of frustration, emotionally because they literally can't answer, on subject. They can only join some gang and hope to winning by the strength of their consensus.

My observation is that that produces short dividends. . .


 

I've just reviewed my posts at Workbench, and I can see that I have been wildly off-topic in many places, and that Tadowe has indeed convicted me of errors in logic.

I owe an apology to Rogers for some of the things I've done here.

I can only say that my father recently died, and I found myself in a delusional state. I've been diagnosed as bi-polar. I have a prescription, but I don't take it, because I find the side-effects worse than the disease.

The problem is that when one is in a delusional state, he doesn't recognize it, because he is deluded.

So, I offer my apologies to Rogers for breaking my own rules, and for pestering him.

I would say to Tadowe, however:

If you post for others to find the errors in the opinions you express, it does further confuse poor delusionals, though I realize they are not your intended audience, or are they?

My apologies to all.


 

My condolences on the loss of your father, Vince.


 

Vince says, "If you post for others to find the errors in the opinions you express, it does further confuse poor delusionals, though I realize they are not your intended audience, or are they?"

I've learned a great deal from formal debate. I've learned from not only what I study, in order to support the position(s) under discussion, but also from what my correspondent has studied, in order to rebut them and present their own. Although it doesn't happen too often, as I alluded to, I have found occasions when my opinion will be changed by the logic of the argument presented in contradiction to mine. Or, even when a mistake on my part is pointed out to me but which doesn't affect my opinion -- I learn from them, too.

I've said this to you, before, in so many words, Vince. . .perhaps, you'll listen, now. . .?


 

We're still onto you, Tadowe, the trojans were refused.


 

No one's delusional about spam in RSS feeds, Harrison and Yami were talking about it.


 

This thread was hijacked at the beginning, so consider this a storm warning. There is an entity online which styles itself "Hurricane Wilma".
"Wilma" is a hacker terrorist who attacks those who dare to flame the name. It uses bully tactics to get its way, but in the end, it will be shown to be just a blowhard.


 

Add a Comment

These HTML tags are permitted: p, b, i, a, and blockquote. A comment may not include more than three links. Participants in this discussion should note the site's moderation policy.

:
:
: