ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/port-charles/archive/v01.n026

Internet Message Format | 1998-02-22 | 41KB

From: [e-mail] (port-charles-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: port-charles-digest V1 #26
Reply-To: port-charles-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


port-charles-digest     Monday, February 23 1998     Volume 01 : Number 026




----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:28:57 -0800
From: Mike Boychuk <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GH/PC: GH/PC- Bob Guza on NWA (spoiler)

At 02:18 PM 19/02/98 -0500, you wrote:
>At 03:32 PM 2/18/98 -0800, Mike Boychuk wrote:
>>S
>>P
>>O
>>I
>>L
>>E
>>R
>>
>>
>>S
>>P
>>A
>>C
>>E
>>
>
>Any concrete news about a return for either of them?

None, but he did say they were pretty much begging Genie and they'll never
recast Sonny, even if Maurice doesnt want to come back.

>
>It *does* seem obvious, doesn't it?
>
>I'm not sure I have an opinion on Robin and Nik, though.  I can't stand
>Sarah, and it's obvious that Nik is going to be in town for quite a while,
>so I suppose the Robin/Nik angle had to be tried.  I wonder how Jason would
>react...
>
>I'm constantly bewildered by ages, btw.  Just how old are these characters
>supposed to be?  It doesn't really matter, but I'm just curious.

I think Nik is about 16 or 17 and Robin would be 20...But thats just a
guess, what really threw me was Mr. Murty's class...Nik is older than Lucky
who is older than Sarah, who is Lizzie's older sister. And putting them in
the same class, would mean they're in the same grade? Well the teen
storyline wasnt very good then.
>
>
Mike
>


- -

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 11:43:40 PST
From: "Julie Saker" <[e-mail]>
Subject: GH/PC: GH scoops and SPOILERS

i shamelessly cut and paste these from someone else's web page...

enjoy!

julie

s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
- -
l
o
o
k

o
u
t

b
e
l
o
w
!


WEEK OF FEBRUARY 23-27, 1998

courtesy of Soap Opera Weekly, Soap Opera Update, Soap Opera News,
Soap Opera Magazine and other sources!

Plus Articles:
    "Liz's rape ordeal continues"
     and
    "Stefan will not answer Nikolas' questions about Laura"
     and
    "Jax meets with one of Jason's "boys," while Brenda throws Jax
with a very important question"

Important Stuff:

MONDAY: Carly learns that Robin knows the truth and may not keep her
secret.

TUESDAY: Mac learns why Tess has been holding him hostage - she plans to
frame him for the murder.

WEDNESDAY: Alan may not be able to hide his pill addiction, as two more
people find out.

THURSDAY: Jason undergoes a transformation.

FRIDAY: Brenda asks Jax a very important question. But her forwardness
may just backfire ... and then where will she be?



More Stuff:

Katherine's gift to Stefan and his refusal to answer Nikolas' questions
have Nikolas worried about Stefan's feelings for Laura.

Liz tells Audrey the truth about her attack; Bobbie steps in when Audrey
isn't there for Liz.

Jax rushes to Brenda's side when he hears that she's gotten a new
modeling job.

Robin and Carly discuss Michael's paternity.

Tess pays Mac and Felicia a surprise visit, giving Mac a clue about her
plan.

Stefan warns Nikolas to be wary of Robin.

Jax continues his vendetta against Jason; Ned and Justus offer Jax a few
helful hints.

A confident A.J. stands up to Emily and Ned on his first day back on the
job at ELQ.

Carly takes Jason shopping.

Brenda makes a request of Jax.

Tess' cronies have their eyes on Jax.


The FOLLOWING week:

Tony cooks up a new plan
Mac and Felicia's "relationship" takes a new turn.
Nikolas has a breakthrough.
Startling revelations rock two families.


Liz's rape ordeal continues

   Liz isn't the only one who has to face the consequences of her rape.
This week on GH she tells her sister and her grandmother, both of whom
have strong reactions to the news.

   Sarah feels guilty because the original plan had been for Liz to be
at the Valentine's Dance. "Sarah and Lucky discuss it," Rebecca Herbst
(Liz) says, "and he tells her, "I was supposed to go to the dance with
Liz, but I went with you instead.' So now Sarah feels responsible as
well, because if it hadn't been for the two of them, Liz would have been
at the dance, safe and sound."

   Later, Liz is forced to tell Audrey what happened. Initially, Liz
only tells her she lost her bracelet, but when Lucky finds it and brings
it to her, she admits the truth. Audrey has an odd reaction: When Bobbie
finally convinces Liz to have an HIV test, Audrey refuses to accompany
her to the hospital.

   "I'm excited that this has happened to Liz,' Herbst says. "As a
character, she didn't have the much background. Her parents are in
Bosnia, they're doctors, they left her at 14. That's all we knew. And
now, even the littlest scenes I do, there is this huge dimension to Liz
that I can pull from. We are all being let in on this personal crisis,
and now, from here on out, everybody's going to always think back to
that."


Stefan will not answer Nikolas' questions about Laura

   Katherine's gift of a stone bench brings Stefan's fond memories of
Laura to the surfae once again. Nikolas tries to get the truth about
Laura out of his uncle, but Stefan firmly refuses to answer the young
man's prying questions.

   When Nikolas finds the portrait of Laura hidden in the attic, he
begins to believe that what Helena is saying about Stefan's obsession
with Laura may be true. But when challenged, Stefan defends his
actions and declares that Helena's claim is ludicrous.



Jax meets with one of Jason's "boys," while Brenda throws Jax with a
very important question

   Fed up with the dock-project delays and the loss of hundreds of
millions of dollars the delays could cause, Jax takes action this week.
"He is beginning to show the Jacks family colors," explains Ingo
Rademacher (Jax).

   The fly in the ointment is Jason, who runs the docks. Jax confronts
Ned as to why he has not met with Jason about this project. He accuses
Ned of breaking the cardinal rule in business - allowing personal
feelings to interfere with an objective. Ned turns it around on Jax and
suggests that Jax has confused the issue by projecting his hatred for
Sonny onto Jason.

   The bottom line for Jax is that he wants the situation rectified, and
he tells Ned he will do whatever it takes to resolve it. Interpreting
Jax's statement as a threat on Jason's life, Ned goes to Jason to warn
him. But Jax has his own plan, and meets with Sam, one of Jason's
"boys."

   "He does this really tricky thing," Rademacher says. "What it amounts
to is a situation where Jax goes to one person and says, 'He said this
about you,' then goes to that person and says, 'he said that about you.'
"

   Sam confides to Jax that Jason will soon be out of the way, at which
point Jax tells Jason there is a traitor in his midst. It's a win-win
situation for Jax. "If Sam kills Jason, great. If Jason kills the other
guy, then Jason thinks he owes one to Jax for warning him," Rademacher
explains. "Either way, there will hopefully be movement on the project."

   Look for Sam to confront Jason by week's end. Meanwhile, Brenda tells
Robin she has a new job and a surprise for Jax. Learning of Brenda's
photo shoot, a fearful Jax races to her side. When he reaches
Brenda, she is surprisingly calm but throws Jax by what she asks him.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

- -

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Feb 1998 16:25:28 -0800
From: Maia <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GH/PC: Robin and Nik

>>>S
>>>P
>>>O
>>>I
>>>L
>>>E
>>>R
>>>
>>>S
>>>P
>>>A
>>>C
>>>E
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>good point, but...unless nik suddenly turns out to be hiv+, i don't see
>any circumstance, EVER, under which robin would have sex with him
>anyway.

Being HIV+ didn't stop Robin from sleeping with Jason.  Repeatedly, in fact.

And even if he were HIV+, too, it wouldn't actually change anything.  Two
people who are both HIV+ can reinfect each other, making themselves worse,
and speeding the progression of the disease.


Maia Shea  <[e-mail]>

- -

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 06:26:13 PST
From: "Julie Saker" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:Re: GH/PC: Robin and Nik

maia wrote:

>Being HIV+ didn't stop Robin from sleeping with Jason.  Repeatedly, in
fact.

really?  i don't think so...unless we're using different definitions of
"sleeping with."  i agree they had some sort of sexual relationship, but
i'm almost POSITIVE they never "slept together" in terms of having
actual sex (which is what i was talking about, in terms of the statutory
rape discussion).  i know jason wanted to, desperately, but robin
wouldn't take the risk.  i seem to remember jason even talked to alan,
and read all sorts of medical journals, to try and convince robin it
would be safe, but she wouldn't think of it. am i wrong about that?

>And even if he were HIV+, too, it wouldn't actually change anything.
Two
>people who are both HIV+ can reinfect each other, making themselves
worse,
>and speeding the progression of the disease.

well, that's true i guess.  all i really meant was that i don't see
robin having sex with anyone, ever again, unless that person is also hiv
positive.  otherwise i don't think she'd even CONSIDER it.  unless alan
cures her one of these days, of course!  :)

julie

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

- -

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 06:49:04 PST
From: "Julie Saker" <[e-mail]>
Subject: GH/PC: Re:  GH teen ages

cagey wrote:

>I'm constantly bewildered by ages, btw.  Just how old are these
characters
>supposed to be?  It doesn't really matter, but I'm just curious.

i think we've had this conversation before, and never really came to a
satisfactory answer, because tptb have screwed up their timeline so
much.  all i can say for sure is...taking lucky, nik, em, sarah, lizzie,
and robin...is that robin is the oldest, and is in her (i think?)
sophomore year of college, which i'd say makes her around 19-ish.  nik i
believe is second-oldest, since he HAS to be older than lucky, since
laura didn't have lucky before the cassadines kidnapped her and took her
to the island.  i don't know what year that was, though, and i don't
suppose it matters because i don't think it's accurate.  he drives, and
has been doing college-level work with his tutors even though he's still
technically high school age, so i'd guess him to be 17.  lucky HAS to be
at least a year younger--making him either 15 or 16.  i think em is
around his age, whatever that is (they never DID specify which birthday
she just celebrated).  and i think, back at the beginning, that they
said lizzie is 15 and sarah is 16.  and yes, having all these siblings
in the same english class was more than a tad ridiculous!

julie

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

- -

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 08:28:49 -0800
From: Taiyin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:Re: GH/PC: Robin and Nik

At 06:26 AM 2/20/98 PST, Julie Saker wrote:
>
>really?  i don't think so...unless we're using different definitions of
>"sleeping with."  i agree they had some sort of sexual relationship, but
>i'm almost POSITIVE they never "slept together" in terms of having
>actual sex

I could have sworn they did.  Hmm... that's a good question, then.  I was
absolutely positive they had.

Taiyin
"By all means, please, sacrifice me on the altar of your amusement.
It's the least I can contribute to your evening." -- Kevin Collins, GH

- -

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 08:44:01 -0800
From: Taiyin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GH/PC: Re:  GH teen ages

At 06:49 AM 2/20/98 PST, Julie Saker wrote:
>and robin...is that robin is the oldest, and is in her (i think?)
>sophomore year of college, which i'd say makes her around 19-ish.

Except that she actually took a year off school to stay home when Stone was
dying.  So she should ACTUALLY be 20/21-ish.  Though, they had Sonny say
she was 19 last summer (which I only remember because it irritated me at
the time).

>nik i
>believe is second-oldest, since he HAS to be older than lucky, since
>laura didn't have lucky before the cassadines kidnapped her and took her
>to the island.

Right.  My problem with all of that is that there is NO WAY IN THE WORLD I
buy that Tyler Christopher is playing a 17 year old.  And honestly, I think
that's why I wouldn't mind a Nik/Robin pairing (obviously it has to be
handled well), because it is distracting, annoying and totally impossible
to me to try and swallow Nik as only being 17.

>lucky HAS to be
>at least a year younger--making him either 15 or 16.  i think em is
>around his age, whatever that is (they never DID specify which birthday
>she just celebrated).

Not on her birthday, they didn't (they were too busy focusing on abduction
and other sundry felonies).  But last fall Em had a line about it only
being "a few months" before she could drive, so I think it's a pretty safe
bet that she's probably 16.

>and i think, back at the beginning, that they
>said lizzie is 15 and sarah is 16.  and yes, having all these siblings
>in the same english class was more than a tad ridiculous!

One of those interviews (I think) had Becky Herbst refering to Lizzie as
14.  Even if that WAS the original plan, I think they probably refigured
her age -- even before this storyline.  Aside from the fact that I don't
buy Becky playing a 14 year old anymore than I buy Tyler playing a 17 year
old, I think between this storyline and the fact that they seem to be
trying to progress these kids into "bigger" circumstances (in general), I
doubt they'd leave her so young.  I don't think a lot of people could
stomach all that teen angst for that long.

So I'd probably say that Lizzie is probably 15 or 16 and Sarah would be
about a year older.  I think Em, Lucky and Lizzie are probably all about
the same age; Nik and Sarah are probably the same age; and Robin isn't even
really close.

Taiyin
"By all means, please, sacrifice me on the altar of your amusement.
It's the least I can contribute to your evening." -- Kevin Collins, GH

- -

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 11:39:21 PST
From: "Julie Saker" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  GH/PC: Robin and Jason

i wrote (regarding robin and jason):

>>i agree they had some sort of sexual relationship, but
>>i'm almost POSITIVE they never "slept together" in terms of having
>>actual sex

and taiyin replied:

>I could have sworn they did.  Hmm... that's a good question, then.  I
>was absolutely positive they had.

well ok, now i'm curious.  anybody else out there have a thought on this
one?  i distinctly remember, at first, at least, robin being STRONGLY
against the two of them having sex.  too dangerous, she didn't want to
be responsible for getting him infected, etc.  jason, who didn't care if
he lived or died really, didn't see any such problem, and went to great
lengths (even going as far as to confer with alan, who he REALLY
despised) about whether it would be safe.  i especially remember this
being an issue around the time robin went on the protocol, because jason
figured if it would lower the virus to undetectable levels, then it must
be safe for the two of them to sleep together.  unfortunately, the
medical journals he consulted, and alan, and robin, all told him no.

before that point, they DEFINITELY hadn't--because i remember when carly
realized that jason and robin were an item, at the nurses ball where she
collapsed during her speech and jason carried her off-stage, carly had a
FIT, because she and jason had been sleeping together, and he had never
told her he was involved with someone who was hiv positive.  so carly
yelled at him, and he replied that it wasn't an issue because he and
robin weren't having sex.

then, after jason had really been on a crusade for a while, i seem to
remember robin breaking down and pointing out that this wasn't any
easier for her than it was for him, but that she had buried all the
people she intended to bury in her life, and she absolutely wouldn't be
responsible for infecting jason, no matter how much she wanted to be
physical with him too.  and i THINK, at that point, they agreed that
they could be physical without being reckless, which is when they
started having a sexual relationship of SOME type--but, i'm almost
positive i remember reading (at that time) an interview with somebody
connected with the show who said this storyline was really going to
explore ways of being in a meaningful relationship without having sexual
intercourse.  of course, they never got specific about that on-screen, i
don't think, so...i guess i don't really know.  but i REALLY thought
they hadn't.  am i crazy?

julie


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

- -

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 11:56:18 PST
From: "Julie Saker" <[e-mail]>
Subject: GH/PC: more PC stuff from yesterday...

two more things i forgot to comment about earlier...

after some definite progress in this regard (largely due to eve), i'm
REALLY beginning to HATE HATE HATE chris again!!!!!  how DARE he get
such glee out of interfering in what is CLEARLY a life-or-death
situation???  that preview, of him putting together that note?  what an
evil, EVIL thing to do!  and for what POSSIBLE reason???  y'know, i
think this is very similar to what taiyin said earlier about rex--and i
think this is a big problem with the villains on pc in general, vs. the
historically better villains on gh.  the motivations for the pc villains
are SO weak as to be laughable, except that the things they're doing
because of these motivations are so heinous, that you just CAN'T laugh.
instead, you wind up just really HATING them, whereas on gh i think the
villains tended to be more of the "love to hate them" type.  ok, so
chris is going to poke his nose into a situation that could easily get
matt killed, TO WIN THE QUARTERMAINE RESIDENCY???  huh?  that's even
WORSE than "doing all this for some dead woman's money."
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

and on another note entirely...way to butcher one of my favorite short
stories, scotty!  i know, i know, it's only a half hour show, and the
whole plot to "the lady or the tiger" would have taken QUITE a while to
explain...but scott's description was almost a sacrilege!  i know, i'm
so picky...but what can i say, i was an english major!  :)

julie

p.s.  ANOTHER thing that pissed me off, even though it's COMPLETELY
unrelated to gh/pc...when i logged on to hotmail to write this message,
they had a BIG banner across the top telling me who wins tonight's
figure skating...news that i had successfully managed to avoid all day,
because i REALLY didn't want to know ahead of time (this being the one
and only winter olympics event i have ANY interest in seeing).  don't
worry, i won't ruin it for all of you...BUT I'M REALLY PISSED ABOUT THIS
NOW!!!!!

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

- -

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 11:49:28 -0800
From: Taiyin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re:  GH/PC: Robin and Jason

At 11:39 AM 2/20/98 PST, Julie Saker wrote:
>before that point, they DEFINITELY hadn't--because i remember when carly
>realized that jason and robin were an item, at the nurses ball where she
>collapsed during her speech and jason carried her off-stage, carly had a
>FIT, because she and jason had been sleeping together, and he had never
>told her he was involved with someone who was hiv positive.

This part I remember.

>physical with him too.  and i THINK, at that point, they agreed that
>they could be physical without being reckless,

And that's what I remember, too.

>explore ways of being in a meaningful relationship without having sexual
>intercourse.  of course, they never got specific about that on-screen, i
>don't think, so...i guess i don't really know.  but i REALLY thought
>they hadn't.  am i crazy?

Hhmmm... strange.  Usually soaps don't do vague.  It could be that I just
read more into it than was there at the time.

Now I am really curious, though.

Taiyin
"By all means, please, sacrifice me on the
altar of your amusement.  It's the least I
can contribute to your evening." -- Kevin
<[e-mail]> http://www.taiyin.net/

- -

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 21:42:02 -0500
From: "Donald K Gooden" <[e-mail]>
Subject: GH/PC: GH: spoilers part one

Spoilers for the week of Feb 23
                Jamila
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1




WEEK OF FEBRUARY 23-27, 1998
courtesy of Soap Opera Weekly, Soap Opera Update, Soap Opera News,
Soap Opera Magazine and other sources!




Plus Articles:
"Liz's rape ordeal continues"
and
"Stefan will not answer Nikolas' questions about Laura"
and
"Jax meets with one of Jason's "boys," while Brenda throws Jax with a very
important question"
  Important Stuff:

MONDAY: Carly learns that Robin knows the truth and may not keep her secret.
TUESDAY: Mac learns why Tess has been holding him hostage - she plans to
frame him for the murder.
WEDNESDAY: Alan may not be able to hide his pill addiction, as two more
people find out.
THURSDAY: Jason undergoes a transformation.
FRIDAY: Brenda asks Jax a very important question. But her forwardness may
just backfire ... and then where will she be?

  More Stuff:

Katherine's gift to Stefan and his refusal to answer Nikolas' questions have
Nikolas worried about Stefan's feelings for Laura.
Liz tells Audrey the truth about her attack; Bobbie steps in when Audrey
isn't there for Liz.
Jax rushes to Brenda's side when he hears that she's gotten a new modeling
job.
Robin and Carly discuss Michael's paternity.
Tess pays Mac and Felicia a surprise visit, giving Mac a clue about her
plan.
Stefan warns Nikolas to be wary of Robin.
Jax continues his vendetta against Jason; Ned and Justus offer Jax a few
helful hints.
A confident A.J. stands up to Emily and Ned on his first day back on the job
at ELQ.
Carly takes Jason shopping.
Brenda makes a request of Jax.
Tess' cronies have their eyes on Jax.


  The FOLLOWING week:

Tony cooks up a new plan
Mac and Felicia's "relationship" takes a new turn.
Nikolas has a breakthrough.
Startling revelations rock two families.


  Liz's rape ordeal continues

   Liz isn't the only one who has to face the consequences of her rape. This
week on GH she tells her sister and her grandmother, both of whom have
strong reactions to the news.

   Sarah feels guilty because the original plan had been for Liz to be at
the Valentine's Dance. "Sarah and Lucky discuss it," Rebecca Herbst (Liz)
says, "and he tells her, "I was supposed to go to the dance with Liz, but I
went with you instead.' So now Sarah feels responsible as well, because if
it hadn't been for the two of them, Liz would have been at the dance, safe
and sound."

   Later, Liz is forced to tell Audrey what happened. Initially, Liz only
tells her she lost her bracelet, but when Lucky finds it and brings it to
her, she admits the truth. Audrey has an odd reaction: When Bobbie finally
convinces Liz to have an HIV test, Audrey refuses to accompany her to the
hospital.

   "I'm excited that this has happened to Liz,' Herbst says. "As a
character, she didn't have the much background. Her parents are in Bosnia,
they're doctors, they left her at 14. That's all we knew. And now, even the
littlest scenes I do, there is this huge dimension to Liz that I can pull
from. We are all being let in on this personal crisis, and now, from here on
out, everybody's going to always think back to that."



  Stefan will not answer Nikolas' questions about Laura

   Katherine's gift of a stone bench brings Stefan's fond memories of Laura
to the surfae once again. Nikolas tries to get the truth about Laura out of
his uncle, but Stefan firmly refuses to answer the young man's prying
questions.

   When Nikolas finds the portrait of Laura hidden in the attic, he begins
to believe that what Helena is saying about Stefan's obsession with Laura
may be true. But when challenged, Stefan defends his actions and declares
that Helena's claim is ludicrous.



  Jax meets with one of Jason's "boys," while Brenda throws Jax with a very
important question

   Fed up with the dock-project delays and the loss of hundreds of millions
of dollars the delays could cause, Jax takes action this week. "He is
beginning to show the Jacks family colors," explains Ingo Rademacher (Jax).

   The fly in the ointment is Jason, who runs the docks. Jax confronts Ned
as to why he has not met with Jason about this project. He accuses Ned of
breaking the cardinal rule in business - allowing personal feelings to
interfere with an objective. Ned turns it around on Jax and suggests that
Jax has confused the issue by projecting his hatred for Sonny onto Jason.

   The bottom line for Jax is that he wants the situation rectified, and he
tells Ned he will do whatever it takes to resolve it. Interpreting Jax's
statement as a threat on Jason's life, Ned goes to Jason to warn him. But
Jax has his own plan, and meets with Sam, one of Jason's "boys."

   "He does this really tricky thing," Rademacher says. "What it amounts to
is a situation where Jax goes to one person and says, 'He said this about
you,' then goes to that person and says, 'he said that about you.' "

   Sam confides to Jax that Jason will soon be out of the way, at which
point Jax tells Jason there is a traitor in his midst. It's a win-win
situation for Jax. "If Sam kills Jason, great. If Jason kills the other guy,
then Jason thinks he owes one to Jax for warning him," Rademacher explains.
"Either way, there will hopefully be movement on the project."

   Look for Sam to confront Jason by week's end. Meanwhile, Brenda tells
Robin she has a new job and a surprise for Jax. Learning of Brenda's photo
shoot, a fearful Jax races to her side. When he reaches Brenda, she is
surprisingly calm but throws Jax by what she asks him.



- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ----














- -

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 21 Feb 1998 14:57:05 -0500
From: "Donald K Gooden" <[e-mail]>
Subject: GH/PC: What  torture!!!!

Oh God. You are all killing me. The last time I saw Port Charles was three
weeks ago. My VCR is broken. If I am at home and I press record then it will
sometimes work. However, it won't work at all if I set the timer. I am not
home during the days, so I can only see the show when I have a day off of
school. This has been my predicament for several months now. It is quite
funny actually, because I have a Lucy and Kevin website, but I can't even
watch the show. I have been reading all your posts about Kevin and Lucy, and
I have seen the promos for this upcoming week. I tell you I am dying...Is it
better for me to read all of your posts and go on-line and find out about
the shows I've missed, torturing myself,or is it better to not think about
K and L, believing in the idea that ignorance is bliss.

http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/Set/1625/JandJ.html
Kevin and Lucy: The Wonder Year
(oh the torture of it all)
                                                            Jamila




- -

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Feb 1998 21:13:09 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: GH/PC: Robin and Nik

In a message dated 98-02-20 11:40:55 EST, you write:

<<
 >
 >really?  i don't think so...unless we're using different definitions of
 >"sleeping with."  i agree they had some sort of sexual relationship, but
 >i'm almost POSITIVE they never "slept together" in terms of having
 >actual sex

 I could have sworn they did.  Hmm... that's a good question, then.  I was
 absolutely positive they had.
  >>

I'm totally sure they did not actually sleep together.  They did things an
alternate way.  I remember a lot of talk online about how mesy it must have
been.

Robin refused insisting on not putting Jason at risk.  I think that is the
stand they will make with her from now on.  They have written themselves into
a corner with this, they don't want to let her sleep with anyone, no matter
what precautions are taken.   They don't want any young viewer to put
themselves at risk because "Robin and Jason did and he's fine."  It's the same
reason they had her become HIV positive in the first place.

So like someone said, unless she meets else who is HIV positive that is how it
will be.  Even then, I think they worry about different strains of HIV, so it
still might be a problem.

An interesting situationhas arisen though, since Robin is on the latest drug
cocktail and the virus is undetectable in her blood right now.  I wonder how
risky safe sex would be for her partner at this point?  I doubt we will ever
find out.....


Anne

- -

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 09:50:51 -0800
From: Taiyin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: GH/PC: Robin and Nik

At 09:13 PM 2/22/98 EST, [e-mail] wrote:
>Robin refused insisting on not putting Jason at risk.  I think that is the
>stand they will make with her from now on.  They have written themselves into
>a corner with this, they don't want to let her sleep with anyone, no matter
>what precautions are taken.

<sigh> Frankly, I think that's more irresponsible than them having her and
Jason sleep together and *not* have him end up HIV+.

>They don't want any young viewer to put
>themselves at risk because "Robin and Jason did and he's fine."

Well, I can understand that.  But the fact remains that there ARE
reasonable precautions to take.  No, nothing is 100%.  But condoms,
combined with the fact that it is actually more difficult for a woman to
infect a man, make it highly unrealistic that they just won't ever sleep
together.

They really are trying to turn her into a saint, I guess.  A sexless,
saintly, unich.  So much for showing that she can lead a "healthy, normal
life."

>It's the same
>reason they had her become HIV positive in the first place.

Yeah, but she and Stone didn't use protection at least once (though, after
the fact, it was implied that they didn't use protection repeatedly).

Taiyin
"By all means, please, sacrifice me on the
altar of your amusement.  It's the least I
can contribute to your evening." -- Kevin
<[e-mail]> http://www.taiyin.net/

- -

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 11:40:34 PST
From: "Julie Saker" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Re: GH/PC: Robin and Nik

anne wrote:

>>They don't want any young viewer to put
>>themselves at risk because "Robin and Jason did and he's fine."

thanks, anne--that, in a nutshell, is EXACTLY why i thought they HADN'T
slept together, but apparently my brain wasn't working well enough for
me to be able to articulate that at the time!  :)

and taiyin wrote:

>Well, I can understand that.  But the fact remains that there ARE
>reasonable precautions to take.  No, nothing is 100%.  But condoms,
>combined with the fact that it is actually more difficult for a
>woman to infect a man, make it highly unrealistic that they just
>won't ever sleep together.
>
>They really are trying to turn her into a saint, I guess.  A sexless,
>saintly, unich.  So much for showing that she can lead a "healthy,
>normal life."

well...i see your point.  but at the same time, i think if they WERE to
allow robin to have a sex life it would have to be handled very, VERY
carefully.  because, especially due to the age of the characters
involved, there would really be a huge risk of a large segment of the
viewing population being too young to necessarily listen to and
understand the reasoning behind why and HOW it's okay to have sex with
someone who's hiv positive.  i think tptb are afraid, and rightfully so,
i think, that they "why" and "how" would get lost, and all that people
would walk away with is "it's okay," and i'm sure they don't want that
on their conscience.

not that i don't think they could do it, and do a responsible job with
it--because i thought the way they handled the robin/stone story was
just wonderful.  but in a lot of ways that one was much easier to
handle.  that was a cautionary tale--do this and something bad could
happen to you--and this would be almost the reverse.

>Yeah, but she and Stone didn't use protection at least once (though,
>after the fact, it was implied that they didn't use protection
>repeatedly).

i thought they portrayed it this way: stone got tested and was negative,
robin went on the pill, and they used condoms until the pill made it
"safe" for them not to anymore.  then, it turned out that negative test,
like robin's first tests, wasn't right because the virus hadn't shown up
in stone's blood stream yet.  the message being, what they THOUGHT was
responsible behavior (getting tested and waiting to have unprotected sex
until the test came back negative and they had pregnancy prevention
taken care of) was the right thought but not enough.  which, i think, is
related to what i said above--they're trying SO hard to not take any
chances about the wrong message getting out to young viewers, that
they're willing to err on the side of being over-cautious rather than
take a chance that their message would be misinterpreted.

on an unrelated note, sort of...i WISH you could come sit in my
apartment and watch "er" with my roommate and myself one thursday night,
taiyin!  i have SUCH fights with him over jeannie boulet (who, if you
don't watch, is a physician's asst. who is hiv positive, and didn't tell
anyone at work--initially, at least--because she didn't want to lose her
job).  rob (my roommate) TEARS this woman apart, calling her all sorts
of names that i can't print here, and saying she's a horrible person,
basically, for wanting to continue to live her life.  we had a
particularly heated discussion after the episode where she stuck her
hand (gloved, of course) into a patient's very large open wound to save
his life, when no one else was around and if she hadn't done it the
patient would have died.  (she had made a deal with her supervisor that
she wouldn't do anything that risky)  rob said she shouldn't have done
it--i said "would it be better to KNOW the patient would die, rather
than take the slim chance that you MIGHT make him hiv positive by saving
his life?"  he said, "well, if she had QUIT like she SHOULD have, she
wouldn't have been IN that situation!" infuriating, let me tell you!
this is the same boy who, as a golfer, was vehemently opposed to that
disabled golfer being allowed to use a cart, because it would give him
an "unfair advantage," but who also wouldn't accept my argument of,
"well then, let EVERYONE use a cart if they want to" because that would
"change the game.  what if a batter in baseball couldn't run and wanted
to use a cart to get around the bases?"  i told him, "you know, rob,
it's a good thing you were born healthy, now isn't it..."
GRRRRRRRRRRRRR!  i'd like to see YOU take a crack at him! (i'm getting
sick of being the "designated liberal"!)  :)

julie



______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

- -

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 12:09:22 -0800
From: Taiyin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Re: GH/PC: Robin and Nik

At 11:40 AM 2/23/98 PST, Julie Saker wrote:
>
>well...i see your point.  but at the same time, i think if they WERE to
>allow robin to have a sex life it would have to be handled very, VERY
>carefully.

Of course.  But I think it would be much more of a service (not to mention
more realistic) to explore the ways they can still have sex, but make it as
safe as possible.  I think that, while abstainance is the safest, it is
really pretty unrealistic to expect that every person who is HIV+, and in a
serious relationship, is going to abstain from sex for the rest of their
lives... or until there is a cure.

>not that i don't think they could do it, and do a responsible job with
>it--because i thought the way they handled the robin/stone story was
>just wonderful.

And that is the other half of why I think they should do it.  They did a
VERY responsible job of the entire situation from the very beginning.  And
I think to let it go now *is* irresponsible.

>i thought they portrayed it this way: stone got tested and was negative,
>robin went on the pill, and they used condoms until the pill made it
>"safe" for them not to anymore.

Right.

>the message being, what they THOUGHT was
>responsible behavior (getting tested and waiting to have unprotected sex
>until the test came back negative and they had pregnancy prevention
>taken care of) was the right thought but not enough.

Yes, but it's not an accurate comparison, really.  They were living in
total ignorance last time.  That isn't the case anymore at all.

>related to what i said above--they're trying SO hard to not take any
>chances about the wrong message getting out to young viewers, that
>they're willing to err on the side of being over-cautious rather than
>take a chance that their message would be misinterpreted.

I guess.  I think my point is that doing it this way is like saying, "If we
don't allow teenagers access to condoms, then they just won't have sex."  I
think it's a very naive approach that does more harm than good, IMO.

>on an unrelated note, sort of...i WISH you could come sit in my
>apartment and watch "er" with my roommate and myself one thursday night,
>taiyin!

Argh!  Well, as we've noticed before, your roommate and I are probably much
better off on opposite coasts. ;-)

Taiyin
"By all means, please, sacrifice me on the
altar of your amusement.  It's the least I
can contribute to your evening." -- Kevin
<[e-mail]> http://www.taiyin.net/

- -

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 12:00:34 -0800
From: Taiyin <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Re: GH/PC: Robin and Nik

At 11:40 AM 2/23/98 PST, Julie Saker wrote:
>
>well...i see your point.  but at the same time, i think if they WERE to
>allow robin to have a sex life it would have to be handled very, VERY
>carefully.

Of course.  But I think it would be much more of a service (not to mention
more realistic) to explore the ways they can still have sex, but make it as
safe as possible.  I think that, while abstainance is the safest, it is
really pretty unrealistic to expect that every person who is HIV+, and in a
serious relationship, is going to abstain from sex for the rest of their
lives... or until there is a cure.

>not that i don't think they could do it, and do a responsible job with
>it--because i thought the way they handled the robin/stone story was
>just wonderful.

And that is the other half of why I think they should do it.  They did a
VERY responsible job of the entire situation from the very beginning.  And
I think to let it go now *is* irresponsible.

>i thought they portrayed it this way: stone got tested and was negative,
>robin went on the pill, and they used condoms until the pill made it
>"safe" for them not to anymore.

Right.

>the message being, what they THOUGHT was
>responsible behavior (getting tested and waiting to have unprotected sex
>until the test came back negative and they had pregnancy prevention
>taken care of) was the right thought but not enough.

Yes, but it's not an accurate comparison, really.  They were living in
total ignorance last time.  That isn't the case anymore at all.

>related to what i said above--they're trying SO hard to not take any
>chances about the wrong message getting out to young viewers, that
>they're willing to err on the side of being over-cautious rather than
>take a chance that their message would be misinterpreted.

I guess.  I think my point is that doing it this way is like saying, "If we
don't allow teenagers access to condoms, then they just won't have sex."  I
think it's a very ignorant approach that does more harm than good.

>on an unrelated note, sort of...i WISH you could come sit in my
>apartment and watch "er" with my roommate and myself one thursday night,
>taiyin!

Argh!  Well, as we've noticed before, your roommate and I are probably much
better off on opposite coasts. ;-)

Taiyin
"By all means, please, sacrifice me on the
altar of your amusement.  It's the least I
can contribute to your evening." -- Kevin
<[e-mail]> http://www.taiyin.net/

- -

------------------------------

End of port-charles-digest V1 #26
*********************************