Agree with this sentiment in general, smig. The whole is so much greater than the sum of the parts. But it's hard to resist peeking under the hood to see what makes it work. Human nature.

And, I'm sorry, but you can look at Eli Manning's pass to David Tyree on a 3rd and 5 from their own 44 with 1:15 left to play, and pretty much convince yourself that this is the crystal through which that last Superbowl will be viewed and recalled.

http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/story?id=09000d5d8067f1b4&template=with-video&confirm=true

Personally, the deeper they get into the 1960s, the worse it will get for me... the later 60s in America are SO OVER HYPED, self-referential and has been represented ad nauseum in popular culture... but, it was inevitable the show would be pulled into the cultural blackhole of the counter culture, the drug sodden dystopia of youth cult... yawn...

P

While The Greatest Play in Superbowl history will surely be introduced early in any recap or discussion of the game I think that focusing on that diminishes the overall accomplishments of the team that day and obscures the profound disappointment felt by the team that wound up going 18 and 1... sporting events are more than just about who won or lost.

Again, the important thing is the forest and not the individual trees. Other things that happened during the game, and things that did NOT happen, equally influenced the outcome but not in such a spectacular fashion.

I posted my original message in the hope that folks who are souring on the show might take a different perspective when viewing future episodes... to get away from an "action-oriented" focus to one where they can appreciate the gestalt formed by all the elements as well as the "negative spaces" in the tableau being presented.

As I said, I agree, and understand your motivation for bringing up the point. Some people would rather be the first to know when the show has jumped the shark, so to speak, then allow themselves to simply enjoy the experience. Such is the nature of popular culture.

If Weiner & company take us into the late 60's, I'll go there. He's already shown he's brave enough to evolve beyond 1960, and to darken the landscape a little. Don & Betty Draper would be 84 and 76 today. I would hope they'd have the scars to show for it.

Patrick, it sounds like you're ticked off that you missed out on all the fun... ;-]

Seriously... I agree that it would be a big mistake to let "The '60s" become the star of the show or overly dominate the the themes and character arcs it built upon. I would disagree, however, that using the panorama of the decade as a backdrop will detract.

It's relatively "quiet" now in '62 but the Cuban Missile Crisis is coming up, followed by the Kennedy Assassination, The Beatles, major milestones in the Civil Rights Movement, the rise of Feminism, Viet Nam, more assassinations, the beginning of profound shifts in the workplace, mass migrations from the cities to the suburbs, first impacts of the Baby Boom, ... sheesh, that's a rich field to mine and it will be a relevant substrate for most viewers of the show.

.....Yes, I am so looking forward to the show well into the mid-60s WITHOUT it turning into that tired hippies portrayal. I really want to know how the adults handled it then..............without it feeling like "The Wonder Years".

PeggySue, sorry you did not appreciate my attempt at sardonic humor 'bout the sixties. The old curse "May you live in interesting times" certainly applies. It wasn't all bad, though.

Not wanting to write a monograph on events and trends in the '60s in my earlier post forced me to end my sweep of things that struck me about that era with broad strokes. Do you really maintain that the migration to the suburbs began after WWII and ended before the '50s?

It took a while for the Levittowns and other tract housing to get developed and breadwinners returning from the war to enjoy the benefits of the GI Bill to get higher education and start earning higher incomes to afford individual houses and land. The outflow continued throughout the '50s, '60s, and '70s and was further exacerbated by the concurrent flight of manufacturing to the Sun Belt. As a teenager in the '60s I remember all too well as one after another of my friends families moved on out to the 'burbs.

Whatever... It makes as much sense to parse these messages as it does to analyze the life out of the show.

Ultimately, I may only just want to participate here to stay connected to a community around Mad Men so I'll know when the inevitable "We've got to save this show from being canceled" campaign begins. I've already made a nuisance of myself touting the show to my friends so I might also be interested in communicating about ways to promote the show more effectively to help forestall the inevitable cancellation.

smig - thanks for being here. You're the voice of reason. I'm wanting to stay connected to the minority that's so into this show but finding it difficult to deal with the "distractin's" too.You're like a short course in mid-20th century history and it's enlightnin'. I was one of those "girls" in the office of an advertising agency in the 60's. The business world was way behind what was happening in the world and with students and on campuses. These events, that you mentioned above, would result in all the big changes in the next years. And wow, did they happen fast. Let's see if Weiner and Co. get it right. This show is really about that, and not about how many kids Peggy has, isn't it?

Thanks for chiming in in favor of the gestalt versus the "oy gevalt" (see the definition of the Yiddish term here: ://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=oy%20gevalt) mode for viewing The Show.

For folks into this for the long haul, it might be a good idea to start dedicating some of the resources of this site to exploring the matter of "viral" marketing of The Show so it can withstand the loss of interest on the part of Nielson-connected viewers.

As for your being one of the girls in the office during this period, you have my sympathy. The depiction of the ongoing exploitation of women and continued relegation of women to subordinate roles in societies throughout the world constitutes the most grating and unforgiveable of human rights violations in the world today (magnitude-wise). This was one of the most important tthemes of The Show from the outset and I hope it remains integral to the mise-en-scene going forward.

Ooops... I meant to say: The depiction of the ongoing exploitation of women, and the continued relegation of women to subordinate roles in societies throughout the world (which constitutes the most grating and unforgiveable of human rights volations in the world today (magnitude-wise)), is one of the things that makes this show important.

smig -- what do you mean "Neilsen connected viewers?" Do you mean ratings and the fact that viewership may drop off? I'm sure viewership is up trememdously due to the hype, exposure, PR and appearances by the Hamm/Slattery duo on many talk shows. I'm telling everyone I know about this show but most never heard of it (until now). How could you miss it with Jon Hamm's pix everywhere? (And that is a very good thing!) I wonder myself how I found it last year. Mostly as a haven from the banality of the broadcast networks and reality TV. I also found "Tell Me You Love Me", "Californication", "In Treatment" and others by searching for alternatives. Those who are tuning in just out of curiousity and really don't get the fact that this is something special probably won't stay. Let's hope there's enough of us to make it a go. It won't be a Sopranos. Not enough "action." But not everything should be geared to the masses. Heaven forbid.

Nielsen connected viewers? Every time I hear that term, I envision cable TV in the gorilla cages at zoos.

Don't want to rattle anybody's cage here, if they are Nielsen connected ~ but I just can't relate "Nielsen Connected" with the real audience for this show. I think their/our tastes are above the norm.

This is not a show for the masses. This is vintage champaign ~ with a side dish of caviar.

AMC really botched the advertising and PR for season 1. It was almost non-existent. But, word of mouth is a powerful promoter. And they've picked up the baton for season 2. This show has got "legs" as they say in Tinseltown.

I've been spreading the word since the first time I saw an episode. And it will catch on with a wide audience soon, because others have, too.

Some will stay tuned. Others will leave. New people will arrive. It's like a party. Those who like the parties you throw will always come back for the next one. And there are millions already.

So, Party On!

irememberitwell: By "Neilson-connected" I am referring to everyone wired to or surveyed by ratings agencies whose numbers are used to determine the popularity and worth of the show to advertisers. By definition, these people have to represent a broad swath of the viewing public, most of whom are preternaturally and/or demographically unsuited to being fans of the show by dint of things like age, national origin, education, or regional antipathy to All Things New York. Many of these folks who might have tuned in to check out the buzz won't ever bother to return.

Not being an expert about scheduling I also have to wonder about the move to Sunday night, especially since this is summertime, when lots of people travel. I know I had to make an effort to catch Episode 1 when it aired and had to rely on my DVR to capture Episode 2... which will be the case for the next few episodes, too. It seems like a lot of folks whose viewship is measured and actually want to see the show when it airs just won't be able to make it when it "counts." When dealing with the already low base ratings for fringe-cable shows every tenth of a point is meaningful.

As such, despite the Golden Globe and Peabody awards (ain't that an odd pair) and Emmy nominations, I fear that there will be a continued drop-off in "measured" viewership even after the loss of 40% of those who watched the Season Two premiere. I imagine viewership from ancillary sources -- like iTunes downloads and Tivo (however those stats are compiled) -- will be factored into the equation when they do the math but I'm afraid AMC will, ironically, NOT get a good ROI on it ad campaign.

If it does well with the Emmys (a la "Monk") the show could get legs enough for an extended run. Being on fringe-cable might actually be an advantage since winning awards kept "Arrested Development" on a network for only three years. I sure hope wryter1's optimism prevails.

smig: Cable ratings are the most unreliable measurement within the broadcast industry. Was there a 40% loss after the Season 2 Premiere? How do they measure that? Caveat: always question ratings. Anyway, what the advertisers here are looking for is the quality of the audience, not the volume. And this audience is certainly right for BMW and vice versa. Funny, notice the whiskey advertisers? Cable advertising is growing even though the audiences are traditionally much much smaller. That's because the audiences that watch trash TV are of no value. With more viral marketing, more hype and if Weiner and Co. do their part in keeping up the quality -- we'll be ok. As for "hit and run" viewers, let them go. As for those who complain "not as good as.....", is there anything that's as good second time around? Too high expectations always disappoint. By the way, smig, what business are you in and are you male or female. Your comments sound too smart to be male. Uh oh!!!

Aw shucks, iremberitwell, you've just made me blush. I'm sure you will never figure out my biz but I'm surprised you had to inquire as to my gender. Hmmm, maybe I should take that as a compliment.

Things may not be literally "as good [the] second time around" but I can think of many experiences that were as good, if not better, albeit in a different sort of way... which is what is happening with this show for me. It would be unrealistic to expect to re-experience the feeling of serendipity and instant engagement we enjoyed upon discovering the show last year (thank you NY Times for the lead A&E piece that alerted me to it) and I find it hard to believe so many people were hoping for that and are disappointed now. The show has shifted gears a bit as have my expectations so it's still a match made in heaven for me.

As for your comment that "the audiences that watch trash TV are of no value"... I think you are being a bit harsh. As the saying goes, "à chacun son goût," and consumers of every stripe will have value to some sort of advertiser or another. We may well continue as a society careering toward becoming an idiocracy dominated by a plutocracy, with a sliver of je ne sais quoi in-between, but that's another story.

smig -- I try to be tolerant, really I do. I mean of no value to the advertiser. They are looking for people who will spend money. I think demographic research will bear out that audiences who watch "trash TV" are of lower income and educational level. While that may be the perfect target for some marketing campaign products, not so with MM. As a media buyer (ah ha, now I've told you), it would never be cost efficient to try to sell MM's and, for example, The Bachelor(ette)'s viewers the same widget. Vive la difference! Anyway, I digress. Let's just watch the show and enjoy the finest piece of programming in years -- story, style, smarts, and be grateful that we're not being reduced to the lowest common denominator. Weiner and AMC need to be commended for taking such a brilliant risk. Let's hope the Emmys give the nominees their due.

smig... I guess I like the pop cultural 'frame' of 1960-1965 much more than 1966-1969... and I am bracing myself for Don with longer hair and mid-life issues and perhaps drugs eating Betty alive... for me one of the key forshadowing images of the 1st show of seaon 2 was the LOCK being put on Don's door... the world of Mad Men c.1962 has to be safeguarded now... the social agreements that held action in place, the very propriety defining limitation and expectency is dissolving... there are people like Pete and Paul who will steal and intrude and generally act on marginally criminal impluse... noteably, Don's great impluse (outside of his social bad boy behaviour which is again part of the then accepted male taboo overstepping, if you will, that changed the entire course of his life, happened in KOREA... a world away and during wartime, the portal opened up and he, the no body, dove in to chance his entire existence... but THERE IS LIFE AND THERE IS WORK... at work Don is a straight arrow, SO FAR... in his bizarre way of compartmentalizing things, you would never have to lock the door against Don's in office/at work integrity... after the Pete violation, which he almost certainly figured out, now he must safeguard and reorientate himself... that's certainly part of his being mixed up right now... he's reassessing... of course the entire DON THING is that he's got SO MANY OPTIONS in life... work, women, people who want to be his friends, who want him to mentor them at work, who just want to be around him... and then DUCK arrives... the polar opposite to Don in many ways... a grow up version of what Pete would like be in 20 years...

P

Patrick, '66 & '67 weren't so bad if you don't count the run-up in Viet Nam (hard not too). Summer of Love & Flower Power was kinda kewt -- why 'adults" got so upset with us seems ridiculous in hindsight. And the music was GREAT!

In a way, '68 was like an extended 9/11 with the assassinations and Viet Nam maxing out with the Tet Offensive (driven home by the incredible TV coverage... hey, I wonder what happened to the successors to those guys who should've been in Iraq & Afghanistan). And soon after things got pretty grim for a while under Nixon for a lot of us.

I don't know if it really was as bad as I remember or if it was largely influenced by a heavy dose of teen-age angst at the time but I remember envying my sister who was six years ahead of me and seemed to dance through all the doors that were closing in on me.

I see you are very optimistic for a longer run of the show since your crystal ball extends to '69... that would take at least two more seasons after this one, maybe three.. a comforting thought. As the name of this discussion suggests, however, I'm just not equipped to drill down into the characters and parry prognostications with anyone... I'm like a soon-to-be parent who doesn't want to know the gender of the fetus after an amnio... I'd prefer to be surprised.

PeggySue, I don't think anyone else in this discussion stated that Nielsen "is primarily for the uneducated, lower classes" ... to the contrary I talked about how by necessity they had to have every type of person represented in their viewer sample... and irememberitwell, from her media buyer perspective, talked about how audiences for low-brow shows were not particularly attractive to advertisers.

Is there any reason you take such a combative tone, PeggySue? It's like you feel you have to be "right" and are willing to duke it out with anyone to prove a point. You might want to reread a comment before firing off a riposte 'cause you might get a better impression the second time around... or look for a follow-up like you did earlier when you wanted to hand me my head for some remark.

With apologies to Monty Python, this discussion is not for "... Verbal Abuse. Arguments is down the hall." Save your energy for any Holocaust Denier or Racist/Misogynist who may happen to wander in.

PeggySue, I think maybe what smig means is that you seem to just abruptly start right in to correct other peoples' posts as a professor might lecture a class. I realize you probably don't mean to come across like that, but you do. You indeed sound quite knowledgeable about NYC and all things thereof and you have every right to be immensely proud of that. I've always loved and been fascinated by all things New York City and have never even been there (yet). All of us "late boomers" (born after 1950) "know stuff", too, but all from our own unique perspectives just as your posts are from your personal "war baby" view. I am sorry I probably am not making this clear as I wish I could, but, no one likes to be lectured. I say again, you most likely don't do it intentionally, but it does "read" like a "here's the deal and this is the ONLY deal there is" Sorry....

Thank you SCfan--that's was more diplomatic way of saying what I was trying to say on the pot smoking thread.

Smig--"We may well continue as a society careering toward becoming an idiocracy dominated by a plutocracy, with a sliver of je ne sais quoi in-between, but that's another story."

That is great!! Did you make that up? It is about as apt a description as I've ever read!

Betty Crocker, I always quote and and try to acknowledge the source when using other people's work (a la Monty Python recently).

One of the main reasons I'm posting messages in this forum is because my day job does not involve much "creative" writing or have an audience for it. It's gratifying to know that someone appreciates my style. So, from one denizen of the JNSQ sliver to another, Thanks!

Hmmmm, we're getting a little touchy here, aren't we? Matt Weiner would be ashamed of us and I'm sure he is disappointed that we digress. And in a post that originally called for calm. (Although I'm sure he's thrilled we're watching!) Nothing wrong with a little conversation but let's keep it classy. A note about Neilsen for those who don't know. Neilsen is a totally random, objective survey. Participants are not chosen for their demographic qualities, but the results are categorized as such to give insight into the preferences of the viewing public. If a program proves to appeal to the rich/not so, educated/not so, young/not so, ethnic/not so, then the advertisiers will line up to reach their desired targets. The fact that BMW occasionally exclusively sponsors MM says something about who they think the audience is. The liquor sponsors, too, think they've got direct access. May not be the case. Not all programming is created equal and in fact, good stuff is harder to come by. The broadcasters give us what we deserve -- so if we act like adults and appreciate this wonderful program that appreciates our intelligence instead of insulting us -- we'll get more.

I did read in the NY Times or the Trib that the MM audience has one of the highest median incomes of all shows--well over 100,000 or 125,000 per family, compared to like 50,000 for most other shows.

I wouldn't say "we" (as in all/many of us) are getting touchy here and would narrow it down a little. Since I started this particular discussion I felt a responsibility to try and moderate it a bit when I thought some comments were getting too confrontational. My apologies if I wound up fomenting more ferment.

I hope Weiner doesn't come anywhere near this forum and would think his original resources are totally sufficient for any ideas, inspiration, information he requires. After all, this is just one big virtual coffee klatch... no? I'd get very weirded out if he actually posted something here.

As long as we don't look for plot anachonisms, factual errors, or try to divine higher meaning from incidents on the show I'd say we're not digressing from the original intent of the discussion, just fleshing out and sharing our personal contexts and, perhaps, forming another wing of the community that loves this show.

As such, I'm happy to be exploring the Nielsen angle now because it is one of the primary factors in determining the lifetime of the show. Its been reassuring to learn that it may be possible for MM to eke out season after season with low ratings if the demographics are still compelling enough for advertisors. Ultimately, however, I think I'd be a lot happier if HBO realized the error of its ways and made a deal for Season 3 and beyond... at least that way I could see it in HiDef.

Don't kid yourself, smig. Weiner (or his subordinates) IS watching us. Where else can he get an idea about who's watching and what they saying about him/it. He wants to know if we like him just like everyone else does. Blogs and talk forums can provide insight that was never available before. Thus, my question "Who's watching this show? Can you relate?" Of course, he would never respond, but Matt, if you're out there, give us a sign!

By the way, does anyone else know of another forum that's got some good talk about this show? Sometimes even the media blogs quote our forums.

irememberitwell, I do recall someone on one of these forums mentioning another forum on MM but I'll be damned if I can recall the name of the site. I'll scroll back on some of these forums and see if I can locate it...it had a link in the post and everything... I knew I shoulda written it down then. Anybody recall what that site was?

There's a couple--I know someone mentioned a yahoo chat group on these threads, but there's also lippsister.com's blog "Basket of Kisses." And Television without Pity has one also for Mad Men.

Weiner may very well be reading our blather... I just espoused a hope that he didn't based on an exchange with Michael Bloomberg I witnessed before he became Mayor of NY.

Bloomberg was giving a talk at The Y on 92nd Street and someone asked him about how he views his business competition. His answer surprised me but made a lot of sense.

He said he never looked at his competitors' products then went on as to how he preferred to execute his own vision (probably formed after analyzing his clients' current and future needs) and mentioned the idea that one might wind up picking up more bad ideas than good ones if he did. The corollary here is thinking it could be a bad idea if Weiner were influenced by anything in this forum because, despite our best intentions, none of us have contributed to even one super show while he's on to at least his second.

Since you're in the Ad Biz, irememberitwell, I wonder if you could shake the trees a bit and find out how Weiner, et al are reacting to the hoopla surrounding the show, including the attention paid to it by people like us on this site.

Hey irememberwell, you said: "Not all programming is created equal and in fact, good stuff is harder to come by. The broadcasters give us what we deserve -- so if we act like adults and appreciate this wonderful program that appreciates our intelligence instead of insulting us -- we'll get more."
Act like adults? I don't get that. From what I have learned about TV and Entertainment in general, there is an almost desperate need for good writing and production. It isn't because it ain't out there, it is because TV programmers themselves don't know how to find, claim, produce,present and get it on the air. It is kinda magical to them - it just happens. The fact is, an "artist" with an idea has to do a great deal of the work himself. If you have some home equipment there is a lot you can do to make a marketable production of a show idea and have it available for the Powers That Be to compete with each other for. I'm sure Weiner and Co had the moxie to do all that and AMC was the lucky network to get it,. after HBO turned it down. Their first original drama!. Plus, there are millions out there who don't pay for HBO and they are the people who made cable shows like The Closer, Rescue Me and The Shield so popular.

I kind of think they have to be reviewing these posts on occasion.

I thought it was odd that Matt Weiner felt it necessary on the Mad Men Main site to do a little preview video explaining the second episode (was it?) or be explaining the tone of this season.

That left me to conclude that he may have been reading our posts, and "saw" that many of us were iniitially depressed or let down by the first episode, and were missing the overall mood-direction-point he is taking this second season.

So, some of may be really confused viewers, but we certainly haven't lost our obsession with this series!

Wouldn't it be funny if Matt Weiner was one of the posters hereon and we never even realize(d) it? To quote a comedienne I heard once: "IT COULD HAPPEN!" Stranger things have! The anonymity (sp?) is there and if I were him, I wouldn't be able to resist! Which one are you, Matt???? ha

I confess! I'm Matt Weiner and I've been posing as a smart-ass here because you people were driving me to distraction with all your nitpicking plot analysis and conjecture -- that has generally been just plain wrong -- so I tried to throw a MacGuffin into the forum to get you talk about anything else.

Can't you people take the the hint I dropped about viral marketing and get your fingers clicking to spread the word 'til it hurts? Viewers are dropping like flies (and the suits at AMC). I've already thought of the slogan for the letter-writing campaign to save the show: "I want my MMTV!" Sorry, I shot my load with "The Wheel" episode (direction's too exhaustin') and don't have an ounce of creativity left so I couldn't come up with anything cleverer.

Since it looks like MM will be going down the tubes I've started working on a new series with Andy Richter and Ted Danson called "Pecker" about a schlub and his decrepit dad surveying the Decline and Fall of American Civilization from the vantage point of their trailer in New Orleans... kind of an updated "Sanford and Son." It will be a pile of cliches saturated with puerile observations of current events to appeal to the widest audience possible... jejune busting out all over.

It's way past my bedtime, gotta go now. Ciao baby!

FYI: in TV Guide, they said MM viewership went up 129% over last season (1+ or 2+ million I think)! Great news!

So, you devil, MW, keep it coming.

I'm sure they love the forum, however psychotic we seem in our minute dissections of every line of dialogue, scene, expression, lighting, whatever - it shows WE'RE INTERESTED! The writing and acting almost demands it; there's alot going on.

smig - if you're not MW, you should be!

Thanks! I thought that last imposter-post, however, was more of an anti-Weiner send up (think smarmy Hollywood-type who just cares about The Gross).

Looks like a beautiful weekend in NY. Let's go out and play!

Plan to. And we can start this all over again at 11:01p tomorrow.

As we "re-capitulate" parts of the show, we re-live that moment. Don't forget "the wheel" where "we go to a place where we yearn to go"! It's great see my Cinematography forum and add! Also, see me this Sunday as I walk into the restaurant scene as featured background!

Did everyone see that PeggySue won the new contest for the best postof the week (the coffee mug, I guess) Congrats, PeggySue!

Did everyone see that PeggySue won the new contest for the best post of the week (the coffee mug, I guess) Congrats, PeggySue!

Oops. posted twice....and smig you are funneeeee. That Ted Danson thing sounds kinda good. In a crappy sort of way.

Yeah, congratulations PeggySue! I didn't even know they were doing that - hope you get to pick what you want!

Aha, I knew they were checkin' us out. We're a little focus group reveals the pulse of the audience. We're the madfans that are gonna make or break this show. So keep an eye on us and especially me because I really want a coffee mug.

Me, too! I guess they just figure you'll see it on the blog or talk forum and then just send it to you. Does seem to me like they'd have let the first winner know via e-mail though. I don't know if you get to pick the item or not. There are T shirts and other junk too but the mug's the best because it has a dotted line (about a quarter inch from the rim on the inside) that has "Fill to this line with whiskey" printed above it! It may not be the best prize in the world but it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, I guess. The deal seems to be everyone is vying for the post of the week. Whheeeeee.....who'll win next week? I vote for wryter1 or smig....

How about MM designing a cool martini glass shaped like a coffee mug? Or maybe a really cool zippo that dispenses mints (you know for that smoker's breath)?

Great ideas, luvmadmen! There was a blog item on the MM site a few weeks or so ago about Zippo making some special MM collector lighters but I don't know where it's gone. There were 2 different designs. I think AMC should sell those neat silver rimmed glasses Don has in his office bar.

Congrats Peggy Sue! They must have your personal info on file when you sign in! Who will be next? I'm just going to buy a "Sterling Cooper" sweatshirt--love those!

Hey PeggySue let us know if they ever come thru with the coffee mug.

If I win (fat chance) I want one of those cool Joan pen necklaces! Or the mug would be good, too. I wish they'd give away one of the lighter style (flip top) DVD sets! oh well.

Hi scfan,
The Joan pen necklace is a drill bit would you belive I looked it up in style of Mad Men site!

Wow, really? What kind of weird symbolism is that??? I just thought it was a pen suspended on a long chain...the kind you write with. Go figure, huh?

scfan, thanks for the endorsement.

So you like the idea for "Pecker" and think it would fly? Network TV is usually so react-ionary that the timing is probably just about right for bobblehead executives to think it's safe to bank on the notoriety of post-Katrina New Orleans now. Hey, the more I think about it, your instincts are probably right. Now, where is Norman Lear, Jr.?

If you look at Weiner's page on IMDB you'll see that he worked with Richter and Danson in the past. Noticing that, I just combined "putz" and "Becker" to come up with the title. I don't mean to put them down but Richter does effect an unappealing, unidimensional persona. I've seen Danson out and about on Martha's Vineyard a few times and he seemed nice enough but his wife looked way better in person -- quite fetching even without the usual makeup and wardrobe enhancements -- than he did. I give him credit for not hiding his age and being himself but he could easily play a grandpa now.

More about "who's watching" this forum...

Just for the heck of it, I wanted to see what would happen if I started a discussion with the default "Topic Title" and "Your Post" entries intact, nothing else. Sure enough, it was accepted and showed up ready for people to comment. I attempted to post a comment about how lame the software is to allow this to happen but the update failed when I submitted it because the discussion was somehow deleted while I was typing up the message. I wonder if there is a moderator who takes care of such things (along with deleting extremely objectional messages) of if there's a bot trolling the message base to do the same.

Has anyone ever seen a post from a moderator or webmaster concerning discussion maintenance?

Nope.