Far be it from me to contradict the erstwhile Thaxton, but I would
point out that actors CAN get out of their options VERY easily, if they
really want to. The simple reality is that if an actor DOES NOT want to
be there, their presence can totally destroy the morale of a show, the
cast and crew. Caitlin Brown, I'd point out here, opted out of B5 of her
own volition, and we chose not to gainsay her. And I stated as much here.

And now an aside to Mr. Ford Thaxton...frankly, what the hell
business is it of yours anyway? Public figure? You're posting here on
Internet before literally *thousands* of people. So how about you give me
the last few employers you worked for, so that I may either a) contact
them directly and obtain information on the reasons for your departure,
or b) simply go ahead and make stuff up about the reason for your
departures. Or is it only fair if you do it to somebody else?

About every few weeks, I run across somebody else who has what he
says is THE TRUE STORY...that posts on GEnie resulted in O'Hare being
fired (stated as gospel at a convention by a journalist citing sources
"inside Warner Bros."); that O'Hare walked over money issues (this one was
on a number of systems); that Warners forced the issue; that JMS forced
the issue...on and on and on. This has gone beyond the absurd. But some
people, it seems, need to gossip, and to post rumors, and to get into
areas that are, frankly, none of their business.

Say O'Hare was fired. Why post that and ruin the man's career for
the next several years. Say O'Hare quit. Why post that and generate huge
fan animosity toward him? Say the decision was advanced by me, and well
greeted by O'Hare. Why? Well, because as Kissinger said, it has the
added benefit of being true. Mutual and amicable. The other crap is just
based on the desire of some people to hurt someone, or spread dirt, or
boost their egos on the notion that information is power, and if we seem
to have it, we thus have power.

Only four people were in the room when the conversation took place.
You weren't one of them. For me, that's the end of the discussion. Until
next time, when somebody posts that evil Martian microwaves were beamed
into my head making me fire O'Hare...and that's the *true* truth.

jms

Bruce Boxleitner was not hired because of TVQ. Bruce was hired
because he was the best actor for the part, *AND* because he had worked
with Doug Netter and John Copeland before on other projects, and thus they
knew him and had a very high regard for him. You conveniently ignore that
aspect of it. Also, you ignore some of the other actors that we announced
were also on the list, beneath Bruce, which included Roger Reece, who we
were strongly considering as a backup to Bruce should Bruce not turn out
to be available. Roger is a dynamite actor, but has zero TVQ. (To provide
the "direct evidence" that Theron Fuller keeps nudging about, a call to his
agent can confirm the discussions.) There were several other actors whose
names you've probably never HEARD of on that list...so if the only thing
we wanted was a TVQ actor, if that was the reason for replacing O'Hare,
then why would we be wasting time talking to actors without a TVQ?

"My only interest is that I can't stand BS." Meaning you came into
this with the ASSUMPTION, based on nothing, that this was BS. As far as
I'm concerned, it's your comments that are strictly bullshit. Your whole
attitude is one of just wanting to make people upset (your note about
some truth to your getting a kick out of irritating people), and disdain
at the people here as "worshippers." It seems to me that anytime in the
past, as with here, when somebody mouths off out of ignorance or bile or
cupidity, and gets called on it, he tends to try and kill the messenger
by describing the folks doing the disagreeing as "worshippers." This is
an old gag, and we've seen it here before. Seen it, been there, boring.

Re: O'Hare not saying much about the situation in Starlog...item
number one is that you're relying on what was quoted, and that may not
(almost certainly was not) all that was said. Item number two, and more
important: Michael is a very private man. He didn't say anything about it
because it's none of anyone's business, and he wants to keep the whole
show on a positive basis because he believes in it. You operate off the
boneheaded theory that someone who says nothing on the subject surely must
have something to hide. Now me, I was born in America, where a person is
innocent until proven guilty. You seem to operate from the assumption
that everyone is guilty of whatever it is you think they're guilty of,
until such time as they prove otherwise. You must come from a very odd,
and very dark place.

You can "stand your ground" all you want; you have nothing but your
erroneous facts, misapprehensions, delusions and convenient misquotings
to rely on. Obviously you're laboring under some sort of problem in
maturity or some other area, but either way it's got nothing to do with
my show, or the people here.

And you have not answered my query: please provide for me the names
of your last 3-4 employers, so that I may contact them, or speculate
freely, about your reasons for departing said employment. After all, you
haven't said anything about them in response to a direct query...thus by
your own reasoning you MUST have something to hide. And by being here in
front of several thousand "worshippers," you're as public a figure as
O'Hare.

Why would I possibly want to know this? Why, for the same reasons
you express. "I can't stand BS."

jms

A suggestion for those Theron Fuller is bugging about DIRECT
EVIDENCE, and whose opinions he tends to dismiss for lack thereof...you're
dancing a dance you can't win. You should be asking what CONSTITUTES
"direct evidence." Insofar as I know, there are only two forms of direct
evidence: eyewitness accounts at the time (viz: me), or physical
evidence in the form of documents, DNA reports, fingerprints at the scene
of the crime, and so forth. In short, you're being asked to provide
material that simply does not exist.

This is an old debate tactic, which works only so long as you don't
ask the person to define the "direct evidence" in question.

jms

Theron Fuller...you keep asking for "direct evidence." Please define
what you would accept as "direct evidence" given that only four people
were in the room? Please be specific.

Obviously hearsay or direct statements (which are usually good
enough for a court of law) don't seem good enough for you. So what would
be? (IN a real world, not a hypothetical, as you state.)

You're demanding of people things that do not exist. And trying to
deride their opinion because they cannot provide that which does not
exist.

You keep talking about logic and reasonableness...but having studied
logic, I'm afraid you're totally out to sea on this. YOU have taken a
position for which there is *no* evidence whatsoever. If you don't have
a point to make, what's the point of the conversation? If you do, what is
your basis for that point? Please show YOUR direct evidence, and be sure
that it meets the criteria you set up for others.

Basically, and frankly, I think you're a mind-fucker, someone who
comes on knowing full well that there's no way of proving anything (unless
one wants to take the word of someone who was there), and thus tries to
sow some dissension, some contention, to get people all riled up trying to
meet and cater to YOUR demands...demands which you are not at liberty to
make of them.

Now, may I begin to speculate about your last few jobs? After all, I
can hypothetically state that you were probably fired from your last few
jobs for rather sordid reasons. Now, can anybody out there show me DIRECT
EVIDENCE to the contrary? Oh, and I'm sorry, but the word of your
employers doesn't count.

The oldest debate trick is to try and make someone prove a negative,
that something *didn't* happen...which is exactly what you're trying to
do here, and the unfortunate thing is that some folks have fallen for it.

I suggest you grow up and find another game to play. This one is
getting real old.

LOGICALLY, one never makes an assertion unless one has evidence. To
start with assumptions, as you have, flies in the face of logic.

So let's see YOUR direct evidence, Theron. Let's hold you up to the
same standards you seem to require of everyone else.

Well? You're so fast to demand it of everyone else...surely you
MUST have something more than just hot air, Theron? Come on. Put up or
shut up.

jms

"The show's ratings were going down at the end of last season."

Sorry, another fabrication on your part.

We were on an up-swing. The only time we dipped badly was when we
hit the first batch of reruns. In point of fact, "at the end of last
season," our final seven episodes EACH INCREASED OVER THE ONE BEFORE, by
quite a substantial amount. It was a sharp, definite upward curve.

You'd know that if you knew what you were talking about, instead of
just making stuff up.

It's amazing how, to try and make people think that I'm less than
forthright, they inevitably resort to lying....

jms

Ford clearly doesn't know anything about the show, as you note or
he'd be aware that "Chrysalis" was filmed #12. As for "Babylon Squared,"
which you mention...again, there's something interesting in timing here,
which of course Ford will ignore, because he's a pinhead. B2 aired long,
LONG after the O'Hare conversation took place. Months.

Now, if we really intended to change the story, if Sinclair was never
to show up again, it would have been absolutely simple (since we were
still plugging stuff into that episode up until a few weeks before it
aired in August) to either snip that scene out, or re-shoot it with
someone else. It's a thirty-second shot, absolutely no problem. But we
didn't. We left it in. (And we've left other mysteries unresolved, we
could've gotten away with it.) We were about five minutes over in that
episode, and there was plenty of stuff we could've stuck in to make up the
time. But, again, we didn't.

But naturally, none of this will matter to Ford, who is simply an
idiot.

jms

Woody Harper: you have ended your messages with a "quote" from me
stating, "I'm foolin' 'em with these funny footprints!" As with much of
what comes out of your and Ford Thaxton's mouth, this is a lie and a
fabrication, I never made that statement.

Just what the hell is your problem, anyway? You put info out that
I'm fired, you misquote me, you lie to others on systems about me...this
is stalking behavior on your part, and I'm getting very, very tired of it,
and I'm not going to stand for much more of it. You may consider that I
am now putting you on formal notice. Henceforth, all further fabrications
and downright lies that you post, all harrassing messages sent by you,
all rumors and deliberate distortions will be forwarded from me to my
attorneys, and gathered to be filed with an attorney in your state for
potential prosecution under libel laws and anti-stalking laws. Further, I
may be forced to take personal legal action against you. Remember that I
have your address.

You have deliberately manufactured quotes from me. You have stated,
as fact, that I was fired from my job. You have told others that I
tracked you down for disagreeing with me, when in fact (as others here
can and have agreed to testify), it was incidend #1, the firing story,
that prompted this action. You (and now, our latest homunculus, Ford
Thaxton) deliberately distort and misrepresent and simply lie about
matters injurious to my (and in the latter case, Michael O'Hare's)
career.

I would also request the sysop of the system from which you are
logging in to be aware of your stalking behavior, and to reconsider your
continued access to this forum.

I have had enough of this obsessive behavior from you. You are now
under formal notice to stop it and stop it now. I don't know what the
reason is for this sick fixation of yours, but get some help for it.

If you don't stop, you, and your family, and your employer will be
hearing from my attorneys in very short order.

Enough is enough.

jms