Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

Viewing Single Post From: New Ed Scott Interview!
Member Avatar

Jun 25 2009, 12:13 PM
I guess it's hard for me to understand your position when you base it on what you base it on. I understand where your coming from and I could understand if you chose to believe that there was more to the story and if you felt it wasn't as ugly as it seemed. Those reasons I can buy but I guess the whole idea that there isn't enough out there to support the claim that he did something shady is something that I, personally, just can't wrap my mind around. Maybe I put more stock in internet sites and in posters with sources and such then you do and perhaps that is where we differ.

I definitely believe there is far more to the story and I think it is highly probable that whatever Ed may have done was not as bad as some would like us to believe. I guess that is really the point I'm trying to make. There is evidence to support the idea that he did something, but the problem, for me, is that there is a lack of any consistent and/or hard evidence of what exactly he did. To put it in criminal terms, I may believe Ed is probably guilty of something, but based on all the conjecture, different stories and whatnot, I'm not sure if it's jaywalking, littering, DUI, or burglary.

I visit a lot of internet sites and know that there are good people with good sources. But, I also know that sources can be manipulated, that people can have agendas that innocent folks don't see. False or misleading information can be passed just as easily by well-intentioned people as good information can be. And those sources are only as good as their sources (or their sources, sources). That's just a lot of levels of hearsay to go through for me to draw affirmative conclusions about something that has never been proven one way or another.

And, call me crazy, but if I was embroiled in a backstage power struggle with an EP who I didn't like and who had corporate support behind him, I can't think of a better way of getting rid of him than to make allegations of violations of WGA agreements right after the strike finally ended and after Days had received a ton of bad publicity for firing their striking writers. Whether those allegations are ever proven true or not, it creates a lot of hot water for a show that doesn't need it and the easiest way to avoid that hot water was to fire the EP. I'm not saying that is what happened. But, I've seen nothing that would rule that possibility out.

Offline Profile Quote Post
New Ed Scott Interview! · DAYS: News, Spoilers & Discussion