Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



Hello, soap fans -- and welcome to Daytime Royalty!

For those unfamiliar, we are an uncensored community for fans and lovers of the daytime genre. We have a no-holds-barred atmosphere in regards to the shows, writers, actors etc. but we do not allow member bashing in any form.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
SUDS REPORT — Higley update; Kelly Ripa Vs. Ehlers
Topic Started: Aug 1 2008, 11:31 AM (4,777 Views)
Steve Frame
Member Avatar


We have warned and warned over and over again that the columnist in question is a participating member here. He posts in other areas here just like many members do.

The key part of the Code of Conduct here at DR is that no member can or will be bashed at any point.

That warning has been given numerous times on this board.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ladyofthelake
Member Avatar
Professor-in-training

So how can we disagree with said board member and his article without bashing him? That's part and parcel of this board, isn't it? If we can tell other posters that we disagree and that we feel they're off mark, we should be able to say that about ALL board members. Sorry. I would like to participate in these discussions without constantly agreeing. I thought that was the purpose of this board to begin with.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cjknick
Member Avatar


It is not at all about bashing Nelson, He is taking hits himself on board after board. It is getting really ugly! If any one is to be bashed it is Nelson's editors - Nelson did his job he brought the story, His editors should be the fact checkers and they should have not let Nelson run the story until he could name names and could name sources. If this supposedly was the soap story of the year - then his editors should have been working overtime ... now what we have looks like back peddling and it puts Nelson's creditability on the line.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shylock


He's unable to name names. If he gives out the identity of the person who he sourced, then they could lose their job. If he does that, then he loses the trust of people who give him information. Which I understand completely.

What I don't understand is why, if this story was SO big, he didn't go through the effort of mentioning a ballpark NUMBER (not a vague "many" "a few" etc) of people who are sourcing the story. Along with quotes from more than just one of his sources. It's about having, and citing, information from more than one person. That's what my question was about earlier in this thread. How many sources does/did he have on this issue? And not something vague like "many", "a lot", "a good number", just give an estimated ballpark number like in my example. Vagueness like that tends to make me skeptical off of basic principle. "I have around 10 people telling me this." would do just fine.

The nastiness against this guy could've been cooled down if he reported it in a different manner than which he did. As it was, there was one quoted source and not much else other than a brief explanation of what went down. If the story was so big, he could've structured the story better and written at length citing the words of more than just one person. As it is, it came off as shoddy tabloid journalism rather than any kind of real reporting due to the lack of effort put into the actual report.
Edited by Shylock, Aug 2 2008, 09:13 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Frame
Member Avatar


Lady of the Lake, there is a difference in disagreeing with a person and either bashing or getting close to bashing.

You can even say that you don't believe this or anything to that affect and it is okay, but the stuff that has been going on is going right beyond that and if not bashing verging very close to it.

It would be the same as if you heard a rumor and you came here and you reported it. It caused a lot of ruckus, and then your fellow DR members said well Lady of the Lake had better straighten this out or some other number of things. You would not feel very good toward your fellow DR members.

It is different than just disagreeing with Nelson that many have been doing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kyrai


ladyofthelake
Aug 2 2008, 08:23 AM
So how can we disagree with said board member and his article without bashing him? That's part and parcel of this board, isn't it? If we can tell other posters that we disagree and that we feel they're off mark, we should be able to say that about ALL board members. Sorry. I would like to participate in these discussions without constantly agreeing. I thought that was the purpose of this board to begin with.
I actually just would like to know what is really going on, if anything.

If Ed and the actors rewrote scripts, and we're seeing them now, I say fire Higley and let Ed and company write. I've enjoyed Days much more recently, and it sounds like its going to get even better.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Frame
Member Avatar


But you can't let Ed Scott and this actress write. They are not members of the WGA. Days would be in more hot water than ever if they did that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ilovemydays


Steve Frame
Aug 2 2008, 09:40 AM
But you can't let Ed Scott and this actress write. They are not members of the WGA. Days would be in more hot water than ever if they did that.

I was told that Executive Producers have to carry WGA cards.



Excerpt from:
Writers Guild of America, TV Writers Booklet #1-final, Chapter Four Executive Producers


TAKING CREDIT

Historically, showrunners only rarely put their names on scripts written for the show by other writers (see “Credit Grabbing” in Chapter Two). As showrunner, you need to recognize that the power you hold creates the potential for abuse. Though your own writing staff can contest shared credit through arbitration if you put your name on their scripts, the reality is that few writers will dare go up against you for fear of jeopardizing their careers. Showrunners who routinely take writing credit on scripts assigned to others tend to create resentment and mistrust among the staff, resulting in low morale. This could be through ignorance or arrogance. Some showrunners have cited the standard that writing credits should accurately reflect “who did what” on a script. But a different standard has long applied to television writing, a standard of fairness based upon the power structure of episodic television. A showrunner is expected to rewrite. It comes with the job description, and, as the showrunner you are well compensated for it. Although it might be frustrating to do a page-one rewrite and send it out with someone else’s name on it, as showrunner you need to ask yourself, who assigned the script? Who approved the story? Who was in charge of notes and rewrites? Who is ultimately responsible for every word that appears on the show? You are. All good work on the show redounds to your credit whether your name is on a particular script or not.

Conversely, all poor work is also attributed to your leadership regardless of whose name appears on an episode. It’s important to think about that before putting your name on someone else’s script


http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:Sub3MpH5k6QJ:www.wga.org/uploadedFiles/writers_resources/ep4.pdf+site:wga.org+television+writing+PDF&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
Edited by ilovemydays, Aug 2 2008, 10:09 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ives
Member Avatar


ilovemydays
Aug 2 2008, 10:08 AM
Steve Frame
Aug 2 2008, 09:40 AM
But you can't let Ed Scott and this actress write. They are not members of the WGA. Days would be in more hot water than ever if they did that.

I was told that Executive Producers have to carry WGA cards.



Excerpt from:
Writers Guild of America, TV Writers Booklet #1-final, Chapter Four Executive Producers


TAKING CREDIT

Historically, showrunners only rarely put their names on scripts written for the show by other writers (see “Credit Grabbing” in Chapter Two). As showrunner, you need to recognize that the power you hold creates the potential for abuse. Though your own writing staff can contest shared credit through arbitration if you put your name on their scripts, the reality is that few writers will dare go up against you for fear of jeopardizing their careers. Showrunners who routinely take writing credit on scripts assigned to others tend to create resentment and mistrust among the staff, resulting in low morale. This could be through ignorance or arrogance. Some showrunners have cited the standard that writing credits should accurately reflect “who did what” on a script. But a different standard has long applied to television writing, a standard of fairness based upon the power structure of episodic television. A showrunner is expected to rewrite. It comes with the job description, and, as the showrunner you are well compensated for it. Although it might be frustrating to do a page-one rewrite and send it out with someone else’s name on it, as showrunner you need to ask yourself, who assigned the script? Who approved the story? Who was in charge of notes and rewrites? Who is ultimately responsible for every word that appears on the show? You are. All good work on the show redounds to your credit whether your name is on a particular script or not.

Conversely, all poor work is also attributed to your leadership regardless of whose name appears on an episode. It’s important to think about that before putting your name on someone else’s script


http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:Sub3MpH5k6QJ:www.wga.org/uploadedFiles/writers_resources/ep4.pdf+site:wga.org+television+writing+PDF&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
That would be interesting if true - and it does kind of make sense. Did you hear that the EPs are members of the WGA by the above excerpt or from some other source. I remember Drake specifically talking in a magazing interview about how Ken Corday wrote his reappearance story as NuJohn. It was basically stated in a way that you got the impression that Hogan did not have much to do with it. And I can't recall if it was Ken Cordy or some other EP stating that during the strike that they would write the show if needed, as opposed to the alternative of the show stopping from running.

As *speculation* only, I would guess that a union member who scabbed during a strike would be more of a concern for the union than a non-union person who rewrote some story items without receiving any compensation for the work and without receiving any credit. Now if the actress was being compensated for her writing or rewriting and thereby edging a union writer out of job, then I think it would be a different story.
Edited by Ives, Aug 2 2008, 10:44 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LorrieOw
Member Avatar


I don't think any one here understands how unions operate. You can't just have someone who is nonunion take over and do, redo, or undo the work of a union member. The federal government (Department of Labor) is very involved in unions and their rules and regulations. My husband was a member of a union for severals years, and the company he works for, built another plant that was nonunion, that he was hired to work at. The union members cried foul, and we were involved in a federal lawsuit, and had a Dept of Labor investigator at our house taking depositions. Very ugly. I commend Nelson for reporting a story that while so far not seeming to be a big deal, had the potential of being very very ugly, and could still turn out that way.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kyrai


Steve Frame
Aug 2 2008, 09:40 AM
But you can't let Ed Scott and this actress write. They are not members of the WGA. Days would be in more hot water than ever if they did that.
Sorry I was speaking 'tongue in cheek'. (or trying to, lol) I know they can't do it and probably shouldn't have, but I sure like what they've written (IF they did) more than what we've been seeing up till recently.

I really wish Ed would get his Y&R staff if that's what he wants. The writing is better now than it has been, imo.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jonatha


LorrieOw
Aug 2 2008, 10:52 AM
I don't think any one here understands how unions operate. You can't just have someone who is nonunion take over and do, redo, or undo the work of a union member. The federal government (Department of Labor) is very involved in unions and their rules and regulations. My husband was a member of a union for severals years, and the company he works for, built another plant that was nonunion, that he was hired to work at. The union members cried foul, and we were involved in a federal lawsuit, and had a Dept of Labor investigator at our house taking depositions. Very ugly. I commend Nelson for reporting a story that while so far not seeming to be a big deal, had the potential of being very very ugly, and could still turn out that way.
I agree with you, Lorrie. I also commend Nelson for his guts to take on this news. I've read that this story was offered to other journalists who didn't want to touch it at all. Nelson's gone out on a limb for this and I think the best thing for us to do is support him. Remember he prefaced his whole original post by saying, 'Don't shoot the messenger.' We're just going to have to set back and see how this all plays out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt
Member Avatar
Classic Soap Fan

What other people are failing to remember is that Nelson didn't name AS in the original article. It was only after *other* people (several of whom I've known online for years and who's credibility and integreity I trust completely) did some investigation and got confirmation from their own individual and seperate sources that have nothing to do with Nelson. Any one of the people could have run with this story and posted it, but they didn't. Why? Exactly because of what is happening to Nelson right now -- they knew what kind of backlash it could cause. It's a lot more serious than than changing a couple of lines of dialog or adlibbing in a couple of scenes. If you recall, it was stated long before AS's name was mentioned that most general fans wouldn't understand the big deal even though BTS is really *is* a big deal. I believe that point is being rather clearly proven. I trust Nelson and I stand behind him (as well as all the other different people whom I respect and trust) and his/their story completely.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ilovemydays


Ives
Aug 2 2008, 10:43 AM
ilovemydays
Aug 2 2008, 10:08 AM
Steve Frame
Aug 2 2008, 09:40 AM
But you can't let Ed Scott and this actress write. They are not members of the WGA. Days would be in more hot water than ever if they did that.

I was told that Executive Producers have to carry WGA cards.



Excerpt from:
Writers Guild of America, TV Writers Booklet #1-final, Chapter Four Executive Producers


TAKING CREDIT

Historically, showrunners only rarely put their names on scripts written for the show by other writers (see “Credit Grabbing” in Chapter Two). As showrunner, you need to recognize that the power you hold creates the potential for abuse. Though your own writing staff can contest shared credit through arbitration if you put your name on their scripts, the reality is that few writers will dare go up against you for fear of jeopardizing their careers. Showrunners who routinely take writing credit on scripts assigned to others tend to create resentment and mistrust among the staff, resulting in low morale. This could be through ignorance or arrogance. Some showrunners have cited the standard that writing credits should accurately reflect “who did what” on a script. But a different standard has long applied to television writing, a standard of fairness based upon the power structure of episodic television. A showrunner is expected to rewrite. It comes with the job description, and, as the showrunner you are well compensated for it. Although it might be frustrating to do a page-one rewrite and send it out with someone else’s name on it, as showrunner you need to ask yourself, who assigned the script? Who approved the story? Who was in charge of notes and rewrites? Who is ultimately responsible for every word that appears on the show? You are. All good work on the show redounds to your credit whether your name is on a particular script or not.

Conversely, all poor work is also attributed to your leadership regardless of whose name appears on an episode. It’s important to think about that before putting your name on someone else’s script


http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:Sub3MpH5k6QJ:www.wga.org/uploadedFiles/writers_resources/ep4.pdf+site:wga.org+television+writing+PDF&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1



That would be interesting if true - and it does kind of make sense. Did you hear that the EPs are members of the WGA by the above excerpt or from some other source. I remember Drake specifically talking in a magazing interview about how Ken Corday wrote his reappearance story as NuJohn. It was basically stated in a way that you got the impression that Hogan did not have much to do with it. And I can't recall if it was Ken Cordy or some other EP stating that during the strike that they would write the show if needed, as opposed to the alternative of the show stopping from running.

As *speculation* only, I would guess that a union member who scabbed during a strike would be more of a concern for the union than a non-union person who rewrote some story items without receiving any compensation for the work and without receiving any credit. Now if the actress was being compensated for her writing or rewriting and thereby edging a union writer out of job, then I think it would be a different story.
I just remembered something about EPs being expected to fill in for the writers during the strike. I wasn't sure if the rules varied for daytime but I could only find the rules to Television EPs:

Excerpt from Producers Guide of America:
EXECUTIVE PRODUCER: Credit for Television Series

Though television series are frequently writer-driven, the Executive Producer must undertake significant production responsibilities in addition to his/her writing services and responsibilities. Frequently, the Executive Producer is responsible for the creation of the series, including its concept, format and characters. In this special circumstance, the PGA gives considerable weight to such a seminal contribution, and supports the Executive Producer credit for such creators who remain engaged with the series in an ongoing supervisory capacity.


http://www.producersguild.org/pg/about_a/pcoc2.asp

I believe that generally their writing duties are to oversee and rewrite if need be but their primary writing responsibility should be to be certain that they have a productive writing staff. If you check out the link you can see that an EPs duties are very extensive. If Ed's has an up to date WGA card I don't see him doing anything unethical (unless he puts an actresses name on the writing credit but I don't see him doing anything that stupid). I think the real problem is that he's overextending himself and if he can't work with Dena as an EP he should have the right to replace her with someone that he does feel comfortable with.
Edited by ilovemydays, Aug 2 2008, 11:29 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

I'm also glad Kelly Ripa stopped Beth Ehlers playing Hayley. I don't think she'd been a good Hayley re-cast anyhow. If Ripa still loves AMC and Hayley, I wish she'd return to AMC for a visit (at least).

I don't think Alison Sweeney is the diva in question, She always seems so nice. I think it's Lauren Koslow. If you watch DAYS you can tell that the Kate & Daniel affair came out of nowhere. I think she's jealous of younger co-star Rachel Melvin. If this is true, she might have had something to do with Julie Pinson getting the axe maybe.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
cjknick
Member Avatar


bannme
Aug 2 2008, 11:13 AM
as i recall the first story stated a few things..like days would never recover...this would involve young and the restless...i am sorry, but nothing out of the columnists keyboard has made any of this make sense..then for all the different "inside information" sources that have suddenly appeared from this board..and i am going to say i was recipient of an email telling me a person (unnamed of course) verifying that the overblown diva was ali sweeney herself..and it went rampant on this board..then to nbc then to sony..then it became a sure thing that it was deidre hall..now a poster here has implicated ali sweeney and james scott...hell! higley said she had a meeting with them to discuss how that story was going to go..but once it is printed, some will take it as fact, so probably now, another insider source on this board or another is emailing someone else to say yes! the insider diva is james scott....

this is tabloid journalism..and i read tabloid journalism..and i believe some of it, and some i don't ..i have to agree with the poster who said this columnists editors should have made him be more careful..right now both the publication and the columnist look very suspect.
My husband is a newspaper journalist and an editor. While this is a different media form .... his comments were "I hope they have a good legal team" he said something like this before it went to publication would have to pass thru a legal team at his paper. It's a scoop with unnamed sources and it not only implicated named people but unnamed people as well. Plus he was the one that mentioned that the editors would be clearly at fault here moreso than the writer. Because it is the editor's job to check the facts and ok it to be published. He said the warning signs are these if the writer becomes part of the story and if they seemingly back peddle at any point and the worst would be if they have to retract!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Frame
Member Avatar


bannme
Aug 2 2008, 11:13 AM
as i recall the first story stated a few things..like days would never recover...this would involve young and the restless...i am sorry, but nothing out of the columnists keyboard has made any of this make sense..then for all the different "inside information" sources that have suddenly appeared from this board..and i am going to say i was recipient of an email telling me a person (unnamed of course) verifying that the overblown diva was ali sweeney herself..and it went rampant on this board..then to nbc then to sony..then it became a sure thing that it was deidre hall..now a poster here has implicated ali sweeney and james scott...hell! higley said she had a meeting with them to discuss how that story was going to go..but once it is printed, some will take it as fact, so probably now, another insider source on this board or another is emailing someone else to say yes! the insider diva is james scott....

this is tabloid journalism..and i read tabloid journalism..and i believe some of it, and some i don't ..i have to agree with the poster who said this columnists editors should have made him be more careful..right now both the publication and the columnist look very suspect.
This is the first story that Nelson broke:

Quote:
 
Grab a bottle of vodka before reading this updated news item on Days’ head writer Dena Higley reportedly vacating her duties because no one's going to like this one bit, so don’t shoot the messenger. That sound you hear is me about to jump off a cliff with an anvil tied around my waist!

Here are the facts: Higley has not been head-writing Days “for quite some time.” A source close to Higley tells me, “If the press/fans aren't happy with what they're seeing, they should turn their attention to [co-executive producer] Ed Scott. He’s been writing and rewriting story, dialogue and scenes for weeks and weeks. He’s also encouraged actors, including one overblown diva, to rewrite not just her own lines, but her scene partners. [This star] has taken to telling others that she and Ed are the head writers. The mess on the air is not the doing of the actual credited writers, but by amateurs. What leaves their offices bears little resemblance to what ends up on screen.” The Suds Report has also learned that two other Days actors have been encouraged to rewrite their storyline.

The Writers Guild of America is now involved in the matter. The irony in all of this is now the Guild, who have been investigating Higley for allegedly scabbing during the writers’ strike, now has to defend her. Thanks to Scott and company reportedly hijacking the series, Higley may have just been given the out of a lifetime. I am told the WGA have photographic proof of the “coup d'etat,” and will fine the series for allowing non-Guild members to pen the soap.

Executive producer Ken Corday is said to be trying to seize control of his series, and is hoping to position Higley back at the helm.

In a June 10 blog on NBC’s website, Higley hinted at the backstage upheaval: “I had a crappy week at work. I don't know how else to describe it. For anyone who thinks I just make stuff up for Days and it’s perfectly realized on the TV screen, I've got a flash for you… I strike out more than I hit. So many times I’ll work out a story only to have it axed. It's not that I think I’m always right. But sometimes the rejection and the sense of ‘fighting city hall’ is just exhausting emotionally, physically and [worst of all] mentally.”

As previously reported, Scott wanted to replace Higley with Y&R executive producer Josh Griffith or Emmy-winning head writer Jack Smith.

Another west coast soap opera is dealing with the same issue, but proof is an issue.

Days has no comment at press time.


Many of you are contributing things to Nelson that he did not say in print. He said that "Days would not recover" in a post on this board - not in print. Nelson was talking then as a fan and to us as fellow members. HE never said that in print. He also told us that it had a tie to Y&R as a hint as a member here at the DR.

Alot of the stuff that he told us in the threads he later stipulated got changed before the next part of the story aired and as most likely Days put a lockdown on news from the set.

Alot of you are mixing up what was said in print and what Nelson said to us as fellow members of the DR.

As Matt said the reason most journalists would not touch this story is for the same reason as what many of you here and on other boards are doing to him right now. When Days actors and the press shuts down and gives you no news at all - you will have no one to blame but yourselves. It has happened over and over and over again where when the news is bad Days fans turn on the actor or the messenger.

I will imagine that the next time Nelson will do exactly what the other journalists did and won't touch it with a ten feet pole. and I for one would not blame him at all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt
Member Avatar
Classic Soap Fan

I remember a few years back either SOD or SOW ran several very negative critiques/articles about Days that so pissed off Corday that he pulled any and all support from the offending mag (actor availability, BTS info, etc.) from the offending mag for quite some time. The was a big todo about it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Days4Life


I noticed that nowhere in the article posted did it say that Ed Scott or anyone else was writing breakdowns, changing scene partners, etc. Where did that info come from and why wasn't it included in the original article, instead of buried in a 140 page thread? In the article as Steve posted above, it doesn't sound like a big deal--just changes in dialogue--and that's why a lot of people are confused and frustrated with this story. IF it involved more than dialogue changes, that is a big deal but unless someone read through that monster thread about Higley's rumored firing, you wouldn't know Nelson ever said that . I believe he posted what he believed to be the truth; I just am leery of who the sources were and that things were exaggerated. That actress running around calling herself the HW--to me, that sounds like something taken out of context as I can't believe Allison, Deirdre, Lauren or anyone else on the show would be that stupid. Whatever the case, Nelson stuck his neck out on this one and I hope he has confirmation and good sources so he doesn't run into legal troubles. And with all due respect to him, one reason I don't want to take this story real seriously, is that I love DAYS so much and it seems all the news about it is always so negative these days that I'm tired of it. I want to take the ostrich approach and just stick my head in the sand. Denial, denial, denial!

Another thing--if this was such a big deal, why is Nelson's update saying that WGA sources are issuing a cease and desist and that will probably be the end of it, as long as DAYS complies? If there's proof of things going beyond dialogue changes, you'd think they would take further action.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Frame
Member Avatar


That is where the problem comes in with this board. Many of you are bashing him, but Nelson shared info with the members here that he was not willing to share in his article. He was giving us and his fellow DR members more info and what do many of us do - we stab him in the back.

He gave us those details because many on this board pushed and pushed and pushed. I doubt seriously he will ever do it again after the way he is being treated. He didn't post the info anywhere else and some of the stuff that Nelson said here was picked up by members here and taken to other baords by posters and not by him.

As you said on the bottom of your post - what Nelson said is just speculation and he left it at that. He said that if Days complied that might be all there is to it. He did not say for a fact that it was all that they would do - he was just speculating and stating that he heard that might be the end of it.

Again he was told what the photographic evidence was and that it was turned over to the WGA. he has no control over what Days does and what the WGA does. Taht is up to them. All Nelson and TV Guide do is report what they do.

I commend you for your love for the show, but I learned a long time ago Days isn't perfect and the people behind the scenes at Days are not perfect. Days has been the scene of backstage upheaval and fights since the 70's. William Bell and Betty Corday went to court. Pat Falken Smith sued Betty Corday and others on teh Days staff - not once but twice - and won. The ladies behind the scenes in the late 70's were constant fodder for the mags for their backstage feuds with Susan Seaforth Hayes. The Hayes spoke out harshly about Days to Soap Opera Digest in 1984 when they were both fired from the show. Even though Betty Corday and Al Rabin were the Exec. Producers at the time, the only one that spoke in the article about the firings was Ken Corday. Both Thaao and Joe have spoken out harshly toward Days in the last few years.

The people behind Days are not perfect - they are human just like all of us. They make mistakes - sometimes small ones and sometimes big ones. To those than can ignore it out of love for the show that is great, but it still doesn't make the wrong that they do go away.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Daytime News · Next Topic »
Add Reply