Without Vision You Perish

[Taylor Bennett Jr.]

It´s not only all those instances you mention: let´s remember that Dusty and Garrison were presumed dead too (and weren´t), and also Rebecca came back from the dead. If we add to that all the people who also resurrected (and/or died again) because of the dream solution, like Jamie, Ben Stivers or maybe Sue Ellen, it was a matter of living vs. dead almost (how many of each were going around by them...?), lol. Only Kristin stayed dead permanently, but "Conundrum" changed that a bit, too... (also for Nick Pearce, by the way!)

Gone but not forgotten, sweet little Kris and "uncle" Jock...
View attachment 19424​

...Meanwhile, in a parallel universe, Kristin has an affair
with a Wes Parmalee...Can you imagine this on "Dallas"?
(I mean Kristin sleeping with Jock in an alternate timeline...)​

man, imagine if they hadn’t killed off Kristin and Wes made it to the point where he was legally recognized as Jock... and at the end of the season it was revealed that he was a grifter from California educated in Ewing history by none other than Kristin, making a dramatic return to assert herself as the Lady of Southfork for the final freeze frame!

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Yeah, but the last thing anybody wants is an unhappy star of the show.

I never suggested they make a star of the show unhappy just for the sake of it, but if the star of the show asks them to do something that will hurt the show, they've got to be able to say no to him. There was someone on this thread who said Larry Hagman was to blame for the rehiring of Patrick Duffy and I explained why that's just not so. He still insisted Larry Hagman was to blame but gave no explanation for why he thinks that. So, I asked him if he could elaborate on why he thinks Larry Hagman was to blame, and guess what? He couldn't do it.

 

[Rove]

I never suggested they make a star of the show unhappy just for the sake of it, but if the star of the show asks them to do something that will hurt the show, they've got to be able to say no to him. There was someone on this thread who said Larry Hagman was to blame for the rehiring of Patrick Duffy and I explained why that's just not so. He still insisted Larry Hagman was to blame but gave no explanation for why he thinks that. So, I asked him if he could elaborate on why he thinks Larry Hagman was to blame, and guess what? He couldn't do it.

Kenny if you are going to throw criticism my way be sure to quote my words correctly. In my initial post I stated the following...

But someone was missing him (Larry)

The word "blame" is attributed to you. And for a reminder here is, in part, an interview with Larry himself talking about the return of Patrick.

It says something about the man (and I mean that in a positive way) when he tells the interviewer he was missing two of his staunchest backers, namely Katzman and Patrick. Reading between the lines Larry was instrumental in Patrick's return.

I love Larry Hagman, both in I Dream of Jeannie and Dallas however I also see the tomfoolery in bringing Patrick/Bobby back.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Kenny if you are going to throw criticism my way be sure to quote my words correctly.

Rove, I didn't quote you. Did you see any quotation marks?

However, I do remember doing everything I could to make sure I was correctly understanding what you meant. Do you remember reading the post with the following quote?

Is the implication here that it was Larry Hagman's fault that Patrick Duffy got rehired by the show? That's how it looks to me, but @Rove if you meant something else please let me know.

You replied to the first sentence in the above quote and to one other quote from my reply to you. This was your reply to me:

YES!


YES!

I didn't know why you'd reply to me in that way, so I replied with this post:

Wow. I don't quite know what to make of that type of reply. In "internet-speak" all caps is "shouting" and the exclamation marks at the end of your all capital letter, one word responses, seem to reinforce the idea that you're shouting. Apparently you're angry with me. OK, do you mind telling me why? I think I replied to your post in a polite, thoughtful manner. I acknowledged where I agreed with you, and where I disagreed with you I backed up my point of view with reasonably thorough explanations. I put the time and effort into my reply to you that I did for the purpose of having an interesting, fun discussion.

I don't think shouting back one word responses is very conducive to having an enjoyable, interesting discussion. I don't mind that you disagreed with what I wrote, but for example, if you disagree with my explanation of the blame for rehiring Patrick Duffy belonging to whom it does, and why it belongs to that person, would you mind elaborating a bit on what about that explanation you disagree with and why?

You couldn't be bothered to acknowledge my response to you. I don't know what more anyone could have done. So, I find it amazing that after you couldn't even be bothered to acknowledge that response in any way, that you think I'm being unfair to you.

I gave you the perfect opportunity to say why you think it was Larry Hagman's fault that Patrick Duffy got rehired. You chose not to, but now you're complaining that I misunderstood you, that you didn't blame Larry Hagman. It sure looked like you blamed him to me. Remember when I said I don't think shouting back one word responses is conducive to a good conversation? This is a good example of why that is.

I don't know I could have addressed you in a nicer, more polite way. Since there must be some reason why you would respond to me in such a rude way, I thought the best thing to do was to explain the reason you were apparently angry at me as soon as possible, so we would have the chance to clear the air between us. If you'd prefer to discuss this by private message, that's fine with me. Either way you prefer is fine with me because as far as I'm concerned, it would be a whole lot better for us and for the forum as a whole to not have this thing go on any longer. I don't even know what your problem with me was to begin with. I can't very well address an issue if I don't know what it is, can I? Don't you think it would make more sense to settle the issue soon rather than just letting it fester?