Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kenny Coyote" data-source="post: 208323" data-attributes="member: 102">Sorry if I misinterpreted what you wrote, but I went on what was there as best I could. For example:She &quot;created&quot; it &quot;starting with Ellie and Clayton&#039;s money.&quot; True, it doesn&#039;t say she inherited it, but there isn&#039;t anything there that gives me the idea she didn&#039;t inherit it. Now, in your reply, you said &quot;she controls&quot; it, but originally you said she created it with Ellie and Clayton&#039;s money, which to me, implied inheritance. After all, usually when someone dies, their money goes to the people they leave it to!It seems to me that Ellie&#039;s money would have gone to her children- JR, Bobby, and Gary and then some to Ray possibly. When JR died, the only reasonable choice for him was to leave it to his son. So I still don&#039;t see, why is it that Ellie&#039;s money ended up in the control of a woman who tried to murder her son?There may be some way to get there, but it would be so convoluted! To have the woman who tried to murder your son controlling your money- it&#039;s got to be an awfully convoluted process. Some people like convoluted storylines but I don&#039;t.The reasonable thing would be for John Ross to have about a third of her money, Bobby a third, and Gary a third. Clayton&#039;s money would almost certainly go to Dusty - you&#039;re not going to favor a stepchild over your own flesh and blood and Dusty was his only son.Putting Bobby in Ellie&#039;s role - gender switch, putting Sue Ellen in Jock&#039;s role - gender switch, to put JR&#039;s daughter (he had no daughter!)&nbsp; in JR&#039;s role - gender switch - that&#039;s three! You&#039;re telling me that&#039;s all just coincidence?To have Sue Ellen even a part of&nbsp; the family at all after what she did, to think that a woman who for the first half of her life did nothing but marry a rich man, get drink and sponge off of his family and say she&#039;s going to be in the Jock role, that&#039;s just not believable to me. Frankly, Sue Ellen couldn&#039;t even carry Jock&#039;s jock.They are nothing alike, not even a little bit. To think a man of Jock&#039;s mentality and work ethic would have married a rich woman and then just sat around getting drunk all day, sponging off her family...can you imagine him doing that?As for being &quot;neutral&quot; what I meant is that since I was looking at this from the outside, that I wasn&#039;t involved in it, and therefore have no axe to grind, I can look at it a different way than if I were in it. I said where I thought Garry was out of line and where I agreed with him. I don&#039;t even know him, so if I were to be biased at all, it would be towards your side.I&#039;m sorry that this wasn&#039;t an idea of yours that I liked, but at least you know that when I do say I like something you write, it&#039;s because I mean it.Everyone&#039;s different but personally, I&#039;d rather know when someone is telling me what he thinks, he really means it, than to have someone always gushes accolade after accolade at everything I do whether it&#039;s my best work or something that&#039;s far from it because what use is that?&nbsp;I can&#039;t learn anything from someone like that. Not that I&#039;m implying you should change it to suit my taste. My suggestion would be to take what I say, take what another half dozen people here tell you, consider them all and go with the ones you think made the most sense, with the ones who provided the most rational arguments for why they think the way they do about it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kenny Coyote, post: 208323, member: 102"] Sorry if I misinterpreted what you wrote, but I went on what was there as best I could. For example: She "created" it "starting with Ellie and Clayton's money." True, it doesn't say she inherited it, but there isn't anything there that gives me the idea she didn't inherit it. Now, in your reply, you said "she controls" it, but originally you said she created it with Ellie and Clayton's money, which to me, implied inheritance. After all, usually when someone dies, their money goes to the people they leave it to! It seems to me that Ellie's money would have gone to her children- JR, Bobby, and Gary and then some to Ray possibly. When JR died, the only reasonable choice for him was to leave it to his son. So I still don't see, why is it that Ellie's money ended up in the control of a woman who tried to murder her son? There may be some way to get there, but it would be so convoluted! To have the woman who tried to murder your son controlling your money- it's got to be an awfully convoluted process. Some people like convoluted storylines but I don't. The reasonable thing would be for John Ross to have about a third of her money, Bobby a third, and Gary a third. Clayton's money would almost certainly go to Dusty - you're not going to favor a stepchild over your own flesh and blood and Dusty was his only son. Putting Bobby in Ellie's role - gender switch, putting Sue Ellen in Jock's role - gender switch, to put JR's daughter (he had no daughter!) in JR's role - gender switch - that's three! You're telling me that's all just coincidence? To have Sue Ellen even a part of the family at all after what she did, to think that a woman who for the first half of her life did nothing but marry a rich man, get drink and sponge off of his family and say she's going to be in the Jock role, that's just not believable to me. Frankly, Sue Ellen couldn't even carry Jock's jock. They are nothing alike, not even a little bit. To think a man of Jock's mentality and work ethic would have married a rich woman and then just sat around getting drunk all day, sponging off her family...can you imagine him doing that? As for being "neutral" what I meant is that since I was looking at this from the outside, that I wasn't involved in it, and therefore have no axe to grind, I can look at it a different way than if I were in it. I said where I thought Garry was out of line and where I agreed with him. I don't even know him, so if I were to be biased at all, it would be towards your side. I'm sorry that this wasn't an idea of yours that I liked, but at least you know that when I do say I like something you write, it's because I mean it. Everyone's different but personally, I'd rather know when someone is telling me what he thinks, he really means it, than to have someone always gushes accolade after accolade at everything I do whether it's my best work or something that's far from it because what use is that? I can't learn anything from someone like that. Not that I'm implying you should change it to suit my taste. My suggestion would be to take what I say, take what another half dozen people here tell you, consider them all and go with the ones you think made the most sense, with the ones who provided the most rational arguments for why they think the way they do about it. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Who played JR Ewing?