tbaangel-d Digest Volume 97 : Issue 53 Today's Topics: Unidentified subject! Re: Loved the episode this week! Re: Ages of angels Re: Ages of angels Re: When did Martha Williamson become EP? The Angel of Angels Andrew on Sunday Re: My (belated) intro TBAA/PL Crossover ep John on Promised Land John on Promised Land John on Promised Land misc PL and Andrew News Flash!!!!! Roma PREEMPTED II THE SEQUEL Re: Roma Re: John on Promised Land Re: Roma Downey intro re: Re: Ages of angels Real Angels ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 18:04:58 -0400 From: Diana Seals-Hopkins To: "'tbaangel @ . .addy.com'" Subject: Unidentified subject! To One and All, Hello there. I hope your day was great... To those of you who answered = my quest for the name of the groupto the song Hold Your Head Up....thank = you....I would have never remembered it. And hey guys, you *can't* be = as old as I am, in a few yrs you can get me the cake with the grim = reaper on it!! I'll be celebrating 36 the 28th of next month. *That's* = old!! >Now, aren't you sorry you asked? (You don't KNOW what it is to be = >dated, Ma'am). Well when someone starts calling ya ma'am ya must be old and dated. >O:) Gosh I feel honored and blessed to be considered as a fellow = >sister of the "Androolers". O:) Gosh and even after I made the = >accidental not-so-nice comment about all the "Andrew drivel" on the = >list. Thank you for your forgiveness. :)=20 >I accept. Thank you. :)=20 Then let me add my welcome to the others: Welcome fellow J/AiA = member!!! How about joining a PJ party (guess you know what the = subject will be!!). Well, gotta run .... will probably post more later....after I get this = rugrat to bed or calmed down for the evening.....he wants to go outside = and play in the dirt. =20 TTFN GOTJDSOAD (ok gals figure THIS one!!!....no fair telling Darla!) Diana ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 18:44:16 EST From: "Jenn Harmer | J/AiA Member" To: Subject: Re: Loved the episode this week! Jennie wrote: >The only thing that didn't work for me in this episode was the confrontation >between the moms...that kinda fell flat for me. I felt that way too. Almost as if the scene didn't really belong there, or it was majorly cut to save time. The reason I mention the 2nd scenario is because I'm a communications major, with a focus on radio/ tv/film, and right now I'm doing a lot with editing and seeing what things are being done on TV and why (if there is a reason). I haven't seen this scene more than once, but the first time just felt like there was something missing. It's a hard feeling to describe. And the fact that Colin Powell spoke at the beginning *and* the end of the ep, could have had a factor in how much "stuff" the editors had to cut for the final copy. Which also reminds me that I found discontinuity in "Secret Service" at the final fishing scene. Check this one out. ;-) You see Monica, Andrew, and Tess fishing, and it looks like Tess' right hand (the hand on the left side of the screen) is almost like Della was holding it up close to her chin. The next shot was the long shot of Monica closet to the camera, followed by Andrew and Tess...and Tess/Della's hand is down. *shrugs* Thought that was interesting. And one more thing...for all the John Dye fans. I got my TV Guide today in the mail, and he's going to be in next Tuesday's Promised Land as Andrew, The Angel of Death. Just an FYI. :-) And with that I leave you for now. :-) Love in Christ, Jenn ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 19:25:34 -0400 (EDT) From: AmilynH @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: Re: Ages of angels In a message dated 97-04-29 17:10:56 EDT, Dorothy wrote: >The connotation about cherubs being baby angels came about because >Monica said they were. I guess in the TBAA world that's how things are. I have to agree with Dorothy here. I have been in various fandoms a long time and, with very few and minor exceptions, the source material (the show itself) is the only thing that is used to establish "canon" for that show and the universe of its reality and internal continuity and rules. If it isn't handled in this way, then there is no way to keep everyone who watches and discusses on equal ground in terms of what information they have. As things stand, everyone here, regardless of their familiarity with the Bible, has the ability -- just by watching the show -- to know just as much as anyone else here. I actually prefer it that way. And I do believe that pulling in the source of the information they're obviously drawing on (sometimes the Bible, sometimes other sources) is a valuable way to approach discussion of the show; it can only enrich everyone's experience of it to see what other "takes" there have been on the material, to see how it has been expanded upon in other sources, or how the show has expanded upon an outside idea. But in instances where TBAA doesn't agree with biblical scripture, I'd have to say that, within the Touched By an Angel canon, the rules are as the show sets them. Maybe in the TBAA universe (which is not always quite thoroughly *our* world, although the 2 do intersect a great deal) that bit of the Bible doesn't exist. Also, Mike, it seems that you're arguing semantics here, and while I'm aware of the precise and detailed attention that has been given to careful translation, arguing that a word is the wrong one is somewhat shaky ground since none of us are using the original word and non of us have first-hand access to the ancient connotations of those words. We can make educated hyptheses, but we can't really be certain because none of us are native speakers of Ancient Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic. Just my thirteen cents. Bright Blessings, Amilyn --- May the spirits stand between you and harm in all the empty places where you walk. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 19:28:15 EST From: "Jenn Harmer | J/AiA Member" To: Subject: Re: Ages of angels Amilyn stated: >Also, Mike, it seems that you're arguing semantics here, and while I'm aware >of the precise and detailed attention that has been given to careful >translation, arguing that a word is the wrong one is somewhat shaky ground >since none of us are using the original word and non of us have first-hand >access to the ancient connotations of those words. We can make educated >hyptheses, but we can't really be certain because none of us are native >speakers of Ancient Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic. > If anyone is *really* interested, my pastor actually translated a couple books of the Bible into Greek, and has a Greek Bible/Dictionary, so if you have any words in question, let me know. Of course, I don't know how soon I can get the actual meanings to you, since in about 3 weeks she's getting married. ;-) Love in Christ, Jenn ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 20:28:44 -0400 (EDT) From: AMarsh8597 @ . .addy.com To: rsimard @ . .addy.com, TBAAngel @ . .addy.com Subject: Re: When did Martha Williamson become EP? Ray, I have the book by Martha and in it (Chapter 1) she gives a little intro of how TBAA took wing. It was originally called "Angel's Attic" written by someone else, but had Roma and Della as the main characters. Martha really didn't want anything to do with that kind of angel show. She had her eyes set on another project, but God has his eyes set on this one. Well you know who "won". September 21,1994 was the first episode, titled "Southbound bus". I haven't faithfully watched it since the "Unexpected Snow" (12/7/94). Since then I've been hooked. :) Well I've missed a few here and there. :( Just a little aside, more of a PL comment: does anyone else feel that George McRaney(George/Gerald/whatever) seems to hard and pigheaded to ever love someone who wrongs him. I've only seen one or two eps and I always get turn off when he just gives up on the people he's supposed to be helping. But he always turns around with a "angel ding remainder". I don't watch the show but that is my perception. In His Hands, O:) Andrea ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 16:33:29 -0700 From: marlis ostermann To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: The Angel of Angels Just a suggestion, but could the "Angel of Angels" be Michael, the Archangel? As far as I understand, he seems to be a leader of sorts in the celestial realm. Just a thought :-) Marlis ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 20:34:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Swoopes1 @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: Andrew on Sunday Andrew sort of made me laugh on Sunday's episode because it was the first time I really saw him as sort of an "enforcer." He reminded me of a teacher when he said "what's going on here?" and when he told Jason smoking was illegal in the building. Andrew is really a teacher, a teacher of values and virtues. ~Coll ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 21:05:52 -0400 (EDT) From: AmilynH @ . .addy.com To: TBAAngel @ . .addy.com Subject: Re: My (belated) intro In a message dated 97-04-29 16:01:33 EDT, Ray wrote: >I spent a little time digging back through the archives of the major >newspaper in this area, the San Diego Union-Tribune, and was rather >amused by the criticisms and predictions of an early demise for TBAA >published in its infancy. In all fairness, most of the review that were out there early on were being based on the original pilot, which the audiences never saw. By all accounts (including Martha Williamson's) it was quite dreadful and more than likely *would* have been an early casualty. Because of that, I've not been terribly in agreement with the presentation of TBAA as being one of the "beat the critics' odds" shows. I think that the critics' comments about that pilot have little to no bearing on the show we get--they were critiquing a totally different show. >But even now, some of the comments I see refer to it as "feel-good" >programming, a vapid, "sanitized" version of things. How >short-sighted! But how accurate in many ways! TBAA *is* a "feel-good" show. If it isn't, I'm defining that word *terribly* wrongly. There is not, however, necessarily anything inherently *bad* about feel-good shows, imo. "Vapid" is certainly an unfortunate adjective to apply to the show, and doing so would indeed, I believe, be short-sighted (although there are times when it *is* somewhat vapid--as indeed *all* television has its weak moments and episodes). As far as showing a "sanitized" version of things, well.... You do have a good point that TBAA doesn't try to sugar-coat the world. They don't try to say that bad things never happen, that life is never difficult, that people never make poor choices, that things are always working out perfectly at all times. However, I believe they do show a sanitized version of the *solutions* to those real world, nasty, evil problems. Every week, they successfully change someone's (usually *several* someones') life. And most weeks, that change is effected incredibly quickly. This is, of course, partially due to the constraints of hour-long television. And there are times when it works very well--many episodes being in medias res where the people the angels are helping have already done part of the work and are close to the change the angels are there to nudge a bit further along. However, there are a number of episodes where *drastic* changes happen at warp speed, and I am left thinkig, "No way." This usually occurs when they have tried to make *everyone* all fine. I often find this annoying, and was very impressed with the focus of "Volunteers"; they did not make the drill sergeant guy all soft and fuzzy by the end. They did not "fix" all the juvie kids. I was impressed with that, because there was just not enough time to take care of *everything*. I think I consider things to be most "sanitized" when absolutely *everyone* undergoes a change of attitude and lifestyle and condition. Often, in instances like this, I find the characters' "coming around" to be less than believable. I often feel that there has not been sufficient time and experience for many of the characters to change the habits and attitudes of a lifetime. There are certainly exceptions to this. In "The Violin Lesson", there is no *time* for Dad to "come around later", and so I believe that transformation. It's also not clear that he has really changed his mind, which I admire; he could have just decided that his love for his son is more important than a belief which, perhaps, he still holds. I bought into James' conversion in "Into the Light" in part because coming that close to death *does* often change people (and these were issues he'd been thinking about for some time) and in part because of David Marciano's stunning performance. I do like that there is enough realism that it is clear that people we have seen will have to continue to *work* at it to keep whatever gains they have made. >In the short time I've been watching, I"ve seen TBAA >deal with >These look like serious, real-world problems to me. Like Roma >said on Rosie O'Donnell, the angel trio doesn't just show up and wave >a magic wand to make everything better. I disagreed with her a bit here. There is one level on which, no, they don't "wave a magic wand". But on another level, sometimes I feel they have done just that. The transformations of the characters seem somewhat magical, seeming to be based often more on the fact that they're seeing someone glowing in front of them than as a result of change-effecting contemplation or choice on their part. You know, as I write about how the shows end without *ultimate* resolution of the problems presented, I am becoming more pleased with their protrayal of things. If you are wont to do so, eposides end so that as you look down the road and envision the path the people we've just met must continue to walk, you see that their struggles continue and they must keep on working at improving their lives and gaining that which they want and need. And so in that way, things are not sanitized and the show does a good job with reality. I must say, I do admire that about them. And in most episodes, at the end there is more hope, there is a better chance than there would have been for things to work out or for people to be happy, but there are no guarantees. We see this perhaps most clearly in "The Feather", where we learn that Wayne, even after seeing Monica glowing and flying, has talked himself out of believing; and in "Sins of the Father", where Monica expresses some of the same concerns I had for the futures of the characters we'd met. I guess what bothers me is that the show deliberately ends with a tone that implies that "everything is all a-okay", when that is really not the case. There are many episodes that end with the "isn't it great how everything is all peachy keen now that they know God loves them" even though there are a number of problems unaddressed or glossed over (like the uncertain futures everyone faces). I don't like that false sense of security being held up as the proof that things are miraculously fine, when, in fact, they're fairly realistic. Bright Blessings, Amilyn the Ambiguous --- Capitalism is based on the assumption that you can win. Socialism is based on the assumption that you can break even. Mysticism is based on the assumption that you can quit the game. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 20:20:15 -0500 (CDT) From: gryphon @ . addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: TBAA/PL Crossover ep >Just a little aside, more of a PL comment: does anyone else feel that >George McRaney(George/Gerald/whatever) seems to hard and pigheaded to >ever love someone who wrongs him. I've only seen one or two eps and I >always get turn off when he just gives up on the people he's supposed >to be helping. I agree that the character he plays, Mr. Greene, is like that. I don't think you can fairly judge Mr. McRaney by the characters he plays. And to bring this back on-topic (that's the bad thing about being ListNanny, you've always got to set a good example! ;> ), I intended to watch the Promised Land episode with Andrew in it (that Andrew's in it makes this on-topic!), because I want to honestly give the show a fair chance. But everything I've seen of McRaney's character on the other crossover episodes keeps bringing me back to my original question about him. So, I'm going to ask it again, in all seriousness. (And please, I *do* want serious answers. No wisecracks or put-downs this time around, OK?) Here goes: >From what I've seen, Mr Greene is opinionated, judgemental, and keeps assuming he has the right to tell other people what to do and how to act. IMO, these are *not* positive character traits. So, what *are* Mr. Greene's good points? He's the hero of PL; he must have *some*. If the PL fans out there will point them out to me, I promise to watch for them on next week's crossover ep. When I'm not watching Andrew, that is! ;> Diane E # "Hydrogen. A light, colorless, odorless gas which, given # # enough time, turns into people." _The Astronomers_ # # D Echelbarger gryphon @ . addy.com # # WWW HomePage: . # ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 21:26:58 -0400 (EDT) From: IDyeForYou @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: John on Promised Land Hi all... I just saw the previews for the next PL...and there was John...in a big floppy hat with lots of hair....sigh... So, it's coming up...don't miss it... Incidentally, they didn't show the other two angels..so I'm not sure if they are there or not.....we'll see.... Susan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 21:27:12 -0400 (EDT) From: IDyeForYou @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: John on Promised Land Hi all... I just saw the previews for the next PL...and there was John...in a big floppy hat with lots of hair....sigh... So, it's coming up...don't miss it... Incidentally, they didn't show the other two angels..so I'm not sure if they are there or not.....we'll see.... Susan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 21:28:47 -0400 (EDT) From: IDyeForYou @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: John on Promised Land Hi all... I just saw the previews for the next PL...and there was John...in a big floppy hat with lots of hair....sigh... So, it's coming up...don't miss it... Incidentally, they didn't show the other two angels..so I'm not sure if they are there or not.....we'll see.... Susan ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 21:52:50 -0400 From: Diana Seals-Hopkins To: "'tbaangel @ . .addy.com'" Subject: misc You wrote: >>Also, are you having any luck with the >>"New York Times", Liz Smith column from early April? I can't find = >>anything on-line, so far. For those of you interested in the NY Time Article I have found it at my = local library's main branch. It's a full page article with all the = angels in it. >>I agree with Diana when she said she liked the three angels >>working together. I thought it balanced the story out. = >>Hmmm...reminded me of the "Six Hands" ep.=20 Me too, that's one of the reasons why I liked it sooo well. They need = to do more shows like this one. Not that I don't appreciate the = others.... but I love when all three are working together.... >>I intend to watch the Promised Land episode with Andrew in it=20 Me too!!!! May even tape that one just because of Andrew. This is = going to be a good one!!! Well gotta run....TTFN Diana ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 22:44:40 -0400 (EDT) From: DYEGOOD @ . .addy.com To: TBAAngel @ . .addy.com Subject: PL and Andrew Hi all! Just noticed tonight in the preview for next week's Promised Land that Andrew (John Dye) will be on the show next week! So, set your VCR's!!!!! Take care and God bless! --Tanya ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 00:44:16 -0500 (EST) From: VMISIXFIVE @ . .addy.NET To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: News Flash!!!!! Hello, everyone! I just finished watching "PL", and next week, "Andrew" will be on !!! I wonder if this is part one of the new cross-over ep with TBAA? Hmmm.... Also, I got a chance to see "The Perfect Weapon". Good movie. John has a slightly different role, here, but executes it well. Ok enough drivel. Later... Take Care, Patricia ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 00:50:28 -0500 (EST) From: VMISIXFIVE @ . .addy.NET To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: Roma Hi, again! I was just wondering if anyone knows what time the Mother's Day special on May 9th on CBS comes on? Also, does anyone know if there are copies of "A Woman Named Jackie" available? Thanks :) ! Love, Patricia ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 22:35:25 -0700 From: Kevin Brown To: "'Touched by an Angel'" Subject: PREEMPTED II THE SEQUEL MSG.dns.addy.com> OK, now I REALLY hate the Sonics. Not only did I miss TBAA because of their game (which they won by 44 points. Yeah, THAT was exciting. Yawn.) now I missed PL because of their game. And the the worst part? I was flipping around after Home Improvement and PL was ON. DELAYED. NO WARNING. They just started showing it. Thanks for the notice, CBS. Morons. -Kev IIIINASCAR Everything else is just a game. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 06:18:30 -0400 (EDT) From: SMGMN @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: Re: Roma I just found out that Roma will be doing yet another talk show appearence! She apparently is going to be on the "After Breakfast" show, which is on the Fox network some day (I don't have the exact date) yer this week so I don't know if it's supposed to be later on today, (Wednesday) Thursday, or Friday, but I'm taping it every day just to make sure that I don't miss it, and others may want to tape it too. A TBAA fan always, Sue ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 06:33:47 -0400 From: Jan Plemons To: Tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: Re: John on Promised Land At 09:28 PM 4/29/97 -0400, you wrote: >I just saw the previews for the next PL...and there was John...in a big >floppy hat with lots of hair....sigh... >>Incidentally, they didn't show the other two angels..so I'm not sure if they >are there or not.....we'll see.... Susan, According to next week's TV Guide, Claire sees the Angel of Death (John Dye) and thinks that someone she knows is going to die. So it looks like John will be the only angel on PL. Jan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 07:54:50 -0400 (EDT) From: SunbirdSE @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: Re: Roma Downey In a message dated 97-04-30 05:34:24 EDT, you write: << Hi, again! I was just wondering if anyone knows what time the Mother's Day special on May 9th on CBS comes on? Also, does anyone know if there are copies of "A Woman Named Jackie" available? Thanks :) ! Love, Patricia >> The Mother's Day Special with Roma Downey (& hopefully Reilly) will air at 7:00 p.m. central time, and will last 1 hour. Incidentally, isn't it fantastic how Roma is appearing more and more on television, lately? Conan O'Brien, The Marry Me Special, R&KL, Oprah, Letterman, Rosie, and now this Mother's Day Special. It is very nice to see that the networks are finally starting to give Roma & her show TBAA the positive publicity she & it so richly deserve. But then, we all knew that they'd come around eventually, didn't we ;-) "A Woman Named Jackie", the miniseries Roma starred in Oct. 1991 can be purchased from Movie Gallery. Just call a local store and request to speak to the district representative who should be able to order it for you. This is what I did and they were most helpful. Jan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 14:40:30 +0200 (MET DST) From: Anna Karin =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hulterstr=F6m?= To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: intro Hello all tbaa fans, I came across the 'Touched by an Angel' show when I was working in Norway for a few months last fall. It was an emediate hit with me, so much that I arranged a satelite hook up when I came home to Sweden so that I could continue to watch. Then the Norwegian TV channel discontinued the show just before Easter - You all can imagine my feelings. And Swedish TV does not send the show. So all my contact with tbaa now is through the net, this group and the few episodes that I was able to get on tape. I live in northern Sweden, about 300 km south of the arctic circle. Yes- we still have snow on the ground. The reason why I fell for Touched by an Angel, is the message it brings. God loves us all, regardless of what we have done, and regardless of our faith. I also think that the addition of John Dye as Andrew the Angel of Death lifted the whole show. I have never been able to understand why people in one breath say that God is loving, and with the next say that death is frightening. I have always believed that God loves us, and that He probably has something good in store for us when that day comes. So I could not agree more than with what I have seen in touchedd by an angel= =2E take care Anna Karin _____________________________________________________________ Anna Karin Hulterstr=F6m DDS Dept. of Dental Materials Science Faculty of Odontology University of Ume=E5 S-901 87 U= ME=C5 SWEDEN Ph +46-90-17 61 35 Fax +46-90-77 56 17 _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 97 9:17:33 EDT From: "Michael Miller" To: Cc: Subject: re: Re: Ages of angels charset=US-ASCII >Also, Mike, it seems that you're arguing semantics here, and while I'm aware >of the precise and detailed attention that has been given to careful >translation, arguing that a word is the wrong one is somewhat shaky ground >since none of us are using the original word and non of us have first-hand >access to the ancient connotations of those words. We can make educated >hyptheses, but we can't really be certain because none of us are native >speakers of Ancient Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic. Amilyn: I'm not arguing semantics. There are plenty of hebrew/greek/aramaic books out their to decifer what the true meaning of the words are. However, when the Bible gives a description of what a certain thing is, that should be enough. All I said was that there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that cherubs are baby angels. Mike ************************************************************* Only the individual sender is responsible for the content of this message, and the message does not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the National Education Association or NEA Member Benefits. ************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 30 Apr 1997 09:18:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Kevin To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: Real Angels It's been interesting watching the go around about the age of angels. In western theory there are nine levels of angels. "Angels", like Monica, are the lowest, Archangels are second. I'll dig up a summary and post it later. For those really interested, there is a fabulous article in the 12/27/93 (v142 n27) issue of Time. It does a good job of covering the angel craze then revving up in North America and human beliefs about angels. A few eyewitness accounts in it that will make TBAA fans cry just as effectively as last week's episode. (That one went straight to the top my list!) Kevin go round about the age of angels. ============================================ Kevin D. Ashman Phone: BEEP! Department of Chemistry Fax: BEEP! .addy. e-mail: kda1 @ . .addy.edu .addy. .addy. .addy. *** The opera ghost really existed. - G.L. *** -------------------------------- End of tbaangel-d Digest V97 Issue #53 **************************************