There are a zillion production companies in the television and film industry. Getting a deal with a production company does not necessarily mean getting a show on television. The production company packages a show; they hire the writer(s), the actors or reality talent, and the producer(s). After they get everyone locked into contract, they then pitch the show to a network Unless a network bites, there is no show.
Posts by 144001
-
20A Major TV production company seeking YOUNG ADULTS STRUGGLING WITH THEIR RELIGION
by AndersonsInfo ina major tv production company seeking young adults struggling with their religion.
an emmy-winning television production company is seeking young adults (late teens - mid 20s) who are questioning, struggling with, or rebelling against their religious upbringings.
are you thinking of changing your religion to marry your one true love?
-
-
-
233
Human Devolution? Interesting Article...
by AGuest inare humans really getting dumber (may you all have peace)?
there have many positions on this for both sides.
saw an announcement on the news this morning and was intrigued: could it be true?
-
-
144001
<<<< I realize it has other connotations, dear One (peace to you, as well!), but I used the term “devolution,” as in the process of “devolving”... --Aguest>>>>
Ah yes, Shelby!
Time for you to watch the Youtube video I posted. DEVO was and is a group formed out of the concept you've just posted, that we are in the process of deevolution, hence their name. The video will demonstrate the group's devotion to de-evolution.
-
233
Human Devolution? Interesting Article...
by AGuest inare humans really getting dumber (may you all have peace)?
there have many positions on this for both sides.
saw an announcement on the news this morning and was intrigued: could it be true?
-
-
144001
Shelby,
Since you brought up the subject of deevolution, I thought I should give credit to the original proponents of this concept:
While we're at it, here's some classic DEVO music that addresses deevolution, and, if I dare say so, this music is STILL the shit, 30 + years later!!!!
-
13
A 'Million Dollar Question' on Pre-1975 Watchtower
by Scott77 inthe watchtower society of jehovah's witnesses predicted the end of the world to come in 1975. as a result, many jehovah' witnesses started withholding from having children, higher education, while others sold their houses and donating money to the watchtower society.
please, correct me.
now, a million dollar question is, what was the watchtower doing itself in anticipation of the end of the world in 1975?.
-
-
144001
I was a young boy in 1975, but old enough to be scared to death about the passing of October. They announced at our hall that armageddon was going to occur in October of that year, and there was even speculation that I can recall as to a specific date, towards the latter part of the month. I recall being scared that I wasn't "good enough" to escape the death by fire that Jehovah would so lovingly provide for each person who was either "worldly" or not good enough in the "truth" to obtain Jehovah's mercy.
I can also remember the immediate lies, "we never said that!" So came the beginning of, "losing my religion."
-
47
Part 02: Compares And Contrasts From Any of The Following Posters.
by Scott77 inthis thread posted under 'fun and humor section' is intended campares and contrasts and to acknowledge the unique contributions of each poster and how he or she has affectedyou over the years.all are welcome.
you are free to compare and contrast each # 1-20. for example, how poster #15 differs from poster # 13?
anything in common you know of?
-
-
144001
Scott,
Thank you for the kind words and for starting this very positive thread!
-
98
Rick Simons' Opposition to WTS Motion in Conti case is brilliant--Check it out @ Alameda Sup Ct Website
by DNCall in -
-
144001
Slides a Newcastle to Scott . . . "Cheers!"
-
98
Rick Simons' Opposition to WTS Motion in Conti case is brilliant--Check it out @ Alameda Sup Ct Website
by DNCall in -
-
144001
Trying to pretend you didn't lie doesn't work here, Justiitia.
Earlier, you lied when you stated that you had previously posted your opinion that you didn't believe that the WTBTS was legally entitled to substitute real property for the bond. In fact, you had not previously expressed that opinion because you lacked the courage to do so. Instead, you waited until others, myself included, expressed that opinion, then tried to hide your failure to have previously expressed an opinion on the subject by lying that you had already stated the same opinion in a previous post. Show us the post, Justitia. It doesn't exist.
Lawyers have a bad reputation, in large part due to the public perception that they are dishonest. I see that you are working hard to keep the stereotype going . . .
-
98
Rick Simons' Opposition to WTS Motion in Conti case is brilliant--Check it out @ Alameda Sup Ct Website
by DNCall in -
-
144001
JT,
Can you be any more dishonest?
<<<< The "point in time" that I said I questioned the WTS's ability to substitute real property was 10/28/12. 10/28/12 comes before 11/10/12.>>>>
You didn't say you "questioned the WTS's ability to substitute real property," rather, the lie is as follows:
"Nevertheless, I performed a quick review of the cases/secondary sources associated with § 995.710 when I first posted that I that I did not think the WTBTS would be able to substitute real property ." (emphasis added).
That is an affirmative statement of fact; you are claiming here, on 11/10, that you had previously "posted that [you] did not think the WTBTS would be able to substitute real property." As of that date, YOU HAD NEVER EXPRESSED THE OPINION THAT YOU DID NOT THINK THE WTBTS WOULD BE ABLE TO SUBSTITUTE REAL PROPERTY. The above statement is therefore a lie, no matter how you try to disguise this plain and simple fact.
Now, you're trying to save face by lying about what your false statement was. You're now trying to lie your way out of this as follows:
<<<< The "point in time" that I said I questioned the WTS's ability to substitute real property was 10/28/12. >>>>
Lawyers are expected to be specific, and to get their facts straight. You are foolishly attempting to rewrite history, but I'm going to hold you to your own words. On 11/10, when you posted the false statement above, you did not post that you had previously "questioned the WTS's ability to substitute real property." Rather, on 11/10, you made the affirmative representation that you had in fact "first posted that [you] did not think the WTBTS would be able to substitute real property." You're trying to salvage your lie by misrepresenting the content of your post of 11/10, from the real statement you actually made, that you had previously expressed an opinion that the WTBTS would not be able to substitute the real estate, to a false characterization of your 11/10 post as only "questioning" the WTBTS' ability to make the substitution.
You can lie all day, but on this forum, liars are routinely exposed.
<<<<Your making a fool of yourself, but by all means continue.>>>>
I believe that's spelled "you're," and I think you ought to wake up and smell the coffee, kid: I might be a "fool," but it's you who has been discredited for lying in this thread.
-
98
Rick Simons' Opposition to WTS Motion in Conti case is brilliant--Check it out @ Alameda Sup Ct Website
by DNCall in -
-
144001
JT,
LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!!!!!
Here's the false statement you made above:
"Nevertheless, I performed a quick review of the cases/secondary sources associated with § 995.710 when I first posted that I that I did not think the WTBTS would be able to substitute real property." (emphasis added).
As of the point in time when you made the statement above, you had never previously posted that you "did not think the WTBTS would be able to substitute real property." Instead, you cut and pasted a bunch of secondary authority that is written for use by legal professionals and not geared towards lay people, and, contrary to your false statement above, you DID NOT EXPRESS ANY OPINION WHATSOEVER as to what the information you posted actually meant.
<<<< In addition to being a full-time law student, I work two days weekly on the civil litigation team of a medium-sized county, AND I am performing a one day a week externship with the chief counsel of a local hospital system. >>>>
Cry me a riverr!!!!! A busy life does not justify being a liar, and you lied when you stated that you had expressed an opinion that you actually had never expressed.
<<<< Yet again, you have posted an overly-emotional, unfounded, personal attack.>>>>>
Exposing your lies is not a personal attack, and if you think anything I've said above is "unfounded," you are certainly free to make your case, JT. As for your claims to be the victim of a personal attack, JT, the old 'pot kettle" saying applies. Or to use words that you might learn the meaning of some day in law school, you come to the thread with "unclean hands." Don't expect to receive the pity you so shamelessly seek.
-
98
Rick Simons' Opposition to WTS Motion in Conti case is brilliant--Check it out @ Alameda Sup Ct Website
by DNCall in -
-
144001
<<<< Nevertheless, I performed a quick review of the cases/secondary sources associated with § 995.710 when I first posted that I that I did not think the WTBTS would be able to substitute real property. -- Justitia Themis>>>>
I can't find the post you've referenced, where you purport to have expressed the opinion that you "did not think the WTBTS would be able to substitute real property." In fact, I note that I've never read a post from you where you've actually expressed an opinion on the secondary authority you've quoted. But now that others here have uniformly expressed the opinion that Conti's opposition is the correct interpretation of the law, it's safe for you to jump on the bandwagon and agree with everyone else.
