"Family Matters". It wasn't until this I became a member on this site that I found out Family Matters was a spinoff from Perfect Starngers. I was never a PS watcher so it was no way of me knowing and from watching the early eps of FM, it doesn;t really give any hints that's it's a spinoff just a show that started on it's own. But it's defintely a SPINOFF just a QUIET SPINOFF and the consistency of Harriet working for the Newspaper Company as a elevator operator on PS and FM defintenly connects the two shows. I was surprised to find out FM was a spinoff

I swear Solomon, you make up your own terminologies for shows and spinoffs. :lol:

I knew it was a spin-off because I used to watch PS. Harriet was on that show for a few years.

I knew it was a spin-off because I used to watch PS. Harriet was on that show for a few years.


That was one of the first things I found out once I got the Internet-lol

it either is or is not a spinoff

no "quiet" about it

it either is or is not a spinoff

no "quiet" about it


I know, i'm just saying if you never watched Perfect Strangers you would never know because in TV Book they don't say Family Matters is a spinoff

I know, i'm just saying if you never watched Perfect Strangers you would never know because in TV Book they don't say Family Matters is a spinoff


SOOOO the printed word does NOT mention its a spinoff??
but ONLINE SOURCES clearly show that fact???

CAN THIS BE?????

i thought u said that online sources were junk and u prefered the books and magazines as reference????


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :grady:

SOOOO the printed word does NOT mention its a spinoff??
but ONLINE SOURCES clearly show that fact???

CAN THIS BE?????

i thought u said that online sources were junk and u prefered the books and magazines as reference????


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :grady:



Well you should know why there isn't a such thing as a Online Source

Dont ever consider the so-called TV Books as gospel, they are often wrong and never list pilot's for tv shows which is a travesty.

The old TV reference books used to list the pilots but you could only find them in the library.

Aj

Dont ever consider the so-called TV Books as gospel, they are often wrong and never list pilot's for tv shows which is a travesty.

The old TV reference books used to list the pilots but you could only find them in the library.

Aj


The point I was making was that several members on this board tried to debate TV Topics by stating Websites as their source of Info and I thought it was silly since the info on websites comes from BOOKS/NEWSPAPERS/MAGAZINES-lol

The point I was making was that several members on this board tried to debate TV Topics by stating Websites as their source of Info and I thought it was silly since the info on websites comes from BOOKS/NEWSPAPERS/MAGAZINES-lol
???????????????????

a source is a source is a source

an online source has just as much merit as a book or magazine
as long as it is accurate

i do not understand how u assume b/c a source is PRINTED OUT that it counts more than the same info on the web?:eek:

???????????????????

a source is a source is a source

an online source has just as much merit as a book or magazine
as long as it is accurate

i do not understand how u assume b/c a source is PRINTED OUT that it counts more than the same info on the web?:eek:


As I said before Online Sources mean Didley Poo. Those websites obviously got their info from Books. And that's the source I want. Not Wikipedia.com

As I said before Online Sources mean Didley Poo. Those websites obviously got their info from Books. And that's the source I want. Not Wikipedia.com


SOOOOOO???? if i take a magazine article about GOOD TIMES and type it in and post it online--- its somehow LESS ACCURATE because its online????

i realllllllllly do not understand this (il)logic on this one

im scratching my head trying to figure out how u think something is more accurate because its printed word????

SO I GUESS the WEEKLY WORLD NEWS tabloid is more accurate than CNN.COM because its printed????

:lol: :lol: :lol:

SOOOOOO???? if i take a magazine article about GOOD TIMES and type it in and post it online--- its somehow LESS ACCURATE because its online????

i realllllllllly do not understand this (il)logic on this one

im scratching my head trying to figure out how u think something is more accurate because its printed word????

SO I GUESS the WEEKLY WORLD NEWS tabloid is more accurate than CNN.COM because its printed????

:lol: :lol: :lol:



I need to know where the Info came from. Just like that LIE about Esther Rolle not liking the Carl Character on Wikipedia.com. It's all LIES

I need to know where the Info came from. Just like that LIE about Esther Rolle not liking the Carl Character on Wikipedia.com. It's all LIES
?????
again im so confused here
IF IT SAYS IN A MAGAZINE that Esther Rolle didnt like CARL----- u will believe that?

BUT IF IT SAYS it online --- you wont????


hmmmmmmmm

ALSO FOR THE RECORD--- NOONE, repeat NOONE other than tvresearcher that I have EVER met seems to like CARL

we did a poll a few weeks ago, OVERWHELMINGLY carl was disliked

his character was an atheist--- Florida was religous and would never married him
he was gangly and looked like a black LURCH

im glad that you liked him
HOWEVER noone else did, that is why they ditched him when Flo came back and never bothered to mention him again, and he was not invited back for the last season

?????
again im so confused here
IF IT SAYS IN A MAGAZINE that Esther Rolle didnt like CARL----- u will believe that?

BUT IF IT SAYS it online --- you wont????


hmmmmmmmm

ALSO FOR THE RECORD--- NOONE, repeat NOONE other than tvresearcher that I have EVER met seems to like CARL

we did a poll a few weeks ago, OVERWHELMINGLY carl was disliked

his character was an atheist--- Florida was religous and would never married him
he was gangly and looked like a black LURCH

im glad that you liked him
HOWEVER noone else did, that is why they ditched him when Flo came back and never bothered to mention him again, and he was not invited back for the last season



So you would believe a ONLINE SITE that has anyone adding INFO before a Magazine Article?

when it comes to something like a 30 year old sitcom

i dont get all worked up and claim its ALL LIES
just because someone writes that an actress didnt like a character on her tv show

i fail to understand the conspiracy that would make up lies about GOOD TIMES

so i try to judge the accuracy using COMMON SENSE
whether its in a book or on a site

if there is NOTHING TO BE GAINED from lying, and the story makes sense and is written by someone knowledgable or who shows u the hows and whys and quotes if possible, then i go with it

when it comes to something like a 30 year old sitcom

i dont get all worked up and claim its ALL LIES
just because someone writes that an actress didnt like a character on her tv show

i fail to understand the conspiracy that would make up lies about GOOD TIMES

so i try to judge the accuracy using COMMON SENSE
whether its in a book or on a site

if there is NOTHING TO BE GAINED from lying, and the story makes sense and is written by someone knowledgable or who shows u the hows and whys and quotes if possible, then i go with it
The problem with some of these sites is that people make mistakes and they submit information without any proof. I have seen so many things on these tv websites that aren't true. Do I think Esther Rolle didn't like Carl? Yea because I can't stand him either and it does go against Florida's character but that in itself isn't proof.

my point is that there are JUST AS MANY MISTAKES in print as online

i have a lot of old tv/movie magazines from the 1970s and they had TONS of mistakes, rumors that turned out false, etc etc etc

its just silly for someone to put tons of faith in printed word
and No faith in online sources

and its also silly to get so upset over the OBVIOUS FACT that noone liked CARL on good times, not met, not i walk the line, not the public, and not Esther Rolle either

i just dont understand how someone can get so worked up over something so insignificant and why they would assume it was LIES instead of the other, more obvious solution :wave:

I refuse to debate this silly topic of what has more credibility a ONLINE SITE or Something in Print. Not a Topic worth debating. Evetyone should know something in PRINT will always have more credibility than some stupid website

I refuse to debate this silly topic of what has more credibility a ONLINE SITE or Something in Print. Not a Topic worth debating. Evetyone should know something in PRINT will always have more credibility than some stupid website

well, i just love how Because u say it, with no support at all and nothing to back up your claims--- that makes it so

:lol: :lol: :lol:

TRANSLATION

"IM NOT WINNING THIS ARGUEMENT SO I WILL STOP WHILE IM AHEAD!"?????


Lol

:crazy: :crazy: :lol: :lol: :lol:

in all seriousness

you just cannot make claims and make statements that are

DEFINITIVE like that with no proof

u said

Evetyone should know something in PRINT will always have more credibility than some stupid website

so therefore, if your statement is to be accepted it means that
ALL printed sources are more accurate than ALL online sources

so TABLOIDS and WRESTLING MAGAZINES are more accurate than CBS.COM or CNN.COM
if we believe that one

the TRUTH is some printed stuff is right, some is wrong, some websites are right some are wrong

BUUUUUUT if we are to REALLY BELIEVE WHAT YOU SAY 100%

since you, yourself posted your opinions on a WEBSITE and not in a PRINTED SOURCE

we should all assume that you are 100% wrong


:banana: :banana: :banana:

well, i just love how Because u say it, with no support at all and nothing to back up your claims--- that makes it so

:lol: :lol: :lol:

TRANSLATION

"IM NOT WINNING THIS ARGUEMENT SO I WILL STOP WHILE IM AHEAD!"

Lol

:crazy: :crazy: :lol: :lol: :lol:



So you are saying someone should take a website seriously that has no LISTED SOURCES on where they got the INFO from? Even TV Books I read list their SOURCES. As Said before Wikipedia.com and TV.com are JOKES

lets see
i checked a BIG set today
with 35 discs i checked it against an ep guide on tv.com
and it all matched up, every ep

so hmmmmmmm:wave:

in all seriousness

you just cannot make claims and make statements that are

DEFINITIVE like that with no proof

u said

Evetyone should know something in PRINT will always have more credibility than some stupid website

so therefore, if your statement is to be accepted it means that
ALL printed sources are more accurate than ALL online sources

so TABLOIDS and WRESTLING MAGAZINES are more accurate than CBS.COM or CNN.COM
if we believe that one

the TRUTH is some printed stuff is right, some is wrong, some websites are right some are wrong

BUUUUUUT if we are to REALLY BELIEVE WHAT YOU SAY 100%

since you, yourself posted your opinions on a WEBSITE and not in a PRINTED SOURCE

we should all assume that you are 100% wrong


:banana: :banana: :banana:


When did I ever say anything about CBS.COM????? I said the websites that allow anyone to ADD info. Why would I say that Cnn.com or CBS.com has no credibility?

Evetyone should know something in PRINT will always have more credibility than some stupid website

u might have MEANT something more specifici
but u said that.....

i wont keep this debate going anymore

since, by your OWN ADMISSION
since u have posted your opinion on a "silly website that allows anyone to post"

what you are saying must surely be wrong

:lol: :lol:

NOW if u can show me a 1974 issue of JET magazine where u claim the same things

THEN it must surely be a fact!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Evetyone should know something in PRINT will always have more credibility than some stupid website

u might have MEANT something more specifici
but u said that.....

i wont keep this debate going anymore

since, by your OWN ADMISSION
since u have posted your opinion on a "silly website that allows anyone to post"

what you are saying must surely be wrong

:lol: :lol:

NOW if u can show me a 1974 issue of JET magazine where u claim the same things

THEN it must surely be a fact!

:lol: :lol: :lol:



I mailed members copies of Jet Mag articles in the past to support TV Debates since I'm unable to post them

So you are saying someone should take a website seriously that has no LISTED SOURCES on where they got the INFO from? Even TV Books I read list their SOURCES. As Said before Wikipedia.com and TV.com are JOKES
I read today on Wikipedia that Trapper John M.D. was not a spin-off of M.A.S.H. but was a spin-off of the movie version of M.A.S.H. It's listed as fact but that's the first time I ever heard it mentioned. Another spin-off debate. :lol:

all sorts of thing on the web are wrong
just as many things in print are wrong

trapper john m.d. is an odd one
b/c it is technically a spinoff
but not really

i mean YES its the same character
BUT played completely differently
by a different actor
in a different type of program
set decades later

sort of like LOU GRANT
yes, thats a spinoff too
again though
the character and the show are totally different than the show it spun off from

I mailed members copies of Jet Mag articles in the past to support TV Debates since I'm unable to post them

hmmmmm

not sure how to respond

its like one of those TIME TRAVEL PARADOXES that has no answer
omg: omg: omg:
i mean, You posted that

Evetyone should know something in PRINT will always have more credibility than some stupid website


and then u followed that up with this clarification

I said the websites that allow anyone to ADD info.

so what do i believe? i mean you YOURSELF are posting these statements on a silly website that allows anyone to add info???? so if i LISTEN and BELIEVE you then i am supposed to NOT LISTEN and NOT BELIEVE YOU????
round and round it goes

:stooges:

all sorts of thing on the web are wrong
just as many things in print are wrong

trapper john m.d. is an odd one
b/c it is technically a spinoff
but not really

i mean YES its the same character
BUT played completely differently
by a different actor
in a different type of program
set decades later

sort of like LOU GRANT
yes, thats a spinoff too
again though
the character and the show are totally different than the show it spun off from



All I want to know is when Esther Rolle made that statement about the Carl Character. I need to klnow the year and Mag or Talk show. Not from you of course but on the Jokepedia.com website

All I want to know is when Esther Rolle made that statement about the Carl Character. I need to klnow the year and Mag or Talk show. Not from you of course but on the Jokepedia.com website


ok ill put it back on you

I WANT TO SEE A QUOTE WHERE ESTHER ROLLE actually DID like the carl character

because NOONE I HAVE EVER MET ever liked him

and if it says online that she did NOT like him at all

then UNLESS U CAN FIND A CONFLICTING QUOTE OR PIECE OF EVIDENCE
then by a PREPONDERENCE OF THE EVIDENCE

the ANTI- CARL opinion wins!!!

so do u have a quote in those old JETs about how much Rolle liked Carl???
if not then we MUST believe the other statement

(simple rules of debate!)

hmmmmm

not sure how to respond

its like one of those TIME TRAVEL PARADOXES that has no answer
omg: omg: omg:
i mean, You posted that

Evetyone should know something in PRINT will always have more credibility than some stupid website


and then u followed that up with this clarification

I said the websites that allow anyone to ADD info.

so what do i believe? i mean you YOURSELF are posting these statements on a silly website that allows anyone to add info???? so if i LISTEN and BELIEVE you then i am supposed to NOT LISTEN and NOT BELIEVE YOU????
round and round it goes

:stooges:



You should believe any who states a source

ok ill put it back on you

I WANT TO SEE A QUOTE WHERE ESTHER ROLLE actually DID like the carl character

because NOONE I HAVE EVER MET ever liked him

and if it says online that she did NOT like him at all

then UNLESS U CAN FIND A CONFLICTING QUOTE OR PIECE OF EVIDENCE
then by a PREPONDERENCE OF THE EVIDENCE

the ANTI- CARL opinion wins!!!

so do u have a quote in those old JETs about how much Rolle liked Carl???
if not then we MUST believe the other statement

(simple rules of debate!)


I believe no staements unless the source is listed.

You should believe any who states a source

ok so where is your source stating how much esther rolle liked the carl character???
b/c since there are statements online claiming she did NOT like him

if u cannot find a more accurate and verifiable source
than we will have to go with what info is out there
and that should settle it once and for all
that esther did NOT like carl anymore than the rest of us didnt like him :lol:

I believe no staements unless the source is listed.

so if i state

ITS SURE HOT OUTSIDE TODAY

u wont believe me????

this is one of those instances where

if u believe it or not does NOT change the truth!

ok so where is your source stating how much esther rolle liked the carl character???
b/c since there are statements online claiming she did NOT like him

if u cannot find a more accurate and verifiable source
than we will have to go with what info is out there
and that should settle it once and for all
that esther did NOT like carl anymore than the rest of us didnt like him :lol:

Well I just Checked the Wikipedia.org site and that Info about her not liking the Carl Character is no longer on there

so if i state

ITS SURE HOT OUTSIDE TODAY

u wont believe me????

this is one of those instances where

if u believe it or not does NOT change the truth!


I'm talking about statements like-" I HEARD THAT" Heard WHERE?-lol

Well I just Checked the Wikipedia.org site and that Info about her not liking the Carl Character is no longer on there


BUT it was there
u saw it, i saw it
millions saw it

AND SINCE THAT IS THE ONLY OPINION THAT HAS BEEN PUT FORTH by ANY kind of source at all

we HAVE to go with that source

(simple rules of debate---- in a situation where there is an unchallenged statement---IE a statement is put forth and no refuting statement can be cited--- the initital statement STANDS!)

BUT it was there
u saw it, i saw it
millions saw it

AND SINCE THAT IS THE ONLY OPINION THAT HAS BEEN PUT FORTH by ANY kind of source at all

we HAVE to go with that source

(simple rules of debate---- in a situation where there is an unchallenged statement---IE a statement is put forth and no refuting statement can be cited--- the initital statement STANDS!)
That's stupid. Obviously somebody discovered that information was wrong and removed it.

That's stupid. Obviously somebody discovered that information was wrong and removed it.


Exactly-LOL

i just googled this debate

and guess what i found

this info

Rolle had disliked the Carl Dixon character, as she believed Florida would have not moved on so quickly after James' death. Rolle also thought the writers had disregarded Florida's devout Christian beliefs by making her fall for Carl, who was an atheist. When Rolle eventually agreed to return to the show, one of the conditions on which she insisted was that the Carl Dixon character be written out as if he never existed. This made the Carl Dixon character an example of Chuck Cunningham syndrome.

http://www.answers.com/topic/good-time-legal-term

from here

which quotes from
.^ "Bad Times on the Good Times Set", Ebony, September 1975


so the info is still out there

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Evans

(Carl was never metioned again because Esther Rolle did not like the marriage between Florida and Carl. Part of Rolle's agreement to return was contingent to the show's writers writing the character out of the series.)



ok that was 2 different sources i pulled up in 3 minutes
AND they reference a PRINTED SOURCE

i dont care enough to dig into this in depth and find 10 links but its obvious
the info is legit!

That's stupid. Obviously somebody discovered that information was wrong and removed it.


often times sites like that
have certain info and entries on their pages
and then later its gone
not because it was wrong all the time
just because it got removed or got edited for space or so on and so on

i just found 2 links in 3 minutes that support the claims:crazy:

SOOOOO
since i have now posted links to more than 1 site that support the claim

i ask again, WHERE IS THE SOURCE claiming that esther rolle liked the CARL Character?

i mean, if she DID like carl, then SURELY there must be something, somewhere stating that fact????? especially since there are multiple sites claiming the opposite???

i just googled this debate

and guess what i found

this info

Rolle had disliked the Carl Dixon character, as she believed Florida would have not moved on so quickly after James' death. Rolle also thought the writers had disregarded Florida's devout Christian beliefs by making her fall for Carl, who was an atheist. When Rolle eventually agreed to return to the show, one of the conditions on which she insisted was that the Carl Dixon character be written out as if he never existed. This made the Carl Dixon character an example of Chuck Cunningham syndrome.

http://www.answers.com/topic/good-time-legal-term

from here

which quotes from
.^ "Bad Times on the Good Times Set", Ebony, September 1975


so the info is still out there

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Evans

(Carl was never metioned again because Esther Rolle did not like the marriage between Florida and Carl. Part of Rolle's agreement to return was contingent to the show's writers writing the character out of the series.)



ok that was 2 different sources i pulled up in 3 minutes
AND they reference a PRINTED SOURCE

i dont care enough to dig into this in depth and find 10 links but its obvious
the info is legit!


How could Florida be talking Carl in 1975? The Bad Times on the Good Times Set article was in a September 1975 Ebony Issue. LOL

often times sites like that
have certain info and entries on their pages
and then later its gone
not because it was wrong all the time
just because it got removed or got edited for space or so on and so on

i just found 2 links in 3 minutes that support the claims:crazy:

SOOOOO
since i have now posted links to more than 1 site that support the claim

i ask again, WHERE IS THE SOURCE claiming that esther rolle liked the CARL Character?

i mean, if she DID like carl, then SURELY there must be something, somewhere stating that fact????? especially since there are multiple sites claiming the opposite???
I doubt that's the case. Their are other pages over there that's just as long or longer than Good Times. And even if it is true, you can't prove it. According to what you say , I could go over there and put something up that I know is false and because it was seen by others that makes it true. That's how rumors are started. :lol:


I never said she did like Carl. I have no proof , one way or another.

i just googled this debate

and guess what i found

this info

Rolle had disliked the Carl Dixon character, as she believed Florida would have not moved on so quickly after James' death. Rolle also thought the writers had disregarded Florida's devout Christian beliefs by making her fall for Carl, who was an atheist. When Rolle eventually agreed to return to the show, one of the conditions on which she insisted was that the Carl Dixon character be written out as if he never existed. This made the Carl Dixon character an example of Chuck Cunningham syndrome.

http://www.answers.com/topic/good-time-legal-term

from here

which quotes from
.^ "Bad Times on the Good Times Set", Ebony, September 1975


so the info is still out there

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Evans

(Carl was never metioned again because Esther Rolle did not like the marriage between Florida and Carl. Part of Rolle's agreement to return was contingent to the show's writers writing the character out of the series.)



ok that was 2 different sources i pulled up in 3 minutes
AND they reference a PRINTED SOURCE

i dont care enough to dig into this in depth and find 10 links but its obvious
the info is legit!



Answers.com another SITE with no Sources-lol A Good Example of a Website that has TV Info with Sources is TVParty.com Those sites you listed were pure BallShet-LOL-LOL

ok ok ok i hear u

u keep saying the same thing

u say

THATS NOT TRUE--- ESTHER ROLLE DID NOT DISLIKE CARL!!
u say it over and over

BUT WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE??? where are your facts????

AT LEAST there are websites, even if they are not perfect sites out there, that point out rolle did NOT like the carl character

BUT YOU WANT US TO BELIEVE IT IS SO, simply because YOU SAY IT IS SO???

if she DID in fact like the carl character, then it should be easy to find SOME SOURCE, ANY SOURCE AT ALL that mentions it

other than tvresearcher of course

i mean, u keep saying THAT SOURCE IS WRONG, buuuuuuuuut u do NOT offer any conflicting evidence

ok if u say that site is wrong, GREAT --- please show me the proof that it is wrong--- i cannot assume its wrong just because you say it is wrong--- i mean, if i show u a site that says its RAINING IN NEW YORK and its Sunny out, then great, show me a link and i can see if im wrong, but u just cannot say NO ITS NOT and expect anyone to believe u, just because your opinion is different than what the online sources same---

its like a defense attorney saying MY CLIENT DID NOT DO IT, and thats the whole defense! well, we need a little bit more than that..... :lol: :lol:

lol

ok ok ok i hear u

u keep saying the same thing

u say

THATS NOT TRUE--- ESTHER ROLLE DID NOT DISLIKE CARL!!
u say it over and over

BUT WHERE IS YOUR SOURCE??? where are your facts????

AT LEAST there are websites, even if they are not perfect sites out there, that point out rolle did NOT like the carl character

BUT YOU WANT US TO BELIEVE IT IS SO, simply because YOU SAY IT IS SO???

if she DID in fact like the carl character, then it should be easy to find SOME SOURCE, ANY SOURCE AT ALL that mentions it

other than tvresearcher of course

i mean, u keep saying THAT SOURCE IS WRONG, buuuuuuuuut u do NOT offer any conflicting evidence

its like a defense attorney saying MY CLIENT DID NOT DO IT, and thats the whole defense! well, we need a little bit more than that..... :lol: :lol:

lol



The fact that a Article was listed from ept of 75 and Carl was on the show in 1976 means this debate is OVER.

The fact that a Article was listed from ept of 75 and Carl was on the show in 1976 means this debate is OVER.

i just love how u Avoid the big issues and avoid the direct questions and focus on the small items

1. there are many reasons for the 75-76 issue--- maybe the issue date was misprinted, or maybe the interview took place BEFORE the new season with carl aired and maybe rolle was voicing displeasure during filming, which would have been months earlier---
or maybe that source was NOT the right one,
BUT SIMPLY because its says 75 instead of 76 does NOT make a debate over

that is silly

???? IF I SAY BILL CLINTON who was elected in 1982 was a great president---- and i MISTYPE 82 instead of 92---- DOES THAT MAKE THE STATEMENT FALSE????? of course not--- the REAL issue is WHETHER CLINTON was a good president or not--- NOT WHETHER HE WAS ELECTED in 82 or 92

ANNNNNNND the big question is DID ROLLE LIKE THE CARL CHARACTER OR NOT??? and that is STILL the issue, not whether a magazine article cam out in 75or 76?

THIS TACTIC is known as ADVOIDANCE and MISDIRECTION--- where one party in a discussion, attempts to shift the focus onto a minor error and off the big picture,

EVEN IF WE TAKE the magazine article off the table, the other online sources still say that Rolle did NOT like the carl character, and i can pull out 2 or 3 more links that say the same thing-----

NOW is it "POSSIBLE" that there is some huge conspiracy of people who are out to slander the character of Carl Dixon? and they all got together and wrote articles and contributed to sites to misquote rolle? and to falsely claim that rolle did not like the carl character???i guess it is "Possible" but far fetched----

look at the facts--- 1. Rolle was VERY MUCH INTO FAMILY VALUES for the show and wanted a MORALISTIC and FAMILY CENTERED SHOW
so having her devout christian character marry an atheist, that she barely knew--- so soon after the death of her husband of almost 20 years?? made no sense
2. Rolle left the show and Carl was gone too
3. when Rolle returned the Carl character was NOT brought back--- they NEVER EVEN OFFERED HIM THE CHANCE to bring back the character-- he was written out WITHOUT A MOMENTS NOTICE-----
so it seems plainly obvious

also NO SOURCES can be cited where Rolle EVER spoke of liking the character or having been glad they added him

THAT is the big picture!!!

lol :lol:

i just love how u Avoid the big issues and avoid the direct questions and focus on the small items

1. there are many reasons for the 75-76 issue--- maybe the issue date was misprinted, or maybe the interview took place BEFORE the new season with carl aired and maybe rolle was voicing displeasure during filming, which would have been months earlier---
or maybe that source was NOT the right one,
BUT SIMPLY because its says 75 instead of 76 does NOT make a debate over

that is silly

???? IF I SAY BILL CLINTON who was elected in 1982 was a great president---- and i MISTYPE 82 instead of 92---- DOES THAT MAKE THE STATEMENT FALSE????? of course not--- the REAL issue is WHETHER CLINTON was a good president or not--- NOT WHETHER HE WAS ELECTED in 82 or 92

ANNNNNNND the big question is DID ROLLE LIKE THE CARL CHARACTER OR NOT??? and that is STILL the issue, not whether a magazine article cam out in 75or 76?

THIS TACTIC is known as ADVOIDANCE and MISDIRECTION--- where one party in a discussion, attempts to shift the focus onto a minor error and off the big picture,

EVEN IF WE TAKE the magazine article off the table, the other online sources still say that Rolle did NOT like the carl character, and i can pull out 2 or 3 more links that say the same thing-----

NOW is it "POSSIBLE" that there is some huge conspiracy of people who are out to slander the character of Carl Dixon? and they all got together and wrote articles and contributed to sites to misquote rolle? and to falsely claim that rolle did not like the carl character???i guess it is "Possible" but far fetched----

look at the facts--- 1. Rolle was VERY MUCH INTO FAMILY VALUES for the show and wanted a MORALISTIC and FAMILY CENTERED SHOW
so having her devout christian character marry an atheist, that she barely knew--- so soon after the death of her husband of almost 20 years?? made no sense
2. Rolle left the show and Carl was gone too
3. when Rolle returned the Carl character was NOT brought back--- they NEVER EVEN OFFERED HIM THE CHANCE to bring back the character-- he was written out WITHOUT A MOMENTS NOTICE-----
so it seems plainly obvious

also NO SOURCES can be cited where Rolle EVER spoke of liking the character or having been glad they added him

THAT is the big picture!!!

lol :lol:


We can't say that she did or didn't like him because there is NO SOURCE supporting it. That's It

We can't say that she did or didn't like him because there is NO SOURCE supporting it. That's It


no sir, that is simply not the case at all

there are many sources supporting it

i just did a more intense google search and aol search
and found many other links that say the same thing in different words

HOWEVER, u are simply not willing to accept them

NOW if it was one source that was not supported by quotes and references i could see u saying that it was wrong
BUT there are many sources, and they all say the same thing
and NOT ONE SINGLE SOURCE that i can find ANYPLACE AT ALL, that says the opposite
and plus, COMMON DEDUCTIVE REASONING SUPPORTS that fact

but to you, they are ALL WRONG, and ALL LYING and ALL ARE FULL OF B.S.

in your mind, rolle MUST have loved the carl character because u liked him

so no matter what i say, or no matter how many sites i provide links to
u r going to KILL THE MESSENGER because u do not agree with the message

so i guess, until YOU provide some sort of proof on the opposite side of the fence i will have to stop responding b/c u just restate your opinion
irregardless of any other conflicting statements, links, sites or opinions

BUT that is why things are what they are, and you have a right to your opinion
and i will leave it at that

no sir, that is simply not the case at all

there are many sources supporting it

i just did a more intense google search and aol search
and found many other links that say the same thing in different words

HOWEVER, u are simply not willing to accept them

NOW if it was one source that was not supported by quotes and references i could see u saying that it was wrong
BUT there are many sources, and they all say the same thing
and NOT ONE SINGLE SOURCE that i can find ANYPLACE AT ALL, that says the opposite
and plus, COMMON DEDUCTIVE REASONING SUPPORTS that fact

but to you, they are ALL WRONG, and ALL LYING and ALL ARE FULL OF B.S.

in your mind, rolle MUST have loved the carl character because u liked him

so no matter what i say, or no matter how many sites i provide links to
u r going to KILL THE MESSENGER because u do not agree with the message

so i guess, until YOU provide some sort of proof on the opposite side of the fence i will have to stop responding b/c u just restate your opinion
irregardless of any other conflicting statements, links, sites or opinions

BUT that is why things are what they are, and you have a right to your opinion
and i will leave it at that


For the Last Time, a Website is an acceptable source. Only if the Site is listing where the info came from.

no sir, that is simply not the case at all

there are many sources supporting it

i just did a more intense google search and aol search
and found many other links that say the same thing in different words

HOWEVER, u are simply not willing to accept them

NOW if it was one source that was not supported by quotes and references i could see u saying that it was wrong
BUT there are many sources, and they all say the same thing
and NOT ONE SINGLE SOURCE that i can find ANYPLACE AT ALL, that says the opposite
and plus, COMMON DEDUCTIVE REASONING SUPPORTS that fact

but to you, they are ALL WRONG, and ALL LYING and ALL ARE FULL OF B.S.

in your mind, rolle MUST have loved the carl character because u liked him

so no matter what i say, or no matter how many sites i provide links to
u r going to KILL THE MESSENGER because u do not agree with the message

so i guess, until YOU provide some sort of proof on the opposite side of the fence i will have to stop responding b/c u just restate your opinion
irregardless of any other conflicting statements, links, sites or opinions

BUT that is why things are what they are, and you have a right to your opinion
and i will leave it at that
yea but are they all using Wikipedia as a source? I've seen other sites and that's where they got the information. If it's wrong on one site and they got their information from there, it's still wrong.

:2help :2help :2help

yea but are they all using Wikipedia as a source? I've seen other sites and that's where they got the information. If it's wrong on one site and they got their information from there, it's still wrong.


Did you Janet Dubios CRIED sometimes during Filming? I got the info from Wikipedia.Com, the Best Site for Info-LOL-LOL

:2help :2help :2help

no sir, that is simply not the case at all

there are many sources supporting it

i just did a more intense google search and aol search
and found many other links that say the same thing in different words

HOWEVER, u are simply not willing to accept them

NOW if it was one source that was not supported by quotes and references i could see u saying that it was wrong
BUT there are many sources, and they all say the same thing
and NOT ONE SINGLE SOURCE that i can find ANYPLACE AT ALL, that says the opposite
and plus, COMMON DEDUCTIVE REASONING SUPPORTS that fact

but to you, they are ALL WRONG, and ALL LYING and ALL ARE FULL OF B.S.

in your mind, rolle MUST have loved the carl character because u liked him

so no matter what i say, or no matter how many sites i provide links to
u r going to KILL THE MESSENGER because u do not agree with the message

so i guess, until YOU provide some sort of proof on the opposite side of the fence i will have to stop responding b/c u just restate your opinion
irregardless of any other conflicting statements, links, sites or opinions

BUT that is why things are what they are, and you have a right to your opinion
and i will leave it at that
But that's not the way it is with me because I hated Carl. :lol:

Maybe some of those sites are run by people who saw it on the internet, and like you believed it and printed it as fact. All anyone wants is a source of where they got the information . I saw Esther Rolle being interviewed on TV a few times. I remember her talking about her problems with JJ but I never heard her mention Carl.

I WALK THE LINE ----
the statements were not directed at u do not worry

YES i know u hated carl, i hated carl, esther rolle hated carl---- the fact is that EVERYONE ON THE PLANET except tvresearcher hated carl
:lol: :lol: :lol:

My point was that I located about a dozen different articles and online sources that all made the same claim
that esther rolle did not like the character

and yes, it is "possible" if unlikely, that every one of those statements is false

however---- common sense and deductive reasoning would point out
that it is FAR MORE LIKELY that the statements are true
and since there is NOT A SINGLE SOURCE, magazine, quote, website, etc that ever has any mention of ANYTHING POSITIVE rolle EVER said about the carl character, then ....

well come on, 2 + 2 = 4

some people, however would rather stand in the rain and get soaked, b/c the weather man didnt quote his source --- then to admit that it is in fact raining and go inside

:rofl: :rofl: party:

I WALK THE LINE ----
the statements were not directed at u do not worry

YES i know u hated carl, i hated carl, esther rolle hated carl---- the fact is that EVERYONE ON THE PLANET except tvresearcher hated carl
:lol: :lol: :lol:

My point was that I located about a dozen different articles and online sources that all made the same claim
that esther rolle did not like the character

and yes, it is "possible" if unlikely, that every one of those statements is false

however---- common sense and deductive reasoning would point out
that it is FAR MORE LIKELY that the statements are true
and since there is NOT A SINGLE SOURCE, magazine, quote, website, etc that ever has any mention of ANYTHING POSITIVE rolle EVER said about the carl character, then ....

well come on, 2 + 2 = 4

some people, however would rather stand in the rain and get soaked, b/c the weather man didnt quote his source --- then to admit that it is in fact raining and go inside

:rofl: :rofl: party:



Can you tell me what Magazine or NewsPaper these Articles are from?

YES i can tell u the sources i found

BUT no i wont

why? b/c u will simply say they are LYING! or the sources dont have a bibliography, or that they are all wrong, etc, etc, etc

b/c i found them online and therefore, in your book, they must certainly be wrong

so therefore, its a waste of time for me to do so

i posted a few quotes and articles, and u just said they were wrong--- no real reason why, no evidence to the contrary, no real proof that they were wrong, just that they were wrong----

and then u try to bring the circular logic, back full circle again---- by trying to take it back into your whole ONLINE SOURCE= bad, NEWSPAPER= good routine again---- and weve been over it a million times---- newspapers are WRONG all the time, i have stacks of old people/hollywood gossipe/teen beat/etc mags, that have TONS and TONS of wrong info and wrong gossip--- but to u, somehow its carved in stone, and u refuse to even consider the possibility

HOWEVER, if u can find ANY SOURCE at all that supports the belief that esther rolle liked the horrible carl character please post that info and ill gladly retract my view

its painfully obvious to everyone who knows the show, knows the character and looks it up online...... well, ALMOST everyone


:lol: :lol:

lol

YES i can tell u the sources i found

BUT no i wont

why? b/c u will simply say they are LYING! or the sources dont have a bibliography, or that they are all wrong, etc, etc, etc

b/c i found them online and therefore, in your book, they must certainly be wrong

so therefore, its a waste of time for me to do so

HOWEVER, if u can find ANY SOURCE at all that supports the belief that esther rolle liked the horrible carl character please post that info and ill gladly retract my view

its painfully obvious to everyone who knows the show, knows the character and looks it up online...... well, ALMOST everyone


:lol: :lol:

lol



As long as they are not Online Sources then I'm interested. Now odf course if it's cnn.com then let me know So I can read it. Other than that it's FALSE

As long as they are not Online Sources then I'm interested. Now odf course if it's cnn.com then let me know So I can read it. Other than that it's FALSE

sometimes i realllly do not understand you

i think "CAN HE POSSIBLY HONESTLY NOT UNDERSTAND??" or is he just pretending to stir the pot a little more?????

if its an online source its FALSE? so everything online is wrong?

ok dokey!

i will not comment again, unless u say something new
because it seems you just go round and round and round on this
refusing to address the real issues and instead focusing on trivial points and
AVOIDANCE and MISDIRECTION

so if u say something new, or at least come up with some proof to back up your statements ill reply

if not then people can just re read post # 51 again in response to what u write b/c it sums it all up again

for the final time---- THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH
a million X over
whether its online or in a book, truth is truth

I have old 1970s magazines that have articles about Lucy and Desi were going to remake I LOVE LUCY in 1979, of course it was wrong, i have articles that talked about how Jimmie Walker was going to get his own spinoff, which was wrong--- i could go on and on--- just because someone prints a false statement in a book or magazine--- its still false

however, the TRUTH of the matter is

you do not agree with the online sources-- because ALL OF THEM are against your opinion---- so OF COURSE, you cannot be wrong--- so therefore ALL OF THEM Must be wrong
:lol: :lol:

sometimes i realllly do not understand you

i think "CAN HE POSSIBLY HONESTLY NOT UNDERSTAND??" or is he just pretending to stir the pot a little more?????

i will not comment again, unless u say something new

if not then people can just re read post # 51 again in response to what u write b/c it sums it all up again

for the final time---- THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH IS THE TRUTH
a million X over
whether its online or in a book, truth is truth

I have old 1970s magazines that have articles about Lucy and Desi were going to remake I LOVE LUCY in 1979, of course it was wrong, i have articles that talked about how Jimmie Walker was going to get his own spinoff, which was wrong--- i could go on and on--- just because someone prints a false statement in a book or magazine--- its still false

however, the TRUTH of the matter is

you do not agree with the online sources-- because ALL OF THEM are against your opinion---- so OF COURSE, you cannot be wrong--- so therefore ALL OF THEM Must be wrong
:lol: :lol:



Well those Magazines you are talking about must wasn't major MAGAZINES. What was it? TV guide? Newsweek? Jet? Ebony? Time?

Well those Magazines you are talking about must wasn't major MAGAZINES. What was it? TV guide? Newsweek? Jet? Ebony? Time?

exactly my points

1. u focus on the trivial instead of the main issue

2. WHENEVER confronted with information that is contrary to your predetermined and inflexible opinons
instead of considering that perhaps u r wrong

instead
it must CERTAINLY be the SOURCE that is wrong

and no, im not gonna dig through them for you, because no matter what the facts are
you will find some reason to say the sources are wrong, b/c you are unable or unwilling to admit otherwise

lol


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Here's one website that says Esther didn't like Carl but if you look at the bottom, it says it came from Wikipedia..


http://www.answers.com/topic/good-time-legal-term

Here's one website that says Esther didn't like Carl but if you look at the bottom, one of their sources is Wikipedia. It could have came from there.

http://www.answers.com/topic/good-time-legal-term


Which still brings me to this question, why does Answers.com list their Source but Wikipedia doesn't?-lol Wikipedia is so full of shet

I'm not going to jump into this argument, but I liked the Carl character, probably because I always enjoyed Moses Gunn's work, I watched Father Murphy as a kid
and that other series he was in....the Spencer for Hire spinoff. I was saddened to hear of his passing, I think he died of cancer too.

Here is irony for you, Moses Gunn and John Amos acted in ROOTS together, was Esther Rolle in that one?

Aj

I'm not going to jump into this argument, but I liked the Carl character, probably because I always enjoyed Moses Gunn's work, I watched Father Murphy as a kid
and that other series he was in....the Spencer for Hire spinoff. I was saddened to hear of his passing, I think he died of cancer too.

Here is irony for you, Moses Gunn and John Amos acted in ROOTS together, was Esther Rolle in that one?

Aj



No Esther Rolle wasn't in Roots

I wonder why Esther Rolle was not in ROOTS what was she doing other than GOOD TIMES that prevented her from acting in it??

Aj

Esther Rolle, Sidney Poitier and Harry Belafonte have to be amongst the only prominent African-Americans who did not appear in any of the ROOTS movies then.

Perhaps Rolle chose not to do ROOTS because of a confusion between John Amos and herself being in the same film...I really dont know the answer.

Aj