Thread: So long, Larry........good work over many years.

"ImStillMags" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]..
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/ar...n/01watch.html
>
> I watched many of his interviews.

I never watched a single one.

On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 09:15:31 -0400, "news" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"ImStillMags" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]..
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/ar...n/01watch.html
>>
>> I watched many of his interviews.
>
>I never watched a single one.
>

LOL.. I think he's annoying as hell.

Lou

On 7/1/2010 07:58, Lou Decruss wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 09:15:31 -0400, "news"<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> "ImStillMags"<[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]..
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/ar...n/01watch.html
>>>
>>> I watched many of his interviews.
>>
>> I never watched a single one.
>>
>
> LOL.. I think he's annoying as hell.

I think so too.

There is talk about whether someone should replace him, and who it
should be. I think that kind of program has outlived its purpose and
that no one should try to continue in his place. It's had a good run,
but all things must come to an end. It's just another ersatz news/ersatz
entertainment reporting program the like of which sit like blocked-up
cars in the front yard of every "news channel." Time to get rid of it.

On Jul 1, 8:15*am, "news" <n...@news.de> wrote:
> "ImStillMags" <sitara8...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]..
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/ar...n/01watch.html
>
> > I watched many of his interviews.


I watch sometimes, depending on who is on. I remember listening to his
show on KMOX in St. Louis when I was a kid. On a clear night in the
70's you could pick up KMOX all over the eastern half of the country.

On 7/1/2010 9:15 AM, news wrote:
> "ImStillMags"<[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]..
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/ar...n/01watch.html
>>
>> I watched many of his interviews.
>
> I never watched a single one.
>
>
Me either, if I happen to accidentally stumble into it for some reason
it is followed by a quick press of the remote to escape. You couldn't
pay me to watch his show.

On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 09:15:31 -0400, "news" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"ImStillMags" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]..
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/ar...n/01watch.html
>>
>> I watched many of his interviews.
>
>I never watched a single one.

I unfortunately have managed to see him quite a few times over the
years. I've always been puzzled why he seems to be regarded as some
kind of legendary interviewer... or something. I always thought his
interviews were rather insipid and pointless, really.

Jeßus wrote about Larry King:

> I unfortunately have managed to see him quite a few times over the
> years. I've always been puzzled why he seems to be regarded as some
> kind of legendary interviewer... or something. I always thought his
> interviews were rather insipid and pointless, really.

I think perhaps he's highly regarded because so many celebrities would not
give interviews to anybody else. And the reason they would insist on King
doing the interview is that he would allow them to say whatever they wanted
to say; he didn't ask them questions which would make them look bad. IOW he
would steer the interview toward whatever message the celebrity wanted to
impart to the public (and what more could you want from an interview?).

Bob

On Jul 2, 4:32*am, "Bob Terwilliger" <virtualgoth@die_spammer.biz>
wrote:
> Je us wrote about Larry King:
>
> > I unfortunately have managed to see him quite a few times over the
> > years. I've always been puzzled why he seems to be regarded as some
> > kind of *legendary interviewer... or something. I always thought his
> > interviews were rather insipid and pointless, really.
>
> I think perhaps he's highly regarded because so many celebrities would not
> give interviews to anybody else. And the reason they would insist on King
> doing the interview is that he would allow them to say whatever they wanted
> to say; he didn't ask them questions which would make them look bad. IOW he
> would steer the interview toward whatever message the celebrity wanted to
> impart to the public (and what more could you want from an interview?).

That's about right. King is even worse than Charlie Rose. Good
riddance.
>
> Bob

--Bryan

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 02:32:51 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
<virtualgoth@die_spammer.biz> wrote:

>Jeßus wrote about Larry King:
>
>> I unfortunately have managed to see him quite a few times over the
>> years. I've always been puzzled why he seems to be regarded as some
>> kind of legendary interviewer... or something. I always thought his
>> interviews were rather insipid and pointless, really.
>
>I think perhaps he's highly regarded because so many celebrities would not
>give interviews to anybody else. And the reason they would insist on King
>doing the interview is that he would allow them to say whatever they wanted
>to say; he didn't ask them questions which would make them look bad. IOW he
>would steer the interview toward whatever message the celebrity wanted to
>impart to the public (and what more could you want from an interview?).

You're probably right Bob. That may be why I didn't like him. I
don't care about celebrity messages.

Lou

On Jul 2, 9:14*am, Lou Decruss <LouDecr...@biteme.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 02:32:51 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
>
> <virtualgoth@die_spammer.biz> wrote:
> >Jeßus wrote about Larry King:
>
> >> I unfortunately have managed to see him quite a few times over the
> >> years. I've always been puzzled why he seems to be regarded as some
> >> kind of *legendary interviewer... or something. I always thought his
> >> interviews were rather insipid and pointless, really.
>
> >I think perhaps he's highly regarded because so many celebrities would not
> >give interviews to anybody else. And the reason they would insist on King
> >doing the interview is that he would allow them to say whatever they wanted
> >to say; he didn't ask them questions which would make them look bad. IOWhe
> >would steer the interview toward whatever message the celebrity wanted to
> >impart to the public (and what more could you want from an interview?).
>
> You're probably right Bob. *That may be why I didn't like him. *I
> don't care about celebrity messages.
>
> Lou

==
The Larry King show was a "masquerade"...an entertainment show. No
boat rocking if at all possible and just enough showmanship and subtle
humor to bring people back. The hair, glasses, demeanor and especially
the suspenders were uniquely Larry King and will unlikely be used
again by a successor.
==

On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 02:32:51 -0700, "Bob Terwilliger"
<virtualgoth@die_spammer.biz> wrote:

>Jeßus wrote about Larry King:
>
>> I unfortunately have managed to see him quite a few times over the
>> years. I've always been puzzled why he seems to be regarded as some
>> kind of legendary interviewer... or something. I always thought his
>> interviews were rather insipid and pointless, really.
>
>I think perhaps he's highly regarded because so many celebrities would not
>give interviews to anybody else. And the reason they would insist on King
>doing the interview is that he would allow them to say whatever they wanted
>to say; he didn't ask them questions which would make them look bad. IOW he
>would steer the interview toward whatever message the celebrity wanted to
>impart to the public (and what more could you want from an interview?).

That could either be a good thing - or a bad thing - depending on the
celebrity concerned. I'd wager it's more the latter most times.

I'll miss him. His show has far more interest, depth and appeal than
Joy Behar and her fluff. Sure, he's had some duds, but Joy's show
borders on the tabloid world. I guess she has to take what she can
get. She can't seem to keep her panelists from all yakking at once.

I wish him many years of health.

On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 06:28:21 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>I'll miss him. His show has far more interest, depth and appeal than
>Joy Behar and her fluff. Sure, he's had some duds, but Joy's show
>borders on the tabloid world. I guess she has to take what she can
>get. She can't seem to keep her panelists from all yakking at once.
>
>I wish him many years of health.

I had no idea who Joy Behar was until I found a picture of her. I've
seen her face before. Is/was she on The View?

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Jul 4, 3:46*pm, sf <sf.use...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 06:28:21 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia
>
> <tweeny90...@mypacks.net> wrote:
>
> >I'll miss him. *His show *has far more interest, depth and appeal than
> >Joy Behar and her fluff. *Sure, he's had some duds, but Joy's show
> >borders on the tabloid world. *I guess she has to take what she can
> >get. *She can't seem to keep her panelists from all yakking at once.
>
> >I wish him many years of health.
>
> I had no idea who Joy Behar was until I found a picture of her. *I've
> seen her face before. *Is/was she on The View? *
>
> --
> I love cooking with wine.
> Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Yes she is on the View. Her show is your basic gossip hour. It can
be entertaining, depending on who her guests are.

On Sun, 04 Jul 2010 15:46:55 -0700, sf wrote:

> On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 06:28:21 -0700 (PDT), Kalmia
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>I'll miss him. His show has far more interest, depth and appeal than
>>Joy Behar and her fluff. Sure, he's had some duds, but Joy's show
>>borders on the tabloid world. I guess she has to take what she can
>>get. She can't seem to keep her panelists from all yakking at once.
>>
>>I wish him many years of health.
>
> I had no idea who Joy Behar was until I found a picture of her. I've
> seen her face before. Is/was she on The View?

yes.

i think she's actually pretty funny. at the very least she doesn't look
like she's been dead for several years, as king does.

your pal,
blake

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:27:14 -0400, blake murphy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>at the very least she doesn't look
>like she's been dead for several years, as king does.

Facelifts after a certain age are not flattering. I don't think
Raquel Welsh looks very good either.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Jul 5, 7:27*pm, sf <sf.use...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:27:14 -0400, blake murphy
>
> <blakepmNOTT...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >at the very least she doesn't look
> >like she's been dead for several years, as king does.
>
> Facelifts after a certain age are not flattering. *I don't think
> Raquel Welsh looks very good either.
>
>
Racquel looks pretty much like she always did, to me. You can bet she
paid dearly for those lifts. At least she didn't turn out looking
like a freak such Mickey O'Rourke, Kenny Rogers, or even Dolly
Parton. The more facelifts Dolly has the wider that mouth gets.
She's beginning to have a mouth that looks like she stole it from the
'Joker.'

sf wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:27:14 -0400, blake murphy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> at the very least she doesn't look
>> like she's been dead for several years, as king does.
>
> Facelifts after a certain age are not flattering. I don't think
> Raquel Welsh looks very good either.
>


We should all look as good as she does at 70
and Sophia Loren at nearly 76. Joy Behar is
67 and I think she looks pretty good, too.

gloria p

"gloria.p" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:i0tvds$l1$[email protected]..
> sf wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010 12:27:14 -0400, blake murphy
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> at the very least she doesn't look
>>> like she's been dead for several years, as king does.
>>
>> Facelifts after a certain age are not flattering. I don't think
>> Raquel Welsh looks very good either.
>>
>
>
> We should all look as good as she does at 70
> and Sophia Loren at nearly 76. Joy Behar is
> 67 and I think she looks pretty good, too.
>
> gloria p

I once heard that if Joan Rivers has one more facelift, she'll be sporting a
goatee.

Boli