First-grade experiment: Scott Stinard

Wow … so it’s been more than a year since the last first-grade classmate of mine responded to a blog where I posted my class picture, listed their names, and sat back and waited for everybody to come calling.
Up to now, only two others from the class were found — Mark Miller, my best friend through the third grade; and Ben Pratko, whom I knew but not all that well. As I stated in the original call for classmates, I went to elementary school in Richmond, Ohio, from kindergarten through the third grade (I moved to Atlanta for a few years before ending up for good in Texas in the sixth grade).

—————————

Last week, I got an e-mail from Scott Stinard with the subject line, “Too Funny.”
His e-mail read:
“If I recall, my teachers were … Ms. Pilarski (first grade), Mrs. Evans (second grade) and Mr. Blake (third grade). My family moved to Florida in the middle of the third grade, and I ended up in Florida as a fourth-grader.
“I am now married with a pair of boys (5 and 2) and a pair of dogs. We live in Apopka Florida, a suburb of Orlando.
“Here is a recent pic of me and my 2 year old.”

—————————

Of the three I’ve heard from, two live in Florida now (and I’m in North Carolina), so it goes to show that nobody stays in Ohio.
Thanks, Scott, for responding, and if you know anybody else in the picture, tell them I’m hunting them down.

First-grade experiment links
• CLASS PICTURE and original post
• Mark Miller
• Ben Pratko

Here are the names of the children in Ms. Pilarski’s first grade class at Richmond Elementary School, 1982-1983. Some of the names are partial … maybe others can help me identify them.

The names:
Front row (left to right): Jamie Kranek, Tina Westling, Tracy Keyser, Heather Rush, Jennifer Gumbar, Billy Liggett.
Second row: Shelly ?, Erin Doyle, Elliot Hetzer, Samanda McAfee, Angela Batalucci
Third row: Mark Miller, Mark Taylor, Toni Dean, Justin Bell, Allen Thompson, Amy Sharrow (or Sparrow)
Fourth row: Chad DeMartin, Steven Moodie, Bret Miljus, Scott Stinard, Autumn Browner, Ben Pratko

Lost Premiere: 6.1

Sure, fans of Lost love the show because of the mystery, the science, the literary references and the twists … but when it comes down to it, we love the show because of the characters.
We’ve enjoyed watching the ups and downs of Jack … the man who began this series as a hero … became a total wreck on the verge of suicide … and now is someone who’s not sure of what his role is anymore.
Sawyer began the show as a con man looking for his next sucker and became the character with the biggest heart. Sun and Jin entered that Oceanic flight on the verge of a break-up and on the island, slowly found again what drew them to each other in the first place. Kate went from criminal to hero.
Locke. Nobody to a man of faith.
Yet, in Jack’s eyes, crashing on the island has been a curse. Lost in his own “reason for being,” Jack saw the deaths of Boone, Michael, Libby, Anna Lucia, Eko (and so on, and so on) as the reason he needed to detonate that bomb in 1977 and “change history” (plus, his chance with Kate was gone, in his mind). And when Juliet pounded the nuke to end Season 5, we were left wondering if history was altered.

In the opening moments of Season 6, we see Jack back on the 2004 Oceanic flight and we see his reaction to the turbulence. Then … the plane does not break apart. It seems his plan to blow up the Swan Station (which caused the crash) has worked.
Or has it?
One of the fascinating things the producers have done is alter not only some of the passengers of the flight, but also their actions. For a very interesting analysis of the differences between the flight as depicted in the pilot episode and the flight this week, CLICK HERE.

Some differences of note:
JACK
• Original timeline: Jack obtains two bottles of vodka from Cindy and remarks that her gift must break some crucial FAA regulation. When Jack looks out the airplane window, the wing of the plane is obscured by clouds. Jack reassures Rose, as Rose is a nervous flier. Jack is sitting in row 23. Hair is cut short in a buzz-cut. He uses the pen in his jacket pocket to make an incision on the injured Edward Mars.
• Flash-sideways timeline: Jack obtains only one bottle of vodka from Cindy and remarks that he will keep her gift a secret. When Jack looks out the airplane window, the wing of the plane is visible. Jack has a bleeding cut on his neck. Rose reassures Jack, as Jack is a nervous flier. Jack is sitting in row 24. Hair is longer. When trying to resuscitate Charlie, he notices the pen in his jacket pocket is missing.

DESMOND
• Original timeline: At the moment of the plane crash, Desmond is in the Swan on the Island. He failed to push the button in a timely manner, causing a system failure which triggered a magnetic surge that caused Flight 815 to break up over the Island and crash.
• Flash-sideways timeline: Desmond is on the plane, and moves from his original seat to sit next to Jack while Jack is using the bathroom. Also of note, Desmond appears to be wearing a wedding band. Jack returns to find him sitting next to his seat, and the two struggle to remember whether or not they know each other (they never come to a conclusion that they do). When Jack returned to his seat a second time, following his treatment of Charlie outside the bathroom, Desmond had disappeared and apparently had not returned to the seat beside Jack before the plane landed. Rose (who was sitting near Jack on the plane) apparently did not see Desmond, stating she and Bernard were sleeping.

SUN AND JIN
• Original timeline: Sun and Jin are unhappily married. After an aborted escape attempt, Sun joins Jin in boarding Oceanic Flight 815 for their planned vacation/business trip to Los Angeles, wherein Jin was to deliver a watch for Sun’s father, Mr. Paik. Both Sun and Jin are wearing their wedding rings. Sun understands and speaks English.
• Flash-sideways timeline: Sun and Jin are not married. Sun is called Ms. Paik, not Mrs. Kwon, by the customs officer at LAX. Neither Jin nor Sun are wearing wedding rings. Jin has thousands of dollars of undeclared cash. It is unclear if Sun understands or speaks English.

Sawyer is still a conman. Kate is still seeking escape. Jack is still distraught (irritated) over the death of his father. And Locke is still paralyzed. In other words, their lives aren’t necessarily going to be better for having landed in Los Angeles.
The question is: Why the differences? And why is the island under water in this reality?

Speaking of reality. During the premiere, we learn of an alternate reality where everybody is still on the island. On the island, Jack, Sawyer, Kate, Sayid, Jin, Miles and Hurley have been flashed back to current day … and in their minds, the detonation didn’t work (though a dying Juliet reveals to Sayer that it did work, much to his confusion).
Their journey leads them to the Temple, where they find other Others who seem to also be followers of Jacob and enemies of the Man in Black (the man who took over the body of Locke and is, apparently, the Smoke Monster … there’s a mystery answered by the way). At The Temple, the new Others attempt to revive Sayid (who’d been shot in the Season 5 finale), and after it appears it didn’t work, Sayid ends the episode by waking up.
Is it really Sayid? Is it Jacob? Would that be too easy? (My far-fetched guess is it’s Locke, who’s figured out how to do what the Man in Black did and take over a dead man’s body … the “loophole”).
The island episode ends with MIB Locke on his way to the Temple to, it seems, destroy Jacob’s followers. Why, we don’t know yet … but I’m sure we’ll learn soon enough.
The Oceanic flight episode ends with the plane landing and all hell ensuing. Jack learns his father’s body is lost and was never on the flight. Kate does escape and hijacks a taxi (with a pregnant Claire inside). Jin is detained for carrying more than $10,000 in cash in his carry-on luggage. Charlie’s arrested for heroin possession on the plane.
Good thing they landed, right?
The one positive, however, was the “meeting” of Locke and Jack. A spinal surgeon, Jack hands Locke his card and tells him his spinal injury is reversable … sparking a hope in Locke that we only saw on the island. Interested in seeing where that’s going.

So here we are. Seasons 1-3 introduced us to the character-developing flashbacks, Season 4 wowed us with flash forwards, and Season 5 blew our minds with time travel.

Season 6 is about parallel realities or alternate realities … or whatever you want to call them. Where do you think this is heading? How do you explain the differences in the plane scenes? Is it really Sayid?

Feel free to comment on here, and I’ll see everybody next week.

Lost: Beginning of the end

I’m writing this about 24 hours before the final season premiere of the one TV show that’s been “required viewing” for me in the past 15-20 years.
The final season of “Lost” will be a bittersweet one for me. I’ve totally immersed myself into the mythology of this show … from the time traveling to the ghosts … the literary ties to the Biblical hidden meanings. It’s a show that requires your full attention, requires either a second viewing or in the very least, a look at the message boards to see what you may have missed, and requires your week-to-week dedication to fully appreciate this incredibly complex story arc.
Remember the Season 3 finale? Remember the whallop your brain took when you realized it was all a “flash forward” … that this show had been showing us clips of what was going to happen (thus telling us slyly that our “heroes” had left the island)? What other show can deliver those jaw-dropping, hair-raising moments?
Many will expect (demand) Season 6 of “Lost” to deliver these moments on a weekly basis, since there’s just 17 weeks left and so many unanswered questions. I’m just going to sit back and enjoy the ride (spoiler-free) with no expectations of what they “should” do and how the series will end (I quit guessing their purpose on the island back in Season 2).

So where are we heading in to the final season?
Half of the “Losties” were stuck in 1977, where Jack, Kate, Sayid, Hurley and Miles had to convince Sawyer and Juliet that they needed to blow up the Swan Station, the same station that caused their flight to crash in the first place 30 years later (they were back in 1977 after … uhm … wow, it would take a long time to explain that one … so I won’t). The season ended with Juliet stuck in the station with the bomb … and after a few slams with a rock, she succeeded, and the show faded to white.
Why was Jack so determined to “change history”? His life had been turned upside down since the crash (he’d gone from hero to a wreck), and that change was caused in large part by all the death he witnessed (Boone, Charlie, Eko, Claire *supposedly* to name a few). By blowing up the reason for the crash 30 years prior, the plane would land safely in the 2000s, and life would go on as normal.
The rest of the gang in 2007 just learned that the John Locke they’d been following wasn’t John Locke (that man was still dead and in a coffin, it was revealed). The “doppelganger” was instead the Man in Black we met in the Season 5 finale who told Jacob (the island’s “keeper”) he would find a loophole to kill him (this was back in the 1800s before the mysterious Black Rock crashed on the island). Locke succeeded in killing Jacob (through Ben Linus), and Jacob’s last words were “they’re coming.”
Not sure who “they” are or why it’s important, but it’s a hell of a way to leave us hanging for Season 6.
The show’s summer and fall teases showed commercials for Oceanic Air touting the airline’s perfect record (which they’d have if the plane never crashed), and fake commercials for Hurley’s successful chicken franchise (he introduces the Down Under Chicken plate after his inspiring trip to Australia). Another clip was an “America’s Most Wanted” of Kate, who was en route to prison and in handcuffs when the plane crashed in Season 1.
These all suggest the bomb worked, and I’m assuming we’ll enter the final season with a scenario that they landed in Los Angeles instead of crashing in the Pacific. (The title of this week’s premiere is “LA X” … LAX is the airport is L.A.).
Then again, my predictions are rarely right, and like I said earlier, I’m just going to enjoy the ride.
Come back to this site weekly for my “review” and/or “round-up” of each week’s episode. And for this final season, I encourage your thoughts in my comments area.

Have fun, nerd out and enjoy it.

Sunday column: If you can’t play nice …

The Internet’s been quieter the past few weeks in Sanford, and that silence is both welcome and unfortunate.
Two weeks ago Monday, we suspended the “comments” feature at sanfordherald.com because of the onslaught of the personal attacks and outright idiocracy (I’ll get to more on that later) that ensued in the weeks and months after we redesigned and upgraded our Web site. The suspension is expected to last until Feb. 1 tentatively, because by then we hope to have a system in place that will require valid e-mail addresses and require logins before a comment is posted.
Of course, that won’t be the cure-all to “comment abuse,” but it’s a start. The last thing we want to do, however, is get rid of them all together.
It’s a Catch 22 if there ever was one. On one hand, we want readers to flood our Web site with visits, clicks and comments to both attract advertisers and generate interest in our product. Without a Web site that not only allows reader thoughts but encourages it, we’re not inviting the “younger” crowd to get involved in what we do.
On the other hand, we’re creating an online forum that’s for the most part unsupervised (we don’t have the staff numbers to perch atop the online throne and monitor every word we get) and unflattering to our community.
Cases in point:
Headline: Hospital delivers decades first baby.
Comment: Racist jab about welfare (the family was black)
Headline: Local woman on NBC’s “Biggest Loser”
Comment: *Insert plethora of “fat jokes”*
Stories on local arrests usually attracted comments about the suspect and their families. Political stories were perhaps the worst, as the comments would get as “no holds barred” as ever.
The things people were writing were things we would be sued a million times over for had we printed them in our newspaper. And because our Web providers comment system allowed for anonymous comments (as many other newspaper and blog sites do), the people pulling the punches were doing so without fear of retribution.
Our decision has been met with mixed reaction, though the majority of those who’ve e-mailed me about it have been in support of it. One reader, who comments often as “Thinking Man” on our site, wrote, ” I really enjoy The Sanford Herald, but the comments have gotten out of hand from time to time.”
Another e-mail simply read “thank you!”
The actual story where we announced the decision received 23 “thumbs up” online … the equivalent to a story recommendation. Of all the stories we’ve written since October, it’s received the most thumbs.
But there are people who argue that we’re stomping on free speech and taking away our God-given right to make a fool of ourselves in any forum.
A reader from Virginia (I picked him because his letter was the most critical) wrote, “The decision to not allow comments on your newspaper stories demonstrates cowardice most often associated with those who hide behind the First Amendment but seldom choose to defend it when opportunity presents itself.”
He added, “I can safely say this position is one you would choose to run from rather than defend. Sad indeed.”
I enjoy the First Amendment argument because it goes both ways.
Mr. Virginia, it’s our right to monitor OUR Web site any way we choose. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say newspapers or television stations owe the public any “right” to express their opinions via their medium. Newspapers are privately owned, and if we wanted 24 pages each day of my nonsensical ramblings, we have the right to do that.
Nobody would buy it, but it’d be our right.
The reason we encourage letters to the editor and online comments is because we know that in order to be successful and respected in our community, we need to allow public input and debate.
We still allow “letters to the editor,” and we always will because we can filter the usable from the lawsuit-worthy.
Unfortunately, we’re still learning this online thingy … and until we have a system that works, this is our decision.
And finally, let me add that I believe only 1 to 3 percent of those of you who comment on our Web site have caused the problem. But as you know, it only takes a few to mess up a good thing.
We hope our decision weeds those people out … or at least puts a name and a face to them.

Newsy

No matter how good you think your newspaper is, you’re going to get complaints. It’s just part of the package.
Now, I wasn’t in the office when a man came by to lodge a complaint yesterday, but it was relayed to me that we don’t print enough local news, our newspaper “only has five pages” and we don’t cover fishing enough.
I have no answer for the latter two statements, but I will argue the “local news” claim. For a staff with currently two full-time writers, two editors, a photographer and two in the sports department, we do a more-than-respectable job in making The Sanford Herald a local paper.
I’m not writing this to pat myself on the back, but to thank my newsroom for today’s edition — good mix of news and enterprise, solid photos … and 60-70 percent of our A-section (10 pages) was local this week. Above is today’s front page.
I take all complaints seriously, but I do feel at times I have a good case to make.
I’d love to know what you think.

Big photo day

Working for a small daily means more responsibilities, even for the editor. With our photographer out Monday, I took the camera to the MLK event at the Civic Center, and not 15 minutes after I got back to put the photos in, a car hit a house’s gas line and erupted into flames just blocks from the paper.
Here’s my day in photos:

Car hits house and MLK event

I’m with Coco

Learning to shoot skeet in a closed television studio was funny enough. Missing the skeet and shooting his sidekick in the chest made it hilarious.

It was moments like that which made Conan O’Brien a late-night television king in my eyes. He debuted in his “Late Night” 12:30 a.m. slot when I was in high school, and throughout my late teens and college years, Conan was must-see TV for me … even when I had 8 a.m. exams that following morning.

And it’s because of my generation — I believe we’re still known as Generation X — that after about 15 years of midnight bufoonery, Conan was given the coveted “Tonight Show” chair and desk when it was announced last year that Jay Leno would be stepping down (whether forcibly or on his own accord is still up for debate).

Leno — whose safer brand of humor apparently appeals more to the 40-and-over crowd — later moved to 10 p.m. in a move Time Magazine called “the future of television.” Budget-strapped NBC was replacing its primetime dramas, which can cost a network up to $1 million an episode to produce, with Leno’s one-hour show, which cost a fraction of the price.

It turns out, America loves its dramas, and Leno is so low in the ratings, the affiliates are complaining. Now NBC is mulling moving Leno back to “Tonight,” and the rumor mill is buzzing about FOX eyeing Conan if he’s bumped.

And we thought the Leno-Letterman war in the 90s was riveting.

Late-night television today isn’t the same late-night television my parents and my parents’ parents knew growing up. Thanks to cable, Letterman, Conan and Leno will never see the ratings Carson got, but despite all the options we now have on the tube, these shows will always be important in our culture.

We like to laugh, and what better way to follow up the evening news (filled with stories of murder, fires, unemployment and scandal) than with a show making fun of all of those things?

And of all the options currently out there (toss in Jimmy Kimmel on ABC), I prefer Conan. I’ll end up following him wherever he goes, and I’m just a bit sad his shot at “Tonight” was so short-lived.

The full episode

Live at Nine: Episode I from Billy Liggett on Vimeo.

Our TV show

Click picture to see the intro video:

Thursday night, Jonathan Owens, Gordon Anderson and I (you may know us as “The Rant” Wednesday mornings from 8 to 9:30 a.m.), made the leap from radio to television by hosting “Live @ 9″ on WBFT TV in Sanford.
“Live @ 9,” as many in Lee County know, is a twice-a-week show hosted by Woody Seymour and Wayne Staton (as well as others), and the station’s general manager told us a few months back that it had an empty host slot the first Thursday of each month. So we agreed to give it a shot.
And we had a blast.
By no means were we seasoned veterans, and despite it being “just” cable access, we were all nervous. It’s one thing to be on the radio (which can be jittery enough), but to be on live TV where people can SEE that you’re nervous … I was a bit queasy before it began.
The few differences from other “Live @ 9″ shows you might have noticed included:
• A live studio audience: we had four friends who did a great job
• Video clips: a parody intro, “highlights” of the National Championship game, a montage of video clips we’ve produced in the past two years and even a clip from the Treasure Hunters antique show that we didn’t have time for
• Headlines: Discussion on recent stories in The Herald
We did keep a guest segment, and we thank Peggy Taphorn from Temple Theatre for being a great first guest. Now that Episode I is in the books, we hope to do more skits and have more audience members in the future.
Above is the intro to this week’s show. I’ll post the full show as soon as I get my hands on a DVD.

See you in February.

Sunday column: My decision to stop

It was too cold to get out of the car, and I was supposed to be at work about 10 minutes earlier, so when I first saw the big yellow dog standing alone along Third Street in Sanford — his ribs showing through his coat and his back left leg so twisted, he not only couldn’t stand on it, he didn’t even try — I just kept going.
Stopping and getting out would have required at least an hour of my day, trying to get this big dog in my car and getting a hold of the vet to have that leg checked out. It was an hour I simply didn’t have, and like I said, it was 30 degrees.
Thirty degrees. Dog walking with broken leg, looking hungry.
Shoot, I thought … my words a little more PG-13 that that. Ten seconds later, I turned around and went back toward the dog, who was standing in the same place when I got back to him.
But instead of being greeted by a dog looking for help, he took off the moment I got within 30 feet of him. I got back into the car. For four blocks, I watched a hobbled dog run away, eventually turning down a residential road and running up to somebody’s front porch. I got out of the car and approached the porch, and although the house had a car in the parking lot, nobody appeared to be home.
I walked up to that porch and saw the dog up close. He wasn’t wearing a collar, he had scratches on his face, and that back leg was not only broken, it was mangled. It was scarred, and the foot — which twisted toward me at an almost 90 degree angle — was black … a sharp contrast to his dirty yellow coat.
The dog growled and barked at me, keeping me at bay by about 10 feet, and his teeth would show if I got any closer. So I got out the cell phone, called my wife (I needed food to lure him) and called the vet to say I’d be making an unexpected visit.
Then I waited.
The dog barked consistently for the next 10 minutes, causing neighbors to start peeking out their windows … I’m sure many of them wondering what this stranger was doing on their street. Finally, just as my wife was pulling up with food to lure the dog, a neighbor stuck her head out the door and yelled to me …
“Are you waiting for someone?”
“No. Does this dog live here?”
“Yes.”
I was slightly taken aback.
“Does the owner know his leg is broken?”
“Yes, it’s been like that for years.”
And with that, they stuck their head back in, and I stood there, dumbfounded.
So the dog did live here. Untagged. Hungry. No signs of a dog house. No signs of anything for a dog on this porch. Sure, the dog could have had a penthouse behind the house, and I’d never have known, but looking at his condition, I was willing to bet that wasn’t the case.
Suddenly, I realized I was trespassing on someone’s property and trying to steal their dog.
Defeated, I dumped the dog food I was going to use to get the dog into my car next to the front porch steps and began to walk away. I looked back as I was approaching the car and saw the once vicious dog tip toe (on three legs) to the food I’d left and started eating quickly.
This probably won’t be the last I’ve seen of this dog. I can’t give up that easily. I’ve used this column space several times in the past two write about my dogs and the rules (or lack of rules) in our county there to help man’s best friend.
Yes, I’m a softy when it comes to animals, and I know many of my readers aren’t (and some are worse than me). Some don’t see anything wrong with dogs tied up to six-foot chains for years, and others think it’s no big deal their dogs are staying outdoors this week when temperatures aren’t expected to rise above 40 and are expected to go as low as 15 degrees.
I can’t save them all. In fact, I can’t save a fraction of them. But maybe I can do something about this one.
I’m not out to get anybody or to get the owner in trouble. Odds are, they aren’t going to miss a big, skinny, three-legged dog who roams neighborhoods and dodges traffic on the weekends. And if they do miss it, well …
It’s Sunday now, and because it’s the weekend, there’s not much I can do about the situation. But I can assure you the dog will be on my mind today, and it’s very likely I’ll be taking another drive today, bowl of dog food in hand.
Anybody who wants to help me out, let me know. You have my e-mail.