SaveAngel, kudos for your efforts, but we don't really allow self-linking here. In other words, we don't want people to link to their own sites, or to stuff that's about their own sites, ok? Just wait until someone else spots and posts it. We'd appreciate it if the many new members that have joined us over the last few days would take a look at the Whedonesque rules before posting? Thanks.

Caroline | February 20, 14:11 CET

Did read. I had nothing to do with the article, nor was I quoted in it. As per the rules:

"No self links. Generally, it is considered bad etiquette to link to your own site, or one you are associated with, or something you've written yourself. This is not a place to advertise your homepage."

I see nothing violated there; and considering the importance of the campaign, I think waiting until someone else discovers it is pointless time-wasting.

We're all in this together-- if we want to see Angel continue for another season, we can't sit on our hands and wait until someone else does something.

Whedonage | February 20, 14:24 CET

Great article and some good info to add to the arsnel when directing the campaign at UPN.

"Earlier this month, WB's "weekly ratings" release sent out to television critics boasted that Angel had gotten "outstanding year-to-year gains" in all of the key demographic groups."

and Levin contrdicts himself yet again ....

He went on to say that the show had a loyal core following, but it didn't have much potential to draw new audience members.

So then exactlly what is an 11% increase from last season in viewership if it has no potential.

:P

RavenU | February 20, 14:36 CET

Maybe Joss could change Angel again so this time he becomes the head of a talent agency that specialises in representing ex-TV actress's who have become soft-porn stars. Then they could combine the casts of Charmed and Angel into one show. That would make some great Sunday night family viewing.

vpecoraro | February 20, 16:34 CET

I was actually reading this when it was posted here. Don't sweat it SaveAngel, we're staying on top of it.
I LOVE the line about 'Charmed'! We've all said the same thing here at some point.
And the actual address for Jordan Levin is fantastic. If you'll excuse me, I have some writing to do.

meredith | February 20, 17:21 CET

That was good. It's nice to see someone writing something original about it.

And I hadn't noticed this line before for some reason: Jordan Levin said, "This isn't about the WB bailing out on one of its top shows." Yeah, right!

Did it say that JM posted somewhere? I missed that.

marmoset | February 20, 18:40 CET

Regarding the last comment in the article about contacting local WB affiliates. I did and got an email back saying that they recommend I contact faces@thewb.com because they couldn't do anything (but then I've heard that people who've asked for a receipt for their emails get them back saying they were deleted without being read). Is mine the only local affilitate that has "passed the buck" or is that what they're all doing?

spikeangellover | February 20, 19:11 CET

Sometimes I wonder if fantasy/sci television has a future on network television and if the popularity of these shows can be measured by something like the current television ratings systems. I have watched shows like Buffy, Angel, and Farscape over the years and really haven't watched too much else and would never both doing something like the Neilsens because there is little I could offer them by showing I watch a total of 3 or 4 shows in a week. Perhaps the key to getting more quality programs like Angel and have them prosper instead of struggle for survival would be the get a more accurate and representative way of measuring how many people are watching.

genemcl | February 20, 19:31 CET

"I see nothing violated there; and considering the importance of the campaign, I think waiting until someone else discovers it is pointless time-wasting."

You know what? You worry about saveangel.org and the importance of your campaign, and let us decide what is 'pointless time-wasting' on our site. What you 'think' about how we choose to run this place is irrelevant.

In another thread you coming back to post updates about your campaign. Please understand that's not how it works around here. Trust us, someone else will pick up on it and post it if it's interesting.

Any further discussion of this issue via e-mail please.

Caroline | February 20, 19:32 CET

I did enjoy the article and I do think someone else would've posted it too. The reason I liked this article is because it seemed like the writer really believes what he's saying and it isn't just the same article sent to all the newspapers. I totally enjoyed the "Charmed" comment too because it is insulting that "Charmed" would be kept over Angel considering that "Charmed" was an obvious attempt to capture the "charm" of Buffy and doesn't come anywhere close to it. I enjoyed watching it in earlier seasons as a fluffy entertainment show but the last couple of seasons have all been about what Phoebe has on (or the lack of what she has on).

Firefly Flanatic | February 20, 20:56 CET

"Did it say that JM posted somewhere? I missed that."

As far as I know he did not. I wonder if the article writer's information is based on this from buffy.nu, which erroneously (sp?) states that its information comes from 'James Marsters Official Forum' (there's no such thing, and the actual content of the article comes from a fan).

forcorreo | February 20, 21:24 CET

Actually, I am the fan quoted in this article, and came to post up a link in case no one had seen it yet (wonder of wonders, North Carolina isn't as obscure as I thought). Regardless, thanks for throwing the link up because I swore up and down it would get out there ASAP.

Mr. Clodfelter was super-nice and didn't make me feel a bit like the (well-mannered at least) geek I must have come across as. He did a wonderful Alexis Denisof interview a year or so ago (with an update sitting in the can as of this moment that's being held onto due to the recent change in the show's status). He also mentioned his love of 'Firefly' in another column last fall, which tipped me off then that his was a more broadband appreciation of Joss's work.

I'm grateful he actually conveyed some authentic affection for the show and fan's efforts; as I mentioned on ASSB a few days ago, he told me 'Angel' has "many friends" among TV critics all over the country.

Wiseblood | February 20, 23:23 CET

That was you? Good work Wiseblood.

marmoset | February 21, 01:01 CET

Prolific: I certainly did not intend to step on anyone's toes! I just feel strongly that we need to be enthusiastic, active and together in this battle. I certainly hope you didn't take it that I was being self-promotional. I used the term "Save Angel movement" to refer to all the sites and people organizing to keep this wonderful show going, from RenewAngel, to SaveAngelRally, to the new SavingAngel folks... and all the rest. By "campaign" (lowercase) I was using it as a general term, in like reference to all these incredible fans-- it's not my campaign.. it's our campaign! We're in this together, to see Angel have another year of broadcast. Let me know if there's something I've done to offend you -- and you can say it openly; I'm a big boy. I can take it :)

Whedonage | February 21, 02:00 CET

SaveAngel, I asked you to take this discussion to e-mail if you wished to continue it. You ignored my request, so I assume you have no intention of taking us or our site seriously. I have no further interest in communicating with you regarding this matter. Your posting rights have been revoked.

Caroline | February 21, 02:22 CET

What's the hubbub about? Thanks for the link...Clearly no conflict of interest.

Simpleba | February 21, 06:04 CET

um, try reading his profile.

nightingale | February 22, 02:06 CET