OurAssociation is an herediatary lineageAssociation for those women16 or above who are direct descendants of persons who were accused or convicted of being witches before 1700. For more information, see our new website at http://www.adeaw.us/ I hope to hear from some of you! Marlene Wilkinson

SARA CLAYES..... **can you tell the list about her....? ** do you have a picture of her house you can share ? [to those who request it not on the mailing list] ** urls may help finding an organization to preserve the house....if these folks dont fund then ask for list of places that do.: http://www.state.ma.us/sec/mhc/mhchpp/hppidx.htm http://www.nemanet.org/abouthome.html http://www.timelinesinc.com http://www.spnea.org/ [my hubby's ancestor Jackson house in Portsmouth,NH is preserved by SPNEA] -- Cynthia Admin.Ma-Bay-Colony-L@rootsweb.com http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/MA-BAY-COLONY **ALWAYS VERIFY your source(s) REGARDLESS OF WHERE IT'S FROM** <<<<<<<<<<<<<< Speaking if imperilled property - I received a call from the new owners of the Sara Clayes house in Salem End, Framingham. They are having a difficult time finding a way to restore this beautiful old house (it will cost a lot more than they anticipated). I thought of contacting This Old House, but even with them you have to pay the construction costs. The "Historic Treasures of America" funds public property only, apparently. Does anyone know of any funding sources or other ideas that will help save this house? Thanks in advance.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----

In a message dated 3/4/2003 9:14:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, dredden@brockmcvey.com writes: > For instance, Salem Village is supposed to be the "poor sister" > of Salem Town, yet almost everyone lives in a large two storey well kept > home. I bet even Sarah Good's home would look like a virtual palace if they > were to show it. I don't believe that this would be the case. > I have been to the site of the Parris home in Danvers, of course the actual building is not still standing, but the size of the "cellar" certainly indicates a smaller dwelling than is shown in the movie. Bonnie

Hmmm, I wonder if that would constitute Defamation of Character??? I personally wouldn't hold much stock in these people as "authorities" if I saw their names attached to films like this CBS movie!! It certainly implies that THIS is what the "authorities" who were consulted, believe!! Joan In a message dated 3/4/2003 4:25:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, margo@ogram.org writes: > Seems to me I recall either Paul Boyer or Stephen Nissenbaum was the > "consultant" on Three Sovereigns for Sarah, and that he was consulted > BEFORE, but had no editorial input after the fact, and may not have > been entirely happy with the end product. That is probably what went on > with this miniseries and Frances Hill. (Just because you hire a > consultant doesn't mean you do what they suggest!) It seems like they > wanted to use her name for a sheen of authority -- but if I were in > that position, I would want to demand a preview before my name went on > *anything* presented to the public!

Dear Helen, Bravo !! You said it all... Deborah Ray Piper Spencer Co., IN allpiper@swindiana.net ----- Original Message ----- From: "Helen Graves" <hgraves@psln.com> To: <SALEM-WITCH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 4:31 PM Subject: [SALEM-WITCH-L] Salem Trials - CBS Movie > My husband and I watched the first half of the movie. He is not into my genealogy, even though he has heard about the Salem Trials a jillion times from me. He is familiar only with a Salem, MA. He didn't know there was a Salem VILLAGE and a Salem TOWN, so he was confused from the get go and didn't understand the social problems of poor town vs. wealthy merchant town, nor the disagreements among Salem Village townsmen over the hiring of the Rev. Parrish, giving him land on which to live, and the squabbling over wood not being delivered to the minister. I imagine most movie watchers didn't understand that. > > My husband probably represents the typical movie audience. > > He was also confused with who some of the people were, how they were related, and had to keep asking me questions -- "what in the heck are they talking about now?" and ... "who is that?" "Which one is Rebecca Nurse". > > I agree with another post, the audio was not good. It seemed to me the voices rose and fell and it was hard to hear the dialogue at times. Even though I know the characters and their relationships, I had a hard time picking up who was who in the beginning. > > Does anyone else think the story line was disjointed, making it confusing and hard to follow? > > For example, I had to explain to my husband the relationship and bad blood between Thomas Putnam and Joseph Putnam and why Thomas Putnam opposed Joseph's marriage to Israel Porter's daughter. And then I tried to explain why this might have been included in the first half of the movie. So far neither of us can tell where that segment of the story is going. > > He is also wondering why so much of the first half of the movie is about Ann Putnam, Sr. -- "wasn't it a lot of young girls who made the accusations?" So I have had to explain to him that Ann Putnam, Jr., was one of the accusing young girls, and that the producer is focusing on her and what was going on in her family at that time which was effecting (affecting?) her which would lead to her becoming an accuser... that is, IF the producers continue to along the line that it was a dysfunctional community of Salem Village, which included the Putnams, which created the atmosphere and some reasons for the accusation of witchcraft (punish, settle old scores, etc.) > > >From conversations with me long ago, my husband did remember Tituba, the slave from Barbados who worked for the minister. His first remark, "I didn't think she was young and beautiful. Wasn't she married to an Indian?" I had to explain that I also thought she was a much older woman and that she was married to another slave called John Indian, but he was not a Native American. > > I had to explain to him that the scene with Tituba in the tub with the Rev Parrish leering at her, and the later scene with the Rev. Parrish beating himself on the back for lusting, was pure Hollywood. I have never read in any book a hint that the minister lusted for anybody, let alone Tituba. > > I will be watching the second half of the movie tonight to see in what direction it takes. I think I spent the whole first half trying to watch and hear, and then answer my husband's questions during commercials. > > If most of the people who watched the first half were as confused as my husband, the audience may drop in numbers for the second half. If many were disappointed because so far it has not been a thriller or horror show (no spinning heads, no bats, no witches flying in the air), they won't be back either. > > (Sigh.) I think those of us on this list who have read the books, studied the many theories, and read the existing trial transcripts... we are disappointed in this CBS movie in that we were hoping for an historical documentary... and this is not it. > > But, it does have some merit in that the first half seemed to try to explain what had happened between families in the past, the turmoil of what was going on in the community, Puritanism and its doctrines and how it probably scared the bee-jabbers out of the young girls, and the community dissention over the hiring of the Rev. Samuel Parrish and what kind of person he was -- which were factors which led to the witchcraft accusations. > > I wonder if Cotton Mather will be introduced tonight... will he be a sinister, evil-looking man wearing a black hat and cloak, riding a black stallion snorting fire from his nostrils? I wonder how Sheriff Corwin and the judges will be portrayed. > > > -- Helen Greenslit Graves > I descend from Ann (Greenslit) Pudeator who was hung on Sept. 22, 1692. > > > > >

I don't mean to knit-pick on the CBS movie and just point out flaws for the time period, but I do agree that the houses (exterior and interior) looked pretty darn large and upscale for the time, place, and financial status of their owners. Two scenes really struck me as being "wrong". 1. The girls stirred an egg yolk and screamed out they saw a coffin or a dead man. Huh? I recall reading that the girls stirred egg whites to see who they might marry -- which was a common practice for young girls to do at that time. Sort of witchy, but more like voodoo practice that Tituba could have brought from Barbados. Is my memory faulty? Did they stir yolks into whites, or did they just stir the whites? And weren't they looking for clues as to the men they might marry, and they didn't see dead men or coffins? 2. Did I see Kirste Alley throw on a handsome, long flowing red cloak? Red? I don't think Puritan women wore lavish red cloaks ... or anything the color red. I recall reading in Essex County Court Records that a woman was whipped for wearing a bright colored scarf. In another scene, Kirste wore a flowing dark black cloak with some sort of color running through it. I don't think that Ann Putnam, Sr., would own two lavish cloaks at the same time. According to wills and inventories of the time, people just did not have a lot of clothing. (Tonight I am going to see what else Kirste wears -- same cloaks, or a third one?) What do the rest of you think? Picky, picky, Helen Greenslit Graves (I wonder if my Ann Pudeator is going to get a mention tonight. Wonder what she will look like... )

On Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 03:58 PM, Joan <Jma8763@aol.com> wrote: > As for the movie, I HAVE to wonder if Frances Hill was shown the > final work > BEFORE she agreed to have her name added as "Factual Consultant"???!!! Seems to me I recall either Paul Boyer or Stephen Nissenbaum was the "consultant" on Three Sovereigns for Sarah, and that he was consulted BEFORE, but had no editorial input after the fact, and may not have been entirely happy with the end product. That is probably what went on with this miniseries and Frances Hill. (Just because you hire a consultant doesn't mean you do what they suggest!) It seems like they wanted to use her name for a sheen of authority -- but if I were in that position, I would want to demand a preview before my name went on *anything* presented to the public!

Hi all, I did get a reply on the timing of Ann Sr.'s still birth, as follows: >>She had had children born that didn't survive and so did her sister; in fact, she was pregnant and did give birth to another living child in the later part of 1692.<< On the question of Sarah Towne Cloyce: she was the wife of Peter Cloyce, and the sister of both Rebecca Towne Nurse and Mary Town Easty. ALL THREE sisters were accused of witchcraft in the 1692 hysteria, but Sarah was the only one who was NOT put to death. Sarah was in prison at the time the hangings were brought to a halt, and was eventually released with all the others who had been imprisoned. Sarah Cloyce is the "star" character in the PBS docudrama, "Three Sovereigns for Sarah," in which Sarah pleads to the magistrates to clear the names of her deceased sisters, WHICH by the way, was a pretty good movie! I descend from the Towne sisters' brother, Edmund Towne, as well as Sarah Averill Wilde's brother, William. As for the movie, I HAVE to wonder if Frances Hill was shown the final work BEFORE she agreed to have her name added as "Factual Consultant"???!!! Cheers, Joan

My husband and I watched the first half of the movie. He is not into my genealogy, even though he has heard about the Salem Trials a jillion times from me. He is familiar only with a Salem, MA. He didn't know there was a Salem VILLAGE and a Salem TOWN, so he was confused from the get go and didn't understand the social problems of poor town vs. wealthy merchant town, nor the disagreements among Salem Village townsmen over the hiring of the Rev. Parrish, giving him land on which to live, and the squabbling over wood not being delivered to the minister. I imagine most movie watchers didn't understand that. My husband probably represents the typical movie audience. He was also confused with who some of the people were, how they were related, and had to keep asking me questions -- "what in the heck are they talking about now?" and ... "who is that?" "Which one is Rebecca Nurse". I agree with another post, the audio was not good. It seemed to me the voices rose and fell and it was hard to hear the dialogue at times. Even though I know the characters and their relationships, I had a hard time picking up who was who in the beginning. Does anyone else think the story line was disjointed, making it confusing and hard to follow? For example, I had to explain to my husband the relationship and bad blood between Thomas Putnam and Joseph Putnam and why Thomas Putnam opposed Joseph's marriage to Israel Porter's daughter. And then I tried to explain why this might have been included in the first half of the movie. So far neither of us can tell where that segment of the story is going. He is also wondering why so much of the first half of the movie is about Ann Putnam, Sr. -- "wasn't it a lot of young girls who made the accusations?" So I have had to explain to him that Ann Putnam, Jr., was one of the accusing young girls, and that the producer is focusing on her and what was going on in her family at that time which was effecting (affecting?) her which would lead to her becoming an accuser... that is, IF the producers continue to along the line that it was a dysfunctional community of Salem Village, which included the Putnams, which created the atmosphere and some reasons for the accusation of witchcraft (punish, settle old scores, etc.) >From conversations with me long ago, my husband did remember Tituba, the slave from Barbados who worked for the minister. His first remark, "I didn't think she was young and beautiful. Wasn't she married to an Indian?" I had to explain that I also thought she was a much older woman and that she was married to another slave called John Indian, but he was not a Native American. I had to explain to him that the scene with Tituba in the tub with the Rev Parrish leering at her, and the later scene with the Rev. Parrish beating himself on the back for lusting, was pure Hollywood. I have never read in any book a hint that the minister lusted for anybody, let alone Tituba. I will be watching the second half of the movie tonight to see in what direction it takes. I think I spent the whole first half trying to watch and hear, and then answer my husband's questions during commercials. If most of the people who watched the first half were as confused as my husband, the audience may drop in numbers for the second half. If many were disappointed because so far it has not been a thriller or horror show (no spinning heads, no bats, no witches flying in the air), they won't be back either. (Sigh.) I think those of us on this list who have read the books, studied the many theories, and read the existing trial transcripts... we are disappointed in this CBS movie in that we were hoping for an historical documentary... and this is not it. But, it does have some merit in that the first half seemed to try to explain what had happened between families in the past, the turmoil of what was going on in the community, Puritanism and its doctrines and how it probably scared the bee-jabbers out of the young girls, and the community dissention over the hiring of the Rev. Samuel Parrish and what kind of person he was -- which were factors which led to the witchcraft accusations. I wonder if Cotton Mather will be introduced tonight... will he be a sinister, evil-looking man wearing a black hat and cloak, riding a black stallion snorting fire from his nostrils? I wonder how Sheriff Corwin and the judges will be portrayed. -- Helen Greenslit Graves I descend from Ann (Greenslit) Pudeator who was hung on Sept. 22, 1692.

With respect to the CBS movie, my expectations were actually quite low, and I was rather pleasantly surprised. 1) I do not know if Ann had a still birth immediately before the accusations started; 2) I have some ancestors who were connected with the Quaker Church in Essex County, MA about this time and there are court records to suggest that at least one of them was tied to the back of a cart and dragged naked through the streets for attending a Quaker meeting; 3) This event in our history was complicated. I have never been satisfied with any of the single theory approaches to explain it, so I did like the fact that they worked in the lack of a charter; the conflict part of the community had with Rev. Paris; the conflict between Salem town/mercantilism and the village/agrarianism; the fear of Indian massacre. I think that it most closely adopted the "Social Origins..." theory and is, therefore, more satisfying than a single theory approach, but it is not a new theory. 4) I think the production has done a pretty decent job of dramatizing the moral anguish that Puritan preaching could produce in fragile individuals like Ann Putnam Sr. & Jr. and Betty Paris, and drive them over the edge. I actually understood for the first time that perhaps they were unable to cope with personal responsibility for sin and believed themselves to be possessed. For a show written and produced for TV, I think it has been okay with the exception of the "preview scenes" and I do agree with Joan's objections to the way in which the first three accused were portrayed in the preview of the meetinghouse scene....but the "evil" dramatization was missing from the actual scene. Does anyone know the name and author (or care to comment upon) the recent book which focuses on the religious leaders, including Cotton Mather? Cathy Brinkman

Perhaps it is time for everyone (EVERYONE) to write the station and complain. Let's face it all these people cre about ratings. When something comes on that I object to I personally boycot the sponsors and write and tell them why! Pamela ----- Original Message ----- From: <Jma8763@aol.com> To: <SALEM-WITCH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 7:31 PM Subject: [SALEM-WITCH-L] CBS Movie > Hi all, > > I JUST had my first chance to check my mail today, and was REALLY surprised > to find NO comments about the first half of the CBS movie from last night! > SO, let me be the one to get things started!! > > First, I have some questions for anyone who might know! > > 1) Is there any evidence to suggest that Ann Putnam Sr had a still birth in > conjunction with the accusations of 1692? I know that she lost several > children, I was just curious about whether the timing depicted in the movie > was accurate, or just used for dramatic affect. > > 2) I know that public humiliation was in fact a popular form of punishment, > but is there any evidence to suggest that people were really paraded, > shackled and naked, from town to town, or again, did the producers/writers > decide that dumpy, naked female bottoms would increase ratings? > > > As for MY opinion of the movie so far...NOT TOO MUCH!!! I was disgusted by > the opening scene, which appears as though there was good reason to believe > that Sarah Good, Sarah Osborne and Tituba were in fact witches, or at the > VERY least, evil individuals! > I was also unpleasantly surprised by the "characters" who have so far > emerged as the "stars" of the movie. The entire first half focuses on the > families of Thomas Putnam and Samuel Parris, and portrays them in a VERY > sympathetic light, while only barely "introducing" A FEW of the people who > were eventually tried and/or murdered, and does NOTHING toward shedding a > sympathetic light on any of them except Tituba!! > I guess I'm just a bit confused as to how someone can write a four hour > movie which hails itself as "THE TRUTH" about the events of 1692 Salem, and > in the entire first half fail to even mention MOST of the 19 who died, let > alone the hundreds who were accused and lived to see another day! > > I DID actually TRY to go into this movie with no bias, but unless I'm > completely fooling myself, this doesn't even make a good work of fiction!! > It feels like the writer has tried to roll every imaginable theory into one, > while not actually having a theory of his or her own! Well, I guess that's > not entirely true, since I don't recall hearing anything about moldy rye > bread yet!! > > Okay, and one last complaint....SO FAR....did anyone else have a problem > with the volume, or is my one year old SONY dying on me??? I had the volume > CRANKED through half the movie, and STILL had a hard time hearing them, and > then all of the sudden, something REALLY LOUD would happen that scared me > half to death before I could get the volume turned back down!! Was this just > my TV, or was this their way of making a tragedy into a thriller??? > > ANY other thoughts??? > Joan > >

-----Original Message----- From: Cathy Brinkman <brink@choice.net> To: SALEM-WITCH-L@rootsweb.com <SALEM-WITCH-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 9:53 AM Subject: RE: [SALEM-WITCH-L] CBS Movie >With respect to the CBS movie, my expectations were actually quite low, and >I was rather pleasantly surprised. >1) I do not know if Ann had a still birth immediately before the >accusations started; I have nothing in my geneaology records to indicate that, though I haven't checked the other children's birthdates to see if it is even conceivable. (Pun intended.) >2) I have some ancestors who were connected with the Quaker Church in Essex >County, MA about this time and there are court records to suggest that at >least one of them was tied to the back of a cart and dragged naked through >the streets for attending a Quaker meeting; Being a Quaker to this day, I'm familiar with the stories of early evangelism on the part of some. Boston puritans were not particularly tolerant of such behavior, and subsequently the treatment you mention was indeed applied more than once to the unwelcome "Quakers, Anabaptists, and Papists". I am ashamed to admit that I can not recall the name of "the first Quaker martyr", but she was hung in Boston after thrice ignoring warnings, being stripped to the waist and tied to an oxcart for a trip through the streets, and finally banishment upon pain of death. The Boston authorities were quite clear about their intent. Ah, my synapses fire at last... I believe her name was Mary Dyer. It's an interesting moment in history when the emergence of religions new and newer, divides of culture and geography, and the nascent ideas of the freedoms of conscience and the individual all collide with such stark consequences.

Hi Lisa and all, You ARE indeed a brave soul, if you plan on taking in ALL FOUR HOURS in ONE sitting!!!! Personally, I'll have a tape running on the second half, so that even THAT can be taken in SMALL DOSES!!! GOOD LUCK! Joan In a message dated 3/4/2003 9:55:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, LMS6@georgetown.edu writes: > Ugh. I haven't watched yet -- I had a tape running, and will watch both > pieces at once later -- but I did see the first ten minutes, and the > green-skin and flying-bats business made me cringe. I'll sit through the > whole thing eventually, but it sounds like it's going to be a disheartening > experience... >

Hi Dave and all, Personally, I have NO PROBLEM with works of FICTION, even if they are BASED on true stories....in such cases, I don't expect historical accuracy. One of my daughter's all time favorite movies is Hocus Pocus, which, while it doesn't plug itself as such, is indeed based on the Salem Witch Hunt! The three main characters are sisters, one named Sarah and another named Mary....it's set in 1693 Salem, and the characters ARE in fact witches. I have NO doubt that this movie is based on my family, the Towne sisters, and THAT doesn't bother me in the least!! BUT.... the CBS lead in to THIS movie was in part....AND I QUOTE, "...THE ONLY THING MORE TERRIFYING THAN THE LEGEND, IS THE TRUTH!"....and then the title of the movie, "Salem Witch Trials", comes across the screen. Doesn't that imply that you should not only expect to be entertained, but also given FACTUAL information on the TRIALS? So far, halfway through the movie, I'm not only still waiting for the TRUTH, but the TRIALS as well....and as for the entertainment value, well, forget THAT!!! As for the "background" historical accuracy, I guess I wouldn't expect them to have that straight, if they didn't care to portray their main subject with accuracy! And YES, I for one WILL watch the second half, but NOT because I think it's worth watching!! The ONLY reason that I WILL watch it, is so that I have some idea where people are getting their MISINFORMATION from in the future!! Just my opinion! Joan In a message dated 3/4/2003 9:14:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, dredden@brockmcvey.com writes: > > People should understand that this is a film/movie. It is made to be > entertaining, not historical. If you want history watch the Discovery > channel, History Channel, etc. > > From the way everyone is writing I guess no-one will be watching tonight's > episodes. > > The only thing that frustrates me is the obvious disregard for simple things > historical. For instance, Salem Village is supposed to be the "poor sister" > of Salem Town, yet almost everyone lives in a large two storey well kept > home. I bet even Sarah Good's home would look like a virtual palace if they > were to show it. I don't believe that this would be the case. The northern > half of the Village, at least, would have been closer to being single room > or single storey dwellings like many of those shown in the film "Sleepy > Hollow" which is set in upstate New York almost a hundred years later. > > Just my twopennorth. > > DAVE

Marty, I believe that Thomas Putnam Sr died in 1686 while Thomas Jr died a few years after the Trials (1699, I believe). People should understand that this is a film/movie. It is made to be entertaining, not historical. If you want history watch the Discovery channel, History Channel, etc. From the way everyone is writing I guess no-one will be watching tonight's episodes. The only thing that frustrates me is the obvious disregard for simple things historical. For instance, Salem Village is supposed to be the "poor sister" of Salem Town, yet almost everyone lives in a large two storey well kept home. I bet even Sarah Good's home would look like a virtual palace if they were to show it. I don't believe that this would be the case. The northern half of the Village, at least, would have been closer to being single room or single storey dwellings like many of those shown in the film "Sleepy Hollow" which is set in upstate New York almost a hundred years later. Just my twopennorth. DAVE

Ugh. I haven't watched yet -- I had a tape running, and will watch both pieces at once later -- but I did see the first ten minutes, and the green-skin and flying-bats business made me cringe. I'll sit through the whole thing eventually, but it sounds like it's going to be a disheartening experience... At 07:54 AM 3/4/03, Margo Burns wrote: >On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 07:31 PM, joan <Jma8763@aol.com> wrote: >> I JUST had my first chance to check my mail today, and was REALLY >> surprised to find NO comments about the first half of the CBS movie from >> last night! > >Frankly, I'm still in a stunned silence over the thing. The opening scene >with Margaret-Hamilton-Wicked-Witch-of-the-West imagery and crackling sent >me over. By 40 minutes into it, I'd written email "feedback" from CBS's >website telling them that the show was "laughable." I don't even know >where to begin -- and that says a lot! > >--Margo

Didn't watch. Learn a long time ago the networks will trash anything to get ratings. If you watch, they get what they want: Eyes and a mind for the sponsors. You get a waste of time and bad information, at the least. Bob Young, Shamong, NJ Jma8763@aol.com wrote:Hi Lisa and all, You ARE indeed a brave soul, if you plan on taking in ALL FOUR HOURS in ONE sitting!!!! Personally, I'll have a tape running on the second half, so that even THAT can be taken in SMALL DOSES!!! GOOD LUCK! Joan In a message dated 3/4/2003 9:55:26 AM Eastern Standard Time, LMS6@georgetown.edu writes: > Ugh. I haven't watched yet -- I had a tape running, and will watch both > pieces at once later -- but I did see the first ten minutes, and the > green-skin and flying-bats business made me cringe. I'll sit through the > whole thing eventually, but it sounds like it's going to be a disheartening > experience... >

Didn't watch. Learned long ago the networks will trash anything to get ratings. If you watch; they get all they want: eyes and minds (?) for the sponsor. You get a waste time and bad information at the least. Bob Young, Shamong, NJ Martin Fenimore <pioneerson@yahoo.com> wrote:I found this film laughable to say the least and the usual Hollywood twist on a historical event. However I had to keep telling myself this was made for entertainment and not a fact for fact historical documentary. So I will watch part two tonight from the entertainment view. I realize that the horror and reality of what my 9th great grandmother experienced is greatly different from what is television amusement. Martin Fenimore Ridgefield, Washington __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/

I found this film laughable to say the least and the usual Hollywood twist on a historical event. However I had to keep telling myself this was made for entertainment and not a fact for fact historical documentary. So I will watch part two tonight from the entertainment view. I realize that the horror and reality of what my 9th great grandmother experienced is greatly different from what is television amusement. Martin Fenimore Ridgefield, Washington __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/

On Monday, March 3, 2003, at 07:31 PM, joan <Jma8763@aol.com> wrote: > I JUST had my first chance to check my mail today, and was REALLY > surprised to find NO comments about the first half of the CBS movie > from last night! Frankly, I'm still in a stunned silence over the thing. The opening scene with Margaret-Hamilton-Wicked-Witch-of-the-West imagery and crackling sent me over. By 40 minutes into it, I'd written email "feedback" from CBS's website telling them that the show was "laughable." I don't even know where to begin -- and that says a lot! --Margo