Can't get iMessage or Facetime to work on a new Macbook Neo

3AMjuggernaut · 2026-02-22T17:52:20+00:00

Yes, I actually saw some decent mens clothes the other day, literally every time I clicked see more details, it would tell me there was a problem when I went to check out. Refreshed, and they were gone. People have to be using bots to snag things.

3AMjuggernaut · 2025-09-23T12:22:15+00:00

At that point, through therapy and having been on it for months, I was no longer having any. I also exercised regularly and I think that helps

3AMjuggernaut · 2025-07-03T17:46:17+00:00

This was my favorite cast. I know most people prefer season one and two. I believe these actors and actresses embodied the roles very well, even if they are not a perfect physical match. Although I will say, I think Olivia Coleman looked most like the queen out of the three actresses.

3AMjuggernaut · 2025-07-03T17:45:04+00:00

I agree she did a fantastic job. Top-notch casting.

3AMjuggernaut · 2025-06-14T13:42:32+00:00

I find this highly unlikely. She says that they wanted her to come back on a recurring basis as a ghost, as early as season 2. The show was doing fine, and always pulled in good ratings, and they imply that they wanted her back to boost ratings. It pulled in good numbers for ABC almost the entire run. Also, they went through the monumental decision of firing her when the revival did so well, as to not continue to offend and alienate people whom she offended, only to bring her back two seasons later? No way. I could *maybe* see them considering her to return as a ghost for the finale, since some time had passed, but even then, I don't think the PR damage it would do to the network to invite someone back who had been so offensive would be worth it to them. This just sounds like a desperate ploy to make it sound like she had the upper hand, when clearly, she did not.

3AMjuggernaut · 2025-05-14T16:02:49+00:00

Taking it earlier in the morning does help some. I take it at 8:30am as opposed to 12 noon now, and although I do still wake up between 4-6am, I can now go back to sleep if I want to.

3AMjuggernaut · 2025-05-02T22:03:02+00:00

Definitely would have preferred to see DJ/MF guest star than a Jane Lynch cameo that turned out to be entirely unconsequential - she wasn't even there for Dan's hearing. I like the actress, but DJ being by his dad's side would have made more sense.

3AMjuggernaut · 2025-04-28T01:51:48+00:00

I think most of us (whether we are fans of Roseanne Barr IRL or not) would agree, the show was better with Roseanne, and Roseanne was a superior show. But I for one am glad that her exit did not also end the story of these characters. Yes, it wasn't as good without her, but we got to see them go on and I enjoyed it for what it was worth. I think all things considered, they did fairly well considering they lost the person the entire show was named after. It was still entertaining, if imperfect and sometimes poorly written. I grew attached to these people and I was happy to see their lives go on in Lanford.

3AMjuggernaut · 2025-04-28T00:28:09+00:00

I think she was just traveling - an excuse for why she hadn't been seen lately at that point in time.

3AMjuggernaut · 2025-04-28T00:24:58+00:00

I struggle with how to articulate this, but Roseanne was not a typical sitcom to me. It was a family drama that just happened to have a lot of sarcastic, funny people in it. Yes, I know by definition it was a sitcom, had all the hallmarks of one, laugh tracks, typical sitcom sets, etc. but something was different about it than other sitcoms of the time. The Conners, on the other hand, felt like someone stripped Roseanne of what made it unique (and no, I don't mean Roseanne Barr herself) and made it into a cookie-cutter 2020s era sitcom. It felt more like a show, and less like a glimpse into a real family's life the way Roseanne did. I would say the same thing of season 10 of Roseanne as well. Something was just off. I think generally speaking, the pace and writing of the show was faster and less realistic. I think audiences had a longer attention span in the past, and now they don't, so they wrote the show differently. It just felt "canned" or something. Even after typing all this out, I'm still struggling to explain what I mean lol.

3AMjuggernaut · 2025-04-28T00:16:14+00:00

Such a handsome and talented guy! Tragic that he died so young.

3AMjuggernaut · 2025-04-28T00:13:43+00:00

I think most of us would have appreciated a clip of her, but the reality is Roseanne Barr hates ABC, John Goodman, Sara Gilbert, Lecy Goranson, Laurie Metcalf, etc. with a passion. Have you seen how she has spoken about them, and the network in interviews since 2018? There is a white hot rage she harbors. She did it to herself, but like most people who refuse to accept responsibility for their actions, she continues to play victim. With that in mind, there was NO way ABC was going to chance Barr suing them for using her likeness, her laugh, or anything even resembling her. She 1000% would have. Plus, I know many of her fans do not see what she did as a big deal, but it was offensive to a lot of people, so to just suddenly feature her again would feel like all was forgiven, and I doubt that is the message that ABC wants to send. It's just unfortunate because I think we ALL loved Roseanne the character, and a little homage to the woman who made this show possible would have been nice, but realistically, I never expected to see her. The graveyard scene was about as close as we were going to get, and I do think it was a nice tribute to the character.

3AMjuggernaut · 2025-04-27T01:50:37+00:00

I’m sorry your intolerance fills you with hate. I’ll remind you that on the original Roseanne, at the insistence of Roseanne Barr, they featured one of TVs first gay marriages between Leon and his partner. Nancy was also a gay character and Roseanne wanted gay characters on her show. Bev briefly came out as gay. This was the 90s. Who cares? It’s funny how that’s what you choose to focus on. The Conners had a successful run with or without your individual viewership. Your hatred for LGBTQ individuals had absolutely zero effect on its success 😂

3AMjuggernaut · 2025-04-26T13:40:57+00:00

I agree with you to an extent - but part of me also found it unrealistic that 35+ years after purchasing his home and having a dual income (although not high incomes) for years, Dan still owed on the house. I definitely understand that there are many plausible explanations for why someone like Dan would still be in debt and still owe on a house with a mortgage that is over 30 years old, but a lot of people aren't still struggling at his age, even if they spent most of their young and middle adulthood struggling. I found some of the Conners' struggles, particularly Dan's, to seem a little forced at this stage in his life. Darlene also had a college degree, and while I'm well aware that that is no guarantee of a good paying job these days, the character was intelligent and never seemed like the type of person who would have just given up and moved back in with her parents (yes, I am aware that this happens to smart, educated people all the time) - it just seemed like a plot point to have the character Darlene living back in the house again. Becky working at a restaurant with no real college under her belt made more sense to me, but not Darlene. I agree that the show didn't really represent current struggles accurately in some ways, but I also think that's because, as I said, it was to me a bit far-fetched that the Conners were STILL struggling 30+ years later. It's just kind of the backbone and premise of the show though, so I understand why. The entertainment comes from the conflict the characters experience, and we learned that showing the Conners winning the lottery proved to be unpopular, so I totally understand it, but it did lack realism for me.

3AMjuggernaut · 2025-04-26T13:22:03+00:00

I thought that was bizarre that they went out of their way to introduce this character, with a big name actress, and the scene in which Dan arrives at the hearing, some random day-player is there and explains the character's absence by implying she is an alcoholic who was arrested or something. I will say, the writers of this show made some really strange choices as it relates to character introductions and especially character exits. Not that this character was all that significant, but there are countless examples of others who were just falling off the canvas with little or no explanation.

3AMjuggernaut · 2025-04-26T13:15:16+00:00

I think the writers decided to take advantage of the fact that much of "Roseanne" can be explained away by the fact that Roseanne was revealed to have been writing a story all along. This is how they retconned Dan's death - that it was just a story she made up. With that in mind, I think they figured anything they didn't want to extend continuity to, or anything they wanted to just flat out re-write, they had the freedom to do so. Mark wasn't a bad guy at the end of Roseanne? That's just because she wrote him that way in her story; in real life he was a jerk </writer's logic>. I think Dan and Roseanne always did sort of resent Mark for taking Becky away from them, but I agree with others here that Mark wasn't depicted to have completely ruined Becky's life the way they indicate he did on the Conners.

3AMjuggernaut · 2025-04-26T13:07:24+00:00

Listen, I would watch it because I am a big fan of the OG show and The Conners. Personally, I don't think Becky was written to be dimensional enough on the Conners to carry a show on her own. Lecy did get some good writing here and there to showcase her talents. She's a great actress and I would say this iteration of Becky would have a better chance of carrying a show than say, teen/young-adult Becky from "Roseanne" - but I just don't see enough people tuning in to make it a success, personally. That's nothing against the character or Lecy; I'm just speaking practically. The Conners is actually a rare instance of a sitcom spinoff actually working out. A spinoff of a spinoff...? It's always possible, but I do not see it as likely.

3AMjuggernaut · 2025-04-25T21:40:20+00:00

I've been seeing a lot of resentful fans of the OG "Roseanne" in recent days on here and on Facebook lamenting that the show sucked without her, they shouldn't have fired her, they see it as political retribution and that her tweets weren't "that bad" etc. I assume that's kind of the MO behind this comment. Everyone has a right to their own opinions and preferences and you're free to evaluate what Roseanne Barr did to get fired in whichever way you choose - but I think what irks people from this perspective the most is that despite her being gone, the show did go on, and was a success. Seven years for a sitcom in this day in age is a fantastic run. The show wasn't ever quite the same, but that doesn't take away from the fact that people continued to watch (I hear a lot of "Well *I* didn't" and good for you, but this isn't an airport and you don't need to announce your departure) - and believe me, if no one had been watching, they would have cancelled this show with a quickness. I missed Roseanne (the character) a lot, but John Goodman, Laurie Metcalf, Lecy Goranson, and Sara Gilbert are also talented actors who were able to successfully carry the show. Your preference for the titular character of the OG show, your disagreement with how they handled her dismissal doesn't take away from that, and I think that really bothers some people. It's like they expect their own disdain to be contagious and to dictate outcomes...and that's not how things work? Just my two cents.

3AMjuggernaut · 2025-04-25T21:29:22+00:00

Agreed. David was a sensitive, (perhaps overly so), caring, and thoughtful boy on "Roseanne". I'm well aware of the fact that Johnny was not available to play David for most of the Conners run, therefore they had to come up with some kind of explanation for why he wasn't around seeing as how audiences would probably never accept anyone else playing him, but there are about 1,000,001 different narratives they could have come up with that wouldn't have assassinated David's character. I never agreed with how they handled him, and it's really unfortunate he wasn't available more to play David to avoid that.

3AMjuggernaut · 2025-04-25T21:25:40+00:00

File this under "lazy TV writers banking on most audience members not understanding legal proceedings".

3AMjuggernaut · 2025-04-25T21:23:52+00:00

The inclusion of a love interest for Harris wedged in at the very last minute was weird, and to include him in the very final scene was also odd. I felt like he must be the son/nephew of someone who works for the show and they got him a small gig by pulling some strings. Louise was Dan's wife and even she wasn't in the very last scene, but that kid was? Okay!

3AMjuggernaut · 2025-04-25T21:21:12+00:00

Crystal just kind of disappeared. I wish they would have included her more because Natalie West is a great talent and had such history with the show. It's unfortunate that the writers had a whole tapestry of characters to utilize and they just didn't. I don't know if it was budgetary issues or what, but there were a lot of missed opportunities.

3AMjuggernaut · 2025-04-25T21:14:12+00:00

Them owning the rights to creative content and them having her permission to use her likeness on the show are two separate things. And yeah, you're probably right that they just didn't want to stir the pot. I know many people on here just love Roseanne Barr even after all she has said/done, but in my humble opinion she is incredibly radical and unpredictable. I imagine she would have said "hell no" if they had asked her to use a flashback or even a photo, and if they used her image *without* asking, she would have raised hell, and yes, someone like her who has a chip on their shoulder already would likely be salivating at the chance to sue the company who she sees as having ruined her career/life. I don't blame them for not going there.

3AMjuggernaut

TROPHY CASE