Talk:Ozark (TV series)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Cast

Michael Mosley as Pastor Mason Young is listed in both in the main and in the recurring cast. Wonder which is correct? - Sarvikuonokas (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Opening credits symbols

By looking through the archive of this article, you can see the information regarding the symbols and their explanations being deleted multiple times by several editors because the information is trivial and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We don't need to regurgitate the source by explaining in detail what every symbol means, that's what the reference is for. The opening credits section could be expanded a bit more, to give examples, such as exactly how the symbols spell out "Ozark". The separate article that was created, Ozark (TV series) Opening Credit Symbols definitely does not need to exist, because on its own, there's no notability. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

plot explanation

Can we get a more detailed or technical explanation of how Martin Byrde's money laundering schemes work? I'm currently watching the show, but am still confused by some of the financial details on how he is laundering the money. I read the Wikipedia article for "money laundering" but that didn't help much for explaining specific actions on the show, such as why Byrde needs to inflate construction and maintenance costs. Nicole Sharp (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

As the show doesn't go into much detail, the article shouldn't go into much detail.

The basic idea seems to be that the massive hoard of cash needs to have a paper trail showing it came from a legitimate source. One way to do that is to inflate the amount of money a business takes in, showing sales that did not happen or over-reporting how much a good or service was sold for. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nicole Sharp: I believe Summer has it down. When Marty takes over a business, the books show much more revenue than the business is actually taking in, so the money looks like it's from legitimate transactions. It then has to be spent in ways that continue making it look legitimate, such as buying or "buying" equipment and inventory from other businesses controlled by the cartel. Money launderers also know they have to declare the income and pay the taxes, so the taxes are often factored in as a cost of doing business. The cartel gives over, say $10 million in cash, and expects that maybe $7 or $8 million will come back as "clean" once the taxes are paid.

Does that help?

Billmckern (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

My interpretation from the Wikipedia article on money laundering is that he needs to inflate how much profit he is making from cash-customer businesses. That makes sense, since the extra "legitimate" business income claimed on taxes is actually coming from the cartel. What doesn't make sense to me is why he would want to inflate expenses as well, since high business costs would mean less taxable income (on paper). If the business costs are just investing in other cartel-controlled businesses (like tiling), then that makes more sense, though it isn't explicitly mentioned on the show, so that's maybe something for Fandom.com instead of Wikipedia. Though perhaps a Wikipedia article on "money laundering in popular culture" could be a better spot. Nicole Sharp (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nicole Sharp: in addition to buying or "buying" good and services from cartel-controlled businesses to put the money back in the cartel's coffers, the money launderer can also execute sham transactions to make it look like the profits were spent on good and services from non-cartel businesses, then divert the cash to the cartel. I think there's an episode of Ozark where Marty does that -- creates invoices to make it appear as though the Blue Cat spent money on upgrades like air conditioners (I think) without actually buying them. If anyone looks at the ledgers and invoices, the expenses appear to be legitimate. Only by inspecting each individual room and finding no air conditioners could the transaction be exposed as a sham.

Billmckern (talk) 10:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

6/2/20 Undid revision 960396441 by Tommster1

The description of the cop incident in the parking lot is both false and misleading. Having just watched the episode repeatedly, such is readily confirmable. The officer did not explicitly threaten arrest of either of them, she merely had ordered them out of the car and said she'd ask them some further questions. Whereupon Wendy talked her out of it, and the cop left them with just a warning to be careful. Just watch the scene again for yourself and see. The description you reverted my edit to is simply false.

Also, what is the "over 200 word limit" item about?? Whatever it is,it has nothing to do with the accuracy of the edit. Tommster1 (talk) 08:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tommster1: The Wikipedia limit for episode summaries is 200 words. Your edit to "Fire Pink" would have put the summary over that.

As for the summary of "Fire Pink" specifically, why did Ben call the police on himself? To get a cop to order him out of the car? To answer some further questions? To make sure Wendy got a warning to be careful? Of course not. He was trying to get arrested and brought back to Osage Beach in the belief that he could smooth over the problems he's caused by apologizing to Helen. And when it didn't work because Wendy talked the cop out of continuing to question them, Ben next step was to buy a phone and called Helen himself.

Based on the events of the episode and trying to work within the constraints of a 200 word limit, it seems to me that saying Wendy talks the police out of an arrest is a reasonable description of the events.

Billmckern (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

@Billmckern <--- Is that right? (--(?)-- I'm new to the protocols here) I'm not sure if and how you'll know that I've here responded to your response.

Anyway: Hi. Thanx for the fast and substantive response. :-)

I didn't know about the 200 word summary limit nor the current word count of it. On the substance, however, I believe your explanation story above is completely speculative, not at all obvious, clearly inconsistent with many shown things, and thus the "arrest" description (actually an interpretation in the context of the story you give-assume, which I believe the visible evidence shows as clearly false) is not as close to what we actually see and hear on screen as what you reverted.

For example, I didn't take the scene your way at all when I first saw it.

Rather, I took as just another loose-mouth idiot move on his part, like he did in the taxi-from-nuthouse scene earlier. More specifically, I took it more or less as Wendy pitched it when persuading the cop, specifically when expressing how weak and stupid as a 'probable cause' for search-warrant it would be to claim that a mentally disturbed person blathering in a parking lot to some homeless person (who is Actually Shown !! see/freeze at ~37'10" of the episode, guy sitting in chair by car with what looks like an open tent, brother walking towards and quite near him) or other (who we assume subsequently calls the cops) would suffice.

This take is also visibly very consistent with what we're shown and hear of the surrounding physical scene; dark night, lot lights, parked and moving cars and people activity substantially if vaguely present in the (Wal-Mart-esque) distance, etc, along with the shown guy camping there. Why would the writers/director bother with that guy and his full homeless kit and his screen-central and brother-walk-intersecting location otherwise??

It is also visibly and logically consistent with his not having a phone at the time and his still not having one until the completely separate later scene we're shown when he sneakily buys one again, not knowing Wendy sees and confirms it, and it's then strongly suggested that Wendy then silently decides that it's hopeless if he stays alive. And on it goes.

All in all, doesn't the above clearly refute the whole justification story given for using "arrest"?

A bit of (mostly redundant) overkill:

I have the episode on (yet again) as I type this; reconfirming the above. Certain things are very clear, the main one being that: 1. it is not at all clear that brother called the police on himself. Nothing of the sort is actually shown nor said nor implied. Quite the contrary. Everything actually shown and said and heard much more suggests my take above. I find the visible detail at 37.10 quite conclusive, especially in conjunction with Wendy's words to the cop. Do you not?? How so?

More overkill:

Also, if he had wanted to turn himself in, for in effect protective custody, that also would not have comprised "arrest". Nor would he himself had to call, as there is security at 'Wal-Marts' to tell his story to, etc. Again, he did not have a phone; Wendy took and broke his earlier one (when he was talking to Helen), and the scene has not yet happened where he buys the tracphone and Wendy sees it happen, ... .

This is fun! Please let me know what you think.

Cheerio, Tom :-) Tommster1 (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Tommster1 (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

**Another separate point on this wiki episode summary: the mention of Ben calling Helen is in the wrong location, making it seem that it happened after the parking-lot cop event, when it actually happened before it in a prior scene. So that mention should appear before mention of the parking-lot cop event (regardless of how we end up describing the latter)   I'll fix this item now.

Tommster1 (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC) Hi again. I do Catechism form now for mutual ease and less typing; Hope this way works. I'm quite surprised that you didn't find the above conclusive. Did you see for yourself the 'homeless guy with all his kit etc, at 37'10? :

@Tommster1: I don't think Ben wanted "protective custody".

I wasn't proposing that this was actually the case. I was just dealing with that as a possible hypothesis wrt using "arrest" still being inaccurate (or at least extremely speculative)

I think it's very clear from the context that in his manic state, Ben believes he's going to return to Osage Beach, apologize to Helen for telling Erin about Helen's work, and everything is going to be all right.

I don't find this to be clearly the case at all. I agree that he clearly Wishes it were possible for him to just (re-)apologize to Helen and have all be fine and then return, but I see no evidence that he still believes it Is actually possible, and certainly not by going back first.

I think that the earlier scene of Wendy's extremely intense reaction and emphatic explicit words against his prior Helen-call 'attempt to apologize', and his big crying break-down and seeming recognition and acceptance of how totally he's fucked up in response, makes that 'retry-apology' in-person-at-Osage take much less plausible.

Also, "...return to Osage Beach..."??--- I don't at all see where this

'live, in person at Osage'  aspect of another apology-attempt comes from;

it seems to me like pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Ben clearly knows that they're on the run for his life from Helen-at-Osage and the Navarro killers; that his life is drastically in danger there and that that's why they're disappearing from Osage in the first place; and also that he's put Wendy and her family there likewise in serious death danger. They have already explicitly agreed, at his choice, that they are going to Knoxville for him to lay low there and hopefully survive the death threat danger.

Do also recall that he had no phone at the time to call the police on himself with. So what did he call with? When and Where? No such thing was shown nor implied. If he'd gone into the Walmart and bought a phone, he wouldn't have needed to buy the one shown in that next later scene. (it's not clear why he bought that tracphone in the later scene; perhaps to try to call Helen again---from a distance, not in person---, but in any event he/it would cause further deadly trouble again with it, and Wendy clearly took it as the camel-back-breaking straw as she then decided he was hopeless and needed to be (allowed by her to be) caught and killed.

He also had some outstanding warrant out on him From Another Location---another State(?)(I believe; I don't recall exactly where it's from, nor in which earlier episode it's stated, but it's said when he first surprise arrives at Wendy's place)---, which if he were "arrested" as you assume, would result Not in his going back to Osage but rather being extradited to that state or that elsewhere. So the whole premise of 'get arrested to get back to Osage' makes no practical sense and wouldn't work. Granted that you may still claim that he was manic and nuts ,so believed it anyway, and therefore tried anyway. But that runs into the 'no phone till later scene' brick wall. Or do you want to go even further Ad Hoc and assume/posit that he invisibly borrowed some strangers' phone to make the call, or managed to use a walmart office phone, or found a pay phone somewhere, or or ..., . How contrived and speculative on things not shown nor heard nor implied is one willing to go to maintain a take not supported by visibles or spokens in the first place??

And why would he try such a ludicrously round-about and contrived method of 'getting back to Osage to apologize again' as hoping to get the police to take

him back? He knows he's on the lam from the other state; police mean big trouble for him and not in any direction he wants. And even If the police believed his story of his life being in danger--- along with somehow overlooking or missing the outstanding warrant on him---, firstly it still wouldn't be "an arrest', and secondly, they would be doing voluntary protective custody on him, and certainly Not transport him back to Osage where the maximum danger and it's source are located. IF he'd actually wanted to be actually arrested and was somehow able to (invisibly) call police on himself without his own phone, he could just say that he's on the lam and wanted in another state; please take me in. He could be arrested only for being a fugitive on the lam, Not for being the target of killers. Being under arrest is an involuntary and coercive condition, premised on suspected or actual violation of a law. Just being 'under threat' doesn't qualify.

I also don't think there's any question that Ben called the police on himself.

Funny, I think that's drastically in question and simply false; there's almost no on-tape reason to think he did, and much on-tape reason to think he didn't.

He leaves the car when Wendy is asleep, the police show up, and she talks the police out of asking additional questions or doing more follow up.

Agreed. So far this favors neither hypothesis.

What does she do after the police leave at around the 40 minute mark? She asks Ben "What are you trying to do to me?" And how does he answer? "I'm sorry."

This was NOT a Cognitive verbal exchange, it was a highly emotional and tension-release one. Her exact-word usage was obviously rhetorical. His is the natural emotive word-response to obviously having upset someone.

literally "asks" Ben is hardly contextually accurate---more accurate I believe is "she emphatically exclaims", it's clearly primarily a highly emotionally expressive outburst, verbally rhetorical, not intended as a substantive cognitive-verbal inquiry based on exact words uttered.

She's just finished barely squeezing out of yet another seriously fucked-up and dangerous, very high-tension situation that he's somehow precipitated and caused---which is all that she and we know at that point. She's greatly relieved and greatly angry and upset with him again about it. He see's that and naturally says and expresses being sorry (for somehow screwing-up again and so upsetting her)(yet again). Again, he is not using the specific "sorry" word said as a lead-in or stand'in for the unpacking or elaboration of whatever specific detailed behaviors comprised this latest fuck-up, none of which are actually shown. It's just an emotional 'I've obviously somehow fucked-up again and badly upset you again, I'm sorry for it" at that general level. It was not at all a substantive cognitive interrogation of detailed specifics and response thereto that was going on in that brief, emotionally intense exchange and release between them.

He doesn't say "I have no idea what you're talking about." He doesn't say "I wonder who called the police on us." What would Wendy be asking about, and what would Ben be apologizing for, if not Ben having called the police on himself?

As per above. She is not really substantively "asking about" anything, nor 'expecting an answer' in any literal word-meaning sense; it's emotional exclamation using words rhetorically. The literal words said were respectively emotive-rhetorical and emotionally expressive, not verbal-cognitive specific inquiries or responses intended or taken as such.

---- It seems to me that you're taking the quotes above (around 40')much too literally and narrowly. The broader situational description is that he has yet again cluelessly gone and done something bad that has caused more and dangerous trouble and drastically stressed Wendy. That is what Wendy's emphatic emotional exclamation expresses to my lights. And his "sorry" (yet again) is his obvious sheepish response to having so upset W. again and so caused danger again somehow, etc. He's apologizing for again having somehow screwed up and causing further trouble and extremely stressing and upsetting her.

For that matter, who else would have or could have done done it?

Huh? Any one of the various people shown in the parking lot he might have started yapping to about it, and most likely the obviously highlighted 'homeless' guy camping out there in the chair with the tent, who Ben is near and walking directly towards at 37.10. How is this not obvious?? If some guy, clearly upset, comes up to you and starts emphatically saying that there are people after him right now trying to kill him, it is not at all implausible that you would call the police about it. The listener's there, he's there, he's done such dangerous yapping before. Where's the logistical or psychological mystery here?? I see absolutely none. It all quite fits with what's shown and not shown and with what he's done before and with how normal people might react, so it clearly seems to me. There is nothing there that affirmatively suggests he called on himself ,and much there that strongly indicates he didn't.

The following is Irrelevant as per above, and as none of these are proposed candidates:

Helen's not going to call the police and throw around Omar Navarro's name because she works for him. Wendy and Marty wouldn't because they work for him. Charlotte and Jonah wouldn't, because they wouldn't want to get their parents in trouble. The Langmores wouldn't, because Ruth works for Marty who works for Navarro. Darlene and Frank wouldn't, because they wouldn't want police to find out about their involvement with Navarro. In addition, several of those individuals don't even know where Wendy and Ben are, so they couldn't have told the police even if they had wanted to.

The only one who knows where Ben and Wendy are and would have called the police

"only one" and "would have" is False, as per above

because he doesn't care about the consequences is Ben.

this "because" is purely speculative and anyway irrelevant to the case of not Ben but rather someone in the parking lot he yapped to being the alarmed caller.

Billmckern (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

PS - Don't forget that Wendy and Ben are in a rental car and the cover story is that Wendy is in Kansas City. That further reduces the likelihood that anyone but Ben could have called the police.

False, as per above, i.e. the 'yapped-to listener calls' case.

More fun! What do you further think? Cheerio, Tom :-) Tommster1 (talk) 08:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Billmckern (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tommster1: What are you even talking about? Homeless guys who recognize Ben and Wendy and know the name Omar Navarro and know that Ben and Wendy are connected to him?

Tommster1 (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

The homeless-guy scenario in no way requires of the homeless guy any recognition of or knowing of actual Ben and Wendy names or connections. Why would it?

 The homeless guy doesn't know who they are, nor need to. He knows where they are because they're in the same parking lot as he is. All he does know is that they're 'over there' in that parked car in the same parking lot as he is, and that that agitated guy in that car (Ben), who came over yapping, thinks his life is right now in danger from the Navarro cartel trying to kill him.

Apropos, Please explain what is so incredible about the following scenario:

 Ben leaves the car and goes over and agitatedly jabbers to the homeless person shown that people from the (famous) Navarro cartel are trying to kill him. The homeless person is alarmed by what Ben has said and eventually calls the police, telling them there's a guy in the parked car over there who is very upset and who says he's currently running from Navarro cartel people who are trying to kill him. So the police come to check it out.
 
The homeless guy doesn't need to know anything about Ben or Wendy for this scenario to happen.  Ben himself would have jabbered the cartel names involved to the homeless guy.  Also, the "Navarro" cartel name is portrayed throughout the series as publicly well known, like the "Medellin" or "Cali" cartels were in real life here.

  In what way does this scenario not make any sense?  In what way is this scenario not also consistent with anything we are actually shown or hear?

I understand that this take is not how you initially and naturally understood what you saw, just like your take was not so for me. Isn't that why we're doing this conversational exploring of these things? Is it not possible that both takes are consistent with everything actually shown and heard on tape? Is that not what the substantive points and counterpoints we've been exchanging are probing?  Matters like which things are actually on-tape visible and literally conclusive for any viewer,  and which other things are actually about viewer interpretations that are literal-tape-inconclusive and which depend on things not shown and on mental fill-ins of what's going on provided wholly by the viewer. Some such fill-ins are more plausible and consistent with what is and isn't actually literally shown, and some are less so. That's also largely what this discussion-talk exploration is probing and trying to bring to light and detail.  Such is my idea of what we're trying to do here.  Is it not yours?

In what way is this homeless-guy-calls scenario not also at least as consistent with anything we are actually shown or hear as your take is, which you find so obvious?  So far, the only item I've understood you to specify on this is the Wendy exclamation which you take so literally and the Ben "sorry" reply.

Tommster1 (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't even know how to have a discussion about this because you're all over the place and your assertions make no sense. Ben OBVIOUSLY called the police on himself. Given all of the available information and Ben and Wendy's immediate reaction after the police leave, there's just no way to watch the sequence of events and conclude otherwise.

It's very clear that any further discussion here is going to be pointless.

Tommster1 (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Whoa!! Please slow down here a second. Several things have happened. Please give me the benefit of the doubt for a moment and listen:

  Firstly, the "order of events" minor edit I made last night was a mistake on my part.  My mistake.  Thank you for identifying and correcting it.   
   Also, this morning I was writing on the Talk page in reply to your reversion of it, acknowledging that I had the order of those 2 events wrong and that it was a mis-impression on my part. I also wrote on some other points in response to your sentence that accompanied the reversion.  Unfortunately this all somehow got lost and didn't end up getting saved to the talk page, so you didn't see it.
I just discovered that this happened when I got back home this evening and checked-in again with this wiki.

Also, please read what I wrote just below your ping way above here. Please also read all of what I've written below here.

  If after doing so you still honestly think and feel that everything I point out and assert 'makes no sense' and does not comprise substantive and cooperative exploration of actual issues, then it's clear that we have no operating common agreement on what sort of discussion talk counts as intelligent, substantive, responsive and considerate. If that is the case, then I agree it's pointless to continue, and we'll just have to go on to the next procedural step in Wiki dispute resolution.  I feel that would really be a shame.

IF that is the case, I would also be very curious to see a contrasting sample of some discussion talk that you Do consider "makes sense" and is substantive. (Something making sense is not the same as meaning you understand or agree with it. And not agreeing with something is not the same as it's not making sense)

I really hope it doesn't come to this.   It would not be deserved, and it would be sad and really disappointing if two presumably good and smart people couldn't manage to have an amiable, cooperative, quality conversation about a low-stakes disagreement on a subject of large common interest.

 Please read what I've written below before deciding.  Thanx.                                                    Sincerely, Tom.

Tommster1 (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Billmckern (talk) 12:02, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. Why is the tone here going negative? I don't want it to. Are you angry? I'm not. Nor do I feel this is some kind of Win/Lose competition or ego thing. We're both obviously interested in the show and are willing to give it time and thought and serious attention. I was enjoying the involvement and substantive exchanges. Were you not? Are we not able to both trust and show that we're both friendly, intelligent people with a common interest, and in good faith probing and exploring the issues there is disagreement or unclarity or inconclusiveness about? Can we not assume each other to be honest, well intentioned, open-minded, direct and earnest, each not stupid or deluded, etc.?

 If by your "you're all over the place" you're specifically and only referring to my mistaken event-order edit, then fine. As I've acknowledged, it was a mistake; an erroneous edit item based on my mis-impression of the order of those 2 scenes. My mistake.

  Also, in light of that event-order mistake, I agree that Ben still had his phone during the 'Walmart' parking lot scene. The points I made premised on his not having it do not apply.     So the plausible logistics of his possibly calling the cops himself were in place.  As also were the plausible logistics of a (shown and mentioned) homeless guy possibly calling on him.

Beyond my scene-order-misimpression caused mistake about his not having his phone during the Walmart scene, what else is there that you feel is "all over the place" and doesn't make any sense? Please specify.   I honestly see nothing further that plausibly qualifies, as every other point and counterpoint I've written has been specific and substantive, both regarding interpretation differences and regarding visible/hearable on-tape items.

 Also, my acknowledgedly mistaken prior premise itself, that he didn't have his phone any more during the 'walmart' scene, was simply false, a factual error. It was not senseless.

 You say it's "OBVIOUS" that he called on himself. (Yelling substantively resolves nothing, nor is it constructive or respectful. ) The fact is that I and several other bright people I know who watched the show did not take it that way. So, while it may SEEM so obvious to you that any disagreement is idiotic, it is not so obvious to various others, nor is it objectively obvious. 
 Were it objectively obvious, there would be producible time-stamped segments that conclusively demonstrate it to any viewer and without any interpretative vagaries required (for example, like time-stamped video showing a car in a scene thus proving that there was a car in that scene, etc.)  No such have been provided for the 'called cops himself' take in these exchanges so far.  IF there are any such anywhere to be provided, please provide them. I'd be glad to see them and to have something objectively conclusive be possible on these differing interpretation matters.

 The only ostensibly substantiating video-segment reference provided so far is to the immediate "what... doing to me" and "sorry" verbal exchange just after the cop backed off and Wendy put her window up.  This reference unfortunately is inconclusive as between the two takes on who called the cops. 

  You interpret those words said as meant very literally and cognitively, as if Wendy expected some detailed answer to be given to her utterance, and as if some detailed elaboration of 'sorry for what' were present to be given by Ben.           
  But one can just as well interpret those same words said and how they're said as primarily emotional exclamations and interpersonal expressions, Wendy's literal words being rhetorical, and both person's words marginally cognitively 'about' only the general immediate fact that Ben had obviously yet again somehow done something terribly wrong that led to the cops being there and that greatly upset and stressed Wendy, and that Ben felt bad and sorry about it's happening.

A few other points:

 On a different and minor matter, the sentence I saw that accompanied the email notice of your reversion of my (erroneous) event-order edit said some other things besides just that my event-order was wrong. It also baldly reasserted, as if it were a simple and definite on-tape fact,  the Ben-called-cops-himself interpretation.    
 That of course is the main, uncertain and inconclusive point-of-interpretation in question that has been being probed and counterpointed for most of the paragraphs written in this whole discussion.    Be that as it may, the sentence further states that Ben made the (hypothesized) call with a phone he bought in the 'Walmart' store.  This struck me as totally rabbit-out-of-a-hat. I recall absolutely nothing ever being shown or said indicating that Ben (or Wendy) had ever been in the Walmart, or going into it, or ever bought anything there.

How is this not totally another viewer fill-in with zero on-tape evidence supporting it? If there is some tape to that effect, please state the time stamp so I can see it and be disabused of another objective error. Thanx.

Other points: 
1. you never responded to the point about the outstanding warrant on Ben, and how it would have prevented the cops from returning him to Osage anyway, even if they had "arrested" him as you claim he wanted.

2.  You never responded to my question: "Did you see for yourself the homeless guy with all his kit etc, at 37'10?".  Did you?  Is it not startlingly consistent in detail with what Wendy said to the cop? (which words I specified in an earlier exchange of ours way above here) ... Guy hanging out in the darkish parking lot by a car, with tent and chair, so likely a phone as well, whom agitated Ben is walking right toward and is quite close to when the shot cuts away.

PS-- I don't know why the formatting and fonts of my writing here vary as they

    do. It's not something I'm doing on purpose. And please do pardon whatever    
    typos and punctuation errors or short-cuts I sometimes take.

PPS-- I do hope you can hear and respond to my writing in the spirit in which it

   is felt and meant.  Namely, of amiable, cooperative and thorough inquiry and    
   probing of on-tape visible facts and of alternative viewer fill-ins and of 
   alternative viewer interpretations of what's on tape and what's not, and of 
   what is in fact interpretation or fill-in and what's not.

                           Cheerio fellow human,  Tom  :-)

 Tommster1 (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tommster1: This discussion is pointless.

Tommster1 (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

   Some catechism form below:

It actually is not "pointless". In fact, it is full of good points which you continue to ignore.

Please don't miss the ABSOLUTELY KEY EVIDENCE item below, which might influence even you.

For the last time:

all of these non-contender"candidates" below except for Ben and Homeless are obviously contextually irrelevant, as repeatedly stated.

Did Helen call the police? No - she doesn't know where Wendy and Ben are.

Did Erin call? No - she's gone back to Chicago.

Did Charlotte or Jonah call? No - they don't know where Wendy and Ben are.

Did Ruth call? No - she doesn't know where Wendy and Ben are. besides, she loves Ben.

Did Wyatt or Three call? No - they don't know where Wendy and Ben are.

Did Darlene call? No - she doesn't know where Wendy and Ben are. Besides that, she hates the Navarros and hid Ben to protect him from them.

Did Marty call? No - he keeps telling Helen that Wendy is in Kansas City and when Wendy calls him from the convenient store after they leave the department store parking lot, he asks where she is.

Here is something relevant, but wholly just one particular interpretation, and of things Not on tape:

After the police leave, does Wendy ask Ben what he did, or does she ask him who did it? No.

I agree with what (I think) you actually mean here, but not with what you've literally written.

     On tape (@22.55 remaining) she immediately actually says "goddamn it, what are you trying to do to me?" and then hits him. Obviously an emotional exclamation, not a cognitive inquiry, as I previously elaborated upon and you ignored.     
    Also, it is ironic that here you have reversed your prior way of construing as claim-justification what she does and doesn't say. Earlier you were arguing that she was actually asking for Ben to specify what he had done and what he was sorry for. Now you here claim that she doesn't ask and that that omission comprises justification of your ('he called')claim.

Because she knows Ben must have called the police.

ABSOLUTELY KEY EVIDENCE HERE:

This "because" in no way must follow. It is wholly a dogmatic fill-in by you. THIS IS KEY: At 25.05 remaining, the cop having just window-arrived says "I'm here about your friend here", Wendy says "it's my brother" and cop says "we had a report that your brother might be in some trouble" ... .

 The cop didn't know Ben's name, nor that (supposedly) he had called, nor that he was related as brother to someone else (Wendy) in the car.  The cop, having just learned that he's her brother, Doesn't say "your brother called in and said that he's in some trouble"!!  Rather, the cop says "we had a report that--- your brother might be...".  There is no way the cop would say why she's there this way if it was Ben who had called in.  This is as conclusive evidence as one can possibly get (for something not shown) that it wasn't Ben who called.  
 Can you possibly disagree??? 
If you do agree that this is conclusive, it would be nice if you would acknowledge such, if only as a matter of decency and intellectual honesty in light of the time,effort and care put in here.  Thanx.   
If you don't agree, then, as you say, more exchange after this full one really is pointless.

IN light of the obvious practical conclusiveness of the above,

I won't bother to again respond in much depth to the remaining few relevant items below.

Does Ben ask her what she's talking about? Does he deny having called the police? Does he bring up a random homeless guy? No. Because when Wendy asks him "What are you trying to do to me?" he knows she means his call to the police.

this does not at all follow. Again, it could just as well be he knows she means 'he's yet again done Something-or-other very upsetting to major screw-up again'. Do you dey that it could just as well be this??

Did the police say they'd gotten calls

--- nobody has said anything about plural (callS)

from a homeless guy

why would a homeless guy say he's homeless when calling the cops??

or a bunch of random people at the store? No.

cop says 'we got a report that..." "report" is singular.

Is the homeless guy or anyone else watching for police to arrive so they can either identify themselves as having called or merely watch to see what happens? No.

there is zero rational basis for feeling you 'know' that the answer is "NO".

We don't know whether the the answer is "No", or Yes, as we're Shown nothing on tape either way, either for or against the above possibilities. That's just not the way the scene is shot.

Nor would such items practically Have to happen or be shown in  any event.     Of course it's common-sense likely that some people in the lot would be noticing that cops are there, but so what? It's not shown nor shot that way. And that absence tells us nothing about the points in question between us.

Who knows where Ben and Wendy are

Again, the homeless guy; they're in the same lot together.

    He doesn't need to know their names,or 'who they are' etc.        
    All he knows is what that guy (Ben) blathered to him.

and knows the details about Omar Navarro? Only Ben and Wendy.

Again, the homeless guy would know whatever details Ben blathered to him.

And you know it wasn't Wendy who called because if she had she wouldn't have talked police out of doing more follow up.

Ben called the police.

-- Yes, and Pluto definitely has aliens on it. -- (For those of you who might somehow be confused, this Pluto comment is Tommster1's

-- Tommster1 deleted Billmckern's signature here, to address his concern.

-- If you've actually come around on 'who called' and thus the "arrest" word, in light of the above, and will decently let me know, then please ignore the following, which though also substantive, was written in the same negative, derogatory and dismissive tone that you needlessly started.

Tommster1 (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Too bad. You have indeed made it pointless to continue. You either ignore and/or don't understand nearly my every question and point, counterpoint and meta-point. You ask no questions about them, and you substantively respond to none of them; instead just dogmatically repeating the same claim and the same list of ostensibly supporting items, all of whose claim-support function are clearly undermined and shown to be inconclusive and/or irrelevant by the questions and points I provide. Points which you don't even bother to reply to, nor acknowledge, and instead simply ignore. Apparently you either are unwilling or do not know how to have a serious and self-aware intellectual conversation.
I made it as simple, short and direct as possible in the paragraphs by the one asking "whats so incredible about this scenario:". You barely responded to it at all, and not at all directly. You said nothing that makes that scenario any less plausible than the one you are so blindly and unreflectively wed to. It is in fact a more plausible scenario, as it is supported by things actually seen and heard on tape, and not just by biased (and wholly offsetting) interpretations of things not on tape.
You have never even acknowledged (nor respected) the key fundamental distinctions of and necessity to distinguish between whats actually on tape and not, what's viewer fill-in, and what's interpretation of what is and isn't on tape---all of which are rationally pivotal to intelligently addressing any such interpretation disagreement.

 If you think this is all bullsh*t and inaccurate, that I'm just a jerk etc,  and actually care whether you're right, try asking someone intellectually sophisticated you know (if any, and if you can recognize such) to read our exchanges and give an opinion on the points and process. 
 If you have any interest in actually learning something, you might try such, which would indicate some degree of open-mindedness, openness to possibly learning reflective intellectual-self-awareness, openness to possible dis-confirmation of dogmatically held beliefs and attitudes, and some degree of fairness and self-awareness in how you hold your dogmatic judgments.  Based on your performance and tone here, I won't hold my breath. 
  I am saddened and disappointed by this outcome, a mostly failed attempt to have an intellectually serious discussion with someone I had hoped willing and capable of it.  It seems that in misguided hopefulness I drastically overestimated your intellectual sophistication. Wishful thinking;  My mistake. 
  Also, as yet another microcosm demonstration of the impossibility of a rational democracy with such a bell-curve mental population, it is truly a bummer as well.  
  Have a nice and obtuse life.                        
                                Sincerely, Tommster1 (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Reply to Tommster1

@Tommster1: I see you restored the mishmash of impossible to follow because you don't edit correctly commentary that I deleted. Whatever - I'm not going to argue. I am however going to insist that you do not again rearrange commentary to couple my signature with comments I did not make. That's a bad faith act that I do not appreciate.

Billmckern (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

--- Hi. I honestly don't know or understand what you are talking about here; especially the "restored" and "commentary that I (you) deleted" part. Huh?

 What "couplings" are you talking about?? ..."with comments you didn't make"? Do you mean with my own comments? Huh?  I really don't know or get what you are referring to or accusing me of here. And whatever it is, it certainly didn't have any intention or ill-intent behind it, despite the lovely and generous assumption.  Please specify.  Thanx.

 (much later):  Do you mean to tell me that you immediately and unilaterally actually tried to delete all the stuff I had just worked extremely hard on for many hours here in Talk??!!   
 IF so, that is really Fuc*ing outrageous, inexcusable and in incredibly bad-faith. Not to mention astoundingly rude, inconsiderate and hurtful. If a person did that to another person when they were bodily in-person, it would trigger an immediate fist fight, and rightly so. 
If you found the way I formatted stuff to be so bad, you might have said so first and decently discussed it in a civilized way, rather than just making some might-makes-right unilateral kill action. If you really did this, as it now seems, I'm really stunned. I hope I have it wrong, but as I finally now understand the structure and thus meaning of your sentence above, I fear I don't.  :-(

 How would you like it if someone did that to you?? To something you had worked many earnest hard hours on in good-faith and with long, tiring, focused effort.
 It really is barbaric. But online, what with anonymity and no real physical and social accountability, people often just heedlessly do whatever hurtful, impulsive, petty and inhumane things they can get away with. It is morally disgusting. You owe me an apology.

 Anyway, to continue with what happened on my end last night (before I knew any of the above):  something weird and unexpected and totally new to me happened just when I'd finished my 6 hours of writing that last long contribution. I'd clicked as usual on things that I thot made it be saved, just like all the other times, and thot I was done. I came back to my PC a little later and found a screen saying something like "edits not saved" and "edit conflicts"---I don't remember the exact words but these were the gist. Nor did I know what "edit conflicts" meant. (Only now do I understand: that "edit conflict" was actually with you, and something you did on purpose? Were you monitoring it as I typed or was the nearly immediate kill-timing just 'coincidence' of notification?)  
So suddenly I'm very worried I'm gonna lose the earnest product of that intense 6 hours of focused and tiring effort. (and it now seems that it was you actually trying to make me lose it!!! Fuc*ing Incredible.  Please tell me I'm wrong here)

 I then saw some sentence about a way of being able solve things by just copying the retained stuff of mine at the bottom of the conflict-page into some top section of stuff that wasn't mine, and that that would take care of it all being saved and safe. So that's what I did---I just copied into the bottom of that top section stuff what it had of mine at the page bottom that I'd written. (Is this what you meant above by "restored"?)

 If doing this somehow screwed-up something of yours,(beyond your trying to kill my work), I'm sorry about that and had no idea of it. I was just trying not to lose my work and that was the only way I saw and understood.   (and now I later learn that doing it was unwittingly the only way I avoided your attempt to purposely make me lose it all!) 
   I certainly did not purposely do or intend to do anything in bad faith regarding your signatures or anything else. I'm sorry if there's anything in the resulting formatting or whatever that gave you a different impression. 
 
 (Post understanding: Talk about huge hypocrisy!!--You accusing Me of bad faith, with what you tried to do!!  Astounding)

   I (obviously) do not know the vocabulary nor how formatting or other technical aspects of Wiki works here in these pages. I really meant what I've repeatedly said about just wanting a cooperative, friendly and specifics-responsive exploration. I thot 'catechism' form helps with that. It makes things more like an immediate and ongoing,'give and take' conversation. I didn't know you'd find it "impossible" to follow. I thot it'd be easier; more like a transcript of a conversation. (If you found it so bad, you might have simply said so, and requested something different)

So far as the "mishmash" appearance goes,(note that your sentence itself took me quite a while to correctly parse and finally understand; it easily just happens...written things clear to oneself often aren't so to others), I was just trying to respond to your list of points and other comments in that catechism form, like when one does 'reply-include' to an email. I prefaced all my insertion chunks with several dashes, like in email replies; I thot that would be indicatively clear. I also thot catechism form would be easier for us both when there is a long list of things to reply to, and a lot of places where I want to say things; this rather than having to retype the list of everything one by one again each time when responding to each of them.
Also, do NOTE that it is not at all clear, from how things look in the editing area, how to know how they'll look when previewed and published. There is often a huge and frustrating difference. I've pissed away hours trying to deal with this fact.
Beyond the workings of doing the catechism form, I didn't knowingly further rearrange anything of yours on purpose or to any particular effect, nor did I do or try to do anything special regarding your signatures; I wasn't paying any attention to them at all. They had nothing to do with the content I was focusing on.

So far as my scattered 4~ (4 tildes symbol) effects go, I never was sure exactly where or what 4~ would do regarding identifying and indicating where my main chunks of writing were inserted and attributed, so I used it more-rather-than-less in trying to be covered and to help make attribution-things more visually clear.

I didn't knowingly do anything to, nor even pay attention to,  where your already present "signatures" were or ended up (??---are those what you call what you get with your 4~ usage)(I also don't understand about the "ping" stuff of yours I sometimes saw, and other identifier-things I don't get on my own submissions)

I of course didn't add anything of yours or as yours either; I didn't and wouldn't want to, nor would I know how to or even if that it's possible. (Is it possible?) Can people irrevocably counterfeit, add, change or delete other people's talk contributions, etc, rather than just their own? Are back-ups of all page versions and history kept? Letting people just unilaterally wipe out other peoples work, with no process or discussion first, would be completely barbaric --- and especially so in Talk, where differences are supposed to be worked out in a civilized manner.    
 
  Again, all I was ever trying to do is reply to your content in mostly catechism form, and later trying to not lose all my work. I'm sorry if these innocent and well-intended efforts led to something happening that's viewed as objectionable. 
 (I'm now feeling quite a bit less sorry, and actually very angry, now that I understand what you actually tried to do and did)   You deeply owe me an apology, which doubtless you won't do or feel. (Please surprise me!)

If we were in person, likewise going barbaric would deservedly be a two-way street. Uncivilized means Jungle means tit-for-tat. I'd welcome the opportunity for some more than owed Krav-Maga practice.

                                                Cheerio,  Tom.

  P.S.--- Did you  at least find what the cop said and didn't say at window-conversation start to be strongly and seriously relevant to our (my) question of who really called the cops?

       (Maybe try something new for once, perhaps an actual acknowledgement of and answer to an important on-point substantive question)

 P.P.S.---  If it was you who actually wrote most of the extensive Ozark Wiki, I do thank you for it. It obviously was a ton of work, a labor of love, and is useful and pretty well done overall.  So Thanks.  I really am sorry we couldn't create an engaging and good quality ongoing conversation about a topic of such obvious and major mutual interest. Life is lonely and hard enuf as it is, without pissing away such rare opportunities.
 
              Tommster1 (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Reply

@Tommster1: I learned to correctly format comments on talk pages by looking at previous comments and copying the style. If I figured it out, why can't you see that two equals signs on each side of a word or phrase creates a heading, and three on each side makes a sub-heading? That a reply can be indented with one colon, a reply to a reply with one colon begins with two, and so on? Why can't you figure out that if you're replying to another contributor, it's courteous to ping him or her?

Look at your comment about Pluto, which appears directly above MY signature. I didn't make that comment, you did. But because you changed the formatting, it looks like I made it. Which I didn't. That's a major discourtesy.

Billmckern (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Thanx for the reply, and for pointing out a few specific special-to- wiki-editing characters. Are there any others, or other such relevant user tips,  you'd be so kind and generous as to explicitly mention? For example, how does one make an entry  into the "Contents" area, like you did for your reply? Also, how do you get your text showing up in that nice dark larger font, while most of mine looks like the same crappy text here in edit-box? I thot of and tried the pre- and post-fixing everything with , but some kind of textual-internal canceling of it seems to be happening for a lot of the text, and plowing thru that latest cascading problem is not a project I'll do. Is there a quik-reference link or list for all this kind of stuff somewhere? There should be, and it should be prominently highlighted. 
Also, (for example) I happen not to be familiar with the "ping' command generally or within Wiki. It is silly to simply assume familiarity among Wiki users with such commands and special wiki-editing characters and characteristics. It is also silly and unrealistic to expect for them to spontaneously take up such a task, --reinvent the wheel--- and do the tedious empirical routine you say you did. 
 As I just discovered about 1 minute ago,there is at the top of the edit-box, if one ever sees and lingers on it, some edit-tek stuff there to be explored-expanded It is certainly better than nothing, but not very good.

Please see the constructive obvious suggestions at bottom.

 For example, in my experience so far of making Wiki contributions,it has to be done in that special editing-rectangle internal area. I have found that how things look there (--lots of time spent to make them look OK there--)  has little to do with how they end up looking upon preview or publish. This applies to fonts, spacing of various kinds, what using spaces does where, 'enter' for new-lines and how many correlate with what and when, indentation, how do boldface or italic or underline, etc, and on and on. Apropos, Does there exist any catechism-format reply option, for example? (as there is in any decent email app, etc).  
 Going or having to go 'trial-and-error' and/or empirical correlative-  comparison mode to discover numerous special editing-characters and characteristics, is ridiculous (and blatantly impractical).

 How and WHY is one technically new to making wiki contributions, who naturally wants to focus on responding to wiki-subject content and not on learning the custom details of a non-standard non-WYSIWYG editing tool, supposed to discover the special characters and other quirks specific to Wiki-editor editing??  Trial and error among millions of possible character permutations? Hardly?  Mystical intuition deliveries? 
 Is it really expected, or sensible to expect, that someone responding to a wiki, for example on a show they just binged upon, will want to and be willing to take on the task of learning an unfamiliar non-standard editor tool to do it? Is the whole crowd-sourced Wiki idea meant to be readily public-usable or not?

You say: "I learned to correctly format comments on talk pages by looking at previous comments and copying the style."  How did you access how things looked in the editing box that produced the previous comments' style you were copying??  
That access would be necessary so as to compare with the visible published versions, in order to make inferences as to what editing-box special-character sequences did what in terms of published appearances, no?  
 Of course, it now belatedly occurs to me, now that the whole issue is in my face, (and I brood a bit and luckily recall that Everything (except header?) in the published talk-page shows up in the edit-box  ---rather than just the stuff related to what I jump-to from the contents box, which is what I'm responding to and there for---),  that I could've scrolled-up Above all the contents of interest I was there for, which were the only reason I'm in the edit box to begin with,(i.e., scroll up to ones of no personal content-interest), so as to engage the tedious empirical 'learn-the-editor' task and method you say you did. 
But doing or needing-to-do such a learn-an-editor task here never occurred to me in the first place, (it's not what I or anyone else generally is there for), so neither did the how-to-do-it question arise.  
 IF learning the stupidly special-editor were policy-important, why no obvious notice to that effect, nor any obvious and decent help on such, at the top or anywhere else??      
 
   Regarding my one and only 'throw-away' comment, the Pluto one, itself obviously in mocking conversational response to yet again encountering your dogmatically repeated without-addressing-the-counter-arguments bald claim,

Do notice it is preceded by a few dashes, obviously meant to indicate it's a response to the immediately above text.

Anyone whose ever done email would be familiar with such an indication. To claim serious offense about it, and to seriously tacitly claim that some reader might really be confused about who wrote which sentence there, is simply fatuous, and rather suggestive of someone trying really hard to find something to be offended and indignant about, and to find something to attack and accuse and complain about. Why such attitude?
Anyway, as I clearly stated at length in my earlier reply, it was not my intent to offend, nor to mislead anyone by the improvised catechism-form attempts. Nor do I believe anyone was or would actually be mislead by that example in particular, nor my efforts at such in general. .
Also, to anyone reading thru our obviously alternating text-points in my contributions, (unlike your contributions, which never responded at all to most of my points and counter-points), it's clear that the whole context is one of a give-and-take, back and forth exchange pattern. So aside from your personally disliking the esthetics, (along with the content and powerful justifications of the alternative 'who called' and "arrest" claim), there is very little case to be made against catechism form generally, nor my butchered attempted versions of it, so far as any real harm or misleading-ness goes.
I do agree it's not pretty, and I will give some time to finding, deducing and trying to remember---while typing very badly and focusing on meaning---, a few of the arbitrary details of this really primitive bad editor and bad overall editing process.

 It is worthwhile to recall and react accordingly to the following:  
Once one is technically familiar with something, however specialized or arbitrary, there is a tendency to feel that it's all quite easy and obvious and self-explanatory, and that anyone else who isn't so familiar is just stupid or slow or too lazy to learn it, etc.  These conclusions are almost always not true, and they cause many gratuitous problems.

 When I now go to preview what I've just written here, it will not look at all like it does here. How many additional hours shall one take to address such tedious secretarial appearance-matters, repeatedly scrolling up and down between between regions and tests to see what does what, when one is only there in the first place because interested in addressing the content of the wiki-page issues, with someone presumably likewise interested, and when the resulting editor-tek-ignorant appearance is certainly understandable, if not pretty or standard?

  As a constructive idea, why not have a quik-ref chart (or a link to such) of the main special characteristics and editing-characters at the top of the talk page or editing-box? (later:  I just noticed and explored-expanded the stuff that IS at the top of the edit-box, which I'd overlooked or forgotten about before. It is better than nothing, but not very good). I certainly could've learned some stuff there earlier.  Also, your colon and indentation special-character functions could have simply been discovered-read there as well, rather than the tedious way you say you did it.
 There needs to an more attention grabbing Headline there, like: "How to Format Wiki Edits" 
  Apropos it not being obvious now to use this stupid editor (and the so indirect, middle-man way of editing the actual published versions---is there some tek reason for this way?),  in trying to get the above headline suggestion into bold (-- here, thinking it would therefore make it 'there' as well), I as usual everywhere else in word-processing world selected the text to operate on and went up and clicked on the bold-icon, where upon it just cryptic-unhelpfully highlighted the words "Bold text" just below it, and when I scrolled all the way back down to my text, it had done nothing to my highlighted text. This is all very cryptic and primitive and unobvious compared to the interfaces and 'ways'  most people are used to doing editing. Why so?  No money or what?

 Also, having a prominent and not easily miss-able "How to Format Wiki Edits" headline and jump or link or some such in the 'Talk Header' (more new terminology), at the very top of the talk page, seems like an obvious and helpful improvement possibility, no? 
 
                               Cheerio,  Tommster1

PS--Please pardon whatever doubtless-present formatting, punctuation and typo errors etc there are above. (There are no thinking errors) :-)

--Tommster1 (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

  I have decided to no longer accede to your stubborn irrational insistence on retaining the unjustified and erroneous personal interpretation about 'who called?' regarding the parking-lot cop-accosting-them-in-their-car scene.

The only argument you gave was one of fallacious "process of elimination"; fallacious because it assumed that the only candidates for the caller are the main characters we already specifically know. There is no basis for assuming this; it is simply an arbitrary assumption that invalidates the 'elimination' argument by not considering all the possibilities, and it therefore begs the question of who most-plausibly actually called, rather than addressing it.

  You gave no other argument besides this fallacious one, and you simply ignored every substantive point made against this highly implausible and factually inconsistent  interpretation. 
 Rather than replace the offending sentence with one stating an obviously  better interpretation, I will replace it instead with a neutral description that is unarguable: "they are accosted by police but Wendy talks them out of it...".  
If you revert this substantively unobjectionable change, I will revert your reversion, etc,etc,  until Wiki steps in and does whatever it's procedure is for suspending and resolving such disputes.   
 If you have any real respect for the objective quality of this wiki page, and for optimizing your substantial and commendable  efforts on making this page, you will just leave the change alone.

Tommster1 (talk) 10:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 July 2020 and 20 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dannyr48.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)