Seems Lee has decided to go with Amanda’s suggestion of seeing the shrink!
Pfaff: I call it trying to keep the cork in the bottle. It’ the best I can hope for…
…You see, pressure’s bound to build up in you guys and I try to let it off a little at a time before you blow.
Lee: Do we always blow?
Pfaff: Well, it’s a delicate thing. I try to watch for signs. Read the tea leaves. Try to stick you behind a desk. [A shrink that reads the tea leaves.. hmm how reassuring! not!! I know it is just an expression but I find Dr Pfaff to be a weird caricature! Just like his office décor! 😉 ]
Lee: You ever miss? You know, let it go on too long. Then what?
…That’s the technical term….
[I fail to see the funny side here Dr Pfaff.. there are lives at stake.. I think he needs to get out in the field more! weirdo!]
…Did – did you want the couch?
Lee: Are there signs? Signals?
Pfaff: Signals? You guys are all spooks.
[eh?! 2 seconds ago the guy said he himself looked for signs – and he thinks Lee is a typical spook because he wants to know the signs/ signals?!]
(Dr Pfaff reaches over to his fridge and pulls out an ice cream.)
…I almost have to use a divining rod, like a water witch. You want some ice cream?
[I find Dr Pfaff a somewhat annoying person for someone in trouble to seek counsel from – he seems to even want to separate himself from ‘you spooks’ – a counsellor is suppose to be on your side.. he makes it sound like Lee should apologise for being an agent and looking for signals.
Dr Pfaff is funny – for all the wrong reasons!
If you don’t believe me check out the gif meme I did on Neds paying out on him! you spooks are all the same.. I’m not like you.. hey you want an ice cream? lol!]
Pfaff: It’s delicious.
Lee: Man, this is the weirdest butterfly I’ve ever seen.
Pfaff: Butterfly? Interesting.
lol.. what an old gag..but a good one! 😉 I swear the writers of SMK were totally into a psycho analytic approach… here? we see the writers have a little fun with this! The couch? Pure psychoanalysis.. ‘hmm interesting’ is an old gag- which implies you are slightly unhinged
Don’t worry Lee some psychologists think the Rorschach test has no credibility anyway but it’s a fun gag!
Get Smart did two Ink blot gags..
I think this walk through can use a joke or two.. wizard is great but heavy!
The second ink blot gag in Get Smart is a follow up to the first one (where Max was thought weird because he saw women in all the ink blots) The second ink blot gag is in a two part episode titled: ‘Little Black Book’!!!!!
Can this be a coincidence?
Here is part 2 of the gag.. (I think this one is funniest)
(Max is trying to portray his friend as crazy because the friend keeps telling the police he is a spy – and they aren’t suppose to tell anyone.. Worth watching this whole vid.. but.. if you haven’t got the time- The psychiatrist comes in at 6 1/2 minutes- until 10 minutes.. Notice again: The couch!
Max and his buddy get a little err excited at what they are seeing in the ink blots! LOL My neighbours are wondering what I was laughing at!! HERE is a Get Smart thread I created on the Nedlindger’s forum- sorry it’s an off topic thread so you’ll need to sign in to see it..(but it’s easy as to sign up!) okaaaay sorry I digress! On with Wizard!
Lee: What about my pledge to avenge Dorothy? Is that ticking away in me.
[Interesting.. I wasn’t sure if Lee was seeing Dr Pfaff about Paul.. or himself.. This is good self-reflection here from Lee.. questioning how his pledge is affecting himself..]
Pfaff: Sure, vengeance is very corrosive. Just like guilt, envy…
[Bad Dr Pfaff! He changed the subject!! Terrible counsellor!]
Lee: Envy. Yeah, let’s talk about envy for a second. Of a younger agent, say, who still has what you’ve lost….
…He mixes it up with some guilt, maybe an old betrayal or two.
…The death of an agent who trusted you. A death maybe you caused.
Wait a minute.. Lee has switched topics.. so now this is about Paul huh.. Lee is wondering if Paul is envious of what Lee has?! and feeling like his best days are behind him? sheesh.. poor Paul. Guilt? How was Paul making Lee feel guilty? it wasn’t until Lee confronted Paul with his perfect correlation that Paul struck back – but I don’t think Paul in anyway for a second thinks Lee is the badguy! Lee’s thinking here is very curious..
‘The death that you caused’ – is this about Paul causing Dorothy’s death?? Again, this makes me think Lee saw Paul as God- who should have been able to control things and prevent Dorothy’s death – maybe this is how Lee deflects any of his own responsibility?? and with all these other women dying?? Lee is typically prone to taking on responsibility.. though it is at least clear Lee believes he is responsible for getting justice for Dorothy, if not for her death.. thoughts??
It’s a shame Lee’s attention is diverted by ‘envy’ – he seems to miss the part where Dr Pfaff warned him about how vengeance is corrosive.. uh oh.. Lee should have taken that on as a warning..eek!!
Pfaff: Mmmm, nasty.
(Dr Pfaff holds up his ice cream to offer him one again)
Lee: Dammit Doc, will you quit with the tutti-frutti!…
(Lee grabs Pfaff’s ice cream…Dr Pfaff is far too flippant given what Lee is talking about..unprofessional! It’s kind of invalidating for Lee that he is so distracted by his stupid oral fixation.. err I mean .. ice cream! )
…Tell me, what does he do?
Pfaff: We’re speaking hypothetically?
Pfaff: Anything. A man with that much weight on his mind is liable to do – anything at all.
[soo Lee is talking about Paul here.. is this also applicable to Lee? uh oh.. Lee might do anything?!]
Lee: What triggers it?
Pfaff: A hang nail, a button off his shirt. One day the cork pops out of the bottle.
Enough with the ice cream.. too much! I understand they’ve tried to inject humour here through Dr Pfaff, but too much and it doesn’t sit well with me – I did find the gags in Get Smart funny – but this is a very serious situation in this episode.. so not funny!
Lee: And he just keeps goin’ along, getting older and – slower – until…
[Lee’s theory is becoming fully formed in his own mind- and Paul seems to be looking more and more guilty to Lee.. uh oh.. Dr Pfaff made it worse!! 😉 he doesn’t set Lee straight either- Maybe he himself is prejudiced about Paul because he still owes him 10 minutes!!! 😉 ]
I use to see this scene as rather redundant.. but now I can see the value in it.. now I umm pay attention to the plot a bit more aside from Lee and Amanda lol!
For me the scene is full of tension and suspense.. with a bit of quirky humour thrown in – Lee is heading down the wrong path here.. He’s come to Dr Pfaff for ‘help’ but he doesn’t really get it IMHO! Or.. he doesn’t hear the warning for himself in what Dr Pfaff says because he’s too focused on Paul.
All that talk about getting old?? well.. Lee isn’t getting any younger either.. he is no longer a young hot shot agent who can play the field.. he is getting a bit old for that isn’t he?? ahem..
Well moving on.. we have a quick edit here.. from Dr Pfaff’s ‘Kaboom’ to Amanda in the supermarket car park. Uh oh.. are we left wondering if Paul is about to go Kaboom in Amanda’s direction here or something?!
We know she is the killer’s target..
Gosh I knew that leaving your windows down thing would get Amanda into trouble one day!
Amanda gets in her car, and we see the baddie with his hockey mask sitting on her back seat, he holds up a machine gun at her, switches the safety or the automatic switch or whatever – and lets Amanda know he is there! Hiya!! I’m gonna shoot ya!! you might wanna move!!
Amanda is happy to oblige.. Amanda’s middle name is lightning! She avoids the spray of bullets.. poor wagon!!
The baddie stops his spray of bullets, looks around for Amanda but she has escaped.. phew.. that was close.. Would you notice this man people??? Love how no one in the car park seems to notice the semi-automatic gunfire.. ahem.. Well.. two lessons for Amanda.. lock your car.. and umm next time you might want to look and check there isn’t a guy with a hockey mask sitting on your back seat with a machine gun.. just sayin.. ahem..
Anyway! I’ll finish up here for now.. As always.. love to hear your thoughts on this section of the show! byeee for now!
I’m sorry, but if this is the only shrink the Agency has at their disposal, then no wonder they keep losing agents to burnout. This guy is a total moron.
Poor Amanda! What a terrifying experience.
I do wonder what she says to her mother when the car is constantly in the shop for the windshield being blown out, the door being knocked off or needing some other repair caused by her alternative lifestyle. I think Dotty is driving now, right? So they are sharing the car?
I also wonder about Amanda’s handbag. When she gets kidnapped or she’s involved in some explosion, she doesn’t escape with her handbag. Does she have to get a new license, cancel all the credit cards, etc? What a pain!
I know these questions don’t relate to this episode exactly, but this is an example of her car being destroyed and her bag being left behind (I’m assuming it was).
Pingback: Just Walk With Me- through a Random Blog Post! | "Just walk with me.."
Hi guys! sorry I’m so busy in RL JWWM needs to go a little slower at the moment.. miss the walk with you guys and hope you are all well!!!
Here’s a new random blog post to explore!
Well I should go back and read the blogs of a few episodes I missed last summer when things got busy and I wanted to stay with you. I’ll fill in the slow pace with those 🙂 Just don’t get stressed with RL!!
Thanks Melissa R! I appreciate your comments.. yeah I’m rather stressed with my workload. Right when I think I’ll get on top of things something else gets thrown at me 😦
Oh well.. I’ll do the best I can to keep the walk continuing.. even if at a slightly slower pace. And absolutely Melissa R, a great idea! Yes do go back and relish some of the earlier eps you may have rushed through – and I’ll look forward to hearing your thoughts!
Hope everyone is well!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am currently out of town and was expecting to have wifi when I got here, but I don’t. However, I knew I couldn’t go a week without this blog and called my phone company to change my phone plan to include a personal hotspot so I could tether my laptop to my phone. I’m so glad I did. The comments are flying fast and furious.
Question? Isn’t Dr. Pfaff the latest new character added to this season? It’s like they keep bringing in someone new to see who sticks.
I’m glad you did it too Valerie 🙂
yep! Dr Pfaff is a new edition!!
Okay – does anyone else think it’s weird that the doc already keeps his Eskimo Pies unwrapped in the freezer? And then when Lee grabs it from him and stands up, he’s got one hand on the stick and then he touches the other part with his fingers. For some reason that seems rather odd to me. I wonder if it’s a habit with BB? Perhaps a subconscious one? 😆
And what is up with that strange PVC pipe art? Do you think the guys in the prop department were bored one day and decided to see who could make the oddest looking art piece? At least they painted it so you can’t see any of the writing that’s usually on the pipe when you buy it.
Good for Lee for going to see the shrink! He takes Amanda’s advice! He does respect her opinion enough now to actually give what she says a try. Good for you, Lee my boy!
Yeah, I agree, iwsod, Pfaff is a bit of an oddball. Guess they were going for a stereotype here? I don’t know what a stereotypical shrink is though. I have a friend who is a psychologist and she seems quite normal and not so ‘tutti-frutti”!
Love the gif meme you did, iwsod!! Too funny!!
Ugh, red Jason in the back seat of Amanda’s car…oh dear. I always though just how did she escape? Then I thought he must not have really wanted to kill her. But then why wouldn’t he? This whole scene just doesn’t make sense. Maybe that hockey mask is just so ill-fitting that he has no peripheral vision and can’t see Amanda get out of the car. Ok, I’m stretching here….
yeah haaa I did see that he just pulls out an icecream ready to go! whwhahahaa!!
and yeah.. Lee hanging on to the ice cream like that was bizarre. I figured he was deeeeep in thought.. trying to do mental gymnastics so he could conclude Paul is Serdeych or something 😉
Red Jason? whahahahaa!! I love it!!
Maybe we can talk more about why he didn’t kill Amanda in the next post.. not that I have an answer for it – but at least we get to hear Lee’s answer! 🙂
Oh good! I remember the scene, but not the dialogue 🙂
I’ve always thought Lee is basically thinking out loud throughout this scene. He’s conflicted about how he feels about Paul and Dorothy’s death, so he confuses his own feelings about the incident with what he feels about Paul. (It happened under Paul’s watch – he’s to blame. It happened right next to me – what could I have done to stop it? What were we doing wrong? Who betrayed whom?) It’s all tumbled inside, and he’s trying to get is separated. He’s used to separating his emotions from the case, but he can’t here. (He never really can, he just does his best.) This case has touched a lot of what he’s been dealing with throughout his career and it’s bubbling over and out to Paul.
I think Pfaff here was supposed to be comic relief, but fell short. I keep contrasting these scenes in my head with “The Bob Newhart Show” where Bob was a psychiatrist, complete with the couch. I don’t ever remember him using the cards, though…
I see this the same way as Debilyn – thanks Debilyn for putting it so well.
It is all jumbled up. I can’t get on board with the idea that Lee was only finding out about Paul (though that was a part of it ) because he directly asks Pfaff if his pledge to Dorothy is ticking away in me’ – there is no way that can be referring to Paul, as he’s made no such pledge – and Lee directly asks about himself to Pfaff, not even asking in third person. Sooo I see the scene as a big jumble which turns into a huge mess 😉
The language Lee uses when asking this question is even borrowed from a bomb- I think the implication is that it could be Lee who is about to go Kaboom..
Love Get Smart…missed it by that much and sorry about that, pause, (insert someone’s name) are a few of our family’s sayings 🙂
ha! good one!
I do find this whole shrink scene quite funny – some brilliant SMK humor here. The role reversal is ironic – it’s the shrink who’s on the couch, droning on about his problems. Most of the unprofessional things going on is because doctor is acting like the patient. Sounds like Pfaff has been building up some stress and pressure about his role in keeping all those stressed agents going, and he’s eagerly doing some de-compressing here! Even his reaction to Lee’s comment about the butterfly seems more like a reflex than a “Oh, wait – I’m supposed to be working here” moment. It’s interesting, in terms of the light it’s shedding on Lee’s character here. He didn’t think he needed to see a shrink, and he hasn’t come here looking for help – he’s got an agenda, he’s looking for answers. Lee is the one who is in charge of the conversation, and while the doctor relaxes on the couch with ice cream he probes for info to support his hypothesis. Lee hates being a patient, so while taking Amanda’s suggestion that he see a shrink, he’s maneuvered the encounter so that the focus is not on himself and his problems. I’m not convinced that Lee went to this interview with any intention of finding out about himself. Even his question about his vow for vengeance seems like a way of keeping Pfaff think that Lee is talking about Lee, when he is still thinking about Paul. Paul is the one, after all, who’s committed his life to vengeance and tracking down Serdeych. Lee doesn’t so much do “I have a friend” when talking about himself; he talks about himself to hide the fact that he’s talking about a friend.
When Lee stars talking about Paul and envy, I heard the words a little differently . . . I heard him say: “A younger agent, say, who still has what you’ve lost . . . you mix it up with some guilt, maybe an old betrayal or two.” In that case, Lee would be talking about the combination of things contributing to Paul’s state of mind: envy, guilt, the burden of sending Dorothy to her death, the bitterness of betrayal, and trying to make the case that it’s a pretty volatile mix.
I did a bit on Myers-Briggs for a class on Organizational Behavior. The narrow categorizations worked as a good starting point for understanding basic traits, but people are people and nobody fits into a neat little box all of the time. Plus, people often unconsciously cheat on the questions, putting down what they wish was true, rather than what is really true.
As a totally unrelated aside, we have a cat my brother named Rorschach because he (the cat) has a way of flopping all over the place like a spread-out inkblot . . .
I heard what you heard, happycamper, mix it up. I was also wondering if Lee is describing not Paul, not himself, but someone else. I do think he is mixing it all up because he is looking for all sorts of answers. He still suspects Paul, he is confused about his own behavior, and there is so much that doesn’t add up that maybe he is also looking for other possibilities. Maybe he really is getting some claroty, or maybe the light right before the dawn is beginning to change night into that grey…? Maybe?
I agree with you happycamper, I thought Dr. Pfaff was funny, but then I’m not a psychologists 🙂 Just wait till the episode that has the mathematician in it and then I might complain 😉
LOL ahhhh thanks for understanding 🙂
Don’t tell me what ep that is. I have no idea! 🙂
Yes, think you are right about that line being “…you mix it up with some guilt”. I transcribed this episode and I listened to that part over and over again because I couldn’t make sense of what Lee was saying – he said those words very fast and with the American accent to me it sounded like “…you make”, but your words make much more sense. I’ve re-watched it again and think now he is saying “…you mix…”. And, I also just checked the script which also says “mix” – I usually check the script when I’m transcribing to double check anything I’m not sure about. Doh!
Iwsod, could you correct this please?
Oh sure no problem! lol I didn’t notice.. and thought it said Mix.. I had a gestalt!! 😉
hiya Happy Camper, I loved how you put this.. I agree there is a role reversal going on here – though I differ with you on whether or not Lee was enquirying about himself at all.
See my reply to Debilyn if you are interested 🙂
I’m glad you said that about Myers-Briggs. I’ve kind of suspected that myself. I’ve taken the test a couple of times for different school projects and got different results. I think it’s because there were different things going on in my life each time, and therefore, different things were more important to me. My answers were probably influenced by those issues and maybe, like you said, by what I wanted to be at the time. I’ve read through the possible results, and none of them describe me exactly. There are a couple that come close, but they’re not perfect fits. Jestress remains an enigma. 😎
Hmm, interesting, Jestress! I’ve taken the MBTI several times over the last 20 years and I always get the same result. I think it’s because I tend to be close to an end of the scale for each parameter. If I were closer to the middle of the scale, I could see it tipping either way depending upon my stage of life or if anything big was changing. I’ve read all 16 profiles and the one that I get every time sounds just like me. I love the MBTI stuff! It’s fun to me, but not something I take seriously.
At least you’re interesting Jestress. I’ve done a myers-briggs test about 5 times in various contexts in the last 25 years. And I get exactly the same result every time! And the blurb describes me very well but misses out on other aspects of me. I think it’s a useful tool to help you understand some things about yourself. I think we should take a stab at guessing Lee and Amanda’s MB types on/at Neds
Hmmm, I’m thinking you and I might just share a few of those MBTI letters, learjet, we seem to have some similarities. And Morley and I have discussed off-blog Lee and Amanda’s MB types. I wonder if you would come up with the same ones? It was a fun thing to do. If you post something on it at Ned’s please tell!
I’ve created a thread at Neds. Please share your and Morley’s thoughts!
That is such a cool idea!!!
Someone can post the questions.. we can answer them.. and then calc what Lee and Amanda are! LOL..
LOL Jestress.. aren’t we all an enigma? 🙂 even to ourselves??!! 🙂
I agree. I think most psychologists would say psychometric testing is a tool – but one test cannot tell you everything. 🙂 Or as BJo might say – they are just one piece of data, which needs to be combined with other types of data to complete the picture of who someone is.. and I agree.. they can be used in very misleading ways by unscrupulous people – that is why there are rules around who can conduct them, and who sees the results etc.
[Hope that is reassuring!]
LikeLiked by 1 person
You know me too well, iwsod! That is exactly what I would say. It is but one piece of data in the whole picture. The more data you have, the clearer the picture can become!
The last time I took that I came up with 4 different personality types. Those two middle variables were so close that I could swing either way. What does that say about me?
lol! That’s kind of what I did. The first time, I got three letters the same, but was stuck between F and T. Later, I couldn’t seem to decide whether or not I was N or S. The other two, I feel pretty confident about.
Part of it might be Jestress’s natural ability to overthink everything. Also, there are a number of parts where I just want to say, “Well, both are important!”
“And so she went on, taking first one side and then the other, and making quite a conversation of it altogether . . .”
— Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland
I do have firm opinions on things, but they’re not always what people expect. Jestress also does not believe in political parties. There is no political party which captures the true essence that is Jestress. 😎
Love the Alice in Wonderland quote!
Yup, that is exactly what my test looked like. Just another reason why that rabbit whole with the wine and chocolate is the place to be!
Hi happycamper! I really like how you explain all this here with Lee and the shrink. Very clever! And I love all that Meyers-Briggs stuff! I agree that people really don’t fit in or stay in a nice, neat little box, but I’ve found that when people answer it truthfully, then it can yield a pretty good result!
Agree with you Iwsod – how is it that no bystanders seem to be concerned about the guy in the hockey mask with the automatic weapon. 😯
The station wagon takes another battering – how’s Amanda going to explain this to Dotty? 😉
Yeah, what’s that called when people ignore someone in trouble? Got it, “Bystander Effect”.
I know you guys in the US are used to seeing firearms everywhere but who would be a bystander in this situation? Wouldn’t anyone who saw what was going on run for their lives and/or call the Police immediately? Who would ignore a guy in a hockey mask with an automatic weapon?! Okay, I know this is SMK land but surely in real life people would react. 😯
As an aside, JWWM readers (especially those in the US) might be interested to know that it is a serious criminal offence in New Zealand to have a firearm with you without “particular lawful, proper and sufficient purpose”. For the purposes of transporting the firearm “you should have firearms – unloaded – in your vehicle only on the way to or from a hunting trip, shooting range, or for some other genuine reason.”
The quoted parts are from the NZ Police Firearms Code, which paraphrases the relevant section of the NZ Arms Act.
I know that because the rash of gun violence seems to have escalated and because of how the media reports things it seems as if we must be looking like the Wild West with everyone carrying a firearm of some sort, but it’s just not true. The only firearms I’m used to seeing are those carried by the police. And fortunately and blessedly so I have not had to deal with such violence. That is not to say that it doesn’t exist and not to say that it hasn’t gotten out of hand. There are laws in place here as well and constant and continual discourse and debate regarding those laws. In some of those violent situations the weapons that were used had been legally obtained and used by the person who obtained or owned them. But, yes, times have changed and as a teacher there are additional crisis and protocol drills I have be aware of, but I have yet had to use them.
Most assuredly when a shooting has occurred no one is standing by. I’m sure people are taking cover and calling the police.
As someone who lives in what used to be the Wild West, I can tell you a bit about Arizona gun laws, if you’re curious. There’s a lot more room to maneuver here than there is in most other states. I’ve never used one myself because I can’t stand loud noises (Jestress would never make it as a field agent 😦 ), but most of the people I know do know how to shoot. The smart ones get formal training, clean and store their weapons properly, and follow the safety rules because these are weapons, even though they’re being used recreationally for target shooting.
People where I live are allowed to carry side arms openly in the street (as long as they’re at least 18 years old and haven’t done anything to get the privilege taken away), and every so often I see them do it, although they don’t do it very often. It’s attention-getting when they do. No one will really say anything, but people notice a weapon right away and will watch that person. Your eyes are just drawn to it, and you can feel a slight unease around you. Even though it’s legal, we’re not used to seeing it all the time. In the rural areas, people are probably more used to it, but I live in the city. There are certain public buildings which don’t allow it, and some businesses like restaurants will specifically post signs against it. Violating one of these signs means that they can be charged with trespassing.
Actually, I think that the bigger threat isn’t the weapons you can see, but the weapons you can’t. I can’t tell you how many have weapons in their vehicles, but it’s not uncommon to find people who do, especially those who travel at night. I even know a few people who have permits to carry concealed weapons. They still issue permits for that, although I think they changed the laws a couple of years ago so that the permit is no longer necessary. Anyone over 21 years old can carry a concealed weapon (unless they’ve done something to lose the privilege or they’re in an area which doesn’t allow weapons at all — if someone finds out, they’re in trouble).
Probably the best safety measures against this are:
1. People know that there people walking around armed and will take steps to protect themselves. Defensive weapons like pepper spray are also common here.
2. Bad guys also have no idea who else around them might be carrying concealed. It’s even possible to buy women’s purses with special hidden holsters for concealed carry, although I think a lot of them have a tell-tale side zipper, if you know what you’re looking for.
Anyway, as far as this scene goes, I figured that either no one else was in the parking lot when this happened or that anyone who was there ran for cover, like you said. Sensible people run away from gunfire, not toward it, although I suppose it would have been more realistic if we saw someone scream and run away. Good question about what Amanda told Dotty. Boy, that car of hers goes through a lot!
The laws vary from state to state, but in most states a permit is required to carry a loaded firearm (Arizona being one of the notable exceptions!) Such permits are issued only to law-abiding citizens after a background check, and usually after training. These are considered defensive weapons, and there are many regulations about using them even in a self-defense situation. Some states actually require the firearm to be concealed, some do not, but concealment is the usual method practiced because, as Jestress stated, it provides a psychological deterrent to criminals if they know there COULD BE a firearm in the hand of a trained civilian. There needn’t actually be any; the point is that they just don’t know. Most of the large-scale shootings carried out in recent years have happened in ares where guns are forbidden, such as schools, which does offer some validity to that line of reasoning. There are laws preventing criminals from lugging firearms around, but — they’re criminals, which means they break laws by definition. For example, in my state most banks have posted that they do not allow firearms on the premises, but it’s not normal for bank robbers to considerately leave their guns outside! I don’t know about what the laws were back in the 80’s, but by today’s laws that hockey-masked man would be breaking several laws, above and beyond the one against attempted murder. The mere act of carrying a gun is ALWAYS illegal if the intent is to use it for an attack or robbery. Which doesn’t do much to prevent that criminal from using it, but maybe will make it a little harder to get out of jail afterwards. Laws are only as good as the amount of successful time and energy spent enforcing them, as the school shooting incidents show.
I’m going with the idea that all the bystanders are flat on the ground or hiding behind their cars (as I would be) and therefore invisible, but wouldn’t there be more screaming?
I hesitated to bring the topic up as I know the mind-set is so different in the US and it is a politically charged issue to. I’m struggling to think of occasions in my life where I’ve even seen a real gun – I can’t think of one instance at the moment. Even in people’s homes you won’t see them (and I’ve been into thousands of homes) because again in NZ all guns must be securely locked away. Aside from hunting, target shooting and legitimate collectors, there’s just no reason to have a gun. And certainly carrying one in public without legitimate purpose will get you arrested pretty darn quick.
Just one last comment on this topic. Jestress observed, “People where I live are allowed to carry side arms openly in the street … every so often I see them do it, although they don’t do it very often. It’s attention-getting when they do.” IMHO If someone feels the need to carry a gun in public just to draw attention to themselves, that suggests a lack of mental maturity that probably makes that person not a real safe candidate for gun ownership. Just sayin’. 😉 No more from me on the topic otherwise Iwsod will growl me for leading you all off-topic. 😈
You’re right. People like that aren’t safe. Part of the reason I latched onto this is because the issue recently came up at work. This young guy came in wearing a side arm, a t-shirt with the f-word on it, and one of the worst punk hairdos I’ve ever seen. He had legitimate business there, and the place where I work doesn’t have one of those signs forbidding firearms. However, I was a little nervous because, even though he was old enough to carry, he did not in any way inspire confidence that he really knew what he was doing. He was also in a foul mood because his car broke down on his way there, and he had to walk partway in the heat. Then, I had to be the one to tell him that we couldn’t provide him with the type of service he was looking for.
There’s really nothing else you can do in those circumstances but stay calm and keep your tone sympathetic and apologetic as you explain things. He didn’t cause any trouble, just stormed out in a huff. As I was talking to him, the fact that he openly told me that he was in a bad mood over his car made me feel a little more secure that he capable of rational communication, but everything else about him was screaming, “Do not provoke the crazy person.” My manager was a bit upset about him being there, but as I said, without a sign up forbidding firearms, he was perfectly legal. But, this was a very rare circumstance, too. It’s really the first time in several years that I’ve seen anyone openly wearing a gun who was not either a police officer or a security guard.
The last was before that might have been the old lady who lived out in the Superstitions and was apparently looking for gold and only came into town sometimes for errands. At the time, we happened to be going to the same chiropractor. It’s been years, but I think she had a side arm, too. She was dressed like she’d wandered out of an old western, but the chiropractor insisted that she wasn’t just a character actor.
That’s really all I’ve got to say on this issue, too. To tie it more into SMK, back in season 1, in the episode Waiting for Godorsky, Amanda comments to Lee when they’re talking about the phone communication that she transcribed that she can hear a sound that sounds like a gun being loaded. Then, she asks why Lee can’t arrest them, if they know that these people have a gun. That line always jumps out at me because of where I live. The mere possession of a gun isn’t grounds for arrest.
I don’t growl! but.. yes.. I have requested off topic heads to Nedlindgers. Play nicely kiwismh 😉
Sorry Iwsod, that was my mind wandering off on a tangent about the lack of bystanders and general panic in that scene with the hockey mask and automatic weapon. We’d already pretty much shut the conversation down ourselves. There’s one problem child in every playground – guess I’m it. 😳
no worries kiwismh you are no more a problem than the rest of us 🙂
I went off track the other day – and realised later I had done it and it’s not a good idea for the blog.. so just wanted to say I’ve been a problem child too – and let’s get back on track together 🙂
I’m guilty here, too. It’s a subject that been on my mind lately, and as I said, it does actually influence the way I see some things here. But, I’ll try not to go off on lengthy tangents in the future. 😉
Ha, me too. Sorry.
all good! 🙂
Oh dear.. How did we get onto gun laws?
I’m not singling out Anyone at all this.. but off topic freedom doesn’t work for this blog. sorry guys.. and I know I was lax last week – but the blog is not a great place for free range chatter about anything – Neds on the other hand is perfect!! Start a topic about whatever you like over there – and feel free to let us know on JWWM the link to the thread.
Please take new subjects not related to a post over to Neds – for extended discussion
Maybe we can help each other with this!
I think the off topic chat is needed now more than ever- because Wizard is sooo flippin dark! argh!!
I don’t know why I didn’t mention it before, but it’s just so hard for me to take Dr. Pfaff seriously. The actor who plays him is actually a musician (as well as actor) who was in the Blues Brothers movie as one of the band members. When the brothers found him he was part of Murph and the Magic-tones and they wore these cheesy suits and were playing cheesy songs at a Ramada Inn. The Blues Brothers came out in 1980 so when I saw this SMK episode I just about died.
I do like how Lee took Amanda’s suggestion and he didn’t wait to do it. He seems to have gone straight to Pfaff once he left Amanda. And again he seems, at first, to be asking all the right questions and seeking some answers. But then it goes a little off the rails as Pfaff sort of sparks where Lee’s thoughts have been heading and just adding fuel to his fire. Maybe after his self-reflection Lee didn’t like what he was seeing so he decided to deflect and project onto Paul.
Amanda is pretty speedy with the getaway. Her poor car….
Love, love, loved Get Smart!! So funny!!
Inappropriate comments aside (I would be a bit insulted if I were a psychologist – lots of pseudo-science comments!), I spent a happy few minutes reading about the Rorschach test (when I should have been doing something more constructive). If we assume that this test is valid and not nonsense, what does Lee seeing a butterfly say about it? I believe this first card relates to how the person responds to new, stressful situations. Iwsod, you’re the one with the expertise in this field??
PS love the “wide-eyed Amanda in the rear-view mirror” pic – KJ really does that well
hiya! I’m back!! 🙂 lol my expertise is not vast.. I’m still a beginner! 🙂
I think psychologists know their profession is something everyone has some knowledge of – so I wouldn’t dismiss what someone thought of something.. but it is also an occupational hazard that a little knowledge in the public can be dangerous 😉
It’s the nature of psychology.. As this scene with Dr Pfaff shows.. I think his counselling skills stink ( I just did a subject on this last semester so very fresh) – but don’t mind me – a few years ago I would have just found him quirky and funny.. now? I’m wrapped up in how high the stakes are here for Lee and I can see mistakes the ‘professional’ is making – where he is actually doing harm to his client. Being useless is one thing – doing harm? just stinks!!
I won’t go into a rant about it though and don’t expect others to agree or be especially interested! 😉
To answer your question regarding Rorshach tests – I have some training in psychometrics.. am doing a subject on this next semester actually! whohoo!! 🙂 – there is never 100% agreement in psychology about anything lol – but the general consensus is that the cards are not evidence based – and too prone to whimsy. they are not scientific.. sooo while they may still be used today – they are not used much and we are not being taught to use them. There are other projective type tests which have more evidence to support their use. hope short answer okay? 🙂
Sooo about this card we see – I don’t think it’s an actual genuine Rorschach card (they are on Wikipedia if you want to see them, there are 10) – I always assumed it is a mock up made to look like one – because while Rorschach is not legally protected- it is thought bad form to publish them for all the world to see [this is why today most psychometric tests are protected -psychologists have to pay to use them or get a copy of them]
– in the 80s maybe Rorschach had a better reputation and so people were more precious about protecting the actual cards from public view – it can destroy the effectiveness of the test if people know how to answer – so I figured the prop department did up a card to look like one – but it isn’t an actual real one.
Here’s a question.. so what does it look like to you? haaaaa..
I like how Get Smart just had a laugh at them 🙂
I also see a butterfly (oh goody, I have something in common with Lee!!) but if I keep looking, I see the back of someone’s wide open mouth, or maybe a pelvis (maybe my previous profession is influencing me?? – too much anatomy)
ROFl I see fallopian tubes – two sets! whahahahaa.. yeah same here learjet I have a little medical training too.. what was it I was just saying? a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?!
I thought that the one Lee said looked like a butterfly looked more like a dragonfly because it had narrow wings. I’m not sure exactly what that makes me, but I think that every time I see it. Of course, I also think it looks like a flower. Really, almost all of those things look like butterflies, dragonflies, or flowers to me. Except for one of the ones in the second Get Smart episode. I swear there’s one in there that looks like siamese twin teddy bears wearing vests.
Maybe Pfaff is canny enough to know that the “I’m on your side” line isn’t going to work with someone like Lee. No doubt he is taking in all that Lee is saying and his analysis of that will make it into his notes on this session.
I’m in an all day training session today and making a few comments on the lunch break. Having just sat through 3 hours of psycho-babble on how to “read” people and plot them on a graph (don’t ask!), I’m sympathizing with Lee’s impatience here. Four more hours to go.
hiya.. the first rule in therapy is to build rapport – you spooks ugh!!! is soooo not a good way to go.. Yes maybe Lee would not have bought Pfaff declaring he is his best buddy.. but somewhere between you spooks are nuts and spooks are my best buddies would have sufficed 😉
Even neutrality would have been better than this – see my response to learjet.. I won’t repeat myself and bore you guys! 🙂
Yeah, Pfaff really irritates me because I think a real shrink would come up with some better input than he did during this session. I assume Lee has already been speaking to him for a while about Dorothy and what has been going on with him lately.
I can only make it right in my SMK universe by assuming that Pfaff is being deliberately light and humorous to keep Lee talking candidly.
So, Lee seeing a butterfly – is that a clue that he is renewing, emerging from his chrysalis (old lifestyle), undergoing a metamorphosis from his Scarecrow dominated personality to becoming Lee Stetson again?
I don’t know that Lee went to see Pfaff with the intention of analysing Paul’s behaviour but we can see that his suspicion of and his recent conflict with Paul, and his own guilt at his association with the doomed women, is occupying his thoughts by the way he quickly seizes on the concept of envy and how this might apply to Paul and the murders. The whole session gets turned around in an instant to become an analysis of someone else’s (Paul’s) state of mind and motivations. I also think throughout this session Lee is also beginning to contemplate about his own life journey – after the events of his life will he inevitably become darkened and driven like Paul? Or is there something (someone) in his life that is already diverting him from that grim future?
I like this, kiwismh. I don’t think I view this meeting with Pfaff as though Lee went for counsel. I have always felt like he was meeting with the head of the psychoanalysis department of the Agency as research for this case. I think Pfaff took the interview as such but tried to also use it to break through a bit with Lee. He was answering some of Lee’s questions, gathering info about where Lee was and trying to lead Lee to a place where he would recognize his own needs.
Love your take on the butterfly, kiwismh! And your questions at the end. I wonder what Pfaff thinks of Amanda and her role in Lee’s life. Maybe Pfaff doesn’t worry too much about Lee because he knows he has Amanda…?
Oh! and.. I’d love to hear more about your psychobabble.. if you would like to share at Neds – but I would completely understand if you are over it and never want to think about it again! 🙂
Please let us know how you plot people on a graph at Neds!! I’m fascinated…
Yeah!!! Kiwismh you could practice and plot the characters on smk! 🙂
The main speaker at our training day, who took two sessions, was a real estate agent/motivational speaker who is based in Annapolis, Maryland. Very clever, witty chap but too many hours of sitting (my butt was going numb!) always makes me a bit grumpy. 👿
Weird coincidence with today’s JWWM post as what we were doing was an updated version of Myers Briggs, i.e. fitting the subject person into one of four categories of personality types. Never mind the myriad nuances that we all have – can people really be categorised so narrowly? Guess I just don’t know enough to judge and certainly don’t have any sort of university education from which to make constructive comment, so I’ll leave it to you higher educated folk to set me right. I’ll post the relevant info at Ned’s when I get a chance.
I agree that “maybe Pfaff is canny”. He lets Lee be in charge of the situation, which is a pretty good idea considering that Lee doesn’t want to be there to talk about himself. His laying on the couch lets Lee feel like the normal person. Yes, Pfaff is silly and over-the-top and probably a terrible counselor, but he’s a fun character in SMK-world. 🙂
I guess I am kind of wondering if Lee is talking about just Paul here? Is he maybe mixing himself and Paul up into one scenario? Does Pfaff suspect this? Maybe he isn’t taking Lee seriously because he thinks Lee is kind of doing the teen, “I have a friend thing” for himself. I do think the writers were going for psychoanalytic humor, they weren’t counting on dedicated fans with DVD’s and blogs tearing each moment apart. But I think I can make it work for me 😉
The envy I do think Lee may be thinking Paul has, maybe due to the “your women” comment, But the rest sounds like Lee projecting himself on Paul.
As I was watching Wizard today I thought the same thing Morley!