Sitting down one evening — well in this case, lying down — to watch myself an episode of CSI:NY.

(Mini-review: Not a great show, by far the weakest of the CSI mega-conglomerate, but eh? it’s something to do on a Wednesday night before waking my wife up with my snoring.)

So, on this particular evening, Gary Sinise — don’t know his character’s name, don’t feel a need to learn it, it ain’t needed… ever — is investigating the discovery of a body found half-eaten in a tiger-pen.

[side-note] Do CSI techs ever investigate plain-old gang-related shootings? Muggings? Anything mundane at all?! Damn — Sherlock Holmes didn’t have plots this byzantine! [end side-note]

Anyways, I’m watching the show and less than ten minutes into the episode Gary Sinise stops a passing landscaper to ask him simple question, gets a simple answer, and then the landscaper disappears… supposedly never to be seen again.

(Yes, I know, they aren’t going to show things that aren’t important to the plot, but still, good shows will leave a couple of blind alleys to lead the viewers astray.)

But — immediately — I knew:

“He did it.”

How did I know?

Because I recognised the actor.

I don’t know his name and couldn’t name too many shows he had appeared on (well, he was on Six Feet Under as Ruth Fisher’s friend from the flower shop). But he is one of those horde of actors that make a living playing small guest roles on TV shows. And I recognise these people. Their faces are memorable. They are good actors. But recognisable.

And they are not hired — for the most part — for unimportant roles.

So, I spend the rest of the episode, impatiently waiting for Gary Sinise and the rest of his merry band of CSI Techs/Bosses-Of-Everyone-Else-With-A-Badge to finally figure out that he did it.

These episodes drive me absolutely over-the-edge, pass Tom Cruise along the road, crazy.

Hire some freaking unknown actors for the freaking murderers, people! Make it a freaking mystery!

(Crap. Just received a fine for over-use of the word “freaking”.)

This isn’t a constant problem. Some shows do, from time to time, hire recognisable actors for “blind alley parts”. Some shows will write the mystery so that having recognised these actors doesn’t effect the actual detective work involved (e.g. they suspect that someone committed a murder but can’t figure out how). And some shows will be kind and just use unknown actors for the whole guest cast (bless them).

I know this isn’t a big problem. But it can be really annoying. (I’m looking at you, Law & Order.)

Fix it. For the good of humanity. I implore you.

(And hey — the struggling actors out there will love you.)

*begin rant*

Big email pet peeve here:

If you receive an email and forward it on to someone else — that lucky someone that has been deemed by you as being better suited to the task of answering the original sender of the email — take the time to enter the original email address in the “Reply-To” field.

You are saving time by not having to answer the email. You have shifted the burden onto someone else’s shoulders. The very least you can do is not force them to cut and paste the original email address from the body of the message (an email address that may be buried several page-downs away).

Even worse — if that someone else makes a tiny, forgivable slip and accidently hits “Reply” without changing the email address to the original sender’s address, do not send an email back to that person scolding them. It was your fault in the first place, dumb-ass. Politely send an apologetic email, informing them that the email didn’t end up where they meant to send it and inform that you will be more careful to properly enter the “Reply-To” field in the future.

Minor email pet peeve:

When replying to someone, don’t delete the original body text from the reply. It might look cleaner and prettier to you, but some people might actually need that text to know what the hell you are talking about.

*end rant*

Ok. I’m better know.

For more sage email advice, head on over the Open Loops for Bert Webb’s beautiful posts on How to Lose Friends and Alienate People With Email:

• Open Loops: How to Lose Friends and Alienate People With Email - Pt. 1
• Open Loops: How to Lose Friends and Alienate People With Email - Pt. 2
• Open Loops: How to Lose More Friends and Alienate Even More People with Email

In the midst of the ongoing Tom Cruise publicity machine/Scientology blitzkrieg, I find myself looking foward less and less to War of the Worlds. I find that my perception of Cruise as a very vocal proponent of Scientology is colouring how I view his work as an actor. (And yes, in the past I have enjoyed his work in a number of his films. He is not the great actor of his generation, but he is effective and enjoyable as a leading man.) But should my personal opinions about his beliefs affect how I experience his work?

It is similar to my experience with Ender’s Game and Orson Scott Card. Ender’s Game was one of my favourite sci-fi books from my teenage years and won both the Hugo and Nebula awards. However, in the past number of years, I have read a number of articles written by him which alter my opinion of him — including his articles denouncing homosexuality and his recent article reacting to the riots in response to the Newsweek article on Guantanamo Bay.

I’m not advocating that Cruise and Card shouldn’t express their views publicly. Go for it. Shout it from the rooftops. I’ll lend you a megaphone.

But I have the equal right to disagree with their message and avoid supporting their views.

But does this mean that their message is connected to and should overlay their artsitic works? Or should we be able to separate our perceptions of an artist’s work from their personal beliefs? Does partaking in their work mean you are tacitly supporting their beliefs?

I don’t know.

I’ll most likely go see War of the Worlds. But I’m not looking forward to it as much as I was before.

And I haven’t re-read Ender’s Game in years.