October 2001 posts
Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- sasha, 14:43:04 10/23/01 Tue
Okay, we know that when AI showed up at Caritas looking for Fred, Lorne asked Gunn if he brought any of his friends and Gunn replied "Maybe I should wait outside" and Lorne agreed that was a good idea. A few questions arise:
1) Does Lorne blame Gunn for the wreck of Caritas? If so, why? Is this fair/right/good/bad?
2) Why does Gunn suggest it himself that he should wait outside? Is he just humoring Lorne, trying to smooth things over so they can all deal with the main crisis which is Fred being missing? Does he feel guilty/responsible for the wreck of Caritas? If so, why? Is this fair/right/good/bad?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- celticross, 15:24:27 10/23/01 Tue
I've been wondering about that myself...obviously, Lorne is still devastated about the damage done to his club. I don't really think it was fair of him to tell Gunn to leave, but Gunn is the closest target for his anger. Caritas is his home and his livelihood, and as I mentioned in a thread below, he probably feels very persecuted in having the place wrecked, as doesn't believe he's doing anything wrong. And Gunn suggesting that he want outside? Big ole guilt by association, I do believe.
I think the biggest question for me about Lorne's behavior in this episode is, why did he tell Fred to keep running?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- Ryuei, 16:17:39 10/23/01 Tue
I was a little surprised at the hard feelings that Lorne directed at Gunn. I hope they patch that up. On the other hand, when I thought it over it is understandable. If Gunn hadn't been covering up for his friends, the club and its patrons wouldn't have been shot up. Also, seeing Gunn must have brought it all back to Lorne - yes, guilt by association. Not fair but understandable.
As for Lorne's advice to Fred - that did seem peculiar. The only thing I can figure is that Fred was trying to retreat back into the womb - with the cave, her room, and her plans for a sewer condo. Then, once she had faced her parents and the admitted the reality of what had happened to her she tried to retreat again into a dream of childhood safety by returning home to her parents. I think Lorne saw that Fred would not only have to muster the courage to see her parents but also the courage the leave them once more for the responsibility and challenges of adulthood. This of course, would tie things in with this years theme of growing up on Buffy too.
One last thing - I sure hope Lorne reopens Caritas. And here's an idea - there must be room at the AI hotel for a new refurbished Caritas. Of course, that might compromise the neutrality/sanctuary of Caritas so maybe that really wouldn't work out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- Kendra, 01:21:11 10/24/01 Wed
At first I understood Lorne's attitude toward Gunn, though didn't agree; however, Gunn defended Lorne from his friends. For that reason I think Lorne was wrong. And I too wonder what is up with Lorne's bad advice to Fred. Also in the gang's defense, I think at that time finding Fred was priority. Hopefully, they will deal with issue soon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- Wisewoman, 17:50:10 10/23/01 Tue
It made me very uncomfortable when Gunn left Caritas and the others stayed. I'm trying not to be overly politically correct about the whole thing, but it just smacked of, "We don't want your kind in here."
Why didn't any of the AI team stick up for Gunn, or suggest that he should stay? Granted, his withholding evidence probably led to the attack on Caritas, but Gunn didn't actually participate in the attack. He was very definitely not "one of the gang," as far as his old gang went, and yet that's the way he was treated last night.
It raises the whole question of judging people based on their associations rather than on their actions. In this case the fact that the associations are pretty much "black or white" just makes it a little harder to swallow.
Just my .02 worth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- spike lover, 18:51:01 10/23/01 Tue
It also bothered me that none of the gang spoke up for him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- Riley's Ghost, 21:59:23 10/23/01 Tue
I believe that Riley's old friends were correct in attacking the lounge. After all Lorne was harbouring evil at the lounge.
If Lorne does reopen, I hope he is more careful in who he lets in.
When you harbour evil this is what happens. Lorne needs to take responsibility for what happened and stop blaming others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- Riley's Ghost, 22:07:31 10/23/01 Tue
Gunn's old friends.
Sorry I have Riley on my mind tonight.
I did find it odd that Lorne blamed Gunn. Gunn found out, then came to the lounge to warn Angel Investigations. There wasn't much time in between.
But again I believe Gunn's friends did the right thing. The monsters at the lounge were evil and by destroying them a few more babies in LA will get to see adulthood.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- Bambi Slayer, 22:22:36 10/23/01 Tue
You know what I was thinking. Perhaps the reason Lorne hadn't rebuilt the lounge yet, was because, athough he was angry, subconciously he is beginning to see it as a wake up call.
Subconciously he knows that harboring evil is wrong. He probably knows that Gunn's friends were right in what they did, but isn't ready to admit it yet. So on the surface he is angry with Gunn and his friends, but deep down he is angry at himself.
This could have been just what Lorne needed to re-evaluate his amoral life. In the end we all have to choose between good and evil. Can't stay on the sidelines forever.
Lorne will eventially have to admit his own responsibility in the events that resulted in the damage to his lounge and choose between the demons and humanity. I hope that this is a start of a beautiful friendship between him and Gunn's group. He could open up the lounge to them as kind of a headquarters.
Or he could choose to go with the Demons.
Either he is with Angel Investigations and Gunn's Friends or he is with evil. Can't be neutral anymore.
I hope he sticks with the good guys. Gunn's friends and him could be quite an alliance, if Lorne can apologize and they can put their bad feelings behind them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Did the Host deserve what he got? -- Naomi, 03:12:42 10/24/01 Wed
I get the impression that the Hosts bar is only one of a few demon sancturies in LA so why should the Host close it. Maybe it's over the top to call demons a persecuted minority but the episode Hero showed us how hard it is for demons to fit in to human society. Why shouldn't they be able to relax at a place where they can fit in and feel safe from intolerance. There are good and bad demons and the good demons should not be punished because of the actions of other evil demons. The Host can be seen as condoning immoral behaviour but in the long term it isn't going to make much difference to the victims of demons if the Host serves them drinks or not. It's not as if he's helping them commit evil. He simply tells people/demons there predetermined futures if they are curious. The only demon we have actually seen him advice is Angel and that was because the Host was helping the higher Powers. The innocent demons deserve consideration too as the Host banning demons from his premises is not ultimately going to make a diffence to the evil committed by some of them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> The quality of Mercy is not strained...... -- Rahael, 03:22:22 10/24/01 Wed
I agree with you Naomi.
I think the meaning of Caritas is significant. We have learned that a lot of the demons/evil people that appear in AtS are redeemable. That despair, and isolation and lack of hope (what Holland succeeds in inducinging in Angel), only drives people toward more desparate, anti social actions.
And seeing as Caritas is a word overloaded with Christian resonance, there is plenty of justification, theologically speaking for the AI team to continue hanging out there, and for the HOst to provide a neutral space.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Yes -- Riley's Ghost, 06:43:26 10/24/01 Wed
"I get the impression that the Hosts bar is only one of a few demon sancturies in LA."
Exactly. It is a sanctury for evil. Evil should know no sanctury.
Yes the Host did get what he deserved. Sure he has a great personality. Sure he is a nice guy. But he gives sanctury to evil.
Gunn's friends attacked a legimate target. They were protecting their community.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Are you speaking fictionally as "Riley's Ghost", or are these actually you're black/white opinions? -- RabidHarpy, 07:16:02 10/24/01 Wed
Just curious... you seem very "in" character. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes -- Naomi, 08:06:02 10/24/01 Wed
In your post you are sterotyping all demons as bad based on their appearance. My point was that all demons are not evil. Gunn's gang were not protecting innocent people, they were attacking demons randomly based on their appearances. They were taking pleasure in wantom acts of violence and destruction and I felt that they were deliberetely unsympathetic because the episode was trying to make a point. You can't make sweeping generalisations that all demons are evil as this is not the case. The Host may be seen by you as immoral but the higher powers are using him to instruct and guide Angel. Therefore the situation is not as black and white as some people might like it to be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> This is my fault, Naomi -- WW, 08:30:33 10/24/01 Wed
Please know that the vast majority of this Board agrees with you. This type of response from Riley's Ghost and Bambi Slayer (or whatever?) is the same as we got when the episode aired. There is no way to reason with these posters; they will just continue to reiterate their initial post.
I'm sincerely sorry that I attracted their attention again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes -- maddog, 09:20:48 10/24/01 Wed
This is what I was trying to get at in my other post further down(though I claimed there wasn't proof of a bad demon in Caritas at the time...my bad, the baby eater was pointed out)....but overall I was getting to the fact that they weren't finding out whether the demons were good or bad...one in the same to them...which includes Lorne...which includes Angel. Sad isn't it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel as a good/bad demon...SPOILERS (AtS3.4) TOGOM -- sasha, 16:33:45 10/24/01 Wed
maddog says: "but overall I was getting to the fact that they weren't finding out whether the demons were good or bad...one in the same to them...which includes Lorne...which includes Angel. Sad isn't it."
I looked at the sentence and thought...."Angel is a good demon", but then I realized, "No, Angel is a good/bad demon, sometimes he's good, sometimes he's bad". And the interesting point about Gunn's old gang shooting up all the demons in Caritas just because they're demons, and especially wanting to dust Angel for being a Vampire, is:
Who appointed them Judge and Jury? Who gave them the right to decide life and death for demons? Was there a letter/memo/email?
And especially:
Who gave them the right to dust Angel just because he's a vamp? TPTB are already personally overseeing Angel's case. From my impression of TPTB, they're the highest authority in the buffyverse. If you don't like what they're doing, who ya gonna complain to? I would hope that TPTB might be perturbed that Gunn's old gang, by determining Angel's destiny, rather than letting Angel choose or have the TPTB direct him through Cordy's Visions, is usurping their place in the buffyverse and step in, but then again, TPTB do let W&H mess with Angel all they want to, so maybe not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel as a good/bad demon...SPOILERS (AtS3.4) TOGOM -- Riley's Ghost, 19:19:26 10/24/01 Wed
"Who appointed them Judge and Jury? Who gave them the right to decide life and death for demons? Was there a letter/memo/email?"
They have to live everyday under the threat of Demon attack. They have seen their friends harmed, and yes even killed by them.
This is a matter of survival for them. You asked who appointed them? Neccesity appointed them. Do you think the rest of Los Angeles gives a damn about what happens to them? So another street kid dies. Not their part of the world so most of LA doesn't care.
They don't have e-mail. All they have is each other. They used to have Gunn, but Gunn doesn't seem to want to hang around in their neighborhood anymore. You see now he has this fancy job at this big hotel working for this big bloodsucking vampire dude. The same kind that killed his kid sister. Imagine that.
No, haven't seen Gunn much lately. So it's up to them. So don't expect them to respect this sanctury thing where the monsters get to kick up their feet, listen to some tunes, drink some cocktails, and then go back to THEIR neighborhood to steal some babies to eat. No they are taking the battle to the monsters. Evil deserves no safe haven, after all what safe haven has the demons ever given them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel as a good/bad demon...SPOILERS (AtS3.4) TOGOM -- Bambi Slayer, 21:26:20 10/24/01 Wed
Gunn's friends were protecting their neighborhood. The people at Caritas were evil. They probably have done much harm to Gunn's friends. And then afterwards they go to Caritas and laugh about it.
Somewhere along the line Angel Investigations forgot what Caritas was all about. Even Gunn to some extent. I can understand them going there for information, but they started going there for entertainment. They forgot how evil these Demons were.
It reminded me of how some like to hang out with gangsters. They think it's cool to be around evil, though not participating in it directly.
Gunn's friends took out a hang out for evil. Killed a bunch of demons too, probably saving many human lives. I think that was great. They went a little too far with Angel, but that was more a power struggle thing than anything else.
If the Host doesn't want his lounge attacked, he shouldn't harbor evil. If he does harbor evil, he opens himself up as a target, and should expect no mercy from the good guys.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel as a good/bad demon...SPOILERS (AtS3.4) TOGOM -- anom, 21:54:49 10/24/01 Wed
"You see now he has this fancy job at this big hotel working for this big bloodsucking vampire dude. The same kind that killed his kid sister."
Except he's not. He just looks like the same kind to them. Which is the whole point.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel as a good/bad demon...SPOILERS (AtS3.4) TOGOM -- Riley's Ghost, 06:42:31 10/25/01 Thu
Just give Angel one moment of perfect happiness and see how different he really is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel as a good/bad demon...SPOILERS (AtS3.4) TOGOM -- Naomi, 12:20:46 10/25/01 Thu
Angel is different from other vampires and the people attacking him based on his appearance needed to acknowledge that instead of making assumptions. Yes he does have a curse but I don't think that he deserved to die because of what he is capable of doing and am puzzled about what point you are trying to make. I don't want to keep rehashing the issue because I sense that it's just going to keep going round in circles. I just have one question. If 80% of British people were pure evil would you support random attacks on all British people based on their appearance? If you wouldn't then that is the point that I am trying to make. If you would support that then that is known as prejudice. It might seem like killing all British people would be best overall/in the long run but the reality is that it would destroy society and the idea of innocent until proven guilty etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel as a good/bad demon...SPOILERS (AtS3.4) TOGOM -- Riley's Ghost, 19:27:17 10/25/01 Thu
"I just have one question. If 80% of British people were pure evil would you support random attacks on all British people based on their appearance? "
Yes, the way you put it, I would.
80% evil you said. So I am assuming we are at war with them. Now for the 20% we could form alliances with them, and they could become spies, but one of the things about being a spy is that they are pretending to be the enemy so they could be victims of friendly fire by those "not in the loop". And since such operations must be compartmentalized, it's a risk that isn't entirely unavoidable.
This all could have been avoided, though if Gunn had kept in better contact with his old crew. He could have explained that they were using Caritas as an intelligence source so strategically it is more useful to them to keep it around.
I don't know if his old friends would accept it though, as they are the ones most directly affected by the demons that the Host harbors.
Reminds me of a episode of La Femme Nikita. Section One was protecting this guy whose charity for troubled youth was really a front for a thriving child slave trade. Section didn't want Nikita to attempt to save the children as Section thought it was more imporant to keep him around because he could provide them information that could lead them to some very lethal terrorists. But Nikita being a child of the street herself couldn't sacrifice a bunch of children just to keep him around as an intelligence source.
That is always the problem. Should one keep an intelligence source going, allowing them to continue to commit evil, all in order to fight the larger battle? Sacifice some, to save more? I can understand the necessity of such thinking, but if I was the "some" being sacrificed, I don't think I would take it lying down.
Caritas was a legitimate target given the information that Gunn's old friends had. Strategically its debatable whether or not it was the best course of action to attack it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel as a good/bad demon...SPOILERS (AtS3.4) TOGOM -- Riley's Ghost, 19:44:40 10/25/01 Thu
"I just have one question. If 80% of British people were pure evil would you support random attacks on all British people based on their appearance? "
Why don't you replace the nationality from British, to German? I think then the question becomes plainly clear.
Viva La Resistancé!
You see the distant flames, they bellow in the night
You fight in all our names for what we know is right
And when you all get shot and cannot carry on
Though you die, la resistance lives on.
You may get stabbed in the head with a dagger or a sword
You may be burned to death, or skinned alive, or worse
But when they torture you, you will not feel the need to run
For though you die, la resistance lives on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> why would that make any difference? -- anom, 20:49:12 10/27/01 Sat
"'I just have one question. If 80% of British people were pure evil would you support random attacks on all British people based on their appearance?'
Why don't you replace the nationality from British, to German? I think then the question becomes plainly clear."
Huh? Why? Because they're more "different"? Because they had a Nazi gov't. in the '30s & '40s that committed genocide? That doesn't justify random attacks on German citizens, even if 80% were evil. As most posters on this board know by now, I'm a Jew. My grandparents came to the US from Eastern Europe long before WWII, but the part of their families that stayed behind were wiped out. But I don't hate Germans--I hate Nazis. I know the difference. Yes, too many Germans (& Poles, etc.) participated in the genocide, collaborated, or looked the other way. But others hid Jews (&, I hope, Gypsies & others), helped them get out of the country, or participated in the Resistance. They shouldn't be subject to random attacks because of their nationality. That's the same kind of thinking that gets people w/a Muslim/Arabic name or appearance beaten up or killed because of terrorist attacks they had no part in.
So why would you think your answer to Naomi's question would be any more acceptable if the q. were about Germans?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: why would that make any difference? -- Riley's Ghost, 23:18:37 10/27/01 Sat
"Huh? Why? ... Because they had a Nazi gov't. in the '30s & '40s that committed genocide? "
You got it. By using a real life situation, the answer because very clear.
Of course you would attack the German people of the 40's. Bomb their cities, sabotage their railroads. Do what ever it takes. Create choas any way that's possible. You would try not to provide them a moments safety. A moments rest. You would provide them no sanctury, only destruction.
Sure some "innocent" Germans died along the way, but that's war. You take the war to them, after all they did bomb London.
If the British ever goes for a Hitler like leader. If 80% of the British people supported that person, if 80'% if the British people were evil, I would support attacking them. You do what it takes! You do evil, for doing evil is better than being evil.
Better for a lover of the truth to tell a lie, than a liar to tell the truth. You must be more ruthless than your foe. You must be decisive until the war is won.
By the way I would burn Atlanta as well.
You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: why would that make any difference? -- Naomi, 03:05:16 10/28/01 Sun
Ok if you really feel that way then that's fine. I'm even starting to bore myself with my repetition of my point of view. We have made our opinions clear now. Lets just agree to disagree.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> do **not** tell me what **i** would do! (long) -- anom, 11:22:32 10/28/01 Sun
"You got it. By using a real life situation, the answer because very clear."
The hell it does.
First, I would not bomb civilian targets. I would have bombed the railroad tracks going to the concentration camps but not the ones supplying the cities. I might have attacked military targets within cities, which does risk killing innocents (I refuse to call it "collateral damage"), but that's not the same as firebombing an entire city like Dresden. I don't support attacking a country's people--often the same ones oppressed by the gov't.--for what their gov't. does, and don't try to tell me I would. That's what you would do, & I reject your attempt to attribute the same viewpoint to me.
Second, the original question was about today, not the '30/'40s. I was asking if you would support random attacks on Germans today because of what their ancestors did over 50 years ago. You chose to answer a different question, about attacking the Germans of those times. I was asking if you think somehow their actions justify attacking the Germans of today.
Third: "If the British ever goes for a Hitler like leader. If 80% of the British people supported that person, if 80'% if the British people were evil, I would support attacking them. You do what it takes!"
What you advocate goes beyond "what it takes." There are 2 questions to ask about "by any means necessary": Is it in fact necessary? and Is it really a means to the end you want to achieve? There are approximately 60 million British people. If 80% of them were evil, that would leave 12 million innocent people whom you apparently think should be subject to random attacks because of the evil of their fellow citizens, which they don't share.
Fourth: "You do evil, for doing evil is better than being evil."
You really think people can do evil for as long as it takes "until the war is won" & not become evil themselves? At some point a line is crossed & there's no practical difference.
Fifth (I'm getting to the end here, folks, really): "You must be more ruthless than your foe....By the way I would burn Atlanta as well....War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it...."
I see. So you would scrap the Geneva Convention, & you're fine w/what Lt. Calley & his troops did in My Lai. Of course there's no such thing as a clean war where only the bad guys--on both sides, but especially "theirs"--get killed, but that doesn't mean efforts shouldn't be made to minimize the harm to innocent people & even the infrastructure they'll need to survive & rebuild their lives afterwards.
Sixth, I wrote a longer & more complex response than what you quote above. Yet you chose to reply to only 1 question in it. I've noticed--having had plenty of opportunity--you have a knack for dealing w/things in simple terms & avoiding the complexities other people bring up. The real world, & even the Buffyverse, is much more complex, & simplistic approaches aren't adequate.
Oh, and by the way, no we are not talking about a real-life situation. We are talking about a theoretical situation in which 80% of a particular group of people are "evil." That's not real life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: *Deep Sigh* They know Trollbot's deactivated and d'Herblay's on hiatus. Bored now! -- P*ick Erudite Poster, 12:04:44 10/28/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: *Deep Sigh* They know Trollbot's deactivated and d'Herblay's on hiatus. Bored now! -- celticross, 19:02:43 10/28/01 Sun
Amen! Riley's Ghost, what is your DEAL? It's one thing to express an unpopular opinion. It's quite another to continue hammering away at multiple posters who disagree with you. This thread started off well; it's boring me and frustrating me now. *puts on her troll-proof headphones and goes to watch "Fredless" again*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: *Deep Sigh* They know Trollbot's deactivated and d'Herblay's on hiatus. Bored now! -- Riley's Ghost, 20:40:37 10/28/01 Sun
If you want me to leave, I am so out of here. I guess "freedom of speech" only goes so far, or I should save goes only in one direction.
I want to thank you for your tolerance "yeah right".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Tolerance -- Malandanza, 22:10:39 10/28/01 Sun
"If you want me to leave, I am so out of here. I guess 'freedom of speech' only goes so far, or I should save goes only in one direction.
I want to thank you for your tolerance 'yeah right'."
I don't think any one wants you to leave. I have read your posts on other subjects and do not believe that you are posting for the sake of stirring up discontent. We all have issues that we are very passionate about (mine's abortion -- pro-life, btw) where passion sometimes matters more than reason. I think what you are seeing is not that posters want you to contain your freedom of speech, but that they would prefer that you responded differently to their own (carefully considered) points.
But it is difficult to continue an argument with someone who claims that chemical, nuclear and biological weapons are okay for the good guys to use -- and that Dresden-style firebombing, bombing schools and churches and killing people in church are acceptable as long as your cause is noble. How can we respond other than to simply deny what you've stated? There is little room for debate. Add to that a tendency to restate your position instead of addressing our concerns -- or focusing on a single throwaway line. Again, I am the same way about abortion -- when people try to talk to me rationally, I invariably end up talking about genocide of the underclass or about how legalized abortion in the US alone has claimed more lives than the holocaust. Such inflammatory language ends debates faster than anything (with the possible exception of religious debates). So I avoid talking about abortion.
We don't come here to prevent other people from exercising their freedom of speech -- we come here to exercise our own (which is hard to do when someone is set in their views -- whether we agree with those views or not). In other words, we thrive on moral ambiguities, not moral absolutes. If everything was black and white we could replace the philosophers with theologians (and no one wants that!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: do **not** tell me what **i** would do! (long) -- Riley's Ghost, 15:23:22 10/28/01 Sun
The only "rule of war" is that there aren't "rules" only victory and defeat.
Innocents, die. You should try to minimize that as long as it doesn't interfere with the larger objective, but the fact is innocents die.
First foremost and always you must be decisive. You must do evil to stop evil. You must be ruthless, for our foes are ruthless, and if you aren't more so, they win and we are destroyed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: do **not** tell me what **i** would do! (long) -- yabyumpan, 16:17:49 10/28/01 Sun
"you must do evil to stop evil".....so how come there is still "evil" in the world? Responding to violence with violence just causes more violence. We have more wars and violence in the world now with bigger and "better" weapons, is any of this stopping war from happening or likely to stop future wars, NO!!! the only way to stop war in the long run is for negosiation(sp)and talk. Sure the better equiped may win one war but that just encourages others to believe that if they could be bigger and tougher then they could win the next one and so the circle continues. There is always of course a good excuse to go to war "he looked at me funny, miss" " he hit me first" but basically it's down to school yard bullying and who's got the biggest willy! The only way to stop "evil" is to confrunt it with "good" and that takes real courage and wisdom, the courage to allow ourselves to be open and vunerable and the wisdom the see the long term and not just knee-jerk vengence and psudo-justice. Sadly i'm comming to believe that the human race will not evolve far enough along this path before it goes the way of the dinosors.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel as a good/bad demon...SPOILERS (AtS3.4) TOGOM -- Naomi, 11:27:50 10/26/01 Fri
The point I was making is that it's not right to attack others based on their appearance or where they come from. Demons do not deserve to be prejudged which is what happened in Angel. Now either you agree with that or you don't. Yes you can try to protect the innocent by joining up with them etc but the point is that Gunn's old gang weren't interested in that. They simply wanted to create as much havoc as possible and they felt it was justified because it was against THEM and most demons are evil. If you agree that Demons/people don't deserve condemnation based on their appearance or the behaviour of the majority then that is the point I am making. People and Demons deserve to be judged as individuals in their own right not as members of a social or ethnic group.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> but, riley's ghost, don't you *see*...(cue music) -- anom, 17:06:02 10/25/01 Thu
"So don't expect them to respect this sanctury thing where the monsters get to kick up their feet, listen to some tunes, drink some cocktails, and then go back to THEIR neighborhood to steal some babies to eat."
When a demon's not engaged in its employment
(its employment)
Or maturing its demonic little plans
(little plans)
Its capacity for innocent enjoyment
(-cent enjoyment)
Is just as great as any real human's
(real human's)...
(to the tune, of course, of A Policeman's Lot Is Not a Happy One, by the two & only Gilbert & Sullivan, & if I hadn't missed the entire ep I might be able to filk the whole song)
Anyway, RG, try to remember this is a TV show that needs its plot devices, incl. a place like Caritas so the Host can be there to read Angel's aura when he "sings" & work w/AI on various--generally good--things, & so AI can go there to troll for clues. One of the best features of both shows is that occasionally they make use of their plot devices to do more than advance the plot, bringing them to the foreground as in the ep that's occasioned this thread.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes -- Riley's Ghost, 19:02:42 10/24/01 Wed
The Host is amoral.
Angel Investigations is making a mistake if they forget that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Undeserved - I agree with you. -- RabidHarpy, 07:13:57 10/24/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Umm... -- RabidHarpy, 07:12:22 10/24/01 Wed
I was under the impression that Gunn's old group didn't discriminate between "good" and "bad" demons. Just because Angel is "good" and Gunn works for him didn't earn him any brownie-points with the Gang - I can't really see them accepting Lorne and making his old club their headquarters... unless you meant Gunn's "gang" as being Angel, Wes, Cordy and Fred, in which case - ignore what I just said!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Apologies people, my bad... :o( -- Wisewoman, 08:25:53 10/24/01 Wed
I was actually hoping we could get into the kind of discussion that RabidHarpy and Rahael have contributed to below. It was not my intent to re-open the door to the, now rather stale, "let's kill all the demons" debate.
Can we let it drop?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Sure -- Rahael, 08:38:44 10/24/01 Wed
Its a pity though isn't it? I don't think you should feel bad at all WW, why should we restrict ourselves in this way? They'll always find *something* to pick on.
I've tried not to respond directly to their posts - rather, Rabid Harpy's and Naomi's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sure -- JM, 10:34:07 10/24/01 Wed
Yes, please let's not let the discussion die. I really, really liked TOGoM and was fairly cheeved that the discussion here got so bogged down in scary screeds. (There was definitely some in-depth discussion, but it became hard to pick out of the thread.) This board is one of the only places that usually mixes intelligent comments with good naturedness (most other places have one or the other). I'm so addicted to the dialogues here.
So if any one else has TOGOM or Lorne thoughts, please add them. Must have philosophizing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- maddog, 08:52:07 10/24/01 Wed
Can you prove that ONE single demon that was in Lorne's place was evil? I watched that episode twice and I didn't see one indidation that anyone there was evil. I mean, the whole point of the storyline was racial(in this case with demons and that all demons aren't bad therefore hunting them ALL down is extremely racist).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- JM, 10:37:51 10/24/01 Wed
Possibly the "baby-eater" but I'm not convinced. Gio identified him -- what does he know? Its rant just struck me as bravado. It was sure it was going to die and it was going to go down swinging.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Interesting... I felt the same way... -- RabidHarpy, 07:04:37 10/24/01 Wed
...(about Gunn leaving Caritas), and it also made me think back on past episodes of both Angel and BtVS.
Not to be judgemental, but neither program has had a consistent African-American or Asian character - they are all based on the "All-American Ideal"... Sure in BtVS we saw an Asian and an African-American Slayer in Spike's flash-backs, and there was Kendra and the First Slayer, but none of these characters stuck around. In Angel, we finally have a group of African-Americans (Gunn and the gang), only the "Gang" goes rogue, and now Gunn is starting to be distanced too... not only that, but the Asian character we've seen so far in the series (that fellow who tried to get Angel Inc. evicted, etc.) was "bad" and worked for Wolfram and Hart.
I, for one, would like to see just a little more positive colour in both! :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> As a Black Briton -- Rahael, 07:34:27 10/24/01 Wed
I have found plenty to think about in the Buffyverse......one doesn't need to have Asian and Black people actually there for the issues of racism, prejudice and the constant feeling of embattlement to be discussed.
I feel they have done an excellent job, and even aknowledged the lack of non-white faces (when Mr Trick says that he knows Sunnydale isn't a haven for the Brothers)
Though of course, I don't believe that black actors get enough roles - so in that sense, yes I would welcome more opportunities for them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> what makes it worse is... -- anom, 17:50:31 10/24/01 Wed
...this is supposed to be LA! And it's whiter than Sunnydale, especially in the 1st season! BtVS has had a number of roles for black actors, although only Kendra & Mr. Trick got any continuity. There was a school guidance counselor, a guard at the Bronze, an adult at the school in School Hard (the one Spike said was "too old to eat--but not to kill"), & I think a few others. (Of course, the ones I just mentioned all got killed, a known hazard for minority characters on otherwise white shows....) But in Angel's 1st season, the only minority character who had a major role in an ep was the bartender at d'Oblique. They've done a little better since, but aside from Gunn & his ex-gang, it still doesn't seem any less white than Sunnydale. And this is California--where are the Latinos in both cities?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- JM, 07:11:58 10/24/01 Wed
Couple of Lorne things:
Re advice to Fred. Lorne's ability to read aura's seems much less precise than the divining he does while singing. He wouldn't let her sing, so he probably just picked up waves of fear and panic concerning her parents. He projected his own family issues onto her and gave her what he thought was good advice.
Re issues with Gunn. He's not very sympathetic to Gunn and how Gunn was trying to do the right thing, but it looks pretty clear that the gang only hit Caritas that night because Gio was looking for a showdown with Gunn (probably a power play against Rondell). Lorne associates Gunn pretty strongly with a rather devastating event. So his comments weren't particularly gracious, noble, or adult. We've seen before that Lorne isn't always either. (Come on, he doesn't even have a soul to guide him.) Plus, he continued to be just as pissy with everyone else.
Gunn's offer to go outside was classy. We, the viewers, are probably meant to be uncomfortable with the visual there. The other characters looked uncomfortable. They can't afford to argue though, they pretty deseperately need Lorne's help. Cordy does give that little exasperated snort after Lorne's send off to Gunn.
As for the harbor of evil that is Caritas, I don't think the destruction should be seen as some sort of Karmic judgement. For one thing, Lorne isn't human, he doesn't have a soul, he isn't expected to be on the side of the angels. I don't think the concepts of sin and right and wrong apply to demons. Also, Lorne has been working for the powers. He has said before that he "puts people on their path." The implication is that the Powers have a higher purpose for all beings, human and demon, good and bad, and that following their correct paths serves that higher purpose. It's pretty tough to get the theology down though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- celticross, 09:11:12 10/24/01 Wed
Re advice to Fred - I'm still perplexed by that. Did he mean she needs to keep running from the lie she's told herself? The line sounds great while you're thinking Fred's parents are evil demon things, but when you learn the truth, it falls flat. Is this a case of WPCS? (Writer Painted into a Corner Syndrome)
Re issues with Gunn - "Gunn's offer to go outside was classy". Very classy, and I felt bad for him that Lorne was so hostile. But the wrecking of Caritas is still a VERY sore spot for Lorne and he was lashing out. Understandable, yes, nice, not by any stretch of the imagination. Gunn was the one who acted like an adult and gracefully left an uncomfortable situation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Wait a minute......... -- Rufus, 23:11:40 10/25/01 Thu
Where does it say that only humans have souls???? In season one in The Harvest it is made clear that the last old one(demon) to leave this reality bit a human infecting him with the demons soul. So, maybe a demon doesn't have a human soul, but it's clear that demons may have souls. If you consider vampires you could say that every vampire is infected with a fragment of the original demons soul. That infection just evicts the human soul. In the Buffyverse the soul seems to be the conscience, so what value does our soul have if we can override it if we have enough incentive to? Greed, lust, hate seem to be able to change the course of the moral compass in many people. Then we have demons that have seemingly been able to make changes to their genetic drive to create chaos such as the Prio Motu demon. So for me the soul isn't the be all when it comes to the things demons or humans do. There is more to the equation than just the existance of the unmeasurable soul. I say a bad guy is a bad guy soul or no soul. A good guy is a good guy, even without one. We can never be certain that a soul will ensure that we all play nice in the game of life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Was Lorne fair? Yes... -- Malandanza, 11:05:28 10/26/01 Fri
"It made me very uncomfortable when Gunn left Caritas and the others stayed. I'm trying not to be overly politically correct about the whole thing, but it just smacked of, "We don't want your kind in here."
I realize that I'm getting into this debate late, but Here's my take on Gunn leaving Caritas:
GUNN: I SAID SHUT --
HOST: NO!
Gunn swings his shotgun around, fires -- KABOOM! Blowing apart Tough Guy demon. Demon blood spatters on the Gang Kids who were holding him.
GUNN
-- UP!
Stunned shock in the room. No one more stunned than Gunn.
HOST: (in despair) This is a sanctuary ...
Gunn violated the sanctuary of Caritas. The Host would have refused admittance to anyone, demon, human or otherwise, who had committed an act of violence in his club -- if anything, by nor forcibly ejecting Gunn as soon as Gunn set foot across the threshold, he was more tolerant than he ought to have been. I doubt Rondell would have received such a reception. Certainly the Host doesn't want "his kind in here" -- but "his kind" are people who violate the sanctuary.
So Caritas sometimes harbors evil demons (or evil humans like the W&H lawyers who used to hang out there). Think of it like the Catholic Church -- after the U.S. invasion of Panama, ruthless dictator/drug lord/voodoo priest Manueal Noriega sought (and received) refuge from the Church. Had the U.S. violated that sanctuary and sent armed troops into the church to drag Noriega out, how would we have looked? Gunn's attack was unconscionable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Was Lorne fair? Yes... -- sasha, 12:00:19 10/26/01 Fri
Interesting idea...but I feel I should mention a few points:
1) Gunn did not start the masacre in Caritas. Yes, his old gang did, and yes, Gunn knew they were killing all demons, but I don't believe Gunn knew they were planning on attacking Caritas. I think Gunn went to Caritas to talk to Wes, his "where's the boss?" line to Angel; he didn't go to stop, or participate in, a massacre that he didn't know was happening.
2) Gunn put his own life in danger to protect Lorne. In the middle of the stand-off, Gunn stood up between the gang and Lorne, and I believe even told the gang not to hurt Lorne because he wasn't evil just because he looked like a demon. Also, he continued to stand between the gang and Lorne, until Rondell/Gio gave him the stake and ordered him to kill Angel. I guess that doesn't count for much with Lorne?
3) If the host is going to refuse admittance to anyone who does violence in Caritas, then he should have refused it to Angel, who after all, did a lot of violence taking out Gunn's old gang.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Was Lorne fair? Yes... -- Willow's End, 20:23:06 10/26/01 Fri
"Gunn's attack was unconscionable."
Gunn didn't attack. He came to Caritas to tell Wesley what he found out.
Now if you were talking about his old friends, they were taking out a self-haven for evil. It was arrogant of the Host to think that sanctury would be respected after what the demons have done to humanity.
Like it or not, there are probably several babies who are still alive because Gunn's old friends had the courage to take action.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Was Lorne fair? Yes... -- yabyumpan, 08:21:54 10/29/01 Mon
"Like it or not, there are probably several babies who are still alive because Gunn's old friends had the courage to take action." Going into a sanctuary where violence by demons is not only not allowed but not even possible for demons (hence Cordy having to go the three whitchy people or who ever they where to have the spell taken off)That's not courage, infact I would say it's the total opposite, cowardness, they didn't couragously kill in a fair fight they massacured beings who had no chance of fighting back.
A scene unlikely to be included in tonight's Buffy -- d'Herblay, 15:49:40 10/23/01 Tue
INT. MAGIC SHOP - DAY
Giles and Dawn sit at the table, poring over books.
GILES
Concentrate. Think it through.
DAWN
(exasperated)
Past participle? Indirect object?
Subjunctive clause? I know it's not a
verb because, well, it's not verby.
Buffy enters.
GILES
It's a restricted clause. I swear,
if you people don't start treating our
language with more respect, we're going
to take it back.
BUFFY
Ok. First my blue silk blouse, now my
watcher. Dawn, I think you have a problem.
DAWN
Ms. Palmer is having us diagram sentences.
I think it's an effect of the Hellmouth.
That and the stigmata.
GILES
Occupational hazard in the Sunnydale
school system.
DAWN
It's hellish. Buffy, when you were in
hell, did you have to diagram sentences?
GILES
I would expect that the torments your
sister experienced were less, um,
educational.
BUFFY
Dawn, I need to speak to Giles alone.
DAWN
How am I supposed to learn English without
help from an actual English speaker?
BUFFY
Dawn.
DAWN
All right. I'll go. Spike's English.
Plus, he said he nicked an X-Box.
(stands)
Was there a famous thief named Nick?
Dawn leaves
GILES
Do you worry about her spending so much
time with Spike?
BUFFY
Hey, as long as she doesn't start dressing
like Drusilla, I think we're cool.
GILES
Yes. Couldn't have that.
BUFFY
Giles?
GILES
After all, when you tried it, the results
were disastrous.
BUFFY
I wasn't in hell.
GILES
(evenly)
You weren't in hell.
BUFFY
No. I don't know where I was, but I felt
at peace, serene even. I felt loved and
loving--washed over with love. And I
knew I was complete. That it--the
hardship, the work, the pain--were
all over. I think it was heaven.
GILES
Oh.
(cleans his glasses)
Buffy?
BUFFY
Yes?
GILES
I don't mean to sound dismissive, but
all the texts are quite clear. There
are an infinity of hells, but not one
heaven.
BUFFY
(taken aback)
Not one.
GILES
I think that what you experienced, when
you leapt into the portal, was a moment
of great resolve, of clarity and of,
well, love. The greatest love a person
can feel. It was a moment that the
Buddhists might call satori. You felt
a great understanding, of what you
are and of what it all meant. It was an
enviable moment. I sometimes wish that
I could have such a moment--without
the death, of course. And then the
endorphins would have kicked in. You
wouldn't have felt any pain, only peace.
The portal also would have a dilatory
effect on time, so that what to you felt
like eternity was, in fact, just seconds.
BUFFY
Just seconds.
GILES
And then the 147 days you were dead would
have made no impression on your memories
at all, so when you awoke, the last thing
you remembered was your moment of death.
You had no actual experience of being
dead. Just dying and then, I suppose
the word is, undying.
BUFFY
So, what you're saying is, I was just dead?
GILES
Yes.
BUFFY
No Heaven. Just dead.
GILES
I'm afraid so.
BUFFY
Well, in that case, I owe Willow an icee.
FADE TO BLACK.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> WHOOOP! WHOOOP! MUTANT ENEMY POSTER ALERT!!! -- dan, 15:56:35 10/23/01 Tue
okay, d'Herb? Your cover's blown, man. Which one are you? Espenson? Fury? Petrie? Nixon? 'cause that scene was *so* spot-on with the dialogue (until Giles went all speechy) that I *refuse* to believe that you're not one of the ME gang. I giggled multiple times. Excellently done.
and it is an interesting idea. But you're right that we won't see it, because I think it's more compelling drama if Buffy really was in heaven.
-d
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> nah, the clause gave it away @>) -- anom, 16:18:56 10/23/01 Tue
It's restrictive, not restricted, & Giles would know that. 'Sides, I doubt Giles could come up w/that explanation w/no research on the spur of the moment. And I think he'd at least say something like, "But I'm glad you weren't in hell--any of them."
But it was fun! Nice work, d'Herblay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> sheesh anom. take all our fun away.... -- sulky, 16:23:09 10/23/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> the jause that bite, the clause that catch! (how's that for fun) -- anom, 21:31:37 10/23/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Deep and bloody clause marks -- d'Herblay, 16:54:16 10/23/01 Tue
Damnit, anom! That always screws me up! I even went to Fowler's for help, but he calls the that-clauses defining and the which-clauses non-defining. Fat load of good that was.
From now on, I'm sending all of my posts to you first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> those sharp clauses -- anom, 20:07:48 10/23/01 Tue
"From now on, I'm sending all of my posts to you first."
No ya don't--like I have time for that! Unless you want to pay me my regular freelance rate.... @>)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: those sharp clauses -- sasha, 20:34:14 10/23/01 Tue
but anom, if dH wanted to send them to you, would that be to anom, anomb, anomc, or....? ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> don't feel too bad, d'herb... -- anom, 21:57:04 10/23/01 Tue
...I'm impressed you got "poring" (not poring!) right. BTW, when did Buffy ever dress like Drusilla? I musta missed that one!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> "poring" (not poring!) -- d'Herblay, 22:04:24 10/23/01 Tue
Now I'm confused.
"Halloween."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Damn, damn and double damn -- d'Herblay, 01:18:03 10/24/01 Wed
Buffy did not dress like Drusilla in "Halloween." She dressed like a noble woman of the year 1775. When I first saw the episode, I assumed that that woman was Drusilla. (I was confused then. I was still mixing second-season episodes with first-season reruns.) Later revelations would prove me wrong, but somehow that misconception got lodged in my brain.
Of course I got poring right. I write these things with the Oxford Shorter at hand. Not that I thought to turn to it on restrictive. My thinking on that one was:
a) both restrictive and non-restrictive clauses are relative clauses. Restricted relative clause sounds better to me than restrictive relative clause.
b) I likewise prefer the sound of unrestricted clause to that of non-restrictive clause. So it's really just my tin ear.
Had I given it copious amounts of thought, as I have since, I would have realized that it's not the clause that's restricted, but the noun the clause modifies. Anyway, it's a rule of grammar I wasn't even taught until my Junior year in college--and that teaching occurred in a bar, so I might be excused if it didn't sink in properly. I still screw up that/which nearly every chance I get.
So much crow and no ICEE for me. By the way, ICEE is a registered tradmark of The ICEE Company, and not the generic noun I treated it as. And that never ending sentences with prepositions thing? That's for the classicists. And for the birds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> d'herb, don't be so hard on yourself!... -- anom, 18:04:54 10/24/01 Wed
...I didn't learn about that vs. which till after college (in a continuing ed class on copyediting), & it's mostly an American thing anyway. Hey, I didn't know about ICEEs--in fact, I never heard of 'em before. And I agree w/you about a preposition being a fine sort of word to end a sentence with. And that ridiculous idea that it's wrong to ever split an infinitive.
There. Feel better? @>)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: splitting infinitives -- mundusmundi, 13:42:01 10/25/01 Thu
And that ridiculous idea that it's wrong to ever split an infinitive.
An idea which unfortunately some of my dipwit colleagues share. (I love split infinitives, almost as much as icees.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> well, that's why (most) english teachers don't make good editors -- anom, 22:29:03 10/27/01 Sat
However, I am a stickler when it comes to using comparatives with "unique."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: well, that's why (most) english teachers don't make good editors -- Shaglio, 07:19:51 10/29/01 Mon
What really bugs me about comparatives and superlatives is when I sports announcers say things like, "he is one of the great players of our generation," or, "he is truly one of the classy players you'll ever see." Is it me, or shouldn't they use greatest instead of great and classiest instead of classy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> yes & no -- anom, 15:36:03 10/29/01 Mon
Or maybe the other way around. I'd say the 1st one's OK; it just means something different from "he is one of the greatest...." As is, it says there are some great players in this generation & he's one of them, just not in that smaller group of the greatest.
But the 2nd one just doesn't work. I think it's mostly the "ever"--it needs the superlative. Something can be "the best ever," but "the good ever"? Nah. On the other hand, for some reason it doesn't seem right even without the "ever." If you substituted "classy" for "great" in the 1st sentence it'd sound weird. It would only work in a context like "Some players are classy & some aren't. He's one of the classy ones." And I can't really explain why. I guess there are some things English teachers do better @>)--are there any out there?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> No MUTANT ENEMY POSTER? -- darrenK, 11:42:27 10/29/01 Mon
When I saw a reply entitled "Mutant Enemy Poster Alert" I got excited thinking there was going to be a real Mutant Enemy poster complete with the little monster and maybe a verbage bubble that said something like..."GrrrrrArrrggg."
dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> now wait, a minute... if this is dH... -- Liq, 16:08:01 10/23/01 Tue
..., then who was that imposter in the chat room the last coupla times?
most excellent!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Hey Liquidram -- Dedalus, 20:28:22 10/23/01 Tue
Whatever happened to The Goddess and Her Gift essay?
I don't see a link to it over at Fictionary Corner. Maybe I'm just blind ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> that would be me, probably. -- Solitude1056, 21:06:51 10/23/01 Tue
Means I probably didn't put the info in there, and spaced. Consider this a public reminder for Liq to send me the info tomorrow & I'll add it to the text version & the graphics version. Count it as my bad.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Just makin' sure. :-) -- Dedalus, 16:09:35 10/24/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Two big *Thumbs Up* to ya, d'Herb!! Masterfully done! -- OnM, 16:47:09 10/23/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Okay, d'H, you're now officially my hero! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 17:41:18 10/23/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: icee we have a script writer in our midst;) -- bible belt, 18:00:55 10/23/01 Tue
Nicely done! I'll go out on a limb and say we might see something like that before the season's over with. Maybe it’s wish-full thinking on my part. Heaven is such a Devilish mystery.;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I hope not, while beautifully done it is pretty depressing -- Charlemagne20, 21:03:54 10/23/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> icee your pun, bb, & i raise you a kitty in the kitty! -- anom, 21:51:11 10/23/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I fold...too many sharp clause;-) -- bb, 15:24:12 10/24/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> you'll be back for the next round...after a short paws -- anom, 21:44:22 10/25/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: you'll be back for the next round...after a short paws -- bb, 09:37:18 10/26/01 Fri
Yes, I knead more time to think
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> kitten paws...knead...i like it! -- anom, 22:30:53 10/27/01 Sat
Let's see how many more puns we can milk this one for!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: that one was pretty suckle...good one! -- bb, 19:12:51 10/28/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> mmm...nah...sorry -- anom, 16:24:10 10/29/01 Mon
That one's too much of a stretch. Just doesn't work.
Hope I'm not being too hard on you. Try again after you've nursed your wounds. @>)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: sorry, I meant to post that in the subject line -- bb, 09:40:20 10/26/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> d'H, you rock! :) Awesome! -- Lunarchickk, 18:12:21 10/23/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hehehe, snerk, hehehe!!! Loved it...now do more. -- LadyStarlight, 20:21:30 10/23/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A scene unlikely to be included in tonight's Buffy -- Dedalus, 20:24:13 10/23/01 Tue
That was very well done, indeed. Better than I could have done.
I particularly liked the icee line.
Anyway, d, is this what you want to see happen? Or did you just do this for a writing exercise?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> All my writing is exercise . . . -- d'Herblay, 06:51:24 10/24/01 Wed
. . . at least insofar as it raises my heart rate, tires me out and makes me wish I had never taken up smoking. Back in the immediate aftermath of "After Life" there were several threads concerning whether or not Buffy had truly been in heaven, or in Heaven, or in the womb awaiting reincarnation, or whatever. My skeptical/atheist/materialist outlook led me to choose "none of the above." I was trying to come up with a justification for this choice, but I never got around to posting such a rationalization.
This is that justification (though, to give credit where it's due, change introduced me to endorphins, and Dedalus, you gave me satori). For me to try to explain it would be, as I put it a few weeks ago, atheist tap-dancing--and completely unconvincing to anyone. So I followed the old dictum "Don't tell it, show it" (in this case I paraphrased the dictum as "Don't tell it, make Giles tell it") and built a scene around it.
While I had a point to make with it, it did turn into sort of a writing exercise. My last post was in danger of falling off the board, and I'm really not that interested in doing play-by-play on Willow's downward saunter. So I felt it was time to throw myself back into the swing with a dramatic flourish. And what's more dramatic than drama?
As to whether it is a scene I'd like to see one Tuesday night . . . nah. But nor would I like to see Buffy's perception confirmed. I'm just trying to muddy the waters up a little and give us all a chance to see what we want to see.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: All my writing is exercise . . . -- Dedalus, 17:00:06 10/24/01 Wed
You did it so well, d'H. So well.
JW is brilliant in giving everyone a chance to see what we all want to see. Analyzing it, the more I see anything could be read into this stuff.
One thing I don't get - what's the thing with the atheist/skeptical outlook? You have a problem with the inclusion of heaven in a fictional television mythology? I've heard others here say that, and if I may, that is just weird. I mean, if you can buy the vampires and the demons and the munsters ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Heaven and TV -- mundusmundi, 14:40:20 10/25/01 Thu
Your question wasn't directed at me, Ded (a clear invitation to impart my wisdom), but I don't think anybody has a problem with heaven depicted on Buffy per se. The problem may be simply that our perceptions of such a heaven have been colored by other, lesser shows which need no mentioning. That and let's face it, evil is invariably more interesting, livelier, and thus easier to depict. Unlike vampires, real evil doesn't need an invitation to intrude on our lives, whereas we seem to have to look for the good in life. I liked the abstract "heaven" Joss & Co. conjured up for Buffy, and I think all d'Herb, change and other skeptics were doing was suggesting a valid alternative explanation beyond the mystical interpretations.
But I'll shut up now and let them talk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: All my writing is exercise . . . -- bible belt, 17:02:29 10/25/01 Thu
I always have a knee jerk reaction when anyone starts talking about Heaven because most of the time it’s described in a way that is exclusive, like a private club and, "you can’t come in because I don’t like you," therefore I wasn’t able to appreciate the idea that Buffy was yanked out of there. Unicorns, vampires, Heaven, no problem, I just took it too personal.
My thinking on this matter has been cleared up a great deal by d’Herblay and mm. Dedalus you have cleared up my thinking on other matters too.
That’s all. I’ll throw some confused thoughts at you all later. I’m gonna go watch a Buffy rerun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Every day I look forward to seeing what's new on the board.... -- Marie, 01:15:43 10/24/01 Wed
... and this is why! Brilliant! I'm now going to be smiling for the rest of the day.
Thank you.
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Encore!! -- Rahael, 03:23:41 10/24/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> so is someone going to spoof the rest of the usual Shooting Script HTML-style... -- Solitude1056, 11:00:16 10/24/01 Wed
So we can post this piece o' brilliance on our fictionary page? Or better... send it to Herc 'n all the rest of 'em as an excerpt from one of the upcoming episodes. Woo hoo! Who needs other folks' spoilers, we can start creating our own! ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Now THAT is a good idea. ;) -- P*ick Erudite Poster, 14:58:13 10/24/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: so is someone going to spoof the rest of the usual Shooting Script HTML-style... -- d'Herblay, 01:14:17 10/26/01 Fri
You're welcome to it, but I can't for the life of me figure out how to set the margins.
mixing in the humor -- Tamnavulin, 19:17:59 10/23/01 Tue
It struck me tonight that in just the past episode, the series seems to have rediscovered that great mix of characters and humor that made it great in the first place. I kept feeling last season that the writing had become tired and creaky from leaning too heavily on the mechanics of the plot. Now we've actually got the great old humor of the third season, as well as (amazingly) preserving the delicious tension between Spike and Buffy.
I have a feeling that the nastiness we saw with Willow recently was a misguided attempt to move her out from under the shadow of Buffy. But it was an attempt that, while consistent with the fear and uncertainty of Buffy's return, wasn't needed. Willow exists well enough on her own without the need for overreaching hubris.
I'm just glad that we're getting some of that great old half-serious crazy humor mixed with interesting moves from the Pseudo-Evil Trio (PET?). They and the demon bar scene really boosted the series up in my estimation.
Now the question is whether this balanced can be preserved while moving on. I'm also really curious about what direction Giles is going in.
Any comments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Rolling in puppies -- Joyce, 20:29:19 10/23/01 Tue
It was great. I was on the floor laughing a lot ...especially the poker kitty scene!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Direction... (spoilers) -- RabidHarpy, 07:37:33 10/24/01 Wed
...I'm thinking that Giles is on his way "out" (back to England) - what with the generous cheque/guilt gift he gave Buffy, and the look on his face after she told him his consistent presence in her life makes her feel "safe".
Really, what's the poor man to do? On one hand, how can he leave Buffy alone with all these problems, and without resolving where she was, etc. - he's practically a father (or in this case, her "rakish uncle" - lol!) to her and the SG! Yet by the WC's standards, he has no reason to stay in Sunnydale, (even though they "fired" him), and he can't feasibly tell the WC that Buffy was brought back because that would land Willow and the SG in a whole load of trouble, (by the way - I'm thinking that would make a good episode in the future - the WC finding out about Buffy's resurrection - what d'ya think?!)
Poor Giles *sniff* I want him to staaaaaaaaay!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> uh... about that uncle part -- Solitude1056, 10:51:51 10/24/01 Wed
Was it "rakish Uncle" or "british Uncle"? I was busy screaming at a telemarketer. Okay, more like severely chastising. *politecough*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: uh... about that uncle part -- RabidHarpy, 12:10:09 10/24/01 Wed
I rewound it twice and I'm positive he says "rakish"...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Direction... (spoilers) -- celticross, 12:01:18 10/24/01 Wed
You have to wonder...shouldn't the CoW be slightly nervous about the fact they have one Slayer dead and one in jail? Watchers can't do much watching when there's no Slayer to watch...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: That gives me an idea....SPOILERS BtVS (Season 6) -- sasha, 12:20:23 10/24/01 Wed
......mostly questions but....
If the WC still believes Buffy's dead (and I assume Giles would have told them):
1) Why haven't they sent another slayer? Or have they sent/chosen one and we just haven't seen her yet?
2) Did they send another slayer, just not to the Hellmouth, but wouldn't the Hellmouth have been the most logical location since it is the epicenter of mystical energy?
3) Do they really think one slayer can cover the whole world? I mean, the demon biker gang came to Sunnydale because they heard the slayer was dead. While Buffy was alive, they knew to stay away from Sunnydale and were presumably off wrecking havoc somewhere else, San Fran maybe? How are the people living in the billion non-slayer towns around the world supposed to cope with the vampires, demons, etc?
If the WC knows Buffy is alive:
1) How did they find out?
2) Did Giles tell them and if so, why?
3) Did Giles not tell them and just snuck back to Sunnydale and won't the WC get curious about where he is and what he's doing currently when his vacation time runs out (unless he's off the payroll?)
Why The Trio are Completely Ridiculous and Unrealistic Villians (Spoilers for 10/23 BTVS) -- Dedalus, 21:05:19 10/23/01 Tue
Okay, loved the Star Wars van, and the all around geekiness. I know Joss and Co. are going for a Junior League of Doom kind of feel here, and that might have worked under other cirumstances. But I think the presentations of the Little Bads in Life Serial have pretty much eliminated any possibility for them being remotely realistic bad guys, even in the Buffyverse.
Check out their bickering about who is the better Bond. Connery, Moore, Dalton ... they can't even get it together long enough to keep tabs on a drunk Buffy. Clearly, arguing and bitching about movies and tv shows is their life.
Obviously, these three would never be able to even think about taking over Sunnydale. Why? Because they would be on the internet. I mean, all the time. Those three would be on the Aint It Cool News talkbacks from daylight till dark, endless pontificating about how they could have made a better Episode One, and complaining about how everyone and everything has sold out. Between Bond and Star Wars and the X-Files, that would leave them no time to hatch their little schemes. I would give them time to do nothing but whine and complain. They would be on the internet for at least ninety percent of their life, only taking breaks to use the bathroom and sometimes eat.
Any thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The only problem with that is their life IS a Talkback -- Charlemagne20, 21:23:05 10/23/01 Tue
The Troika is actually a fairly dangerous group of villians despite appearences because Buffy would never suspect an attack from people she's rescued and generally treated fairly her entire lifespan. Already Buffy has been cost a job and been manipulated fairly badly and they have right now caught Buffy at the one time she is most vunerable to her emotions and the Scooby Gang is at it's weakest. The problem isn't however will the Troika intentionally harm Buffy with their works (that isn't their plan) the problem will be with like Willow they summon/unleash something beyond their power to control. The worst danger of the Troika is their immaturity not what makes them less so.
Dalton by the way
-Charlie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The only problem with that is their life IS a Talkback -- Willows End, 21:40:45 10/23/01 Tue
I find them fun villians.
We have had too much serious stuff. They seem to provide some essential comic relief.
I am disappointed in Jonathan though. Thought he cared about Buffy.
George Lazerby by the way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> How many pieces will they be ripped into? (SPOILERY) -- Earl Allison, 02:38:42 10/24/01 Wed
My major concern would be, just how badly will they get hurt, and by whom?
Johnathan barely withstood, what, ONE kick from Buffy? Another stupid plan like his "Magic Bone" (snicker) spell could get him killed if Buffy lashes out while sober and competant -- look at how efficiently she whacked the demons at the construction site!
And don't get me started on Spike, who MIGHT be able to hurt them were they disguised as demons -- depends on how you rationalize the chip working. And if it IS broken, as some have theorized, and since Spike already (only half-jokingly, IMHO) offered to take the Scoobies out for her, the troika is well and truly doomed.
Uber-Willow could do much worse than kill them, depending on her mood. Think being a rat like Amy is bad? Willow could do almost anything to them.
No, they are dangerous, but more in a humiliation way than a life-threatening one, at least for the moment.
Take it and run.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: How many pieces will they be ripped into? (SPOILERY) -- Neaux, 04:48:48 10/24/01 Wed
I just cant believe the 3 dolts forgot to mention the Loop that was in Xena. (they remembered Data and the X-files though)
oh and its nice you mentioned Amy again.. since It sounds like she's coming back full form
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> LOL! Xena was the first thing I thought of too! -- RabidHarpy, 07:43:55 10/24/01 Wed
THAT was a hilarious episode! (Especially when she threw her Chakram at Joxer's chest - to Gabrielle's complete bewilderment...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Xena, plus Stargate SG-1... -- Lunarchickk, 10:25:07 10/24/01 Wed
...with the Froot Loops...
(and I *loved* the Joxer scene, btw)
But we'd better be careful or we'll start sounding worse than the three of them are, what with the heated TV discussions! ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Okay, but I just have to share this final thing... -- RabidHarpy, 11:33:24 10/24/01 Wed
...check out this website - it always gives me a giggle!
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Nebula/5815/
TOO MUCH! LOL! :D
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why The Trio are Completely Ridiculous and Unrealistic Villians (Spoilers for 10/23 BTVS) -- Malandanza, 21:33:23 10/23/01 Tue
Check out their bickering about who is the better Bond. Connery, Moore, Dalton ... they can't even get it together long enough to keep tabs on a drunk Buffy. Clearly, arguing and bitching about movies and tv shows is their life.
Obviously, these three would never be able to even think about taking over Sunnydale. Why? Because they would be on the internet. I mean, all the time. Those three would be on the Aint It Cool News talkbacks from daylight till dark, endless pontificating about how they could have made a better Episode One, and complaining about how everyone and everything has sold out. Between Bond and Star Wars and the X-Files, that would leave them no time to hatch their little schemes. It would give them time to do nothing but whine and complain. They would be on the internet for at least ninety percent of their life, only taking breaks to use the bathroom and sometimes eat.
Warren was in college -- some sort of genius engineering student. He built his own sex-bot -- how much time do you think he really spent on the internet after that? Jonathan was (briefly) supreme ruler of the universe. The internet must be a bit dull to him now. I think you're thinking of the troika in the wrong terms -- think of them as Willow was back when she was "captain of the nerd squad" at SHS. Warren, at least, has to have sort of work ethic -- he builds things (the robots, the hide-out, the van). Magic can, apparently, be learned easily (Willow went from novice to witch over the summer) so maybe Jonathan was a slacker throughout High School -- but consider the effect the augmentation spell had on him: he now knows that he can have anything he wants with very little effort (and it is unclear how much knowledge he got to keep from his stint as James Bond in Superstar). Under the circumstances, I'd say the occult might have held his interest in the same way it has held Willow's -- and if he was internet savvy, he would have that much of an easier time tracking weird spells down (like Ms. Calendar and Willow used to do). It may even be possible that Jonathan's misuse of magic will be a lesson for Willow.
Oh, and one more thing: the three of them thought free cable porn was the coolest thing they had ever come across, so how much time could they have really spent on the Internet? :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> life: game or cereal? -- anom, 21:40:22 10/23/01 Tue
"...the Little Bads in Life Serial..."
Sure you don't mean Life cereal, Ded? Hey Mikey!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> and, with their latest discovery... -- pocky, 07:45:38 10/24/01 Wed
What with the free cable porn they discovered, I don't think they'll be doing much, as far as scheming goes. ^_^'
~nathan~
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why The Trio are Completely Ridiculous and Unrealistic Villians (Spoilers for 10/23 BTVS) -- Andy, 08:39:13 10/24/01 Wed
The thing that amuses me about the group is that the pop culture references used are generally so well targeted and authentic that I can't help wondering about the authors working on these episodes. It reminds me of reading Evan Dorkin's Eltingville Club comic strips: are the writers really that damn good at observing and researching geek culture, or is there an element of self-parody (self-loathing? Heh.) in the writing? :)
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Why The Trio are Completely Ridiculous and Unrealistic Villians (General Spoilers for Season 6) -- LadyStarlight, 11:04:03 10/24/01 Wed
Unless something changes quite radically over the next few eps, I'm sticking to my theory that the Troika will be comic relief while they slip the real Big Bad in. I'm thinking Willow, or Amy, or a combination.
Anyone want to bet? (I'm thinking dan will have to do the Dance of Shame soon....mwahahaha)
Oh, and my vote goes to Pierce Brosnan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Why The Trio are Completely Ridiculous and Unrealistic Villians (General Spoilers for Season 6) -- Sebastian, 13:26:45 10/24/01 Wed
>>Unless something changes quite radically over the next few eps, I'm sticking to my theory that the Troika will be comic relief while they slip the real Big Bad in. I'm thinking Willow, or Amy, or a combination.>>
I would be inclined to agree. It reminds me of S2 - when Mr. Trick was introduced. Ht was given the appearance that he was going to be the Big bad - when Faith outshined all (with excpetion of The Mayor, of course) in terms of villany goodness.
The same could be said with S2 - with Spike and Dru. While worthy opponents - things did not really heat up until that fateful 17th birthday :-) ..........
My vote - Pierce Bronsnan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Ah well .... -- Dedalus, 16:15:41 10/24/01 Wed
I was basically being sarcastic, for those of you in our studio audience who didn't figure it out. :-)
How could you not love to hate these goobers?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I figured as much -- mundusmundi, 07:18:52 10/25/01 Thu
You know, they probably use that time-displacement stuff to get all their internet convos in.
Life Serial thoughts -- Liq, 21:45:11 10/23/01 Tue
Dawn, oh Dawn... where are you? That Discovery Channel special must have used up all of Michelle's legally bound working hours for the week.
The Evil Scourge of SunnyD .... okay, they are growing on me and had some truly spectacularly funny moments, but when will that get old with no greater purpose? And, BTW.... Warren programmed the BuffyBot... doesn't he have an idea of the slayer's strengths since the Bot could fight, etc.? (Continuity is for wusses.) I officially love Jonathan the most.
The college scenes .... yawn. Willow's line "They aren't any smarter than you or me." followed by her response in class was pretty funny, but the rest fell flat for me. The time-elapse effects were mediocre at best.
The construction site scene... eh.... sorry... didn't do much for me.
The Magic Box. Now that was funny. The mummy hand with the tongs was classic and Buffy crying had my hubby in total hysterics. And where did they get that female customer? She was truly frightening. And, oh, did I mention that I don't like Anya?
The transition of sweet, candle-lit Spike (and the boy has been decorating... and paying cash at the bar .... he's got some 'splainin' to do = hey! I want a coffee table coffin JUST LIKE SPIKE'S) to evil-faced, pissed off "good thing he didn't have his shotgun with him" Spike after Buffy stalked off was pretty interesting.
I'm sure the shippers are quite annoyed with tonight's ep. First of all, Spike was not drunk, so it's interesting that he let Buffy get so snockered... and who thinks that the amount of alcohol she consumed with her body weight would have actually killed her in realverse?
She treated him more like a big brother or friend who annoyed her more than anything else. If she has that lovin' feelin' - then that truth spell better be powerful, because it's pretty deeply buried.
She shoved him angrily away, not once, but count 'em .. . twice. She insulted him. She may trust him and feel comfortable with him, but she certainly does not treat him well. If I were Spike, I would be wondering right about now ... "WTF?!?? Why do I bother with this b ..." uh you get my point.
The musical teaser.... can't wait, can't wait, can't wait. And the red shirt of evil is back.... can't wait, can't wait, can't wait .... (hubby says "you have G O T to be kidding me, right?" I swear, some people...)
And the heartbreaker. Giles is going to be one more father-like man in her life who leaves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> oops **SPOILERS** above! -- Liq, 21:54:02 10/23/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> speaking of warren & the buffybot... -- anom, 22:08:50 10/23/01 Tue
...he built it & he couldn't tell it was the 'bot & not Buffy for 3 months? He's even lamer than he looks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The Musical promos are killing me! -- Deeva, 22:50:49 10/23/01 Tue
I can't wait! AUGHHHHHHHHHH!! Especially loved the first one with SMG & JM singing and the group performing a scene. Well, off to re-watch that spot again and again. 2 more weeks! I can't ossibly last this feels almost as bad as summer all over again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I disagree with just about all you said... -- Jennifer, 05:50:55 10/24/01 Wed
I have to disagree with just about everything you said. I thought this episode was great from beginning to end. I was getting a bit nervous with all the "serious" drama over the last few weeks and last nights episode was so refreshing. SMG was exceptional. She is truly an underrated comedic actress.
The college scenes were SO NOT yawn! It was nice to see Tara and Buffy interacting for a change. And I for one thought the effects were extremelly cool. My husband, who is not into Buffy like me, was actually impressed.
The construction site scene was great also. It was fun seeing Buffy showing the men up...
LOVED the Magic Box scene. Geller deserves and Emmy for that act alone.
As for Spike and Buffy. Just another step to what inevitably is on the way...I can hardly wait. BTW, she was drunk...even when I have too much to drink I tend to swat my husband away when I am trying to do something.
LOVED IT LOVED IT LOVED IT!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I disagree with just about all you said... -- luminesce, 06:28:01 10/24/01 Wed
And did you notice that Spike referred to her as "my lady" and "love" several times?
And no brutal beating ensued!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I disagree with just about all you said... -- ann, 06:42:07 10/24/01 Wed
I agree it was nice to see a funny Buffy again. It's all been so serious of late. So I hardly minded them just jumping right over the Angel/Buffy reunion idea. "I don't want to talk about it." and so nobody does.
About pushing Spike away, though. Obviously all you emotionally healthy posters haven't ever had a yen for a very very bad man. It's very disturbing when someone one isn't supposed to be attracted to gets too close physically. Even scarier if one is drunk and feeling a little out of control. But I reveal too much.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I disagree with just about all you said... -- maddog, 07:12:18 10/24/01 Wed
I think this episode really depended on whether you like Buffy intense ALL the time, or just for important parts of the season. Last night was kinda a filler episode. Advances the storyline ever so slightly in a few areas, but gives no major revelations. Jonathon and crew are still playing around, Buffy's out of debt for now. But there was no progress in the Xander/Anya or Willow situation. I suspect we'll see more next week. Halloween episodes are cool.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> well, not everything you didn't.... *flame shields activated* -- Liq, 08:50:23 10/24/01 Wed
I actually loved the Magic Box scene too. I still maintain my opinions of the college and construction site scenes (after watching the ep again last night after posting.)
I have been getting sooo flamed about my S/B opinions, but do I care? Do I sway? Nuh-uh.
Now I love Spike probably more than just about anyone (or at least equal to my good buds out there and you know who you are) but that doesn't mean I have to believe that it is all roses with him. When I am drunk, which btw, I never am anymore, BUT when I used to get drunk, I wouldn't push my guy away, I would pull him closer.... just me ... lowered the ole inhibitions. If Buffy's inhibitions were lowered, then it served to have her become a bit more uncomfortable with him, not the reverse.
Brace yourself... I'm going to get my fire-proof shields up for this one .... Spike very well may have deserved Buffy's love at this point (or he's on his way, and I don't have any problem with some redemption as long as it's true to the character) however *hiding behind shield* I don't believe Buffy has earned his. There, I said it. She treats him like crap and if I were him, I'd content myself with having a friend who hopefully trusts me, can be fun to be with with on occasion, but give up the rest of it.
There were some cute, funny and affectionate things with them last night. But I saw friendship on her part, not love in any measure as of yet. And as far as him calling her "love" ... well Spike calls every female "love". I also believe the "My Lady" comment was to protect her identity as the slayer and explain why she was there with him.
Yes, I've had bad-boy boyfriends and although I was quick to defend everything about them to friends and family, inside where it really counts, I could always admit to myself that they were bad news.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: well, not everything you didn't.... *flame shields activated* -- maddog, 09:05:13 10/24/01 Wed
She doesn't deserve it? If anything she and Dawn are the only ones that treat him even close to human. He's acknowledged this. And Buffy's willingness to confide in him this season is yet another step in their relationship. Remember one thing...Spike's in love with Buffy...not vice versa...so right now she doesn't want his love...so whether she deserves it or not really isn't all that important(yet).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: well, not everything you didn't.... *flame shields activated* -- Dedalus, 16:32:52 10/24/01 Wed
I knew Liq was going to say that. :-)
You know, there was a time when Spike really, really wanted to kill Buffy and all her friends. Give her some time, ya know. They've connected a lot this season, imo. More than I thought they might. The only time I felt genuinely sorry for Spike was during Crush. It was just completely punch him out, knock him down. Still, I can see it from the Buffster's position. Overall, I love how they are doing this. Building it, little by little. Crush made The Gift all that much more poignant, cause if the barrier spell had never gone back up, it never would have gone back down. On any other show, they would have been having sex by the middle of last season.
And according to Marsters on all this, Spike is really beneath her. I don't know that I agree, but there it is.
I think there have been some truly great B/S moments already this year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> You can come out, Liq. I agree with you. nt -- celticross, 09:48:56 10/24/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> quick question -- Percy, 06:20:13 10/24/01 Wed
How long was Buffy gone you think? I missed "Flooded", but it seemed like she had not been gone all that long before she came home with the bucket o' greasy chicken goodness much ealier than anybody was expecting for an Angel/Buffy exchange.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> That's how I saw it....... -- Rufus, 23:02:28 10/24/01 Wed
Gone at lunch, home for a late dinner....I don't think the rest of the SG or Dawn expected her home that soon.
Mora (sp?) Demon blood and vampires. -- Earl Allison, 02:47:18 10/24/01 Wed
What is the general consensus on Mora Demon blood and vampires? What affect would it have on a vampire WITHOUT a soul, like Harmony or Spike?
Would they be totally restored to their pre-vamp selves? Would they be soulless monsters like that boy from AtS (title escapes me)? Or would they be something in-between, someone with few if any morals, but likely no longer a mass-murderer type?
I mean, Harmony was pretty much the same as a vampire as she was before, except for the blood-drinking. I never got the impression that she killed simply because she COULD, with the possible exception of the shop clerk she mentioned when she went "shopping."
Then again, if human, Harmony would have access to her family's money again -- would she really be dangerous, or just her normal, vapid self?
Spike's more complex, and I leave that to those far more knowledgeable (and favorably inclined) to him than I.
Take it and run.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> My guess it would work like a ressurection spell...bad mojo -- Charlemagne1980, 14:12:59 10/24/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Wasn't it said that the Mora's blood effect on Angel was an intervention from the PTB? -- AngelVSAngelus, 21:47:36 10/24/01 Wed
I remember when Angel went to Doyle about his new found humanity, Doyle said that it wasn't possible save for the intervention of the Powers, prompting the Broody-One to go see them about it. I don't know if the Mora's blood would have that same kind of effect on anyone other than Angel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: yes, and i think it would have the same effect on any vampire.... -- sasha, 23:25:11 10/24/01 Wed
I looked at psyche's transcripts (having not seen the ep..waaah!), and I believe the answer to both your questions is "yes".
1) Did TPTB have a hand in Angel meeting the Mohra and becoming human?
When Doyle and Angel go see the Oracles (the direct link to TPTB), they learn:
Angel: "It was the demon's blood. It wasn't the Powers-That-Be that did this?"
Man: "The Powers-That-Be? Did you save humanity? Avert the Apocalypse?"
Woman: "You faced a Mohra demon. Life goes on."
Angel: "My life as a human. I'm not poisoned or under some spell?"
Woman looks up, after a beat: "The Auguries say no. If it has happened it was meant to be."
Man: "From this day, you will live and die as any mortal man."
So, Angel becoming human was sanctioned by TPTB. Whether they directly or indirectly caused it though, is another question.....
2) Would the Mora's blood have the same effect on any vampire?
Cut to a woodcut of the demon in a book.
Angel: "That's it."
Doyle: "It's called a Mohra demon. They're pretty powerful assassins, soldiers of darkness kind of thing. They take out warriors for our side, like you and Buffy. (Quotes from book) 'Needs vast amounts of salt to live'."
Angel: "It was heading towards salt water."
Doyle quoting: "'Veins run with the blood of eternity.' There it is. Its blood has regenerative properties."
Notice that there's no "soul clause" to the bloods properties......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> But what would a de-vamped Harmony or Spike BE like? -- Earl Allison, 06:59:02 10/25/01 Thu
Thanks for the opinion -- I think it'd work, too.
But would said individual have a soul, or be a soulless human? Curious to know what you think.
Take it and run.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> That's a huge question -- Greta, 17:49:48 10/27/01 Sat
like all the questions we raise about souls in the Buffyverse. Oh, I'll have to think on this a while.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> But its the demon that animates the vampiric body... -- AngelVSAngelus, 11:06:42 10/25/01 Thu
If the Mora's blood regenerated Angel's body and killed the demon within, and he was again human because a SOUL also inhabited that body, then wouldn't a regular vamp just dust from the blood? The demon would be exterminated when the body was brought back to life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: But its the demon that animates the vampiric body... -- sasha, 00:17:56 10/26/01 Fri
Okay, I've thought about your intriguing questions and come up with several scenarios. All the transcript says about the Mohra's blood is:
Doyle quoting: "'Veins run with the blood of eternity.' There it is. Its blood has regenerative properties."
Now, we would have to worry about the definition of "blood of eternity" and "regenerative properties", which are not provided here specifically. Not that anything is ever vauge in the jossverse!
For Angel, we know the blood turned him comletely human; he achieved his goal of redemption. He had a heart beat, he was hungry (boy, was he hungry! :) ), he felt pain, he was tired, he felt weak, he had lost his vampiric strength. The Oracles said he would live and die (and feel pain and pleasure) as any mortal man and that their fight was no longer his fight; he was released from his fealty to be a warrior for good. I interpret this to mean Angel was comletely human and that his becoming so was sanctioned by TPTB.
However, we also know that Angel had his human soul before he encountered the Mohra blood. For Angel, the "regenerative properties" of the blood meant making him completly human, and by definition, killing the vampiric nature which had previously animated the body and returning it to full control of the human soul.
What would happen if another vampire, one without a soul, encountered the Mora? Here are a few guesses since we have not been shown a soulless vampire encountering a Mohra demon.
1) Nothing.
a) A Mohra would never encounter a non-souless vampire since, Doyle: "It's called a Mohra demon. They're pretty powerful assassins, soldiers of darkness kind of thing. They take out warriors for our side, like you and Buffy. (Quotes from book) 'Needs vast amounts of salt to live'." A Mohra would not be interested in taking out/fighting a soldier of darkness which is what souless vampires are, so there's not a lot of chance for its blood to accidently mingle. Also, since the Mohra needs lots of salt, they would be pretty much limited to oceanside locations.
b) If a souless vampire could be converted to human and be lost as a soldier of darkness, either the Mohra would take care to not let the blood mingle or whoever created the Mohra should have added in a clause to cover that "wipe out the soldiers for good only, no effect on the soldiers for evil".
2) Depends on the definition of "human" and "soul" in the jossverse.
a) The Mohra's blood would have the same effect on a souless vampire as on Angel. If we assume the blood is just that, mystical blood with no clauses, then, yes, mingling the blood with a souless vampire would "regenerate" them, ie, make them human and kill the vampiric nature. Would they get their original soul back to run their body?
If one accepts that human means of the human race and contains a soul (ie, Dawn has a soul by default because the Monks made her human), then, yes, the souless vamp would have their soul restored (the souls are in the ether somewhere, after all; they haven't been destroyed or the gypsy curse would not have restored Angel's soul.).
b) The souless vamp would have their body healed (and the demonic nature removed), but they would be a souless human.
c) The souless vamp would have their body healed (and the demonic nature removed), but they would immediatley die because there was no human soul to animate the body.
I'm gonna go with 1)a) and 2)a) here. I think they are an "OR" (either, both) rather than a "NOT" (mutually exclusive). From what I have seen (seasons 1 and 2 of AtS plus current seasons of Ats and BtVs), I choose to believe that the jossverse has to contain a fundamental definition of human and not-human. I believe the distinction is the human consists of a live body (heartbeat, breathing, temperature, suspectible to illness, pain, being made dead), ages, feels hunger, born from human parents and inhabited by a human soul, no matter if there are extra parts or not. This is shown by Dawn (human body + human soul by default + key nature), Darla (when W&H brought her back from the dead, she complained of her heartbeat and her soul which caused her so much pain that she wanted to get revamped to get rid of them), Buffy (human body + human soul by default + slayer characterists of super strength, stamina, speed, etc.), and Willow (human body + human soul by default + witch characteristcs/training), and the "regular" humans like Giles and Xander (human body + human soul).
Angel does not qualify as human currently because even though he has a soul, his body is undead. Spike does not qualify as human beause he currently has an undead body and lacks his human soul. The lawyers of W&H may or may not qualify as human currently, depending on if they traded in their human souls to achieve their high level of evilness, but that's another topic!
But the only way to absolutely answer the question would be to have a Mohra demon encounter a souless vamp and see what happens, and even then we might get continuity error or plotholes or comlete contradictions! Ah the fun of watching AtS and BtVS! Enjoy....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> You left one out... -- Moose, 22:30:06 10/28/01 Sun
There is the possiblity that the absence of a soul in a vampire which mixes its blood with a Mohra demon could cause the creation of a new soul instead of recalling the old one from the ether--if that is truly where all vampire victims souls are.
I'm not convinced that Angel's uniqueness doesn't mess with the theory of souls. The PTB could have known in advance that Angel's soul would need to be restored and took steps to prevent his soul's departure to realms unknown in order for prophecy to be fulfilled. If Angel is unique, then what we know about souls and vampires becomes suspect.
On a story level though, I doubt very much Spike would ever be returned to what he was (William the awful poet). I would think that Joss would add a soul either by Spike's generation of it himself through acts of love and kindness, or special dispensation from the PTB or some other unique process which wouldn't overly interfere with the Buffyverse.
Praise for BtVS in Britain -- Rahael, 05:02:40 10/24/01 Wed
Just thought you might be interested to know that at least two of the national broadsheets in Britain (the television sections) have praised Buffy highly.
Last year, the Guardian called Buffy 'One of the best shows in television history' and said that SMG was a shining presence.
Now, Robert Hanks, Televison critic of the Independent, discussing British misperceptions of American lack of irony,
said:
"The idea that Europeans have a deeper sense of irony than Americans has taken a long time to die out; and if you're thinking purely in terms of Middle America, then perhaps there is something to it. A couple of years ago BBC2 showed a film by Chris Petit called 'Negative Space' about the American film critic Manny Farber, whcih argued that America's splayed geography elminated the need for the articial distance of irony; and you can see ho this might apply to the vast hinterlands. But in the crowded conurbations of the East and West Coasts - the territory that gave birth to Woody Allen and Stephen Sondheim, Philip Roth, David Eggers and David Foster Walles, The Sopranos and Buffy the Vampire Slayer - its clear that shortage of irony is not an issue"
The article ends by saying: "For now, ponder the fact that more people [in Britain] watch Animal Hospital than Seinfeld. And we think we know about irony."
I like the fact that Robert Hanks didn't even put forward an argument about what a superior show BtVS was, or even that it is much misunderstood - he assumes a tacit understanding that his readers already are aware of its quality!
Anyways - I thought that Robert Hanks put Buffy in with an interesting category of people - wondered what your thoughts were. And also on the issue of the irony/hinterland issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Irony/hinterland -- Cactus Watcher, 06:40:27 10/24/01 Wed
The hinterland business is just snobbism.
Until the early 1960's, the so-called media industry (radio, television, news gathering, publishing) was heavily concentrated on the east coast of the US, and particularly in New York City. People who lived in New York had good reason to want to keep those industries in New York and spread the word literally all over the world that except for the cities in the Northeast the US was a vast intellectual wasteland. In the the 1960's, a good portion of the entertainment business moved west to California where the movie industry was already firmly entrenched (TV) and to Las Vegas, Nevada, about the only place in those days where gambling was legal (Live music and comedy). Consequently, a new snobbism arose, that everything between the two coasts was a vast wasteland.
It's all garbage. The intellectual talent (ironic or otherwise) has always come from all over the country without distinction. Most of our news reporters used to be recruited specifically from the midwest because they sounded 'intelligent' to the greatest number of people in the country. Yes, to the average American, the thickest of the street accents of New York City sound dopey. The US has quality colleges and unversities from one end to the other. You can meet intellectual duds from Harvard and Yale (just as I've met duds from Oxford and Cambridge) and you can meet really bright people from Southwest Whatever State University. Heck, a lot of really brilliant people in the US are Canadians, and good luck trying to tell them from the rest us!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> hey, don't shoot the messenger! -- Rahael, 07:22:26 10/24/01 Wed
I just thought I couldn't leave that provocative statement by Hanks stand without allowing those across the Atlantic to have the chance to reply!
And as for the issue of core and periphery - surely that in itself is a construct often used for ironic purposes - i.e all those 17th and 18th century plays about the rustic country vs sophisticated (and ironic) metropolis? Or the virtuous countryside vs the corrupt (and cynical) metropolis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Not aiming at messenger, but tired of the 'message' ;o) -- CW, 10:59:09 10/24/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Well, anyway, here's more praise for Buffy! -- Rahael, 13:22:32 10/24/01 Wed
Two short articles below from the Guardian (my newspaper of choice)
Hollywood reporter
It's coffin time
Epitaph for a vampire slayer
Charles Shaar Murray
Guardian
Friday June 1, 2001
Oh my God, they killed Buffy! If the trailers are to be believed, the Buffy the Vampire Slayer series on Sky will have ended by 9pm tonight, its star slain, and a tombstone bearing the iconically arch epitaph: "She Saved The World. A Lot." Over the past five years this witty, unpretentious series has distinguished itself as easily the coolest example of episodic TV this side of The Sopranos, with its spin-off Angel not far behind. The fact that it began its small-screen life as a spin-off from a misfired feature film is a minor miracle, and the slickly seamless manner in which series mastermind Joss Whedon and his co-conspirator David Greenwalt interweave characters and storylines between the two shows merely another.
Nevertheless, we should leave the tears and snuffles to the supporting players. Another series has already been commissioned, with Sarah Michelle Gellar's signature firmly in place on the dotted line, so all that remains is to speculate exactly how Whedon plans to resurrect Her Royal Buffness.
As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle demonstrated a century or so back at the Reichenbach Falls, there's no cliffhanger more compelling than topping your lead character.
Slay it again
Once the ultimate cult character, Buffy The Vampire Slayer is now a fully fledged icon. But four years on, is she losing her bite?
Janine Gibson
Guardian
Friday January 5, 2001
It's a bit like the moment your dad started humming along to the Spice Girls. Far from being a cultural high point, the moment that Sunday Times arts critic Brian Appleyard dropped his weekly analysis of post-structuralism and turned over two pages in breathless tribute to the sheer brilliance that is a teenage vampire slayer must surely be the beginning of the end.
Clearly the possibility that Mr Appleyard has been possessed by the demon spirit Moloch cannot be overlooked. But if, after 80-odd episodes, the highbrow establishment has finally caught on to the fact that a smartly written sci-fi, horror or fantasy series might just be a metaphor, then we must resist the temptation to mock. Buffy The Vampire Slayer has withstood greater threats than this - the opening of the hellmouth on her graduation day from high school and nearly being axed after just 11 episodes, to name just two.
In fact it's rather appropriate that the grown-ups have suddenly got with the programme, for so, as we enter season five, has the world's oldest vampire. Yes, Vlad the Impaler, Count Dracula of Transylvania, has woken up to the world's leading slayer and decides to pay a visit to Sunnydale to convince Buffy that the two are soul mates - with a love that, naturally, spans time, geography and the small matter of being undead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, anyway, here's more praise for Buffy! -- Dedalus, 16:36:56 10/24/01 Wed
Great stuff! Thanks, R. Her Royal Buffness indeed!
I love the Brits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Speaking of Canadians... -- RabidHarpy, 08:09:40 10/24/01 Wed
...are there any other Canadian's on this board?!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Oh yeah!! -- WW, 08:12:47 10/24/01 Wed
Nina, Aquitaine, LadyStarlight, Rufus, me (Wisewoman)...and...am I forgetting anyone?
Oh, Canada! We are the CDCW!!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> fill the rest of us in, willya? -- anom, 19:47:06 10/24/01 Wed
What's the CDCW?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Need you ask??? Canadian Demon Cat Worshippers......OnM founding president...:):):) -- Rufus, 22:59:01 10/24/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> And me (waving hands frantically in the air)! -- Little One, 14:38:18 10/26/01 Fri
Me too! Canadificus Terriblis in the flesh. Just my luck, I finally get my computer working again (it crashed...literally after my cats jumped repeatedly on it during my recent move and caused it to take a tumble) after months and months of withdrawl of ATPoBtVS and there's just too much yummy philosophical goodness to partake of at one sitting! And I'm supposed to visit the in-laws tonight! ;-( Wah, but I've missed you guys! sigh
But I'll be back! Mwa ha ha, ahem, ha... (ominous ellipsis)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I think half the board is Canadian -- Masq, 09:37:16 10/24/01 Wed
With their evil chocolate and demon cat conspiracies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> You understand us so well....... -- Rufus, 22:57:56 10/24/01 Wed
Being that you are part Canadian youself......and you fancy cats and chocolate as well......;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> But the chocolate cats are the yummiest -- Masq, 08:23:40 10/25/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Absolutely - They're purrfect! -- Brian, 15:49:19 10/25/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Canadians..."cheque" and "sabre" are apparently a dead give-away! -- Wisewoman, 08:10:05 10/24/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Actually, a lot of Canadians pronounce 'about' like 'a boat...' -- CW, 11:14:02 10/24/01 Wed
but, I don't know how wide spread that is in Canada. On the other hand, I have an in-law who pronounces it that way, and I don't know if he's even been to Canada.
I usually spell it 'sabre' but I'd think I was in the wrong bank if I got cheques from them instead of a checks. ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I wonder where people get that from?!?! -- RabidHarpy, 11:30:32 10/24/01 Wed
I'm Canadian and the only fellow Canucks I've ever heard utter something that even remotely sounds like "aboat" are those from the Maritime provinces who have a slightly more Gaelic lilt to their words. The rest of us just say 'about' - the "ou" sounding like that of "ouch" - more of an "ow" than an "oa".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Actually, Americans say "about" like "a-baaat!" LOL ;o) -- Wisewoman, 11:41:43 10/24/01 Wed
Canadians say "about" exactly the same as, "I'm sick with a bout of the 'flu," or "a [wrestling] bout!"
;oP~~~
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually, Americans say "about" like "a-baaat!" LOL ;o) -- Shaglio, 12:52:42 10/24/01 Wed
People in the New England area pronoune about as " I have a bout of the flu," not a-baaht surprisingly enough since we speak wicked wee-id out he-ah in these pahts. I've heard that people in the Great Lakes area pronounce it as "a boot" but I've always thought that was an exaggeration.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> And don't even get me started on "roof"...!! -- WW, 19:15:00 10/24/01 Wed
We say "roof" like "Ruth" with an "f."
When Americans say "roof" it sounds to me like "rough" or "ruff."
I've always really loved the New England accent, though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> it's a regional thing -- anom, 21:50:54 10/24/01 Wed
Lots of Americans say "roof" w/the u of "Ruth." In some areas (I'm not sure which), it's pronounced the way you described, w/the u of "put." Same w/"root." Soon after Roots was broadcast, a bus co. (probably Greyhound) ran an ad campaign saying "Take our routes to your roots!" One time I was on one of their buses, passing a billboard w/that line on the way out of the terminal, & the person sitting next to me read it: "Take our rowts to your ruhts!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I wouldn't mention it, if I hadn't heard it a lot ;o) -- CW, 12:08:10 10/24/01 Wed
I do suspect it's less common the farther west you get in Canada.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmm... interesting... -- RabidHarpy, 12:13:08 10/24/01 Wed
I live smack-dab in the middle of Canada and don't hear it very often around here, but I confess, I haven't been further East...
:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's not just me. -- Cactus Watcher, 14:35:52 10/24/01 Wed
Here's a quote from the companion book to the BBC series from the 1980's "The Story of English" by Robert McNeil, a Canadian, though admittedly from Montreal.
The most obvious and distinctive feature of Canadian speech is probably its vowel sound, the diphthong ou. (Thus out rhymes with boat, so that a phrase like "out and about in a boat" emerges as "oat and aboat in a boat".) There is a deeply held belief that this trait comes from Scotland, but this is a myth. The Scottish oo is really quite different from the Canadian ou. Professor Jack Chambers believes that it was an independent development in Canadian English.
(quoting Chambers) The ou in "house" and "about" begins with the vowel sound in hut and but, whereas the ou in "houses" and "bough" begins with the vowel sound in "hot" and "bought." The difference in the two ou sounds is systematic, and known to linguists as Canadian Raising. Because of it, Canadians have a different ou sound in "house" and "houses", and in "lout" and "loud."
Back to Cactus Watcher- If that's not true where you live in Canada, it's interesting to me. I trained as a linguist. And no, I don't know who Prof. Chambers was.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> interestinger & interestinger -- anom, 20:09:21 10/24/01 Wed
CW, I almost went for a grad degree in linguistics, till they told me that what you could do w/one was pretty much limited to teaching & missionary work! Anyway, Chambers' discussion of vowel sounds was interesting, though it gives me no idea what determines which word gets which vowel, systematic though it may be. Neither sound is what I hear in the Canadian "ou," which is more like a short e (as in bet) followed by oo, adding up to something like "eu" in Spanish or Italian. Actually it's a lot like the upper-class British "oh" sound--maybe it's mostly Brits who think Canadians say "aboat"! And the American "ou" sounds to me like a short a (as in cat--on this board, I better use that example!) followed by the same oo sound.
Maybe I should tune in Peter Jennings, just to make sure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Peter Jennings. Yes, he does it occaisionally -- CW, 01:47:10 10/25/01 Thu
I was in Slavic linguistics, which meant I studied Russian, Polish, Serbo-Croatian etc, primarily, linguistics secondarily. The job market was different, but not much bigger.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It's not just me. -- JoRus, 02:36:48 10/25/01