January 2004 posts

Previous January 2004  

More January 2004

My recent thoughts regarding Angel -- Seven, 13:51:51 01/14/04 Wed

This may seem inconsequential but I was thinking about it yesterday and it seemed worth mentioning on the board.

So far, we have 8 episodes of Angel season 5. Of those episodes, W&H (AI) battles:

Hauser/(Shoot, can't think of his name, ugh, evil guy who was a finacial supporter of W&H)

Spike/The Necromancer, who both are connected to W&H

The Werewolf eating party/ saved Werewolf girl

The Reaper -- Pavayne

Lorne's Id - thanks to W&H

Numero Cinco, a W&H employee and the monster connected to him

Robotic father of Wes and his robot fighters out to get W&H

Eve and Lindsay's manipulations

In only one episode did Angel "Help the Helpless." That was "Unleashed." Every other episode, Angel was battling something originating inside W&H. If you recall, the gang came across the Werewolf attack when they were HIDING from W&H.

So the only time they were able to actually help someone was when they left the evil law firm. I think this may be more noticable as we see the season as a whole. I have, however, come to a conclusion through this mode of thinking.

This is all speculation and I have not been spoiled.

Angel, as many have speculated before, works on many levels as keeping balance. Many aspects of the show relate to this. His dual Vampire/Human nature is one example. The Ambiguity of everything is another. Just listen to Holland Manner's speech.

"There is no winning. We would never attempt to do something as (grand/riduculous?) as winning."

This is the idea that permeates through Angel. Angel is there to keep balance. Does anyone think it is just coincidence that Angel finally became an employee of W&H right around the same time that Buffy activated all potential Slayers? Putting the AI team on the side of darkness has evened the playing ground a little. the Senior Partners have been so interested in Angel because they are just as interested in balance as the PTB. (This all relates to my Senior Powers theory that will likely be finished in essay form by, let's say June)

I feel myself getting off track here, so , does this make sense to the rest of you? Is this a possibility? Is Angel not really fighing the same fight as Buffy? Is he keeping the balance whereas she is turning the tide? Comments?



[> Re: My recent thoughts regarding Angel -- skpe, 18:28:54 01/14/04 Wed

I have been wondering about something you said. Buffy's activation of all potential Slayers. We know from 'Fray' that they kill off all the vampires/demons so why haven't we heard any thing about them, seeing that demons & vamps are major clients of W&M. I would think that the other branches would be all over angel for any info on buffy and the new slayers

[> [> Wow, excellent point! -- Vegeta, 11:16:38 01/15/04 Thu

Has Anyone Checked Out '24'? -- Claudia, 15:40:00 01/14/04 Wed

Has anyone checked out the FOX show, "24"? Both D.B. Woodside (Robin Wood) and Gina Torres (Jasmine) are in it and play ex-lovers. Nearly saw them go hot and heavy last night. Nearly.


[> Re: '24' (warning: minor spoilers for last night in Claudia's post) -- Vickie, 16:48:44 01/14/04 Wed

I've been watching 24 since its first episode, and have always enjoyed it. The pace tends to obscure any plot holes (at least, for me), and I think the acting is excellent.

In addition to D.B. Woodside and Gina Torres, Daniel Dae Kim (Gavin Park) has also appeared on the series. I don't recall any other ME alumns. Anyone else?

[> [> There was another 'big' one... (24 season 1 spoilers) -- Rob, 16:52:23 01/14/04 Wed

...Eric Balfour played Milo, the computer tech, in the first season. He was, as we all remember, Jesse from Wtth and The Harvest! Also incidentally had a recurring role on Six Feet Under that same year.


[> [> [> Re: There was another 'big' one... (24 season 2 spoilers) -- Claudia, 09:36:57 01/15/04 Thu

Harris Yulin, who played Giles and Wesley's boss, Quentin Travers, on BUFFY; was a semi-regular on "24" during its Season 2 run. He played NSA Director, Roger Stanton.

[> [> [> [> Oh, yeah...forgot about him! -- Rob, 10:26:13 01/15/04 Thu

My Thoughts on Angel 5x09 - 'Harm's Way' (No Spoilers - sort of) -- Mighty Mouse, 19:03:27 01/14/04 Wed

My thoughts? This should have been 5x08 or 5x07. Anything before all the dramatic intense great action of "Destiny." Personally, Harmony's funny, but I'm not too interested in her ... ESPECIALLY after the cliffhanger of "Destiny," and to have an episode focused around her at this juncture sort of destroyed all my anticipation. It made my enjoyment of the episode not so well. Ah well ... next week's looks interesting anyway ...


[> 'Harm's Way' Spoilers - -- Ann, 19:24:42 01/14/04 Wed

I disagree. Lots of stuff in here and Harmony is the conduit tonight.

New philosophy for WH. "If you don't kill, we won't kill you.

Spikes philosophy: To Fred, "you tried".

Angels philosophy: "He's not a helper, he's a chopper". How far he's come. Ack.

The episode opened with a commercial and ended with a personal statement from Harmony. The personal is the political. This is just what Angel has to learn. Once again the characters around him are reflecting his angst. Harmony even states she is trying "I don't have a soul, it is harder for me." The war between the two tribes is the war going on in Angel's soul.

I think it was a great episode. More later.

[> [> Why I liked it = spoilers - Harm's way -- VampRiley, 20:29:10 01/14/04 Wed

1) The stuff they put Mercedes through. From professionalism to happy/freindly to trying to be nice to depressed/sad to trying to be strong to scared/anxious/nervous/her attempts to explain what happened (some of which were both cute and funny) to big ass rage to big ass sadness and not old harmony sadness either. She rocks!

2) Okay, Harmony can kick ass. Her unicorns are safe, at least, from others from the steno pool. I find her so much hotter now, even more than before.

3) Angel's attempt to learn to speak with those clans and him screwing up big time on the phone and freaking out a little. Hi-larity was had.

4) The scenes from within the closet when she knocked them out and dropped them in. Had a big grin each time it happened.

5) Harm trying to stuff the dead guy down the shoot and trying to hide it when that woman showed up and before that woman got out of the elevator. And each time her dog growled at Harmony. Very funny.

6) Straight meaning not a vamp. Funny.

7) Fred/Harm bonding - "You can teach me about life and I can teach you how to dress better."

8) Harm trying to feign interest in what Toby was saying.


[> [> [> And one more *Spoiler* -- dub ;o), 21:09:23 01/14/04 Wed

Harmony brushing her teeth, and then brushing her "fangs."

LOL ;o)

[> [> [> [> Re: And one more *Spoiler* -- monsieurxander, 11:53:13 01/15/04 Thu

The Alien series reference. Wayland-Yutani (aka "The Company") in league with Wolfram & Hart? KICKASS! And since I've been spending the last week or so absorbing every little tidbit on the Alien Quadrilogy DVD Box Set, I found it to be an especially sweet morsel.

[> [> [> [> [> So *that's* who they are--more Spoilers for Harm's Way -- Arethusa, 12:00:20 01/15/04 Thu

I know the YoYoDyne Corporation is from Buckaroo Banzai and I'm making the wild guess that NewsCorp is maybe Robocop??

[> [> [> [> [> [> Actually NewsCorp owns Fox. (cheeky!) -- Pony, 12:04:16 01/15/04 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! -- Arethusa, 12:24:06 01/15/04 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> Pony's right about NewsCorp -- OnM, 16:01:23 01/15/04 Thu

And indeed, "YoYoDyne" caught my ear right away, me being a big time Buckaroo Banzai fan.

(A story, BTW, about evil invaders from another dimension. Among other things. Many other things. Available on DVD!)


[> [> [> Re: Why I liked it = spoilers - Harm's way -- skeeve, 13:34:50 01/15/04 Thu

The closet scenes had me thinking of Little Shop of Horrors.

[> Re: My Thoughts on Angel 5x09 - 'Harm's Way' (Spoilers here) -- CW, 20:29:02 01/14/04 Wed

I think the problem was more a case of misleading advertising by the WB. Advertisting what's going to happen in episodes 5.10 and 5.12 immediately before 5.9 airs was pretty rotten.

As far as Harm's Way goes, I agree with the head of the female-looking clan. It works for me.

[> Re: My Thoughts on Angel 5x09 - 'Harm's Way' (No Spoilers - sort of) -- Vegeta, 09:17:16 01/15/04 Thu

I found "Harm's Way" to be pretty entertaining. I do agree that having that episode immeadietely follow "Destiny" didn't make alot of sense. But, at least Angel and Spike still were sporting bruises.
Loved the closet scenes, just awesome!! Tons of hilarity... And I tell you what, I don't think I could be Angel's assistant. He's kind of a pain in the ass.

[> My NEW Thoughts on Angel 5x09 - 'Harm's Way' - Some Spoilers included -- Mighty Mouse, 17:13:17 01/16/04 Fri

I went back and rewatched the TiVoed episode ... and, after reading what you guys pointed out ... yeah, this was a good way to follow up. Harmony is hilarious (and darn sexy as always), and I now see the similarities between her battle and Angel / Spike. Heh, I'd like to thank you all ... you got me to go back and actually enjoy the episode when I had walked into it not wanting to. Much appreciated (enjoying episodes of Angel makes my week! :-) ). Originally, I was going to make a complaint about Spike's reasoning for not going to Europe to find Buffy ... but then I stopped myself, and thought about it, and how it REALLY does fit his souled-personality. Spike, at heart, is still a poetic / romantic character, and the reasoning follows that truthfully. Spike has his doubts about going back to Buffy [recall their last conversation? "I love you" "No you don't, but thank's for saying"]. Most likely, he wouldn't really have much of a place with her right now, also. It's not like if he went out there she would leap into his arms (well, maybe, but perhaps in a friendship sort of way). And no doubt Spike still wants to get to the bottom (on some level) of why he was brought back.

Is being a 'Champion' the same as having a nice desk? (spoilers for 'Destiny' and Harm's Way) -- Doug, 07:01:40 01/15/04 Thu

Harm's Way *had* to come after Destiny because the struggle between Harmony and Tabika is a deliberate send-up of the Angel and Spike's battle for the cup of torment. In this episode Harmony's job is revealed to consist of constantly working to please bosses that (to her) seem arbitrary, cold, distant, and capricious. In some ways in this episode Angel reflects what the powers must seem like to him. Harmony works at her job and gets a nice desk and some perks, but for it is ostracized by everyone around her. But despite that another vampire struggles to take the position based on who "deserves it more".

Sound familiar?

Both pairs are fighting for the same reason, so that they matter. I'm not sure if Spike even wants to Shanshu buyt as long as all this prophecy and chosenwarrior stuff is out there he can feel that his undeath has meaning, that their is a purpose to everyrthing he's been through, and that when everything is measured he does matter. Harmony is also very much concerned with the possibility that she doesn't matter, and her job is one means of tryig to assure herself that she does. I'll leave Angel to those better suited to analyzing his character; Tabika stated the reasons why she felt she was worthy, and she wanted the job so she could prove that.

Ultimately both episodes involve 2 people willing to injure or kill each other in order to prove themselves worthy of a nice desk and more trouble and responsibility than it's worth. I think that "Harm's Way was designed to be a commentary on "Destiny" and the battle between Angel and Spike.


[> Re: Is being a 'Champion' the same as having a nice desk? (spoilers for 'Destiny' and Harm's Way) -- Pony, 11:11:43 01/15/04 Thu

I agree. We were meant to see parallels to the Angel/Spike rivalry. I don't know if it was a commentary necessarily on the meaninglessness of the goal but rather on the difference one's point of view makes. Angel may have all the power from Harmony's perspective but he, like her, made embarassing mistakes in meetings, was rather a forgotten persence during the big demon summit, and was being openly mocked ("manwhore" is a phrase I will cherish).

[> [> Re: Is being a 'Champion' the same as having a nice desk? (spoilers for 'Destiny' and Harm's Way) -- Jane, 22:18:43 01/15/04 Thu

Very perceptive Doug! I agree that Harmony's fight to be relevant and worthy of notice mirrors Angel's own struggles. I also liked the scene between Spike and Harmony at the end; seemed like Spike finally realized that going out in a blaze of glory kind of screws his chances for a big reunion with Buffy. After that exit,a reunion would be a little anticlimactic.
Really enjoyed this episode.

[> Oooh! Great observation! I like that. -- punkinpuss, 12:27:38 01/15/04 Thu

[> Re: Is being a 'Champion' the same as having a nice desk? (spoilers for 'Destiny' and Harm's Way) -- Jaelvis, 12:48:54 01/15/04 Thu

I think you are on to something here, Doug. The Harmony/Tamika conflict does parallel the Spike/Angel one. Good call.

[> Good call, Doug! Missed that entirely, and yet it's obvious in retrospect. Thanks! -- OnM, 15:54:55 01/15/04 Thu

Senior Partners -- Buffys#1fan, 12:59:56 01/15/04 Thu

Does anyone know if we'll see the senior partners this season becausei would really like to know more about them?

Buffy and Riley -- Purple Tulip, 13:43:47 01/15/04 Thu

Hi everyone! It's been a reeeaalllyyy long time since I posted anything here! But anyway, I was watching an episode from mid-fifth season yesterday, and I can't think of the name of the ep, but it was when Joyce was in the hospital and found out that she had a brain tumor. Riley feels left out and unneeded and he goes to a bar and starts letting a vamp suck his blood. He does this in the next episode too I believe and that's when Spike tells Buffy and she catches him in the act.

Anyway, what I'm getting at here, is that watching Riley with the vamp made me think of Buffy and Spike, how her self-loathing and confussion led her to take comfort in Spike even though it made ehr feeling dirty and wrong. I guess what I'm asking is is this the same reason that Riley turned to vamps? I was never quite sure why he did this and I was just wondering if anyone else had any insight.


[> Hey, Purple Tulip's bacl! -- CW, 14:07:50 01/15/04 Thu

There are a number of different opinons about Riley sneaking off. My favorite is that it mirrors Buffy crawling out of bed to go hunt in Buffy vs Dracula. Both want an extra thrill the relationship isn't giving them. Neither of them really wants the other to know what's going on. Neither of them knows that the relationship is bound to crack up. At least, Riley had the sense to realize there was something wrong between them fairly early that season. Whether he needed to say it to Buffy more forcefully in hopes of fixing things or needed to break it off sooner is hard to say.

[> Welcome back, PT! - My thoughts on your question -- OnM, 16:37:53 01/15/04 Thu

According to both my own observations and comments by the various writers, Riley sought out the vamp prostitutes for several reasons, the primary one of which was supposedly (according to Riley) that he was desperately, passionately in love with Buffy, but that she did not return the passion to the same degree that he felt it for her. He did not understand this, since by all other actions and accounts, Buffy appeared to 'love' him also, just not as intensely.

Riley began to feel that the problem in this instance was that Buffy needed a certain degree of darkness in the men that she entered into relationships with, such as Angel. Spike contributed to this (mostly erronious) concept by emphatically stating to Riley that this was indeed absolute fact-- that Buffy "needs a little monster in her man".

Riley therefore decided that he had to try to find out what this appeal was, and understand it, so he could then give Buffy 'what she needed'. Starting out from a simple 'fact-finding' mission, the situation gravitated into a habit, fueled by the impression that the vamps, in their own perverse and dark way, 'needed him'.

A great deal has been written about 'whose fault' the Riley/Buffy breakup hinged upon, and most people cite Riley as the far more guilty party, an opinion I certainly side with.

Nevertheless, confusing the issue is the fact that Buffy, increasingly shouldering the crushing burdens piling down on her (Glory, Dawn, her mother's illness, all the usual stuff) does her usual thing and internalizes her suffering-- she pulls away from others who might help her, including Riley, her lover, the one person above all others that she should be able to confide in and unburden herself upon.

Riley saw this as evidence that Buffy did not love him enough to confide in him and allow him to help her. The sitch reminds me of a Nenah Cherry tune from years ago, where she sings the line:

Move with me / I'm strong enough
To be weak / In your arms

I think this is the key to Riley's dilemma, and what I found so delightful about this turn of events (from a storyteller standpoint) is that, as so often happened with Buffy/Riley, there is a gender reversal playing out. In 'conventional' male/female relationships, it is the male who is normally the stoic, internalizing one psychologically, the one who won't share his pain because it would make him seem 'less manly' or competent. The female is supposedly the emotional, externalizing, wanting-to-share partner.

Note that this story arc offers exactly the reverse. Buffy is the stoic, and Riley wants her to share her burden with him.

[> [> OT to OnM: Did you get an email from me? -- LittleBit (wondering), 13:37:06 01/16/04 Fri

[> [> [> Yes, and I'll be back to you about it this weekend sometime! (Sorry for the delay) -- OnM, 19:11:10 01/16/04 Fri

[> Re: Buffy and Riley-FYI -- Jaelvis, 10:45:54 01/16/04 Fri

This is sort of off topic in regard to your question but...I recently saw that episode too. Did you notice that the vamp he met at the bar, Sandy, is the same Sandy that EvilWillow ate in Doppelgangland? The episode you're referring to is Shadow. She appears again in a later episode too (can't think of the name). Riley is at Willy's and she shows up. She bites him and then he dusts her.

I find it amazing that ME goes to that much trouble to get the same actress to play an anonymous vamp in 2 episodes 2 years later. Their attention to detail is amazing.

OT: CJL--punk'd! -- cjl, 21:50:13 01/15/04 Thu

Fellow ATPers:

I try to think of myself as a sophisticated New Yorker. I like to believe I'm up on all the scams and flimflams floating around this, the most cynical of American cities. Well, friends and neighbors, unless I'm very much mistaken, your friend CJL--Mr. Self Awareness--got punk'd today.

And punk'd GOOD.

Let's set this up. It was already a pretty bad day at the office. I was trying to follow up on e-mail article proposals (way, WAY behind), the xerox machine was breaking down and then miraculously repairing itself when the service reps came over, and an urgent delivery to one of our upcoming authors did NOT arrive by mail. AGAIN. I was starting to feel like George Costanza under pressure, referring to myself in the third person: "CJL is gettin' very upset!"

And then I got the phone call. Out of the blue. The voice on the other end referred to me by name; the voice was loud and pleading and obviously belonged to a "special" individual--chronological age 30, mental age 10.

ED: Hello? My name is Ed! I just built a volcano--with vinegar for lava! Will you publish it in your magazine?

Being the suc--uh, considerate and patient person--that I am, I tried to explain to Ed that our magazine really isn't appropriate for his little experiment, nice though his experiment might have been. "But no," I said, "I don't think we can put in our magazine." I could hear the hurt and confusion well up in his voice. "But WHY NOT?" he wailed, uncomprehending. Once again, with infinite patience, I tried to explain. But that set off more wailing, which set off more explanations, until I finally felt further conversation was useless. Click.

A few minutes later, Ed called back and put his cousin on the line. The cousin sounded like a typical outer borough New Yorker, with an anti-intellectual, condescending attitude towards the magazine and all the "nerds" who buy it, and tried to guilt me into transferring them to an actual editor. I held the line, but I was losing patience, and I simply DID NOT NEED THIS TODAY. He put Ed back on the phone, and we went another couple of rounds before I hung up. End round two.

Ed called up one more time a few minutes later, and went into graphic descriptions about the um, taste of the vinegar in his volcano. (Trust me, you don't want to know.) I listened numbly, dully acknowledging him every time he asked if I was still listening, a vein in my forehead starting to throb. Finally, I put Ed on hold--and left him there.

Fortunately, that was all from Ed and his cousin for the day. I sat at my desk for the remaining hour, my nerves frazzled (just ask my associate across the way), until I could bolt out into the beautiful, welcoming arctic air.

It wasn't until I was on the train home when I realized the possibility of a set-up. And if it WAS a set-up, it was a perfect set-up, especially for someone like me. Imitating a mentally challenged person removes the anger from the victim on the other end, because what semi-civilized person wants to yell at someone without the mental capacity to defend himself? What had me kicking myself was the cousin. He was so obviously baiting me--but I was too dim to catch on.

About an hour ago, I got off the phone with my friend Nick, who said the M.O. matches the callers on Comedy Central's Crank Yankers almost down to the last word of dialogue. If I actually HAD cable TV, that might have tipped me off to the scam a bit sooner....

So, friends and neighbors, I ask you to check your cable TV line-ups for the next four or five weeks. If, on a February edition of Crank Yankers, you see their cast of puppets talking about home-made volcanoes and the joys of vinegar, listen closely to the stammering, exasperated voice of the magazine receptionist on the other end. You might hear something familiar.

Your friend,


P.S. Ponygirl, shadowkat, I know what you're going to say: this story was MADE for Live Journal.

P.P.S. Legal question: If this whole incident was what I think it was, do Adam Carolla and his gang of idiots at Crank Yankers need my permission to air those conversations?


[> Re: OT: CJL--punk'd! -- s'kat, 22:09:56 01/15/04 Thu

P.S. Ponygirl, shadowkat, I know what you're going to say: this story was MADE for Live Journal.

Yep! That's why We do live journal...but you know that. ;-)

P.P.S. Legal question: If this whole incident was what I think it was, do Adam Carolla and his gang of idiots at Crank Yankers need my permission to air those conversations?

Yes, they need your permission if they say who you are, use your name and use your voice. Just as they would if they took your picture.

Candid Camera - got signed consent forms from people when they did it.

That said? There might be a loop-hole, if they don't say who it was or the magazine...or just have someone parodying the voice and don't use your actual one - then maybe.
Not positive.

My sympathies...just what you needed on a day like today.
Actually I'm sympathetic to anyone who had to venture out in it.

[> [> *many kiwi-hugs* hope new Angel makes you feel better! -- angel's nibblet, 22:18:28 01/15/04 Thu

[> [> Thaaaaaaaaaat's it. -- Rochefort, 22:20:34 01/15/04 Thu

I was considering it anyway, but now it's definite. Adam Corolla is getting written into the Rescue Revisited, and he's getting his ass kicked.


[> [> [> Eeeeeexcellent. He can be horribly mauled by rabid, hungry unicorns! -- angel's nibblet, 22:53:38 01/15/04 Thu

[> [> [> Re: Thaaaaaaaaaat's it. -- anom, 23:44:11 01/15/04 Thu

Sounds good, Roche. I'll hold his other arm, & cjl can do the kicking. Hey, it might be just the thing to unite the warring factions! Bring back the days of one for all & all for one & all that.

cjl, I'm sorry you had such a crappy day in general & had to deal w/that idiocy in the middle of it. Don't be too hard on yourself. It could happen to the best of us, & I'd say it just did. Hey, if it makes you feel any better, I had a crappy day too--slipped on the subway platform & spent most of the day at your quasi-competitor's office w/my ankle propped up on a chair, the ice I applied to my scraped & swollen knee trickling over my leg & soaking into my thermals. Didn't do much for my mood, either; some of the people I've been working with there got a look at a very diff't. side of me. And it was pretty much my fault, too...mine & the wet pebbly platform strip that's supposed to provide traction.

OK, how is that supposed to make you feel better? Um...well, we both know if you wrote about it, it'd be a lot more entertaining. Doesn't that help some? If it doesn't, I recommend chocolate, preferably hot chocolate in this weather. And some kickass fictional revenge on this Adam Whosis. Grab his other arm, Roche.... (When you feel up to it, that is, cjl...you're off the hook for the time being.)

[> [> [> [> A warm cup of cyber-cocoa and a virtual pillow for your ankle..... -- cjl, 07:51:18 01/16/04 Fri

No, it doesn't make me feel better that you were hurt. [Fluffs anom's virtual pillow.] Hope you're resting comfortably and out of the cold...

And yes, writing about the incident did make it more entertaining. Writing is good therapy for office bureaucrats. I'm feeling much more mellow this morning; if "Ed" and his cousin decide to call back, I'll tell him we've decided to print an article about his volcano. (And we called the Smithsonian, and they want Ed's volcano on permanent exhibition....)

One more thing: even if it was Carolla and company, I'm not angry anymore. I'm not going to waste precious Rescue Revisited narrative on him. (However, a second sequel, MOLOJ Destroys Comedy Central, is definitely a possibility.)

[> [> [> [> [> but what about John Stewart??? You will have save him first! -- Ann, 08:23:15 01/16/04 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> He'll be airlifted, along with the entire Daily Show cast, before the opening salvo.... -- cjl, 08:47:37 01/16/04 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> awww, thanks! i was just thinking of that saying... -- anom, 13:59:48 01/16/04 Fri

...y'know, misery, company? Anyway, I'm glad you're feeling better. And yeah, I'm doing a little better myself. It helps that I'm working at home today--I didn't set the alarm for this morning, or need to go out all day, except to get the mail from downstairs. Down wasn't so bad, up...not so good. The walking stick is getting a little more use than usual. But the knee should get better quick.

"(However, a second sequel, MOLOJ Destroys Comedy Central, is definitely a possibility.)"

OK...but not before the 2nd Annual Smackdown, right? That's coming up soon, isn't it? (Just a reminder....)

"...if 'Ed' and his cousin decide to call back, I'll tell him we've decided to print an article about his volcano."

I'd say tell 'em to try Discovery, except the person they'd reach there doesn't deserve what they put you through any more than you did. And that's what these idiots don't get. They think they're calling a faceless company or institution, but they're really just harassing a harried human being who may already be having a lousy day & is just trying to get their job done. For probably 1/10 of what those jackasses get paid to give them a hard time for no reason (& no, I really don't want to know how much they make).

Ah well...I didn't really think my misfortune would make you feel better, but speaking of company, when's the next NY meet? Somewhere out of the cold, not too far to walk from the subway....

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: awww, thanks! i was just thinking of that saying... -- KdS, 15:14:28 01/16/04 Fri

And that's what these idiots don't get. They think they're calling a faceless company or institution, but they're really just harassing a harried human being who may already be having a lousy day & is just trying to get their job done. For probably 1/10 of what those jackasses get paid to give them a hard time for no reason

And that's why Michael Moore pisses me off.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> from what i've heard... -- anom, 23:07:51 01/17/04 Sat

"And that's why Michael Moore pisses me off."

...Moore tries to actually talk to the people responsible for the corporation's or institution's actions, like the head of GM in Roger and Me, & to ask them about their responsibility for the consequences of those actions. Certainly he can be obnoxious about it, & a lot of people think the lines between the actions, the consequences, & the responsibility aren't as clear as he tries to make them seem, but at least there's the kernel of a complaint worth pursuing--he's not doing it "for no reason." I'm not that familiar w/Moore's movies, so maybe I've gotten the wrong impression, but I think that's the difference between what he does & the Crank Wankers (no, that's not a typo) when they're obnoxious to someone farther down the ladder just to be obnoxious. Oh, and Moore doesn't pretend to be somebody else.

I'm not especially a fan of Michael Moore's, & I'm not even defending him--I'm just saying there's a distinction to be made.

[> First off, that is sooo cool! Second, re: Crank Yankers... -- Rob, 23:23:46 01/15/04 Thu

...from what I understand, they have an actor reenact the victim's lines for each phone call, which I believe is their way of getting around the legal issues. And yes, being an every-now-and-then closet Crank Yankers watcher, it does sound very much like one of their calls.


[> Poor cjl! And the reason I hate prank calls -- Pony, 06:59:29 01/16/04 Fri

Years ago at a high school sleepover, I and a bunch of giggling girls goaded our boldest friend into calling the house of a local hottie. His older brother got on the phone and my friend said that she was from the VD clinic and had test results for the hottie. The brother started to cry, seems his brother, the hottie, had been in a car accident the day before and was at that moment having surgery without any certainty that he would walk again. It would have been a great set-up for us to get punk'd but sadly it was all true.

It all worked out, he was fine and back at school in a few months and even showed me the scar on his shapely back, but let's just say I was scared straight when it came to prank calls. Can't stand 'em, can't listen to 'em, get tense when I even hear about 'em.

[> [> So... -- Rob, 08:31:25 01/16/04 Fri

...um, are you trying to say that this isn't your type of show? Hmm? ;o)


[> [> [> Re: So... -- Jay, 17:19:36 01/16/04 Fri

I can never make phony phone calls myself since I get tense too often when I just listen to them, but there are some damn funny ones out there. The ones I enjoy most are to the respectable network news programs. It kills me that people who rest their integrity on what they put on the air wouldn't do just a little bit of leg work. It serves them right. If they're that sloppy about they inform us about, they need to be embarrassed once in a while.

The funniest phone call I ever heard was off the Jerky Boys album. One of them called up a lawyer (great target) wanting to sue someone. After some fruitless questioning the lawyer told the caller he had no case, where the caller started to threaten to sue him "for damages done to me"... The lawyer started laughing, "sue me?" It was so ridiculous it still cracks me up. "Sue everybody!"

[> [> Wholeheartedly agree, pony -- s'kat, 08:53:30 01/16/04 Fri

Wholeheartedly agree. Crank calls make me feel the same way.

People who make them should have their phone privileges yanked, since they clearly don't understand how to use one properly. What is interesting is how hypocritical this humor is - I learned years ago that prankers think it's incredibly funny when they do it - but when someone does it to them, not so funny anymore. I wonder if the people laughing, would laugh quite so hard if someone interrupted them during a hard day at work and played with their heads? Probably not. They've done some interesting horror flicks around the idea of pranker phone callers getting their just deserts.

I got a couple prank phone calls, myself, recently - it was New Year's and the person on the other line was threatening my life and using my name as if they knew me. I'd just returned home from a vacation - this person's threats were among a series of wrong numbers and cranks on my answering machine. Luckily they stopped. This intrusion motivated me to change my answering machine and voice mail messages. I also called the phone company and they advised me to use a call tracer the next time the person called - do it twice, then file a police report.

Phone harrassement is a crime. It is sadistic and cruel.
The fact that there are tv shows promoting it or showing it as funny, is yet another demonstration of how sadistic our society has become. We seem to get way too much pleasure off of others' frustration, misfortune, anxiety or pain - I wonder what that says about us?

[> [> [> I was just reading your S&M archived post last night! -- Ann, 09:27:34 01/16/04 Fri

"We seem to get way too much pleasure off of others' frustration, misfortune, anxiety or pain - I wonder what that says about us?"
The power and control issues that you discussed so well in that post, manifested in extremely available technology result in these victimizations and crimes.

[> [> [> [> Re: I was just reading your S&M archived post last night! -- s'kat, 09:46:38 01/16/04 Fri

Thank you.

But I'm not sure it's quite the same thing, in S&M it's between two consenting adults and not using technology to attack someone who isn't consenting.

Doing a crank phone call - is an intrusion, that has no consent. It's sadist without the masochist. Actually it's a type of rape. S&M isn't rape, it's power and control dominance games. While these types of games can go there, if the parties aren't careful and haven't built it on trust, if one of the parties says stop and one doesn't get it, for example. It's still very different than having a total stranger come up to you and do it.

The distinction is important to understand. It's the difference between playing a game of crank phone call with friends - where they call you and you call them, and doing one to an unsuspecting party. Your friend is a willing participant, the unsuspecting party is not. Forcing someone to do something they don't want - is a violation of their individual rights. Doing it violently? Is a crime.

The question is - do people who play S&M games do crank calls? Probably not. I'd be surprised. They aren't into that type of control - they are interested in a willing partner or it doesn't work for them.

Does the sadistic tendency exist in us? Yes. I think it does. We all have it.
We are all a little sadistic. And that does lead to the people trying to control others through fear and victimization. But that type of control is not always the same as S&M sex. It's a difficult distinction to grasp, I'm not sure how well I did in that essay, been a while since I read it. I know at the time - people had mixed feelings on it.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I was just reading your S&M archived post last night! -- Ann, 10:08:55 01/16/04 Fri

We are all a little sadistic. And that does lead to the people trying to control others through fear and victimization. But that type of control is not always the same as S&M sex. It's a difficult distinction to grasp, I'm not sure how well I did in that essay, been a while since I read it.

You did make the distinction but I guess I was linking the need for s&m sex, why one who participates needs to do this to one other, and those power issues, with the power issues incumbent on those doing crank calls or other kinds of violent intrusions. You are right about the consent issue. But I guess it is my issue about why people need to hurt one another in any way intentionally and get off from it. The viciousness, where both of these stem from, and the acting upon those needs, I just don't get that. I think that these needs are just a symptom of the point in your initial post: "We seem to get way too much pleasure off of others' frustration, misfortune, anxiety or pain - I wonder what that says about us?"

I hope I am making sense! Thank you.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I was just reading your S&M archived post last night! -- s'kat, 13:44:31 01/16/04 Fri

The viciousness, where both of these stem from, and the acting upon those needs, I just don't get that. I think that these needs are just a symptom of the point in your initial post: "We seem to get way too much pleasure off of others' frustration, misfortune, anxiety or pain - I wonder what that says about us?"

I think part of it may just be instinctual, something left over from our evolution as a species, the predator drive to hunt and destroy and play with our prey. Also that offensive/defensive mechanism to protect ourselves. Plus the animalistic take want have instinct. All rolled up into one. Nature after all is not exactly nice.

The other explanation? I think may come from our own frustrations, anxiety and pain - the desire to lash out those who hurt us and the inability to do so which builds up over time. If you're really honest with yourself - I'm sure you've felt the need to lash out at someone, when you've been hurt. We all do. The girl at school who makes fun of us? Be nice to slap her upside the head, wouldn't it? But we can't. Or the critic who writes a slamming review of your favorite book or worse yet something you worked hard on? Love to sock it to him. But again, can't. So that emotion may get transfered to hurting someone else. Also hurting others isn't always deliberate, in most cases it's accidental or unintentional - let's face it, we're all a little self-absorbed - we don't realize that a comment or something we do hurts someone else, all we care about is what it means for us - ie. does it make us popular? (In Btvs - Cordelia's remarks were often great examples of this.) The little girls at the slumber party who pick up the phone to torture the local hottie at school, whose been ignoring them - don't realize he has his problems and frustrations. Or the Crank Yankers who are paid to make a comedy show and are calling businesses - it doesn't occur to them that the person on the other end could be having a bad day at the office, up to his or her neck in paperwork and barely has a spare moment to breath let alone take their phone call. It's not so much the sadistic need to hurt sometimes as just thoughtlessness. BTVS had two episode, which make cringe, that detail the type of personalities that can be responsible for this - Storyteller and Superstar, in both episodes you had 20 year old men who had not grown up - who were so stuck inside their own heads that it never occurred to them that playing with others lives they way they were was sadistic and cruel. They were so caught up in themselves, no one existed outside of their universe. The Trioka - Warren, Andrew, and Jonathan epitomized it. It's not that they got off on hurting people (well Warren may have) so much that they didn't see the people as real, nothing outside them was. It's a danger that Crank Yankers promotes, making something real unreal and thereby making it justifiable to laugh at. This isn't a real person I'm laughing at it is a parody of them - a puppet, I can ignore the fact that to make this parody the creators disrupted a real person's life and intruded on their privacy, because hey? Funny puppet. Andrew does the same thing. It's just a story I can rewrite.

Why do we hurt each other? Well so much of human interaction is based upon - what someone can do for us. Will they support us? Are they an obstacle? Or do they just not register at all? (This attitude is really demonstrated in Wed's Angel episode about Harmony...and how people treat her.) A creative writing teacher once taught me that dialogue was jockeying for position between characters - I think that says a lot about our interrelationships, we are a competitive group, humans are, and competition brings out both the worst and best in our nature.

I also think the reason we often hurt others is because we don't take the time to imagine what it would be like to be them. We are too busy thinking about ourselves, where we fit in, what matters to us, who is against and for us, and what we want - that it's hard to really spend any time worrying about the other side.

OF course that's simplifying things considerably. People are so complicated. It's hard to really come up with just one reason.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Possibly an extension of control or a lack of humility -- manwitch, 06:16:38 01/17/04 Sat

I agree with so much of what you are saying and find some of the language you use so familiar that I can't help but respond against my better judgement.

I know this isn't what you are talking about exactly, but I see it as just an extension of the commonly expressed need to have control over what other people say and do. Maybe "have control" is the wrong way to express it, but people have way too much of an investment in the thoughts, desires, and actions of other people. While I recognize distinctions can be made, I don't particularly feel the need to distinguish between the mentality that makes the sort of crank calls being referred to here and the mentality that thinks its important that gay people be denied the legal right to marry, or the idea that we all need to say the pledge of allegiance.

I'm letting my own politics out here, and that's not entirely the point. I'm not saying that conservatives make crank calls. But I do think that just about everybody, somewhere along the line, believes at an almost fundamental level that other people's lives should be lived and experienced in accordance with one's own wishes, beliefs and standards. Other people are our play things. The crank call or the practical joke is simply a more vulgar expression of the same notion. Its just a lack of self-discipline channeled in a selfish way. Practical jokes can at times, at least, underscore a certain degree of affection. But jokes on strangers is just a crass expression of objectification, the same objectification that exists in religious zealotry, political proselytizing, community standards, and my least favorite of all--intervention. (I love the Buffy ep, just can't stand interventions themselves). All are just excuses for people to impose their own will on others, to find their own value in the ability to take a little bit of personhood away from someone else.

I think its worthwhile, whenever you accomplish something or feel some sort of public success, to find someone else to praise for it. I think its worthwhile when something goes wrong for yourself or for people around you, to sincerely take responsibility for it, to really recognize that its "your" failure, not "theirs." Its good to remember that whatever we are thinking, we're probably wrong, and anything of value about us is the result of a whole lot of other people making sacrifices for us so that we can have what we have and be what we are. I just think when you have a little humility, you get no satisfaction out of seeing others in pain. And when you really acknowledge what other people have contributed to your life and your experience, the thought of contributing suffering to someone else's doesn't really seem like much of a turn on. Except for maybe like the S&M thing or something.

Of course, here I am proselytizing. Oh well. I'm probably wrong.

Maybe its really just people who don't have enough to do.

Speaking of which...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Possibly an extension of control or a lack of humility -- Ann, 06:56:04 01/17/04 Sat

"All are just excuses for people to impose their own will on others, to find their own value in the ability to take a little bit of personhood away from someone else."


"I just think when you have a little humility, you get no satisfaction out of seeing others in pain."

Empathy as well! I guess this is what I see lacking in those that feel the need to hurt others. And in that, I look to see what has happened in someone's life, to make them want to make crank calls on the more "innocent" end of this spectrum, to those on the other end, that need to "torture" those that they care about. That is why I am fascinated with Angelus, Dru and Spike. The demons with in.

Part of this concern stems from my days when I worked at a rape-crisis center. I saw women and men whose lives were so affected by incidents that later they could only act out in violent ways. Or children who were affected so that they could only enjoy sex as an adult in a violent way. Or women who were abused as children and then became prostitutes. Often times, these women, now seemed to enjoy sex in an S&M kind of way. They were now re/acting out their previous abuse in a "consensual" way with present day partners. I also learned that something like 90% of prostitutes were sexually abused as children. When your life is so warped as a child, I am not sure what constitutes consent.

I think that when empathy and humility that has been destroyed in a person, this anger does find a way to be acted out in the most primal force of our lives. When a strong sense of self doesn't exist, all aspects of a life is injured.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Possibly an extension of control or a lack of humility -- s'kat, 09:30:58 01/17/04 Sat

I know this isn't what you are talking about exactly, but I see it as just an extension of the commonly expressed need to have control over what other people say and do. Maybe "have control" is the wrong way to express it, but people have way too much of an investment in the thoughts, desires, and actions of other people. While I recognize distinctions can be made, I don't particularly feel the need to distinguish between the mentality that makes the sort of crank calls being referred to here and the mentality that thinks its important that gay people be denied the legal right to marry, or the idea that we all need to say the pledge of allegiance.

I agree. I think a great deal of it is about having control. If we think about it, how much control do we really have in our lives? We don't control being born. We can't really control how we die. Or for that matter when. Unless we commit suicide and even that's a sketchy proposition on how it will turn out. We certainly can't control what is going on in someone else's head or their emotions, we have enough troubles just trying to figure out what they are thinking. We can't control our own bodies, although we like to think that we can change that and whole philosophies are written regarding it. And modern science often tells us that genetics, biology and environment control how we think and feel. Yet, we are driven to want control over our lives, it's an instinctual urge. So do we even have control over wanting it?

Bring into this - all the other people who desire control. And whose ideas, beliefs, views, desires conflict in some way with ours. You don't need to go far to see these conflicts, just read this posting board - the debate on Ayn Rand is an example. Also somewhat ironic, since Rand was one of those philosophers who strongly believed that man could control his environment all he had to do was enforce his will on it. (Note she believed man individually should not as a collective. She believed in the power of the individual.) Rand's philosophy is all about the need for the individual to assert control and it lacked humility, Rand saw humility as a weakness the individual cannot afford. I'm not sure, but I think Nietzche may have felt the same way, Nietzche confuses me.

I see this desire to inflict our will on others in our politics, government, media, etc. 'My view is better than yours! My tast is better! Read and watch what I like! Your tast sucks!' - we don't say it out-right, but it is often implied whether we wish it to be or not.

The power-dominance games that ME examines in S6 between Spike and Buffy, and often are at the center of most S&M sex, is a way of exploring that conflict - who controls the relationship? Who controls the direction of it? Who has the power here? ME also examined it within the dynamic of Spike, Dru and Angelus. And are examining it again to an extent with Spike and Angel. How does the desire to control to be more than a puppet, extend to how we deal with others? How does the fear we are just a puppet affect our dealings with friends and family? These issues are present in everyone's lives. The popular novel Gone With The Wind has at it's center a power struggle - between Rhett Butler the metaphor for the new south and Scarlett O'hara, the metaphor for the south itself. In Gone With The Wind - there is a violent sexual scene - where Rhett grabs Scarlett forcefully kisses her and carries her up the stairs while she's fighting him. The next scene she's in bed humming, after clearly having a great night succumbing to his violent seduction. Power/Control. And that struggle is also at the heart of most rapes and domestic violence scenerios and interventions. Interventions are a murky topic, because depending on the situation? I can see how they might appear to be a good idea. But truth is - you cannot force someone to give up something they want to do. You cannot force an alcoholic to stop drinking. They have to come to that conclusion themselves. But...what if they are killing themselves? Ah...difficult. Yet, but intervening and removing the choice from the person, asserting control over them, all you may be doing is making the situation worse and prolonging it - instead of allowing the person to hit bottom and come to their own conclusion and give it up. The risk of course - is hitting bottom will and often does kill them. By the same token, intervention could led to killing them as well. Tricky topic, backing away from it before I get in over my head. But I think you are right - in it being about asserting power over someone else, controlling what they do. Interesting. Since Alcoholism and most addictions or even the joining of religious cults is sort about the desire to give up control over ones body to someone or something else.

When we fall in love and really care about someone else, enough to want to spend our lives with them - we choose to give up a portion of our control, we make compromises regarding personal space, privacy just to to be intimate with that other person. Relationships are about letting go of some of that control, having some humility. Without that, the relationship continues to be a power struggle like Rhett/Scarlett - fun to watch on TV, impossible to live with. Fighting all the time can get tiring and after awhile lead to violence and physical dominance.

At any rate, I agree - I do think a great deal of our cruelty towards others results from our desire to inflict our ideas, our control, our power on them. The desire to be Queen Bee. Since that desire is possibly ingrained in our physical and psychological makeup over 1000s of years of societal and biological evolution - I'm not sure we can get rid of it. We can however acknowledge it, deal with it, and not allow the desire to control us or motivate us to hurt others. I think that may be the challenge, overcoming some of our own hard-wiring.

[> [> [> [> [> Just imagining the debate generated here... -- cougar, 13:58:02 01/16/04 Fri

... if Spike had made an attempted prank phonecall!

flipancy aside, I feel pity for any sadistic "joker" trapped in an adolescent mindset. A dark place to vist and I wouldn't want to live there. Being a self congratulatory, lurking, "vengence demon" who can't combine humour with grace, must be a hollow state of existance.

[> [> [> In slight defense of the show... -- Rob, 13:45:33 01/16/04 Fri

...the calls at least consist of the callers being irritating but not cruel. Meaning no "your mother just died" or "test results got back and you're the father of whomever's baby" or that sort of thing. The calls do usually make the victims uncomfortable or frustrated, but not in the sense that they feel threatened. More like, "Who is this idiot who's wasting my time?" as with what happened to cjl. Not that I'm completely sympathetic to the show. I had a crank caller myself on my cell phone who bothered me so much I ended up changing my number and blocking it from showing up on other phones' caller ID, for a while at least. But at the very least, with the show, (a) if you do watch it, you might know the caller by voice if one did happen to call you, and (b) there are no threats or anything nasty, just some incredibly juvenile and asinine humor. At rare times I will watch the show, strictly from an improv perspective. When it first started airing, I was actually taking an improv theatre class and we were encouraged to watch an episode or two because some of the comedians' abilities to think on their feet and remain in character are quite incredible. I don't mean to condone the behavior, but I just want to point out that these calls are more obnoxious than sadistic.


[> Sorry to hear this -- KdS, 13:24:47 01/16/04 Fri

I feel for you, but humiliation humour tends to enrage me beyond normal vocabulary (unless the victim habitually behaves in a similar way.)

Angel in 'End of Days'/'Chosen' -- Claudia, 16:12:30 01/16/04 Fri

A lot of people, including me, have pondered on Angel's odd behavior during his return to Sunnydale. He seemed happy, and a little too snarky - rather odd for someone who had just recently lost both Connor and Cordelia. Many accused the writers of bad characterization or sloppy writing. I have my own theory on what was going through Angel's head.

At first, I never understood why Angel thought it was necessary to go all the way to Sunnydale to give Buffy that amulet. He could have simply mailed it to her (of course he would have been unaware of the desertion of local instutions in Sunnydale). But now I think I do.

I suspect that Angel saw his visit to Sunnydale and Buffy as a last chance to feel good about himself. It almost seemed as if he was making an attempt to turn back the clock and experience those years when he and Buffy were in love and fought side by side. To be her champion. Hell, to be anyone's champion. After Buffy's initial kiss, I think Angel encountered a rude awakening.

One, Buffy turned down his offer to fight alongside her. Two, following their kiss, she seemed a bit . . . distant with him. Three, Angel learned that he was no longer the only vampire with a soul, when Buffy told him about Spike. And four - worst of all - he learned about Buffy's relationship with Spike.

Is it any wonder that Angel has been spiraling into despair since the beginning of Season 5? The disappointments of Sunnydale forced him to continue to face his loss of both Connor and Cordelia. And even worse . . . Spike arrived in Los Angeles.


[> Re: Angel in 'End of Days'/'Chosen' -- Mighty Mouse, 17:03:40 01/16/04 Fri

I whole-heartedly agree with your theories. Go Claudia!

Vampires - They Have No Place Anywhere ... Yet they serve a greater purpose than most Evil -- Mighty Mouse, 09:19:43 01/17/04 Sat

I've been giving some thought to the title of one of our most favorite shows - Buffy the VAMPIRE SLAYER. Now, yes, she slays Vampires ... but she also slays a lot of other things. Despite some usual comments that she is a "Vampire Slayer" by her friends and others, usually demons and Vampires alike just refer to her and other Slayers as "just the Slayer." One girl in all the world, chosen to protect humanity from the demon threat. So why is she given a title that seems to target just Vampires? Why not call her just "Buffy the Slayer"? Which leads us into the following ...

In "Seeing Red," after Spike's attempted rape of Buffy, he is beating himself "over the head" for various reasons - having his own little identity crisis. He can't be a man (nor THE MAN, for Buffy), and the chip in his head won't let him be a demon. This statement by Spike sort of had a resounding note in me ... this pretty much applies to all Vampires.

Vampires are born of human creation (in exception for the Pure Vampire that Angel transformed into on Pylea, and the Turok-Han), dying and shedding the mortal coil to become demons. It's been established (mostly in the Fourth Season with the Adam storyline), that Vampires and other Demons hardly ever work together, nor do they get along. The general idea was that most demons did not like Vampires, they were "too human" ... too corrupted (similar to the pure demon rhetoric of the Scourge, from AtS - "Hero"). However, Anya pretty much established in "Graduation Day, Parts 1 & 2" that all demons that walk the Earth are all tainted by humanity. And generally, this proves to be true ... if you look at most demons presented in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel, they are all usually wearing human clothing, have some interest in human foods (besides the humans themselves), music, etc.

So if most demons on Earth are tainted by humanity, then the generally assumed reason for their resentment of Vampires is illogical, no? Well, what is the resentment is something more along the lines of jealousy?

If going by the legends about Vampires and the like established in "Welcome to Hellmouth / The Harvest," when the last pure demons were driven off the Earth (by the Slayer or whoever wielded the Scythe - as per "End of Days" / "Chosen"), one of them (the same type of pure "Vampire" that Angel transformed into?) attacked a human and mixed its blood with theirs ... birthing our current incarnation of Vampires. Technically, with all the original demons gone from our Earth, Vampires were the first modern age demons on the planet. They easily were able to survive, hiding amongst the humans they resembled ... yet preyed upon. Eventually, of course, other demons would return ... all being "tainted" by the ever expanding humanity.

With the first season, we were introduced to the Order of Aurelius, led by the Master. The Master seemed obsessed with the concept of opening the Hellmouth, and returning the Old Ones (the original pure demons) back to this plane of existence. Perhaps the Order of Aurelius was following the destiny that was established for the Vampires of the world (and that most either forgot about, or gave up on). That they were supposed to be the ones who wait ... who prepare ... who perhaps bring about the return of the Old Ones. They were the last foothold established by the Old Ones in our world, and the way they spread, may outlast most demons and humans until the day the Old Ones do return.

So perhaps THAT is why most non-Vampire demons resent our blood-sucking buddies. Because they all know that Vampires serve a "higher purpose" than them, although they are generally jus' big ol' annoying mosquitos that turn into dust. They were intended to be something better ... to be the Sentinels standing by, waiting and biding their time until the Old Ones returned (whether it would be by their hand or someone elses).

Food for thought.

Current board | More January 2004