October 2003 posts

Previous October 2003  

More October 2003

Question about Wesley's intentions ("Conviction" Spoilers) -- Kate, 17:56:43 10/05/03 Sun

What the heck was Wes planning on doing with that gun in the courtroom? Take out Fries? Seems that, or any other action with the gun, would have caused more problems than solved. Thoughts?

Re: Question about Wesley's intentions ("Conviction" Spoilers) -- Seven, 18:58:16 10/05/03 Sun

Well, when the only other option is to let Fries say the magic word and let everyone in LA die horribly, I'd say that Wes shooting him is a better choice.

Wes didn't even know for sure if killing him would set it off either. All Wes knew was that he couldn't allow Fries to say the word or everyone would definately die. This exemplifies two things. First, the drastic, public measures that are now part of the AI gang's lives, but also possibly an aspect of Wes' self-centeredness that he has exhibited ever since "going grey." He may have been feeling that it's HIM who is supposed to figure out the magic word. That's "his department." Not being able to do this makes him feel somewhat responsible and he is now willing to sacrifice a lot, possibly his life, to make up for his inability.

Just a thought into the development of "Wessell." Many posters thought there was very little Wes in "Conviction," so maybe this interpretation will suffice in his development.

[> Also shows Wes' willingness to possibly go to jail for killing Fries.. -- Nino, 19:10:48 10/05/03 Sun

[> [> He wouldn't go to jail -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:54:21 10/06/03 Mon

Have you ever seen anybody from Wolfram & Hart go to jail? No, cause they always know how to work their way out of it.

[> [> [> I thought of that.... -- Nino, 09:08:49 10/06/03 Mon

...but if they couldn't get Fries off, who is to say that they could get Wes off...sure, they probably could, but Wes has to have some fear that he might be convicted for killing a man in broad day light, in a court room...and this says something about his character....am I wrong?

[> [> [> [> Actually, that's what i meant -- Seven, 10:03:26 10/06/03 Mon

When i said that Wes was "willing to sacrifice a lot, possibly his life" i meant that he would likely go to jail, which in a way is sacrificing his life. But he could sacrifice it anyway if he took the shot. Someone might have shot him in an attempt to stop him.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually, that's what i meant -- Kate, 06:03:34 10/07/03 Tue

Reading all these responses has got me thinking and I definitely think having the gun must have been an act of desperation because, thinking about it in hindsight and with a bit of logic, it doesn't make a lot of sense. I know that they had to stop Fries from releasing the bomb and the virus within, but losing Wesley to Murder 1 wasn't a great solution. I think this last minute plan shows what the AI team is up against at W&H. They were trying to solve the problem as if this were a smaller, more individual-ized (last year's apocolypse notwithstanding) AI type case, but it wasn't. It was a grand scale, total shades of gray, blurry line between good & evil W&H case (stop the bomb, but protect Fries) and it's a whole new set of SOP. Which then relates to Angel's speech at the end about how they are going to work to make W&H play AI's rules and not vice versa. So, the Fries case was definitely a lesson learned and for the moment it seems, as Eve rather smuggly pointed out, that the W&H problem solving method (Gunn & his law tricks) won out over the AI method (physical action). Of course, as Lorne and the others point out, the W&H method was hardly perfect, but it worked for the time being. So now, lesson learned, what direction will the AI team go - their old way, W&H's way, a merging of the two or something completely new? I'm psyched to watch how this will all turn out.

[> [> [> [> [> [> I think it's even more complex.. -- LittleBit, 12:01:41 10/07/03 Tue

I think it's even more complex..

There are many layers to the relationship of AI and W&H, a few of which were obvious here, and to which more will be added as others are revealed. But in just this episode alone I believe they were far more complex than they appear on the surface.

What was the approach to the problem under the "AI rules" after all? First Angel needed to know exactly what the true nature of the problem was. On the surface, it's a client (scumbag, yes, but still a client) who has threatened to "drop the bomb" that will take out California if he isn't acquitted. Angel puts everyone from AI to investigating the possibilities. Angel finds a likely source and goes after the information personally. He extracts it, one assumes with a fair degree of applied force, and learns that a mystic vessel capable of holding essentially anything from a virus to a golden retriever was constructed and then placed in said client's son. Fred puts Knox to investigating the types of things that may have been placed in that vessel. Knox is able to track it to a group that specializes in fast-working viruses, and to an ex-employee (one 'terminated' by W&H). Fred then puts Knox and a full research team to work to determine what it was, and also how to counteract it, Angel, et al. having made a valid assumption that their client must have an immunity to it. Meanwhile, Lorne is keeping an eye on the courtroom, Wes is finding even with that all that mystical knowledge at his fingertips, it matters nothing without knowledge of the 'magic word.' And Gunn is nowhere to be found. When things look bleakest, Angel determines that Matthew needs to be isolated, and proceeds to do that. As a final contingency, Wes goes to the courtroom prepared to make certain that Fries will not have a chance to say the word.

Where does that plan fall apart? It falls apart from the beginning because Angel thinks they are playing under the new rules, and doesn't even realize that the definition of AI has been altered..by Gunn. Gunn accepted the offer of W&H to make him 'super lawyer', to give him power. These are the "W&H rules" in action. Withhold crucial information. Accept no changes in procedure, but humor the new "boss" if you can. Eve pointedly made Angel believe that the W&H way accomplished the goal without resorting to violence. Violence which Angel did indeed resort to on two separate occasions, and which Wes was prepared to resort to. But consider..why was the violence necessary? Are we really supposed to believe that no one at W&H knew about Fries' little safeguard? Certainly not his current lawyer (whose seeming incompetence makes me wonder just what sort of crack law team they've assembled for Angel's new regime.) However, given that the virus, and most likely its antidote, were developed at W&H, it would follow that Fries' possession of it certainly didn't elude the notice of the Senior Partners. It is likely that Spanky wouldn't have given Angel any information without the use of force, and also fairly likely that Angel's force was less than that of the "Black Ops" team who were prepared to retrieve him for Angel. Which leads to the other use of violent force. Angel had cleared the classroom, and quite likely the entire school, before the wet-work team arrived. He remained behind because he believed he needed to make a point about how things were going to work. The team leader had different views and, with no real provocation other than a fairly petulant response to having his fun spoiled, instructed his team to fire at Angel. With, futilely enough, automatic weapons. Angel objected and demonstrated that.

But again, why was violence necessary in the first place? One, because W&H, Eve, and Gunn all chose to withhold rather crucial information. Eve and Gunn both knew what he had agreed to, and that the plan was for him to gain the knowledge he needed and then save the day at the last moment. Had they known this, perhaps Angel's plan would have been different. Once Gunn was incommunicado, Eve could have passed the information along.

Angel: I don't want to hear another word right now unless you decide to start helping.
Eve: How do you know I'm not?

She's not because of the insidious nature of W&H. She's trapping Angel slowly, subtly, and Wes and Fred along with him. Gunn is already in the trap, believing he's now of greater use to AI, not seeing how the near disaster for Wes (fairly certain that murder one in an LA courtroom full of witnesses would be hard to overlook) could have been averted.

There were several members of the Ops team who were killed by Angel. A team that never should have been at the school in the first place. Men who were summarily fired by Angel when they arrived in the classroom. A team that was dispatched independently by Hauser; one which intended to not only kill the boy whom Angel was trying to save, but his classmates and teacher as well (at the very least.)

Hauser: Okay. Let's show the new boss how a threat is contained.

Hauser, however, has a different idea of the nature of the threat. Angel clearly, in my opinion, sees the Ops team, and Hauser in particular, as the threat to his new regime. Hauser tells Angel that he isn't going about things the way he should be.

Hauser: That's not how it works.
Angel: Oh, right. Tradition. Why don't you show me how that's done?
Hauser: Thank you, sir. Take him out!

And, here is where Angel makes his objection to the demonstration of tradition. This is contrasted by cutting back and forth from the classroom to the courtroom where Gunn is saving the case and making Angel's actions appear not only unnecessary but actually just common brawling paralleled with Gunn's suave sophistication. We, the observers, cannot help noting the contrast. We are observing the very conflicting directions AI is being pulled in. In the end, Gunn is very defensive about his choice, fully acknowledging that the group would have had some serious objections to that choice and rather sarcastically pointing out that he didn't feel the need to discuss it with them or have their approval..and that he knew all would be okay because he saw the guy in the White Room and knows he doesn't lie. Lorne and Fred point out the obvious realities.. that the 'success' means getting a scumbag off on a technicality, and that they are not just fighting evil, but fighting their own clients and employees. Wes notes that it did buy them the time they need to disable the charm but also, in response to Angel's assertion that W&H is a powerful weapon that they will learn to use, that they might just as easily kill themselves with it.

Angel: No, sooner or later they'll tip their hand and we'll find out why they really brought us here. Meanwhile, we do the work..our way..one thing at a time.

Angel's resolve here is admirable, but he's missing part of that bigger picture, partly because Eve (the helpful) carefully diverted his attention, everyone's attention, from it. Even as Angel is playing by his own rules, he is doing so in the exact same manner as the W&H rules, killing the killers, using violence in response to the violence of the Black Ops team. Did the two scenarios, the "AI rules" and the "W&H rules", really play out as it seemed? My opinion is that they did not..that both scenarios played out under the W&H rules. Until AI grasps the nature of the game, they will never be able to advance their own agenda, only maintain a holding pattern within W&H's.


[A little bit of advice to Angel: The guy in the "Can you hear me now?" cell phone commercial can be heard by anyone who chooses to monitor the conversation. And the internal wiring of the W&H offices isn't really all that trustworthy, either. ;-)]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The new order -- Diana, 12:55:29 10/07/03 Tue

I agree with a modification. Angel in the teaser is trying to play his game by his rules. Angel's response to Wolfram & Hart's intrusion on his rescue scenario is the whole thing has to go. Eve explains why he doesn't want to do this and Angel tries to play Wolfram & Hart's game using his rules. That isn't the advice Lindsey gave in "Dead End." Since Angel doesn't know what game to play quite yet, he ends up kicking his own self up a few notches and does bear resemblance to those he is fighting. Can we fight monsters without becoming monsters ourselves? It is a question that both series often asks.

Angel isn't quite the overkill of Operatives Team. He is going to just isolate the boy if necessary and when he does have to deal with Ops, all he kills is Hauser. Wolfram & Hart's rules would be to take out all of them. Angel shows mercy and thus retains part of himself by not doing this.

But he is still playing Wolfram & Hart's game. He can't go back to the way things were at AI, but he has to figure out what to do. Just waiting for the Senior Partners to tip their hat won't best utilize the resource they now have. As Lorne told him in "Epiphany," "Well, that's just the thing.Κ You don't.Κ You go on to the new place.Κ Whatever that is."

I have two words for Angel, Pro Bono. If Angel is merely reactive and only fights their clients and employees, he will lose himself in that battle. All Angel has to do is break even or even just a bit in the red to keep this place running. I wonder who will fill the role that Cordy used to fill when it came to concern about the bottom line.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> There's a piece of faulty logic in your argument, I feel -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:21:43 10/07/03 Tue

Quite simply, that advice given in Season 2 is still valid. ME has stated that Season 5 will be like a whole different show, which may mean that philosophies and advice asserted as facts in previous seasons may no longer hold true. For its first four seasons, "Angel" was a very anti-corporation show; businesses were its primary source of villains, with Ultimate Evil represented in a giant law firm. As such, forcing corporations to play by your rules was the philosophy dejure. However, whole new show, possibly a whole new philosophy. It remains to be seen whether working by W&H's rules is the way to go or not in Season 5.

[> [> [> [> I think it says 2 things about his character -- Mackenzie, 11:04:25 10/06/03 Mon

#1, that Wes is willing to sacrafice himself to save others. That he will take the fall the save the world.
#2, he is a little crazy and very brave, it takes guts to walk into a courtroom that would have to be heavily secure with a gun with the intent to shoot someone point blank.
I also have to wonder if he was at a point of desperation beyond reason. Do you think he put much thought into the consequences? I think he just wanted a solution

Buffy vs Wesley -- JBone, 20:09:13 10/05/03 Sun

Don't you see what's happening? Faith poisoned Angel to distract you, to keep you out of the Mayor's way and it's working. We need a strategy.


It's finally championship week at the Apocalypse, where we finally get to crown the Region Champs. It's been a long, but not exactly winding road to get here. The first number once seed has finally been ousted. Bye, bye, Cordy. Which sets Fred up as the lowest surviving seed. I'm giving her a real punchers shot at winning her Region. Other than Buffy v Wesley, I think all the Championship matchups are as close to toss ups as we get here.

I should warn (but I wish I didn't have to), those who would stuff the ballot box for their favorite character(s), that I am prepared to take a match off the board and force voting by email only. I really don't want to do it, but I will. I've put way too much time and effort to get here to let a cheater steal the fun from me. So play fair.

Those who will be deciding ties this week, if they might occur, are Masq, deeva and TCH. We were very close to such a situation last week with Wesley v Faith, when it was tied twice late, with Wesley able to slip away with a one vote win. I just wish I knew where all those extra votes came along for the Spike v Lilah contest. I'm not doubting the outcome since Spike would have won without the extra 20 to 30 votes, but when we have that many more voters, I wish a few of them would bother to leave a comment.

And speaking of comments, you may post them here, at the voting site, or email me.

Enough of my blabber, let the blood start flowing!

Re: Buffy vs Wesley -- Celebaelin, 21:04:58 10/05/03 Sun

I keep seeing an AD lookalike driving a GPO van around town. It's very disconcerting, I'm forced into a mind-set where I expect wierdness to befall me on my way back from the shops. Well, wierder than the tired old 'pear with the image of the Holy Mother on the skin' motif that's been going on as late. Honestly, I ask you, why aren't fruit based portents as spine chilling as they used to be? Anyway, in view of this worrying fact (the Wes clone not the iconic desert item) I had to vote for Wes, meaning that currently it's a draw.

[> Knew there had to be an explanation -- mamcu, 09:34:27 10/06/03 Mon

Although I'll admit I'd rather be stuck in an elevator with Wes than Buff, that's because of the orientation I was born with. Other than that, I couldn't imagine a rationale for all those Wesley votes--since he doesn't have horns, fangs, or notable spell-skills. Thanks for clarifying, Celebaelin.

Re: Buffy vs Wesley -- Apophis, 22:13:48 10/05/03 Sun

You've voted against Doyle, Cordelia, and now Faith, and yet I find that I can still forgive you all. Just don't push it. If you think Wes can take Buffy, all I can offer is my pity (and a request that you not approach my family). I don't care how much stubble he develops, Buffy is the greatest Slayer in history. Wes could take a novice Slayer, like the ones in Season 7. Wes might be able to take the average Slayer, what with his cunning and guile. Wes (for the sake of arguement) MIGHT be able to take Faith, assuming he made some sort of dark pact with the Nameless Things of the Void. But no amount of demonic oaths or moral ambiguity or British accent is going to help him survive Hurricane Buffy. For one thing, there's the tremendous psychological influence Buffy no doubt still has over him; she fired him and essentially destroyed his life as he knew it up to that point. His world was shattered after only a few months in her company; that'll mess a dude up. And, there's always the fact that SHE BEAT THE CRAP OUT OF A FRIGGIN' GOD!!! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE??!?! DOES DEICIDE MEAN NOTHING ANYMORE?!!?!?... I'm sorry; there's medication involved. Anyway, go Buffy!

[> Deicide means precisely crap, bud. -- Honorificus (The Utterly Perky One), 22:59:00 10/05/03 Sun

Just ask me. I've killed off countless minor deities during my descent down the Lowerarchy, and there are always more. Tiresome business, and no one respects you for it anymore. What are the hells coming to nowadays, I ask you?

[> Buffy reigns supreme.. -- jane, 05:46:29 10/06/03 Mon

even over the ex-watcher rogue demon hunter. She still sees Wesley as he was on graduation day, moaning on the ground. Laughing, she pummels his pride and his somewhat dark self into the dirt. Poor, poor Wessel...

I love Wes, but-- -- HonorH, 22:56:08 10/05/03 Sun

There's no way. He's survived this long, he's a badass ex-Watcher who's walked on the Dark Side, he's smart and ruthless--

And he's not standing up to Buffy. She's fought the Master, Angelus, and Spike, came up with the winning strategy against the Mayor, joined with her friends to kill Adam, faced a god and won, died twice, killed countless vampires and was loved by two, came back from heaven, fought the First, and changed what it means to be the Slayer forever.

She'll win.

Sorry "Wessel" but.... -- angel's nibblet, 00:09:05 10/06/03 Mon

Buffy's gotta win this one, better stay at home and brood (Can I just say that AD's brooding skills have reached almost Angel-ic proportions? Nice)

What kind of match-up is this? -- MaeveRigan, 05:57:26 10/06/03 Mon

Buffy v. Wesley? Of course Buffy wins. It's not like she's going to kill him, of course. She'll just prove (again) that she's still the original prime-time Slayer. But hey, Wesley's toughened up a lot since season 3--he can take it. He can fight like a man now instead of like a Watcher, but he'd expect nothing less than triumph from Buffy (or Faith).

Miss Maybelline vs. 5 o'clock shadow guy -- deeva, 09:04:32 10/06/03 Mon

Even with his not-so-new conflicted dark side, the I-had-to-behead-the-woman-I-loved experience and the return to rogue demon hunting, Wesley is still no match for the Buffster. Cause, Hello?, she did all that and a bag of potato chips.

[> Re: Miss Maybelline vs. 5 o'clock shadow guy -- Ponygirl, 09:18:43 10/06/03 Mon

Plus fashion-wise it's no contest. Wes may have found out that he looks good in leather, but he relies way too much on the suede jacket for his edge. Buffy on the other hand takes the time to change outfits and accessorize before every apocalyptic battle. Even Wesley's unheard of ability to successfully wear the colour yellow won't save him this time.

[> [> Ah, the fashionista quotient... -- deeva, 10:55:50 10/06/03 Mon

how could I possibly forget it!?

The forgotten Tro-clan from S3 -- pellenaka, 06:29:56 10/06/03 Mon

After watching old episodes, I believe that Skip was just a part of the whole Tro-Clan (sp?) that started with Holtz:

Holtz taking Connor>Connor coming back as 16-year-old>Skip sending Cordelia away and alienating her from the others via amnesia>Connor & Cordelia having sex thus making Cordelia pregnant>Cordelia giving birth to Jasmine>Jasmine bringing happiness to all.

We learn in Offspring that the Tro-Clan is "the person or being that brings about the ruination of mankind." But also that "Ruination may in fact mean purification."
In the end of the episode when Fred counts down to when the Tro-clan should arrive, Holtz appear.
Quickening: "The Tro-clan isn't a person or persons. It's a confluence of events."
The Tro-Clan may of course have been be Connor if Fred's calculations were wrong.
If Holtz hadn't stole Connor, he would never have slept with Cordelia and so on. Connor was son of two vampires and just by looking at the number of people who wanted to steal him in 'Dad', we can see that he must have been special. We have learned from Jasmine that everything that happened with Cordelia was just part of the preparations for the 'birth'.

Jasmine brought happiness to the human kind, even the evil ones have agreed on that. That could be what the Niazian scroll calls purification.

It has always annoyed me that these predictions have been forgotten because it can be explained when looking at the events that occurred in S3 and S4.

Perhaps forgotten, but come to pass -- Masq, 10:05:22 10/06/03 Mon

While the gang have forgotten many of the key events of seasons 3 and 4, the Nyazian prophecies have come to pass, and the confluence of events--Connor's birth, Holtz's arrival in the 21st century, Holtz taking Connor into Quortoth resulting in him growing up quickly and being able to father a child who turned out to be Jasmine who tried to take over the world and "enslave" mankind--this was the prophecy fulfilled. You're right on that.

But don't expect anyone to mention it on the show any time soon. It's been nixed from their brains, and they've got other things to worry about.

[> Thanks.... -- pellenaka, 15:28:53 10/07/03 Tue

...for confirming the theory. I know that they won't mention it on screen (even if they hadn't been mind-wiping) but it's good to know that I'm not crazy in seeing this foreshadowing.

[> [> Except, what about that whole "Connor killing Sahijan" thing? -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:22:57 10/07/03 Tue

Is that still gonna come to pass?

[> [> [> Well.... -- Masq, 17:22:39 10/07/03 Tue

In my mind, it has to, because no one else fits the descript "The one sired by the vampire a soul will grow to manhood and kill Sahjan". You know, unless Spike has a son that is born an infant and grows up.

The question is, will it ever be on screen? Or is it a few year down the line in a season we won't see?


I so want to see Connor kick that demon's ass....

[> [> [> [> Here's a theory: -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:56:14 10/07/03 Tue

Spike, while he had a soul, sired Holden Webster. Now, he was killed by Buffy, but this year we've got Knox, played by the same actor, working at Wolfram & Hart, an organization that doesn't have a problem with resurrecting people. Is it possible that Knox is the human version of Holden brought back from the dead? He was sired by a vampire with a soul, after all, and, by being brought back to life as a human, it could be said that he grew to manhood during that ritual, previously being part of demonhood. Of course, this would take an awful lot of explaining, but it's better than nothing.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Here's a theory: -- LittleBit, 21:44:19 10/07/03 Tue

And to stretch reeeaaaal wide...his scientific knowledge could have been implanted just like Gunn's legal knowledge. Which leads to the burning question "What musical genre would go with science?"

[> [> [> [> [> [> Knox had the collected songs of Tom Lehrer implanted along with the science..... -- cjl, 09:45:16 10/08/03 Wed

[cjl dodges tomatoes and flees back to the office.]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> ROTFLOL!!!!! -- LittleBit, 11:21:58 10/08/03 Wed

I love it!!! I'm now imagining Knoxy working mixing his potions while humming "Poisoning Pigeons in the Park!!" How very appropriate!! Hahahahahahaha!!

p.s. I would never throw tomatos at a Lehrer reference. Just ask Rob who got him the Lehrer song for your CD. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> For those of who have no idea what the heck we're talking about... -- cjl (fun Tom Lehrer-related story inside!), 11:36:56 10/08/03 Wed

From Who2: "Tom Lehrer began recording parodies and satirical songs during his years as a student at Harvard. In the 1950s and 1960s he developed parallel careers as a professor of mathematics and as the writer and performer of cheerfully satirical songs about politics and society. His albums included An Evening Wasted with Tom Lehrer and That Was the Year That Was. In 1980 his music was revived in the stage show Tomfoolery.

"Extra credit: Lehrer got his B.A. from Harvard at the age of 18."

I was thinking of two Tom Lehrer songs when I (ahem) pigeon holed him as Knoxy's musical download: one was, of course, "Poisoning Pigeons in the Park," which should be mandatory listening for everyone in W&H's Practical Science department; the other was "The Elements," Lehrer's brilliant rundown of the entire periodic table in 2:30. Lyrics for both:


Spring is here, a suh-puh-ring is here.
Life is skittles and life is beer.
I think the loveliest time of the year is spring.
I do, don't you? "Course you do."
But there's one thing that makes spring complete for me,
And makes ev'ry Sunday a treat for me.

All the world seems in tune
On a spring afternoon,
When we're poisoning pigeons in the park.
E'vry Sunday you'll see
My sweetheart and me,
As we poison the pigeons in the park.

When they see us coming, the birdies all try an' hide,
But they still go for peanuts when coated with cyanide.
The sun's shining bright,
Ev'rything seems all right,
When we're poisoning pigeons in the park.

We've gained notoriety,
And caused much anxiety
In the Audubon Society
With our games.
They call it impiety,
And lack of propriety,
And quite a variety
Of unpleasant names.
But it's not against any religion
To want to dispose of a pigeon.

So if Sunday you're free,
Why don't you come with me,
And we'll poison the pigeons in the park.
And maybe we'll do
In a squirrel or two,
While we're poisoning pigeons in the park.

We'll murder them all amid laughter and merriment,
Except for the few we take home to experiment.
My pulse will we quickenin'
With each drop of strych'nine
We feed to a pigeon.
(It just takes a smidgin!)
To poison a pigeon in the park.


``There's antimony, arsenic, aluminum, selenium,
And hydrogen and oxygen and nitrogen and rhenium
And nickel, neodymium, neptunium, germanium,
And iron, americium, ruthenium, uranium,
Europium, zirconium, lutetium, vanadium
And lanthanum and osmium and astatine and radium
And gold, protactinium and indium and gallium (inhale)
And iodine and thorium and thulium and thallium.

There's yttrium, ytterbium, actinium, rubidium
And boron, gadolinium, niobium, iridium
And strontium and silicon and silver and samarium,
And bismuth, bromine, lithium, beryllium and barium.

Isn't that interesting?
I knew you would.
I hope you're all taking notes, because there's gonna be a short quiz next period.

There's holmium and helium and hafnium and erbium
And phosphorous and francium and fluorine and terbium
And manganese and mercury, molybdinum, magnesium,
Dysprosium and scandium and cerium and cesium
And lead, praseodymium, and platinum, plutonium,
Paladium, promethium, potassium, polonium, and
Tantalum, technetium, titanium, tellurium, (inhale)
And cadmium and calcium and chromium and curium.

There's sulfur, californium and fermium, berkelium
And also mendelevium, einsteinium and nobelium
And argon, krypton, neon, radon, xenon, zinc and rhodium
And chlorine, carbon, cobalt, copper,
Tungsten, tin and sodium.

These are the only ones of which the news has come to Harvard,
And there may be many others but they haven't been discovered.


Wasn't that fun? And now, that Tom Lehrer-related story I promised:

I was listening to folk singer Lucy Kaplansky sing in a local synagogue in Park Slope a couple of years ago, and near the end of the show, she did a sprightly jazz number involving astronomy and physical sciences written by her father in his bold, songwriting youth. When I went up to her after the show, I told her that the song kind of reminded me of Tom Lehrer's old songs about math and science. She stared at me for a moment and said, "My dad was a student of Tom Lehrer's." We both paused for a moment, awed by the unfathomable and yet interconnected workings of the universe...and then she signed my autographed CD and I went home.

I should get the Tom Lehrer boxed set already. Maybe when I'm bopping around the Village on Sunday....

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And for those who want to torture their satirical funnybones... -- LittleBit, 11:59:06 10/08/03 Wed

You can find more information here.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, we know Gunn has the tune to "The Elements" stuck in his head . . . -- d'Herblay, 15:31:51 10/08/03 Wed

. . . perhaps he and Knox could sing a round.

Anyway, I'm surprised you missed this, but the Lehrer line that has had the most obvious impact on the ethics of the man from the floors of moral ambiguity comes from That Was The Year That Was:

"Vhen zee raugghets go up, who cares vair zey kom down?
Zat's not my department," says Wernher Von Braun.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Indeed -- Tchaikovsky, 06:32:20 10/09/03 Thu

The 'Modern Major-General' tune, very low-maintenance and versatile, seems to be a popular choice for parody. At the Last Night of the Proms, in the year that Andrew Davies left as conductor of the BBC Philharmonic, (and once before), (before being replaced incidentally by the delectable American Leonard Slatkin), he broke from tradition in his final speech, and sung, with the help of the orchestra, another parody of the song

The final lines stuck in my head:
'And so in matters sonic, promenadable and estible
This really is the model of a modern music festival'.

Where this leaves Gunn is anyone's guess. But don't be surprised to see him conducting a symphony orchestra sometime soon.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great! Now I have to download these songs! ;-) -- pellenaka, 15:42:21 10/08/03 Wed

The Slow Path to Hell of AtS Season 5: The Importance of Knowledge (spoilers .01) -- Diana, 10:45:37 10/06/03 Mon

Knowledge and human power are synonymous
~~Francis Bacon

And you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.
~~John 8:32

Knowledge of the world in only to be acquired in the world, and not in a closet.
~~Lord Chesterfield

We own almost all our knowledge not to those who have agreed but to those who have differed
~~Charles Caleb Colton

This season is all about corruption, the slow path to hell. Each episode will most likely explore some facet of this. Those with short attention spans that don't want to get into the philosophical yummies can look at the episodes individually. For the rest of us, the arcs won't be as grand as we are used to, but each character will have to battle this corruption in some way. Through this, ME can explore what corruption is, what causes us to give in to darkness and what allows us to fight it. Taken as a whole, the season can be seen to be a comprehensive exploration of corruption, both on an individual and institutional level. Until this assertion is shown to be erroneous, that is the approach my analyses of the episodes will take, what aspect of corruption does each episode address.

"Conviction" on the surface is the strength of belief's role in corruption. Conviction can lead us to the dark side, as it did with Hauser, or it can keep us from it. Beneath this, however, is what causes conviction and what determines whether it leads to good or evil. Knowledge. Eve's apple. The voluminous files of Wolfram and Hart. The school of young Matthew Fries. Gunn's meeting with the Conduit and subsequent instant law education. Practical Science. All these things cause and shape conviction.

Angel: "Conviction" opens with Angel helping the helpless. After his first encounter with what it means to be part of Wolfram and Hart, he is fired up. There is a continuum of conviction. When you don't know anything, you have strong conviction. There is nothing to conflict with it. As the episode reveals more about what it going on, Angel becomes conflicted. Then as more knowledge is gathered, we see Angel figure things out more and his conviction returns. Knowledge of good and evil leads Man to get kicked out of the Garden of Eden. It is also this knowledge that allows us to act on and truly become our divine natures.

Angel realizes the importance of knowledge. As he tells the gang, "sooner or later they'll tip their hand, and we'll find out why they really brought us here." He doesn't fully appreciate it though. He sees Wolfram and Hart as a powerful weapon they have to learn to wield. He didn't accept Lilah's offer because of the knowledge she offered. He turned down the file on Buffy initially and even the whereabouts of Connor and Cordelia. It was only because of the power to save his son, not through knowledge, but through mystical means that he accepted the offer. It is this power that Angel is focused on. By dealing with that power, he learns and will learn things. It is these things that will either lead to his corruption (doubtful) or strengthen his ability to fight it. He needs to know what Wolfram and Hart are up to in order to do this.

Wesley: There are two ways to walk down the path to evil. The first is knowingly and willingly. That is the way that Lilah and much of Wolfram and Hart and their clients got there. As Eve says, though, things are more complicated than that. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. This is what Wesley is concerned about. In the beginning, the woman that Angel saved is asked to initial something about her immortal soul, which she does without reading it or realizing what she is doing. The Senior Partners did not give Angel the knowledge of good and evil. They gave him all those client files. Now it is up to the gang to figure out what to do. Joss subverted the symbol he used. It is the knowledge of good and evil that will help keep the gang from being corrupted. How they figure out what this is will be interesting to watch as it carries from episode to episode in the gray Buffyverse.

Gunn: He thinks he does know the difference. He trusts what the Conduit showed him in "Home." He never would have gotten the instant law education if it wasn't for what he learned then. To prove it to the gang he is willing to give Lorne some Pirates of Penzance. Maybe he should not just hear the songs in his head, but listen to them. Gunn is an honorable man and the least conflicted of anyone in the gang. This honor can be used against him. It will be interesting to see how this happens.

Fred: I will admit that her story is the one I am most interested in. Practical science. We aren't talking theoreticals or just mixing the potions. Science has some very real practical applications. Science created many of the ills of modern life and it can solve them. Fred's field of study was pretty much hypothetical, until it was that field that sucked her into Pylea. Then it had very real and catastrophic applications to her life. In her lab is a huge machine that makes loud noise, but she doesn't have a clue what it does. It could save Man or damn us. Most likely it will do both. The scientists that make the plague are also the ones that are capable of containing it. Along with the wonderful sites like Masq's are ones that are less than wonderful. The tool that allows us to communicate also allows groups that would harm other to, such as The Black Tomorrow. The medicines we create can not only deal with our pain, but they can be addictive and kill us. Nothing is quite the double edged sword of science. What keeps science in check? Scientists tend to be the most concerned with ethics, like Fred or the least, like Knox.

Just as scientists can be divided into those concerned with ethics and those who aren't, their motivations are also different. Those that are concerned with ethics tend to go into science to cure cancer or help humanity in some form. Those not concerned are more interested in it for academic curiosity. There are the evil geniuses that want power, but typically scientists that create things that are used for evil do so because they don't think about the implications and applications of their discoveries and inventions. Fred does and her story will lie in how to deal with a community that doesn't. As she tells them, she feels they deserve to die because they are the ones that created the virus. The quality of mercy is not Fred.

Knox: He is the scientist that will represent this scientist that doesn't think about the ramifications of their inventions. The device we see that he invented in "Home" is a gross invasion of privacy. He just sees it as a convenience. As Fred and become friends (and more, hopefully), Fred won't be able to just dismiss the scientists as deserving to die. As Knox is exposed more to the light that is Fred, he will have to reexamine things he has down with Wolfram and Hart. He will have the choice to continue to justify what he did or perhaps he can take brooding lessons from Angel. Either way, the knowledge he will gain this season will affect his susceptibility to corruption.

Fries: He knows himself to be powerful and feels secure in this power. His conviction isn't towards some higher (or lower) belief, just a pure selfishness and self-centeredness that allows him to even risk/sacrifice the life of his own son. His knowledge of his enemy gives him the conviction to believe that they will work damn hard to get him off. Without this knowledge, he would be shitting bricks in fear.

Hauser: He also feels that he and what he believes in are powerful. This belief isn't that evil is the "right" path. It is that it will win. He is along the lines of Holland in his belief about power. His belief is built on tradition, how things are done. Angel is the new order and because Hauser doesn't understand the implications of this, he lacks the knowledge necessary to realize he is wrong, so he ends up with his brain smeared on the walls of the school. The school, a place where you get an education. The Operations team goes there to contain the threat to show the new boss how things are done. Sitting in the student desks, Angel wants Hauser to give him a lesson about tradition. That lesson involves shooting up the classroom. Hauser's conviction is not strong enough to handle knowledge and as such feels threatened by this and attempts to destroy it.

Mercy: Conviction leads to a black and white world. Acting without mercy doesn't make the world any whiter. All it does is strengthen the conviction of others. When Angel showed the other Operative guy in the hallway mercy by not killing him, he gave him a lesson. The black and white world of conviction would lead to death. What is stronger than that is giving someone the chance to convert from black to white? The First destroyed Sunnydale, empty places gone forever. The Scoobies unleashed the potential in thousands, if not millions, of girls. Which do you think is more powerful? Mercy can win the hearts of your opponents and is more powerful than the obstinacy of conviction. It is the knowledge of how powerful this mercy can be that allowed Angel to find and act on the source of his power. I'm sure people can share stories about how important mercy has been historically. It has shaped the world every bit as much as weapons, and unlike weapons, it has shaped it for the better. It is the evolution that Jasmine wanted to kick up a few notches.

Mother may I: One of the cardinal sins in the Buffyverse is to keep knowledge from others. In this episode this happens in several places. Gunn doesn't ask the gang about what he should do. Another is the memory wipe Angel did back in "Home" in regards to Connor. Harmony even wants to know if Angel is going to tell Cordy about her working there. This sort of compartmentalization of information leads to a breakdown in the group. This is illustrated with the placement of the characters in the final scene. If the group hopes to band together to defeat whatever the Senior Partners have in store for them, they must band together by sharing information. By enhancing Gunn, they have already started to divide and conquer. His education could be completely non-evil. Just sowing the seeds of distrust may be enough.

I look forward to a season that shows our gang learning these things.

Re: The Slow Path to Hell of AtS Season 5: The Importance of Knowledge (spoilers .01) -- heywhynot, 11:48:37 10/06/03 Mon

Is it the role of the scientist to determine what shall be done with the knowledge? How it will be applied? The answer in my opinion is no. It has to be a society as a whole. Science can not directly cause ills to a society. It is a process of studying how the universe works, nothing more. (Of course a misplanned experiment can have severe consequences.) Applying what we learn through science though can have direct consequences on societies. With our understanding of molecular biology do we a) engineer bacteria to produce insulin to help those with diabetes live or b) engineer bacteria to be resistant to all known antibiotics to use a bioweapon? It is a choice that goes beyond science. The knowledge opens up choices.

The problem with scientist, in general & there are exceptions to this, is their inability to communicate outside of their narrow field, to educate people so everyone can make informed decisions. Without this skill set scientists are disconnected from the world & can't evaluate fully the consequences of how the knowledge they have opened up will be used in the world. They can be advocates to encourage more positive uses of the knowledge over more short-sighted uses.

In other words it harkens back to when Doyle was introduced in ep1.01 and told Angel he needed to be connected to humanity as a whole, not just on the fringes doing his job. Fred when things go bad withdraws from the world to her equations. Knox is a lab rat. If the former happens and the latter continues then bad things will be a brewing. Each needs to embrace the outside world. Without it, they will not be able to be advocates/educators on how the knowledge they uncover can be used in the world. Not to mention the effects of how being withdrawn can have on people.

[> How to determine what is done -- Diana, 06:22:57 10/07/03 Tue

When something is invented, there is a patent. That holder of that patent determines what is to be done with that invention. Typically the holder of these patents aren't the scientists that invent things, but corporations that are mainly interested in the bottom line. In this way they are like the Senior Partners and the multi-dimensional corporation Wolfram and Hart.

What is "society as a whole"? Society as a whole decides jack. Most people completely abdicate their responsibility as human beings and let a small minority decide what is done (then complain about it). That small minority tends to decide things based on the bottom line. Scientist can scream at the top of their lungs about Global Warming and the state of our environment. That doesn't mean that we are going to sign Kyoto. The information is out there and it is completely accessible and in lay terms. People don't want to know. It isn't just scientists' responsibility to educate us, but for us to educate ourselves and accept what that may mean.

In the case that the bottom line holds sway, it is a scientist's responsibility as a human being not to create anything they know will harm others. Scientists as human beings can act as a check on human greed. Before they can do this, they have to remember they are human beings. It isn't just embracing the outer world, but our own humanity, that we carry in our own hearts. Knox has to stop being a duck and letting everything run off his back.

I am a firm believer that the compartmentalization of knowledge is most responsible for the state of the world today, not just with scientists and their specific fields, but how all the ologies get broken up. Once upon a time, there were philosophers, lovers of wisdom, that learned about everything. Not only can't scientists communicate outside their narrow field, but that applies to pretty much everyone.

Better stop before I get off on a rant.

Doubts About Angel -- Claudia, 11:50:39 10/06/03 Mon

Why are you doubtful that Angel will give in to the corruption of Wolfram and Hart?

Catherine Madison and Dark!Willow -- shambleau, 10:53:15 10/06/03 Mon

I watched The Witch recently and was struck by the parallels with the Dark!Willow arc. According to Amy, there were arguments between her Mom and Dad, with her Dad calling her a witch. He then leaves the family and Amy says her mom went crazy after that, locking herself in her room for days. So, you've got a break-up with a Significant Other,more than likely over witchcraft, leading to the abandonment of restraint and full-on plunge into magic.

This process seems to have taken longer than with Willow, up to three years maybe, but still follows the same trajectory. Then, you've got the hidden resentments towards a loved one coming out more and more. Catherine made horrible cutting comments about Amy (think Willow and Dawn or Buffy). Her eyes turned black when she made an evil spell. Energy flew from her fingertips when she was going to send her enemies into the statue. Her scream when the energy was mirrored back to her was an inhuman shriek of rage and fear, eerily like Willow's shriek of rage and frustration. She wore black.

I wonder if going into the darkness actually physically changes you?

Beyond all doubt it does -- Mackenzie, 11:19:46 10/06/03 Mon

Look at Angel when he goes dark, not to Angelus but dark. Look at Wes when he goes dark, he physically changes.
I even believe that going evil in the real world changes you physically.
Good connections, you are right, Willow followed the same path but just slowly enough so that it was not caught until it was too late.

[> Re: Beyond all doubt it does -- Ryuei, 09:33:07 10/07/03 Tue

I just watched that episode the other night myself and I was struck by how much foreshadowing there was. Which is really interesting considering they may not have been thinking that far ahead about Willow.

On the other hand, I also noticed that Willow was already showing her mean streak with the "deliver" remark to Cordelia in computer class in the second episode of the Harvest. She also clearly showed her disregard for the law with her computer hacking (which she was doing long before it was necessary to save lives in doing so).

As for evil causing physical changes, I would agree. However, I would add that any destructive (self or otherwise) impulse which takes over one's life causes physical changes, as well as changes in posture, bearing, attitude, etc... I have seen a lot of that unfortunately in San Francisco among the punk/alternative scene. Drug addiction and complete lack of self-esteem in particular seem to have devestating consequences. Some people even seem to have an aura of death around them - at least in my perception.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,

[> [> Ryuei! -- Masq, 09:34:24 10/07/03 Tue

Hey there guy! How is everything with you and yours???

Good to see your words of wisdom back on the board again!

[> [> [> Re: Ryuei! -- Ryuei, 15:20:30 10/07/03 Tue

Hi Masq,
It's nice to be back. I honestly can't keep up with the amount of traffic on this board. But I still read as much as I can when I have time. This is still one of the most intelligent heartfelt places I have discovered on the web.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,

[> [> [> [> Re: Ryuei! -- Masq, 15:26:40 10/07/03 Tue

Chime in again sometime. I could use some more quality Ryuei quotage on my site!

Any Buddhist subtext in the new season? Some folks are discussing Angel and Spike's inability to detach from the self somewhere around here.

[> On the other hand... -- Gyrus, 10:22:15 10/07/03 Tue

...there are plenty of nasty people in the world who look just like everybody else. Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer were attractive, normal-looking young men, which is what enabled them to claim so many victims in the first place. At the Nuremburg trials, Nazis who were directly involved in the Holocaust came across as ordinary family men, inspiring the idea of "the banality of evil".

[> [> That is true, how about this... -- Mackenzie, 11:48:00 10/07/03 Tue

Wonder if level of sanity had anything to do with that. Maybe the crazier you are the less evil affects your appearance. Like, if you don't really know or see what you are doing is evil you won't change physically. But on the other hand, if you are mentally stable and know what you are doing is wrong it affects you inside and out.

[> [> [> Re: That is true, how about this... -- Sheri, 14:25:21 10/07/03 Tue

That argument only works if, along with the Jeffery Dahmers of the world, we conclude that the nazis were insane as well. I'm not particularly comfortable with that notion.

There was a documentary special on tv a while back on how criminologists once believed that criminal behavior could be directly linked to how attractive a person was. In other words, an unattractive person was far more likely to be involved in criminal behavior than someone who was deemed attractive. The theory didn't involve any fairly modern arguments such as "unattractive people receive fewer advantages and there for societal prejudices drive them into a life of crime", rather, the belief was that unattractive people were somehow genetically predisposed to committing crime.

I think when the actors/writers/costumers try to make physical changes to a character when he/she goes "dark", they are going back to that old belief. And so I find a character like Connor when he first comes back from the hell demension (and after that, but this is in regards to "ugliness") to be so interesting. He looks happy and normal even though behind his smile he's actually plotting against Angel. That smile is probably a more accurate portrayel of "darkness" than Angel putting on a pair of leather pants ever could be.

[> [> [> Telling the good guys from the bad guys -- Gyrus, 14:43:12 10/07/03 Tue

Wonder if level of sanity had anything to do with that. Maybe the crazier you are the less evil affects your appearance. Like, if you don't really know or see what you are doing is evil you won't change physically. But on the other hand, if you are mentally stable and know what you are doing is wrong it affects you inside and out.

Guilt, certainly, can cause stress-related physiological changes that would affect one's appearance -- weight loss or gain, insomnia, nervous habits like nail-biting or hair-pulling, and so on. However, many mental illnesses (from depression and chronic anxiety to flat-out psychosis) can have these same effects, as can sources of chronic stress that have nothing to do with guilt.

On the opposite side of the coin are the people who don't feel guilty about bad things they have done because they can somehow justify their bad acts in their own minds. These people may be sane, but they show no outward signs of being guilty or evil.

In sum, a change in a person's appearance is not necessarily a sign of evil, nor are evil acts necessarily followed by visible change. Like it or not, we can't tell the good guys from the bad guys just by looking at them.

[> [> [> [> Re: Telling the good guys from the bad guys -- Ryuei, 15:32:16 10/07/03 Tue

Not being able to tell from appearances who the good guys or bad guys are is of course something that has been a big theme on both Angel and Buffy. Lots of truly evil types have appeared normal and are even very attractive - Lindsey, Lilah, Faith, the Mayor, etc... and then there have been all the good demons like Doyle, Lorne, the Prio Motu, etc...

I think what does make a difference in appearance is when the hellishness in someone's "soul" starts to make itself known in one's appearance and/or environment. There was a manager I once had who looked perfectl normal but she gave me the creeps, and it was always very cold around her. She was later let go with charges pending (possibly for misusing company funds but I really don't know). But in any case, there was a wrongness there that you could actually perceive. Then there are others who are not evil, but the hellishness comes out in terms of addictions, slovenliness, morbidity, or other manifestations. I think Dark Willow turning all dark and veiny was a case of this - the grief, rage, and despair manifesting itself but not necessarily evil for its own sake. In fact, one might say (sorry this is going all over the place) self-conscious ruthelesness and evil will take the time to cloak itself and appear pleasant so as to get close to and even win over its prey. The vampires are the most obvious case of this. Self-destructive despair and rage on the other hand will probably not take the trouble to disguise itself.

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,

Question About Love -- Claudia, 11:10:31 10/06/03 Mon

If you simply cared for someone, but didn't really love him or her, would you become jealous if that person became involved with someone else - however briefly?

It depends on the person -- Mackenzie, 11:28:07 10/06/03 Mon

It depends on both the person you are and the person you are involved with. It depends on how deep the caring feelings are and what kind of caring feelings. I mean, if you care about them in a "friend" way then you probably won't mind them being with someone else. If you care about them in a way that could develop into love you may feel very jealous if they are with someone else.
Pretty much what I am saying is in my opinion it doesn't matter how long you are with someone it matters what kind of feeling you have for them are.
Funny thing is, sometimes jealousy can really catch you off guard and make you realize feelings you didn't know where there

[> So Why . . .? -- Claudia, 11:42:28 10/06/03 Mon

[It depends on how deep the caring feelings are and what kind of caring feelings. I mean, if you care about them in a "friend" way then you probably won't mind them being with someone else. If you care about them in a way that could develop into love you may feel very jealous if they are with someone else.]

Many people have claimed that Buffy never really loved Spike, but simply cared for him (deeply) as a friend. If this is the case, why did she express jealousy over Spike being with another female on three separate occasions?

[> [> Re: So Why . . .? -- Rook, 00:37:48 10/07/03 Tue

So, that means she loved Scott Hope too? Because she got jealous in FH&T when Faith was talking to him?

[> [> Re: So Why . . .? -- sc, 09:58:50 10/08/03 Wed

It's completely plausible that what Buffy was jealous of was the loss of control over Spike or jealous over the loss of Spike's presence. There are plenty of relationships in which control is the guiding principle, rather than love. Few would admit to it, but for some 'I love you' really means 'I control you.'

Re: Question About Love -- Dlgood, 01:41:44 10/07/03 Tue

Unless you were a saint, seeing someone who previously expressed interest in you, showing interest in someone else would probably make you jealous.

Jealousy isn't about the other person. It's about yourself, and your own insecurities - and rooted in perception. It's not necessarily indicative of whether or not you love the other person.

[> Why Do You Have a Hard Time? -- Claudia, 07:52:22 10/07/03 Tue

Why is it so hard for many of you to consider the possibility that Buffy may have been in love with Spike? Isn't it possible that there she could have fallen in love with more than one person? Did she really have to act like her 16-19 year-old self to prove to the audience that she loved Spike?

[> [> Why Do You Have a Hard Time? -- Dlgood, 08:05:42 10/07/03 Tue

Your question isn't: "Why is it so hard to consider?" As I've noted, I'm not wedded to the concept that Buffy must have been in love with any of these boyfriends. Or that she wasn't. I have considered that Buffy was in love with Spike, have examined her behavior, and concluded that she was not. Why should I be required to believe it?

My question to Claudia, is this - "Have you considered the possibility that Buffy was not in love with Spike?" You seem to be awfully invested in that. At what point do you think Buffy fell in love with Spike? Which of Buffy's actions, lead you to believe she is in love with Spike?

Whedon and his actors have stated "Buffy loves Spike, but is not in love with Spike." The burden of proving otherwise, is really on you Claudia.

[> [> [> Re: Why Do You Have a Hard Time? -- Claudia, 10:30:00 10/07/03 Tue

[Whedon and his actors have stated "Buffy loves Spike, but is not in love with Spike." The burden of proving otherwise, is really on you Claudia]

No, it's not. It was obvious to me that Buffy was in love with Spike. You seemed to judge Buffy's actions by how she was around Angel, during the early years. Did you really expect Buffy to react in the same manner to love, after dealing with her disasterous relationships with both Angel and Riley? Granted, Buffy was always somewhat of a reserved personality since the beginning. But her tendency to keep her feelings to herself grew even more as she became older. Even up to late Season 7, she had difficulty expressing her feelings to her sister and closest friends. Why should the manner in which she had expressed her feelings to Spike be any different?

Why would Buffy become jealous over what was an obvious attempt by Spike to make her jealous in "Hells Bells"? Why did she say "can't", instead of "don't" the first time she had tried to express indifference to Spike? She seemed to have improved with each passing episode. Why in the hell did she even bother keeping him around in Season 7, when common sense told her to put as much distance from him, as much as possible? How do you explain why she had rushed to see if Spike was all right, instead of Xander, in "First Date"? Or her embarrassment at touching Spike at all in "Potential"? Even Giles and the Potentials could sense her feelings about Spike. I'm surprised that most of the audience could not. Would it have been better if Buffy had been more obvious in her regard toward Spike? Perhaps. But then that would mean either character regression (she's no longer an impetuous teenager dealing with a new love) or such actions would go against her character, in general.

[> [> [> [> Love and Jealousy -- Malandanza, 11:10:39 10/07/03 Tue

"Why would Buffy become jealous over what was an obvious attempt by Spike to make her jealous in "Hells Bells"? Why did she say "can't", instead of "don't" the first time she had tried to express indifference to Spike?"

Jealousy doesn't automatically equate to love. Look back at Season One and Two Xander -- terribly jealous of Buffy/Angel. Sufficiently
jealous to desire Angel's death. Do we conclude from this that Xander had a deep and abiding love for Buffy? Or do we conclude that he's jealous because Buffy has a deep and abiding love for Angel and Xander wishes it were him? Xander was even jealous when he discovered Dawn had transferred her crush from him to Spike (presumably this doesn't mean Xander was in love with Dawn). In Buffy's case, I think the jealousy is the result of a dog-in-the-manger attitude. Just because she doesn't want Spike, is deeply ashamed to be connected with him at all, and entered the relationship to punish herself for being alive doesn't mean she wants to see Spike happily shagging one of his gothic groupies in front of her and her friends.

As for it being obvious that Buffy was in love with Spike, just ask Spike -- Buffy says "I love you" during his martyrdom and he says "no you don't".

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Love and Jealousy -- Claudia, 11:26:07 10/07/03 Tue

[Jealousy doesn't automatically equate to love. Look back at Season One and Two Xander -- terribly jealous of Buffy/Angel.]

But Xander was in love with Buffy. Despite his relationships with Cordelia, his brief "fling" with Willow and Anya, he remained in love with Buffy for a long time.

[> [> [> [> [> [> While I don't think she loved Spike . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:30:43 10/07/03 Tue

She did seem to enjoy the fact that Spike loved her. In "As You Were", part of the brief leadup to sex is asking if he loves her. You can not be in love with someone yet still appreciate the fact that they love you. By seeing Spike with another girl, Buffy began to get doubts whether Spike loved her. It doesn't have to say anything about her feelings towards Spike, just her feelings about his feelings towards her.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Love and Jealousy -- Malandanza, 00:13:33 10/08/03 Wed

I think Rook has the best counterexample for jealousy implies love -- Buffy being jealous of Scott Hope, a boy she really wasn't interested in until she saw Faith flirting with him. It gets back to the dog-in-the-manger attitude -- Buffy didn't want Scott, but she didn't want Faith to have him either. We also saw Xander with this same attitude when Willow was having an e-romance with Malcolm (Buffy says he's jealous, he says he doesn't think of Willow like that, she says she knows, but he got used to being the belle of the ball). Similarly with Willow/Oz -- while Xander is dating Cordelia while wishing he was with Buffy, he's still jealous of his best bud dating the cool guitarist.

"But Xander was in love with Buffy. Despite his relationships with Cordelia, his brief "fling" with Willow and Anya, he remained in love with Buffy for a long time."

Xander was jealous of Angel (and Owen) in Season One; in Season Four he was not jealous of Riley. I find it hard to believe that Xander, at 16, was "in love" with Buffy after meeting her a few weeks earlier. In lust, certainly. By contrast, I think it is clear that Xander loves (although is not in love with) Buffy in Season Four. So in the early seasons, jealousy accompanies lust, not love, while in the later seasons, Xander loves Buffy but is not jealous of her.

As for Xander and Anya, I recall Xander being terribly jealous when he saw Spike having sex with Anya -- was he still in love with Anya at the time? Or with Buffy? Then there's Katrina, who was insanely jealous of both Buffy and April -- was she, then, really "in love" with Warren?

Certainly, I think there are times when love and jealousy have a strong correlation -- Spike's jealousy of Angelus/Dru seems to indicate some affection for Dru, just as Willow's jealously over Faith/Xander indicates she hasn't fully committed herself to Oz (even though she's apparently happily dating Oz at the time). We've even seen Buffy insecure (and probably a little jealous) about Dru, when she found out Angelus had dated her. But to say she's jealous, therefore, in love, is a stretch. The context has to be considered. Now, we've seen Buffy in love before -- with Angel and with Riley. Her behavior with them is very different from her behavior with Spike. Buffy's Season Six fling with Spike was not about love (though there was some jealousy) -- it was about hate. Her Season Six non-romance with Spike was fueled by guilt.

So rather than saying jealousy implies guilt, the best you can say (and be supported by the evidence) is that there exist some jealous people who are in love. But knowing that a particular person is jealous says nothing about whether they are in love.

[> [> [> [> Re: Why Do You Have a Hard Time? -- Dlgood, 11:16:06 10/07/03 Tue

No. I judge Buffy based upon her actions around Spike.

If she's obviously in love with Spike in S7, why doesn't she seem to feel happiness and joy in his presence? Why is she basking happily in the presence of men who are not Spike, but not basking happily in the presence of Spike? Why is she so embarassed or abashed that she can't openly tell people that she loves him? Perhaps, because she doesn't love him enough to be happy when he's near. Perhaps, because she doesn't love him enough to tell people that she loves him, even if they wouldn't approve.

Are you saying that only impetuous teenagers are happy to be around people they love, and that only impetuous teenagers openly express love when others might disapprove. And that Buffy telling Spike not to leave because she loved him, (rather than because she was not ready for him to leave), or Buffy being happy around Spike would constitute character regression - rather than serving as an example that Buffy has finally accepted loving Spike? (As you wanted to be the case.)

Or are you saying that Buffy is now such a frigid person, that her tepid and lukewarm expressions of affection are the best she has to offer Spike, despite being "obviously in love" with Spike. And therefore, Buffy actually being happy must be "character regression" rather than Buffy merely progressing beyond her depression to find happiness.

Personally, where you see Buffy as "obviously in love with Spike" , I see quite a bit of ambivalence on her part. How do you account for that?

[> [> [> [> [> Buffy thawed awfully quickly -- Diana, 11:38:22 10/07/03 Tue

at the end of "End of Days." She had no problems rushing up to Angel to show him how happy she was to see him. Nor did she have any trouble basking in his presence in "Chosen." Seeing Happy Buffy for a change was made that much better by seeing the even rarer Happy Angel.

I agree completely with you DL and wonder why you are engaging in someone who isn't interested in actual discourse, answers only the questions she wishes to, continually responds by asking leading questions and has engaged in behavior that can only be classified as trollish.

Then again, you are probably really bored, just like me and looking for something to do. So what do you want to talk about? How about that Mayor?

[> [> [> [> The Burden of Proof... -- Rook, 14:53:37 10/07/03 Tue

...is on the positive claimant.

If you are asserting that Buffy was in love with Spike, it's up to you to prove it if you wish us to believe it.

[> [> I don't know -- Diana, 08:23:04 10/07/03 Tue

Clarisse may fall in love with Hannibal, but after 5 years of feminist under and overtones, I just can't fathom Joss degrading his hero this way. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps Joss wrote the entire series to empower the blond girl in the alley with the goal of having her fall in love with a serial killer. Good bone structure and a bleach job. That is the key to Buffy's heart. She doesn't care about such piddly things as compassion and helping others. All she wants is a really good lay.

[> [> [> Sometimes... -- deeva, 09:16:12 10/07/03 Tue

a really good lay is what is needed. At least that's what a bit of S6 was about. A connectiont hat she wasn't getting anywhere or from anyone else. Then you go from there. Not saying that that was in anyway an ideal "relationship" but it was 2 people connecting albeit one was more invested than the other.

The debate of love or supposed love is such a subjective one, that it makes me feel it's not worth hashing over. Everyone has their opinions. One is not less than the other.

[> [> [> Re: I don't know -- Claudia, 10:31:43 10/07/03 Tue

[Clarisse may fall in love with Hannibal, but after 5 years of feminist under and overtones, I just can't fathom Joss degrading his hero this way. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps Joss wrote the entire series to empower the blond girl in the alley with the goal of having her fall in love with a serial killer.]

Degrading the character? What do you mean by that? Does that mean you've been against the idea of Buffy being in love with Angel, as well?

[> [> [> [> Just a question -- Diana, 10:44:44 10/07/03 Tue

Are you really this clueless or are you just trying to stir up trouble?

If it is the former, I suggest posing a few respectful questions that don't just assert your opinion and try to trap your "opponent." If you are interested in the Socratic Method, I'm sure there are some people on this board that would be more than willing to give you a real demonstration. If it is the latter, I respectfully request that you stop finger painting all over Masq's efforts.

[> [> [> [> [> Clueless? -- Claudia, 11:23:32 10/07/03 Tue

[Are you really this clueless or are you just trying to stir up trouble?]

What do you mean by me being clueless? Clueless about what? I'm trying to understand why so many believe that they need obvious evidence that Buffy loved Spike, considering her personality. Also, you meantioned something about the impossibility of Buffy being in love with a "serial killer". I can't understand why you compare Spike to a serial killer, without doing the same with Angel. I mean, if it is impossible for Buffy to be in love with a "serial killer", wouldn't that imply both Spike and Angel?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Depends if we're talking with or with out souls -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:34:20 10/07/03 Tue

Cause that brings up murky issues about identity and responsibility for unsouled actions.

[> [> [> [> Claudia: Relevant how? -- Dlgood, 10:50:13 10/07/03 Tue

Degrading the character? What do you mean by that? Does that mean you've been against the idea of Buffy being in love with Angel, as well?
How is that relevant to your claim that Buffy is in love with Spike?

Let's presume for a moment that Buffy was in love with Angel before he lost his soul, and still in love with Angel when he regained it - as Whedon has stated. Buffy made clear that she forgave Angel for the time period when he lost his soul. His period of soullessness, and the violence he committed (according to Whedon) weren't necessary for her to love him.

You're arguing that Buffy is in love with Spike, who was an unrepentant mass-murderer when the relationship began, during which time she stated unequivocally that she did not love him. And whom she rejected. Did you believe she was in love with him then, even though her denials were firm, repeated over months, and unequivocal. Or is Spike's sexual assault on Buffy, and the resulting reformation, what you believe caused Buffy to fall in love with him?

In either case, prior to Spike sexually assaulting her, Buffy will not acknowledge loving Spike. If so, I could see how the notion that it was necessary for Spike to sexually assault her before she could love him or admit to loving him, to be very degrading to the characacter, and a betrayal of the feminist theme.

[> [> [> [> [> Ask Diana -- Claudia, 11:28:27 10/07/03 Tue

[Degrading the character? What do you mean by that? Does that mean you've been against the idea of Buffy being in love with Angel, as well?
How is that relevant to your claim that Buffy is in love with Spike?]

Check out Diana's comment when she compared Clarice/Hannibal to Buffy/Spike. I mean, if she's going to compare Spike to a "serial killer", shouldn't she do the same with Angel? And wasn't Buffy in love with Angel, as well?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Still ducking, Claudia -- Dlgood, 11:59:17 10/07/03 Tue

In either case, prior to Spike sexually assaulting her, Buffy will not acknowledge loving Spike. If so, I could see how the notion that it was necessary for Spike to sexually assault her before she could love him or admit to loving him, to be very degrading to the characacter, and a betrayal of the feminist theme.
I'll repeat. Claudia, you seem quite insistent that Buffy is in love with Spike, and presumably that this is a wonderful thing, and in now way degrades Buffy or betrays Whedon's feminist theme.

Even if one were grant you the point that Buffy loving Angel was degrading and "un-feminist", you have not addressed the primary issue. Namely Buffy's relationship with Spike. Refutation of Diana is still no support for your argument.

What is "obvious" to you might not be obvious to other people. Including the creator of the series, and the actors he directed to play the roles in question.

Seeing as you are of the opinion that Buffy is in love with Spike and that this is not degrading or a betrayal of the feminist theme Whedon set forth in commentary on the series, despite Whedon's statement that Buffy is not in love with Spike, then the burden is still upon you to supply logical argumentation to back up your claim.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Still ducking, Claudia -- RJA, 12:05:58 10/07/03 Tue

I'm just curious as to why Buffy loving Spike is degrading and contrary to the feminist theme Whedon established. I can understand why it might be, but there seems to be the automatic assumption that it automatically is.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> If what you say here is accurate... -- LittleBit, 12:35:52 10/07/03 Tue

Then you answered your own question. If you can understand why it might be then you aren't curious as to why Buffy loving Spike is degrading and contrary to the feminist theme. What is seems you really want to know is why there's an automatic assumption that it is...and in addition why those blind fools who watch the show can't clearly see that Buffy is deeply, madly, insanely in love with Spike, even if she is completely and utterly unable to put even the smallest smidgeon of that incredible and abiding love into words. It's because we're all fools, Claudia. There's absolutely no other explanation for it. We see her with Spike, repeating over and over that she doesn't even like him, while coming back night after night for sex, amazing, violent, sweaty-bodied sex, and refusing even to have a conversation with him afterward as an indication to our unobserving minds that she perhaps likes the sex but not the guy all that much. He clearly loves her and she clearly loves him without reservation (oh, wait, with lots of reservations all related to her inability to express her feelings about him to any of her friends or even to appear to enjoy his company when they're alone but none at all in the love of him area) in that undying manner (or undead as it may be) of all true epic romances. I'm glad you've made me see that. I have been mistook in my judgements. Perhaps next time I think it is more complicated than it appears, I will forcibly put down that sentiment and just accept that this is the way it is, no questions or exploration possible.

(p.s. I happen to like Spike, and like Buffy (and Angel, for that matter) and have no particular ships on either show, unless you count Wes/Bit, and I do -- so my opinion here might be considered, you know, worth considering. I can see the appeal of the Spike/Buffy relationship -- but that doesn't mean I have to accept it as being the end-all and be-all of my viewing experience.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: If what you say here is accurate... -- RJA, 12:40:12 10/07/03 Tue

Well no, I can see why it might be considered degading depending on the interpretation of what happened. That doesnt mean to say I see that it is degrading and contrary, or why it always has to be. So I was looking for a bigger explanation.

The rest I can only assume isnt aimed at me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: If what you say here is accurate... -- LittleBit, 12:58:30 10/07/03 Tue

Sorry, RJA. No it wasn't. I meant to split the post after I wrote it. I hate RL distractions.

My apologies.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: If what you say here is accurate... -- RJA, 13:02:34 10/07/03 Tue

Thats cool. I can understand how RL and the boards can interface!

And I want to make my question a little less snide, in that I disagree with the notion that because Buffy loved Spike (if in fact she did) it somehow degraded her. But thats from my interpretation of what happened over the last year. I was just curious as to the interpretation that made it degrading - I didnt want to challenge an argument before it was made :-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ships -- Rufus, 18:14:23 10/07/03 Tue

(p.s. I happen to like Spike, and like Buffy (and Angel, for that matter) and have no particular ships on either show, unless you count Wes/Bit, and I do -- so my opinion here might be considered, you know, worth considering. I can see the appeal of the Spike/Buffy relationship -- but that doesn't mean I have to accept it as being the end-all and be-all of my viewing experience.)

Me too......of course I like Wesley but not enough to have a ship with him...I'm holding out for the Rufus/Wood ship. As for any other ship....who cares, cause it's all about ME ME ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!;):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):):)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Scene in "Chosen" -- angel's nibblet, 00:05:30 10/08/03 Wed

I watched the scene near the end of "Chosen" about a hundred times over to try to see objectively what her real feelings are, and it's pretty much all there, the way she hesitates, the way it kinda sounds like a question. My main impression was that she was testing his reaction to the words, that she was only saying it because she knew it was what he wanted to hear. She certainly did care about him and did not want him to die, but she (in my opinion) was not in love wiht him.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not Going to Agree -- Claudia, 12:17:41 10/07/03 Tue

[I'll repeat. Claudia, you seem quite insistent that Buffy is in love with Spike, and presumably that this is a wonderful thing, and in now way degrades Buffy or betrays Whedon's feminist theme.]

I'm not ducking on this issue. How can Buffy's feelings for Spike - especially in Season 7, degrade Buffy or Whedon's feminist themes? If you're going to bring up Spike's attempted rape of Buffy in Season 6, you might as well bring up the fact that Buffy came close to attempted rape in "Gone". Only Spike's consent to finally have sex saved her from that label. But you can't excuse her using him as a sex toy during that same period. Yes, Spike consented to let her use him. But not even his consent can dispel the fact that what she had done to him was wrong. And while we're on the subject of wrongs - why would Buffy even allow Willow back into her circle after what the latter had done in Season 6? Mind rape. Murder. Attempted to end the world. She forgave Willow and I saw no reason why Buffy and Spike could learn to forgive each other and forge a new kind of relationship, one that involves romance.

Is the attempted rape the reason why you believe that Buffy could never love Spike? Or do you feel that Buffy should only love Angel? Mind you, this is the same Angel who had stalked her, nearly killed her, and killed Jenny Calendar in Season 2 (if Spike can be condemned for his souless actions, so can Angel).

So how can you even condemn or dismiss the possibility of Buffy being in love with Spike, based on what happened between them in Season 6; and accept her being in love with Angel and her forgiveness of Willow?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Did you even read? -- Dlgood, 12:49:23 10/07/03 Tue

I'm not ducking on this issue. How can Buffy's feelings for Spike - especially in Season 7, degrade Buffy or Whedon's feminist themes? If you're going to bring up Spike's attempted rape of Buffy in Season 6, you might as well bring up the fact that Buffy came close to attempted rape in "Gone".
Acutally, I have no need to do that. I'm not claiming that Spike is or is not in love with Buffy. I'm not claiming that Spike loving Buffy is degrading to Spike. It may or may not be, but I'm not even talking about that issue.

But, it's notable that Buffy directly states that she does not love or trust Spike when he is soulless. And you argue that she does love and trust Spike by the end of the series. And it seems, Buffy would not have been able to express this to Spike if he had not gotten a soul - which he would not have done if he had not sexually assaulted her.

In order for Buffy to express the love and trust for Spike, that you claim she feels, (because she denies both beforehand) Spike has to sexually assault her. In every other case you stated, the expressions of love and trust occured before the violation. In this case, Buffy strenously denies that she loves and trusts Spike before he sexually assaults her. Therefore, there is a different hurdle to clear than in those prior cases.

"Sometimes you have to be raped into to feeling or admitting love." Is that really a message that does not degrade Buffy or Whedon's feminist theme?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The point is... -- LittleBit, 12:55:36 10/07/03 Tue

Angel was condemned for his soulless actions. If I recall correctly, Buffy sent him to a hell dimension in which he would be tortured horribly because he went there ensouled with no actual hope of ever returning...and ended up being there for the equivalent of about a century. Fairly strong condemnation in my opinion. And to my knowledge, there hasn't been anyone (at least on this board) who didn't think his actions as Angelus were deplorable.

But in that case, only the Season 7 relationships should be considered. And here, I will agree that Buffy came to love Spike. But it was not a romantic love. It is entirely possible to love someone, quite deeply, as a friend, a confidant, a comfortador if you will, and still not be 'in love' in the romantic sense. Buffy loves Xander in this manner. And, yes, I believe there is evidence she still loves Angel. But before we even consider the Season 1 through Season 3 Buffy/Angel 'great tragic love' I want to say that I thought it was unrealistic as a lasting relationship. I honestly had my first belief that there might be a chance for them in "Chosen" when Angel accepted Buffy as a equal. She told him what she needed him to do and he accepted it without much question, just enough to see why she made the decision. I also think Buffy made it clear at that point that she wasn't currently 'in love' with anyone right then. Her loves at that point in her life were deep friendships, with a select few, and Dawn, her sister.

Just my opinion.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The point is... -- Dlgood, 13:28:17 10/07/03 Tue

On this score I tend to agree. I'm not of the mind to conclude, conclusively that Buffy had yet met the person (male or female) that she would be in love with for the rest of her life, so to speak.

Based upon the way she had interacted with her various love interests from S1-7, taken as a whole, I think do think that Buffy considered Angel as a possibility. Even after S7, I don't think she'd seen Spike in that light.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The point is... -- Claudia, 15:47:17 10/07/03 Tue

[Based upon the way she had interacted with her various love interests from S1-7, taken as a whole, I think do think that Buffy considered Angel as a possibility. Even after S7, I don't think she'd seen Spike in that light.]

The problem with your argument is that even Whedon has confirmed that Buffy and Spike had developed a romantic relationship (without sex, so far) in Season 7.

So, in the end, we have Buffy probably considering a relationship with either Angel or Spike. She just might end up with someone else.

What I'm trying to get at is that so many people do not want to even consider the possibilty of Buffy not only being in love with Angel, but also with Spike. I believe that is the message that Whedon was giving in the finale. But if you want to believe that Buffy never loved Spike in the romantic sense - that is your perogative. I'll stick to my opinion.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The point is... -- Athena, 00:07:19 10/09/03 Thu

"But if you want to believe that Buffy never loved Spike in the romantic sense - that is your perogative. I'll stick to my opinion."


Okay, I get that. I myself am a shipper, but by bringing the subject of a ship up, you've got to realize people are going to argue in the opposite direction. Best to avoid getting into the subject if you're not prepared for this.

"Whedon has confirmed that Buffy and Spike had developed a romantic relationship (without sex, so far) in Season 7."

I don't doubt that there was romantic tensions between the characters, but I also believe Buffy loved Riley. I also believe she was attracted to him. That doesn't mean the love is the right kind to make the relationship work. I have that sort of feelings towards one of my friends. Maybe it will change, but as of yet it isn't there.

I don't think it is degrading to Buffy for her to love Spike. I do think it takes away from Spike's actions though. Part of what made me so proud of him was he sacrificed himself without hoping to gain anything. He didn't get the girl; instead, he got himself. By acknowledging that she didn't love him and still giving up his life, he gained a selflessness.

[> [> [> Re: I don't know -- Rufus, 16:40:25 10/07/03 Tue

Clarisse may fall in love with Hannibal, but after 5 years of feminist under and overtones, I just can't fathom Joss degrading his hero this way. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps Joss wrote the entire series to empower the blond girl in the alley with the goal of having her fall in love with a serial killer. Good bone structure and a bleach job. That is the key to Buffy's heart. She doesn't care about such piddly things as compassion and helping others. All she wants is a really good lay.

Vampires are metaphors, not metaphors for serial killers either. Hannibal was written as a representation of a human situation where a soul nor the existance of vampires is a reality. There is a distinct difference between a soulled and unsoulled vampire except in the one situation in Helpless where a serial killer became a vampire and was shunned because he couldn't lose his former identity with was that of a serial killer. If he had a soul returned he wouldn't change he would still kill. Serial killers don't change, the inclusion of a soul in a vampire can cause a distinct change.

I can see that the shipper fights are beginning and the arguements become absurd after awhile. As far as I'm concerned why don't they dust both vampires and let the Powers the Be sort them out......;)

Xander vs Fred -- JBone, 05:54:08 10/07/03 Tue

I've got like, two minutes.


Re: Xander vs Fred -- Celebaelin, 06:51:47 10/07/03 Tue

It's on a knife edge, which makes me all the more uncertain about leaving Xander out to dry. I'm sorry X man but it's true I've sold you out in an attempt to provide a definitive answer to a problem of 68 years standing. Fred sweetheart I've got this idea forming about the derivation of Higbie's Penetration Theory in its' final form in the original paper from the Stokes-Einstein equation (via Dankwert's Surface Renewal Theory obviously) with relation to bubble rise velocity, any thoughts? Gimme a T for Texas.

[> wow, that was amazing -- Seven, 20:27:13 10/07/03 Tue

Celebaelin, that was art with words. I'm not sure why, but the run-on craziness is interesting for some reason. It's almost poetry. Actually, it is.

[> [> Technical strangeness for the technically, if not genuinely, strange -- Celebaelin, 05:01:40 10/08/03 Wed

Thanks,amongst my stranger obsessions I would certainly say that a pre-occupation with the fact that Higbie's Penetration Theory is seemingly not well understood looms large. When it is cited at all, which is no-where near often enough, the reference given is usually incorrect. Similarly there is often a further integration associated with the final equation as it appears in the original paper to give rate of transfer rather than KLa.

The te component is exposure time and seems to be integrated with respect to time to get to the form of the equation on page 381. Assuming the exposure time can be deduced (by eg radio pulse labelling) that would seem to me to be a done deal. I am honour bound to point out that there is an assumption that the fluid film is semi-infinite and perfectly spherical.


Now if it's poetry you want...

There was a young lady from Bude
Who went for a swim in a pond
A man in a punt
Stuck his pole up her nose
And said you can't swim here it's private

Or maybe something I've always considered poetry

Ain't No Good Life
Steve Gaines
Lynyrd Skynyrd Street Survivors (1977)

Ain't no good life
Not the one that I lead
'Cos the more I fight the sadness yeah
It only seems the more that I grieve
Well I look back on the good times
As some lost part of me
I want to know
Tell me why is it so
Well just 'cos I don't pray
That don't mean I ain't forgiven
Just 'cos I'm alive
That don't mean I'm makin' a livin'

I'm gonna get myself together
I'm gonna try or die in an attempt
Talkin' 'bout the good times slippin' by
Yeah I tell you now
I don't even know where last month went
Well I can't make no money baby
Well 'cos my money's already spent
And I know where it went
I said it went on that damn rent
Well I don't need change
Baby I need folding money
Well I want a lover
I don't need a buddy
Well I don't need nobody


Ah It ain't exactly my idea yeah
It's sort of old borrowed and blue
I'm just tryin' to say don't try that straight life buddy
Well you'll find it kinda hard on you
Well but don't try to cook nothin' up
Brother you'll only wind up in your own stew
Just don't let nobody tell you
Oh what you oughta do


Re: Xander vs Fred -- MaeveRigan, 07:02:55 10/07/03 Tue

I'd just love to see these two meet. Over coffee--which in Xander's case would be hot chocolate, while Fred's caffeine-level nearly vibrates her into the next dimension. I know the scenario's been overdone, but I think they're perfect for each other. Fred's surrounded by brainy, semi-evil guys now. She really needs some funny, heartfelt goodness, someone with real courage who can also appreciate country music--"the music of pain" ("Prophecy Girl"). Now, some people would see this as a win for Fred, but since Xander's recovering from losing Anya, I'm calling it a win for Xander. And besides, he's the underdog.

Love Fred to bits, but I'm voting for Xander. Why, you ask? -- cjl, 07:19:04 10/07/03 Tue

BECAUSE. (Okay?)

[> Works for me. Go Team X! -- Ponygirl, 07:35:00 10/07/03 Tue

Re: Xander vs Fred -- Apophis, 08:36:03 10/07/03 Tue

I'm gonna be honest: I can't think of a reason for Xander to beat Fred (at least, I can't think of one that doesn't involve horrible, out-of-character violence on Xander's part). I still voted for him, though, because Xander is a survivor. He's taken everything the Hellmouth could throw at him, all without the aid of magic powers or even, on some occasions, common sense. Ergo, I figure Xander can think of a way to survive whatever Fred invents to beat him and pull through with a victory. Plus, as I've said before, ain't a woman alive what can resist his jaunty eye-patch.

The Everyman vs. the former Pylean cowgirl -- deeva, 09:04:38 10/07/03 Tue

Despite being surrounded by strong girls and women for the last 7 years, Xander will severely underestimate the waifishness of the wide-eyed big brained one. Despite his commando "experience" I see this match-up being similar to his "fight" with Harmony. Smackdown indeed. Fred will probably end up using whatever weapon he had to knock him down.

C'mon, ya gotta be kidding me! -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:27:52 10/07/03 Tue

I just will not believe that Fred has enough of a fanbase to let her beat Xander unless some people are voting more than once. Not no way, not no how.

[> I agree. -- Apophis, 19:05:17 10/07/03 Tue

If Fred wins, I think some people need to hang their heads in shame. And never wear white again.

[> Much as I hate to say this, guys.... -- cjl, 21:41:45 10/07/03 Tue

57 votes is an absolutely dead average Road to the Apocalypse voting total. I bow to no man in my support of Xander, but even I can see the writing on the wall. The Texas Twig won it fair and square. (Can't freakin' believe it, but it's all there in red and white.)


Friday's contest between Angel and Spike? If I were you JBone, I'd implement the "e-mail only" voting RIGHT NOW. Given the 70(!) votes Spike got in the last round, I can smell a ballot box stuffing a mile away.

[> [> remember what you said about "epic" the 1st time fred beat a btvs character? -- anom, 23:18:40 10/07/03 Tue

I think you can make it stick this time. I don't think even shadowkat can make a case against this one (not that I presume to speak for her).

[> [> [> OK, then--this is EPIC! -- cjl, 08:26:46 10/08/03 Wed

Fred beat one of the core four. This is real "passing of the torch" kind of moment. If our Winifred can stand toe-to-toe with Buffy in the semis, then we'll know there's been a real sea change in Whedonverse fandom.

[> White is overrated. -- deeva ;o), 23:23:06 10/07/03 Tue

The dry cleaning bills are nothing to sneeze at either.

Re: Xander vs Fred -- skpe, 19:30:27 10/07/03 Tue

Fred beat Wesely and Wesely could beat the stuffing out of the one eyed x-man. therefor by the process of simple logic Fred beats Xander

Willow vs Giles -- JBone, 20:10:25 10/07/03 Tue

You're a very stupid girl.


Another great matchup. I have no idea how this one will turn out. Post comments here, at the voting site or email me.

This was actually hard for me. -- Apophis, 21:02:27 10/07/03 Tue

But, after much soul searching and a conversation with several major religious leaders of my area, I chose to vote for Giles. Maybe it was because he was one of the many neglected characters last season. Maybe it was my respect for people who are quote "hardcore" unquote. Maybe it's because everyone I pick lately has been losing and I'm using reverse psychology so Willow will win. Whatever it is, I voted for Giles and I hope he wins... unless the third thing I said is true; in that case, I don't mean it... or maybe I do... Whatever the case may be, here's how Giles would win: First, he'd just stare at Willow. Then, Willow would wet her pants and flee in shame. Just like a fairy tale.

Age Before Beauty -- cjl, 21:30:42 10/07/03 Tue

Although I know a lot of women out there would argue that Giles has the "beauty" part covered as well. Much as I adore my red-headed witch, Giles out-maneuvered her twice at the end of Season 6, and he must be given credit for pushing our wounded little bird out of his nest and back into the action at the start of S7. The disastrous characterizations of mid- to late-S7 (pod Giles and mojophobic Willow) cancel each other out. Willow could still learn a lot from the man. Giles wins.

Wicca vs. Watcher -- deeva, 23:21:01 10/07/03 Tue

No matter how much either one may be an "ex" of either category, they are still themselves. We've never really seen that side of Giles that was Ripper. Is it because he's carefully tucked away, hidden? Or is it becasue he's always really there? More carefully integrated than we could've guessed? Only allowed out when the situation calls for it. Admittedly he's become more like scenery in S7 but that's just quibbling. Willow meanwhile, prefers almost to deal with her evil self by not dealing with it. She can't handle it. She loses it, literally, and Giles steps in and Ripper steps out.

Re: Willow vs Giles -- Celebaelin, 05:19:05 10/08/03 Wed

Actually it was the seventies when Giles learnt the wiles necessary to beat Willow (sniff). Out of a sense of duty and self-preservation Giles steps up to the mark and prevents the Wicca from becoming a basket case. If nothing else playing the Bay City Rollers at her should have her begging for mercy within minutes.

Nobody messes with my Willow -- MaeveRigan, 06:13:58 10/08/03 Wed

Yes, this was hard. But ultimately, I had to go with Willow, because--well--she's Willow. I am not among those who think she hasn't suffered enough for going dark and trying to kill her friends and destroy the world. Hello--lost her true love; endless remorse, and months of rehabilitation (in England and continuing in season 7 Sunnydale). Those who think Willow has forgotten what she went through, or the sacrifices her friends made to bring her back, have been watching some other show...possibly Charmed. I could write an essay, but this isn't the place.

I adore Giles, but his work is done and he knows it. These two aren't going to fight. They enter the ring, bow, Giles hands the Big Book of Magick to Willow (the White), and steps out again, conceding that she is no longer a "rank, arrogant amateur," but has reached maturity and now, truly, surpassed her teacher.

Giles, I'm sorry man,... -- BMF, 07:18:27 10/08/03 Wed

but your time here is through. You enter the ring and await a rematch with the Dark One - and much to your surprise, she doesn't show up. Being a smart Watcher, you brought the latest edition of the Watchers' Diaries and start reading. After a few hours, you finally get sick of waiting and decide to leave.
Then you notice the glow from under the door. Gingerly opening it, and prepared for the worst, you find yourself confronted with Willow in full apotheosis. Forget Gandalf, this White Witch is the real deal. She's been waiting for you, unable to enter the ring out of respect for what you've done for her but equally unable to leave, as she knows she has surpased you. Taken aback by the power and emotion of this moment, you congratulate her and leave feeling overjoyed at her transcendence of her own dark power. No blood or violence here, just the changing of the guard from one master to another.

So far, this is surprisingly easy for Ripper. -- Jay, 17:03:45 10/08/03 Wed

Giles has a comfortable 26 to 18 lead over Willow with about 3 hours to go.

Re: Willow vs Giles -- Malandanza, 18:38:56 10/08/03 Wed

I went with Willow on this one -- don't get me wrong, I know Giles got the better of her last time around, and likely would have the ruthlessness to her down and the plan to make it happen. But Willow has a secret weapon -- dumb, blind luck. Her never-ending supply of get-out-of-jail-free cards. No matter how badly she behaves, how many problems she causes, how much destruction she creates, she can stand there in the smoking ruins of other people's lives with the innocent expression of a clueless ingenue and lisp out her half-apology to Giles' heirs.

Vamp lore question (extremely mild spoiler Angel S5.1) -- Philistine, 21:50:20 10/08/03 Wed

We've been told repeatedly, ever since Buffy Season One, that you can't kill vampires with guns. One particular scene in "Conviction" got me to wondering about that.

Also in Buffy Season One, all the way back to "Harvest," we were told that you can kill vampires by decapitation, and we even saw it in action toward the end of that episode. So - and here's where my train of thought went off the track deep in Creepy Morbid Land - could a shotgun blast at close range do enough damage to actually sever a human (or vampire) head? If so, then wouldn't that mean that it is possible to kill a vampire with a gun, after all?

No heart, no head...pretty much equals dusty vamp.....;) -- Rufus, 22:33:47 10/08/03 Wed

I thought the same thing.....people should fear us....:):):)

[> Do you mean be scared you or show you the appropriate reverence and awe? -- Diana, 08:04:13 10/09/03 Thu

I think the idea is the bullet won't kill them but the damage it can do would, ie. head blown off -- Mackenzie, 08:47:57 10/09/03 Thu


Angel 5.2 and what horrible movie it reminded me of. -- neaux, 05:08:32 10/09/03 Thu

This is not a knock on last night's Angel episode. But since this was a show about Vampires and Necromancers.. it unfortunately brought back many tears of pain to a movie that I unfortunately own on DVD.

Vampire Hunters

If you want to see the WORST Vampire movie ever told... with subpar kungfu and a necromancer that makes the dead hop around pointlessly.. go rent this movie.

Re: Angel 5.2 and what horrible movie it reminded me of. -- Cynicor, 18:08:13 10/09/03 Thu

Have to agree with you, one of the lamest movies I have seen in recent history.

Word to the wise though: the zombies hop around in the movie not because the director thought hopping people with bags over their heads is scary, but because that's what zombies in Chinese mythology are supposed to do. Still, no excuses right? The movie sucked.

Spoon! and other random words (not spoilery) -- Ponygirl, 07:13:27 10/09/03 Thu

Since I have no time no time this morning I just have a few random words from last night:

Control! Mercy! Beefcake! And Spoon ('cause it's worth saying twice for Tick fans)!

Re: Spoon! and other random words (not spoilery) -- skpe, 07:22:10 10/09/03 Thu

As an LA resident I allso liked "Hell? No this is LA, people often make that mistake."

Re: Spoon! and other random words (not spoilery) -- pellenaka, 07:36:31 10/09/03 Thu

And it sounded like Lorne had seen Pirates Of The Caribbean.(-:

Ah, the randomness of it all. (spoilers for 5.2) -- deeva, 08:49:49 10/09/03 Thu

An ally. "No memory at all. Thanks for asking." Angel's lack of telling stuff. Spike in Angel's bedroom. Grandsire!

[> And, and Lion King reference! -- deeva, 10:46:42 10/09/03 Thu

Circle of Death. Simba you must go forth and lead. It is your duty and birth right. ;o)

"Just Rewards" (5.02) Review -- Claudia, 08:37:40 10/09/03 Thu

Excellent episode! An improvement over last week's premiere.

The interaction between Angel and Spike were dead on. Fantastic! Someone stated that Spike's character seemed to have regressed. Of course, you have to understand from his POV that a) he's dealing with Angel; b) his death didn't go off as planned, hence his anger and frustration at TPTB; c) despite his "regression" and dislike of Angel, he helped his grandsire overcome the necromancer anyway. James Marsters' performance was fantastic, although there were moments when he seemed to overdo it a little. However, his last scene with Amy Ackers was great, as he brought out Spike's pathos and fear of being permanently stuck in a hell dimension. As for a possible Spike/Fred romance I don't see it. Given time, however, they have the potential to be good friends.

David Boreneanz was also great. It seemed as if working with Marsters has brought out the best in him. I had no idea that Angel had so many issues regarding Spike. I guess it would have been a lot easier for him to believe that the Bleached Wonder had not changed. It's interesting that he had failed to inform the AI team of Spike and Buffy's relationship, Spike's soul and the fact that the latter had saved the world. Hmmm, resentment anyone? It seems as if both Angel and Spike have major issues that need to be resolved between them. And the first issue they both need to get over is Buffy. Drusilla would be the second.

I have also heard people complain that Wes, Fred and Lorne were not seen much in this episode. Well, I cannot deny that, although it looks as if ME is establishing a friendship between Spike and Fred. However, did anyone notice that Gunn did not seem to be suffering from a lack of scenes? In fact, if I did not know any better, I would swear that he seemed to be slowly assuming Wes' role as Angel's "Prime Minister".

As for Harmony, she did not bother me one bit. I have always liked Harmony. Quite frankly, she is a lot of fun to watch. And I really enjoyed her reaction to the news about Spike's relationship with Buffy. Hmmm, jealous much? Poor Harmony. Even after shooting Spike in the back with an arrow and declaring her emotional independence (see BtVS' "Crush"), she still has not gotten over him.

Magnus Hainsley, played by Victor Raider-Wexler, was deliciously creepy. And powerful. I wonder how he would do against Willow? I also wonder how many of his previous clients are now walking the streets of L.A. By the way, did anyone recognize Raider-Wexler from the AMC series, "The Lot"?

All in all, this was an entertaining episode. I'm curious to see what next week will bring.

Re: "Just Rewards" (5.02) Review -- Athena, 09:14:53 10/09/03 Thu

Yeah, I definitely see Buffy issues colouring the air between Angel and Spike. I think a lot of their behaviour is influenced by that. True, there are other factors, but all things considered Angel and Darla got along better.

I'm not particulary annoyed at the lack of Wes, Fred and Lorne, since I think this episode was used to mesh Spike into the group. As for Gunn, he seems really happy being the newest lawyer on the block. He's always been the helper: not particulary good in the research department and not as good at fighting as Angel. Now, he's in a situation where he has something none of the others have and the Fang Gang needs and its easy to understand how it makes him feel.

On a much more negative note....(spoilers Just Rewards) -- pellenaka, 09:51:56 10/09/03 Thu

After my first watching of Just Rewards, I was almost ready to spoil myself rotten just to see if this crap continues and whether I should stop watching. I've just gotten a new entry on my mental 'worst episode' list. I was so depressed and mad. Seriously, I felt really bad, my stomach hurt and I jsut felt like crying. I just felt...cheated or something.

After calming down and re-watching, things are looking a little brighter but not a lot.

I still feel that the funniest parts of this was seeing the wires on the stunt guys in the fight between Angel and the demon, the instructions to the computer guys in the 'from body to body scene' and the voice saying Angel's line before Spike appeared.

The wax museum of living people (who were both moving and blinking) should have been used more.
James looked really old and out of character. I saw that 'random rants' right after this and he looked so much younger with (I believe) less makeup.
There wasn't really any unpredictable things - I predicted that the thing Gunn told Angel they could do to the necromancer was something dull like economy, that the necromancer would appear at the Sunnydale-like cemetery and that he would move Spike to Angel's body.
Spike a ghost? Why? That is one of the most ridiculous things ever. Was this the only way they could get him to stay around? Well, I'd much rather have Spike resting in peace than on Angel in this state.
And he might be evil (with the soul?) or bad or whatever but why not make him just a little bit of likable?
I don't want to listen to more Gunn law-talking shit. It's not a law-show. Yet.
The last scene was kinda nice but ran on for way too long.
Wesley didn't really get anything to do. Poor AD.
There was no Knox. Just a peek of him would have been a big light in this darkness that was Just Rewards.
I found all of the 'Angel picking on Spike' and 'Spike picking on Angel' jokes to be predictable and bad bad bad.
The fun thing is that is was originally Spike who got me into the Buffyverse and he now might be the one to get me out of it.
Before this, I always tried to find the the positive things in the episodes but this was too tough a task.

Green light for full season of Angel -- Cheryl, 08:49:37 10/09/03 Thu

I didn't even know there was a chance of only half a season!

From TV Guide:

THIS DOESN'T BITE: The WB has given the green light to a full season of Angel, which has performed well on Wednesdays. According to Variety, the Frog network had an option to cut back to 13 episodes if the show tanked. In related news, ex-Buffy the Vampire Slayer scribe Doug Petrie is developing a contemporary take on Lost in Space for the WB.

I don't get it -- Gyrus, 08:54:14 10/09/03 Thu

If ANGEL is doing well, why does the network seem to be constantly toying with the idea of doing away with it? Is the expense of the show so high that it offsets the value of the ratings it gets?

[> Re: I don't get it -- Claudia, 09:05:15 10/09/03 Thu

I don't know. Or maybe the WB are more intersted in shows like CHARMED that attract younger viewers.

[> [> Re: I don't get it -- Ike, 16:00:52 10/09/03 Thu

Yes, "Angel" is expensive to produce. Many fantasy and sci-fi shows are shot in Canada (Smallville, Stargate SG-1) or Australia (my beloved cancelled Farscape) or New Zealand (Hercules, Xena) to offset their big budgets for effects, makeup, fight scenes, etc., but "Angel" is shot in L.A. The WB has severely curtailed the show's budget this season which is probably why they had to get rid of Charisma Carpenter (big salary after 7 years on two Buffyverse shows).

I don't know if "Charmed" gets younger viewers than Angel, though. I don't think so. The up side for "Angel" is that it gets higher ratings among males 12-34 than any other WB show. Unfortunately this isn't the WB's target audience (they primarily seek females 12-34, and go after advertisers seeking that audience).

Anyway, "Angel" 5x01 and 5x02 have both done pretty well in the ratings. 5x02 did roughly the same as 5x01, whereas most shows get higher ratings for their season premieres than for the second episodes. 5x01 got a 4.4/7 in the metered markets; 5x02 got a 4.7/7 in the metered markets. 5x01 got a 2.4 among adults 18-49 in the final nationals; 5x02 got about 2.65 among adults 18-49 in the fast nationals (this could drop a bit when the final nationals are released).

I hope "Angel" can maintain the same numbers when Fox moves "The O.C." into that slot in late October. Yikes, there go the females 12-34.

"Angel" did well in its first two seasons paired with Buffy, but when Buffy went to the UPN network and "Angel" was left all alone on the WB and got shoved around to different nights with wildly inappropriate lead-ins like "7th Heaven" (ugh!) and "Dawson's Creek," the ratings slumped. Last season got relatively low ratings that almost got "Angel" cancelled. It sure didn't help that the WB kept moving the show around, and aired the season's first seven episodes on Sundays against "The Sopranos" and "Alias" and "Law & Order: Criminal Intent."

[> [> [> Exactly -- Athena, 18:38:44 10/09/03 Thu

It wasn't until last season that I got a chance to become a proper Angel watcher. I had no idea where it was.

[> Well, the show's taking a whole new bent, remember -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:45:58 10/09/03 Thu

As such, it's probably a wise decision to wait for fan reactions to the new "Angel" format. After all, if Angel and Co. running W&H turned out to push viewers away, the WB wouldn't want to keep it on.

[> [> Yeah, but still... -- Gyrus, 09:18:00 10/10/03 Fri

I agree that the move to Wolfram & Hart could have been a shark-jump for the show. (So far, I don't think it is, but that's just me.) However, this is not the first time the WB has considered cancelling ANGEL; from what I understand, they've been thinking about it for years. That's the part that puzzles me.

This is excellent news. (ANGEL S6, anyone?) -- cjl, 09:59:21 10/09/03 Thu

ANGEL practically copied its strong ratings performance from last week, keeping almost all of the Smallville audience, and cementing the "Superman/Batman" block as a winner for the WB net-let.

It's possible that ANGEL's ratings could actually improve when baseball finally departs in late October. Fox dominated four of the major U.S. markets--Chicago, Miami, New York and Boston--with the Cubs/Marlins and Yankees/Red Sox match-ups, sucking away the audience from regular prime time programming. (The O.C. jumps into Fox's 9:00 Wednesday time slot in November, but I doubt it'll bite into ANGEL's core audience too much.)

Suddenly, ANGEL S6 doesn't seem like such a long shot, anymore.

(OTOH, I feel bad about Greenwalt and Jake 2.0. Couldn't they move it somewhere else? Anywhere?)

[> Agreed on Jake 2.0. Wish they'd move it to a better time slot. -- Rob, 10:45:03 10/09/03 Thu

[> Re: This is excellent news. (ANGEL S6, anyone?) -- deeva, 10:49:26 10/09/03 Thu

(The O.C. jumps into Fox's 9:00 Wednesday time slot in November, but I doubt it'll bite into ANGEL's core audience too much.)

Don't say that to scroll! ;o)

Current board | More October 2003