From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V2 #300 Reply-To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org Sender: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk chakram-refugees-digest Friday, November 1 2002 Volume 02 : Number 300 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Xena srew-ups [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] X&G "Screw-ups" [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Xena srew-ups [] Re: [chakram-refugees] X&G "Screw-ups" [IfeRae@aol.com] [chakram-refugees] Lucy and Renee at Pasadena INFO ["Creation (Sharon Del] Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy and Renee at Pasadena INFO [Sarah Anne Packar] Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy and Renee at Pasadena INFO [cjlnh@webtv.net (] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 00:16:32 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Xena srew-ups On Thursday 31 October 2002 03:16, cande@sunlink.net wrote: > I've been following the argument about Xena srew-ups now there are plenty > of Xena screw-up if you look in the right time line. Let's count them: > > 1. Destiny - Young Xena trusts Caesar to be her partner in conquering the > world - she gets crucified instead. Mi'lia does try to warn her but she > doesn't listen. > > 2. The Debt - Xena kidnaps Ming Tien thus causing Borias to betray her and > she gets captured and nearly executed. Then after Lo Mao rescues her she > goes against Lo Mao's wishes kills Ming Tien's father and nearly kills Ming > Tien. This is a real screw-up because she should have realized Lo Mao would > noy have allowed her to kill her son. > > 3. Past Imperfect - Xena never tumbles to the fact Satrina is more that she > appears - she isn't suspicious at all that her little maid seems to be very > interested in military strategy. This obliviousness gets Borias killed. > > 4. Sin Trade - Xena rejects Cyane's offers to be an Amazon and instead > allies with Alti which apparently got Xena nothing but trouble in later > years. > > 5. Locked Up, Tied Down - Xena leaves Thalassa bleeding and tied up where > crabs could torture the woman thus leading to all kinds of trouble a 10 > years latter. > > 6. The Ring - Xena had a pretty good thing going in Valhalla but she had to > have the Rhinegold and she wasn't too subtle about it. Wound up with half > the Valkary chasing her, when she had the chance she doesn't kill her most > dangerous opponenet and winds up losing the ring to her. > > 7. FIN - Trusts Akemi, reveals the pinch to her, gets drunk and burns a > town down. Then in the present doesn't apparently gets all the afterlife > rules before allowing her head to be chopped off. > > > All these actions cause Xena and Gabrielle much trouble in the coming > years. Xena, I'm sure, knowing that own youth wasn't error free, is > unstandably tolerant of Gabrielle's screw-ups. While Gabrielle may cause > Xena some effort in rescuring her, Gabrielle also did not go around > creating monsters and other catastrophies that take a life-time to correct. > > CherylA 'Some effort'? Getting locked in dungeons, nearly executed, beaten half to death, yadda yadda.... this is slightly more than a minor inconvenience we're talking about. Hmmm. Now almost every single one of those 'screw-ups' you list were well in the past, and if you recall, Xena spends most of her current life trying to atone for them. A lot of those actions were due to 'evil Xena', not what I'd call 'screw-ups'. And 'new' Xena doesn't make them. Nor were any of the consequences visited on Gabrielle, other than by Gabrielle's own choice in hanging around Xena and refusing to go away. And btw, you can't call Past Imperfect a screw-up because nobody, not Borias or anyone else, warned her against Satrina. cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 01:45:39 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] X&G "Screw-ups" On Thursday 31 October 2002 07:54, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 10/30/02 3:31:07 AM Central Standard Time, > cr@orcon.net.nz > > writes: > > Well, what you're saying in effect is, Xena shoulda let Gabby go and > > get herself killed? (I do so totally agree with that idea, btw..... > > ;)>> > > > > LOL! Bad boy! I'm saying Gabs had the same right to get herself killed > > as Xena. > > Well, yes, but in principle, if one is going to get oneself killed, it is > a moral requirement that one makes sure other people won't get themselves > killed trying to rescue one.>> > > I'm not sure I agree with your "moral requirement." It certainly takes > away the element of free will of others who might want to participate in a > particular mission, as well as assumes that the leader and/or the rest of > the group expect to die, rather than simply being prepared to die. Well, no, you're changing the circumstances. I'm not talking about a planned or necessary 'mission'. I'm talking about somebody - say, me - unilaterally deciding to do something damn stupid and dangerous. If I'm going to justify it by saying it's my neck and I'm entitled to risk it, then I should make darn sure I don't risk somebody else's in the process. Your example assumes that the 'mission' is necessary, the participation of others is useful or necessary, and that their involvement can be discussed beforehand. None of this applies to the point I was making. And, I might add, I can't think of a more certain way of infringing others' free will, than by doing something suicidal in front of them and forcing them to decide without warning whether to rescue you (at the risk of their lives) or have to live with not trying.... > In > addition, how on earth do you make sure nobody tries to rescue you, or know > absolutely that they will die trying? Well, you can't know for sure, obviously. All you can do, as in everything in life, is plan for what is *likely* to happen. You don't have to know absolutely that people will die trying to rescue you, there just has to be a significant element of danger. In other words, if you're going to drown yourself, *don't* do it in sight of people and get several rescuers drowned with you, that's murder, IMO. > How can you focus on the primary > goal, if you're more worried about figuring out how to keep anybody else > from participating? Huh? That's a smokescreen. There are *always* circumstances that have to be taken into account. > << Or in the context of XWP, Xena should make > sure that Gabby was Somewhere Else when Xena risked her neck (which Xena > usually tried to do), and Gabby shoulda made sure Xena was somewhere else > (which she was rather less consistent about).>> > > As I noted above, even Xena couldn't do that. She left Gabs before Chin > and before setting out to get the Grindle. Do you want them to tie each > other up before they go off? I think that's unrealistic, not to mention > extremely patronizing and arrogant in terms of people you love who should > have every right to go down in flames with you if they want. Heaven preserve me from somebody who decides they're going to get themself killed and politely invites me along for the ride, is all I can say to that. It strikes me as far more arrogant for A to decide that he's going to do something which will probably get him killed and assume that B will naturally want to do it too. That's not love, IMO, it's egomania. As I said, Xena did try to get Gabs out of the way before she did anything extremely dangerous. It didn't always work. Did in Friend in Need, though. > >Going > > after Ming Tien was probably suicidal for anybody except Xena: Houdini > > Princess. Who knows what might've happened, had Gabs not bought some > > time. > > That's a curious way of looking at it, I thought Gabs effectively betrayed > Xena to Ming. Without that, Xena would've killed the guy and been long > gone > before anyone in the palace found him. Umm, I guess I'm not quite sure > what > you mean by 'bought some time' though.>> > > See, you assume Xena would've gotten out as easily as she got in, simply > because she's Xena. Did you consider it was so easy precisely because it > was a trap, that otherwise Xena might've been caught getting in or trying > to leave? I'm not excusing Gabs, but simply saying that she might've saved > Xena from a suicidal situation. But.... if it wasn't for Gabs warning Ming, why would he have set a trap? I repeat, Xena probably *would* have got clean away. I am assuming that getting out of the castle unobserved would be almost exactly as easy (or difficult) as getting in. And yes, Xena being Xena, she *would* have got away. Gabs' warning just made it almost certain that Xena would be captured - as she was. I don't think her presence helped at all, and in fact was a potential danger for Xena - if Ming had decide to use her as a hostage for Xena's good behaviour. What could Xena have done at her execution if a guard was holding a knife at Gabs' throat? (Why didn't Ming think of that? Maybe he figured that Gabs betraying Xena had neutralised her hostage value). (By the way, you mentioned 'arrogant' up there, and people's rights to make their own decisions.... how much more arrogant for Gabby to decide that her concept of what Xena's conscience ought to be, was more important than Xena's life. She had *no* right whatever.) > > > The few times Xena's gifts weren't sufficient to save > > > > > > her (e.g., SINS, GREATER GOOD, DESTINY, SACRIFICE, CRUSADER, FIN), > > > Gabs came to the rescue. > > > > Yes, and I certainly give her credit for those. You could add Chakram > > (joint credit with Amarice) and maybe some others. >> > > > > Oh, thanks! That makes 6-9 Gab saves, to 12 or so for Xena. But don't > > worry, I'm still willing to accept twice as many Xena rescues. I'm just > > not willing to conced that more than half of those resulted from Gab > > "srew-ups." > > > > -- Ife > > I never argued that they were. In fact I'll say that most rescues of > Gabs did not result from Gabby screw-ups, (and I can't think, off-hand, of > any rescues of Xena that resulted from Xena screw-ups, either). (As > always, I exclude minor errors of judgement from the category of > 'screw-ups').>> > > Ah. Then it appears we agree after all. > > -- Ife On that point, apparently, we do. ;) cr ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 12:53:11 -0500 From: Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: Xena srew-ups . > "Hmmm. Now almost every single one of those 'screw-ups' you list were well in the past, and if you recall, Xena spends most of her current life trying to atone for them. A lot of those actions were due to 'evil Xena', not what I'd call 'screw-ups'. And 'new' Xena doesn't make them. Nor were any of the consequences visited on Gabrielle, other than by Gabrielle's own choice in hanging around Xena and refusing to go away." My point being was that Xena understands the reason why Gabrielle makes mistakes - it is because she is inexperienced and young. Xena know from her own experience that mistakes are inevitable when you are young. That is why she seems so tolerant of Gabrielle. Simply because Xena was "evil" doesn't make those decisions not errors in judgement. You can be evil and make smart choices - Xena makes really bad choices because they don't get her what she wants and she had enough evidence that those choices may in fact not get her the desired outcome. Caesar doesn't hid the fact he is an arogant patrician, it might have occurred to Xena that a Greek pirate may not be someone Caesar would consider as a partner. Borias warns Xena bout pushing Tein but she does it anyway and La Mao certainly doesn't hide the fact that she is attached to her son. Alti never demonstrates to Xena that she can give her any more power than she already has, in fact Cyane demonstrates that she is more powerful than Alti. Akemi is certainly circumspect about her father - she doesn't rush home to Dadddy - instead she takes Xena to visit her dead grandparents and off to get a really sharp sword - why doesn't Xena tumble to the fact that something isn't right. All these are examples of Xena's mistakes in judgements - mistakes she admits she has made. CherylA ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:28:11 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] X&G "Screw-ups" In a message dated 10/31/2002 5:56:34 AM Central Standard Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > On Thursday 31 October 2002 07:54, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 10/30/02 3:31:07 AM Central Standard Time, > > cr@orcon.net.nz > > > > writes: > > > Well, what you're saying in effect is, Xena shoulda let Gabby go and > > > get herself killed? (I do so totally agree with that idea, btw..... > > > > ;)>> > > > > > > LOL! Bad boy! I'm saying Gabs had the same right to get herself > killed > > > as Xena. > > > > Well, yes, but in principle, if one is going to get oneself killed, it is > > a moral requirement that one makes sure other people won't get themselves > > killed trying to rescue one.>> > > > > I'm not sure I agree with your "moral requirement." It certainly takes > > away the element of free will of others who might want to participate in a > > particular mission, as well as assumes that the leader and/or the rest of > > the group expect to die, rather than simply being prepared to die. > > Well, no, you're changing the circumstances. I'm not talking about a > planned or necessary 'mission'. I'm talking about somebody - say, me - > unilaterally deciding to do something damn stupid and dangerous. If I'm > going to justify it by saying it's my neck and I'm entitled to risk it, then > > I should make darn sure I don't risk somebody else's in the process. >> I'm not changing the circumstances. I have a different view of them. What's "damn stupid and dangerous" to one person is "right" or at least "necessary" to someone else. We've have great debates on the list about that, whether Xena or Gabrielle was the subject. It doesn't have to be a "mission." It could be Xena happening upon a battle between two factions, as in DOCTOR, and being drawn into it, later blaming herself because Gabrielle is nearly killed. But Gabrielle wouldn't blame Xena for taking her into that situation, nor for Gabrielle's decision to risk her own life saving a child. It could be Gabrielle seeing Autolycus being led, shackled, onto a ship and her "unilateral" decision to interfere because she cares about him. The reality is that Xena's decisions often involved "missions" because she was so often reacting to past actions, whereas Gabrielle's were more "in the moment" responses to something happening in the present. But that doesn't, to me, automatically make Gabrielle's actions less "necessary" or more stupid. Maybe our difference lies in whether we see them as a team or not. Early on, I saw Xena more as an individual actor, appropriately concerned that her innocent companion might inadvertently be hurt in one of Xena's planned or spontaneous good deeds. But Gabrielle soon wanted to play more of an active role and learned fighting skills to do that. Sure, Xena didn't always accept that partnership, but she certainly was more willing to by the end of season 3. Both of them made individual decisions at some point, even against the wishes of the other. But, as a team, the other partner couldn't help but get involved, not even questioning the stupidity or danger of an act, so much as wanting to defend her partner. I just don't see where your "moral requirement" is realistic, even if one of the partners believes she's following it. > In other words, if you're going to drown yourself, *don't* do it in sight of > > people and get several rescuers drowned with you, that's murder, IMO.>> Oh, now you're going to extremes. The only time I can remember either X or G intentionally getting herself *permanently* killed was SACRIFICE. (I won't argue here about FIN). I'm talking about the bulk of their situations, where one or the other did what she thought was right, with a possible result being her death. > > > How can you focus on the primary > > goal, if you're more worried about figuring out how to keep anybody else > > from participating? > > Huh? That's a smokescreen. There are *always* circumstances that have to > > be taken into account. >> Have you heard "paralysis of analysis"? Xena of all people went step by step, worrying about the next step as it came. Gabrielle was more likely to weigh the pros and cons, to look at the "big picture." But when it was time to act, neither became paralyzed by all the possible ramifications. Otherwise, they'd never be able to act, certainly not spontaneously as they often did. "Gee, should I see what's up with Auto? What if the boat takes off and I get seasick? What if Xena doesn't see us leaving? What if those men take me prisoner too? What if ...?" Heck, the boat and Autolycus would be long gone. > > Heaven preserve me from somebody who decides they're going to get themself > killed and politely invites me along for the ride, is all I can say to that. >> I don't recall either X or G doing that. And if she did, the other one could say "no." > It strikes me as far more arrogant for A to decide that he's going to do > something which will probably get him killed and assume that B will > naturally > want to do it too. That's not love, IMO, it's egomania. >> Huh? My point is that X or G did what she felt she had to, mistakenly *not* assuming the other would want to come along. > (By the way, you mentioned 'arrogant' up there, and people's rights to make > their own decisions.... how much more arrogant for Gabby to decide that > her > concept of what Xena's conscience ought to be, was more important than Xena' > s > life. She had *no* right whatever.)>> Agreed. - -- Ife ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:59:32 -0800 From: "Creation (Sharon Delaney)" Subject: [chakram-refugees] Lucy and Renee at Pasadena INFO LUCY LAWLESS and RENEE O'CONNOR have graciously accepted our invitation to attend next year's convention, Feb. 7-9, 2003, in Pasadena, CA, pending work commitments. Lucy and Renee look forward to seeing everyone and sharing time with fans from around the world! Lucy and Renee will also be starring in Saturday Evening's Show: TWO WOMEN: ONE NIGHT A Theatrical Celebration What a treat for us all: Lucy and Renee, live on stage together, in a true performance! Experience first hand the magic that made this incredible team part of worldwide television history! A once in a lifetime event, not to be missed! Other guest stars appearing during the weekend include: HUDSON LEICK (Callisto) ALISON BRUCE (Melosa) MELINDA CLARKE (Velasca) PARIS JEFFERSON (Athena) CLAIRE STANSFIELD (Alti) DANIELLE CORMACK (Ephiny) MEIGHAN DESMOND (Discord) DARIEN TAKLE (Cyrene) VICTORIA PRATT (Cyane) ADRIENNE WILKINSON (Eve MUSETTA VANDER (Ilainus) With more to be announced! All guests are tentative. for ticket info go to http://www.creationent.com Sharon Official Xena Fan Club ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:26:04 -0500 (EST) From: Sarah Anne Packard Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy and Renee at Pasadena INFO Ok, now I'm REALLY wishing I could afford to go to this con!! I've never even been to a single Pasadena con. :( And look at all the ppl making their first con appearance! *Alison Bruce*, ahhh!! And ppl like Paris Jefferson, Meighan Desmond, Melinda Clarke, Darien Takle, Musetta Vander, they hardly do cons either...dammit. Sharon, I don't suppose there are gonna be any contests to win Pasadena con tix or anything like that? :) I wish! Of course, I'd still need to get money for airfare and hotel somehow. I would kill to see Lucy and Renee. Ok, not actually kill... :) Sometimes I really hate being stuck in Michigan... -Sarah, aka the abbagirl- On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Creation (Sharon Delaney) wrote: > LUCY LAWLESS and RENEE O'CONNOR have graciously accepted our invitation to > attend next year's convention, Feb. 7-9, 2003, in Pasadena, CA, pending > work commitments. Lucy and Renee look forward to seeing everyone and > sharing time with fans from around the world! > > Lucy and Renee will also be starring in Saturday Evening's Show: > > TWO WOMEN: ONE NIGHT > A Theatrical Celebration > > What a treat for us all: Lucy and Renee, live on stage together, in a true > performance! > > Experience first hand the magic that made this incredible team part of > worldwide television history! A once in a lifetime event, not to be missed! > > Other guest stars appearing during the weekend include: > HUDSON LEICK (Callisto) > ALISON BRUCE (Melosa) > MELINDA CLARKE (Velasca) > PARIS JEFFERSON (Athena) > CLAIRE STANSFIELD (Alti) > DANIELLE CORMACK (Ephiny) > MEIGHAN DESMOND (Discord) > DARIEN TAKLE (Cyrene) > VICTORIA PRATT (Cyane) > ADRIENNE WILKINSON (Eve > MUSETTA VANDER (Ilainus) > > With more to be announced! All guests are tentative. > > for ticket info go to http://www.creationent.com > > Sharon > Official Xena Fan Club > ========================================================= > This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with > "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. > Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. > ========================================================= ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 20:28:50 -0500 (EST) From: cjlnh@webtv.net (Cheryl LaScola) Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy and Renee at Pasadena INFO SHaron, Something I do not understand is receiving this notice today and gold circle is sold out already. Can you explain this ========================================================= This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list. To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with "unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body. Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V2 #300 **************************************