From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V2 #302 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 Sunday, November 3 2002 Volume 02 : Number 302 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy and Renee at Pasadena INFO ["Jackie M. Young"] Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy and Renee at Pasadena INFO [Trek4u269@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] X&G "Screw-ups" [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy and Renee at Pasadena INFO [NZJester Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy and Renee at Pasadena INFO OnFri, 1 Nov 2002 23:41:28 EST, Trek4u269@aol.com wrote: >That was one of my points. They bought tickets at last con so gold >tickets were going to people based on attending the last convention. I >order often and didnt get a letter or notice. - --I think Creation would like you to join _their_ e-mail list, then you would've gotten the very first notices. Sharon once told me she doesn't always remember to post to all the lists, so joining the Creation list is the sure-fire way of getting the con info. I don't believe Sharon posted the con info here on Chakram earlier, but I could be mistaken? I don't belong to their list either (due to volume concerns), so didn't hear about it until Sharon's most recent post. ;( But I may not be attending, anyway.....;( - --Jackie ****************************************************** * Proud to have the same birthday as Lucy Lawless! * * * * "I think New Zealand geographically comes from * * ... Hawai'i." --Lucy Lawless, Late Show, 4/9/96 * * * * JACKIE YOUNG, JYOUNG@LAVA.NET * * * ****************************************************** ========================================================= 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: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 04:08:22 EST From: Trek4u269@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy and Renee at Pasadena INFO on a lighter note.......................Not getting gold seating means at least I saved 300 - 400 dollars and can use that money at the con during my 1 day visit to buy stuff. hehe ========================================================= 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: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 16:14:09 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: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 10:38:37 +1300 From: NZJester Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy and Renee at Pasadena INFO At 05:47 pm 1/11/2002 -0500, you wrote: >New Xenaland sounds interesting. Is that a private list or maybe a Yahoo >group? New Xenaland is the List of Kiwi Xenites and their friends our web page is at http://www.angelfire.com/tv2/newxenaland/index.html - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Catch ya later NZJester - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ========================================================= 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: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 21:58:15 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] X&G "Screw-ups" In a message dated 11/1/2002 3:19:50 AM Central Standard Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > > 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." > > You know they wouldn't. > Precisely. My apologies for snipping the rest of our discussion, but for me this is the crux of it. For whatever reason, no matter how stupid it seemed, neither wanted the other to "go it" alone. They followed each other when maybe they shouldn't have. They should've known, as even you say above, that the other would follow, even when they called themselves acting independently. I would even venture to say that one of the biggest reasons they admired each other in the first place (and continued to) was each other's fearless defense of what was "right." In SINS, Gabs wasn't relying on Xena to save her, nor did Xena expect Gabs to intervene during that stoning. Each was acting as an individual, which they often did later on. The downside was that they were always fearing and having to deal with the consequences of that. You saw them solely as individuals. I saw them as individuals who became a *team* fighting for good, which for me would have meant little if either was afraid to jump into the fray because of always fearing for the other, or if one refused to support the other, simply because she didn't see something the same way. Regardless of how we saw them or their roles, they *acted* like a team, otherwise we both wouldn't be so sure that they could/would not exercise their right as an individual to say "no" to the other. BTW, I'm not arguing anymore about "screw-ups" per se because I accept that you don't seem to see Gabrielle as a worthy or equal partner for Xena. I'm assuming you wouldn't care what Gabs did on her own, or wouldn't be as hard on her if she were a mere tagalong. What appears to irk you is that she draws Xena in and doesn't seem to you to have the intelligence, courage or physical skills to pull her own weight -- and that, for whatever reason, Xena nevertheless risks her life. On the other hand, Xena is a superior being who doesn't need or rely upon Gabrielle. IOW, it's understood that Xena can prevail alone, so you see no logical reason for Gabs to jump in. Gabs will fail without Xena, so any risk she takes must also involve risk to Xena. Hence, anytime Gabs acts without consulting Xena could be considered a "screw-up" (ignoring the fact that Xena will probably prevail anyway). - -- Ife (who'd developed a headache from this thread) ========================================================= 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: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 23:55:24 -0500 From: meredith Subject: [chakram-refugees] ADMIN: Monthly Quoting Reminder Hi, I have to be up-front and admit that due to work and life concerns I haven't been able to keep up with the list much lately ... that's thankfully about to change. But some folks have pointed out to me that it's well past time for the regular reminder about one of the list rules regarding excessive quoting of previous posts. *Please* keep your quoting of previous posts to a minimum. A good rule of thumb is no more than three lines at a time. As threads continue this becomes even more important, as excessive quoting just gets exponentially more confusing. Plus, it's really hard on the Digest people. Also, if you're using Outlook, please be sure to remember to delete whatever is remaining of the post you're replying to before hitting "send", so you don't have an entire long thread (or even an entire Digest) dangling at the bottom of your response. And finally ... one-liners are a really bad idea. If your reply is shorter than what you're quoting, it's time to reconsider your post. If you're unsure about whether or not your post passes muster, please feel free to send it to owner-chakram-refugees@smoe.org, and I'll either approve it or send it back to you with suggestions of how to get it approved. (I do keep up with my owner mail no matter what's going on, so your post shouldn't wait too long.) Any questions, please contact me directly. I now return you to your Pasadena freakout. ============================================== Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth ============================================== Live At The House O'Muzak House Concert Series http://muzak.smoe.org ============================================== ========================================================= 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 #302 **************************************