From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V2 #315 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 Saturday, November 16 2002 Volume 02 : Number 315 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [chakram-refugees] Stafford Book ('98) ["Jackie M. Young" > ["Jackie M. Young" > [] Re: [chakram-refugees] <> [IfeRae@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 20:14:07 -1000 (HST) From: "Jackie M. Young" Subject: [chakram-refugees] Stafford Book ('98) I just got some time to (*finally!*) read Nikki Stafford's Warrior Stars book from '98 (OK, so I'm ***REALLY*** behind, so kill me ;( ), and for those of you old-timers who helped her proof it, etc., I was wondering if it was generally thought to be free of factual errors? I noticed some typos (I'm anal--so kill me again ;) ), but I also thought I noticed some factual ones too, but I could be wrong (CRS is running rampant with me)...... ;) Thenk ewe, ;) - --Jackie ****************************************************** * Proud to have the same birthday as Lucy Lawless! * * * * 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: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:54:37 -1000 (HST) From: "Jackie M. Young" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] <> On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 18:08:02 -0500, "Cheryl Ande" wrote: >Thus Xena and Gabrielle escape the two most seductive traps known to >humankind. Xena escapes the clutches of dangerous sex with a tall dark >handsome guy in leather. Gabrielle escapes the more dangerous trap of >pity love ( I actually blame pity love on Jerry Lewis movies where a > > More than one woman has fallen into these traps. Xena and Gabrielle >however do not - that's why they are role models. - --*Hehe!* Yeah, it's such a *pathetic trap*, eh, to have "dangerous sex" with a tall, dark, handsome guy in leather?!? ;P Most of us would *kill* to be trapped by a guy like that!!! ;=P (*gods*, I miss KSmith!! *sigh* ;=) ) As for "pity love", I dunno if it's a _conscious_ trap as it is a way of being in the world; it's more fact of life, IMO. And yah, yah, X and G are *so* forthright and upstanding--not! ;P If anything, I think the show demonstrated how they were both very human, with human weaknesses. It's just that in these cases, they didn't weaken. ;) On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 21:03:00 +1300, cr wrote: On Monday 11 November 2002 12:08, Cheryl Ande wrote: >> Lucy is very funny as the horny Xena. Trying to convince herself that >>a dream is just a dream and there is no truth to it. >> >That's one of Lucy's best comic moments, I think. Getting carried away >by the recollection of her dream and suddenly waking herself up with a >guilty start. - --*Hehe!* Horseman (remember him?!? ;) ) is making me a QT clip of this very scene. ;) It is just *so classic*!!! ;=) LL is *so into* the dream in that scene, it's hard to believe she's the same person who can't remember biting KSmith's nipples (according to Sharon ;) ) or any love scenes with him at all.....;) ;=) - --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: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:08:27 -1000 (HST) From: "Jackie M. Young" Subject: [chakram-refugees] Lists (was: Lucy and Renee at Pasadena INFO/OT: Employment) On Tuesday 12 November 2002 08:07, KTL wrote: > Yup. This is without any doubt the premier show discussion list at this > time. - --Hey, it's the *premier list*, period!!! ;=) (thanks to Meredith and Ven, and not let us forget the venerable Arbiter ;) ) On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 22:59:51 +1300, cr wrote: > Wish a few more people would pop up to argue oooops *discuss* the > series.... - --;=) Thel, IMO, *volume* doth not a list make, but *quality* doth (to paraphrase Ven). ;P We'll all come out of the woodwork at the _appropriate time_, and then you'll be *surprised* (as you were with the Con announce ;) ).....;) "All things come to he/she who waits...." ;) Just MO, ;) - --Jackie, trying to avoid one-liners like the *dickens* and not entirely succeeding ;) ****************************************************** * Proud to have the same birthday as Lucy Lawless! * * * * 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: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 08:57:37 -0800 From: "Xena Torres" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Stafford Book ('98) >and for those of you old-timers who helped her proof it, etc., I was > >wondering if it was generally thought to be free of factual errors? I was with Nikki every step of the way for that book. What factual errors are you referring to? I know there's one or two in the trivia section, but that was cause I had to come up with 100 questions in one day! :) But all the sections written by Nikki are clear. Could you give me an example? >I noticed some typos (I'm anal--so kill me again ;) Well, yes, that happens in every book, no matter how many people check it over. :) >but I also thought I noticed some factual ones too, but I could be >wrong >(CRS is running rampant with me)...... ;) Again, could you provide an example? BATTLE ON XENA! Xena Torres: Warrior Writer "And most importantly, I've learned that the heart can betray, but the sword never lies." - Eve "Heart of Darkness" _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail ========================================================= 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, 15 Nov 2002 13:49:09 -0500 From: Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] <> On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 22:02:30 +1300 cr wrote: "It is *only* legitimate if the claimed consequence is probable. In the case of Amphipolis, the gods do not seem to have been in the habit of demanding child (or human) scarifices, and there is nothing to suggest that they were about to start. So I submit that the life expectancy of each Amphipolitan child at that point would be many hundreds of times better if the conflict was avoided (by handing over Eve) than if the town was destroyed by the attackers." So your argument that is that the Amphipolitian would have been much better off handing the child over because they had no stake in saving Eve. A choice that is not without presidence. Certainly white Americans were much better off turning a blind eye to the lynching and beatings of blacks in the south because the Klu Klux Klan would have turned on them and afterall they weren't blackand why should they risk anything for them. The Germans under the Nazis were therefore quite right in turning over their neighbors who Jews or homosexuals to their Nazis masters because they were only securing their own safety from the thugs who ruled them. The people in the Mideast who watch women and gays murdered are also wise in their choice not defend them because their own safety would be at risk and besides those in charge obvious know best. "And while I'm a Xena fan, I really don't know what claim Xena had on the town of Amphipolis to require it to risk destruction for her sake." Maybe that the Amphipolians thought they owed it to themselves to oppose Athena. Perhaps they thought that no god had the right to demand that they be complicit in a a murderous act. Athena needs them to turn the child over - she demands that they be accomplices. The Amphipolians perhaps think that they will not subbordinate their own concept of right or wrong to some god who holds them in comtempt. "The reason I'm unhappy about it is not because of Ares, it's because of Xena. Ares faithfully carried out his part of the deal. He fought on Xena's side and *he saved Eve*. (Because without him the battle would have been lost, I think). And Xena completely welshed on her side of the deal. Worse than that, she did so using a pretext so flimsy it was insulting. I'd almost rather she was upfront about it, "Well too bad, I lied to you!" Well perhaps she could have said that but then Ares could have just forced the issue and taken what he wanted. Obvious in the god world bargains must be carried out to the letter and no welching on it. I frankly don't think Xena feels that she has hurt Ares - frustrated him yes but hurt him - no. She doesn't believe he has any real feelings for her - she sees herself as a means to an end for him. To protect herself she feels it is legimate to use any means available. Afterall he is a god and she is only a mortal therefore he has the advatge here. Speaking of which - why can't the gods just kill Eve without all this regamole? Just zap the kid or give the kid a disease? Is it possible the gods aren't as all powerful as they seem. Is this the danger Eve presents to them? That her survival demonstrates their real impotence in the face of those who demand their freedom from them. 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: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 23:49:57 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] <> In a message dated 11/15/2002 12:51:11 PM Central Standard Time, cande@sunlink.net writes: > Maybe that the Amphipolians thought they owed it to themselves to oppose > Athena. Perhaps they thought that no god had the right to demand that they > be > complicit in a a murderous act. Athena needs them to turn the child over - > she demands that they be accomplices. The Amphipolians perhaps think that > they will not subbordinate their own concept of right or wrong to some god > who > holds them in comtempt. > Agreed. They might also recall what happened way back in SINS, when they tried to bargain with Draco, who decided he'd do what he wanted to with them regardless. While Athena might have been expected to be more honorable than that, she also was basically quite willing to destroy their village (including other children) if she didn't get her way. Not much "mercy" in my book. Plus, Xena did singlehandedly save them from Draco, even after they tried to stone her to death. Cyrene seemed to have quite a bit of moral currency, since she was about to give Xena up the justice in SINS. Her willingness to stand up for Xena this time, as well as her own standing as Eve's grandmother, certainly seemed to carry a good deal of weight. Letting something happen to Eve was like letting something happen to one of their "own," whatever resentment some may have still carried toward Xena. All in all, I think you're right, that they decided to show backbone against one more person who threatened them in a long line of folks who'd done the same. I was pleasantly surprised by that, but it didn't seem at all improbable. - -- 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. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V2 #315 **************************************