From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V2 #357 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 Monday, December 30 2002 Volume 02 : Number 357 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Revisiting <> (was <>) [cr <] Re: [chakram-refugees] Revisiting <> (was <>) [IfeR] [chakram-refugees] Fwd: [Flawless] FW: Lucy in concert!!! [cr > (was <>) [cr ] [chakram-refugees] Fwd: [Flawless] FW: In concert part 2 [cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Revisiting <> (was <>) On Sunday 29 December 2002 09:36, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > The point is, that Xena could defeat any number of people hand-to-hand, > > but a > > hundred archers (or a thousand) could launch arrows at her > > simultaneously > > - > > not even Xena could do anything about that. > > Sure she did. She blew most of 'em up. > > cr, cr. *My* point is that the battles were seldom objectively "logical." Oh, agreed. And TPTB bent their own rules from time to time. > My understanding was that Xena had two goals -- (1) to save Higuchi from > the general and his troops and (2) to stop Yodoshi. She had to stay alive > long enough to ensure the former, then die to accomplish the latter. Tall > order. > > Since I'm talking Xenaverse "logic," I assumed the explosion and the few > arrows she shot disabled archers, some of whom may have survived to be > among the soldiers she dealt with hand-to-hand. Umm, no, IIRC the showers of arrows were *after* the explosion, so evidently there were hundreds of archers still operational. > Whatever, there was little > doubt in my mind that she managed to accomplish goal no. 1, possibly with > off-screen help from the resistance force. I got the impression that the > only person left who still had the desire or ability to fight any longer > was the general, who then helped dispatch her off for her second goal. > > I can't worry about whether, logically, anyone could've used a circular > weapon to create a chain reaction that blew up the enemy, I put it down to a fuel-air explosion (though I would have liked a few more seconds for the vapour to spread before ignition). The reaction wasn't started by the chacky, it was started by a torch (shown onscreen, IIRC). > then > singlehandedly sliced through the remaining samurai. Logically, no one > should have suffered all those wounds and still been standing, let alone > moving and fighting. Yet, that's exactly what I saw and what Xenaverse > logic presented as "fact." Xena is the hero and she accomplished her goals > against all odds. Period. That's what I saw her doing in AFIN against odds > that were no more or less objectively logical than nearly everything else > she accomplished. > > -- Ife But, Xena has defeated a few archers in the past - by catching arrows, e.g. Motherhood. She's never been shown to have successfully handled showers of arrows from massed archers. I'm going by XWP precedent. We may have to 'agree to disagree' on this one. 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: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 13:39:11 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Revisiting <> (was <>) In a message dated 12/29/2002 12:11:21 AM Central Standard Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > cr, cr. *My* point is that the battles were seldom objectively "logical." > > Oh, agreed. And TPTB bent their own rules from time to time. >> Ya think? > > Since I'm talking Xenaverse "logic," I assumed the explosion and the few > > arrows she shot disabled archers, some of whom may have survived to be > > among the soldiers she dealt with hand-to-hand. > > Umm, no, IIRC the showers of arrows were *after* the explosion, so evidently > > there were hundreds of archers still operational. >> My original point was that Xena prevailed. You argued that this could not be the case in AFIN, that Xena couldn't defeat the archers and was riddled with arrows. I'm only saying that the explosion was a good way to neutralize a good part of an overwhelmingly armed and manned force. While this still left the WP quite a challenge, we could in fact assume Xena defeated everybody she needed to, even if she sustained mortal wounds in the process. > > I can't worry about whether, logically, anyone could've used a circular > > weapon to create a chain reaction that blew up the enemy, > > I put it down to a fuel-air explosion (though I would have liked a few more > seconds for the vapour to spread before ignition). The reaction wasn't > started by the chacky, it was started by a torch (shown onscreen, IIRC).>> Grrr. And why did the torch ignite everything? Because of the chacky. It seemed her primary aim was to upset the munitions cart, but she must've figured somebody nearby was also carrying a torch. She created havoc, tho I don't know that she expected the explosion she got. Even you have said (I think) that you accepted just about anything the chacky could do. Accept that it must have tiny eyes, nose, ears and other senses to confirm it's doing what Xena wants. Heh. >>" Xena is the hero and she accomplished her goals > > against all odds. Period. That's what I saw her doing in AFIN against > odds > > that were no more or less objectively logical than nearly everything else > > she accomplished. > > > > -- Ife > > But, Xena has defeated a few archers in the past - by catching arrows, e.g. > Motherhood. She's never been shown to have successfully handled showers of > > arrows from massed archers. > > I'm going by XWP precedent. We may have to 'agree to disagree' on this > one. > > cr I misunderstood. I thought we were debating whether Xena was victorious in the situation we were given, not whether she could catch thousands of arrows. I agree, she didn't catch the arrows. I disagree if you believe that meant she did not prevail in the end. Maybe you believe the archers were still out there, threatening Higuchi. Without even trying to rationalize the details, I believe that whatever Xena did that day was sufficient to keep Higuchi safe until she could deal with Yodoshi. Why? Because she was Xena. But speaking of precedents, a "precedent" on XWP was that Xena broke nearly every precedent -- indeed (as was humorously shown in A Day in The Life), she liked to be creative and not necessarily do the same thing twice. Nearly every episode presented her as doing something (e.g., leaping, running through trees, using the chakram or whatever else was in reach as a weapon, mind over matter) in a way we hadn't seen before. We didn't know quite what to expect. (Hmmm, now that I think of it, there is the precedent of Xena *repelling* flying projectiles with her force-field in "Purity" and freezing them before flight in "Back in the Bottle.") However, TPTB didn't expect us to believe she'd catch (or repel or freeze) all those arrows in AFIN. Yes, she caught what arrows she could, but the horror on her face said she knew that was hopeless. So, she found another way to prevail -- she brought the fight to them, up close and personal. Granted, that's no more "logical" than the arrow catching, but I think we're on common ground in terms of the precedent that Xena can singlehandedly fight and/or scare off entire armies. Unless, of course, you insist there's something uniquely illogical/unprecedented about her defeating armies with tons of archers vs. armies with gods, mystical powers, magic weapons, gun powder and such at their disposal. If so, good on ya, and I agree to disagree. :-) - -- 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: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:59:59 +1300 From: cr Subject: [chakram-refugees] Fwd: [Flawless] FW: Lucy in concert!!! Forwarded by permission. cr - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: [Flawless] FW: Lucy in concert!!! Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:12:02 -0500 From: "ria" Subject: Lucy in concert!!! Hi everyone I hope your holiday break is going well, and that whatever you celebrate around this time of year, that you have done this with a happy and kind hearted spirit. I have found myself very busy, and will be for the next couple of weeks following up stuff from Lucy on concert. I went to the opening night with a good friend of mine, and although I will have papers, photos and hopefully posters to offer early next year, I thought you all might like a wee "blurb" of the evening..............enjoy the new year!!! AFTER a hectic drive over from Napier the day following Christmas, when all you really want to do is sleep off the excess consumption of food, we found ourselves in Taupo and headed to the Great Lakes Centre to be pleasantly welcomed by a full window poster of Lucy and Dave atop a moped! First thought "I gotta get some of those!!" (thus far proving more difficult than I thought). We had arrived 10 minutes before starting time and found a prime possie up near the front. I was surprised at the wide range of ages in the audience from the youngest at about 12, who had already sat themselves on the floor beside us, a great plan as it turned out as there was a lot of waiting. Anika Moa, a recently discovered NZ talent, played for 30 minutes or so till 8.45pm. For the next half hour people kept arriving, mingling and waiting, the smell of bourbon got stronger and the crowd gradually became "antsy". At 9.15pm, half an hour after Anika, the front crowd started clapping impatiently amid the odd "Come on Dave" and "We want Lucy" call going out. Finally, with an enthusiastic welcome, Dave came on stage (entering on the right) with his band taking their places. I looked around anxiously for Lucy, who I saw in the background on the left and looking a tad nervous - I certainly felt for her! Dave did intro's to the band, launched into his first song and Lucy inconspicuously joined him at the microphone, tambourine in hand. She looked fantastic!! Trading in the leather clad outfit for blue denim hipsters, rouged elastic white cotton crop top and showing a midriff you would not expect to see on a mother-of-three. Her hair was down around her face, retro sneakers, no jewelry except her wedding rings. Natural, unassuming and stunning! Lucy's comfort grew as the songs wore on and she began interacting more with Dave and on occassion the crowd, shooting a few grins at the group of intoxicated young men in front of us, ( who would have looked more at home at a Limp Bizkit concert ) and who cheered "Yeah Lucy", which gradually became "come on Dave, give Lucy a go." Amid them having domestics with their girlfriends & the girl on my right continually on her cell phone, I thought they were in for a tough crowd. Just at that moment things warmed up as Dave launched into a well known NZ song of his, and Lucy began asserting a bit more confidence with the harmonising and showed great rhythm with the tambourine. Lucy's solo performance was "Maxine" by Sharon O'Neil - and a fantastic rendition it was to. She had a powerful voice when in full stride. ( I had goosebumps an all ) This really got the crowd going. The night continued in this fashion, unfortunately I didn't get to stay for the last few songs since the 2.5 hour drive home was looking ominous as the clock neared 10.45pm.( and with an early rise at 5.30am I had to make a choice! ) But, now knowing that they will be in Palmerston North, my home city, in early January & that video cameras were not frowned on, we're going again and taking the Palm Corder! I think I got some great shots - we'll see this 'arvo'', & I got the name of the promoter from the ticket seller, so will have to make some phone calls later today. I had hoped there'd be some CD's or T Shirts or something - perhaps after the tour ???? who knows. Lucy said on the interview last week that she wasn't looking to be a pop superstar or anything like that, but in my opinion she'd be more preferable to some at the moment! I think 'good on her' for taking the risk, it will really pay off toward the end as she gets into the swing of things. It's not something I aspire to or am I capable of doing, But I loved seeing her perform - it was fantastic!!!! Here is a link to our page with a selection of the photos I took. http://kiwiattic.bizland.com/Xena/otheritems/tourphotos.htm Take care Leanne ========================================================= 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: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 14:55:05 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Revisiting <> (was <>) On Monday 30 December 2002 07:39, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 12/29/2002 12:11:21 AM Central Standard Time, > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > > cr, cr. *My* point is that the battles were seldom objectively > > "logical." > > > Oh, agreed. And TPTB bent their own rules from time to time. >> > > Ya think? > > > > Since I'm talking Xenaverse "logic," I assumed the explosion and the > > > few arrows she shot disabled archers, some of whom may have survived > > > to be among the soldiers she dealt with hand-to-hand. > > > > Umm, no, IIRC the showers of arrows were *after* the explosion, so > > evidently > > > there were hundreds of archers still operational. >> > > My original point was that Xena prevailed. You argued that this > could not be the case in AFIN, that Xena couldn't defeat the archers and > was riddled with arrows. I'm only saying that the explosion was a good way > to neutralize a good part of an overwhelmingly armed and manned force. > While this still left the WP quite a challenge, we could in fact assume > Xena defeated everybody she needed to, even if she sustained mortal wounds > in the process. Ummm, OK. Yes, I agree, she set the whole thing up to happen more or less the way it did. > > > I can't worry about whether, logically, anyone could've used a > > > circular weapon to create a chain reaction that blew up the enemy, > > > > I put it down to a fuel-air explosion (though I would have liked a few > > more > > > seconds for the vapour to spread before ignition). The reaction > > wasn't started by the chacky, it was started by a torch (shown onscreen, > > IIRC).>> > > Grrr. And why did the torch ignite everything? Because of the chacky. It > seemed her primary aim was to upset the munitions cart, but she must've > figured somebody nearby was also carrying a torch. She created havoc, tho > I don't know that she expected the explosion she got. Even you have said (I > think) that you accepted just about anything the chacky could do. Accept > that it must have tiny eyes, nose, ears and other senses to confirm it's > doing what Xena wants. Heh. Ummm, I think we're arguing at cross-purposes. I'm not disagreeing about the chacky. It did cause the explosion. It broke the jars of fuel, and from then on, given the proximity of torches, ignition was inevitable. Xena may well have foreseen that. I was taking your statement maybe too literally, you said the chacky caused a 'chain reaction' i.e. nuclear (in the normal usage of the term), I don't think it was nuclear simply because nuclear explosions don't happen that way. IMO a fuel-air explosion is much more credible. > >>" Xena is the hero and she accomplished her goals > >> > > > against all odds. Period. That's what I saw her doing in AFIN against > > > > odds > > > > > that were no more or less objectively logical than nearly everything > > > else she accomplished. > > > > > > -- Ife > > > > But, Xena has defeated a few archers in the past - by catching arrows, > > e.g. > > > Motherhood. She's never been shown to have successfully handled > > showers > > of > > > arrows from massed archers. > > > > I'm going by XWP precedent. We may have to 'agree to disagree' on > > this one. > > > > cr > > I misunderstood. I thought we were debating whether Xena was victorious in > the situation we were given, not whether she could catch thousands of > arrows. I agree, she didn't catch the arrows. I disagree if you believe > that meant she did not prevail in the end. Maybe you believe the archers > were still out there, threatening Higuchi. Without even trying to > rationalize the details, I believe that whatever Xena did that day was > sufficient to keep Higuchi safe until she could deal with Yodoshi. Why? > Because she was Xena. I'll go along with that. I *don't* think Xena, even with her fighting abilities, could ever defeat (or even survive) against large numbers of archers. I do think, that's a situation she would not let herself get caught in, because, as you say, she's Xena. > But speaking of precedents, a "precedent" on XWP was that Xena broke nearly > every precedent -- indeed (as was humorously shown in A Day in The Life), > she liked to be creative and not necessarily do the same thing twice. > Nearly every episode presented her as doing something (e.g., leaping, > running through trees, using the chakram or whatever else was in reach as a > weapon, mind over matter) in a way we hadn't seen before. We didn't know > quite what to expect. (Hmmm, now that I think of it, there is the > precedent of Xena *repelling* flying projectiles with her force-field in > "Purity" and freezing them before flight in "Back in the Bottle.") > > However, TPTB didn't expect us to believe she'd catch (or repel or freeze) > all those arrows in AFIN. Yes, she caught what arrows she could, but the > horror on her face said she knew that was hopeless. Yes, that sequence really made me feel 'ouch!' And not many things on screen do that. > So, she found another > way to prevail -- she brought the fight to them, up close and personal. My impression was, they brought the fight to her - that is, after the archers had done their work, they closed in on her. Certainly, at close quarters, she did better, for obvious reasons. > Granted, that's no more "logical" than the arrow catching, but I think > we're on common ground in terms of the precedent that Xena can > singlehandedly fight and/or scare off entire armies. Yes, certainly. > Unless, of course, > you insist there's something uniquely illogical/unprecedented about her > defeating armies with tons of archers vs. armies with gods, mystical > powers, magic weapons, gun powder and such at their disposal. If so, good > on ya, and I agree to disagree. :-) > > -- Ife All those are illogical, I guess, but not unprecedented in XWP. 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: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 15:01:49 +1300 From: cr Subject: [chakram-refugees] Fwd: [Flawless] FW: In concert part 2 Part 2 of the message - ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Subject: [Flawless] FW: In concert part 2 Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 08:25:11 -0500 From: "ria" Subject: In concert part 2 Me again I have gotten hold of copies of the Waikato Times paper, the regional paper around Taupo, and it has a super photo of Lucy on the front with an article. And thankfully, to save me time and finger-power, this is on the stuff website at the link below for you to have a look at more fully. http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/waikatotimes/0,2106,2151290a6579,00.html The basic information will also be on our website at this link: http://kiwiattic.bizland.com/Xena/otheritems/WaikatoTimes.htm but if you are interested in purchasing a copy for yourself and just want to email me direct that is fine............the paper will be US$3 + US$4 shipping (front section); or US$7 whole paper. I have very limited numbers of these papers as it is a much smaller paper than those we usually deal with like the Sunday Star Times. Kindest Regards Leanne Stewart Kiwi Attic Ltd PO Box 931, Napier, New Zealand 4030 www.kiwiattic.com leanne@kiwiattic.com ========================================================= 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 #357 **************************************