From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #26 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, January 26 2003 Volume 03 : Number 026 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Flirty Xena ["H.J.J. Hewitt" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 02:02:03 -0600 From: "H.J.J. Hewitt" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Flirty Xena A linguistic side-note to the following discussion-- >> True, restoring Gabs and Xena ultimately helped Michael & Co. Maybe they >> were observing, but I didn't see where they had any prior involvement. > >I believe "The lord thy god is a jealous god, thou shalt have no other >gods before me" and that they wanted to use Xena to sweep the heavens >clean of a few competing pantheons for them. This combination of 2 Biblical quotes makes an effective argument, but it's flawed by relying on translation. The Hebrew underlying that "jealous" might be better rendered-- if it weren't for its sexual connotations-- by "passionate", as in "She was a passionate advocate of animal rights". Thus, "The Lord thy god is a god who gets 'all het up' about things and really cares". TEXena P.S.: Oh, and a side note on the 2nd quote, "no other gods before me"-- Traditionally the big focus has been on the "no other gods" and the rest of the command sorta glossed over. \But/ that's 'before' in the sense of 'in front of'. The Hebrew does NOT say "you're not to have any other gods", but that you're not to give any other gods precedence over Jahweh. ========================================================= 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, 25 Jan 2003 06:45:56 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: To have bean or not to have bean In a message dated 1/24/2003 9:13:33 PM Central Standard Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > I thought the > >burying of weapons was dramatic -- not to mention a better set-up for a > >series than having the main character off herself in the first few > minutes. > > Of course, that would have been a good precedent for the rest of the > series, > most of whose major characters ended up dead at least once ;) > > Duh! (Smacking head). Or Ghost Xena for six seasons instead of one ep! - -- 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: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 06:45:58 EST From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Flirty Xena In a message dated 1/24/2003 9:13:54 PM Central Standard Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > I also like to think Auto and Xena got it on in Royal Couple of Thieves, > there was a moment when it looked as if they were possibly working up to > it, > and besides, Auto was quite a presentable guy and my male instincts say > that > after he put in all that effort, he was entitled to a reward. Xena might > have enjoyed it too. ;)>> What moment was that, pray tell, Mr. If It Ain't On Screen? And if you believe "presentable guy" and "put in all that effort" equals "entitled to a reward" is "real" because it happens on screen so much, I have one thing to say: Bwahahahahahaha! > above). Even if we do read different things into it. There has to be a > line somewhere, even if it's slightly blurred as such lines always are.>> Xena threw food to a beggar kid. Xena buried her warrior stuff. Xena stopped some slavers from messin' with Gabs & Co. Xena stood there while her kinfolk stoned her. Xena let a peasant girl ride her horse and stay at her camp. Helluva story ... "line." > > It's probably KT's Catholic upbringing. Just as well she's not a Freudian > > as well ;-)>> I ain't touchin' that with a 10-foot serpent. > > >Yes, Gabrielle was in an untenable position. However, I was more inclined > >to see hypocrisy before Gabrielle killed Meridian. It was easier for her > to > >eschew "taking a life" until confronted with the reality. After, I saw > >someone desperately trying to balance her own ideals (with full knowledge > >of her own capacity to kill) with the love/responsibility she felt toward > >Xena and the Amazons. And, don't forget, it's Xena who tells Gabs not to > >worry, as long as she's with Xena. They both knew and accepted the price > >of being together. > > > >-- Ife > > I think that was a rationalisation on Xena's part.>> "Rationalization." Hmmm, you mean like Gabs did with Princess "Kill `em All"? > > I think, right from the very first episode up until Gabs went berserk in > Ides, there was a conflict between what Gabs believed or professed to > believe > - i.e. non-violence - and her actions in tagging along with Xena. In > other > words, the whole first four seasons. It was just brought into greater > prominence by the 'Way of Peace' thing.>> 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: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 15:05:45 -0500 From: meredith Subject: [chakram-refugees] ADMIN: POLICY CHANGE (for AOL listmembers) Hi, Please note the following policy change for the chakram-refugees list, in particular if you are on AOL. Over the past several weeks I have been receiving bounce messages in my mailbox from AOL, stating that certain posts have not been delivered to certain AOL members because they have set up their AOL mail to reject mail from specific addresses subscribed to this list. Because of a proliferation of these messages emanating from AOL subscribers lately, I am changing the policy of chakram-refugees to treat these messages as an unsubscribe request. I can understand not wanting to read someone's posts, but participation in a mailing list means receiving messages from everyone on the list. If you don't want to read messages from a particular subscriber, and your mail software does not support filtering mechanisms to do this locally, well -- that's what the "delete" key is for. If you are on AOL and have a chakram-refugees listmember in your "reject" filter (or whatever it's called on AOL's end), please change it to accept mail from that listmember again. Otherwise, I will treat the next reject bounce I get from AOL as an unsubscribe request, and will remove you from the list immediately. Sorry to be draconian, but this is really causing an administrative problem for me on my end, and unless I do something it's just going to keep getting worse. If you have any questions about this policy, please contact me directly. Thank you! ============================================== 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 NEXT UP: Holly Figueroa, 1/26/03 ============================================== ========================================================= 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, 25 Jan 2003 20:35:33 -0500 From: "Cheryl Ande" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] RE: HOD - ----- Original Message ----- From: "cr" " Hmm, interesting. Could it be that Eli and Michael aren't in the same faction, Heavenwise? " I think that is very possible. I am starting with the premiss that Eli really believed what he preached about non-violence and is a good guy. If this is the case why should Eli suddenly decide he needs a god killer at all and why burden Xena with that power. Also remember Xena had the power to kill Ares in Seed of Faith but Eli stopped her then. So I think the power either came from Michael or his boss. > "Or maybe, like Olympus, Heaven is not a monolithic organisation. Maybe it does have factions that don't always agree with each other." I quoted a Islamic tale previously about Lucifer's fall coming about because he was jealous of mankind. I'm sort of intriqued with the idea that Archangels don't really respect mankind. So Michael uses them when he can. Perhaps he doesn't even respect Eli and that's why he is willing to sacrifice Eve in TGYK. 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. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V3 #26 *************************************