From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #72 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, March 14 2003 Volume 03 : Number 072 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [chakram-refugees] Metro Mag 3/03 ["Jackie M. Young" ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #68 [cr Subject: [chakram-refugees] Metro Mag 3/03 *Thanks* to MaryD for transcribing that *looooong* but interesting article!!! ;=) I just recently got to read it on MaryD's site, and the first thought that occurred to me was, this is exactly what LL was saying in her print interviews before the end of S5 (about her wanting the show to end after S6), but that she _didn't_ say in her TV interviews when it was announced at the beginning of S6. Of course, she didn't go into such depth about her reasons for wanting to call it quits (I think as Thel pointed out at the time, for diplomacy's sake), but she did allude to being physically tired, and it being a strain, etc. She said none of this on TV, though (in fact, she made it sound as if it was the _studio_ that was canning them). What I don't understand, though, is if she were as stressed out by the show as much as she claims she was in the Metro article, why wasn't she more up-front about it in both her print and TV interviews at the time? I mean, if the show was taking its toll on her, she could still say that diplomatically to the general public on TV and then there wouldn't have been that big letter-writing campaign, etc., and the studio wouldn't've been blamed, etc. I guess she had her reasons for holding back at the time, but I suppose it just seems the more incongruous to me to hear about the depth of it now, in retrospect. ;=/ Just MO, ;) - --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 * * * * "Feel the fear and do it anyway." --Lucy Lawless, * * Evening Post, 7/4/98 * * * * 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, 13 Mar 2003 08:48:08 +1300 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #68 On Wednesday 12 March 2003 14:41, Cheryl Ande wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "cr" > > > There is a big difference between arranged marriages and marriages of > > convenience, I think. Marriages of convenience are usually - umm, > > convenient - for both parties. I imagine sometimes that continues after > > many marriages arrived at in the usual way have collapsed. It would be > > interesting to know the statistics, though probably impossible to > > collect. > > Well since they are marriages with probably low expectations I would assume > they would be successful as long as they stay convienent I also think that maybe common or garden 'convenience' or 'compatibility' or whatever is probably much under-rated in its importance in a marriage. I wonder how many marriages break up because the partners, having fallen out of love, find there's nothing else very attractive about the arangement. I guess I'm not a particular believer in the 'great soulmates' theory anyway. I think any person has a wide range of other people they can grow to love if the circumstances are suitable, and it can happen in a marriage as readily as anywhere else. Besides, if A and B are made for each other and no-one else - what happens if they never meet? Are they gonna die lonely and bitter? > > ... puts 'Paradise by the dashboard light' on the stereo and leans back > > to listen > > Oh one of my favorite albums and a cynical commentary about love to boot. > > Cheryl Oh, yeah. Umm, I gues it's what I was saying up there. ;) 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, 13 Mar 2003 13:45:39 -0500 (EST) From: cande@sunlink.net Subject: Re: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #68 - -------Original Message------- From: cr "I also think that maybe common or garden 'convenience' or 'compatibility'or whatever is probably much under-rated in its importance in a marriage." Oh I think you are right. They did a study some time ago of long time married people (really long like 50 years) and what they found out that friendship played a big part in their successful marriages. These saw each other as their best friend so they were able to make it through all kinds of difficulty. I think passion or "the being in love" lasts for a short if you don't move on to simply loving the person warts and all you are doomed. My parents were married over 50 years and I think the certainly loved one another but more importantly the knew exactly what to expect from one and other and what each other's strength and weaknesses were and compensated for one another. I am sure there were points in their marriage they probably were at their wits end with each other but what they gave each other was more important than the probelms. "I wonder how many marriages break up because the partners, having fallen out of love, find there's nothing else very attractive about the arangement." Yeah one of the most puzzeling things I have heard people say when they break up is that they love the the other guy but they "aren't in love" any more. If you love them that is great if you are prepetually looking to be "in love" I think you are doomed to stagger from one realtionship to another. "I guess I'm not a particular believer in the 'great soulmates' theory anyway. I think any person has a wide range of other people they can grow to love if the circumstances are suitable, and it can happen in a marriage as readily as anywhere else. Besides, if A and B are made for each other and no-one else - what happens if they never meet? Are they gonna die lonely and bitter?" Hmm I think I agree with you but I guess I see the soul-mates thing as finding that person whom you really mesh with. I see them as people who are just extremely compatable. I do think we can love a lot of people on different levels. I have known widowers and widows who have married and been perfectly happy yet I know that they don't love the second partner the same as they did the first but the second marriage is jsut as satisfying as the first. If that makes sense. 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 #72 *************************************