From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #233 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, August 17 2003 Volume 03 : Number 233 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] ITADITH [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] OT: DVDs [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] ITADITH [IfeRae@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 15:33:47 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] ITADITH On Saturday 16 August 2003 09:42, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > As someone else said, Lucy expressed concern about Xena's letting go like > that. It was ROC and others who convinced her not to "protect" the > character from doing something so human. Seems she was glad she did. I, of course, would say that LL was right the first time. :) > << Just MO, > --Jackie (who's glad Thel agrees with her _some_times ;P )>> > > LOL! I won't comment on what that might mean. Anyway, I appreciate your > response. It helps me understand how your criteria for all this differ > from mine. I think of myself as fairly "stoic" and not particularly > comfortable with "touchy feely" stuff. (If I may butt in....) Heck, I think of myself the same way. Maybe I'm more so than you are. ;) > It sometimes surprises me when I > end up arguing for the "rightness" of Xena's emotions in a situation like > "Doctor," even though I think I have perfectly "logical" reasons based on > Xena's fundamental characteristics -- as I'm sure you do too for feeling > those emotions weren't appropriate. > > -- Ife Hmm, I wouldn't say 'not appropriate', I'd just say "not what I'd expect from Xena". 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: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 17:35:28 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] OT: DVDs On Saturday 16 August 2003 15:11, Jackie M. Young wrote: > This is from my friend Katsu in Japan (who's on this list). Since people > have been asking questions about DVDs, this is pretty much THE > comprehensive FAQ on them, and more. ;) > > It does show that they are far less *reliable*/compatible than we have > been led to believe.....;P *sigh* > > http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#1.41 > > > --Jackie > Heh. You could say the same about computers. On the whole, I'd say DVD's are waaay more compatible than, say, Windows2000 is with Windows98. Of all the DVD discs I've owned/rented, I've had problems with four. One was a faulty DVD (it skipped and hung badly, but not always in exactly the same spot) - replaced by the supplier with another one which plays fine in my player. One shows minor incompatibilities with one of my two players - it has 'pauses' (short hangups) in the exact same places whenever played; it playes fine in my other player. The other is more serious - it hangs when it hits the menu. It plays fine in my other player, and another copy of the DVD, however, plays fine in Player no 1. And, one case of the serious dropouts was due to a slight scratch on the DVD, cured completely by polishing with a DVD repair kit. Compare this with the usual condition of rental VCR tapes (and the occasional tendency of old VCR's to eat same) and DVD is, I think, okay. Not perfect but no more fault-prone than tape. As for the quite indefensible 'Region coding' - I'd never buy a player that wasn't multi-region and dual-standard (PAL / NTSC), though this may be more difficult in the US than elsewhere in the world. 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: Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:04:23 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] ITADITH In a message dated 8/15/2003 11:29:49 PM Central Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > On Saturday 16 August 2003 09:42, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > > >As someone else said, Lucy expressed concern about Xena's letting go like > >that. It was ROC and others who convinced her not to "protect" the > >character from doing something so human. Seems she was glad she did. > > I, of course, would say that LL was right the first time. :)>> Natch. And you, of course, would be WRONG. Thank goodness Lucy wanted Xena to "stretch" and be more than a one-note scowler. > > >< > --Jackie (who's glad Thel agrees with her _some_times ;P )>> > > > >LOL! I won't comment on what that might mean. Anyway, I appreciate your > >response. It helps me understand how your criteria for all this differ > >from mine. I think of myself as fairly "stoic" and not particularly > >comfortable with "touchy feely" stuff. > > (If I may butt in....) > Heck, I think of myself the same way. Maybe I'm more so than you are. ;)>> > Big surprise. I think you and Jackie have me beat in that regard. > > >It sometimes surprises me when I > >end up arguing for the "rightness" of Xena's emotions in a situation like > >"Doctor," even though I think I have perfectly "logical" reasons based on > >Xena's fundamental characteristics -- as I'm sure you do too for feeling > >those emotions weren't appropriate. > > > >-- Ife > > Hmm, I wouldn't say 'not appropriate', I'd just say "not what I'd expect > from > Xena". >> Understood. That's what I was getting from Jackie's comments. - -- Ife > > 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. > ========================================================= ========================================================= 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 #233 **************************************