From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V3 #251 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 Thursday, August 28 2003 Volume 03 : Number 251 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Xena mention [NZJester ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Whoosh article [cr ] [chakram-refugees] Xena June Photo Club question ["Creation (Sharon Delan] [chakram-refugees] 2004 Xena Scrolls Calendar UPDATE ["Creation (Sharon D] [chakram-refugees] June Xena Photo Club wrapper UPDATE ["Creation (Sharon] Re: [chakram-refugees] June Xena Photo Club wrapper UPDATE ["mirrordrum" ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH [IfeRae@aol.com] [chakram-refugees] Ooops. here's the URL ["mirrordrum" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Xena mention At 12:01 am 26/08/2003 -0400, you wrote: >I was watching Seinfeld tonight and Jerry's Dad was commenting how >everything on TV is "crap" (his words)... followed by. "THE ONLY THING I >WATCH IS XENA, WARRIOR PRINCESS" > >Amazing how many shows gave a nod to a TV legend in the making. Even the classic computer generated cartoon ReBoot had a nod to Xena in it I actually saw the rerun last month with the nod to Xena in In it Andria the sprite and Enzo the guardian in training come into a system from the net on there way to try and find there way back to Enzo's home system A reporter named gabby tags along trying to get Andria's story as they get caught up into a Dungeon & Dragons style game When they reboot in the game to get special abilities Andraia's garb looks a bit like Xena's in that Herc & Xena cartoon movie and the garb of the report Gabby is blonde hair a green BGSB top, brown skirt and a staff as a weapon and her reporters pad is now a scroll shape Enzo however looks more Like Mel in brave heart than Herc - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Catch ya later NZJester - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ========================================================= 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: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:33:04 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH (Much snippage) On Wednesday 27 August 2003 10:02, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 8/26/03 4:49:35 AM Central Daylight Time, > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > Ife wrote: > << > What's the subtext got to do with it? I don't see how you can get > more > > > "domestic" than living together -- eating, sleeping, dividing up chores, > > enjoying leisure time, etc. -- as X&G did, regardless of where they did > > it or their relationship. Their "home" happened to be wherever they > > were. Did you mentally put walls between them? See them as two > > individuals who accidentally ended up in the same place most days, > > usually talking to each other? Is it because they didn't have a house? > > What would you call that aspect of their lives? Camping? > > Whatever their presumed life, it bore absolutely no discernible > resemblance to modern domestic existence. Zero. Zilch. Nada. And > to sieze on one > (presumed) facet of their relationship to the exclusion of all the other > totally different circumstances and slap a label on it just beggars > belief. > > > I'm not understanding your response at all. First, what I described above > was not "presumed." We saw it from beginning to end. A modern version of > that is the show "Friends," where unrelated people shared lives and space > that they considered "home." Single people also have domestic lives. We > see Xena cooking something in a pot when Gabs finds her at the end of SOP, > so presumably Xena performed certain domestic chores even when she was > alone. After that, we mostly see her doing such things with Gabs. In terms of 'domestic violence' (the original point), that usually refers to a couple who have an intimate relationship. Not 'just friends'. Or even flatmates. That's a subtly different meaning of the word 'domestic' IMO. But I don't wanna get into all that again.... (snip) > > The Gabdrag didn't bother me personally. To this day, I thrill to that > > music and Xena's riding double on horseback, galloping with that > > mannequin in tow. Still, I can well understand those who thought it was > > way over the top. > > Oh, quite. But 'domestic violence'? That is bizarre.>> > > More bizarre than considering a mass murderer to be a hero? A reformed one. Yes, more bizarre to me. Xena was a hero long before we saw her dark past, and she did heroic things. But there was nothing in the remotest 'domestic' about the Gabdrag. One might as well call it a political statement of the oppression of the common peasants by the horse-riding nobility (except that domestic violence is currently a trendy topic and class warfare isn't). Both, IMO, are equally irrelevant and wide of the mark. > > We did indeed see Xena brutally attack the person she lived with, > > which in some viewers' minds destroyed the feeling of "safety" with the > > one person you trust above all others. They couldn't accept that, > > anymore than you accept that Xena would "blubber" in "Doctor." Doesn't > > matter that it's supposed to be "fantasy." We respond and make our > > assessments based on our on "real" experiences and beliefs. > > Ah. Our real experience of roaming round the countryside fighting > warlords and chatting to gods. That explains it. ;)>> > > I'm assuming you're being facetious. If not, what do you base your > responses on? Yes, I was being facetious. > < point > of dragging it down to the level of my banal life, but I guess that would > hurt nobody but me. >> > > Hmmm, maybe that explains your dismissal of X&G's acitivities that might be > considered "domestic"? If so, at least I can understand that. Yes, absolutely. You've got it! I have absolutely no interest in watching people doing dishes, or cooking, or for that matter digging ditches or potatoes or whatever the menfolk of those times did. Or having domestic arguments. ;) > << Well, 'David and Goliath' (and a number of other such legends) are > noteworthy > by being the exception. I would much prefer, personally, that smartness > could overcome brute strength, but *on average*, most of the time, > strength and size have the advantage. As Peter Cook (?) said in > 'Yellowbeard', a rotten big 'un will always beat a rotten little 'un. >> > > Or, maybe some people (not you) focus only on situations where that's more > likely to be the case? As it usually is in cases of physical conflict, which is what we were discussing. > > < > men.>> > > > > In sports where physical strength give a decided advantage, which men > > like to emphasize. > > And aren't you busy furiously stereotyping 'men' right there? ;)>> > > Yes. I suppose it's because strength is almost always the reason men give > for why a woman can't "be as good as a man," and then proceed to give only > examples where that might be the case. Oh, and "hormones." That's the > other reason. :-) Well, 'good' there begs the question 'good at *what*'? But, in the case of sports, I think that's an area where men do usually have an advantage (and hence are 'better') because in most (not all!) sports, strength is an asset. As you pointed out. > < There are other fields, such as motor racing or car rallying, where > strength > is not very important (though stamina and quick reflexes are), where I > would have thought women should be able to compete on equal terms. Yet > there are very few women racing / rally drivers. I don't know why this > is. I think > possibly women for some reason just aren't so interested in 'machinery'. > Women do seem to be more interested in people, and men in 'things'. (As > a sweeping generalisation).>> > > I'd be more inclined to cite expectations, support and role models. I > don't think it's an accident that many women (and men) who excel in > nontraditional areas come from families where that's the case. They often > receive training early on and come to know a lot of the people who teach, > judge and provide opportunities or sponsorship in that field. It's a > "normal" choice for them, as opposed to a choice that their parents and > others may fight them on or try to steer them away from. Yes, that could be a part of it. I've also found, though, that sometimes women don't *want* to know how their car works. Maybe it's because they think (or have been conditioned to think) that they as women didn't ought to be bothered with that sort of thing. Whereas men (at least of my generation) either feel they ought to know something about it, or at least don't feel they ought *not* to know anything about it. > > I don't think you do consciously or intentionally, anymore than I do. > > But > > you tend to emphasize typically "masculine" advantages (strength) or > > traits (anger) when saying what's "better." > > Tere you are repeating it!!! "Typically masculine... anger" !! > > I *never* said anger was 'better'. I just said that it wasn't what I > call to mind when somebody says 'emotional'. >> > > Then I misunderstood you in a previous post. Maybe you said "less weak." Possibly. And in the context of a *warrior* princess, I expect. > > I tend to look for creativity, quick > > thinking, using the opponents' strengths against him -- which is what I > > love about Xena more than her superhuman physical feats. Yes, I'm sure > > you like those qualities too. The difference is that you see Xena as an > > exception in the "real" world. I do not, because I'm aware of both the > > tradition of women warriors and focus on warrior characteristics I've > > seen women demonstrate on a variety of "battlefields." > > With respect, I think your 'battlefields' may be very different from a > real battlefield - which I have never seen and hope never to. > > > Situations where someone is trying to harm you, physically or otherwise. > "Real" to me means you could be killed, whether it's alone or with 100 > other people, in your own home or a dark alley, as a combatant or someone > caught in the middle. Yes, OK. I've never seen that either. Have you? > << I have no idea how > I'd react with people actually trying to kill me, and I suspect those > women you've observed might react in quite unexpected ways too. >> > > I do, though that doesn't mean I'd react the same way each time. And, yes, > many women go against all the odds or "conventional wisdom" and fight back > or use something else from the arsenal of responses they've developed > because they can't always count on physical means. Particularly when their > children are involved, they may summon "superhuman" strength, if that's > what it takes. (I'm not talking about when the attacker has a weapon that > can be used from a distance, in which case it may not matter how strong you > are anyway.) > < for words, how can you understand a word I'm saying? > (Note that I used 'common' in two senses there - one, 'common' to the two > of us; and two, 'common' meaning 'having one meaning understood by > everybody' - because otherwise, without having exchanged our personal > dictionaries/codebooks beforehand, how would you know what I mean by any > of the words in that sentence?) >> > > I was referring to "common" to the two of us, which is more important to my > understanding you. The "common to everybody" is a starting point and fine > as long as we understand it the same way. In fact it's indispensable, IMO. If we didn't have a fair idea of at least 99% of the words, we couldn't get started, though redundancy does help a lot in filling in any gaps. > I see what we're doing now as > exchanging our "personal dictionaries/codebooks," as opposed to arguing the > validity of my third edition American Heritage Dictionary vs. whatever > dictionary you use. > < manipulate the Anglish language, which you seem to be hinting at, but > frankly I don't want to go there at this time. ;)>> > > I'm not "hinting" at all. I've said I believe words have different > meanings for different people. I'm not interested in "manipulating" > anything. I'm not interested in getting you to redefine your code book. I > "heard" something in what you said that maybe you didn't mean. I was > trying to say why I heard it that way according to my "personal code book" > and how it is "commonly" accepted in *my* world. Hopefully we'll each walk > away with a better idea of why/how our code books differ. I forget what your original reference was, that caused me to make that comment. But anyway, when I said e.g. that 'emotional' *commonly* referred to tears rather than anger (or whatever it was), I meant common to almost *everybody* - - not your group, not my group, not Kiwis, not Americans. It was my impression that almost anybody would see it the same way. Maybe I was wrong in that impression. But I would try to avoid making such an assertion about a term which I know to have varying meanings in different countries - for example 'pissed' which in the US means annoyed and in UK/NZ/Oz means 'drunk'. (There are certainly better / more respectable / less slangy examples but I can't think of one right now). > > The smarter ones are able to quickly > > incorporate new information and creatively respond to new situations, > > when "orders" no longer make sense. I think this is why some of the > > best leaders refrain from "second guessing those in the field." > > From second guessing the *leaders* in the field. >> > > No, from second guessing those in the field. It could be a supply person > who suddenly realizes equipment isn't as it should be and has to make a > split-second decision about whether to use it anyway or waste precious > minutes finding an alternative or Jerry-rigging ("8-wiring" in Kiwi > parlance?) it. 'Numer 8 wiring' - but I'd say a 'lash-up' would be more common Kiwi. I still disagree with you, I think your example is a trifle contrived. We'll just have to disagree. > > "Listening" has > > become a very underrated tool. Doing' it when doesn't matter may not > > nearly as critical as listening when there's new information that could > > get you killed if you ignore it. When animals sense danger, the forest > > becomes quiet. Maybe the biggest is roaring, but the others are > > listening as an important part of their survival. But what do they > > know, eh? > > > > -- Ife > > I just don't think that's relevant to warfare. Hunting, maybe. > > > I was talking about being the hunted, though the hunter might want to > listen as well. Maybe we have different concepts of what "warfare" > involves? > > -- Ife In the present discussion, I was thinking about organised warfare, between groups of people, such as we (usually) saw on Xena. Not geurilla or commando-style warfare (though the Amazons may have approached that at times), but even then, I think, having one person in command is important. cf Endgame, for example. 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: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 22:34:35 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Whoosh article On Wednesday 27 August 2003 10:02, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 8/26/03 4:50:25 AM Central Daylight Time, > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > << Lucy says she thought ROC made her get out > > > of the Amazon outfit so soon because it showed too much skin (as if). > > Whatever the reason, that is *definitely* a huge black mark against ROC!! > > cr > ... who thinks Amazon gear is cool, and LL is cool, and LL in Amazon gear > is.. > ooooooooooo :) >> > > Ahem. Since you happened to leave off the part about ROC doing it for > production reasons, I thought I'd mention it again. Having said that, it > is too bad LL was in the costume for two minutes (if that long). What's > funny is that it's the one time she's complained, though jokingly, about > not being able to wear a scanty outfit longer. I wouldn't be surprised if > it's an outfit she actually didn't mind that much. > > -- Ife *Whatever* the reasons, they were totally inadequate IMO ;) There's an issue of the Xena magazine with LL in that Amazon gear on the cover, IIRC. I reckon LL's taste on this occasion is bang on. She just looks so good in it! As I recall, she didn't object to Gabs' go-go bikini.... she took it along with her to her Metro photoshoot and made the front cover with it. And wow! But I think she looked even better in the Amazon gear. Hmm, let's see, a few things LL looked gorgeous in... In the fur shamaness outfit in Sin Trade (all but the little antlers) The bikini in the forge in Friend in Need Meg (in a bikini) popping out of the cake in Soul Possession Walking out of the water in the white dress in Return of the Valkyrie The Amazon outfit I'm sure there are a few others too. Umm, this is the Flawless list, isn't it? ;) 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: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:55:59 -0700 From: "Creation (Sharon Delaney)" Subject: [chakram-refugees] Xena June Photo Club question To all photo club members, A couple people received the June packet without the white wrapper with the photo club logo that we put around the photos. I'm wondering if this happened to everyone or just those couple people who wrote me. Thanks, Sharon Official Xena Fan Club ========================================================= 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: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:56:40 -0700 From: "Creation (Sharon Delaney)" Subject: [chakram-refugees] 2004 Xena Scrolls Calendar UPDATE For those who have been asking to see what the 2004 XENA SCROLLS CALENDAR looks like, I've put up jpgs of all the months and they can be seen on the fan club page at http://www.creationent.com/outback/fanclubs/index.html Look under the 8/27 note for the day. Check it out -- Gabrielle's got her own centerfold (grin) Sharon Official Xena Fan Club ========================================================= 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: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 10:57:30 -0700 From: "Creation (Sharon Delaney)" Subject: [chakram-refugees] June Xena Photo Club wrapper UPDATE Well, it definitely looks like June went out without the white wrapper We're going to include a second wrapper in the July month for everyone. My apologies, Sharon Official Xena Fan Club ========================================================= 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: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 14:08:13 -0400 From: "mirrordrum" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] June Xena Photo Club wrapper UPDATE why do people want a wrapper? it seems like rather a waste of resources. i suppose that's a bit like swallowing a camel (the photos themselves) and straining at a gnat, but the lust for wrappers totally escapes me. i thought i had one. i dunno, actually. if i have them, i tear them off and recycle them. whatever do people want with WRAPPERS? *sigh* i must be tremendously out of some loop. and sharon, please feel free to send *my* extra wrapper to a person who dotes on wrappers. ;) do they sell on ebay or something? shoot, i suppose if the piece of plywood they used to "hold" xena's head from would sell at auction, people might want a wrapper. md - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Creation (Sharon Delaney)" To: Cc: ; Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 1:57 PM Subject: [chakram-refugees] June Xena Photo Club wrapper UPDATE > Well, it definitely looks like June went out without the white wrapper > > We're going to include a second wrapper in the July month for everyone. > > My apologies, > Sharon > Official Xena Fan Club > ========================================================= > 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. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:14:43 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: ITADITH In a message dated 8/27/2003 5:50:24 AM Central Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > In terms of 'domestic violence' (the original point), that usually refers > to > a couple who have an intimate relationship. Not 'just friends'. Or even > flatmates. That's a subtly different meaning of the word 'domestic' IMO. > But I don't wanna get into all that again.... >> Ah. Again, we have different views of that. With all the different living arrangement today, I'm thinking of "domestic violence" being what happens in the home, usually between adults. True, I used to hear it mostly in reference to male/female married couples. I understand your seeing that in light of the subtext now. > >More bizarre than considering a mass murderer to be a hero? > > A reformed one. > > Yes, more bizarre to me. Xena was a hero long before we saw her dark past, > > and she did heroic things. But there was nothing in the remotest > 'domestic' > about the Gabdrag. One might as well call it a political statement of the > oppression of the common peasants by the horse-riding nobility (except that > > domestic violence is currently a trendy topic and class warfare isn't). > Both, IMO, are equally irrelevant and wide of the mark. >. Yes, I can understand now why it would be "bizarre" to me. I can also see why it would *not* be bizarre to someone who saw X&G as a couple. > > < >point > > of dragging it down to the level of my banal life, but I guess that would > > hurt nobody but me. >> > > > >Hmmm, maybe that explains your dismissal of X&G's acitivities that might be > >considered "domestic"? If so, at least I can understand that. > > Yes, absolutely. You've got it! > > I have absolutely no interest in watching people doing dishes, or cooking, > or > for that matter digging ditches or potatoes or whatever the menfolk of those > > times did. Or having domestic arguments. ;) >> LOL! Okay, that helps explain some other differences in our responses. We tend to dismiss different things. One of the aspects I ((and *possibly* many other women) liked about ADITL and other eps was precisely the little day-to-day bits of X&G's lives -- the banter, the tiffs over "domestic" chores, etc. Mind you, chores aren't my favorite things IRL either, but I got a kick out seeing two female heroes who had mundane lives in between balancing the world on their backs. But the military stuff? I left that up to somebody else to noodle over. <> As Peter Cook (?) said in > >'Yellowbeard', a rotten big 'un will always beat a rotten little 'un. >> > > > >Or, maybe some people (not you) focus only on situations where that's more > >likely to be the case? > > As it usually is in cases of physical conflict, which is what we were > discussing. >> Heh, what *you* were discussing. I saw "warfare," "battle," "conflict" or whatever as having much more than a physical component, as well as applicable to a variety of situations where people might be "fighting" over something. > Well, 'good' there begs the question 'good at *what*'? But, in the case > of sports, I think that's an area where men do usually have an advantage > (and > hence are 'better') because in most (not all!) sports, strength is an asset. > > As you pointed out.>> Actually, I said that that's true of sports where strength is an asset. While strength is definitely a part of most sports, I don't believe it means the "strongest" one will always win, except maybe in a very few sports. > << I've also found, though, that sometimes > women don't *want* to know how their car works. Maybe it's because they > think (or have been conditioned to think) that they as women didn't ought to > > be bothered with that sort of thing. Whereas men (at least of my > generation) either feel they ought to know something about it, or at least > don't feel they ought *not* to know anything about it. >> Well, now even most men can't work on cars as much because so much is computerized. What's interesting to me is how many women are becoming interested in the innards of computers. Thing is, I think women are more "practical" when it comes to having things work as they should. The last thing I want to see is somebody deciding to "fix" the car or stove as some project that will "save" money but ends up taking forever when a repair person could do it instead. Of course, men probably feel the same way when a woman decides to "experiment" with what clothes to wear or make-up to put on when they're supposed to be going out. :-) > > I *never* said anger was 'better'. I just said that it wasn't what I > >call to mind when somebody says 'emotional'. >> > > > >Then I misunderstood you in a previous post. Maybe you said "less weak." > > Possibly. And in the context of a *warrior* princess, I expect. >> In which case I would still disagree. :-) > >Situations where someone is trying to harm you, physically or otherwise. > >"Real" to me means you could be killed, whether it's alone or with 100 > >other people, in your own home or a dark alley, as a combatant or someone > >caught in the middle. > > Yes, OK. I've never seen that either. Have you? >> Yes. > >I was referring to "common" to the two of us, which is more important to > my > >understanding you. The "common to everybody" is a starting point and fine > >as long as we understand it the same way. > > In fact it's indispensable, IMO. If we didn't have a fair idea of at least > > 99% of the words, we couldn't get started, though redundancy does help a lot > > in filling in any gaps. >> I say that because I deal with a lot of people for whom English is not their primary or only language. Fortunately for me, they know more English than I do their language, but the meaning of the words they use can be quite different. They may never find an English word to convey what they really mean, but it's okay, because they explain what they mean well enough for me to "get" it. After that, I can usually give them an English word that might approximate better what they were trying to say. > But anyway, when I said e.g. that 'emotional' *commonly* referred to tears > rather than anger (or whatever it was), I meant common to almost > *everybody* > - not your group, not my group, not Kiwis, not Americans. >> Yes, I understood that. It was my > impression that almost anybody would see it the same way. > Maybe I was wrong > in that impression. >> Perhaps. I personally wouldn't bet much money on something like that. But I would try to avoid making such an assertion about > > a term which I know to have varying meanings in different countries - for > example 'pissed' which in the US means annoyed and in UK/NZ/Oz means > 'drunk'. > (There are certainly better / more respectable / less slangy examples but I > can't think of one right now). >> Well, you're more knowledgeable than I. I'm constantly surprised by how people in my own family come up with such different interpretations of a word I *know* they ought to view as I do. Riiiiight. > I still disagree with you, I think your example is a trifle contrived. > We'll just have to disagree.>> In my experience, things break down for the smallest of reasons -- a blown tire, a lose wire, a person who heard an instruction the wrong way -- an "O" ring or piece of tile on the most sophisticated of space shuttles, or a box cutter that some lowly inspector says shouldn't be allowed on airplanes. Not listening to people who know their jobs is what usually leads to disaster. Perhaps this is back to your point about not wanting to focus on the mundane. > > > >"Listening" has > > >become a very underrated tool. Doing' it when doesn't matter may not > > >nearly as critical as listening when there's new information that could > > >get you killed if you ignore it. When animals sense danger, the forest > > >becomes quiet. Maybe the biggest is roaring, but the others are > > >listening as an important part of their survival. But what do they > > >know, eh? > > > > > >-- Ife > > > > I just don't think that's relevant to warfare. Hunting, maybe. > > > > > >I was talking about being the hunted, though the hunter might want to > >listen as well. Maybe we have different concepts of what "warfare" > >involves? > > > >-- Ife > > In the present discussion, I was thinking about organised warfare, between > groups of people, such as we (usually) saw on Xena. Not geurilla or > commando-style warfare (though the Amazons may have approached that at > times), but even then, I think, having one person in command is important. > > cf Endgame, for example.>> Regardless of what type it is, would you agree that the combatants are usually simultaneously hunters and the hunted? I would not want to be among any group -- especially in war -- where they didn't listen to what was going on around them. If I were the leader, I'd want as many ears checking things out as possible, letting me know what they heard, so I could incorporate that into my strategy if I chose. I would not expect them to tell me something they thought inconsequential, so I don't envision a bunch of folks yammering just to hear themselves talk because I said I wanted to know anything that could affect the success of our mission. A boil on someone's foot could cause someone's death, if the injured person was unable to "cover" a colleague as expected. But I'm getting back to the "mundane" again. - -- 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: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 22:00:25 -0400 From: "mirrordrum" Subject: [chakram-refugees] Ooops. here's the URL in case anyone wants to check out the new "club," here's the URL http://www.xenahercules.com/mail/invite1.html ========================================================= 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: Wed, 27 Aug 2003 21:58:34 -0400 From: "mirrordrum" Subject: [chakram-refugees] Interesting, possibly positive, news on Xena 2 DVDs just got this e-mail advert from davis-anderson. yup, thass right. davis-*anderson* not davis-panzer. NB the source of the dvds: Davis-Anderson has joined with M80 to help spread the power of Xena! Join The Xena Circle! Click Here First 50 people to join get a FREE Xena Poster! Help spread the word and win Xena merchandise such as Bobble Heads, X-mas Ornaments, Autographed Photos, Letter Openers, Swords, DVD Sets and more! Get content and information about chats, features and contests before anyone else, available first to members of The Xena Circle. Look for a chat with Lucy on USA Today September 2nd at 4PM EDT/ 1PM PDT! The Xena Circle will be contacted as soon as more information becomes available, such as where you can submit your questions before the chat is live. You can also check the official site. New Anchor Bay version of Xena: Warrior Princess Season Two DVD featuring commentary and interviews with Lucy Lawless, Renee O'Connor and Rob Tapert in stores September 2nd! soooooo looks like maybe anchor bay's xenathusiasm wasn't just marketing but rather resulted in and was the result of their getting the production rights instead of d-p (now d-a). this would be excellent news for all of us!!!!! i'm feeling hopeful about an improvement in quality for season 2, though i really have no complaints about season 1 given the source antiquity and the fact that they were released by davis-panzer. md ========================================================= 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 #251 **************************************