From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V4 #102 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, April 12 2004 Volume 04 : Number 102 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] The upraised swords of season three [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons [IfeRae@aol.com] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 15:02:11 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The upraised swords of season three On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 06:44, Lee Daley wrote: (Huge snippage) > Having a conversation with someone you are about to > kill is also a typical scene. Don't the villains realize this allows to > hero to come to the rescue. Not to mention the standard James Bond scene: "No Mr Bond, I'm not going to do anything so mundane as shooting you, I'm going to leave you unattended in this diabolical machine so you can have plenty of time to escape and come and kill me later". (This usually happens immediately after the villain has told James Bond all the vital details of his plans). cr > Throwing a spear (unless you are carrying > several, as the roman soldiers did) leaves you unarmed, as Gabrielle did, > poking is much better. Just reminded me of a favourite Xena - Callisto confrontation, in Intimate Stranger, where Xena goes to chaky Callisto - "Uh-uh. I'll just catch it and throw it back". 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, 11 Apr 2004 11:58:23 +0100 From: "A. Reddecliffe" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Vicky Pratt nominated! ???? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. She gets main billing on Mutant X, so why is she nominated as support? There does seem to be a pattern of sorts - Amanda Tapping is also nominated as support for Stargate SG1, whereas Richard Dean Anderson and Michael Shanks were nominated as best actors. Their definition of supporting seems to be very broad (Jolene Blalock on Enterprise??), but their definition of television series is even broader (Battlestar Gallactica - a 2 episode mini series?). Go figure. Ann > The talented Canadian Vicky Pratt (known to Xenites as Cyane from AITST) has > been nominated for a Saturn Award for Best Supporting Actress in a > Television Series. For more info and other nominees, check out > http://www.saturnawards.org/ > BATTLE ON XENA! ========================================================= 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, 10 Apr 2004 23:19:35 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Posts [was: Season Four (4)] In a message dated 4/9/2004 10:09:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jyoung@lava.net writes: > Ife tried to resuscitate me, but I was close to cardiac arrest as it was, > so was almost *unsaveable*. ;) > LOL! But your spirit is still hovering there, right? It can pop back in if we show you scenes from your past, pound your chest some more and have somebody (sorry, not me) slobber in your mouth. We can still hear your thoughts, which we can continue to translate if necessary. - -- 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: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 10:40:11 -0700 From: "Xena Torres" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Vicky Pratt nominated! >???? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. She gets main billing on >Mutant X, so why is she nominated as support? > >There does seem to be a pattern of sorts - Amanda Tapping is also nominated >as support for Stargate SG1, whereas Richard Dean Anderson and Michael >Shanks were nominated as best actors. > >Their definition of supporting seems to be very broad (Jolene Blalock on >Enterprise??), but their definition of television series is even broader >(Battlestar Gallactica - a 2 episode mini series?). Go figure. I think the actor decides what catagory to shoot for. Remember how the "Friends" actors used to always be supporting actors in the emmys, then they CHOSE to try our for best actor. Maybe the Saturn awards work the same. Also, even though Vicky is first in the credits, "Mutant X" is really a 'team' show, and not a 'lead' show, just as all the "Star Trek" series and "Stargate." (except for the guy whom they advertise more, perhaps) BATTLE ON XENA! Xena Torres: Warrior Writer http://www.geocities.com/bitchofrome "And most importantly, I've learned that the heart can betray, but the sword never lies." - Eve "Heart of Darkness" _________________________________________________________________ MSN Premium includes powerful parental controls and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines ========================================================= 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, 11 Apr 2004 13:20:56 -1000 (HST) From: "Jackie M. Young" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons OK, I guess I must be a *glutton* for punishment.....;=/ I'm REALLY supposed to be doing my schoolwork now......;( On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, cr wrote: > On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 18:52, Jackie M. Young wrote: > > On Mon, 29 Mar 2004, cr wrote: > > > > > > "It was good" (or "It was exploitative") implies that it is so by some > > > objective and hence definable standard. > > > > --Who says? > > English grammar says. "It was good" purports to be a statement of fact. > Just like "It was blue" or "It was six feet long". - --English grammar doesn't define reality. It sets parameters, but it can't tell us if something actually exists or not. To give you an example of how people can disagree on something as "objective" as color, I have a student assistant in my office who's from China. I told him to get me a hanging file folder that was "green" from the shelf. He couldn't find it, so I kept pointing to it. He asked me, "Is this green?" I said, yes, it was green. He said, "It looks yellow to me." Now, these folders are a dark green color. Nothing "borderline" or "psychedelic" about them. The usual office fare. Yet this student (who's a master's student, BTW) couldn't agree with me on the color green. > > Haven't you heard of Einstein? Relativity? > > Please do _not_ confuse scientific concepts which are precisely > mathematically defined - as Einstein's principles of Special and General > Relativity are - with the completely different and totally unrelated concept > which I assume you're referring to. > > Nothing pisses off scientists (or engineers) more than to have a scientific > concept misused, misquoted or misinterpreted presumably because it sounds > high-tech or intellectual. - -- 1. I YAM NOT a PHILOSOPHER. 2. However, I work in the Philosophy Dept. at our local university, and have an interest in the area. 3. I have heard philosophical arguments in our dept. using the term "relativity", and these were not in connection with science. 4. I asked at least two philosophers in our dept. about "relativity" and they both agreed that there is an informal PHILOSOPHICAL theory of relativity out there based on Einstein's scientific theory. From what I can gather, it's somewhat like situational ethics; that a person's perception of reality depends on his/her subjective perspective. 5. There is even a philosophical area of study called Philosophy of Language, in which meaning is debated based on your cultural (and other) perspectives (i.e., do you REALLY mean what you say?). 6. Philosophers will always debate "reality" with you. 7. Philosophers say philosophy is older than science (i.e., the theory of knowledge preceded scientific studies). 8. Although I cannot define the PHILOSOPHICAL theory of relativity more precisely, I believe I am using the term correctly and not just for effect. Is that clearer now? > > Since when did Ebert and Roper represent The Truth or Objectivity? > > Who? - --They are an American film critic team on syndicated TV. Roger Ebert used to be paired with Gene Siskel, when the show was called Siskel and Ebert, but Siskel died of cancer several years ago. Basically, the team gives their opinions on whether films are good or not, and their interpretations of the films, much like we are doing on this list. > > Whenever folks discuss TV/film, it's ALL an opinion, IMO. Of course, you > > give examples to back it up, but it all comes down to interpretation (like > > Ife and I have been saying)......;P > > Of course. Since when did I say otherwise? - --Above, when you said "'It was good'" (or 'It was exploitative') implies that it is so by some objective and hence definable standard". IMO, there is no "standard", just OO. The interesting part about the discussion then, is _why_ people come to the conclusions they do. > Well, you still haven't defined it, so I still have no idea quite what you > think it means. And it's the sort of loaded word which can mean very > different things to different people. Like 'Politically Correct'. - --Per above, I can try to define it, but it really all comes down to what examples led us to our conclusions to begin with, not how we define a term, as that may change with the examples we witness. I.e., I can generally say I think "exploitative" means to manipulate or "use" the audience's emotions for the writer's own ends, not to further the storyline organically. This is true for the T&A we witnessed in Hooves & Harlots, as well as the over-reaching plotlines of Dahok and The Rift, but to differing degrees. Although *I* did find the T&A in HH to be "exploitative", when I first used the term I really meant the "hot button" plots as Ife said, of demon gods and X&G out to "get" each other. Since IMO it is ALL OO, I believe we should just get to the issue at hand, which is providing examples of why we believe the way we do, rather than debate definitions (which don't really matter in the long run, anyway). 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: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 00:17:38 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons In a message dated 4/11/2004 4:26:53 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jyoung@lava.net writes: > 4. I asked at least two philosophers in our dept. about > "relativity" and they both agreed that there is an informal PHILOSOPHICAL > theory of relativity out there based on Einstein's scientific theory. > From what I can gather, it's somewhat like situational ethics; that a > person's perception of reality depends on his/her subjective perspective. >> Yes! This is what I was arguing with cr way back when we were on notions of "reality." See, Jackie, "translation" works both ways. Laurel & Hardy are back! (At least for a little while.) Thanks! > > 5. There is even a philosophical area of study called Philosophy > of Language, in which meaning is debated based on your cultural > (and other) perspectives (i.e., do you REALLY mean what you say?).>> Yes again! We see that constantly on these lists, especially when folks are from different countries. That's why dictionary and "common" definitions are only starting points, because the words themselves are automatically loaded with personal meaning. Like "exploitative." > > 6. Philosophers will always debate "reality" with you. >> So *that's* why I do that. Huh. I'm liking this more and more. > > 7. Philosophers say philosophy is older than science (i.e., the > theory of knowledge preceded scientific studies). > > 8. Although I cannot define the PHILOSOPHICAL theory of relativity > more precisely, I believe I am using the term correctly and not just for > effect. > > > Is that clearer now? >> Ooo, I can't wait to see cr's answer! - -- 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. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V4 #102 **************************************