From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V4 #103 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 Tuesday, April 13 2004 Volume 04 : Number 103 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons [cr ] [chakram-refugees] Vicky Pratt nominated! [Lilli Sprintz ] RE: [chakram-refugees] Vicky Pratt nominated! ["Xena Torres" ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question [KTL ] [chakram-refugees] Bitter Suite no goodniks [KTL ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy in Celebrity Skin Issue #126) ["Daniel T. Mil] [chakram-refugees] RE: The Debt ["Cheryl Ande" ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: The Debt ["Cheryl Ande" ] [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle's Hope ["Cheryl Ande" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:39:25 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 11:20, Jackie M. Young wrote: > 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. Well if you want to look at it that way, *nothing* spoken or written can guarantee reality. That wasn't my point. I said that "It was such-and-such" purports to be a statement of fact. I stand by that. This is why we so often add a 'IMO' to our posts when we wish to make clear it's an opinion we're expressing rather than claiming fact. > 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. Who ever said colour was objective? I certainly wouldn't. It's very culturally variable. My wife calls any very dark colour (i.e. dark blue, dark green, dark brown) 'black'. This is why I asked you to define 'exploitative' because that (IMO) is a term subject to far greater variability than different shades of colour are. Probably my example "It was blue" was a poor choice, but it does imply that the item in question is some shade of blue as understood by the speaker - and certainly not red, for instance. A better example would be "The [traffic] light was green" - there is no doubt about the purported meaning of that statement. It's either correct or not - no room for 'opinion'. > > > 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. Well, in that case they have totally failed to understand Einstein's theory, or alternatively don't care. Particularly if their 'theory' is informal, since both Einstein's theories can be expressed entirely formally, mathematically. It would be hard to find a greater contrast between their 'subjective perspective' and Einstein's theories. > 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. I see you've picked up their habits ;) I have my definition (I got it from a tagline) - Reality is that which, when you stop thinking about it, doesn't go away. That'll do me :) > 7. Philosophers say philosophy is older than science (i.e., the > theory of knowledge preceded scientific studies). So is religion, so is superstition. What is the relevance of this? > 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. Well, if you were using some philosophical theory, why did you mention Einstein? If not just for effect? ;) > Is that clearer now? Yes. > > > 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. What about 'em? > > > 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. Well, I didn't find that to be exploitative at all, I found that to be good drama. The Rift, I mean, not H&H. And if the Rift didn't further the storyline, I don't know what did. :) As for using the audience's emotions, isn't that what every drama attempts to do? > 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 Well, you've just (finally) provided your definition of 'exploitative', and I can now say I don't agree at all that the Rift was exploitative. Which I couldn't have said before since I didn't know what you meant by it. OK? BTW, ask your philosophers whether it's possible to have a meaningful discussion about abstract concepts (such as 'exploitative') without first defining your terms. ;) 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 23:56:14 -0500 From: Lilli Sprintz Subject: [chakram-refugees] Vicky Pratt nominated! >Xena Torres said, > >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. > Thanks XT. i checked out the site...GRRRRRRRR. Not even a best actress for some of my favorite people. Such as...Amanda Tapping in Star Gate SG-1. Nominated for SUPPORTING ACTRESS? That's like nominating either Lucy Lawless or Renee O'Connor (except for the first year) for supporting actress on Xena. I know someone else posted (sorry, I forget your name) that the actresses get to choose what category, but i wonder why they would choose supporting category, unless they know that they are not being recognized for their work? Vicky Pratt, in Mutant X, as well as Tapping in SG-1 are in STARRING roles. Tapping has second billing behind Richard Dean Anderson. GRRRRRRRRR. Lilli ========================================================= 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 17:12:13 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 16:17, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > 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! Laurel & Hardy are doubtless more compatible with the 'philosphical' theory Jackie mentions than Einstein > > 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." Why I asked for a definition.... ;) > > 6. Philosophers will always debate "reality" with you. >> > > So *that's* why I do that. Huh. I'm liking this more and more. Not sure you'd want to... I remember the philsophers in the Hitch-Hiker trilogy :) > > 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 It's been posted....... :) Myself when young did eagerly frequent Seer and Sage, and heard great argument About it and about, but evermore Came out by the same Door as in I went cr ... reality is that which, when you stop thinking about it, doesn't go away ========================================================= 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 22:50:36 -0700 From: "Xena Torres" Subject: RE: [chakram-refugees] Vicky Pratt nominated! >That's like nominating either Lucy Lawless or Renee O'Connor (except for >the first year) for supporting actress on Xena. Er. Well...though Renee IS one of the leading ladies, she would also very easily fall into the supporting actress role. The LEAD is really only ONE person. XENA is the name of the show, which gives Lucy that role. If Lucy and Renee were both nominated for best actress, Lucy would win, because she has more 'billing' than Renee. Award shows have odd rules. >I know someone else posted (sorry, I forget your name) *waves* That was me too. ;) >that the actresses get to choose what category, but i wonder why they would >choose supporting >category, unless they know that they are not being >recognized for their work? Exactly. As I mentioned above, 'billing' is a big part of it. I promise you Vicky would NEVER beat Jennifer Garner for best actress. Not because she's not as good, but she's not the STAR of "Mutant X." She's ONE of the stars. It seems to make all the difference. As I mentioned, that's why the "Friends" cast waited so long. They did it...last year or the year before. I can't remember: but that was after EIGHT YEARS as the leading comedy. >Vicky Pratt, in Mutant X, as well as Tapping in SG-1 are in STARRING roles. > Tapping has second >billing behind Richard Dean Anderson. No. Vicky is not the star of "Mutant X." They are all equal. Granted, the first two seasons listed the actors alphabetically and this year they don't and Vicky's name comes first. However, in a show with numerous members, being the first name does not always mean you are the lead. It's a higher thing to be the LAST name and have it read: "And so and so as so and so." Check out the "Charmed" credits for example. When Sharon was on the show, she came first, then Holly, then Alyssa. When Rose came on, the credits changed to Alyssa, Rose and Holly as 'Piper.' SHE'S the 'lead' of the show. But even then, just BARELY. As for Tapping, if she is second to anyone, then she's not the lead. Even if she's the main gal, she's not the lead of the show, and as I said, would mean Jennifer Garner would win by default for being the lead of her show. Get it? Or have I just made it confusing as all heck? Bloody award shows and their rules. *rolls eyes* At least these awards exist to give SOMETHING to the hard working, talented people behind scifi/fantasy movies/television. It's so rare for them to be acknowledged in the Oscars/Emmys. 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" _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN Premium. 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: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 01:58:03 -0800 (AKDT) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The upraised swords of season three > > That was season two. I seldom watch season two. > > See what you're missing! > There are some good moments in Season 2. A few. ;) Well, I have often rewatched Return of Callisto (even more often, the scene where Xena lets Callisto die), A Day In The Life I've watched lots along with Comedy of Eros. Less often, I've watched Girls Just Want to Have Fun. Along with scenes from Ms. amphipolis and Orphan of War. I just watch them much less now that I have so many other eps from later seasons that I love watching much more. > > > > > Lucy and Renee of course both forgot that Xena skewered Gabrielle. > > > > > > Errrm, it was an illusion. > > > > Yup. Just like everything else in the episode once they've screamed their > > way over the cliff. Hence the name of the place, "Illusia". Xena: "NONE of > > this is real." So all actions there are just as real as any other. > > Hang on - the Gabrielle that Xena killed was specifically stated to be an > illusion. (And that was of course confirmed by that fact that Gabs, quite > undamaged, came walking in the door....) So, umm, she was not just an > illusion, but an illusory illusion at that? An illusion of an illusion? > > cr > After Gabrielle yells at Xena for killing her, Xena answers, "No, no... I didn't, it wa...none of this is real! Ares and Callisto, and... Joxer. I didn't kill you. I killed an illusion." Xena is fairly clearly to me saying that everybody there is an illusion. The killed illusion is just one of the numerous illusions in Illusia. Anyway Gabrielle's complaint is still valid--Xena THOUGHT she was killing her. KT ========================================================= 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 02:40:19 -0800 (AKDT) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: The Debt > But I really do think that all these folks had parts in the rift, though > Caesar's inclusion to me is the most tenuous. And I think Xena's > forgive me song, especially the line about "Forgive me and you'll > discover, too, That the love of your love is you", is a somewhat torturous > way of saying, "When you forgive others and let go of the hatred inside, > then you can love yourself again." > > > KT > > Gabrielle: "Believe me. If I have to go the rest of my life without > companionship, (lov)ing myself won't be a problem. > > > You really believe that Xena was referring to Gabrielle loving herself! > Hmm I have a more subtexty explanation, naturally. > > CherylA > > > Gasp! I never lie about Xena! And yes, it took me a bit of contemplation to figure out what the heck Xena was saying with that line but that's what I came up with. A person consumed with hatred does not love themselves. Not ever. And I bet I may know what take you took on it. Because after I saw it and read through my spoilers folder, I read that the pure subtext viewers were translating that line this way: "The love of your love is you" Okay, so we know that these two are lovers. So when Xena says to Gabrielle, "Your love", she's talking about herself. So Xena is saying, The love (the one who Xena loves) of your love (Xena) is you. (Gabrielle.)" Me, I have a question on that translation. The sentence starts with "Forgive me and you'll discover, too, That the love of your love is you". So does this mean that Gabrielle has never known that Xena loves her and that only if Gabrielle forgives Xena will she realize that she loves her? (And if so, then they aren't lovers yet.) Or is she saying that if Gabrielle doesn't forgive Xena then Xena won't love her? But I don't buy that because only in fanfic does one of the girls (and most often it's Gabrielle) withhold love or sex as a measure of control. Not in the show. It's a hilariously clanging line. KT ========================================================= 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 03:01:08 -0800 (AKDT) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question > > It was intriguing to me because though Niklios (sp?), an excellent, expert > > healer had declared Xena dead, she was not yet totally gone. But then of > > course, that's just Xena, able to leap tall ships in a single bound, stop > > speeding arrows with her teeth and make her own choice on whether mortal > > wounds will make her die or not. >. > > Yes, Niklio was right, in that she had, at that moment decided to die. No > doubt her body stopped functioning at the point, so he didn't know that she > changed her mind. She was clinically dead. This is the dead that people come back from. I just expected that Niklio being to me a spiritual healer as well as a physical healer might have been more aware that Xena was hanging on. (so to speak.) > > > As always, for Xena, things are just a little bit different than they are > > for just plain folks. >> > > > Actually, Gabs also decided to come back in "Doctor," so I'm not sure the > intent was to show Xena as that unusual in terms of the "will to live" factor. > > > > -- Ife Gabrielle went to the Elysian Fields. (How'd she do that without Hades coming in, shoving Xena aside and tapping Gabrielle as "Good to go"?) And sure, people do come back from being clinically dead all the time. But Xena was unique in going to that "waiting room" where the choice of "Do I go or do I stay" appeared to be totally left up to her. No god came along and decided where she should go. Just M'lila who pleaded with her to decide to return to Greece. KT ========================================================= 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 05:17:54 -0800 (AKDT) From: KTL Subject: [chakram-refugees] Bitter Suite no goodniks > CherylA wrote-- > >War is afterall the ulimate expression of hate. > > \Not/ necessarily. > > Those gypsies and homosexuals (and Jews) in the Nazi concentration camps > would not consider the war itself, in all its heinousness, as ultimate an > expression of hatred as what was done to them. > > > TEXena Heck--I meant to answer this one of Cheryl's also but I got into a deleting frenzy and somehow must have tossed that one out with the trash. First I'd have agree with TEXena. Second, I think most wars come from need/greed rather than from hatred. Your tribe is growing and you need new fertile farmlands. Your neighboring tribe has some nice ones. The caribou change their migration route and now you have to follow them and muscle in on the hunting lands of another group. You have luscious tax exemptions on gas-guzzling SUVs so someone else's oil looks mighty pretty. Of course, once you begin to kill the locals to get to their resources, then yes, war seeds lots of hatred. The Romans didn't create an empire because they hated everybody else in the world. They just wanted more people paying into the Roman treasury. So often war is more about physical needs and desires than about emotional needs. Well, at the start of wars. And I just have a gut feeling about Ares that he doesn't really hate anybody. Ares is... just Ares. He yam what he yam. He's just the god of war. Yeah he thrives on chaos. (So do I, actually...) I don't think religious fanatics necessarily hate the people they are trying to convert. Blood sacrifice is a big part of many ancient religions. And the sacrificee is often loved and respected for what they give to the tribe through their sacrifice. I don't think Krafstar particularly hated people. Like Seraphin, he was working to bring his god into the world. Hmmmm. I just went and read the Whoosh transcript of the Deliverer. Oh MAN, that boy was indeed filled with hate! No question. (I LOVE the line, "I AM THE DELIVERER! Now Xena YOU have to go." That just cracks me up.) Of course, the "Deliverer" always reminds me of pizza. Get the door. I'ts Dahok. Okay, so let's drop this point. Besides, I'm Catholic. We kind of turn the tables in terms of sacrifice. We actually eat our god. So what the heck do I know? But anyway, whether you see the Bittersuite chorus as symbols of the hatred that X&G have to let go of to get back together or whether you see them as examples of how X&G will become if they let the hatred inside them fester, the initial question, "Why isn't Hope among them" is still valid. And in fact, when you look at Forget me Not, check out what Gabrielle has been having nightmares over. The first trial, The River of Wailing, is about her murder of Meridian and her "part" in Crassius death. The second trial, The River of Woe is about her betraying Xena to M'ing and slapping her while she was helpless and bound and forced to kneel before her enemies. (Obligatory disclaimer--There is no way in hell the Gabrielle I know from this story would ever do that. Just as there's no way in hell she would just stand idly by and watch people drag Xena over to an altar to kill her without trying to save her). The final trial, well, is pretty much the same as number 2 except that it's the deal that she's agonizing over. And well she might. As she says, "I wanted to get there before Xena. So that I could betray her. I WANTED to betray her. I gave her EVERYTHING and it meant nothing to her". (A bit of grandstanding there--she just gave Xena some toilet paper. And Xena was pretty damn grateful for that.) "I hated her for loving someone else. I wanted her to hurt! I wanted her to be punished! And I almost got her killed. Why... my hatred and jealousy almost destroyed my best friend." And well might she be very guilty over this being the real reason she betrayed Xena. We went from her doing her regular, usual, courageous, hanging off Xena's weapon arm to slow the Warrior Princess down and babbling in her ear when she gets into these snarling rages because that's her job-to help Xena on her atonement path; to the reason for the Chin betrayal suddenly being all about Gabrielle and her hurt feelings. Petty jealousy and sheer mean-spiritedness on her part leads to Xena going through what she did in the present day of the Debt? Furken A. The woman SHOULD be burning up with guilt. However that's it. Once again, there's no unsresolved issues over her killing Hope. If she's guilty for what she did there's no sign of her having to accept and work through that in either Bitter Suite or in Forget Me Not. And so my initial possible answer as to why Hope wasn't part of the chorus, "Because what Gabrielle did to Hope was what she needed to do" still rings true to me. KT ========================================================= 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 18:54:18 -0700 (PDT) From: "Daniel T. Miller" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Lucy in Celebrity Skin Issue #126) On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 18:17:09 -0900 (AKST), KTL wrote: >Thanks, Lee. My feelings exactly. > >It's a spiritual endeaver, replying to posts. The time must be right and >that awareness of the process of replying, when and how posts suddenly >foment and rise to the top of the list to be answered, is mysterious, >purely instinctive and totally illogical. The stunned mullet Did anyone else imagine a dazed hairpiece? :~) (drum rimshot) > >Speaking of moldy posts, I hear the posts on "Xena's season four blues" >saxaphoning out to me.... > >KT > >Ow. I'm humming "Harlem Nocturne" and imagining Xena blowing the tune on the sax. Hey, not a bad image. I wonder if a blues or jazz episode was ever considered? ************************************************************** __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/ ========================================================= 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 22:16:27 -0400 From: "Cheryl Ande" Subject: [chakram-refugees] RE: The Debt CherylA wrote-- >War is afterall the ulimate expression of hate. "\Not/ necessarily. Those gypsies and homosexuals (and Jews) in the Nazi concentration camps would not consider the war itself, in all its heinousness, as ultimate an expression of hatred as what was done to them." There would have been no war if Hitler was not consumed by the hatred which led to the atrocities committed by him. The war was started by him and forced upon the rest of the world. To me war is and will always be about hatred. Wars are started by those that hate and they drag everyone into it. The people in the concentration camps and those who suffered at the hands of Japanese army in China and the Philippines suffered because of hatred. 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. ========================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 22:32:19 -0400 From: "Cheryl Ande" Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: The Debt - ----- Original Message ----- From: "KTL" > > > > > > You really believe that Xena was referring to Gabrielle loving herself! > > Hmm I have a more subtexty explanation, naturally. > > > > CherylA > > > > > > > > > Gasp! I never lie about Xena! And yes, it took me a bit of contemplation > to figure out what the heck Xena was saying with that line but that's what > I came up with. A person consumed with hatred does not love themselves. > Not ever. Yes I do agree with you there. People who hate are, I believe, consumed by self-loathing which they project on to someone else. Callisto probably hates herself for surving at Cirra and in all probablity feels guilty about this. Her self-loathing is translated into a pathological hatred of Xena. A hatred that is so great that she actually transforms herself into what she hates most - a murderous warlord. > > And I bet I may know what take you took on it. Because after I saw it and > read through my spoilers folder, I read that the pure subtext viewers were > translating that line this way: > > "The love of your love is you" Okay, so we know that these two are lovers. Do we? Perhaps they aren't lovers at this point. Maybe they haven't quite realized or accepted their relationship yet. > So when Xena says to Gabrielle, "Your love", she's talking about herself. > So Xena is saying, The love (the one who Xena loves) of your love (Xena) > is you. (Gabrielle.)" > > Me, I have a question on that translation. The sentence starts with > "Forgive me and you'll discover, too, That the love of your love is you". > > So does this mean that Gabrielle has never known that Xena loves her and > that only if Gabrielle forgives Xena will she realize that she loves her? > (And if so, then they aren't lovers yet.) > > Or is she saying that if Gabrielle doesn't forgive Xena then Xena won't > love her? But I don't buy that because only in fanfic does one of the > girls (and most often it's Gabrielle) withhold love or sex as a measure of > control. Not in the show. > > It's a hilariously clanging line. No I agree it's a awful line. I can see accept the interpretation that forgiveness in the abstract leads to self acceptance and self love (stop snickering KT!). I also can interpret the line as saying that once you free yourself from hate you can see that you are worth being loved. That you will recognize the love others have for you CherylA > > KT ========================================================= 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 22:54:14 -0400 From: "Cheryl Ande" Subject: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle's Hope I watched the episode again recently and was very interested in the comments made by R.J about this episode. The one I found most interesting is where he said that Xena is a hero in this episode because she makes the choice to kill Hope. I am assuming he was implying that this was a difficult choice for her because Hope was a baby (a cute one at that ,though the more I watch the episode I find that kid more spooky each time) or because Xena had to overcome doubts she had about Hope. I would have loved to have heard Lucy's take on this. I some how think that Lucy didn't think of Xena as a hero here. I am particularly intrigued by the way she played the scene with Gabrielle in the castle when they are discussing Hope's future. Gabrielle has just said something to the effect that she would use Hercules as a model for Hope. Xena then says she would be watching Hope's development very closely. Gabrielle then warns Xena not to come between her and her daughter. What I find interesting is that Lucy plays that scene with a smug sense of superiority. It is as if Xena expects that Gabrielle will naturally accept Xena's judgment over her daughter's fate. I don't know if Lucy is doing this so that Gabrielle's anger is seen a justified and giving Renee something to play off or she feels that Xena is being premature in her condemnation of Hope. I have always thought that Xena was just a bit to quick to decide that Hope was evil. Why is she so sure the baby strangled the knight. The castle is obviously riddled with secret passages. She herself just left the door open to one when she went looking for the missing knight. Gabrielle is right anyone could have come in a strangled the knight. So Xena is Xena justified at this point in time in deciding that Hope had to be killed? 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 V4 #103 **************************************