From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V4 #105 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, April 15 2004 Volume 04 : Number 105 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: The Debt [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question [IfeRae@aol.com] [chakram-refugees] Vicky Pratt nominated! [Lilli Sprintz ] Re: [chakram-refugees] The upraised swords of season three [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons [cr ] RE: [chakram-refugees] Vicky Pratt nominated! ["Xena Torres" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 00:26:37 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: The Debt In a message dated 4/13/2004 2:22:11 PM Pacific Daylight Time, fsktl@aurora.uaf.edu writes: Cheryl said: > 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 > > > Oh yeah, well, yeah, that absolutely fits too. > > Ah, so perhaps the kindest interpretation of that gooblydink is that Xena > is saying that she has already forgiven Gabrielle for her part in Solon's > death and has released the hate towards Gabrielle that fomented in her, > leaving only the love towards her behind. That works too. And certainly > fits the intent of the ep. > Both of those work for me. It never occurred to me to interpret that in a romantic way, or even specifically related to X&G -- as opposed to a more general sentiment about confession, apology and forgiveness. Heck, Xena sings to Solan first, with the "love of your love" lines flowing from her guilt about him and deceiving Gabs. I have no problem with "love" in a subtext sense, but I do with using it to the exclusion of the wealth of other intepretations. - -- 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, 14 Apr 2004 00:26:39 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question In a message dated 4/13/2004 2:07:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time, fsktl@aurora.uaf.edu writes: > LOL! This whole thing started because you asked what our thoughts were > about where Xena was. Because it's the only time we've ever seen anyone in > a place like that. It was as is so many things, unique to Xena. >> Um, well, I wasn't asking because I thought it so unique. I certainly didn't think Tartarus was unique. I simply wondered if it was supposed to be Tartarus, and if so, what did that say about Xena's efforts at that point to atone. Some answers made me wonder if maybe she was in some dreamscape of her own making, so that we were seeing her own perception of where she belonged, rather than someone else's judgment. Still other responses suggested maybe it was based more on visual appeal, not necessarily intended to imply too much about how far she'd progressed in her quest. RT mentions Tartarus in his commentary, so I do tend to think somebody -- whether it's Xena herself -- believes that's where she belonged at the time. The> > difference in choosing to come back was that Xena was given the choice > before she was assigned her place. That it was "understood" she had a > choice, so why take the trouble of slotting her in if she's going back > anyway? >> But, as I say above, RT put her in Tartarus, which is consistent with the impression I got. The question for me is, was she really there or did she imagine herself there? If it's the former, then somebody had actually assigned her place. > > Gabrielle coming back, including the story she told about seeing her loved > ones is a classic experience related by those who have what we call a > "near death experience". Those very rare folks who return from being > clinically dead and don't go on to being brain dead. Gabrielle had a, > while not common experience, a not unique one either. >> Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought Gabs had visited the Elysian Fields. I don't know whether she'd been "assigned" a place or what. Wherever she was, whatever state of "death," she apparently chose to be "called" back, just like Xena. That to me wasn't unique. If we're going to talk "unique," I'd have to focus on Xena's ability to be in suspended animation for so long before coming back. But that was because of Lucy's accident. Otherwise, Xena would've come back quicker, just like Gabs. However, I'll grant you that aspect of uniqueness, even it wasn't intentional, since (for whatever reason) that's what I saw happen. Okay? - -- 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, 14 Apr 2004 03:35:59 -0500 From: Lilli Sprintz Subject: [chakram-refugees] Vicky Pratt nominated! I'm a little calmed down now. > "Xena Torres" said, after my short post of: That's like nominating either Lucy Lawless or Renee O'Connor (except for >> the first year) for supporting actress on Xena. > > XT said > > 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.,,and also, I said, that the actresses get to choose what category, but i wonder why they wouldchoose supporting category, unless they know that they are not being recognized for their work? > XT responded: > 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. > also: > > ... Vicky [Pratt] 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." > ..... > 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. I believe your statement "bloody award shows" kind of sums it up in terms of politics. So your logic and understanding of it is making some sense to me...the RIGHTNESS of it (or the WRONGNESS) i should say, is what bothers me (3 am in the morning and i'm not writing coherently). Anyway, Amanda Tapping, understandably, is not given main first billing, so i see they can get away with that. but as a fan who is looking at the BEST actresses on these shows, Amana Tapping far and away is not whimpy, and very powerful and brilliant, and articulate, hopefully those wonderful qualitities won't work against her. (being a bit sarcastic here). My response is still GGGRRRRRRRRRRR &: ) 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: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:46:00 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle's Hope On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:54, Cheryl Ande wrote: (snip) > 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 In a word, yes. (IMO). Dahak had explicity needed to use Gabrielle to let him enter the world. Hope was spectacularly unnatural - Gabs was pregnant for what, one day? There's only one possible conclusion to be drawn from that - Hope was Dahak's creature. Xena was, admittedly, a little insensitive (IMO) in the way she told Gabrielle... on the other hand, how does one sensitively tell someone 'Your daughter is the spawn of the Devil and must die" ? 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: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 23:56:13 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The upraised swords of season three On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:58, KTL wrote: > > > 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. And Destiny. Don't forget Destiny!!! :) (snip) > > 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 Of course, the illusion was trying to kill Xena, too. Just that Xena was rather better at 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, 14 Apr 2004 19:46:16 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: The Debt On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 09:18, KTL wrote: > > 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. > > Oh yes. She's DRENCHED in survivor guilt. And it can only be worse after > Armageddon (was that the name of ther Herc one?) where she actually has a > part in making her family die. Jeeeeeez. Armageddon Now. She more than had a part, she accidentally killed her father and her mother in that ep - however, since Iolaus managed to go back in time and save Alcmene (thus pressing the Reset button), it got cancelled and never actually happened, much to my disappointment. I love Callisto but I love good irony even more. ;) (snip) > And it was the pure subtexters who started the interpretation of this line > with the premise, "We all know X&G are lovers". Whereas of course we all know that Gabrielle was a Scary Fan with a Xena obsession and made up all the subtexty stuff in the scrolls as a wish-fulfilment fantasy > > > 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 only snickered after you told me not to. You know you and I agree on the > show far more than we disagree on it. And I certainly don't see these > exchanges of posts as a contest to make the other side agree with what you > say. We disagree on what the Bitter Suite chorus meant. I have no problem > with that and am happy to leave it that way. Well, that line always struck me as particularly awkward, too, just in the way it was phrased. Though I never analysed it much, it sounded vaguely narcissistic to me. 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, 14 Apr 2004 20:56:47 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 18:08, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > > > 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. >> > > Would you please do me the great favor of contrasting Einstein's theory > with what Jackie said? I'm being totally serious here, especially since > I've never understood where "theory" lies on the scientific continuum of > "what is." Well, firstly, I think I should make the point that Einstein's 'theories' of relativity have been well tested and qualify as scientific 'laws'. But as I said before, both of Einstein's 'theories', Special and General Relativity, are mathematically precise and give mathematically exact results. Special Relativity deals with certain properties of space-time. General Relativity deals with the way space-time is curved in a gravitational field. Neither one has any room or allowance for opinions, any more than Pythagoras' Theorem or Newton's Laws do. Opinions, personal viewpoints, whatever are irrelevant, that's not what those theories were about. Jackie's 'philosophical theory of relativity' is, I would think, the antithesis of that, and probably incapable of being formulated in precise mathematical terms. It has nothing more in common with either of Einstein's 'theories' than a word in the name. Any more than the Bermuda Triangle has to do with Pythagoras' Theorem (which is all about triangles). It's unfortunate for Einstein's theories that 'relativity' turned out to be such a catchy word. The only other one I can think of that turned out to be equally unfortunate is 'evolution', which is possibly equally misrepresented and misunderstood. > > > 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? >> > > That there's a thin line between them? I'll be more specific. The relative age of philosophy vs science is (IMO) quite irrelevant to the present discussion. > > BTW, ask your philosophers whether it's possible to have a meaningful > > discussion about abstract concepts (such as 'exploitative') without first > > defining your terms. ;) > > Now, cr, I think that's unreasonble, as we'd have to define everything in > your sentence from "possible" and "meaningful" to "discussion" and > "defining." To me, neither of you "defined" exploitative in my sense of the > word. Both of you applied your "sense" of the word to particular > situations, which gave me a sense of what you meant. It's hard for any of > us to automatically know which words we use will be important or unclear or > totally misunderstood. Hence, we give a context, examples, metaphors, etc. There you go, Ife, splitting hairs till there's nothing left. You can reduce anything to nonsense that way. Obviously, in such a context, some terms ('exploitative') are important and tend to be subjective and require defining, others are of far less significance so far as the discussion is concerned and don't. 'Possible', 'discussion', 'defining' - any near-enough idea of what they mean will leave the general sense of my sentence substantailly unchanged. The only possible exception is 'meaningful' which, as a word, has suffered from the attentions of the politically correct and has acquired unwelcome 'loaded' connotations - I used it in its literal sense, of having some meaning (the opposite is 'meaningless'). > For me, "meaningful" is the key word in your sentence above. It suggests > your particular bias and comfort zone, though it could be construed as a > universal pronouncement. You're absolutely incorrect - see below. ;) > I don't take it as such because I automatically > supply "meaningful discussion *to me*," even though those last two words > aren't in your statement. I assume (rightly or wrongly) that you will > accept the possibility that others could have a meaningful discussion *for > them* without attempting to define every concept. Neither of us thought we > needed to define "reality" until we realized we were coming from entirely > different perspectives. But when I discuss reality with you now, I'm > conscious of explaining what I mean in a way that I hope will be meaningful > to *you.* Otherwise, we'll go round and round *debating* moreso than > *considering* -- both of which my dictionary defines as "discussion." > > -- Ife Well, no. What I meant was, that 'exploitative' is one of those words particularly prone to individual interpretation of its meaning, far more so than most words. What is 'exploitative' to one person may be quite unexceptionable to another. So without defining it, both sides of the argument could well end up talking right past each other. I used 'meaningful' in a neutral sense, since any discussion based on completely different ideas of what 'exploitative' meant was likely to be meaningLESS - in the objective sense that neither side would understand what the other was talking about. 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, 14 Apr 2004 09:06:05 -0700 From: "Xena Torres" Subject: RE: [chakram-refugees] Vicky Pratt nominated! >My response is still GGGRRRRRRRRRRR &: ) LOL! I AGREE 100%!!!!! Frankly, I hate the bloody things cause they tend to never nominate the people who SHOULD be nominated, and if they do manage to nominate the right people, the right person never wins. It's all popularity and money, NOT talent, like it's supposed to be. I hate award shows and never watch them. I'm happy if people I respect are nominated or win, but I don't hold any merrit to it either way. 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" _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN Premium 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: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:27:43 -0400 (GMT-04:00) From: cande@sunlink.net Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle's Hope - -----Original Message----- From: cr > So Xena is Xena > justified at this point in time in deciding that Hope had to be killed? > > CherylA In a word, yes. (IMO). Dahak had explicity needed to use Gabrielle to let him enter the world. Hope was spectacularly unnatural - Gabs was pregnant for what, one day? There's only one possible conclusion to be drawn from that - Hope was Dahak's creature. Xena was, admittedly, a little insensitive (IMO) in the way she told Gabrielle... on the other hand, how does one sensitively tell someone 'Your daughter is the spawn of the Devil and must die" ? cr Well you're right in that Hope was evil and Xena was proven right in her decision to kill Hope. My point is was she justified in Gabrielle's Hope to decide that Hope was evil. Yes Hope is odd in the extreme as an infant but then so was Hercules (he strangled a serpant in his crib). However in a court of law there would enough extenuating circumstances that I would say Hope could not be proven guilty at this point. I think my point is that (if I have one) is that I belived Lucy played the role realizing that Xena did not really have enough evidence to decide Hope was evil. It seemed to be that she was stressing Xena's arogant assumption that Gabrielle would naturally bow to Xena's judgement about Hope. Thus when Gabrielle defies her Xena astonished. I thought it was good choice. 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: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:29:59 -0400 (GMT-04:00) From: cande@sunlink.net Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Re: The Debt - -----Original Message----- From: cr Well, that line always struck me as particularly awkward, too, just in the way it was phrased. Though I never analysed it much, it sounded vaguely narcissistic to me. cr I just recently thought that myself! That somehow Gabrielle is going to fall in love with herself. A clever foreshadowing of Fins, Fems, and Gems (g). ========================================================= 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, 14 Apr 2004 14:21:13 -0800 (AKDT) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question > > LOL! This whole thing started because you asked what our thoughts were > > about where Xena was. Because it's the only time we've ever seen anyone in > > a place like that. It was as is so many things, unique to Xena. >> > > Um, well, I wasn't asking because I thought it so unique. I certainly > didn't think Tartarus was unique. I simply wondered if it was supposed to be > Tartarus, We've seen Tartarus in Mortal Beloved. It's nothing like that. And to get to Tartarus, you have to take a boat. Xena wasn't on no boat. RT mentions Tartarus in his commentary, > so I do tend to think somebody -- whether it's Xena herself -- believes > that's where she belonged at the time. > Actually, he doesn't mention Tartarus at all. I watched it last night. I watched both ep with commentary and the video commentary that shows Rob. And he never says one word about where Xena is. He talks about envisioning the scene and shooting it but not where it is. I don't remember him ever talking about what that place was. I've always been curious about it, since I think it has to do with M'Lila. Do you remember where you ran across it? > > > > Gabrielle coming back, including the story she told about seeing her loved > > ones is a classic experience related by those who have what we call a > > "near death experience". Those very rare folks who return from being > > clinically dead and don't go on to being brain dead. Gabrielle had a, > > while not common experience, a not unique one either. >> > > Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought Gabs had visited the Elysian Fields. I don't > know whether she'd been "assigned" a place or what. Well, I think she got assinged there. She was probably an easy case to judge. Remember in Adventures in the Sin Trade, Hades strutting around, pointing and saying, "Tartarus" "Tartarus" "Illysian fields", etc. You don't get to just wander into where you want to go. Hades' is the ultimate post life travel agent arbiter. Wherever she was, > whatever state of "death," she apparently chose to be "called" back, just like Xena. > That to me wasn't unique. Me neither. Coming back from the dead isn't unique at all. (ESPECIALLY not on this show!) If we're going to talk "unique," I'd have to focus > on Xena's ability to be in suspended animation for so long before coming > back. But that was because of Lucy's accident. Otherwise, Xena would've come > back quicker, just like Gabs. However, I'll grant you that aspect of uniqueness, > even it wasn't intentional, since (for whatever reason) that's what I saw > happen. Okay? > > -- Ife Wow--you're granting me the right of my opinion since you agree with it. Oh, Ife... (Smirk) Xena in the waiting room is a unique after death experience in this show. That's my line and I'm sticking to it. 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. ========================================================= ------------------------------ End of chakram-refugees-digest V4 #105 **************************************