From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V4 #106 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 106 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons [IfeRae@aol.com] RE: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question ["Sojourner" ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle's Hope [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question [KTL ] RE: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question [KTL ] RE: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question ["Liz" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:17:21 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question In a message dated 4/14/2004 3:30:29 PM Pacific Daylight Time, fsktl@aurora.uaf.edu writes: > >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. >> LOL! Since when did consistency mean anything. The Tartarus she and Gabs visited when they stole the helmet didn't look like the earlier one, and we didn't see them taking no boat. (We should assume?) Besides, RT is the one who said it was Tartarus, which is what got me to thinking about that. Of course, what does he know? Seriously, I'm not saying we can count on his memory any more than Lucy's. > > >. Hey, hey! It's called "reasoned discourse." > > > 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. << Okay, I know I'm not crazy. Well, that's debatable, but I could've sworn I heard him murmur that in an offhand comment. However, I'm not inclined at the moment to check it out, so I'll take your word for it. For now. > > 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? >> As I said, I thought I heard him say it in the commentary. I thought it was at the end, when they're talking about how they had to change things because of Lucy's accident. What do you think the fire's supposed to mean? > 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. >> Uh huh. > Oh, Ife... bruised butterflies> (Smirk) >> "Bruised butterflies"? Is that from some movie or novel? If not, my hat is off once again to your imagination. At any rate, I accept your gratitude, such as it is. > > Xena in the waiting room is a unique after death experience in this show. > That's my line and I'm sticking to it. >> Big surprise. Do you have a name for wherever X&G were in Ides, after they died and before they went to heaven? Hey! Wait a minute! Does that mean Xena did something between Destiny and Ides to earn her wings? Or that Eli's god was more forgiving than the Greek gods. Oh, right. You say she wasn't actually in Tartarus in Destiny. Never mind. :-) - -- Ife the Magnanimous > > 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. > ========================================================= ========================================================= 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: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:17:26 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons In a message dated 4/14/2004 2:03:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > 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. >> Didn't they start out as opinions, hypotheses based on something or other? They didn't just pop up in folks' heads all laid out and proven, did they? I'm only asking because it seems great scientists are artists in many respects and express a respect for imagination. I believe you meant "irrelevant" in the context of what the "laws" stipulate and how. I just wanted to make sure you weren't saying opinions, etc. were irrelevant to the thought process that led to formulating the theories or laws. > 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. >> Did he invent the word "relativity"? Do you know why he chose that word? Does it have no connection to the popular use of the word "relative" (as in relationships)? > > >>> 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. >> Sure, if you don't see any ... um ... relationship between them. I (and perhaps Jackie) sense that you've established a hierarchy in which science is separate from, and more credible than, other forms of trying to make meaning out of "chaos" or the world around us. That mathematical "certainty" is a thing unto itself, with little or no application (even if misinterpreted) to other forms of "certainty." I'm not sure the point is how old a form is, so much as that some may have ... um ... evolved, grown out of, influenced, etc. other forms. Certainly "science" was (and still is) used to establish all sorts of very arguable (and false) conclusions, just as superstitition did and still does. > > >>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. >> Isn't "splitting hairs" what trying to understand each other is all about? I see it as the opposite of "reducing to nonsense." We wouldn't be having this discussion if somebody didn't think what somebody else said "didn't make sense" to them. So we're exploring the nuances of meaning that help us see why we came up with different interpretations and applications of the same word. I orginally didn't know what either Jackie or you meant by "exploitative," as I defined it differently. After everybody's examples -- splitting hairs -- each of your definitions now makes sense to me, whether I agree with them or not. > > 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. >> It's not "obvious" at all, precisely because the judgement of what's "significant" is so subjective. "Exploitative" struck a chord with *you* and possibly others. I passed right over it and only got involved because of you and Jackie. The word had no importance to me, once I got from the context what she probably meant. Sure, if she'd used it without context, I might've been curious and asked her to say more about it. Or, if (as you) I disagreed with what she seemed to be saying and it was important to me to say so. 'Possible', > > 'discussion', 'defining' - any near-enough idea of what they mean will leave > > the general sense of my sentence substantailly unchanged. >> Sure, for you. Once you put it out there, it's up to the rest of us to make whatever "general sense" of it that we can. Possibly wrongly. Unless we nit pick and split hairs. > > 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'). >> Boy oh boy. "Literal sense." (Translation: a word with one's own "meaning" superimposed) Sorry, but that last statement is absolutely meaningless to me. Nor do I have a clue how "politically correct" relates to "meaning" or what "unwelcome 'loaded' connotations" it's caused. I'm all ears if you care to elaborate, though I suspect you'll deem such a discussion too far afield of why "exploitative" got us here in the first place. > > > >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. ;) >> Okey dokey. > << 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. >> At least for you. For me, "meaning" is far more prone to individual interpretation, if only because people use it more than "exploitative." Words like "exploitative" may jump out at us because of that, but I guarantee that people will go away with just as much misinterpretation of more common words that everybody *thinks* they *know* what it "means" when used by someone else. People learn differently. For me, context is very important to my "getting" what somebody means, Individual words don't "mean" much until I see how they're connected and possibly why. What is 'exploitative' to one person may be quite > > unexceptionable to another. >> Yes! So without defining it, both sides of the > > argument could well end up talking right past each other. >> Except we don't necessarily know if/when someone else will take it as "unexceptionable" or worth explaining -- unless they tell us. 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. >> We've been down this path before. You believe there's such a thing as "literal" and "neutral." I don't. I don't see how a word can be "neutral" or "literal" to the speaker, when it isn't to the receiver. Unless, of course, the receiver (moi in this case) is a dunce with no understanding of the English languange. Hence my possible conclusion that you're biased toward what's meaningful to you (which I see as perfectly natural) and believe it has credence from some higher authority that has no bias. Mind you, I don't believe you think I'm a dunce or that you believe you have some pipeline to the God of Words. On the contrary, from the context of many other discussions, I believe your *intent* is to be "literal" or "neutral," as a way of stimulating discussion, not stifling it. I'm simply saying it can be perceived as boxing something in to your way of seeing it. Just as my way of splitting hairs can be perceived as dispersing the topic so much that I've gotta be "right" about one of the tangents. I just want to explore, not be "right." I think you do too. So .... Back to "meaningful discussion" of "exploitative." The discussion had meaning to me as soon as I realized the "meaning" (intepretation) of the word was different from mine. It wasn't "meaningful" (significant) to me, because I frankly wasn't all that bothered about whether XWP is "exploitative." I accepted long ago that it was (to me), but decided to focus on what I liked about the show. However, I like hearing others' views, so from that standpoint it was meaningul (interesting). But I got involved because I have this danged need to "translate" when it seems people aren't hearing each other. IOW it "means" (outcome) to *me* that the discussion isn't fruitful (meaningful, effective), which is based on a personal "meaning" (obsession) that could have resulted from any word or topic. Like what's a "meaningful discussion." Cr? Please, if you're gonna scratch the windows with your fingernails like that, could you put on gloves? I can hear the sound all the way to Chicago. Better yet, pull your hair out. Much quieter. You still have enough to spare, dontcha? - -- Ife (suspecting cr's opting for the screetching fingernails) ========================================================= 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: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:47:43 +0100 From: "Sojourner" Subject: RE: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question IFE Wherever she was, whatever state of "death," she apparently chose to be "called" back, just like Xena. That to me wasn't unique. KTL Me neither. Coming back from the dead isn't unique at all. (ESPECIALLY not on this show!) ME I've been thinking (don't groan) and I am starting to think the common factor is GABRIELLE. Look at the people AROUND HER who can apparently do the post-dead thing. Xena, Callisto, Ephiny. Maybe ANYONE could travel from their assigned place - but only Gabby could pick up on it. No? Ya think? SOJOURNER ========================================================= 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: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:42:27 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:17, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 4/14/2004 2:03:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > > 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. >> > > Didn't they start out as opinions, hypotheses based on something or other? > They didn't just pop up in folks' heads all laid out and proven, did they? > I'm only asking because it seems great scientists are artists in many > respects and express a respect for imagination. I believe you meant > "irrelevant" in the context of what the "laws" stipulate and how. I just > wanted to make sure you weren't saying opinions, etc. were irrelevant to > the thought process that led to formulating the theories or laws. Well, they originated in Einstein's head. Yes, probably as hypotheses. But, probably by the time he launched them on the world, so to speak, and certainly by shortly thereafter, they were formulated precisely (or so I believe). I think I had better draw a distinction between what the theories _say_ and what people may think about them. What the theories say is mathematically precise. They do not allow for 'opinion'. Where opinion comes in is, I suppose, that some people may have doubts whether they are correct (though they're established about as solidly as it is possible for a scientific 'law' to be), but any such shades of opinion are extraneous to the theories themselves. > > 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. >> > > Did he invent the word "relativity"? Do you know why he chose that word? > Does it have no connection to the popular use of the word "relative" (as in > relationships)? Any connection to 'relative' (as in personal family relationships) is lexically highly tenuous. Like the connection between 'light' (weight) and 'light' (coloured) - doubtless there was a common origin way back when, but the two meanings have diverged almost completely. I suppose family 'relatives' mean just people who are slightly more closely - umm, related - to one than complete strangers. OTOH there's a quite different meaning of 'relative' that contrasts two positions or circumstances - "Relative to Athens, Amphipolis is a northerly town" or "Relative to Tokyo, Auckland is small" - or, more closely possibly to where Einstein derived his usage from, "Relative to Concorde, a 747 is slow". So I'd say any connection between Einstein's use of 'relativity' and 'family relations' is vanishingly small. > > >>> 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. >> > > Sure, if you don't see any ... um ... relationship between them. I (and > perhaps Jackie) sense that you've established a hierarchy in which science > is separate from, and more credible than, other forms of trying to make > meaning out of "chaos" or the world around us. That mathematical > "certainty" is a thing unto itself, with little or no application (even if > misinterpreted) to other forms of "certainty." I'm not sure the point is > how old a form is, so much as that some may have ... um ... evolved, grown > out of, influenced, etc. other forms. Certainly "science" was (and still > is) used to establish all sorts of very arguable (and false) conclusions, > just as superstitition did and still does. Well now, firstly I'd say that, just because something is older (or newer!), that has no bearing at all on whether it's more likely to be correct. Second, there is a 'philosophy of science', I believe, which mostly deals with how we know what we know and the 'scientific method', (Karl Popper being its best-known practitioner). I believe in philosophy there are many different 'schools', some of which doubtless shade into mysticism and religion. In science there are possibly even more different branches, including some self-proclaimed 'sciences' which also shade into mysticism and religion (psychology, economics :) Scientists themselves distinguish between the 'hard sciences' (physics, mathematics, astronomy, possibly chemistry) and softer sciences like biology. Some of these began as superstition - astrology, alchemy - and many of the public still can't tell the difference. This is one reason why I get annoyed when any well-known scientific theory (relativity, evolution, the Second Law of Thermodynamics) which is quite precise in its own field, gets misquoted and misapplied in some completely different area where it is completely irrelevant. cr (Rest firmly snipped) ========================================================= 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: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:24:59 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle's Hope On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 07:27, cande@sunlink.net wrote: > -----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). Yes, but you have to look at the provenance ;) Hercules - father: Zeus, king of the gods. While Zeus didn't actually have the best rep on HTLJ/XWP, he certainly wasn't evil incarnate. Hope - father: Dahak. Everything we'd seen to that point (and in fact subsequently) indicated that Dahak _was_ evil incarnate. > However in > a court of law there would enough extenuating circumstances that I would > say Hope could not be proven guilty at this point. Not guilty of murdering the knight - agreed. 'Guilty' of being the spawn of Dahak - overwhelmingly. (I put 'guilty' in quote marks because, for example, you don't normally find a snake 'guilty' of being a black mamba - you just decide it is and kill it.) > 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. I thought she had overwhelming evidence - through the Dahak connection. > 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 Well, that I agree, I wouldn't have expected Gabrielle to be disinterested about Hope. 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: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:03:55 -0800 (AKDT) From: KTL Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question > > 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. >> > > > LOL! Since when did consistency mean anything. The Tartarus she and Gabs > visited when they stole the helmet didn't look like the earlier one, and we > didn't see them taking no boat. (We should assume?) Look. I am NOT getting into yet another of these endless squatter threads with you. People are born into cyber space, have a long and happy life here and then cyber die before some of the threads that you hang on to in order to get the last word in on end. But I just HAVE to ask what the hell you're talking about here? Gabrielle was never in Tartarus. When Xena went to save Marcus' soul, she swam down to the entrance of Tartarus in that lake. Then she took the boat! Remember the boat? Ever been on the Staten Island Ferry on a full moon night? It's just like that. Charon is from the lower East Side of Manhattan though--you can tell from his accent. Besides, RT is the one who > said it was Tartarus, which is what got me to thinking about that. Of course, > what does he know? Seriously, I'm not saying we can count on his memory any > more than Lucy's. > Actually, I would dispute that. Lucy never remembered and now Renee has forgotten GOBS of stuff. But Rob remembers many details. Why they did things, how they did 'em, what he wanted and didn't get, why he didn't get it, etc. He's the main creative force of the show. Most eps started in his mind. And I think that makes a difference. And NO! I will NOT get involved in the "Who's really the creator? The producer or the audience?" debate again either. > > > > >. > > > Hey, hey! It's called "reasoned discourse." > There ya go--tryna drag me into another epic semantic battle again. NO. > > > > Actually, he doesn't mention Tartarus at all. I watched it last night. I > > > Okay, I know I'm not crazy. Well, that's debatable, but I could've sworn I > heard him murmur that in an offhand comment. However, I'm not inclined at the > moment to check it out, so I'll take your word for it. For now. > For now. Seriously, I was kind of hoping there was something in there. (Though I think I would have remembered if there had been.) Thinking it might be on that special "30 minute exclusive interview with Rob, Renee and Lucy", I also discovered that I had never even watched that before! That was a very pleasant surprise. But no mention of Tartarus on it... I did NOT watch the other commentaries on ROC and ADITL though. But I don't expect it would be mentioned in one of those... And I also discovered that the very last disc, with the Xena Chronciles, Trivia and Actor/Director bios has a blazing scratch upon it that doesn't allow the video to open. Sniffle. > > > > 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? >> > > > As I said, I thought I heard him say it in the commentary. I thought it was > at the end, when they're talking about how they had to change things because > of Lucy's accident. Not that I heard. What do you think the fire's supposed to mean? I don't care. > > > > Xena in the waiting room is a unique after death experience in this show. > > That's my line and I'm sticking to it. >> > > Big surprise. Do you have a name for wherever X&G were in Ides, after they > died and before they went to heaven? TCH! THAT is obviously a staging area. They're bait. Whoever gets to them first, gets them. Actually, seriously, the angels seems to expect them. But Callisto, she still wants her piece of Xena. And she foils their plans. MWAHAHAHAHAAHHAH! I personally believe though that Rob put them on those Grand Canyon pinacles just to shoot a homage to Dore's illustrations for Paradise Lost. Look here: http://www.thescreamonline.com/music/music3-1/paradise/dore/angelvortex.html Or, Rob Gillies wanted this shot maybe? At any rate, it's a gorgeous shot and a neat tribute to some of the source material for hallucinagenic Christian imagery. Hey! Wait a minute! Does that mean Xena > did something between Destiny and Ides to earn her wings? Or that Eli's god > was more forgiving than the Greek gods. Neither. Eli's boss just wanted Xena. HOW he snatched her away from Hades, who knows? But he needed the chick for his war of the pantheons. Of course, he underestimated her. Grin. Oh, right. You say she wasn't > actually in Tartarus in Destiny. Never mind. :-) > > -- Ife the Magnanimous > KT the Gagging ========================================================= 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: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 00:15:58 -0800 (AKDT) From: KTL Subject: RE: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question Good gods, where the hell have YOU bean? Nice to see you posting again. > > ME > > I've been thinking (don't groan) and I am starting to think the common > factor is GABRIELLE. Look at the people AROUND HER who can apparently do the > post-dead thing. > > Xena, Callisto, Ephiny. > > Maybe ANYONE could travel from their assigned place - but only Gabby could > pick up on it. > > No? Ya think? > > SOJOURNER > > But she comes back also. Who called her back? ARGO! IT'S ARGO! 'Cause sadly, nobody calls Argo back. I would have preferred Xena getting Argo back. I hated how they let her die too. They could have just put her in the cave with them. Can't you just see the scene of Kevin giving Argo a piggy back ride into the cave? You know, I just watched the beginning of Fallen Angel. And I love the look on Gabrielle's face when she sees the angels coming. She's not at all scared. She's filled with wonder and awe and has a look like she just can't wait to see what comes next. It was a real throw back to classic early Gabrielle. Absolutely jazzed at the prospect of a totally new adventure and facing a very nebulous future with absolute blazing courage. And then of course, she apparently stands up on the ride. And falls out. Go Gaaaaaaab! 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: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:12:15 +0100 From: "Liz" Subject: RE: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question Good gods, where the hell have YOU bean? Nice to see you posting again. > > ME > > I've been thinking (don't groan) and I am starting to think the common > factor is GABRIELLE. Look at the people AROUND HER who can apparently do the > post-dead thing. > > Xena, Callisto, Ephiny. > > Maybe ANYONE could travel from their assigned place - but only Gabby could > pick up on it. > > No? Ya think? > > SOJOURNER > > > But she comes back also. Who called her back? No need. Gabby's the witch. Shamaness. Thingy. Or, as Xena liked to say - the sauce! Maybe that's why X never ditches the little blonde kid (apart from the "dynamite in the sack" theory)(my personal favourite). Gabrielle is powerful mojo. > ARGO! IT'S ARGO! 'Cause sadly, nobody calls Argo back. I would have > preferred Xena getting Argo back. I hated how they let her die too. They > could have just put her in the cave with them. Can't you just see the > scene of Kevin giving Argo a piggy back ride into the cave? You do remember Ares was a god? Now I know we have had to piece together what the hell the powers of the gods/immortals were in Xenaland, but I'm sure minor teleportation was one of them. Besides I'm sure the masochism of bearing the bodies of his dead lover (in his mind anyway) and her gf would not stretch to having horse poo dribbling down his back > You know, I just watched the beginning of Fallen Angel. And I love the > look on Gabrielle's face when she sees the angels coming. She's not at all > scared. She's filled with wonder and awe and has a look like she just > can't wait to see what comes next. Actually it seemed so odd to see her smile - she hadn't had much to smile about since ... um ... good grief was ADITL? ACOE? The last happy episodes? But things went astray for Gab happiness-wise pretty much straight away in Dreamworker. Reminded us all how lovely young Renee could actually be. > It was a real throw back to classic early Gabrielle. Absolutely jazzed at > the prospect of a totally new adventure and facing a very nebulous > future with absolute blazing courage. And then of course, she apparently > stands up on the ride. And falls out. > Go Gaaaaaaab! > 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: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 01:05:17 -0800 (AKDT) From: KTL Subject: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle's Hope On Mon, 12 Apr 2004, Cheryl Ande wrote: respectful snippage > > 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 It's not just the knight's death that's got Xena's twitchy sense perking, I don't think. Numerous clues are presented about the implantation, birth and growth of Hope that confirm that Hope is different from other human children or half human/half supernatural beings we see in the series. At this point, we have only Herc to compare Hope with, as Gabrielle does. A human being must be murdered and offered as a blood sacrifice before Hope can make her entrance into the world. And not just anybody can make this sacrifice. Unlike most religions that practiced human blood sacrifice not even a priest/ess acting for the greater good of their god's followers was innocent enough for this ritual. No, as preparation for the coming of Dahok's child, innocence must also be corrupted. A pure soul must be defiled through murdering a fellow human being for no other reason than that it is required to prepare the way for Hope's arrival. So though Meridian is murdered, it's actually the loss of Gabrielle's blood innocence that brings in Dahok, not the blood sacrifice of Meridian herself. Hope is implanted in gruesome circumstances, involving a terrifying, horrific ordeal for Gabrielle. Gabrielle is already devastated and grieving over being tricked by Dahok's priest into committing murder. She is closed off, crying and cringing on the floor, hiding from Krafstar, locked into deep mental anguish. And then Dahok reaches out. And gets her. She's terrified and helpless as she tries to crawl away from Dahok. She screams for Xena as Dahok wraps tentacles of fire around her feet and drags her up to his altar. He suspends her up in the air on a column of fire where she is subjected to a violent and ruthless implantation of his little package. There is absolutely no love, no kindness, no concern for Gabrielle. Indeed, as the implantation is going on, we hear from Krafstar that Dahok revels in rage and fury (and apparently fear). Herc was conceived because Zeus fell so in love with Alcmene that he came to earth and made love with her (in the appearance of her husband), because he wanted to have a child with her. So unlike Hope Herc was conceived in an atmosphere of love. (Somewhat deceptive love, true, but love nevertheless.) Hope's coming is portended by dire prophesies and warnings. The birth of Dahok's child will supposedly result in the total destruction of good and the creation of a dark and evil world where only evil and hate hold sway. Hope inspires the adoration of the banshees who are depicted here as violent, dark servants of Dahok, working to help him fulfill his plan. Hope has a gestation period of one, maybe two days. How do we know this? Because when Gabrielle's Hope opens, Xena still has cuts on her shoulder from her fight with Krafstar in The Deliverer. I remember the buzz when some of the fans noticed the cuts. Lots of comments were made on how unusual it was for Xena to retain damage, even over the course of one ep, never mind into the next one. She always heals so fast. (Most spectacularly in Gurkhan when she did a full body heal in like half an hour or so.) Well it WAS unusual. And I believe it was a deliberate clue to let us know that GH follows RIGHT after the ending of The Deliverer, that virtually no time has passed. And yet in one day, that fetus has developed enough to be born as a full sized infant. In contrast, Herc took the normal human time to develop in the womb. Gabrielle is absolutely freaked out by the fact that she's pregnant. (Hell, I'd be freaked out too if I woke up nine months pregnant one morning when I hadn't been pregnant when I went to bed the night before...just IMAGINE that happening to you!). She hotly denies the possibility, not even wanting to talk about it. Until the few hours old but full term sized Hope in her belly kicks her to get her attention. I don't know how Alcmene felt when she heard she was pregnant. The heavens explode in fury when Hope is born. Thunder booms and lightening flashes out of a clear blue sky. The very sun eclipses and darkness covers the earth. I figure this was probably her Daddy welcoming her into the world since she's here to start the "Darkness". But it could also be the world protesting the coming of the great evil. Right after she makes her appearance, the sunlight comes back and the storm quits, obviously indicating that the reason for this meteorological convulsion was Hope's birth. The disturbance in the heavens was akin to when Zeus died and the existing religious world order was replaced. Hope's imminent arrival also terrifies the animals in the stable. Except for the ram, a creature sporting hoofs and horns, just like the great evil of Christianity, the Devil. He's calm and watchful. I don't think there were any odd portents during Herc and Iphicles' births. Gab is once again terrified, as she was when Hope was implanted and is still absolutely in denial about carrying a baby just before she gives birth. She screams out that she is scared as she gives birth to Hope, because she believes it is an evil thing she's carrying, just like the Banshees have told her. However, the minute she looks Hope in the eyes, all worry drops from her like a uh...miracle. Xena asks her if she's all right. And Gabrielle answers, "I feel great!" Xena says, "Well, you weren't great a few minutes ago." Gabrielle answers, "I guess being a mother must agree with me. I feel like some power has just... poured new life into me." There were lots of jokes made about Gabrielle's sudden bonding with the baby, to go from screaming in intense fear and pain one second to being totally in love with this unexpected child the next. One person suggested that Hope had put a spell on her. And I believe that is true. Because all of Gabrielle's denials, terror and anger over her position just fade away. And she's absolutely Hope's champion. No questions allowed. Hope grows spectacularly fast. About an hour or so after birth, she is the size of a ten month old baby. Herc took the normal human time to grow and mature in skills. So it wasn't "only" that Xena thinks she killed the knight. There were a lot of clues about Hope being a "Daddy's girl" for sure. And besides, whoever killed the knight should have then killed Hope. Because why kill him if not to get to Hope to kill her? Unless you killed him mainly to deepen the rift between Mommy and Xena, to help get Dahok's plans moving. 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 #106 **************************************