From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest) To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V4 #107 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 Saturday, April 17 2004 Volume 04 : Number 107 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question [IfeRae@aol.com] Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle's Hope [cr ] Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons [cr ] RE: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question ["Sojourner" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:50:27 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question In a message dated 4/15/2004 1:07:36 AM Pacific Daylight Time, fsktl@aurora.uaf.edu writes: Ife said: > >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?) > > Gabrielle was never in Tartarus. >> Was it "God Fearing Child" where X&G bump into Solan, Gabs fights with Hades and disappears when she puts his helmet on? I thought they were in Tartarus. No? Was it some different "underworld"? > < involved in the "Who's really the creator? The producer or the audience?" > debate again either. ?? You don't have to worry about that from me. *I'm* the creator. Bwahahahaha! (I think I over-exerted myself today. Produces a strange mixture of effects - -- hallucinations and zapped brain cells.) > >> > >> >. > > > > > >Hey, hey! It's called "reasoned discourse." > > > > > There ya go--tryna drag me into another epic semantic battle again. NO. >> Nuh uh. I save those for cr. Well, mostly. > > 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. >> If it came like that, I'd take it back. They might want you to switch the whole set, though, which'll mean making sure everything in the new one is okay. > What do you think the fire's supposed to mean? > > > I don't care. >> What?! What do you mean you don't care?! You go on and on about everything I *didn't* ask, but won't use that imaginative department store of yours to conjecture about what I *did* ask? Why, I oughtta .... > >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! >> Oh, sure. Answer *that* question, but not the main question. Humph! > > 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. >> See? That's what you were supposed to do with the "staging area" in Destiny. "I don't care." Humph! > > > > 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. >> Actually, that makes sense. If you're gonna fight a war, might as well get the best. The Greek gods certainly weren't above using Xena when they needed her. Callisto's evil god, Dahok and Michael sure wanted her for their purposes. > >-- Ife the Magnanimous > > > > > KT the Gagging > I *would* feel sorry for you, but I'm still getting over "I don't care." Humph. ========================================================= 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: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:50:29 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons In a message dated 4/15/2004 12:41:41 AM Pacific Daylight Time, cr@orcon.net.nz writes: > 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. >> Um, okaaaay. > 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. >> No, I didn't mean people, so much as the idea of one something related to, or in relationship to, another -- as in location or size, per your examples. I wondered if Einstein's theory dealt with relationships between something and, if so, what somethings. It's okay, though. I've lived this long without knowing the answer, so I suppose I can survive without making you hurt your brain. > 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. >> Agreed. > 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. > > Your ire is understandable. But those of us on the outside can't know our possible error unless someone more expert points out the difference. From what I gather, these "well-known" theories may only be "well known" within particular fields. If the rest of us try to apply them in ways that are meaningful (oy) to our lives, we're likely to go astray. That would be too bad, as there are a lot of terms that borrow quite relevantly from science -- like "feedback," which I believe engineers coined for the process whereby rockets corrected their paths when they went astray. Anyway, I appreciate your efforts to 'splain all that. - -- 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: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:50:30 EDT From: IfeRae@aol.com Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question In a message dated 4/14/2004 11:53:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time, sojourner@paradise.net.nz writes: > 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? > Oooo, I'd forgotten about Ephiny. When did Gabs pick up on Dead Callisto, but Xena didn't? - -- 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: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:16:48 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:50, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > > > > There ya go--tryna drag me into another epic semantic battle again. NO. > > >> > > Nuh uh. I save those for cr. Well, mostly. Wish ya wouldn't. cr ... I must not get into nit-picky arguments with Ife. I must not get into...... > > > > 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. Yeah, agreed, KT. Eli's god didn't give a rat's ass for Xena or her welfare. All he wanted was to use her to get rid of the Greek gods, with Evie as bait. Heck, who d'ya reckon planted the original idea with the Fates that Eve would bring about the end of the Greek gods? Betcha one of Michael's henchangels was skulking around in the background outa sight in God Fearing Child. As between Michael and Ares, I'd sooner trust Ares any day. Besides, he had way more charisma. ;) 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: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:31:24 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Gabrielle's Hope On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 21:05, KTL wrote: > 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. Aside from that, at the start of the Gabrielle's Hope ep, Gabs wasn't even the least little bit overweight. All the pregnancy symptoms (like the overeating) developed in the course of approximately one day. > In contrast, Herc took the normal human time to develop in the womb. That was confirmed in Armageddon Now, when Alcmene's condition was well-known to the local townsfolk who had obviously had time to dream up all sorts of rumours about it. > 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." Almost like she got some huge poison out of her system, or so it seemed to 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. Good point, KT. It seems to me that TPTB could hardly have made it more obvious that Hope was the daughter of Dahak. There was virtually no clue omitted. Short of giving Hope horns and a tail, I don't see how much more explicit they could have been. 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: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 21:38:46 +1200 From: cr Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] The Seasons On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:50, IfeRae@aol.com wrote: > > 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. >> > > No, I didn't mean people, so much as the idea of one something related to, > or in relationship to, another -- as in location or size, per your > examples. Well, that was nearer right, I think. > I wondered if Einstein's theory dealt with relationships between > something and, if so, what somethings. It's okay, though. I've lived this > long without knowing the answer, so I suppose I can survive without making > you hurt your brain. Okay, (and I'm sure Lynn will correct me if I get this too much wrong :) - what was 'relative' in the Special Theory of Relativity, was the relative motions of two different frames of reference - or rather, the motion of one point relative to two different frames of reference. For example, take the motion of a 747 about to take off as seen by you (standing at the end of the runway) and by me (in a high speed train which happens to be on a track parallel to the runway). Relative to you, the 747 is stationary to start with, and gradually moves away from you at ever increasing speed. Relative to me, I see the 747 moving 'backwards' at 160mph like all the things around it, then as it accelerates down the runway, its 'backward' motion slows down, until it reaches takeoff speed and goes 'straight up' alongside the train. Both relative motions (relative to you, and to me) can be presiely defined mathematically and in fact the motion (as seen by me) could be translated by a computer into the exact motion as seen by you (so this is why I say personal opinion doesn't come into it). In fact such motions are so translated all the time, by anti-aircraft missile radars, or by the graphics programs used so much in sci-fi movies and TV (though they sometimes exaggerate the relative motions for the sake of effect). > > 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. > > Your ire is understandable. But those of us on the outside can't know our > possible error unless someone more expert points out the difference. From > what I gather, these "well-known" theories may only be "well known" within > particular fields. If the rest of us try to apply them in ways that are > meaningful (oy) to our lives, we're likely to go astray. That would be too > bad, as there are a lot of terms that borrow quite relevantly from science > -- like "feedback," which I believe engineers coined for the process > whereby rockets corrected their paths when they went astray. Anyway, I > appreciate your efforts to 'splain all that. > > -- Ife Well, when I said 'well-known' I didn't mean known in specific detail, I meant known by reputation - that is, everyone's heard of relativity and evolution, even though most people don't know the details. I admit there are common 'everyday' meanings of many of these words, but I think they shouldn't be confused with the precisely defined scientific meanings. Sometimes, such terms are used with the intention of deriving some borrowed authority from their 'scientific' connections, I regard that as the equivalent of 'name-dropping' ('Rob Tapert told me...') and that irritates me because I think it devalues the precision of their original meaning. Btw, I'm not sure about 'feedback' in relation to rocketry, its most common use (in technical usage at least) is in electrical circuitry, negative feedback is a widely used and extremely valuable technique for compensating for errors arising in amplifiers and similar circuits. This is probably a good illustration of the inadvisability of mixing technical and everyday meanings - in circuitry, positive feedback tends to lead to instability and is to be avoided, negative feedback is usually considered desirable. I doubt whether the same applies in market research. ;) 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: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:03:25 +0100 From: "Sojourner" Subject: RE: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question - -----Original Message----- From: owner-chakram-refugees@smoe.org [mailto:owner-chakram-refugees@smoe.org] On Behalf Of IfeRae@aol.com Sent: 16 April 2004 05:51 To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Destiny Question In a message dated 4/14/2004 11:53:38 PM Pacific Daylight Time, sojourner@paradise.net.nz writes: > 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? > Oooo, I'd forgotten about Ephiny. When did Gabs pick up on Dead Callisto, but Xena didn't? - -- Ife Now this is a bit of a stretch - Ides when G and X are being "escorted" to the crosses. But of course, Callisto is "only" dead for a short time before she gets immortalised. So to speak. After that then the goddess can appear to one or all at whim. 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: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 22:35:34 -0400 From: "Cheryl Ande" Subject: [chakram-refugees] FYI bits and Pieces 1. Got a letter back from Discovery Channel about Warrior Women - it said it still doesn't have the legal right to show the documentary. I wonder if we should start storming the gates of PBS. 2. Got a post card for Panzar Davis (or whoever the partners are now). It looks like the plan for now is to release season 4 in late May the 5 in June and 6 in July. The DVDs are usually released to commercial outlets a couple of weeks latter. 3. Overstock has season 2 and bunch of other Xena items in stock including the book How Xena Changed Our Lives ( I enjoyed the book very much) 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 #107 **************************************