From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #167 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Monday, July 31 2000 Volume 02 : Number 167 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/comments7/16 ["David S. Bratman" ] Re: b/dream [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/comments7/16 [GHighPine@aol.com] Too bad to be false department: [Todd Huff ] Re: Too bad to be false department: ["David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: b/comments7/16 On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 GHighPine@aol.com wrote: > Here is the actual exchange (in which, btw, note that I am talking about > emotional impact and you are talking about a point of information): > > << > > Do I understand correctly from Don's post that you haven't seen > "Innocence" > > or other eps in the arc? If so, you really didn't get the necessary > > emotional buildup for the climax. > > I don't think that's necessary: certainly not to get the point that Angel > doesn't know what he'd just done. > >> "The climax" = the climax of the arc = "Becoming". "What he'd just done" = set the world-destroying demon's program running = an event in "Becoming". The context was a question of how much one could understand/appreciate "Becoming" without having seen the other episodes in the arc. > But when, on top of everything else, you > haven't seen the whole story (which begins with "Innocence" and at minimum > should include "Innocence," "Passion," and preferably "Becoming 1") you > can't even, yourself, realistically speculate on how you would have reacted > if you had seen the show under the same circumstances that we did. Perhaps not. But as you yourself say, I was talking about a point of information. "We" in your last sentence carries an (unintentional, I'm sure) hint of condescension. "We" are the true Buffy connoisseurs; "you" are a piddling latecomer. I AM NOT PRETENDING THAT YOU SAID WHAT YOU DIDN'T SAY: note the word "unintentional". I am talking about the emotional impact of your attitude on me. > As to what you did take as an insult, the statement that pretending that > people have said things that they are not is game-playing -- I won't argue > about whether it is or is not apropos to this particular situation. Gayle, are you incapable of reading a plain statement? I did not say that "pretending" isn't game-playing. I said that I was not "pretending", and _therefore_ I wasn't game-playing. As for _why_ it wasn't "pretending," see my previous post, where I explained it at great length; and for that matter, the original post, where I carefully used words like "nonwithstanding" and "seems" to make it clear that I was not attributing untrue statements to you. In short, I didn't say _you_ are claiming the show is perfect, but that the emotional impact on me of your attitude is that you wouldn't be satisfied by anything short of _my_ acknowledgment that the show is perfect. > I have > no desire to spend energy exchanging insults with anyone; life is too short > for that. Then stop. When I am attacked in public, I will defend myself in public. > Rudeness, > persistent obfuscation, manipulating people by pretending they are saying > things that they are not, and refusing to accept simple differences of > opinion all seem out of character for you. (It all seemed -- dare I say it > -- downright Dafyddesque.) And yet the only way that I can imagine the > behavior to be unintentional were if your reading comprehension skills were > far lower than I know them to be. So both alternatives seem out of character. That's pretty funny, because all these things are a perfect description of yourself here: especially pretending that people are saying things that they are not. And they no longer seem to me out of character for you. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 09:27:56 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/dream In a message dated 7/29/00 9:56:41 PM Pacific Daylight Time, dgk@panix.com writes: << In =genuine= TV news, they're showing commercials for James "Titanic" Cameron's new TV series on Fox this fall, =Dark Angel=, starring Jessica Alba as (if I remember correctly) a genetically-altered warrior who has gone rogue. And the brief scenes in the commercials definitely have a Faith-ish air about them. As I've said before, if Faith weren't such an archetype she'd be a cliche... >> Ex-Genie-ite/SFRT1 denizen Doris Egan is a staff writer on that show. Which, she reports, is scheduled at the same time as Angel. Which doesn't make her happy, as she feels that Dark Angel and Angel compete for the same audience (not to mention for the same word). She is a big Buffy / Angel fan herself. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 09:39:27 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/comments7/16 In a message dated 7/30/00 6:17:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time, dbratman@genie.idt.net writes: << Perhaps not. But as you yourself say, I was talking about a point of information. "We" in your last sentence carries an (unintentional, I'm sure) hint of condescension. "We" are the true Buffy connoisseurs; "you" are a piddling latecomer. I AM NOT PRETENDING THAT YOU SAID WHAT YOU DIDN'T SAY: note the word "unintentional". I am talking about the emotional impact of your attitude on me. >> Yes, I did realize when I read what I had written that it sounded condescending, and I am glad that you recognize that that was not my intention. As I said, you =might= have had the same reaction to the story had you seen it as we did, or, even with the after the fact spoilers, in its entirety (minimally Innocence / Passion / B1 / B2). But we don't know. And I have also acknowledged that some of my reaction to other things may well be a hyper-alert "once burned, twice shy" kind of thing. The offer to work things out in private email stands. Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 08:39:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Todd Huff Subject: Too bad to be false department: The following appears in the August 4th issue of Entertainment Weekly: "After failing to work out a guest spot on Dawson's Creek last season, Britney Spears and The WB seem to be in synch. Buffy the Vampire Slayer coexec producer Marti Noxon tells EW it's 'very likely' the diva-ette will appear in an episode of the vampy drama this season. 'She's a friend of Sarah Michelle Geller's and she loves the show and wants to do an episode,' Noxon says. And what would the midriff-mad moppet do? 'Just about anything she wants to, I suspect,' says producer Gareth Davies." I don't know what's more appalling, Britney Spears appearing on Buffy or seeing the word "diva-ette" in print. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites. http://invites.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 13:40:51 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: Too bad to be false department: On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Todd Huff wrote: > The following appears in the August 4th issue of > Entertainment Weekly: You're kidding, right? You actually saw it in "The Onion", yes? Please tell us that. > I don't know what's more appalling, Britney Spears > appearing on Buffy or seeing the word "diva-ette" in print. I dunno: I think "midriff-mad moppet" is even more striking. It would be even funnier if, instead of Britney Spears, it were Celine Dion ... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 14:37:01 -0700 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: Re: Too bad to be false department: >From: Todd Huff >I don't know what's more appalling, Britney Spears >appearing on Buffy or seeing the word "diva-ette" in print. Oh, I don't know. The thought of her being a vamp that gets staked has a certain appeal to it. Berni ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #167 *****************************