From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V4 #70 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Friday, May 17 2002 Volume 04 : Number 070 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: b/ Double Meat is Double Sweet [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/villains ["Marta Grabien" ] Re: o/firefly photos ["Marta Grabien" ] Re: b/ Double Meat is Double Sweet [Joseph Zitt ] Re: a/this week ["Marta Grabien" ] Re: b/villains ["Marta Grabien" ] Re: b/ Double Meat is Double Sweet [Hilary Hertzoff ] Re: o/firefly photos [meredith ] o/ Double Meat is Double Sweet [GHighPine@aol.com] b/Two To Go [GHighPine@aol.com] Re: b/villains ["Berni Phillips" ] Re: a/this week ["Berni Phillips" ] Re: b/villains ["Berni Phillips" ] Re: b/Two To Go [Todd Huff ] Re: b/Two To Go [Joseph Zitt ] Re: b/villains ["Marta Grabien" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 11:13:32 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: Re: b/ Double Meat is Double Sweet Shouldn't you guys change the subject line of this thread to m/ something or o/ something? Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 09:32:05 -0700 From: "Marta Grabien" Subject: Re: b/villains > On Tue, 14 May 2002, David S. Bratman wrote: > > > Not much in the way of comments yet, eh? I guess everybody's either off on > > the other boards or is still too stunned. > > Haven't seen all of it yet. Just saw the last 20 minutes. Have a viewing set up or tonight. I agree with the =exact phrasing tho=..oops. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 10:13:53 -0700 From: "Marta Grabien" Subject: Re: o/firefly photos > In the meantime, images from the pilot can be found here: > > http://www.fireflyfans.net/feature.asp?f=14 > Looks Babylon 5ish to me. However, I liked B5. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 13:05:41 -0500 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: b/ Double Meat is Double Sweet On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 11:13:32AM -0400, GHighPine@aol.com wrote: > Shouldn't you guys change the subject line of this thread to m/ something > or o/ something? "m/"? - -- | jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.josephzitt.com/ | | http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt/ http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt/ | | == New book: Surprise Me with Beauty: the Music of Human Systems == | | Comma / Gray Code Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 10:19:48 -0700 From: "Marta Grabien" Subject: Re: a/this week > This season is all set up to end very, very badly. (It's summer already?!) Don't ever forget that Tim wrote and directed that ep. Tim, the creator of Darla. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 10:21:48 -0700 From: "Marta Grabien" Subject: Re: b/villains > I suspect that he'd be a more comedic character when human. And probably > would now be a better poet. A better lover for Buffy? A Scoobie? A man in search of a vampire to reconvert him? Alll sorts of things could happen to a surprised Spike. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 17:19:35 -0400 (EDT) From: Hilary Hertzoff Subject: Re: b/ Double Meat is Double Sweet On Wed, 15 May 2002, David S. Bratman wrote: > At 12:48 PM 5/15/2002 , Joseph wrote: > >On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 11:33:31AM -0700, David S. Bratman wrote: > >> At 10:53 AM 5/15/2002 , Joseph wrote: > >> > >> >Google knows all :-) > >> > >> Would you like me to start keeping a log of all the things I've been unable > >> to find via Google? > >> > >> It's a very long list. > > > >I'd be interested in knowing what they are. I've only failed to find a > >very few things, almost always because their in really obscure areas, > >information tightly controlled by people or organizations who > >intentionally keep the information offline, or (most frequently) > >involves looking for groups of very common words. Other than that, I'm > >pleased. > > Well, sure, I'm pretty pleased with the Web too, much of the time. > > But virtually nothing that doesn't have either a commercial organization > promoting it, or a dedicated amateur fan club, can be found for free on the > web. > And sometimes things that do have one or both of those are still conspicuous by their absence. I've looked up a number of companies only to find that their websites are a) nonexistant or b) incomplete. > > >> That all human knowledge is on the web is one of the great pernicious > >> misapprehensions of our time. > > > >Fortunately, I don't think I know anyone who honestly believes that. > > I've found plenty of people who dishonestly believe it. Whether they'd > really agree with the proposition if you pinned them down, I'm not sure. > But they behave as if they believe it. Ask them a question, they ask > Jeeves, and if that doesn't help, it never occurs to them it could be > somewhere other than the web. > I work in the children's department and it is amazing how many kids go straight to the internet terminal for information. I find myself constantly checking what they're looking up (since it wouldn't occur to them to ask for help) and more often than not I end up directing them to books where they can find the information quicker and more easily. But in all fairness, I should state that it works the other way too. There is information on the net that we never had access to in book format. > Fictional characters like Willow popping up floor and heating-duct plans of > City Hall on the web, just like that, don't help. This is pure fantasy, as > much as her witchcraft, but I'm not sure people realize that. There was an > X-Files episode in which the agents are investigating a mysterious shape. > So they look up its coordinates in the Library of Congress online database > of Mysterious Shapes, and find it. That must have had LC rolling in the > aisles. They haven't even finished putting their entire _card catalog_ on > the web! What gets me is how quickly they can break into secure computer systems...I know Willow's good, but really.... Hilary Hilary L. Hertzoff From here to there, Mamaroneck Public Library a bunny goes where a bunny must. Mamaroneck, NY - Little Bunny on the Move hhertzof@panix.com by Peter McCarty ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 18:25:35 -0400 From: meredith Subject: Re: o/firefly photos Hi, Marty commented: >Looks Babylon 5ish to me. However, I liked B5. Oooh, yes. I'd take a Jossified version of B5 ... FOX did finally announce their schedule today, and it looks like the advance scouting reports were wrong. FIREFLY is set to premiere in September after all, but at the expense of DARK ANGEL, which got cancelled after all. I am *really* bummed by the cancellation of DARK ANGEL. As I told Don, as a season finale the last episode was great, but as a series finale it sucked. There are skeins of dangling plot threads that still need to be resolved, and it looked like they were poised to send the show in an intriguing new direction. Maybe if enough fans of the show write to FOX, they'll at least spring for a 2-hour telemovie to wrap things up. (I harbor no illusions that at this late date another network will ride to its rescue, especially considering the per-episode cost to make the show, but I'd love to be surprised.) It'd be sad to leave the story just hanging like that. ============================================== Meredith Tarr New Haven, CT USA mailto:meth@smoe.org http://www.smoe.org/meth ============================================== Live At The House O'Muzak House Concert Series http://www.smoe.org/meth/muzak.html ============================================== ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 18:36:00 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: o/ Double Meat is Double Sweet In a message dated 5/16/02 10:15:25 AM Pacific Daylight Time, jzitt@metatronpress.com writes: << "m/"? >> Music, since that's part of what the thread has been about at some points (didn't know what direction it was taking). ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 19:04:26 EDT From: GHighPine@aol.com Subject: b/Two To Go In a message dated 5/15/02 7:44:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, meth@smoe.org writes: << >SPOILER SPACE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Yow! I don't think WB would have ever showed Warren >getting skinned. Probably not. I had just resigned myself to the fact that Willow was going to wuss out and relent, too. Should I feel immoral over the fact that I cheered when Warren met his demise? >> It was set up that way, so we would cheer. I didn't have a speck of doubt Willow would kill him, since we are getting to the season finale climax and this seemed to be the way to the big Crisis that has been set up. (Buffy's moral dilemma when she thought she had killed a human =accidentally= clearly was pointing toward this crisis. The question is whether Andrew and Jonathan, or just Jonathan, or neither, will survive? My bet for most lilely scenario of those three (I don't consider Andrew's survival while Jonathan dies to even be a possibility) is on the second alternative, Andrew dies and just Jonathan survives. I think that Andrew's death at Willow's hands will heighten the crisis, especially when it becomes clear that Willow has killed someone who is relatively innocent (heightening the slippery slope). I think that Willow's ability to "Reveal" will help save Jonathan, and perhaps put WIllow on the path to repentance. My bet for second most likely scenario is both of them surviving. My bet for scenario that will really shock me is if she kills Jonathan. That might happen, though, if they need a shocking death for the finale. OTOH, he might not be a major enough character for a season finale death. (A major character has died in every season finale, even if the death is temporary, isn't that right?) I'm still suspecting that Spike might be being set up. Whether he returns to former evil self or former human self, been here done that, and having him spend next season as William the Bloody Awful Scooby Team member seems way anticlimactic. But we've already had one shocking death, and I find myself thinking of season 2, when several episodes ahead of the finale, Angel killed Jenny Calendar in "Passion" (an ep which, to me, is still one of the show's masterpieces) and Keith DeCandido, who, as editor of the Buffy tie-ins at Ace Books, saw scripts beforehand, posted on Genie that something even more intense was in store for the season finale, but after "Passion," it was hard to imagine how and what that could possibly be.... Gayle ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 17:40:58 -0700 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: Re: b/villains From: "meredith" > > >SPOILER SPACE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Probably not. I had just resigned myself to the fact that Willow was going > to wuss out and relent, too. Should I feel immoral over the fact that I > cheered when Warren met his demise? No, you don't have to feel immoral. (How does one do that, anyway?) I'm concerned about this line that Willow crossed, though. This is very serious, although she appeared to be in some sort of shock until she actually caught up with Warren. I was telling David last night that I find it interesting how they have changed Willow's make-up through the series. In season one, she was very plain. They started making her look cuter (wardrobe, too) in season 2. (I also need to note when her hair color changed from a dull brown-red to the vibrant red we know her for.) In seasons 4 and 5, she was looking pretty glam, very girly. They toned this down this season when she was in thrall to her addiction. And she looked downright haggard in this week's episode. (She looked like too many people I've seen at cons.) They've really done a good job tracking her look to her character development. Ditto Buffy. > >My favorite part was when Willow repeated the "bored > >now" line that evil vampire Willow used to use. This, too, was disturbing. > I think they're setting up something with Spike, though. And Dawn. Dawn > *really* wants to join the gang, and stumbling across Tara's body was an > obvious parallel to Buffy stumbling across Joyce. Tara was a surrogate > mother figure for Dawn, after all. Warren's already been taken care of, > but I have a feeling Dawn will figure somehow in the finale. Yes, I think Buffy's being over-protective of Dawn. I thought she should have allowed her to accompany her and Xander as they looked for Willow. Buffy's treating Dawn like a child, ignoring the fact that Buffy was an experienced slayer at that age, and it feels like she's denying Dawn her grief by leaving her with a babysitter. > On another, more random note: what was up with Anya's Puritan getup in the > Magic Box? I laughed out loud ... Over-compensation, I'd say. And, after everything that's happened, she's probably not feeling too sexy. Berni ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 17:44:02 -0700 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: Re: a/this week From: "meredith" > Hi, > > I can't remember the title of this week's _Angel_ ... "Benediction" > > S > P > O > I > L > E > R > > > > S > P > A > C > E > > > > > > > > > -- What the heck kind of a demon *is* Cordelia, anyway?! She's an all-purpose demon. >(Rob is calling her "Demona Troi". ) That's great! >Judging from the glowey effect that's happened > both times she's done her glowey thing, I'm thinking TPTB made her > something closer to an angel than a demon ... but then those are just two > sides of the same coin, depending on which theology you read. Not surprising. That reminds me, on Buffy, when Dawn found Tara's body, she started going all white and then they changed scenes or cut to commercial. I thought she was turning back to her energy state as the Key or that a super-power was manifesting through the shock. Berni ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 17:49:03 -0700 From: "Berni Phillips" Subject: Re: b/villains From: "Joseph Zitt" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm kinda hoping that Jonathan and Andrew survive -- it's looking more > like they were pretty much Warren's stooges, and certainly don't quite > deserve his fate. My prediction is that Willow will succeed in killing Andrew but not Jonathan. Despite the facts that he has very poor taste in friends and messed with their heads in "Superstar," he's still someone they all went to school with. They may be able to stop Willow by seeking out her inner-nerd. Besides, they're both such losers that it would almost glorify their existence to come to such an end. > > > > I'm with Berni -- do you think he's going to end up human?? > > > I suspect that he'd be a more comedic character when human. And probably > would now be a better poet. The consensus of the Bratman household last night was that turning Spike human would be the only way to keep the character around when he should have been staked years ago. It would add a new twist to the relationship. I'm betting that Buffy would find a human Spike boring. Berni ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 18:09:54 -0700 (PDT) From: Todd Huff Subject: Re: b/Two To Go > >SPOILER SPACE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The question is whether Andrew and Jonathan, or > just Jonathan, or neither, > will survive? My bet for most lilely scenario of > those three (I don't > consider Andrew's survival while Jonathan dies to > even be a possibility) is > on the second alternative, Andrew dies and just > Jonathan survives. My bet (and hope) as well. >I'm still suspecting that Spike > might be being set up. > Whether he returns to former evil self or former > human self, been here done > that, and having him spend next season as William > the Bloody Awful Scooby > Team member seems way anticlimactic. > Spike coming back as human might be either amusing or boring. No problem convincing Buffy he's no longer a vampire, but it might be tough convincing them he's no longer evil. Afterall, Buffy got to know Angel before he went back to being bad and has never known Spike that way. To top it off, Xander will still be around and he always hated both Angel _and_ Spike. If there is to be another surprise death, my money would be on Anya. If she's not going to get back with Xander (which, admittedly, might be a part of next season's arc) she's more than a little superfluous. Has anybody heard if she's under contract for another season? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 23:20:00 -0500 From: Joseph Zitt Subject: Re: b/Two To Go On Thu, May 16, 2002 at 07:04:26PM -0400, GHighPine@aol.com wrote: > might not be a major enough character for a season finale death. (A major > character has died in every season finale, even if the death is temporary, > isn't that right?) Hmm. I don't recall a major death in the season with Adam and The Initiative (I lose count of which that was, numerically), but I could be forgetting something. > I'm still suspecting that Spike might be being set up. > Whether he returns to former evil self or former human self, been here done > that, and having him spend next season as William the Bloody Awful Scooby > Team member seems way anticlimactic. Maybe the shaman demon will really change him around... and he and Clem will live Happily Ever After. - -- | jzitt@metatronpress.com http://www.josephzitt.com/ | | http://www.metatronpress.com/jzitt/ http://www.mp3.com/josephzitt/ | | == New book: Surprise Me with Beauty: the Music of Human Systems == | | Comma / Gray Code Silence: the John Cage Discussion List | ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 22:25:17 -0700 From: "Marta Grabien" Subject: Re: b/villains > > I think they're setting up something with Spike, though Oh yes. BTW, Buffy still trusts Spike with her most precious sister. That, in my humble, is real trust. ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V4 #70 ****************************