Dawn!
- This topic has 40 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 22 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
quote:
Originally posted by Stu:
Does anybody else think that there’s really no point to having Dawn in the show anymore?
I mean all she seems to do to is be a liability to Buffy and be a selfish, whiney, stereotypical teenager. In series 6, she spent almost every episode feeling sorry for herself and saying that Buffy and the others didn’t care for her-HELLO! Your sister sacrificed herself last series so you didn’t have to!
What’s your take on her?
I think she’s necessary, and that she played a vital role last season. Season 6 was, as I see it, all about family and the need for it. Buffy and Joyce both died in Season 5, and so Dawn is already at a disadvantage, emotionally, when Season 6 begins. The rest of the season is devoted to watching relationships break down and turn unhealthy. Willow and Tara (the only thing close to a family Dawn has after Buffy’s death) split up. Xander and Anya split up. Giles (important father figure to both Buffy and Dawn) leaves for England. Buffy begins an irrational and unhealthy relationship with Spike, which could only end badly, and carries on with it in secret. Buffy continually neglects Dawn’s cries for help, attention, and love. All because of the lack of attention to the connections between the Scoobies. The Willow/Tara rift takes place because Willow becomes more and more addicted to magic, and more and more self-absorbed. Xander doubts that his love for Anya can last, and puts more faith in his fears. Giles fears that his presence has caused more codependence than help, and severs his ties with the gang. Buffy reacts to the loss of Angel, Riley, and most significantly, her mother, and looks for solace in meaningless sex with Spike. She can’t turn to Dawn for emotional fulfillment because of the pain involved — Dawn was, after all, responsible for her own death, and there’s too much association with Joyce there for it to be comfortable. On top of that, there’s an additional parental responsibility there that Buffy doesn’t want to have to face. Buffy can’t lean on the Scoobies, because they’re all too tied up in their own problems, and Giles has left. Willow tries to replace Tara with Amy, and things go from bad to worse. Anya reaches out to the rejected Spike, and ditto. Dawn reaches out for attention by stealing, and by making a lousy wish that nobody leave her (which leads to one of the key eps of last season, “Older and Far Away”). These themes reach an apex in “Normal Again,” in which Buffy’s ideal alternate existence — being a normal girl, parental units intact, and Dawn [i]not even there[/i] — is presented. As the season rolls along to its climax, it becomes evident that the point of everything that’s gone on has been to bring about a reconciliation. Xander wins Anya’s respect again. Giles recognizes that asking for help can be the most adult thing possible. Willow recognizes that love, forgiveness, and acceptance is more important than retribution. And, perhaps most importantly, Buffy and Dawn reconcile. Dawn played an extremely significant part of the story arc of last season, and it wouldn’t have been nearly as emotionally enriched without her presence. Sure, she’s annoying. She’s a teenager who’s lost everyone she loved, and doesn’t feel like anything is permanent. Of *course* she’s annoying. If she were any other way, it wouldn’t have been authentic.
–Aleck
Yep, all wot Aleck said, plus she’s a teen. Don’t all teens behave like that?
{feel free to flame me 😉 }
We might have to get really used to her. If the show continues on without SMG in the title role (as has been suggested by the network and producers), Dawn is most likely to fill Buffy’s shoes. Indeed, with talk about the new season going back to ‘ground zero’ and being set in and around Sunnydale High (again), Dawn is apparently going to be a mediating focus of sorts. Whether this is intended as preparatory for a new Slayer or signals a new dawn in the history of the show remains to be seen of course.
quote:
Originally posted by bonnee:
We might have to get really used to her. If the show continues on without SMG in the title role (as has been suggested by the network and producers), Dawn is most likely to fill Buffy’s shoes. Indeed, with talk about the new season going back to ‘ground zero’ and being set in and around Sunnydale High (again), Dawn is apparently going to be a mediating focus of sorts. Whether this is intended as preparatory for a new Slayer or signals a new dawn in the history of the show remains to be seen of course.
There’s no chance of Dawn becoming the slayer just yet, as while Faith is alive she holds that honour.
I think the whole thing about Dawn being her sister automatically entitles her to being of slayer blood is a bit daft, mainly because Joyce would’ve have been endowed with powers, unless of course it skips somehow.
But then Buffy has kept her powers after the death of Kendra and herself, so Dawn having becoming a slayer might just happen, I hope so because the poor girl was left an isolated figure in the last season…and I felt sorry for her…ahhhh!!!
Squishy [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]quote:
There’s no chance of Dawn becoming the slayer just yet, as while Faith is alive she holds that honour.
I think the whole thing about Dawn being her sister automatically entitles her to being of slayer blood is a bit daft, mainly because Joyce would’ve have been endowed with powers, unless of course it skips somehow.
But then Buffy has kept her powers after the death of Kendra and herself, so Dawn having becoming a slayer might just happen, I hope so because the poor girl was left an isolated figure in the last season…and I felt sorry for her…ahhhh!!!
The idea does seem incredibly daft Squishy -I’d go so far as to suggest that it smacks of commercial opportunism (just a way of extending the show beyond its useby date IMAO). I hope its done more convincingly than Angel’s return from the dead – that, for me, emotionally falsified Buffy’s need to kill him in the first place, and sort of reduced the emotional baggage of being a Slayer as a result. At any rate, his return certainly played out as an attempt to have a spinoff, so its possible that the Powers That Be ( [img]images/smiles/icon_redface.gif[/img] ) might follow the same route regarding Dawn. When I watched the season finale, I certainly interpreted Dawn and Buffy fighting side by side in the ‘crypt’ as suggestive of this possibility – especially when Dawn announced that she had been ‘learning’ from Buffy after ‘explaining’ a kill (somehow) worthy of her elder sister.
Does anybody else think that there’s really no point to having Dawn in the show anymore?
I mean all she seems to do to is be a liability to Buffy and be a selfish, whiney, stereotypical teenager. In series 6, she spent almost every episode feeling sorry for herself and saying that Buffy and the others didn’t care for her-HELLO! Your sister sacrificed herself last series so you didn’t have to!
What’s your take on her?quote:
Originally posted by bonnee:
The idea does seem incredibly daft Squishy -I’d go so far as to suggest that it smacks of commercial opportunism (just a way of extending the show beyond its useby date IMAO). I hope its done more convincingly than Angel’s return from the dead – that, for me, emotionally falsified Buffy’s need to kill him in the first place, and sort of reduced the emotional baggage of being a Slayer as a result. At any rate, his return certainly played out as an attempt to have a spinoff, so its possible that the Powers That Be ( [img]images/smiles/icon_redface.gif[/img] ) might follow the same route regarding Dawn. When I watched the season finale, I certainly interpreted Dawn and Buffy fighting side by side in the ‘crypt’ as suggestive of this possibility – especially when Dawn announced that she had been ‘learning’ from Buffy after ‘explaining’ a kill (somehow) worthy of her elder sister.
It certainly looks to be heading that way, although I can’t see the program continuing once SMG has left, I think Whedon will call it a day if she decides to go. I get the feeling that Dawn is like the object to get youngsters more interested in the show, the main characters are really getting on, well at least from a teenage standpoint.
A lot of Buffy’s original dangling carrot was the cute blonde in short skirt slaying monsters, every young boy’s dream!!!, but those young boy’s get older and either find another young lady to fixate on or just generally grow up.
I think they are aiming for the same effect with Dawn, to try and get the new generation of young boys interested, so I think there’s a good chance Dawn will become slayer-ish.
Squishy [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]quote:
Originally posted by Squishy:
I think there’s a good chance Dawn will become slayer-ish.
She may become slayer-ish, in that she may take an active part in the Scoobies, but she’s not going to become the Slayer.
For one thing, people don’t just *become* Slayers. Slayers are born, not appointed, and their powers are present from birth, not bestowed upon them at a certain point. Remember that Kendra’s training began (and, judging from what we know about how Slayers are trained, we can assume is the same with Faith) as a small child, when she was given to the Council by her family. The Slayers are trained to use powers they already *have*, and are kept in “reserve,” so to speak, to replace the active Slayer upon her death (if the powers just lept from host to host as one Slayer died, there would be too great a lag time to establish a replacement, as the Slayer has to already have been trained to use the powers — Buffy was an exception, as she somehow escaped detection by the Council for the early part of her life). Now, if Dawn *had* these powers, being of Slayer blood (though it’s obviously not carried via heredity, unless Kendra, Faith and Buffy are related), why would she have been placed under the protection of the Slayer by the monks that created her? Wouldn’t it have been easier to just hide the key in a being that *had* slayer-like powers and knew how to use them, so that she could fend for herself when the time came to save the world from Glory? Since she had to be protected to begin with, we can assume that the monks *couldn’t* create a being with slayer-like powers, and had to hide the key in what was, for all intents, purposes and appearances, a normal human girl.
Now, it could be that Dawn may be able to exploit her supernatural origins and demonstrate some powers of her own, but she’s not going to become the Slayer, and I doubt seriously that they’ll attempt to continue BtVS without SMG. I mean, she’s literally attatched to the title. Without her, there’s no Buffy. Dawn could, potentially, feature in a spin-off, but she’s no Slayer.–Aleck
It’s up for debate as to whether Dawn could become a slayer, there’s still a chance she could.
Buffy when in L.A had no idea who she was or what powers she had, she was probably taught by Merik on how to develop her powers, he must have brought her powers forward, otherwise she would have been tossing 5 year old boys around like rag dolls when she was 3!!!
It’s seems that there would have to be many slayers just waiting to be told there destiny, and each one in turn is told of this when the previous slayer dies, it could well be that they continue their lives oblivious to their potential as a slayer, while the current slayer lives a long while.
Buffy is unique in that she by rights is no longer the true slayer as laid down in watcher lore, and that her life as a slayer seems to have gone beyond that of an average slayer.
Dawn could not have protected herself as she would have had no idea of her abilities, the key was obviously a one time hit, and she is now 100% human. But the slayer thing might not happen until their 16th birthday, which I think Dawn is approaching, I couldn’t seeing it being a family gene, but as we don’t precisely know how a slayer is determined we couldn’t say as to whether the idea of Dawn becoming one is really that ridiculous after all.
It’s a bit of a contradiction with how slayers come about, if they are the only one then when they die it should take until the next one to be born to become a new slayer, but that’s unlikely as the world would have no protection until the slayer is of an age that she can fight. So it’s got to be that there would be many girls who are slayers and know of it and are just awaiting their turn, like I’m sure Kendra mentioned that she was taken at an early age, so I guess slayers can pop up anyhwhere.
Squishy [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]quote:
Originally posted by Squishy:
It’s up for debate as to whether Dawn could become a slayer, there’s still a chance she could.
About as much chance as Giles being revealed as being Jack the Ripper, I’ll give you that much. [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
quote[quote]Buffy when in L.A had no idea who she was or what powers she had, she was probably taught by Merik on how to develop her powers, he must have brought her powers forward, otherwise she would have been tossing 5 year old boys around like rag dolls when she was 3!!![/quote]
That’s essentially what I said. All Slayers are *born* with their powers, but have to be trained on how to use them and bring them forward.
quote[quote]It’s seems that there would have to be many slayers just waiting to be told there destiny, and each one in turn is told of this when the previous slayer dies, it could well be that they continue their lives oblivious to their potential as a slayer, while the current slayer lives a long while.[/quote]
No, because Kendra was in training to become a Slayer from the time she was old enough to walk. She was taken from her parents by the Council as a youth. This is while there had to have been a Slayer in action. Like I said, if they waited until the active Slayer died to inform anyone of their destiny, they’d have huge freakin’ chunks of time floating about wherein any demonic influence could come along and cause the end of the world. Buffy’s situation was an *exception* to the normal progression of Slayers. Buffy isn’t supposed to have contact with the outside world. Buffy was supposed to have been in training all her life. She was simply found too late, and had to go into it blindly. That’s part of the point of the whole show, at least at the beginning, and the source of all the friction between her and Giles.
quote[quote]Buffy is unique in that she by rights is no longer the true slayer as laid down in watcher lore, and that her life as a slayer seems to have gone beyond that of an average slayer.[/quote]
No, the council still recognizes Buffy as a true Slayer. They’ve just found themselves in the unprecedented position where there are 2 Slayers active at once.
quote[quote]Dawn could not have protected herself as she would have had no idea of her abilities, the key was obviously a one time hit, and she is now 100% human.[/quote]
Why would the monks create someone with latent Slayer abilities, and not let her have any idea about them? What good would that have possibly done? If she has *any* abilities beyond picking up some kick-ass moves from her sister, they’re only going to be exploited from her supernatural origins (Willow, in the last or second-to-last episode seemed to suggest that she could be able to reduce Dawn to her status as a key), but aren’t going to be Slayer-related. Unless, of course, as you say, she’s 100 percent human, and then she’s on the same level as Xander.
quote[quote]But the slayer thing might not happen until their 16th birthday, which I think Dawn is approaching, I couldn’t seeing it being a family gene, but as we don’t precisely know how a slayer is determined we couldn’t say as to whether the idea of Dawn becoming one is really that ridiculous after all.[/quote]
Yeah, we can say. The idea is ridiculous. If Slayer status was passed along family lines, then Buffy’s family would have had a lot of stuff going on, and it would have probably been a bit of information leaked to her from a relative, instead of from some member of the Council. There would have been a lot of people snatched away from their parents in the Summers family. But anyway, we know this: Kendra is not related to Buffy. Faith is not related to Buffy. We know how Kendra’s selection and training went, and we know that she and her Watcher were sticklers for the rules and procedures laid down by the Council, so we can rightfully deduce that Kendra’s experience was typical. Slayers are taken from their families at a very young age, and essentially raised under the tutelage of their Watchers. As both Kendra and Faith were completely prepared at the time of their succession into activity, we can assume that several Slayers-in-waiting are in reserve and prepared to take over in the case of the active Slayer’s death. With all the contact Dawn has had with Giles, and the exposure via osmosis to the Council, it makes no sense at all that they’d suddenly pop in and say “hey, you’re a Slayer now.” Plus, the fact that she’s a creation instead of an actual human being, and has been shown to be extremely vulnerable because of this (you know, attracting demons that want to cause dimensions to break down and the like, and being unable to actually *do anything* about them) makes her an exceptionally unlikely candidate for Slayerhood.
quote[quote]It’s a bit of a contradiction with how slayers come about, if they are the only one then when they die it should take until the next one to be born to become a new slayer, but that’s unlikely as the world would have no protection until the slayer is of an age that she can fight. So it’s got to be that there would be many girls who are slayers and know of it and are just awaiting their turn, like I’m sure Kendra mentioned that she was taken at an early age, so I guess slayers can pop up anyhwhere.[/quote]
THAT’S WHAT I’VE BEEN SAYING!
There are multiple Slayers-in-waiting. Kendra was one. Faith was one. They’re awaiting their turn to take over as active Slayer, and there is only one active Slayer. There’s no contradiction there. The Council is small and secretive, and can only devote their time and attention to one Slayer at a time, and is unable to handle an entire army. Therefore, active Slayers are used in the most critical areas of demonic activity, while the Slayers-in-waiting ready themselves for the inevitable. By the way, hasn’t it been said before that Buffy has survived the longest out of all the Slayers? This would indicate that Slayers are Slayers from an early age, and don’t just start doing what they’re doing at age 16. The Council, being a deliberate and very careful bunch, knows better than to just take some 16-year-old girl, tell her she’s a Vampire Slayer, and just let her loose. That’s why the Buffy scenario is so unique: that’s precisely what they *had* to do, and that’s what creates that palpable frustration in the first season as Giles tries to get Buffy to stay in line. It ain’t supposed to work this way, but it has to. But you can bet that the Council wouldn’t do it like this *again*.
–Aleck
Exactly.
Eh?
Personallyt, I think that Dawn is eminently more watchable than buffy (almost maked me feel like a pedophile!) and she seems very very lovely.
Tratchtenburg (or whatever the bloody hell her name is) was terrific after the HUGE hassle she had from fans who were shocked at her unannounced appearance. She’s had a lot of bad pres mainly because she was inserted into an already well established cast.
SMG wasx the one who recommended her and if that’s any indication of how well she’s apreciated on the set, things shoudl bode well for her if there is ever a Dawn the Vampire Slayer (that sounds really bad doesn’t it?!).
I would much rather watch Dawn than Buffy!
[i]PS. Excuse the typo’s and spelling – this was written while drunk.[/i]
Possibly.
[img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
[img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
[img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]Beer Good…Saddy like beer…Alcoholic much!!!
Me like Dawn…Dawn nice.
The reason for the ‘exactly’ response is because of Aleck’s predictable long winded response to which there is there not point in responding to, mainly because I’m too F***’n lazy!!!
BTW Saddy, you drink too much!!! [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]Squishy
quote:
Originally posted by Squishy:
The reason for the ‘exactly’ response is because of Aleck’s predictable long winded response to which there is there not point in responding to, mainly because I’m too F***’n lazy!!!
You know, Squish, my response may have been “predictable” or “long winded,” but at least I didn’t stoop to insulting you. The only thing I said that was even close to being insulting was that the notion that Dawn would become a Slayer was ridiculous — which you invited because you said that one *couldn’t* say the idea was ridiculous, and which you’d *already agreed to in an earlier post, when you said that it was unlikely that Dawn would ever become the Slayer.*
If you want to get personal, Squish, I can get personal.
–Aleck
Aleck…
Is your opinion based upon deep and thorough research? Or is it just your theory?
I really can’t be arsed to get deep and philosophical about this (it’s too bloody hot), but could it not be possible that the Slayers powers stay dormant until the old one croaks? The ‘Powers’ that bestow the Slayers with their abilities could just point the watchers to kids that will get voted in at some point in the future. Otherwise why haven’t the big bads gone on a Slayer TNG hunt? Y’know, get rid of the opposition while they are still in nappies. Or in great moments of ‘****-hitting-fan’ why haven’t the watchers brought in the reserves?
I’m not having a pop here, cos you are obviously a bit touchy about people expressing opinions that directly contradict yours, but your theory seems to have just as many holes as any of the others that I have heard.quote:
Originally posted by Rag:
Aleck…Is your opinion based upon deep and thorough research? Or is it just your theory?
It’s just my theory, but it’s based on what’s been presented in the show, and I’ve been trying not to overlook anything that’s relevent to the topic.
quote[quote]I really can’t be arsed to get deep and philosophical about this (it’s too bloody hot), but could it not be possible that the Slayers powers stay dormant until the old one croaks? The ‘Powers’ that bestow the Slayers with their abilities could just point the watchers to kids that will get voted in at some point in the future.[/quote]
It’s possible, but it invalidates the established fact that Kendra had been in training for years, and had regularly been killing vampires (hence “Mr. Pointy”).
quote[quote]Otherwise why haven’t the big bads gone on a Slayer TNG hunt? Y’know, get rid of the opposition while they are still in nappies. Or in great moments of ‘****-hitting-fan’ why haven’t the watchers brought in the reserves?[/quote]
(A) For the same reason that the big bads haven’t wiped out the Watchers. They’re too well-protected and too well-hidden. Kendra and Faith were under the care of the Council all along, and they never found them. (B) The Council probably wouldn’t want to “expose the ranks” as it were. The identities of all the Slayers-in-waiting would be exposed, and there would be the chance that a significant number of them would be wiped out. Better to keep the ranks guarded and safe.
quote[quote]I’m not having a pop here, cos you are obviously a bit touchy about people expressing opinions that directly contradict yours, but your theory seems to have just as many holes as any of the others that I have heard.[/quote]
Oh, *that*. No, I have no problems with people having different opinions (hence the wink and joke at the top of the “long-winded” post above). I’m all for debate, and all for discussion, and you can’t have either without opposing viewpoints. Others might feel that any attempt at discussion, lengthy expressions of opinion, or reasoned arguments supporting a position are considered “rants” and somehow aren’t statements of opinion anymore (which really doesn’t make any sense at all) and are subject to ridicule, and then take it upon themselves to say that any time I express an opinion that’s opposed to their own that I can’t “accept other’s opinions,” but that’s bullsh*t. Discussion thrives on disparate opinions, and I love discussion. Others might like a world where most everybody likes the same movies, and anyone who doesn’t keeps their mouths shut and kowtows to the majority, but that’s not what I’m into.
All I did above was try and address what I thought were holes in an argument: that if the Monks built Dawn with Slayer-powers, they’d be idiots to not let her *know* about them, and would be even bigger idiots for not establishing a history that would have her in training (as the other Slayers have been) from her early youth so that she could *use* them (even if they lay dormant until the Slayer dies, as you theorize, she’s been surrounded by Council members from the time Buffy was discovered, at least in this alternate history), and that it’s this that leads me to believe that Dawn is not going to be the next Slayer. To buy the idea that she *could* be the next Slayer means that you’d have to ignore a lot more of the backstory than otherwise, which means that the holes in that theory are that much larger.
–Aleck
[ 23-08-2002: Message edited by: Aleck ]
How are they going to tell Dawn she has slayer powers when they were all killed before she came into existence?
Even if Dawn did have slayer strength, she would have had no idea and just would’ve behaved like like a scared girl, which she did, and even with slayer strength she still would not have been a match for Glory.
As Buffy pointed out, the monks had made Buffy a sister, she is no longer the key, she is human, if they were able to do that who’s to say they did not empower her with slayer strength, maybe the monks sent her to Buffy for not only her protection but to learn from her, which she is now beginning to do.
Her history and the show’s history is irrelevant, Dawn came into existence and that doesn’t throw the timeline or story into doubt.
As they say anything is possible in television, and although she has had no watchers to guide her or even know of her (how could they know of her), it’s still feasible that the monks made a slayer as well as a sister for Buffy.
She is never going to have a history like Kendra or any other slayer, but she is now as much human as they are and she does carry the blood of the Buffy, which was proven in the closure of the portal, only Buffy and Dawn could close it, such was how well the job the monks had done.
So even though it’s not likely the story could still turn in that direction.quote:
Originally posted by Squishy:
How are they going to tell Dawn she has slayer powers when they were all killed before she came into existence?
How did they manage to tell Dawn she was Buffy’s sister when they were all killed? Simple, they created her with a past already built-in. They set it up so that they didn’t *have* to tell her anything.
quote[quote]Even if Dawn did have slayer strength, she would have had no idea and just would’ve behaved like like a scared girl, which she did, and even with slayer strength she still would not have been a match for Glory.[/quote]
She at least would have been able to help out in the battle against Glory if she had Slayer-esque powers. If the Monks were able to create the detailed back-story for her that they did, they’d be able to create a back-story that allowed for her to have been training and aware of her powers.
quote[quote]As Buffy pointed out, the monks had made Buffy a sister, she is no longer the key, she is human, if they were able to do that who’s to say they did not empower her with slayer strength, maybe the monks sent her to Buffy for not only her protection but to learn from her, which she is now beginning to do.[/quote]
Dawn is the same being now that she was when she first arrived. Her form hasn’t changed. In the form she is in right now, Glory would have been able to utilize her as the key. She’s not the key anymore simply because there’s not a lock there for her to open anymore. Again, if the monks were able to create Dawn, and theoretically give her powers of some sort, why wouldn’t they have made her be under Giles’ watch as well? Why wouldn’t they have created a person that could *utilize* these powers? Someone that *wouldn’t* have acted like a scared little girl? Someone with a different history? It’s like giving someone a chunk of marble but no tools, asking them to carve a statue out of it, and then only afterwards telling them that you had a hammer and chisel all along. It doesn’t make any sense.
quote[quote]Her history and the show’s history is irrelevant, Dawn came into existence and that doesn’t throw the timeline or story into doubt.[/quote]
Okay, either you’re contradicting yourself in that statement, or you’re using the wrong word. I’m going to assume that you’re trying to say “Dawn came into existence and that *does* throw the timeline or story into doubt.” Dawn’s history and the show’s history is *far* from irrelevent when you’re discussing what could possibly happen. [i]BtVS[/i] is a show that has always prided itself on its continuity and the way things build upon themselves. The past matters in [i]Buffy,[/i] and Dawn’s arrival doesn’t change that. Dawn’s arrival did *not* create an alternate timeline. Dawn’s acceptance by everyone is based purely on a spell placed by the Monks. There is no other timeline: Dawn just arrived, and everyone was made to believe that she’d always been there. Buffy realized this by going into a trance, and clairvoyants and the mentally disabled are able to recognize that she’s not a “real” person.
quote[quote]So even though it’s not likely the story could still turn in that direction.[/quote]
Yeah, and Giles could out himself as Jack the Ripper, and the Cycle of Time could have managed to come full circle in the final episode of [i]LEXX[/i]. Anything is possible, but the internal logic of the show dictates that it’s probably not gonna happen.
–Aleck
quote:
Anything is possible, but the internal logic of the show dictates that it’s probably not gonna happen.
Too reiterate: If the show continues on without SMG in the title role (as has been suggested by the network and producers), Dawn is most likely to fill Buffy’s shoes. Indeed, with talk about the new season going back to ‘ground zero’ and being set in and around Sunnydale High (again), Dawn is apparently going to be a mediating focus of sorts. Whether this is intended as preparatory for a new Slayer or signals a new dawn in the history of the show remains to be seen of course.
Insisting on what’s probably ‘not gonna happen’ or whether such a possibility may or may be ‘dictated’ by the show’s internal logic is only convincing us of the tenability of your own convictions Aleck.
It certainly fails to see how suggestive the ‘ground zero’ proposal might be, and ignores the possibility that the producers et al might want to rethink this ‘logic’ internally and from ‘the ground up’. Whilst I certainly agree that the idea is implausible – and possibly even unwelcome – such agreement presupposes the very things at issue, and begs the question I’ve raised ( not to mention, the possibilty those behind the scenes have themselves encouraged).
I recall Whedon being faced with the prospect of bringing Buffy back from the dead on another network (both literally and figuratively), and acknowledged the internal difficulties. Many people think – rightly or wrongly – that ‘displacing’ Buffy last season was a mistake, and that Whedon’s failed to convincingly pull off Buffy’s ‘resurrection’. I certainly thought the ‘it wasn’t her time’ excuse lame in the extreme, especially when it encourages notions of predestination at odds with the show’s arbritary and free will ethos.
The idea of her sleeping with Spike and Willow wanting to destroy the world might have also been thought ‘unlikely’, but Whedon somehow managed to render it thinkable anyway. And the very notion of Buffy suddenly having a sister and giving up her own life for a complete ‘stranger’ may have been thought equally ‘unlikely and illogical’ – but it happened and cohered in retrospect. Do I think the Dawn as Slayer idea is tenable ? Of course not. But how would I know? I’m yet to see the way Whedon is thinking about reconceptualising the Buffy universe, assuming that is what he really intends to do. For all I know, the close relationship between Dawn and Spike was prophetic in same way, and that him getting his soul back might even eventually render him her ‘Watcher’. It certainly would be consistent with the Slayer’s current ‘renegage status in modern times’ idea, and may even coincide with the show’s ostensible theme of ‘growing up’.
But like you -I’m just speculating about my understanding of ‘the past’. Unlike you, I’m not trying to convince you (or anyone else) that I might be right – and to be frank, I actually hope that I might be wrong. The fact that Whedon has gone on record to almost implore Faith to find time to return to the fold this season might even be suggestive of something else entirely, assuming the powers that be decide to continue on without Buffy. And the idea of Faith: The Vampire Slayer is certainly more appealing (not to mention, convincing as Squish was quck to point out). Given her troubled soul, however, this idea would have to be taken on faith – not something the council would be entirely comfortable with. It would also render the very idea of the Slayer both unstable and untenable. Maybe being ‘slayerish’ is the best we can hope for in all possible worlds – an idea that would cohere with one of Wheden’s major thematic of learning to accept who we are and de/limited responsibilities.
For or all we know, the question of the status of Slayer might be contingent upon a completely ‘external’ factor – like whether Firefly is a success or not.
You’re relentless need to be be right – coupled with your tendency to structure discourse around your own beliefs and desires – borders on pathology. To repeat smart Aleck : Whether ‘ground zero’ is intended as preparatory for a new Slayer or signals a new dawn in the history of the show remains to be seen .
[ 24-08-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
Yeah, Yeah….whatever Aleck.
As usual you’re pompous and overbearing approach means that you must be right yet again, you really need too read you’re own posts, because frankly they just smack of the person you never used to get along with…DT790.
You continued attempts to blow everybody else’s opinion’s out of the water just defies belief, you’re posts like mine are sheer conjecture and postulation, they have no basis in fact and should not be taken seriously.
Fact is no matter how much you rant and bleat on about all your ideas, does not make anything I or anyone else say any less plausible.
The post made by ‘Rag’ should give you an indication of your current behaviour, now I can remember a time when you didn’t behave in such an arrogant fashion, but for some reason your arguments are dismissive and like DT’s are speculation which you seem to what to make seen as fact. I’m not sure what you’re problem is, but maybe this is the true Aleck we are seeing, and although I never saw eye to eye with bonnee, it’s obvious he can’t stand you for the same reason.
No doubt you’ll respond yet again to question even this, but maybe you should take a step back and evaluate just how you’re posts are appearing, and just for the record, it’s not my intention to get you to ‘kowtow’ to my way of thinking, but perhaps you could say in reply how yes, that might be possible, as a courtesy, instead of replying with a long letter on how you completely and utterly disagree with everyone.
So Aleck, in short…get over yourself will you.
Squishy [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]quote[quote] Yeah, and Giles could out himself as Jack the Ripper, and the Cycle of Time could have managed to come full circle in the final episode of LEXX. [/quote]
And that is a cheap shot that has become increasingly worthy of you. As far as I’m concerned, Lexx season 4 should have been internally consistent and navigated this route. It was clear to me (and others) during the course of an ill conceived season that this wasn’t going to happen – the fact that we were proven ‘wrong’ (and so, sadly ‘correct’) does not invalidate the correctness of such misgivings. Nor does it validate your own remarks regarging the future of Buffy, as the cheap shot was strategically placed to do so.
As for Squish’s question regarding Giles identity – it was just that. It was a question that occurred to him, and he publicly braved wondering it aloud without insisting on it. From memory, he allowed himself to be instantly persuaded by your own explanation on the ‘riff of his name’. The fact that you tried to remind him of this apparent ‘mistake’ during the summation of your own speculations pretty much indicates what I’ve suspected all along about you – a pathological need to be right via the way of ‘Truth’, despite your own philosophical avowals to the contrary. You contradict yourself at every turn by presuming to contradict anyone else. I know your not philosophically committed to solipsism smart Aleck – only when it suits you (like a ‘true’ solipsist. [img]images/smiles/icon_redface.gif[/img] Hence the narcissism readilly on display, and the self refuting solipsism [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] )
[ 24-08-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
Okay, fine.
You are right. I am wrong. It’s entirely possible that Dawn will become a Slayer. It’s entirely possible that Buffy will die and her spirit live on in a 1947 Packard. It’s entirely possible that Xander will have a sex change operation.
There, that make you happy? That make your little egos feel better because you’ve had your imaginings of what could happen validated? Good.
For the record, Squish, you’re not seeing the “real” Aleck. You’re seeing the same Aleck as before. The same Aleck that you attacked for saying that Eva Habermann couldn’t act (at least in English) because you have some crush on her. The same Aleck that you attacked for saying that Princess Diana was an unattractive person. The same Aleck you’ve attacked for having opinions differing from your own. The same Aleck you’ve launched into personal insults about because he dare state a view that opposes yours, when you weren’t insulted at all. You took this discussion, when I was just supporting *your* contention that it was unlikely that Dawn would become the Slayer and finding holes in the argument that she *would* even pointing out where we were in agreement, and decided to make it personal. I’ve never *once* said that I was “right” about any of this. I’ve simply been reiterating and interpreting plot points of the show, and pointing them out when I think they’re being overlooked. I’ve acknowledged that it’s possible, but very very unlikely (and pointed out as examples for comparison two examples of even more unlikely scenarios that you’ve thought of that, like the arguments you keep making in this thread, ignored important aspects of the shows — hardly as much of a “cheap shot” as the even more personal sh*t that you and Bonnee keep throwing around).
Again, and I don’t know where you keep getting this stupid f*cking idea, I DON’T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANYONE ELSE’S OPINION. ****YOU**** have problems accepting the fact that anyone disagrees with anything you say, and take it personal. Bonnee doesn’t launch into some pseudo-intellectual or pseudo-philosophical dissection of anyone’s particular personal philosophies unless they disagree with his. Bonnee says that I “contradict (my)self at every turn by presuming to contradict anyone else.” That’s ridiculous. As far as Bonnee’s concerned, because of some pathological need to focus on *my* personal philosophies for whatever insipid reason, I am not allowed to hold *any* opinion that differs from anyone else’s, particularly his. Bonnee would, I guess, enjoy his life more if I simply took whatever opinion was offered to me as my own. [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] But it’s you, Squish, that contradict yourself at every turn. You say you want to let things drop, but only on your terms. You say you’re accepting of others’ opinions, but when one’s expressed, you find some idiotic way of getting around it (“that’s not an opinion, that’s a rant”) and attacking the person *with* that opinion. You say “it’s unlikely that Dawn will become the Slayer” and then attack someone for ***pointing out the reasons why your opinion is supported by the show.*** You’re not attacking me for even having a *different* opinion, you’re attacking me for having a *similar* opinion that happens to be *just a little bit stronger than your own.* Take a look back, Squish. Did I say *anything* about *anybody* when I first posted in either this thread or the “Summer Movies” thread? How did I imply that there was anything wrong with anyone else’s opinion? YOU were the first one to be dismissive, when you went on your little “I can’t be bothered to read Aleck’s predictable long-winded post” shpiel. You took it out of the realm of “let’s talk about Buffy” to “let’s talk about your post,” just as you took a discussion of “what do you think of summer movies” and made it “what do you think of dissenting opinions of Star Wars?” You stopped talking about the show or movie, and decided it was better to talk about what *someone else said* about the show or movie. You took things to a personal level, something I did not do. Why? Because you can’t accept that anyone has an opinion differing from your own.–Aleck
You really are laughable Aleck, if you look back at the history of this board I guarantee that when an argument is made you will be involved.
You are doing exactly what you used to accuse DT of doing, deflecting an argument to make yourself look the innocent party, everything you mention in your last post are exactly the advice you need to heed.
You’re long posts are just not worth the effort, it is you that have this attitude, in retrospect when you were having a pop we were obviously reading posts by two like minded individuals…the only difference being is that DT was slightly more obnoxious.
There is a pattern everytime you post, you start off with a theory that usually has no basis in fact whatsoever, someone will make a short innocent comment about how they could’nt see your idea happening, and then you reply with a very long post that sounds both dismissive and the fact that you’ve responded in that fashion is insult enough.
I don’t expect someone to reply to a post where I’ve said three sentences and in reply I get a chapter thrown back at me…like it or not, that irritates people.
I don’t think there has ever been a time where I’ve ever attacked for Eva or anyone else for that matter, but like I said I just believe you are an overly sensitive person, and like DT you sometimes have a problem in social circles. If you actually believe that comments made by me in the past consititute an attack then you really need to get out more often.
If your sensitivity to someone making a reply to your posts causes you you to see it as a form as a attack, then I can understand why you behave in this bizzare fashion.
What you have to understand is that you post in a similar fashion to DT, your posts are going to result in a reaction which you may deem negative, but like DT, you refuse to see that you have this problem and attempt to label that one person who identifies your problem as the cause of all the consternation.
Bonnee, did arrive here upset a few people, went away and came back only targeting one person…you, I would surmise that he realised that the rest of us didn’t behave in the fashion you do. I am not surprised Bonnee looks to wind you up, you are throughly deserving of it, and certainly if DT makes an appearance I will be making an apology to him for berating him when in fact it was yourself that deserved that treatment.
Like I said…you really need to go away and think about it.Squishy
quote:
Originally posted by Squishy:
you really need to go away and think about it.
And you just really need to go away and think, period. Do you want me to go back and dig up those threads where you went apesh*t over people talking about Eva? Where you had to come out and apologize for acting “going OTT,” as you like to say? You say that I posted a chapter in response to your “three sentences?” Where the f*ck did that take place? In what strange alternate reality did *that* happen? You say that *annoyed* you? IT NEVER HAPPENED, SQUISH.
You want to make remarks about “when there’s an argument, you’re involved,” Squish? Okay, how’s this: If you look back at the history of this board, when there’s a ridiculous theory posted about the future direction a series might take, one that ignores any aspect of the show’s history that might be relevent, you’re right there in the midst of it.
And where do you get off saying that I have a problem in social circles? Excuse me? Do you live around here? I have a job, I have friends I hang out with, I have a partner I’ve been with for the past 6 years, I have a social life outside of this board, I have a pretty rewarding life in general. I don’t know about you, you might be projecting your own problems for all I know. I mean, you say I’m the one that posts these outrageous theories that have no basis in fact, even though I can cite examples in the respective shows that back them up. All the while, it’s *you* that posts ridiculous notions that have no relation to the series you talk about, and get upset when someone points out that they don’t make any logical sense, when taking the histories of the shows into account (going so far as to say that the histories of the shows don’t matter anyway). You say I’m the one that can’t handle others’ opinions, when you’re the one that turns the conversations in a personal direction when someone disagrees with you. You act like you’re open for discussion while someone else won’t listen, but you ignore everything the person you’re conversing with says, and refuse to address any pertinent points, and simply say the same half-baked ideas over and over and over and over again without thinking about them. So I think it’s a definite possibility that you’re projecting your own social problems outward. But I could be wrong. I know it must take a real social dynamo to name themselves after a puppet.
–Aleck
Like I keep saying get the Eva posts, becuase my recollection is somewhat different to your’s.
And like I will bite to certain things, but unlike you I don’t drag it out because I don’t have anything better to do, you’re posts are consistently long and always contain the same ‘let me look something up in the past I bash you over the head with’, you should have been a lawyer.
You are trying to find something bad on me simply because you recognise the fact that I am correct in my description of you.
Go ahead and dig the dirt, it doesn’t change the type of person you are, nothing will change that Aleck.
As for the ideas that are put forward, concerning Lexx and the cycles of time, well lest you forget I was not the only one to think that, however I never once did claim that it was in fact or a legitimate end to the story…so please get your facts straight before you start throwing accusations.
Also as far as the Buffy series goes, you have no more insight to this series than anyone else, so you are in no position to dismiss anything, you’re facts do not hold water and the series is open to intepretation, but as you can’t even agree to that I take anything you say as rubbish.
Whedon has pulled off some minor miracles in the story to pull off the impossible, so the idea of Dawn being a slayer is something that you cannot rule out, no matter how arrogant you are.
You are a sad person Aleck, I come here to talk about Sci-fi related stuff, yet you always get involved in arguments that you seem to think is a personal attack on you, DT, Bonnee, and myself…but it’s always you involved.
Like I said before DT never understood why people responded strongly to his posts and you being the same type of persona have no understanding either.
As for getting personal, well that is your assumption, I do not know you well enough, and my views on you are no less valid than those you used against DT…so I find that a hypocritical statement for you to make.
I’m not going to respond to your next post as it’s obvious that’s precisely what you are hoping for given you’re past record with DT and Bonnee.
But I hold you in as much disdain as Bonnee does, and as I now realise you’re not somebody I choose to be on friendly terms with on this board, if I should see another one of you’re pigheaded self-loving posts, I shall respond just as Bonnee does, from me you shall receive the same detrimental treatment you awarded to DT.
Now go away and stop thinking of yourself all the time and look at the flip side for a change…although I thoroughly doubt that’s possible.
Squishyquote:
Originally posted by Squishy:
Like I keep saying get the Eva posts, becuase my recollection is somewhat different to your’s.
They, along with many of the older threads on this board, seem to have disappeared in one of the many crashes. I can’t search by your member number, as you’ve registered and re-registered and have gotten new membership numbers. I can’t use *mine* to search because my membership information was wiped out in one of the crashes. But it *did* happen, and if you don’t remember it (or at least claim not to) then I can’t back it up.
quote[quote]And like I will bite to certain things, but unlike you I don’t drag it out because I don’t have anything better to do,[/quote]
Again, you go into insult mode, and make idiotic assumptions about me.
quote[quote]you’re posts are consistently long and always contain the same ‘let me look something up in the past I bash you over the head with’, you should have been a lawyer.[/quote]
Yes, Squish, you’re right. I do that in *every* post I make. [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]
quote[quote]You are trying to find something bad on me simply because you recognise the fact that I am correct in my description of you.[/quote]
No, it’s because you’re guilty of exactly what you claim of me, and you’re too damned pig-headed to realize it.
quote[quote]Go ahead and dig the dirt, it doesn’t change the type of person you are, nothing will change that Aleck.[/quote]
So, you’re saying that by me “digging the dirt” that I’m trying to change the type of person I am? Huh??? *laughs* That’s priceless!!! No, Squish, I’m not looking to change who I am.
quote[quote]As for the ideas that are put forward, concerning Lexx and the cycles of time, well lest you forget I was not the only one to think that, however I never once did claim that it was in fact or a legitimate end to the story…so please get your facts straight before you start throwing accusations.[/quote]
No, you weren’t the only one. But that didn’t make it any more valid (unless a lot of people saying the same stupid thing actually makes something more valid). And you may not have claimed that it was a legitimate end, but you sure got your drawers in a bunch when I tried to say that it didn’t make sense for it to happen. But then, I can’t express my theories or opinions if they don’t mesh with yours, right? *Then* they turn into “rants” and aren’t valid any more. *chuckles*
quote[quote]Also as far as the Buffy series goes, you have no more insight to this series than anyone else, so you are in no position to dismiss anything, you’re facts do not hold water and the series is open to intepretation, but as you can’t even agree to that I take anything you say as rubbish.[/quote]
No, I’m not going to agree that my theories don’t hold water. Why would I do that? You certainly wouldn’t. If you went around saying that Buffy was actually a 98-year-old male retired nuclear scientist instead of a college-aged girl, you wouldn’t admit that it didn’t hold water. I agree that the series is open to interpretation, and I’ve said that it is *possible* though *very unlikely* that Dawn would become the Slayer. You, on the other hand, won’t agree that any other interpretation exists other than your own, and anything else is someone “not wanting to accept anyone else’s opinion.”
quote[quote]Whedon has pulled off some minor miracles in the story to pull off the impossible, so the idea of Dawn being a slayer is something that you cannot rule out, no matter how arrogant you are.[/quote]
Which is an odd statement to make, since you yourself essentially ruled out that Dawn would become the Slayer on your own. And arrogance doesn’t enter into it. Logically looking at the evidence does, though, which is something that appears to be beyond your comprehension.
quote[quote]You are a sad person Aleck[/quote]
Again with the insults. [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]
quote[quote]Like I said before DT never understood why people responded strongly to his posts and you being the same type of persona have no understanding either.[/quote]
No, I understand completely. You don’t like the idea that I don’t agree with you, and Bonnee doesn’t like the idea that I disagree with anyone. Hence your strong reactions.
quote[quote]As for getting personal, well that is your assumption, I do not know you well enough, and my views on you are no less valid than those you used against DT…so I find that a hypocritical statement for you to make.[/quote]
Which statements are you talking about? If you’re talking about having problems in a social setting, DT himself admitted that. It’s not my assumption that you’re getting personal. You make statements about me, that’s personal. That’s not an assumption. That’s your action.
quote[quote]I’m not going to respond to your next post as it’s obvious that’s precisely what you are hoping for given you’re past record with DT and Bonnee.[/quote]
You mean you’re finally going to shut up? Oh, thank god.
quote[quote]But I hold you in as much disdain as Bonnee does, and as I now realise you’re not somebody I choose to be on friendly terms with on this board, if I should see another one of you’re pigheaded self-loving posts, I shall respond just as Bonnee does, from me you shall receive the same detrimental treatment you awarded to DT.[/quote]
Ditto. Welcome to the club.
quote[quote]Now go away and stop thinking of yourself all the time and look at the flip side for a change…although I thoroughly doubt that’s possible.[/quote]
Infinitely more possible than it is for you, apparantly.
–Aleck
quote:
——————————————————————————–
Originally posted by Squishy:
Like I keep saying get the Eva posts, becuase my recollection is somewhat different to your’s.
——————————————————————————–They, along with many of the older threads on this board, seem to have disappeared in one of the many crashes. I can’t search by your member number, as you’ve registered and re-registered and have gotten new membership numbers. I can’t use *mine* to search because my membership information was wiped out in one of the crashes. But it *did* happen, and if you don’t remember it (or at least claim not to) then I can’t back it up.
*Oh how convenient for you, more like you just cannot follow up on your lame threats, and I don’t remember because it is your recollection of events, and like most things you say those events contain little credence.*
quote:
——————————————————————————–
And like I will bite to certain things, but unlike you I don’t drag it out because I don’t have anything better to do,
——————————————————————————–Again, you go into insult mode, and make idiotic assumptions about me.
**So you deny you drag things out then on a regular basis, now if I was to add up all the words used in your posts or mine I wonder whose would amount to more?, and again you consider this insulting?, damn you must not like watching much adult t.v then with all that swearing.
quote:
——————————————————————————–
you’re posts are consistently long and always contain the same ‘let me look something up in the past I bash you over the head with’, you should have been a lawyer.
——————————————————————————–Yes, Squish, you’re right. I do that in *every* post I make.
**I’m so glad you decided to admit as much, becuase it sure feels that way everytime I see your name. Only this time you have nothing to back up your claims, which I guess is a failing on your part, must be difficult for you when the only thing you do to try and prove a point is to relate to events in the past that only you have a convenient memory of.
quote:
——————————————————————————–
You are trying to find something bad on me simply because you recognise the fact that I am correct in my description of you.
——————————————————————————–No, it’s because you’re guilty of exactly what you claim of me, and you’re too damned pig-headed to realize it.
**I think DT and Bonnee would strongly disagree, why is that Aleck, please tell me why is it always you against them?, do you have this I’m more intelligent so I must try and be dismissive of them. You used DT’s shortcomings to win that argument and rally support for yourself, and although Bonnee did not start on the best terms, it was you that began to treat him as a Troll, but luckily he’s got your number and plays you every chance he get’s.
quote:
——————————————————————————–
Go ahead and dig the dirt, it doesn’t change the type of person you are, nothing will change that Aleck.
——————————————————————————–So, you’re saying that by me “digging the dirt” that I’m trying to change the type of person I am? Huh??? *laughs* That’s priceless!!! No, Squish, I’m not looking to change who I am.
**Now pay attention Aleck, because obviously you were not the last time. You dig the dirt on others to try and deflect the opinion that other’s have of you. You don’t like being told what people think of you, due to your ultra-sensitive nature. And you should really think about changing who you are, but because of you’re supreme arrogance you simply can’t see that happening.
quote:
——————————————————————————–
As for the ideas that are put forward, concerning Lexx and the cycles of time, well lest you forget I was not the only one to think that, however I never once did claim that it was in fact or a legitimate end to the story…so please get your facts straight before you start throwing accusations.
——————————————————————————–No, you weren’t the only one. But that didn’t make it any more valid (unless a lot of people saying the same stupid thing actually makes something more valid). And you may not have claimed that it was a legitimate end, but you sure got your drawers in a bunch when I tried to say that it didn’t make sense for it to happen. But then, I can’t express my theories or opinions if they don’t mesh with yours, right? *Then* they turn into “rants” and aren’t valid any more. *chuckles*
**Actually I don’t even remember you having any involvement in the cycle of time theories, but again I suppose you do.
Whatever the case, those theories called upon certain events in the series, there was never a time where I made something up to add weight to my claims, and I did actually state (as most aside from you will remember) that I did not say this will be the ending, so nice try Aleck, but you’re brain must be so fuddled that you are confusing me with DT. And just to prove that you are incorrect in what you have said, if it were true, then I would have got the same treatment as DT, yet I never recall a time when that happened, so sorry pal, but this time you got it so wrong.
Oh, but nice try for making out you had some involvement to try and get one over on me, but I have a pretty good memory.quote:
——————————————————————————–
Also as far as the Buffy series goes, you have no more insight to this series than anyone else, so you are in no position to dismiss anything, you’re facts do not hold water and the series is open to intepretation, but as you can’t even agree to that I take anything you say as rubbish.
——————————————————————————–No, I’m not going to agree that my theories don’t hold water. Why would I do that? You certainly wouldn’t. If you went around saying that Buffy was actually a 98-year-old male retired nuclear scientist instead of a college-aged girl, you wouldn’t admit that it didn’t hold water. I agree that the series is open to interpretation, and I’ve said that it is *possible* though *very unlikely* that Dawn would become the Slayer. You, on the other hand, won’t agree that any other interpretation exists other than your own, and anything else is someone “not wanting to accept anyone else’s opinion.”
**Uh?, I think I would say it didn’t hold water if I thought Buffy was a male 98 year retired old nuclear scientist, unless I was either mad or you.
And if you paid any attention you’d have noticed that I also said that it’s unlikely that Dawn will become a slayer, but unlike you I will not dismiss the notion out of hand. You have in fact not offered any other interpretation other than to dismiss Dawn becoming a slayer, and that’s where this began, by me suggesting that it may be plausible and you taking offence because I called your posts long winded and you throwing your toys out of your pram.
Again, have a look at the boards history, I can say quite clearly that I have never had a problem with other’s opinions, if I have come on too strong I have apologised, yet it is very rare that I have seen you take the same action.quote:
——————————————————————————–
Whedon has pulled off some minor miracles in the story to pull off the impossible, so the idea of Dawn being a slayer is something that you cannot rule out, no matter how arrogant you are.
——————————————————————————–Which is an odd statement to make, since you yourself essentially ruled out that Dawn would become the Slayer on your own. And arrogance doesn’t enter into it. Logically looking at the evidence does, though, which is something that appears to be beyond your comprehension.
**So one minute you’re saying that I’m totally not allowing for anyone saying that Dawn won’t be a slayer the next you’re saying that I’m ruling it out, well yes I must be having a problem with opinions, only according to you they must be my own!?!
Be honest you didn’t know how to respond to this did you, as you’re response is just incomprehensible. And you say arrogance doesn’t come into it, yet you display it with your provacative posts.quote:
——————————————————————————–
You are a sad person Aleck
——————————————————————————–Again with the insults.
**Yes, quite correct that is an insult, glad to see you are paying attention, but whose to say it’s not in reference to you being a sadgeezer…Hmmm???
quote:
——————————————————————————–
Like I said before DT never understood why people responded strongly to his posts and you being the same type of persona have no understanding either.
——————————————————————————–No, I understand completely. You don’t like the idea that I don’t agree with you, and Bonnee doesn’t like the idea that I disagree with anyone. Hence your strong reactions.
**So still lacking in understanding then?, I don’t like the idea of your posts coming across so dismissive of other’s opinions.
Bonnee doesn’t like the idea that you’re posts never change, they carry the same attitude everytime. I disagree with you because of the way you disagree with everyone else, you’ve already been told by a non-member (rag) that you are touchy of other people contradicting your opinion, now I don’t recall him posting the same message to me or Bonnee, so from an outsiders view it’s obvious that you have the problem, but that won’t be enough will it, you have already decided to change that post to fit into your way of thinking haven’t you, it couldn’t possibly mean you’re behaviour might be wrong…could it.
Just like DT, you won’t accept that you behave in a fashion that is somewhat annoying and arrogant, no matter how many people tell you, it’s called self-delusion and you have made it into a fine art.quote:
——————————————————————————–
As for getting personal, well that is your assumption, I do not know you well enough, and my views on you are no less valid than those you used against DT…so I find that a hypocritical statement for you to make.
——————————————————————————–Which statements are you talking about? If you’re talking about having problems in a social setting, DT himself admitted that. It’s not my assumption that you’re getting personal. You make statements about me, that’s personal. That’s not an assumption. That’s your action.
**And those statements that DT made you used to employ in your attacks on him. After the thread that I said you’re posts were long-winded you then assumed it was a personal attack, that was you’re assumption and not by my action, but again it showed you do not like any contradiction to yourself no matter how it comes across. It is personal now, but you are as much to blame for that as I am.
quote:
——————————————————————————–
I’m not going to respond to your next post as it’s obvious that’s precisely what you are hoping for given you’re past record with DT and Bonnee.
——————————————————————————–You mean you’re finally going to shut up? Oh, thank god.
**Actually no, I was taking a leaf out of Bonnee’s book, he has made fun out of you for so long I thought I’d do the same.
In fact until you learn some humility and respect other’s opinion’s, I will be happy to continue posting against anything you have to say in this post.quote:
——————————————————————————–
But I hold you in as much disdain as Bonnee does, and as I now realise you’re not somebody I choose to be on friendly terms with on this board, if I should see another one of you’re pigheaded self-loving posts, I shall respond just as Bonnee does, from me you shall receive the same detrimental treatment you awarded to DT.
——————————————————————————–Ditto. Welcome to the club.
**Yep you are building up quite a fan club aren’t you, now I wonder why that might be???
quote:
——————————————————————————–
Now go away and stop thinking of yourself all the time and look at the flip side for a change…although I thoroughly doubt that’s possible.
——————————————————————————–Infinitely more possible than it is for you, apparantly.
**Then prove it…I’ll await your predictable response!!!
Um, Aleck, you forgot to use your *trademark* devil message icon/signature. Although the malevolence of your posts often speak for themselves, some of us might need to be warned in advance about how devilish you really are. [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]
Okay, I’m dropping this whole thing. I know you’re going to respond again, Squish, since I know you *have* to have the last word in everything (witness your “I’m not posting a reply to your post…well, until you post again, that is”). I know that you’re going to take this as some kind of “victory” and you’re going to think that I just can’t think of a way to respond to your clever repartee, but frankly, you’re wrong. I’m just sick of having to explain repeatedly that I’m fully willing to accept others’ opinions to someone who is so lunkheaded that they can’t decipher the words.
I’m also making a pledge to myself not to get involved in arguments with people who don’t know the difference between “your” and “you’re,” “who’s” and “whose,” “its” and “it’s,” and who also cannot figure out how punctuation works. It’s clear that they’ve already lost *that* particular battle of wits, so there’s no point in trying to get them to engage in any kind of verbal discourse (no offense, Squish, I’m sure you’re good at math).
Oh, and Bonnee, thanks for pointing out that I’d left off my “trademark” devil smiley. You’re very kind. I only wish that there was some “pretentious pseudo-intellectual prick” symbol for you. [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] New folks around here might like to know when they’re in for poorly and improperly used terms that are generally only seen fit for usage inside the world of academia.
Hail Satan! [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
–Aleck
[ 25-08-2002: Message edited by: Aleck ]
Hey Bonnee…who do we know who’s a sad sorry and sore loser?…BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…Oh and yeah, you’re damn right I’m gonna get the last word in, because it makes a nice change.
Oh, and so sorry that my punctuation isn’t your required standard Aleck, I didn’t realise I was sitting for an English exam everytime I posted, so note to self, must be as sad as Aleck and spend time checking and re-checking my post for mistakes because otherwise it might mean I lose a battle of wits against a half-wit…yeah right.
And if you felt this was about a battle of wits then you have less of an understanding that I originally thought, this was about you and your huge inflated ego. How you try to tar with the same brush as DT when anyone disagrees with you, it’s the same formula, you reverse the accusation, you then try to drag up incidents from the past and when you have no proof, you conveniently find a way to avoid providing any proof, and then in a lame last attack, you try to claim you are of superior intelligence by being dismissive of the other person…all actions of individual who is on a ego trip.
As for you agreeing with other’s posts, I’m sure it does happen, what doesn’t seem to happen is when someone has the damn right cheek to question on of your posts, oh no, that simply won’t do will it Aleck. You have so carefully planned and executed your thoughts on this post that is a mathematical impossibility for you to be wrong, heck, there’s more chance of an asteroid hitting the earth than there is of you being wrong…see again, another prime example of you simply not paying attention.
Frankly, like most people, I have tolerated and just ignored your posts for what they are, but after being here some time it just takes one of your patronizing and dismissive posts to result in this response.
And until I see a post that reads ‘right I’m going to drop this’ from you, and without any silly remarks following, I shall consider this ongoing.
Squishy [img]images/smiles/icon_mad.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_redface.gif[/img]quote[quote] Hail Satan! [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [/quote]
I think you meant to say Hail Santa! Aleck, because your cyber behaviour is indicative of someone who acts as if they’re (their, there [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] ) Xmas’ have all come at once. The *truth* is that you positively *need* other people’s opinions to dis/agree with in order to insert and inscribe yourself. At least that way, you can regularly flex your muscles in public, treating others as a mirror in which to reflect back your own mental and moral ‘superiority’. We can always rely on smart Aleck to correct, revise and/or supplement our thoughts with his broad knowledge, refined intellect and easy going temperament (lol to the latter).
Witness your petulant and imperious parting cheap shot to Squish – thank God there (they’re, their [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] ) are people like him to invariably make you look good. You must have positively felt like this [img]images/smiles/icon_cool.gif[/img] when reminding us that you are the superior grammarian and logician. And where would YOU be if DT (and others) didn’t give you an opportunity to publicly chastise, amend and/or humiliate someone – no doubt, preying on some other misguided *fool* in order to affirm and esteem yourself. The *Truth* is Aleck: if DT, Squish, I and any other instances of the *conditioned* masses didn’t exist, your ego would have had to ‘invent’ them (condition them as such). Which, of course, is one of the MANY themes of solipsism, whose mantra can be summed up as : Man is the measure of all things. And when the measure (and measurer) is Aleck, all things must come back and down to you.
You are actually not unlike Brizon in Lexx – a *parasitic* life form who needs to plug himself into another host’s lifeforce in order to feed and animate his own. I would even go so far as to suggest that you’re a predatory parasite, and that your behaviour online too often resembles cyber stalking – you’ll pick a subject, person, etc and *go in for the kill* just to make yourself feel vindicated and alive. The fact that some people enjoy – not to mention, allow – your antics is an added bonus for you – more lifeforces to feed off and re/animate yourself.
quote[quote] Bonnee doesn’t launch into some pseudo-intellectual or pseudo-philosophical dissection of anyone’s particular personal philosophies unless they disagree with his. Bonnee says that I “contradict (my)self at every turn by presuming to contradict anyone else.” That’s ridiculous. As far as Bonnee’s concerned, because of some pathological need to focus on *my* personal philosophies for whatever insipid reason, I am not allowed to hold *any* opinion that differs from anyone else’s, particularly his. Bonnee would, I guess, enjoy his life more if I simply took whatever opinion was offered to me as my own. [/quote]
God, I just *love* revisionist history. It was you, not so smart Aleck, who introduced pseudo intellectual questions into the equation when I dared to whinge about Lexx. You invoked concepts of *proof*, *truth*, *subjectivity*, *reality tunnels*, etc in order to insipidly preclude the possibilty of any disagreement (interesting how your tune changes when you don’t have an indirect involvement and obvious commercial interest with the show. If Acorn Media were releasing the DVDs of the new Star Wars films, would you have been such a contrary and arbritary jack ass? [img]images/smiles/icon_redface.gif[/img] ). As far as YOU were concerned, there was nothing to be profitably gained or lost in dis/agreeing about the perveived merits of the fourth season of Lexx – unless , of course, YOU wanted to whinge about Attack of the Clones and encourage re/conditioned mortals to agree with you. Suddenly it was a forum for discussion again – as long as the audience could be held captive by your own observations which somehow could NOW be subject/ed to rational standards and evaluation (however irrational our outbursts).
Unlike Jason (who I thought was you at Lexx.com ), you were unprepared to discuss the questions YOU RAISED and then ABANDONED (not to mention, VIOLATED when it suited you). Unfortunately for you, the person you tried to pull rank on happened to be a professional philosopher with his own television column in a film quarterly. It was his lifeblood to actively engage with such questions – when you couldn’t feed off his lifeforce, he was designated a troll. But that is the pot calling the kettle black, Potty. Your subsequent behaviour indicated that you didn’t really believe that there were certain contraints placed upon one another’s subjectivity, especially if and when we could all be subjected to your own. So basically Aleck, it has been your pretence and posturing that has been underlined and exposed. I have always indicated that the possibilty of rational dis/agreement is built into the very notion of conversation, and so, reality is not a *tunnel* (now, there’s a rigorous intellectual concept) but the *light* at the end of it. It is by moving towards this figarative light that we can (hopefully) bring certain questions and standards to the light of day, and evaluate them accordingly. As far as I am concerned, your dis/parate behaviour is much more telling than Lee’s ‘mistake’ regarding the sexual imagery in the Garden episode, and I intend to chastise you similarly. You typically liked to remind him of the (apparent) error in judgement in order to put him (back) in his place – consider my mocking of you as a variant of being similarly held to account.
At least DT can claim to believe his own truth here – and YOU should have been amongst the first to defend such a claim. Instead, you’ve been (and remained) intellectually dishonest when it should have really counted, revealing you to be intellectually fraudelent if and when someone reveals themselves to be Aleck deviant and/or deficient. Its easier to ridicule someone than to defend them of course – especially when you can (somehow) cite *norms* and *normality* (read: other people’s experience, especially via your own) as the mediator and ‘measure of all things’. And the certitude/insistence of your vehement attack on Attack of The Clones is symptomatic of such contradictory, brazen self – fraudulence (not to mention, noisy flatuence and self flagellation)
quote[quote]I know it must take a real social dynamo to name themselves after a puppet. [/quote]
Well, I suppose it takes a real social dynamo to collect them as substitute for real companions [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] Perhaps you should go and get the one filled with bulldust and ask *it* to explain the meaning and implications of solipsism to you. A ventrilloquist double act would give you some indication of how you inscribe your own meaning and value. Maybe puppet Aleck can point out to you that ‘Man as the measure of all things’ can be taken in the singular and the plural, unless that man (of course) happens to be named Aleck. Witness the example of presuming to make your own obviously limited experience of the concept as a way of delimiting its possible or actual application regarding anyone else.
Once you’ve got the basics of the [i]problem[/i] right (and like any philosophical concept, the emphasis should be placed upon the problematic status of the concept itself ), then you can presume to gauge and measure my own in/capacity to understand its implications and consequences. Don’t forget to use yourself as the best possible indicator though. [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]
Hail the Easter Bunny! [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
[ 26-08-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
Well, I figured that eventually some brainiac would try and bring this up in the course of an argument. [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img] Sorry, I know I said I’d dropped this, but I want to clear this up right now (and it’s completely unrelated to what the discussion is about).
quote:
Originally posted by bonnee:
interesting how your tune changes when you don’t have an indirect involvement and obvious commercial interest with the show. If Acorn Media were releasing the DVDs of the new Star Wars films, would you have been such a contrary and arbritary jack ass?
Yep. I would be. My position is not contingent on the [i]LEXX[/i] DVDs selling or not. Acorn isn’t going to go under if [i]LEXX[/i] discs don’t perform in the marketplace. I don’t have anything riding on the success or failure of the DVDs. I just happen to like the show. There are a number of DVDs that we put out that I *don’t* like, and I don’t go around disguising myself as a fan and posting on boards devoted to them. For instance, we’re putting out [i]Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.[/i] I don’t like it. Would rather do anything else than watch it. Find it tedious in the extreme. We’re doing 10 Gilbert and Sullivan productions on DVD. Other than [i]The Mikado,[/i] and possibly [i]Ruddigore,[/i] I can’t stand these productions. And I don’t go around to John le Carre messageboards, nor to Gilbert and Sullivan newsgroups, and play at being a fan. If others like them, fine. Just doesn’t float my boat. I came to Sad’s because I liked the show, period. I put a link to Sad’s on the second DVD because I like the site. Neither one is getting me any special treatment, and neither one is getting me any extra cash, and that’s just fine by me. [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
–Aleck
My apologies for implying that you being a jack ass [i]just might[/i] be work related. Interesting how the acorn doesn’t fall too far from the tree though [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]
[ 27-08-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
g*****dammit, don’t make me stop this car! all of you break it up and back into your corners for a time out!i have been on this board a very long time so my perspective is a smidge different than yours, and right now i am seeing squish acting totally out of character, aleck being snappish, and bonnee, as usual, jumping in to throw gasoline on the fire…bonnee you promised us a while ago to stop coming here, so do it already unless you can stop being a thrombosed hemorrhoid…squish, dt went to college, and like most college kids, has made new friends and is moving on; it doesn’t have anything to do with you or aleck or the board…god bless him, i hope and believe he has discovered girls [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img](and i know you remember all the arguments about whether sex drives were natural [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img])…aleck, you’ve never been one to back down from a fight, and while you may not start them you certainly will finish them, but let this one drop…you and squish have been great inspirations for thought and entertaining so kindly kiss and make up…love, fx
FX, you’re remarks indicate (quite typically) that you are part of the problem rather than the solution – as I implied in one of my threads. The fact that you think being here a long time somehow predisposes you to see things more clearly is indicative of the kinds of problems I’ve always been talking about. If anything, your longstanding presence has helped to obscure your view of yourself and others, and encouraged the kind of bad behaviour readilly on display.
I think it is time for you to also reconsider your public stance, try and understand what’s *really* been going on around here for quite a *long time* and at least try and give the impression of knowing how to mediate a dispute in non parochial terms. At least that way, you’ll begin to think, see and act like a moderator of a forum (again) instead of moderating the contents of whatever good and bad will has been accrued on your watch.
Here’s a clue – try and PUBLICLY distance yourself from your obvious appreciation of Aleck, who you’ve often used as a mouthpiece when making fun of others (like the disgraceful guffaws regarding DT. Now I know that would be your cue to assume that I’m feinging ‘concern’, but the reality is that it shouldn’t have been *me* to express concern in the first place, however *feigned* you think it might have been). Perhaps its you who should *take a hike* – can I suggest you find your way to a Moderators 101 seminar? Who knows, perhaps you can even hitch a ride with Aleck on his way to the Philosophy 101 and Anger Management courses. [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
I’m not going anywhere *sweetie*, and you need to also attempt to take stock of your own role in feeding such outbursts. In case you haven’t noticed (and obviously you haven’t, given your own involvement ): each of us has been behaving in character in this thread – its just that it has finally (not to mention, sadly, ) turned inwards and the negativity is starting to cannibalise some of *your own*. I would even go far as to the venture that the main reason some of your more committed members have turned on each other is because they’ve managed to scare off potential and actual members, leaving only each other to dis/agree with. I note, for example, how you’ve conveniently ignored another thread where Aleck was obliged to back down for being an asshole again and how Flamegrape instinctively turned on Lexxstone for daring to be critical of the show that bears the Lexx trademark. My presence, of course, has only been inflammatory in so far as it has been revealatory – as always. [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
Love, Bonnee [img]images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]
[ 27-08-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
Sorry FX, but sometimes you just have to say something.
Using DT’s name is wrong, but I used it for two reasons, firstly, as Aleck had taken to mud-slinging using past events I felt it necessary to do the same. Secondly, I somewhat sympathize with DT, having seen Aleck’s true character displayed in the last few day’s, it’s easy to see that DT was perhaps, after all…the victim.
This is not to say I agree with DT’s posts, he could be aggravating, but most of the time he was not behaving in this manner on purpose, whereas Aleck behaves in the same manner and he does realise what he’s doing.
You know me well enough FX to know that if I’ve been a little to vocal in my posts, I do tend to calm down and apologise, however, in this instance I shall not.
I do consider you a friend and for my part this is over and done with, however, like I said previously, if Aleck chooses to continue or respond to any of my posts then this will go on.
Squishy [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img]so be it, bonnee, you will run crying to sadgeezer about your fantasies of a malignant cabal here but your selfserving declarations of reasonableness and elder statesmanship really do not fool anyone; witness the fact that you do not ever attempt to mollify but rather jump in to join the attack
now as for ignoring threads, there are threads where i have seen behavior that has caused me to lift a mental eyebrow; in general however, the ‘staff’ here do not interfere with each other publicly so i stayed out of it…and quite frankly, this summer has seen me away from home and business enough not to have time to read every thread; that will change…
as each of us has said, we enjoy all of the discussions, particularly the lively ones where every one gives out convincing and/or humorous rebuttals or proofs of their viewpoints, but when the namecalling and fingerpointing starts, it is no longer enjoyable, and that is when the moderators step in
all have behaved badly, so kindly move back to the thread and away from each other’s throats…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.