Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
16 Horsepower – Folklore
E-LP – Fantastic Damage
Queens of the Stone Age – Songs for the Deaf
RJD2 – Deadringer
MRI – All That Glitters
Neko Case – Blacklisted
Layo and Bushwacka – Night Works
Interpol – Turn On the Bright LightsAll downloaded ofcourse
[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
Its a good question Stu, and to be frank, I’m not sure the show encourages us to look too deeply into the implications of its proposed ‘metaphysics’. My feeling is that the metaphysics is philosophically unsound and morally questionable (to say the least). The show seems to encourage a moral dictinction between having a ‘spirit’ and having a ‘soul’, with possession of the latter somehow being morally superior.
Possession of a soul, for example, is supposed to indicate moral knowledge and compel choices – hence, knowing the difference between good and evil, and being able to act in accordance with such knowledge. Its what makes US different to THEM. If demons, vampires et al don’t – or no longer – possess souls (but are ‘animated’ by something other than a human ‘animus’ or soul ), then how can they be said to possess such knowledge – or be able to (not) act accordingly? They are (presumably) beyond good and evil, and so, mere victims of our own ‘knowledge’ (only accountable in so far as we hold them to account by own our standards and obvious ignorance of/indifference to their ‘otherness’).
Such beings are simply what they are (they have no choice but to be, and act in accordance with their own beings), although the show tends to conceive them by way of what they are NOT (unlike us, and so, morally worth/less or questionable).
The fact that Spike keeps calling himself evil strikes me as itself being morally questionable – how can he continue to ‘know’ himself to be ‘evil’ as such, and why doesn’t such knowledge become ‘good’ in the absence of no longer knowing/caring about the (human) difference? By ‘good’ I don’t mean in human terms, but rather as something worth pursuing for its own sake (as being self authenticating and justfied as a result).
Then there is the question of being potentially able to regain lost knowledge via the regaining of one’s soul, rendering Buffy a potential ‘murderer’ even in human terms. Why should having a soul privelege human beings in their eyes as well as our own – demons, et al might not know or care about the human moral difference, but they are certainly privy to their own concerns, practices, beliefs, suffering, etc. The moral precept of ‘the Slayer’ is supposed to mitigate such questions, but like you, I wonder about the ‘im/morality’ of it all.
If you want an attempt to explain (defend) the show’s metaphysics, consider visiting
http://www.atpobtvs.com/metap.htmlAnd there is an online academic journal that might interest you.
http://www.middleenglish.org/slayage/%5B/url%5D[ 30-08-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
A slight update (from the Hollywood reporter)
http://www.hollywoodreporter.comDushku staked out for ‘Buffy’
Aug. 29, 2002It’s good news for “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” fans: Evil vampire slayer Faith is set to return to the UPN drama series. Eliza Dushku has signed on to reprise her role as Faith this season in five episodes of “Buffy” and three episodes of the WB Network’s spinoff “Angel,” both from writer-producer Joss Whedon and 20th Century Fox TV. Dushku appeared on “Buffy” alongside the show’s star Sarah Michelle Gellar from 1998-2000. She also guest-starred as Faith on “Angel.” The actress’ busy feature schedule has kept her away from the “Buffy” franchise, but now she has committed to appear in the final five episodes of the original series this season. There has been speculation that this might be “Buffy’s” last year, but reps for the studio stress that no decision has been made. Dushku’s feature credits include “Bring It On” and “Soul Survivors.” The actress, who is shooting “Wrong Turn,” next appears in “City by the Sea” opposite Robert De Niro and Frances McDormand. She is repped by ICM and the Firm. (Nellie Andreeva)
[ 29-08-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
I agree Rag – as indicated in part one – that the Dawn scerario is ‘unlikely’ (conceptually speaking), and I hope I’ve misunderstood Whedon’s remarks (quite possible in view of his desire to encourage Faith back into the fold). I would just love to see her in a possible spin off and look forward to seeing her again in the new seasons of Angel and Buffy. In my view, Faith remains the most interesting character in the Buffy universe, and it would be especially interesting to watch someone so unstable hold everything together. Then again – Dawn might be the key to a possible spinoff (we have no reason to assume that the spinoff should be literally faithful to the series – the connection might be tangential). Whedon might therefore find a way to reconceive or reconfigure his own concept/s, and her relation to them. I certainly like the idea of From Dusk to Dawn being able to (somehow) renegotiate the possible conceptual sleight of hand for him.
[ 27-08-2002: Message edited 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. (
)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.
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.
Love, Bonnee
[ 27-08-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
message edited – please see the topic ‘The state of TV Angst" in the Angst forum
In fact this message wasn’t transfered to the Angst forum it was just plain insulting.
Bonnee! I’m surprised at you?!
[ 27-08-2002: Message edited by: SadGeezer ]
My apologies for implying that you being a jack ass just might be work related. Interesting how the acorn doesn’t fall too far from the tree though
[ 27-08-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
quote
Hail Satan!
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
) 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
) are people like him to invariably make you look good. You must have positively felt like this 
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
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.
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?
). 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
I know it must take a real social dynamo to name themselves after a puppet.
Well, I suppose it takes a real social dynamo to collect them as substitute for real companions
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 problem 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.
Hail the Easter Bunny!
[ 26-08-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
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.
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.
Hence the narcissism readilly on display, and the self refuting solipsism )[ 24-08-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
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 ]
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 (
) 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.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.
Apart from some very impressive special effects, my first impressions weren’t very encouraging. I’m disinclined to watch again.
Apart from some very impressive special effects, my first impressions weren’t very encouraging. I’m disinclined to watch again.
If you can access Audiogalaxy, you’ll be able to find it here
http://www.audiogalaxy.com/list/artistInfo.php?&r=101433#songsNote, though, that you’ll need to install the ‘satelite’ to download it. Its a small application, and easy to use. A spyware free version can be accessed here
http://spywarefreeag.ods.org/agsatellite/%5B/url%5DWhedon denies rumours, and confirms Cordy’s return (even though the question remains why she went inexpicably AWOL during those four episodes).
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2002-06/11/12.00.tvYvonne, I’m assuming you just want the lyrics to the original Broadway version. If so, visit the following two links. (Note that the first link provides a complete lyric ‘sheet’ on the one, big page. The second link gives each scene its own ‘page’, but has a pain in the butt pop up to contend with. just close it, and take each page at a time – everytime. Note that the close button is only accessible via the middle of page, as opposed to the X at right of the top of your browser).
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Balcony/5705/LittleshopB.html
http://www.stlyrics.com/l/littleshopmus.htmThere are two ways you can save these to your hard drive. Simply copy and paste the web page/s into (say) a word document or simply save the web page as it is, and open up (browse) through your own web browser. (File, save as, web page). You might lose the formatting if you save as a word document but you will keep it as is if you save as a web page.
Good luck – and remember don’t feed the plants.
[ 11-06-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
Apparently Angel may be shipping Cordy out, so it might have to remain unrequited love.
I agree with Aleck. Completely. I would just supplement his observations with the suggestion that season 4 was about the emotional and power vaccuum created by the death of the mother and absense of Giles on Buffy’s own death. So whilst many people have complained that this season has tended to lack direction, focus or emphasis, I would urge that its wayward approach was grounded in the breakdown in emotional interdependence and resulting dis/orientation.. Consequently, the Big Bad was primarilly an internal threat along interesecting lines – not something projected onto some demon who wants to take on the world or collapse the border between moral worlds. The moral terrain was itself thrown into question and mapped out according to a vaccuum that no one could properly thrive in (scoobies) and others could take advantage of (trioka). The supernatural had its basis in the natural, and needed to follow a natural turn of events. The ending, then, was the culmination of an internal problematic, and needed to be resolved accordingly.
[ 05-06-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
I Can’t even begin to describe how wonderful Cinematic Orchestra’s Everyday is. Some seem to want to call it jazz, but it is (as the title suggests) more orchestral and panovision than that. Takes its cue from a variety of sources, including soul, hip hop, jazz, film scores, etc. If you can manage to download Burnout, All Things to All Men, All That You Give and Every Day on AG as a preview, then please do. It probably won’t leave your cd player.
Not entirely silent thefrey – I read your remarks and immediately deleted the links to the pictures (which was presumably the implication of your question. We both already knew the answer).
My assumption was that if the images could be accessed via a search engine, then they are avialable to be accessed and linked accordingly. That may or may not be true – I remain uncertain. The fact that the question was originally broached by Flamegrape within the context of ‘etiquette’ (it is ‘somewhat rude’) and you took it the level of ‘morality’ (it is ‘very, very wrong’) suggests to me that this is more a question of discretion and moderation.
Since it is not ‘law’, however, I remain undecided as to the overall status of the request not to do this – I certainly haven’t encountered any objections on other message boards, and suspect that it is a site specific ‘preference’.
Fair enough, even though your objection/concern is not mentioned in the Sadgeezer’s rules and regulations guide. Linking to images is a function enabled by the site, and it functions as such without any indication of moral or legal constraints (apart from the profanity clause). There is certainly no proviso that urges all images must be original, require express permission from the linked source and/or uploaded to your own homepage and then downloaded (linked/sourced) accordingly.
I am therefore obliged to ask from what authority do you presume to speak – not Sadgeezer’s (not ‘officially’ or ‘regulatively’ at any rate) and certainly not on behalf of those sites who have allowed their content to be accessed via a search engine.
I am not trying to start anything (seriously)- just wondering by what authority anyone can presume to hold anyone else to account here? Given that you and Flamegrape have decided to invoke normative terms, how is it that either of you can invoke this norm without recourse to anything specific – let alone publicly challenge me if I chose to ignore the request and/or indicate that I remain subject to reapproachment (Note, though, that I haven’t ignored your desires – I’m just responding to the request to account for myself regardless.) My question is of equal or greater importance to your own, and encourages discussion/specification of similar accountability. For the public record, at any rate.
Either way, I am investigating the possibility of linking downloaded images via a personal homepage if and when desired.
[ 03-06-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
The famous philosopher Doris Day put it best when she said
Que Sera Sera
When i was just a little girl,
I asked my mother, ‘What will i be?
Will i be pretty?
Will i be rich?’
Here’s what she said to me:‘ Que Sera Sera,
what ever will be , will be;
The futures not ours to see .
Que Sera Sera,
What will be, will be’when i grew up and fell in love,
i asked my sweetheart, ‘what lies ahead?
will we have rainbows
day after day?
here’s what my sweetheart said:que sera, sera,
whatever wil be ,will be
the future’s not ours to see.
que sera, sera,
what will be; will benow i have children of my own
they ask their mother what will i be
will i be handsome?
will i be rich?
i tell them tenderlyque sera, sera,
whatever will be, will be;
the future’s not ours to see.
que sera, sera,
what will be, will be.Snooklepie, Spike has never needed to have a soul to be capable of real or true love (whatever that might mean) – witness his relationship with Druisilla. The episode Lovers Walk is particularly indicative of the depths of his feelings – whilst their entire relationship was an indication of the depths he would sink to to have/keep/please her. He has always had the soul of a poet even when his soul was taking away from him. As for the suggestion that his ‘love’ for Buffy is an instance of displacement, i’m convinced that their relationship goes much further and deeper than that. It is intimately connected to each and every Slayer’s invariable death wish, something that was obviously displaced by her ‘resurrection’ and something that Spike can (and might) still bring about. I think what we’ve encountered is an ironic twist of fate that will bring these fated lovers back together again in one way or another. As for heartless, soulless behaviour – Buffy step right up. She chose to devalue and disrespect Spike’s obvious feelings for her by turning it into a purely carnal relationship. In order to allow herself to feel anything again, she used Spike’s feelings to her own dis/advantage, and tried to keep it on the one level indefintely. Her behaviour was not only potentially self destructive, it threatened to destroy the person who professed to love her. What a typical bloke (heartless, soulless) thing to do.
As a side note – I don’t think we should buy into the show’s serviceable distinction between good and evil, however they try to problematise and interrogate it. You need a soul to know the difference between good and evil – those without a soul can have no such knowledge. Further, such knowledge is supposed to prefigure in the choices taken and the decisions made. Vampires, demons et al are simply who and what they are, and have no choice but to act in accordance with their own (limited knowledge) and complete ‘natures’. The way the show tries to get around the apparently universal or absolute distinction between good and evil is via relativism – by the way in which humans relate to something they can’t understand by virtue of their own self knowledge and natures. Now, that’s just plain ‘evil’.
[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
Please note that the above animations are encouraged to be ‘linked’ from
As you’ll note, many animations are provided for free and extensive use: you simply highlight the desired image, and it provides visitors with the required code to reproduce elsewhere.
[ 31-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
quote:
Wow! Not only do you own a website dedicated to fat things, you also own a website catering to people in the their late 40s and early 50s! Just how many websites do you own? You must have an abundance of money to afford the webspace, bandwidth, and IT.
[ 30-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
….although interestingly (and this is the market exception rather than the market rule) Neighbour’s keeps getting made because the Brits seem to like it so much. This former no 1 show in Australia barely rates locally anymore – although it keeps getting made for a ‘foreign’ market, not to mention helps to keep Britian’s pantomine and pop industries afloat
[ 27-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
quote:
Do you really live on a fat farm? I didn’t know you had serious weight problems. Sorry about your troubles.
Bored now.
[ 31-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
quote:
BTW, I heard a rumour that Dark Angel had been canned, does anyone know if there is any truth in this?, again it would be a shame.
Dark Angel has indeed been canned – to make way for Wheedon’s Firefly!! Apprently Firefly has been brought forward in Fox’s schedule accordingly.
http://adinfinit.net/danation/sitenews.htmBy the way, if you want an excellent source of television news/articles, visit
http://www.tvtattle.comSnooklepie, you are about to watch the season final of season 6. According to Xander in a recent interview, Buffy will be winding up at the end of season 7 (when buffy’s contract expires, and now that wheedon has moved on to firefly, amongst others. Season 6 already saw Wheedon’s creative involvement ‘reduced’, and the show’s reputation has apparently suffered as a result. This season has been generally alledged to be very ‘uneven’ and highly ‘melodramatic’. I disagree – i think its been particularly interesting). Anyway
http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,4237561,00.htmlIf you’re friend is sourcing Audiogalaxy Snooklepie, you better act fast . The RIAA has just filed a suit against them, and they are (presumably) going to follow Napster down the toilet sooner or later. Hopfully later than sooner, but AG might capitulate of their own accord. And if mp3’s are a possible source, try to get AT THE DRIVE IN’s – Relationship Of Command if you haven’t already heard/got it. Another relatively recent great rock album that is mandatory listening.
[ 26-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
quote:
No, I said it was wrong to state that critics should be pilloried for daring to discuss the relative merits or deficiencies in a film, because that is, in effect, their job description. That’s what they *do*. To say that they *should not* do this, is incorrect. Wrong. Mistaken. Squish was saying that critics shouldn’t pick apart Attack of the Clones because of something insignificant like acting, dialogue or story, and I was arguing that this is, indeed, their job. I was being overly broad in my statements about “the average Joe,” but taken *in the context of Squish’s commments about the average Joe*, they fit.
How does gainful employment ‘explain’ a practice, let alone ‘justify’ it, sweetie? Yes, its what they do – in fact its what I also now do as well. You develop dvds and i review them. Can’t wait to get my hands on a copy of Lexx, season 4. But the fact that I – or anyone else – has a job to do does not explain or justify the job in and of itself. It has recourse to fact/ors other than a job description – mostly, the fact that it is both possible and desirable to critically engage with something other than your own sensibilities. Given your own criteria – its what someone does – then George Lucas is perfectly defensible in making this film the way he has. its his job to make films and someone else’s job to comment on them – for good or bad. Basically, everyone’s a critic – not unlike filmakers, some happen to be better than others.
quote:
You claim I’m trying to invalidate someone else’s opinion, and I make it clear that I am *not*. That basis upon which you build your argument is invalid, therefore the argument does not stand.
Don’t be silly, wiggins. At no point have I claimed that you are trying to invalidate anyone’s opinions. Only that you are trying to validate your own – by pointing to things other than yourself. Consequently, the points that you are trying to invalidate throw into relief the very notion of validation, and my argument rises like a phoenix from the ashes of your recurrent and self serving solipsism.
quote:
To believe that I would have placed that much importance on anything you’ve said is indicative of narcissism on your part, wouldn’t you say?
Nice try – but no it isn’t, kid galahad. Rather, this expressed belief is indicative of an experience of you on this board as both respondent and witness. Its been quite the treat watching someone wield a *piece of apparatus* as cumbersome as your own ego so readilly and rampantly. I’ve previously commented upon your disturbing sense of entitlement, rage and self importance. I’d like to introduce you to two three worded sentences. “I was wrong” and “I am sorry”. Next week I’d like you to practice saying “I love you” without looking at yourself in the mirror for once.
quote:
In what way? You claim I’m doing something that I am clearly *not* doing, and I state categorically that I am not doing what you claim. What’s questionable about that? Your use of out-of-context quotations to back up an invalid point is questionable as well, by the way.
See the above remarks, snuggles . And since when does something like context matter to you, especially since your behaviour readilly cuts across anything like a coherent delimitation.
[ 25-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
quote:
Well, when you take into account that the average joe has pretty much been conditioned to believe that anything made with a budget of hundreds of millions of dollars is something of lasting quality and worth, no matter how lousy the acting (Attack of the Clones features the worst acting I’ve ever seen in a major motion picture) or how poorly executed a story it may be (“Ummm…let’s have the kids frolic through some fields here, and then juxtapose that with some political debating…the kids’ll love that!” “They sure will, Mr. Lucas!!!!”), then I wouldn’t want the critics to pander to that demographic. …To say critics are idiots for attempting to discuss the merits of a film instead of just pandering to Average Lowest-Common-Denominator Joe and just saying “Well, it’s great. It’s big and it’s loud and it runs around really fast,” is just wrong.
–Aleck
Looks like you’re presuming to speak for everyone again Aleck – particularly the right to discuss the de/merits of something. Your use of the term ‘just wrong’ shows you in all of your morning glory. It is both normative and prescriptive, and you offer the standard by which we should follow. Everyone else has been conditioned, but you have somehow broke the conditioning – and now, you’ll break the news to everyone who will care to listen. Or not care – listen up anyway. The only person you’re kidding with this its ‘just my opinion’ nonsense seems to be yourself. Witness your remarks about music : “If it meant anything, you oughta be praising to the high heavens the blazing musical talent that is Robbie Williams or N*SYNC or Britney Spears or Kylie Minogue because, well, they’re just so damned popular”. Well, it actually does mean something whether you like it or not – namely, that many people like these ‘artists’ because of perceived merit. Given your notion of meaning, you invalidate your own position again (and again and again)- by implying that you like *real* music whilst most others do *not* Whilst I certainly agree with you, you can’t presume to disagree with anyone, ever.
quote:
As opposed to *you*, who, in the previous posts you are referring to, made unqualified one-sentence statements about your opinion with no examples or reasons given (made with no intent of engendering discussion or debate), made unqualified assumptions about whether or not Salter Street had “sold out,” stated that you were revealing an “unspoken truth” and, essentially stated that your opinion was the only one that mattered.
Selective reasoning/memory. (and again and again). Lazy actually (hint, mint).
quote:
The rest of your post is rendered irrelevant since it’s based on a flawed and unsupported claim.
If you say so Aleck, because as you know, it is your saying which makes it so.
quote:
Tell me, is this going to lead to another teasing promise of your leaving, or what? Seems to be the pattern of your postings.
–Aleck
Wishful thinking – perhaps if you put a tooth under your pillow your wish might come true.
quote:
Or, alternately, when is someone going to ban your sh!t-disturbing self from the board?
–Aleck
Soon I expect – but note that I’ve never called for your or anyone else’s banning from this or any other board, despite regarding your own behaviour equally (if not more) disturbing. Not to mention, freaking hilarious. The way you diminish and interpret away your own role/responsibility in any perceived dis/agreement is questionable, to say the least. Most importantly, the fact that you even think it appropriate to call for a ban whilst expecting your sorry self to post without impunity speaks volumes. This not only indicates solipsism but narcisism.
To your credit, at least you haven’t jump up and down like a monkey who has had his pants taken away from him. The anger management course I suggested must be *freaking* working.
[ 31-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
quote:
And that sums up what is so freakin’ distressing about this whole argument. As long as tons of cash has been spent to make sure that the CGI looks good, and that things blow up nice and make lots of noise, then the acting and writing can be tossed. Screw quality, just gimme bright colors and loud noises!!!
–Aleck
Actually, what is most distressing about this argument is your ability to abandon previously championed principles when discussing something you don’t like. Just when it appeared that you managed to get solipsism down to a fine *art* (well, not really, given all the hostilty and abuse) you go and talk about Star Wars af if you’re describing the *objective* properties of the film (as opposed to your own or anyone else’s *subjective* response to it). Suddenly your *reality* tunnel is revealed to be a wind tunnel as you *blow* everything out of proportion (again), where you’re doing your best to clarify and elaborate upon the tenabilty of your own *opinion* by way of something external to it. In other words, your trying to *convince* people of the adequacy of your convictions by way of something which you think is most adequate and appropriate to them – *quality* writing, acting, etc. Read: Quality/Quantity – if it had the one, then it would have the other. Your disparate reading of the things you dis/like *lays bare* the self serving and selective rendering of a contested and/or negotiated *reality* As I’ve always maintained – people (including yourself) bother to dis/agree with each other because dis/agreements presuppose the very things at issue – namely, that *reality* is not a tunnel or a vision, but the light sighted at the end of it. but hey..
Screw coherence, just gimme bright colors and loud noises!!!
Thanks Aleck, you’ve just made my freaking day
[ 24-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
More a thesaurus actually Sloppy – more tasty.
Hmmm, thesaurus.
[ 23-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
A credible list, if little more than a catalogue of received opinion. It would have been nice to see write ups that embodied the qualities specified in the designated criteria though – these comments do little more than ensuring receipt of said opinions.
quote:
which is why there’s a movement in Australia, I think, calling for the end of Region Coding.
Indeed. http://www.dvdcentre.co.uk/codechal.htm
“The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is challenging the regional coding system used on DVD movie titles. The ACCC says major Hollywood studios have collaborated with the manufacturers of DVD players to prevent discs meant for the US, Europe or Asia from working in Australian machines.
The commission has asked the Australian subsidiaries of US film companies to explain their actions in what could lead to the world’s first legal challenge to the regional coding system, which has been in place since DVD was first released in 1996.
The number of DVD titles available in Australia (region 4) is much less than the number available in the United States (region 1). At the moment there are around 10,000 region 1 DVDs but less than 1,000 region 4 titles.
Although unsure whether ACCC action could realistically force Hollywood to scrap the system, an Australian Consumers Association spokesman said that it was feasible that a court could order that all DVD players sold in Australia have multi-region capability”
For further info (and a different emphasis), see
http://www.zdnet.com.au/newstech/security/story/0,2000024985,20263366,00.htm[ 23-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
I’m pleased to see you like it Snooklepie – its an excellent record. If you want to read a review that allots it 10/10, check out
Given your interest in rock, you are probably looking forward to the imminent release of the new Queens of the Stone Ages record. Apparently it is due in a month or two, although the album will be available on AG in 5 days time. If you haven’t heard their previous stuff, though, also check out their earlier record Rated R – not to mention, their previous incarnation as Kyuss. ‘Welcome to Sky Valley’ and ‘Blues for a Red Sky’ are great too.
[ 21-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
quote:
It’s kinda like Star Wars and Mr Lucas, you get these idiot critics working for the press who slam it, why…because it’s not arty enough for them, they are completely out of touch with what your average joe wants to see.
I’m not sure what kind of reception Attack of the Clones has received in England, but my experience is that the film has pretty much divided critics down the middle. This situation is verified at rotten tomatoes, which gathers reviews from around the world (although tends to favor the American press ). The film’s current approval rating is 53 percent – when the film was initially released, early reviews had the film as high as 61 percent.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/StarWar sEpisodeIIAttackoftheClones-1112314/[/url]As for Lexx, my feeling is that season 4 was not unlike season 2 in that it preserved and extended Lexx’s worst elements (as opposed to its best, which could also be found in season 2). Lexx is interesting because the quality and tone of episodes is often so variable. Season 4, hoever, struck me as never being able to find the right tone or sensibility, and was all over the place as a result. Well, not everywhere all at once of course – television screens being the notable exception.
[ 21-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
its sad to see the bang go out with such a whimper.
like lexxlurker, I also experienced a thinning of the herd in terms of previous viewers not wanting to watch it with me anymore.
clearly this situation was replicated across many homes previously committed to it. the ratings merely register this ‘fact’, and is an indication of its perceived ‘value’.
as for episodes taking themselves seriously – it depends on what we mean by ‘serious’. Yo Way Yo took itself seriously by virtue of following up on avowed themes, principles or situations – that’s why it was moving and funny. it resonated on a variety of levels, mostly accumulated over four seasons in distinct ways. as for season 4, though, the only general guiding principles appeared to be atrophy and entropy – where Lexx seemed intent on emptying iself of content or failed to develop/explore its own potential and avowals. That is a pretty serious failing, irrespective of genre or tone (whether you purport to be a comedy or drama, are going for laughs or tears, etc.). I tend to regard Lexx’s detoriation at the end of Yo Way Yo as a visible metaphor for the way the show itself ended up, and was a possible self critique by the half baked Beans.
[ 20-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
quote:
But more importantly, it’s somewhat rude to add data traffic to someone else’s website when they are the ones who have to pay for it. Beware of “free” websites because sometimes they do not permit referencing of files from outside of their servers….
Bonnee’s pic is only 24k. But when it’s viewed a hundred times a day, that adds up to over 2 megabytes of data transfered from http://www.gasolinealleyantiques.com/%5B/url%5D that some stranger has paid for. And since I replied to bonnee’s message with the picture in quotes, the amount of data that transfers has been doubled.
Probably best not to include the offending picture in your reply then Flamegrape – that only heightens/doubles the rudeness ‘somewhat’.
I’ve removed the picture to ensure greater parity/consonance with one of the cited principles.
[ 19-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
1st Season 6.5 average
2nd Season 7 average
3rd Season 7.5 average
4th Season 3.5 average(picture deleted for the sake of propriety)
[ 19-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
Its on at 11pm downunder – just after (cough) Married with Children and straight before (gurgle) The Thunderbirds. Surreal programming befitting the (baked) beans.
You might all need to programe/syncronise the collective experience accordingly.I originally wasn’t sure what you meant by ‘existential’ themes at first Warsaw . This philosophical term has a variety of permutations across quite distinct schools of thought, and it could even be argued that Lexx offers an essentialist view of the universe (existentialism’s alleged opposite).
Nonetheless, I think you’ve hit the ontological nail on the head by drawing attention to the apparent contradiction between essence and existence within Lexx, and a suggestive approach might consider the relation/tension between them. Thanks for suggesting it by way of your own considerations.
My understanding of existentialism’s basic meaning is its purported challenge to essentialism (an essense is that by which a thing is what it essentially is, as opposed to the contingincies or randomness of everyday existence). There are as many ‘existentialists’ (nietzche, kierkeggaard, heidegger, bultmann, satre, camus) as there are many ‘themes’ (eternal recurrence – cycle of time !- , anguish in the face of death, authenticity by way of facing up to death, demythologising life and death, radical freedom, absurdity of choices, etc). The trouble with existenialism is that offers another form of essentialism. If you recall, one of its essential mantras is ‘existence before essence’ – but that just renders the question of existence a Divine Predecessor (as an essence passed from one non/existent to another). It essentailises the question of existence my making it a part of the universe’s mode of being or essence.
It therefore seems to me that Lexx might encourage a comprehensive reading of many of these themes, especially how they may or may not relate to one another within the scheme of things (across the two universes, with respect to individual lives and particular choices, the meaning and consequences of various actions, etc).
[ 14-05-2002: Message edited by: bonnee ]
