November 2002 Archives

November 2002 posts

Previous November 2002
More November 2002

Comparison of Smallville and BtVS-Some spoilers for past seasons of both -- Arethusa, 12:45:20 11/07/02 Thu

Has everyone seen this?

[> Re: Comparison of Smallville and BtVS -- ponygirl who really should be working, 13:15:52 11/07/02 Thu

Oddly enough I was having a conversation last week about Buffy vs. Smallville. A friend watches Smallville, but hasn't gotten into Buffy (I know, weird). The night Selfless aired, Smallville had an episode about a goth kid whose parents kept him locked in the basement. In one scene the goth's mom brought him some books, and he remarks how appropriate it is that she got Poe, since he wrote about people being buried alive. My point to my friend is that Smallville made a Poe reference and explained exactly why they made it, BtVS gave us "scream Montressor" and trusted us to figure it out.

[> [> Yet another reason why Buffy is the best show on TV. -- Caroline, 14:24:04 11/07/02 Thu

[> OK, that was good for some giggles -- Masq, 14:01:39 11/07/02 Thu

I've always meant to watch Smallville but of course it competes with Buffy. Or it did in the past. Or maybe it was Angel it competed with in the past.

Anyway, thought I'd catch up with it whenever it got into syndication.

Now wondering if I should...?

[> [> Smallville airs Tuesdays at 8pm central - - oboemaboe, 03:38:14 11/08/02 Fri

And the same ep airs again the following Sunday at 4pm central. No competition with Buffy at all.

Last season it did air at 7 though.

[> That's... disturbingly accurate... -- Apophis, 15:24:17 11/07/02 Thu

[> Re: Comparison of Smallville and BtVS-Some spoilers for past seasons of both -- Slain, 16:29:09 11/07/02 Thu

That's embarassingly funny. I wonder if anyone has done the same with the other Buffy clones?

[> [> What are all the BtVS clones? -- Arethusa, 16:59:24 11/07/02 Thu

I've seen a few episodes of Charmed, so I know it copies Buffy (and other shows and movies), but what other tv shows copy or are heavily influenced by Buffy?

[> [> [> Angel :) -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:15:28 11/07/02 Thu

[> [> [> "Big Wolf on Campus" -- Jarrod Harmier, 02:51:59 11/08/02 Fri

This series ran for three seasons on YTV in Canada and Fox Family Channel (which was renamed ABC Family) here in the United States.

This series is a kind-hearted spoof of the horror genre in general and "Buffy" specifically. You can tell because one characters is a BIG fan of "Buffy" and there was actually an episode called "Muffy the Werewolf Slayer" during the first season. It was pretty goofy what with all the in-jokes and references to movies and such, but some of the jokes used some really heavy sexual innuendo. They're mostly jokes little kids wouldn't get. In a way, they're kind of like THAT scene in "Once More, With Feeling", because if you're not old enough to get it you won't, but if you do get it, so what?

The in-jokes were mostly focused on running gags. Running gags aren't usually funny, but "Big Wolf" pullled them off really well. It also helps that Danny Smith who played Merton J. Dingle--one of Pleasantville's few resident Goths and one of the main characters--continually made references to movies such "Carrie", "Cat People", "The Exorcist", and "The Sixth Sense". It's part of one of the series' best running gags. The second season even had an episode where Corey Haim played himself after a first season episode had Merton mentions "The Lost Boys" when using it as a source of information about dealing with some vampires. ("Your'e basing our entire line of defense on a Cory _Feldman_ movie?!" "Cory Haim was in it to." "Haim. I like Haim." "Sure, but he's no Feldman." "Haim." "Feldman." Haim! "Feldman!") What really solidified this joke was the fact that Feldman appeared in an episode of the third season. The writers also seemed to have an unhealthy obessession with Yoo-Hoo. This drink appears in WAY too many episodes. Sure, it could have been product placement, but they way they placed them in the oddest situations was damn funny. There was even an episode in the second season which is really about the series where all the running gags, cliches, and in-jokes are used. And a bottle of Yoo-Hoo appears. Oh, one of the in-jokes that this particulay episode covers was that Danny Smith actually wrote and performed the theme song to "Big Wolf". The episode was a love letter to the fans and a statement that while not every episode was perfect, the cast, crew, etc. always tried to produce a series that was enjoyable. That episode reminded me of an episode of "The X-Files" called "Jose Chung's 'Fom Outer Space'". The names of the guest characters come from crew member and books, some situations are based on movies like "Aliens", and other such things, a reference to the fact that Gillian Anderson is not a true red head, and a reference to David Duchovny's low-key acting style.

Anyway, on to the sexual innuendo, the aspect of the series all you pervs really want to hear about. I have three examples of the sexual innuendo that the writers loved to pepper throughout "Big Wolf":

1) In a first season episode entitled "Big Bad Wolf", Tommy Dawkins--the titular werewolf--has become very jealous about his girlfriend--or at least almost girlfriend--hanging out with her ex- boyfriend Brad Carp and feels a tad homicidal about it. Merton J. Dingle--Tommy's best friend and the only normal human in the first season to know Tommy's secret- -suggests that Tommy use some sort of mystical chant to deal with his feelings. Tommy uses the chant and the more aggressive portion of him actually materializes, but Tommy doesn't know it. Later in the episode, before Tommy comes face-to-face with his doppelganger, a young woman comes up to him, kisses him, and gives him a fake ID that his doppelganger actually asked for. Tommy notices Merton and proclaims that he never asked for a fake ID. Merton grabs it and read, "Hugh G. Balzac".

3) In an episode from the second season, Merton gets a very high-paying job that requires no skills. Of course, it endangers his health in a few ways. Anyway, he's doing it all for a girl named Raven. Anyay, she won't give him the time of day and one point he mentions the amount of money he's making to his friends--his "wad"--and says that he wants to blow it all on her.

3) In a third season episode called "Stormy Weather", Merton tries to expand the group and make it like the X-Men with official procedures, training, etc. Anyway, he gets a guy named Stormfront to join what he calls the Defenders of Decency. The others aren't convinced because they don't like Stormfront's superior attitude. However, Mertons says-- basically--"Do you think Superman liked Batman when they met? What with Batman's dark outlook a his ambiguous {shakes his hand a bit} relationship with Robin?"

Yes, they got away with all of those on the same channel that hosts the "700 Club". Or did. I haven't really watched ABC Family since "Big Wolf" was cancelled.

There was also no laugh track, which was a plus.

They did pretty well with keeping with contiuity, but during there was almost a year between the second and third seasons because the company that produced the series was going through financial restructuring or something and the series was almost cancelled after season two had a dramatic cliffhanger. Anyway, something or other happened and the show came back. (Yay!) Two of the characters had new hair styles after leaving a room and coming back. They had the characters ask each other if they had done something and neither said, "Yes." Just another level of weirdness that seemed to be right at home.

Jarrod Harmier

Caffeine fuels my body, B/X fuels my soul.

[> [> [> clones -- Helen, 03:50:08 11/08/02 Fri

Tried watching a couple of episodes of this show, but it was too dreadful. Premise: secret school with vampire pupils to try and make them useful members of society. Sounds very Initiative, but the guy running the show was like Giles but without the gentle humour and the sexy eyes.

[> Smallville -- MayaPapaya9, 20:30:43 11/07/02 Thu

Wow, this is so funny, because I have been telling my friends for the longest time that Smallville is so exactly like Buffy. They all roll their eyes and pat me on the head. At last I have proof that I am not the only one that sees the resemblance!! Smallville's an awesome show. It completely does what Buffy S1 did, which is take a normal high school trauma and embellish it with elements of the supernatural. Plus they have that whole close-but-no-cigar deal going on with Clark and Lana, which is SO Buffy and Angel. Or even Buffy and Xander, if you want to look at it that way.
-Maya

[> [> Close but no cigar? -- Rahael, 02:03:38 11/08/02 Fri

I thought that was the deal with Clark and Lex, not Lana and Clark. lol

[> [> [> Re: Close but no cigar? -- Jarrod Harmier, 06:57:39 11/08/02 Fri

I haven't seen that many episodes, but I was Clark/Lana 'shipper kind of. Until I became Clark/Chloe 'shipper.

Jarrod Harmier

Caffeine fuels my body, B/X fuels my soul.

[> [> [> [> Re: Smallville - my third favorite show -- Brian, 07:29:42 11/08/02 Fri

Fun characters, lots of teenage angst, complex interpersonal relationships, enjoyable plots

Interview with Joss at the WB site (episode title spoilers) -- Masq, 14:55:38 11/07/02 Thu

He talks about the episode airing this Sunday that he wrote, Spin the Bottle. There are some minor spoilers in it about the episode, but they mostly make it sound very intriguing.

There are also vague spoilers about the tone of the rest of the season, but if you don't want to know the tone, don't read it...

Question for anybody who might know--how many episodes of Angel are they going to air before the holiday break? www.tvtome.com keeps saying it's only seven. It's always been ten.

[> Re: thanks -- aliera, 15:34:38 11/07/02 Thu

Thanks, Masq. BTW did you receive my mail?

[> [> About the archives? -- Masq, 15:48:01 11/07/02 Thu

Yes, I will download them when I get home from work. I will also send you more voy archives to do, I just keep forgetting! : )

[> [> [> Re: About the archives? -- aliera, 17:07:58 11/07/02 Thu

...no problem, Masq...just checking ;-)

[> And a question above to any of the Angel- spoiled -- Masq, 16:31:41 11/07/02 Thu

Anyone here play go? (Possible **speculation**) -- Wisewoman, 16:04:32 11/07/02 Thu

In a post on the Trollop Board to which I will not link, as it is predominantly spoiler speculation, I came across the suggestion that it might be helpful to think about what's happening on BtVS in terms of the ancient Chinese game of go.

I am a go novice--my computer beats me faithfully and in record time--but I think it would be interesting to discuss this aspect of the Buffyverse, if it does indeed exist.

I should also say that, while I am an acknowledged Spoiler Trollop, and proud of it, I have no idea what's going on right now. Everything is speculative and the mention of go hasn't helped me any so far, so I don't consider it a spoiler. (Whoa, if I'm off-base on that, I'm really gonna hear about it from you guys!)

;o) dub

[> Re: Anyone here play go? (Possible **speculation**) -- CW, 16:20:52 11/07/02 Thu

In principle I understand the rules of go; surround territory, leave holes. but, I'm a little at a loss as to how it applies to Buffy.

Big help, eh?
;o)

[> [> Re: Anyone here play go? (Possible **speculation**) -- dub, 16:28:36 11/07/02 Thu

surround territory, leave holes

Maybe it's as simple as that? The earth as human territory versus demon territory, and the Hellmouth hole?

:o\ <-- cogitating dub

[> [> [> Re: Anyone here play go? (Possible **speculation**) -- CW, 16:53:37 11/07/02 Thu

Wild guessing here.
If you've read anything about go, you're familiar with the concept of eyes. If you have one eye in a group you can lose everything. If you have two eyes connected in a group your group is completely safe. Maybe they are talking about personal connections. A complicated way of saying 'united we stand divided we fall?'

[> Re: Anyone here play go? (Possible **speculation**) -- Sophie, 16:28:56 11/07/02 Thu

Heard of go, but never played. You mention you play it on your computer - is there somewhere I can download it? (Running WinXP)

Sophie

[> [> Yep. Here you *go*, Sophie -- dub, 16:40:26 11/07/02 Thu

Go to the url mentioned below and click on "Computer Go" in the list of links at the left--it gives you lots of options for downloads. The version I have is called "Igo." It's on the list and it was free when I downloaded it, a few years ago now.

Good luck!

**Information about the game of Go is available FREE, from:

American Go Association
Box 397 Old Chelsea Sta.
New York City, NY 1O113 http://www.usgo.org

The following material is taken directly
from The Way to Go booklet by Karl Baker
(Copyright by Mr. Baker and the AGA).
Copyright 1997 David Fotland

Introduction

Go is a game of strategy. Two players compete in acquiring territory
by placing markers on a smooth wooden board with a simple grid drawn
on it, usually 19 by 19 lines. Each player seeks to enclose
territory with his markers (called `stones'), much like partitioning
a field with sections of fencing. Further, each player may capture
his opponent's markers. The object of the game is to enclose the
most territory, a simple goal the leads to the elegant and
fascinating complexities of go.

About The Game

Go originated in China about 4000 years ago. Japan imported go
around 800 AD. Players in eastern Asia have excelled at the game
throughout modern times. Go reached the western hemisphere in the
late 1800's. Completely logical in design, the game of go has
withstood the test of time. Today go survives in its original form
as the oldest game in the world.

Go is a game of skill involving no elements of chance. Each
participant seeks to control and capture more territory than the
other. The overall level of decision-making quality invariably
determines the outcome of the game. All the play is visible on the
board. Play begins on an empty board, except in handicapped games
(the less experienced player generally receives an equitable head
start). The action of the game is lively and exciting, jumping from
battle front to battle front as each contestant seeks an advantage of
position.**

;o)

[> [> [> Thank you -- Sophie, 17:05:40 11/07/02 Thu

[> Re: Anyone here play go? (Possible **speculation**) -- Indri, 18:06:25 11/07/02 Thu

I don't play go myself, but my partner has been a keen player for many years (and watches Buffy). Is there any way you can explain why the poster thought it was relevant, without revealing any spoilers?

Off the top of my head:

There's the territorial aspect and the possibility of swift changes in landscape as pieces are surrounded, captured, cut off, or united.

And there's the infamous complexity of go, its simple rules but huge number of possibilities; its solution space is not just orders of magnitude greater than chess but orders of orders of magnitude greater, IIRC.

Does the poster refer to specific features or stratagems of go?

[> [> Re: Anyone here play go? (Possible **speculation**) -- Wisewoman, 18:46:51 11/07/02 Thu

Absolutely nothing specific; the precise quote is: if you know the game of Go, you might find it helpful to think about it in terms of what's happening on BtVS this month

The quote above was a postscript and not obviously related to any part of the spoiler speculation that the main post contained.

;o)

[> I read it too. Does that make me a Trollup? -- ponygirl, 19:26:40 11/07/02 Thu

I was on the Trollup board looking for articles, not spoilers! Really! Also William the Poet offers spoilers for themes rather than specifics, so I've been telling myself that reading him doesn't really count. Yes, I am in denial.

I had a very quick Google on Go today, and what really struck me was the use of black and white pieces, which of course brings to mind the black hat/white hat dynamic, the traditional good vs. evil without all the confusing grey, yet the Go introductions I read emphasized that Go is really about balance and elegance rather than conquest. Also the way to remove an opponent's piece is to cut it off, surround it with your own. As Cactus Watcher says it could be the divided we fall scenario. It also made the "the Slayer is alone" thing seem that much more ominous.

BTW the post in question dealt mainly with Buffy's reaction to Spike's soul, if anyone's willing to risk being vaguely spoiled (and are able to avoid the temptation of other Trollup posts!) it's a very interesting read.

[> [> Re: I read it too. Does that make me a Trollup? -- dub ;o), 19:49:48 11/07/02 Thu

I agree; it is a very interesting read.

And yes, it does make you a Trollop! Welcome!!

;o)

[> [> The other interesting thing... -- dub, 19:58:26 11/07/02 Thu

As you suggest, it's easy to see this as a good/evil dichotomy. The thing about go is, the stones that are captured by being surrounded disappear. They don't make their way back onto the board, and they don't turn into troops for the opponent. IOW, as well as there being no shades of grey, there is also no way for one playing piece to go from being white to being black, for instance. They stay what they were originally. Balance is maintained by opposites, yin and yang, rather than assimilation.

So, we could speculate that Spike did evil, was evil, and therefore always will be evil. Or, we could say that souled-Spike is actually William, who was originally good and therefore will remain good and can be nothing but good.

(This is just an example. I'm not trying to start Spike Wars, Episode 792.)

Going to watch Survivor now, but I'll be thinking about this.

dub ;o)

[> Re: Anyone here play go? (Possible **speculation**) -- Sang, 22:33:58 11/07/02 Thu

I don't actually play Go. I knew how to play and watched some games. But when I came to know my 'evil' adviser was a Go fanatic, I never touched that damned thing :).

But I grew up in the country that most of population know how to play that game, and there are the best professional players in the world. I naturally know the details of Go games.

Yes it has simple rules and simple structure of board. But this simplicity makes this the most complex game of strategy. All the structures and devices should be installed only in player's minds.

One rule is that two players place each (black and white) stone alternatively. Player can put only one stone at each turn on the board. A stone can be placed any empty point of 19x19 grid, except a few exceptions.

When both players agree that there is no more possible move, the game ends. Then winner is decided by counting who surrounded more spaces.

If stones are surrounded by other color stones, they are considered dead if they have less than 2 eyes (empty spaces). The number of dead stones are counted as opponent's area.

Players can build their territory on the side or middle. On the side is safe way. But you can occupy bigger space in the middel while it is risky.

If one player builds too big and vulnerable territory, the other player can invade the empty space by putting his stones and try to make two eyes or connect inside stones to his outside stones, thus stake through the would be territory.

If the intruded stones survive inside of my territory, mine breaks down, sometimes it means that my whole areas can turned into my opponent's. Naturally, I will fiercely fight to kill the intruders. But often high level player uses the intrusion as a decoy.

When I was provoked to fight and I could find out that I was deceived, later. The real threat, real attack was not the enemy inside, it was the outside stones, looked idle and insignificant at the beginning. While I think I was winning the battle I realize the real threat was quietly grown outside. Then it is usually too late. I lose the war by winning that battle.

Go is that kind of game, it is elegant, but also brutal and cunning game of deception and illusion.

I am not sure any specific ep. of BtVS is realted with Go. I might think about it a few more hours, and maybe I will just forget about it. Go is so time consuming and exhausting game.

[> [> Actually......no specific spoilers -- Rufus, 00:05:28 11/08/02 Fri

Isn't the Buffyverse just one long game of GO? Think of the beginnings...the creation of the world as Buffy and the gang know it now. The first ones, the Old Ones were convince to give up their purchase of this reality, man taking over for reasons not known. But all the other dimensions are constantly pushing to get back to the reality they once claimed as their hell.

Add in the creation of the vampire, a vengeance gesture, a hope that somehow man could destroy him/herself from the inside with people that look just like them. The thing is the game never stops because every defeat, every win is only transient....and the next battle could change everything.

[> maybe they are talking about the movie "GO" -- luvthistle1, 02:30:44 11/08/02 Fri

.. it's a great movie. In "Go" the story start at the ending with all these different story at once. so you see different story line developing from different point of view (like what is happening on Buffy) as the story runs backward (BTVS is suppose to have a backward episode)all the way to the end, which is really the beginning. I love that movie. another movie like "go" is "Memento"

quickie question (spoilers for "Him" and "Invisible Girl") -- Sophie, 16:26:11 11/07/02 Thu

Ok, somebody recently posted that Spike has a reflection now ("Him" episode) because he has a soul. Well, that sounds fine to me. but I was watching "Invisible Girl" this afternoon and the little scene with Angel and Giles emphasizes that Angel has no reflection. Angel has a soul, so why no reflection if Spike with soul has a reflection?

Sophie

[> Re: quickie question (spoilers for "Him" and "Invisible Girl") -- Slain, 16:36:47 11/07/02 Thu

I think it's Angel who tells us that vampires don't have reflections because they're a kind of abomination - they don't fit in this world, so natural forces (sunlight, and reflected light in general) rejects them. So Spike having a soul shouldn't make any difference to his having a reflection, as he's still a vampire. I'm sure it's possible to find numerous examples of Angel having a reflection, so I personally wouldn't make a big thing of it; it's TV, and there isn't always the time or money to correct these things.

Wings of an angel (*spoilers for seasom7 & 6.3) - - Cougar, 19:00:02 11/07/02 Thu

I just watched "Afterlife". When Buffy sought out Spike for the first time after returning, she is shown walking through the cemetary. Behind her is a stone angel whose wings are perfectly superimposed on her. It was a brief scene and nothing else happened there. Later she reveals to Spike on the roof that she was in heaven. Clearly the scene was a clue.

When Spike turned the angel around this week, perhaps it was Buffy's eyes he was thinking of avoiding. After all, when kind Buffy soothed him she was like an angel of mercy.

In the Basement he said he was "trying to do the right thing". Yet he hasn't given Buffy a clue what he knows (right back to the Beginning, etc.)

He feels very guilty before Buffy, but was it the rape or something more he's hiding that made him hide the angels eyes?

[> Re: Wings of an angel (*spoilers for seasom7 & 6.3) -- Souldrift, 20:22:13 11/07/02 Thu

I've been wondering if Spike is acting like a martyr to punish himself, or is trying to protect Buffy letting the hellmouth "put it all on him". Now he's out of there, where do those tormenting forces go? Was Spike there to supress the evil?

Also Anya and Hallie both knew that something was brewing and things will get worse, and yet Anya hasn' given Buffy any clues or inside information. Giles doesn't seem to be in the loop either. Buffy is not the only one not communicating openly this season. Willow saw the hellmouth in England but seems uncurious to understand what is coming. Lots of denial going on.

[> [> Don't think it's denial (there's that word again) -- HonorH, 22:25:27 11/07/02 Thu

so much as the fact that no one's got an inkling what's coming. They all know something big is on its way. Clues as to its identity, however, are few and far between. My guess would be that Willow told Buffy what she saw and felt in England, just as Buffy told everyone about her "From beneath you, it devours" dream. As for Spike, I think that right now, he's just trying to distinguish between reality and whatever his tortured brain is churning out, so I'm not blaming him for not mentioning the shapeshifting big bad, if indeed he hasn't.

Thing is, though, all those clues have been annoyingly vague. Giles may be gathering information in England. If he had anything solid to offer Buffy in the way of help, I've no doubt he'd be calling or frankly just dropping in. The problem is, no one knows a thing except that portents are saying something Really Bad is on its way. Until it makes a move, however, no one's going to know just how bad it is.

[> Interesting post! (Spoilers, Him) -- Rahael, 04:07:02 11/08/02 Fri

It makes me think of Manwitch's post, which talks about how Spike is workingd toward a 'modern soul'.

His is not Angel's story, that of atonement, guilt and bearing the burden of the soul. Spike has to overcome his soul, become a truly modern man.

Was it Slain who talked about different literary/philosophical eras, and how this related to themes in BtVS?

What struck me in Beneath You is the incredible ambiguity of Spike. The turning away of the eyes of the Angel, the embracing of the cross of torture..I can't wait to find out how this story ends!

I also thought of Manwitch's post because the turning away of the Angel's eyes reminded me a little of Foucault (personal resonance there! not claiming it's actually there!) because Spike first gets chipped in the Initiative, where he was observed, and experimented on and cut open.

The paraphanelia of the Church - the cross, the idea of sin and redemption, the idea of Angels (Heaven) all those too can be seen as powerful agents shaping our identities in society.

This is me...eating crow. (Buffy 7.6 spoilers) -- Rob, 20:07:43 11/07/02 Thu

Don't have a lot of time to talk right now. Just to wanted to tell everybody that I finally got a chance to rewatch "Him," and I enjoyed it much, much more than the first time. Now, I'm not saying that it's my favorite ep now or something, because I still think it has a lot of problems-- too slight of a plot; mostly unnecessary, I would argue; too fillery; even fast-forwarded through the Dawn-first-talks-to- RJ scene.

BUT it helped that my expectations as far as brilliance were already lowered. Because that allowed me, on a second viewing, to enjoy the jokes much more. Even knowing what would happen, I was ROFLMAO from the moment Willow and Anya first saw RJ until the end of the episode. It was a lot of fun. I still think that it didn't have enough insights or depth to qualify as a great wacky comedy like "Tabula Rasa"...

...but just counting pure levels of fun, this episode does deliver. So I'd bump my score up from C- to B-. Meaning, not great, but enjoyable...and much better than most other stuff on TV.

Rob

[> So does this mean -- HonorH, 21:01:30 11/07/02 Thu

you'll be reclaiming your pom-poms and megaphone?

[> [> or maybe.. -- JBone, 21:14:09 11/07/02 Thu

two turntables and a microphone... I really shouldn't share these bad jokes.

[> [> [> D.J. Rob! Woohoo! -- HonorH (dancin' crazy), 21:43:47 11/07/02 Thu

Par-tay, people!

[> [> [> [> I'm back in da house! ;o) -- Rob, 05:49:08 11/08/02 Fri

[> I noticed a pattern. -- Robert, 21:18:20 11/07/02 Thu

After a new episode of BtVS or AtS is shown, the first postings come from those who didn't like it and favorable postings come later. This is merely a pattern I've identified. I haven't run a statistical analysis on it, and I don't know what it means. Maybe someone on the board can explain it.

I agree with Rob in that I did not like Him when I first viewed it, but I enjoyed the second and third viewings much more. I am conflicted about this. Before the advent of the age of Joss Whedon, I would have claimed that an episode must hold up on just one viewing (especially before VCR's were available). Now I find many BtVS episodes work better on successive viewings. I have the feeling that Mr. Whedon fully expects us to record these episodes for later study.

[> [> Re: I noticed a pattern. -- Cougar, 21:49:54 11/07/02 Thu

I think that we were too hungry after two weeks. This episode didn't advance the arcs enough. Nothing too tantalizing was revealed.

Basically my first reaction was lack of satisfaction of my expectaions. Since it didn't leave much new suspence either, I felt a deflation of the tension. That definately biased my first veiwing of "Him". I feel that I shouldn't get my hopes up for next week, they might do that again (although somehow I doubt that!)

The more attention you pay to this board, the higher your expectaions get raised by the synergy of observation. So it contributed to my initial dissapointment, but then it immeaditely gave me new points of view to filter with, and I am thankful for that

So if I had posted right after veiwing I would have been more negative because my personal hopes weren't met. But as soon as I read other posts that are thoughful, I get beyond that and much more detached and flexible. And people manage to squeeze back the tension!

[> [> [> Re: I noticed a pattern. -- Slain, 17:40:20 11/08/02 Fri

I find some types of negativity do put me off posting, when it's obvious that I'm not going to get anywhere by disagreeing. But the good, reasoned criticism which I find mostly on this board is what gets me talking about an episode - I don't recall I discussed 'Help' much, because not that many people seemed to have that many complaints about it!

[> [> [> Exactly, Cougar! THAT was the major problem... -- Rob, 20:05:21 11/08/02 Fri

...After a two week break, I wanted a more substantial episode! And that wasn't even really "Him"s fault, since it was just a matter of the network deciding to air a rerun between the two episodes. If it had not been after a break...and the first ep of sweeps, I don't think I would have pounced on it as much.

Rob

[> [> Re: I noticed a pattern. -- leslie, 15:30:41 11/08/02 Fri

Re: posting time-lapse, I quite loved Him on the first viewing (I was laughing so hard the cat pinning me down to the sofa was getting alarmed), but no matter how I feel about an episode, I want to think about it before I start posting, think about it not only in terms of itself but how it fits in with the rest of the season, the rest of the series, what's happened to the characters, and so on. This seems to mean that I end up reacting to other people's posts rather than starting threads myself, but sobeit.

[> Let's hear for diminished expectations! Woo! -- ponygirl, 06:15:04 11/08/02 Fri

[> [> It happens even to the best of them. -- Deeva, 08:15:16 11/08/02 Fri

[> No crow necessary (still 7.6 spoilers) -- Vickie, 10:02:57 11/08/02 Fri

Funny. I had the opposite reaction. Liked it much better the first time I watched it.

On reviewing, I noticed that the jokes didn't get any funnier, the tedious stretches (Dawn's cheerleading, for me, YMMV) got longer.

Things that were just as wonderful as the first time: Dawn's header off the bleachers, the continuity throw-aways, Buffy taking time to connect a little with Spike and Anya, everyone's performance. The rocket launcher scene!

Did anyone wonder about Xander's nostalgia for BBB? And why isn't everyone suspecting Xander, every time something like this happens? He got Amy to do the love spell in BBB, he called Sweet in OMWF (apparently, still doesn't make sense to me). He's been whining about not dating for weeks. I'd have been sure it was him.

[> [> I'm always suspicious of Xander. Have I mentioned that before? -- Sophist, 10:39:37 11/08/02 Fri

[> [> Xander of the beady eyes -- Tyresius, 17:10:39 11/08/02 Fri

Well, they probably didn't suspect Xander because all the girls weren't falling in love with him, I would think. Now, if some renegade witch had placed a love spell on Xander, I could see them all assuming that he had been behind it ... but why suspect him of a spell that held no benefit for him?

On the other hand, it does seem like the scoobies always underestimate Xander (both good and bad). They seem shocked when he does something bone-headed (shocked that he pulled it off, not shocked that he would do it in the first place) and they seem mildly impressed when he does good.

Also, I've decided to pay very close attention from now on to the first "idea" that the scoobies suggest when trying to figure out the weekly mystery. In OMWF, Giles started off with "I've got a theory that it's a demon, a dancing demon, no something isn't right there." And in "Him," Xander awkwardly points out to Buffy and Dawn "It's the jacket ... girls dig the jacket ... you can't just pin a felt letter on any old jacket ... (don't have the exact quote)" before they even knew they were dealing with a love spell. I'm sure there are other examples of the first idea suggested and ignored being the right one, but those two jump to mind prominently.

But I agree that the scoobies ought to be a little quicker on the checking out Xander's alibi ... his eyes are kinda beady, after all.

Ty

[> [> [> Re: Xander of the beady eyes -- Vickie, 23:52:47 11/08/02 Fri

"but why suspect him of a spell that held no benefit for him?"

Um, because his magick always goes haywire?

[> Rob still unbalanced the universe! See the Firefly Board. -- Darby, feeling the consequences., 20:37:39 11/08/02 Fri

[> [> I think I even unbalanced myself! Been feeling a little wobbly all week! -- Rob, 23:14:31 11/08/02 Fri

I am praying for a great "Buffy" ep next week, b/c being so harsh to it last week made me feel so...dirty.

Rob

Joss jumpstarts the arc in tomorrow's Firefly episode "Safe". It's on FOX at 9PM :) -- Angel Firefly, 21:52:27 11/07/02 Thu

Don't forget to tune in or set your VCR timers! This upcoming episode is just a small taste of what's yet to come. Hope you'll enjoy. I know I will! Please don't miss out.

Have a sweet one!
~ Angel Firefly ~

[> Oopsie, I meant 8PM not 9PM. N/T -- Angel Firefly, 22:08:26 11/07/02 Thu

Under the Influence in "Him".....spoilers of course - - Rufus, 22:16:03 11/07/02 Thu

The Attempted Rape from last years Seeing Red has been a hot topic and button for many viewers. In 'Him' the writers revisit that subject using humor to make it a bit less button pushy. But if you pay attention Buffy just may have learned a thing or two about motivation, motivation of someone under the influence.

There are a couple of ways to get people to do what they normally would never consider.....one is to make them a vampire, a demon possession, and the second a spell.....both have consequences that are deadly.

Spike went and got a soul, something that without you'd think he shouldn't have been able to.....but then a third influence came to play and that was love.

DAWN: FIRST YOU SAY SPIKE DISGUSTS YOU,
BUT SECRETLY, YOU TWO ARE DOING IT LIKE BUNNIES,
AND THEN SPIKE SAYS HE'D DIE FOR YOU, BUT HE TRIES
TO RAPE YOU.

BUFFY:[SIGHS] FOR THE RECORD,SPIKE KNEW HOW WRONG IT WAS,
AND THAT'S WHY HE WENT AWAY.

DAWN: BUT TO GET A SOUL--LIKE THAT WOULD MAKE HIM A BETTER MAN?

Dawn had valid questions, she see's just how mixed up people in love act. Sometime a soul just isn't enough for a good outcome....ask Anya. In this episode we get to see the beginnings of the gang coming to terms with Spike and his soul....and many people complained he didn't have much to do this ep.....he seemed awful quiet. I figure with all the goings on, his best bet was to be mute and watch the festivities....well, and save Buffy from doing something to my new favorite character.

In Season 6, Spike attempted to rape Buffy, there is no excuse for it and there is not pretending it didn't happen. Many thought the character was ruined, though I think dozens, hell, hundreds of murders would do the trick.

'Him' gives us another perspective on rape and people under the influence. In Season 6, Spike tried to rape Buffy, his lack of soul and his desperation leading him to think that force would do the trick. In Him, Buffy is the one under the influence, the one who becomes the sexual aggressor, thinking that sex would be the ticket to making R.J. love her....I see it as a person in authority using same to get what they want....a violation, even if R.J. (consider his age) liked it. The normal Buffy would never consider such a move, but the Buffy under the spell of that jacket did. So, why are we being treated to this?

One thing I notice is that both Spike and Buffy try to use the power of sex to get someone's love, the other party receptive to the sex, but not returning the love. Both think that killing someone is a nifty way to prove their love (Dru in Crush, Principal Wood in Him). Both Buffy and Spike are in states where their conscience is out of wack causing them to do things way over the top to achieve their goals.

At the end of the episode Buffy is glad that she was stopped before she did (wonder if it's the sex or murder that worried her more) before she did something she regretted. Now to the impact of love on the situation. Spike in Seeing Red could see Buffy's reaction to his aggression, and in that moment felt a self-loathing profound enough to cause him to look for a soul. Buffy, upon seeing the impact of her betrayal of Dawn(kid's head on the traintracks..good hint)and though still spellbound she shook off enough of it to save her sister/rival. Both Buffy and Spike did things that they regretted because of a state they were in. Buffy under the spell, Spike without a soul. Both thought they were fine until they got the wake up call of someone they love hurting from what they did. And both even under the influence were able to do something to try to fix the situation.

I think Anya said it best at the end of the show.....(I still think she should return the money)....

ANYA: IT WAS A SPELL. WE WERE HELPLESS.WE'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANYTHING WE DID,MORALLY OR, YOU KNOW, LEGALLY.

Part of what Anya says goes along with what David Fury said at the Succubus Club last season....blame the demon/spell. I know that the feelings of any victim are not going to be magically erased by the knowledge that the person who hurt them really didn't mean it, but I think Buffy for one episode was in a similar place that Spike has been. The episode was played for laughs mainly because no one died and Buffy didn't....you know....finish R.J. off. But her feelings of responsibility have to be similar to that of Spike for the AR. Spike never had to say a word in that episode....his frantic chase of Buffy said it all...he saved her that night, from herself. I wonder if anything that happened will change how she regards Spike?

[> Re: Under the Influence in "Him".....spoilers of course -- ponygirl, 07:50:26 11/08/02 Fri

Interesting post Rufus. It's a great point that the lack of soul seems to parallel the gals under the influence of RJ's jacket. They have no conscience, not much thought beyond their own needs, and operate from a very twisted perception of reality. I don't know if will change Buffy's views about Spike but at the very least it should give her a different perspective which certainly seems to be a Big Theme so far this year.

I think the revelations about how each of the femme Scoobies view love were incredibly telling, for Buffy especially. I noticed when watching Him for the second time that unlike the others Buffy never said she loved RJ. She said he was in love with her, that she had lusty thoughts towards him, but that was it. Buffy obviously feels love for Dawn, and for her friends, but romantic love seems to be something she's not willing to entertain. Sex is still there, but another unintended consequence of Spuffy is Buffy's ability to separate sex from an emotional connection. That's never a good thing in the Buffyverse.

BTW thank you for reposting William the Poet's and vblackheart's essays over on the Trollup Board. It's some of the best stuff I've read on Him so far.

[> [> Well said Rufus. -- shadowkat, 09:08:05 11/08/02 Fri

Seconding ponygirl's compliments. You brought up some points I'd missed. You're right - it's the continuation of the perception theme. I was too busy seeing Dawn's pov to realize the episode changed Buffy's perception as well.

For this episode, Buffy and Dawn experience what it's like to be under the influence of over-powering emotions.

I like Buffy's last statement to Dawn regarding how it wasn't her fault that she was helpless under the spell and if Dawn thought this was bad, just wait until it's real.

PS: If WTP post isn't spoilery? Can you set up a link to it for us non-spoiler folks?

[> [> [> WTP is spoilery but not exact. -- Rufus, 14:48:02 11/08/02 Fri

He gives hints as to what is to come, but no specific spoilers....he points out what to look for but doesn't exactly tell you what it is...the second post by blackheart is an excellent character study, specially of Xander.
So, depending on what is a spoiler to you it's mild future spoilery, and spoilers for episodes that have aired.

WTP

blackheart

[> [> [> [> Re: WTP was too spoilery for my taste, blackheart seemed very insightful -- Just George, 17:10:13 11/08/02 Fri

Thank you very much for the links.

I skimmed what WTP said, but it was too spoilery for my taste so I am trying to blank it from my memory. Before the details left my brain I got the idea that WTP was saying that things are happening for a reason and that things will change. I can live with that memory. I figured that out already.

However, I very much enjoyed blackheart's take on Xander and the rest of the Scoobies. Very insightful. It would be interesting to get permission to post it here so we could hash it out.

-JG

[> [> [> [> [> Actually the person has posted it elsewhere and I've got a e-mail into him. -- Rufus, 17:41:54 11/08/02 Fri

I'll see what I can do. I found his take on Xander refreshing considering the lack of Xander based posts.

[> [> [> [> Thanks ! Read Wtps and remembered some things (only Him spoilers) -- shadowkat, 19:50:44 11/08/02 Fri

I looked at both. Don't really see WTP's post as all that spoilery (but I did skim over the hints, so maybe I just missed what Just George saw?? Or I knew it already??). But then I've read some of WTP's past posts and pretty much came to similar conclusions already. Gist? The whole theme is about growing up and maturity and how what we think is one way in our youth becomes something else when we look back on it.

The key scene to understanding the episode HIM? Is the scene that I'm most obsessed with - well actually two of them:

1. The scene with Lance in his house wearing the pizza delivery shirt and acting very Xander Season 4ish. While Xander and Spike are dressed like adults in button down shirts and very polite. They glance at each other when Lance asks them to play in the basement, and make their escape. It's an interesting scene to watch after watching Doomed, HUSH, Something Blue

2. The cheerleading sequence - was I the only one who noticed that in Witch - all the girls are wearing uniforms and everyone is coordinated and no one is really brutally embarrassed. Except supernaturally? While in HIM - Dawn is the only one wearing the cheerleading uniform and the others think she's nuts for doing so and everyone else is in sweats? Also Dawn does the typical clutzy move?

3. Have you guys noticed that the high school kids this year and the high school itself seems a little more real and less comfy than the high school the Scoobs went to?
More sterile. More schoollike. No nice retreat like the library or cafeteria. And the kids look like kids not 20 something models?

Thanks for Blackheart's - really looks like a good analysis of Xander.

[> [> Really interesting point, PG -- alcibiades, 09:47:25 11/08/02 Fri

I think the revelations about how each of the femme Scoobies view love were incredibly telling, for Buffy especially. I noticed when watching Him for the second time that unlike the others Buffy never said she loved RJ. She said he was in love with her, that she had lusty thoughts towards him, but that was it. Buffy obviously feels love for Dawn, and for her friends, but romantic love seems to be something she's not willing to entertain. Sex is still there, but another unintended consequence of Spuffy is Buffy's ability to separate sex from an emotional connection. That's never a good thing in the Buffyverse.

You know, this is very interesting. Thanks for pointing it out.

I am not sure I agree with you however about why B is not feeling romantic love in this scenario.

The jacket was a love spell. Everyone else fell deeply heart and soul in love with the guy -- but these are feelings that Buffy processes as the guy being in love with her and as lust for RJ.

Now that doesn't make any sense.

Now that you point it out, it completely parallels how she has processed the way she felt about Spike.

But why would this be all she let herself process when the others felt in love heart and soul, especially when she was going to go out and kill for the guy? The last time she did this was attempting to kill Faith for Angel -- and she certainly loved Angel.

No. I think that what this shows is that a lot of Buffy's emotional circuitry needs to be resparked to life. She is not feeling what she is feeling because of that wall she put up around her heart.

It's a consistent love spell -- it has one sort of effect on people. The way they process what the feelings are that it produces is a completely different matter.

[> [> [> Actually I agree... -- ponygirl, 11:42:19 11/08/02 Fri

... I just didn't phrase it well. I'm sure Buffy feels and is capable of feeling just as deeply as the others, if not more so, but for many reasons she won't deal with these feelings. She feels but she cannot give her feelings a name, even when under a pretty powerful love spell.

I keep remembering Angel's comment back in season 3 (and again too lazy to look up the quote) about when he first saw Buffy she seemed to be holding out her heart to the world. That certainly isn't true of Buffy now. A lot of it is about growing up, but as you say Buffy seems to have built a wall. To be a stranger to your own heart? It seems to be asking for buried emotions to come out at the worst possible times.

[> [> [> [> Re: Quote -- Philistine, 19:50:54 11/08/02 Fri

From Helpless:

Angel: "... I could see your heart. You held it before you for everyone to see."

[> [> You're very welcome.... -- Rufus, 16:11:27 11/08/02 Fri

Seems my late night skimming does pay off. I find the neatest stuff and only hope others get the same thrill that I do finding the stuff I do. I lurk at many boards for some of the spoilers...and I'm not as pessamistic as some about the lack of Spike.

Question about vampire "incubation period" -- Quentin Collins, 23:00:35 11/07/02 Thu

I am wondering if anybody has any thoughts on why it seems to take longer for some newly sired vampires to "awake" than it does others. Sometimes we have them coming out of the grave. Other times they arise while at the funeral home or the morgue. In "Helpless" it seemed as if the guy from the Council that was sired arose very quickly. It couldn't have been more than a few hours after being bitten.

[> Re: Question about vampire "incubation period" -- livthistle1, 02:07:03 11/08/02 Fri

I'm not sure. But I did notice this was the first time we seen Buffy inside a "funeral home " which I thought was odd. Before she use to wait at the grave for them to arise, not she stalking and breaking into "funeral home" for one vamp?? is there vampire shortage?? I think she was hunting, like Dracula said. In "Him" she said Slayer means Killer.

[> [> They went to Sunnydale Funeral Home in NKaBoTFD -- oboemaboe, 02:53:11 11/08/02 Fri

And Andrew Borba rose there.

I think vampires always read the scripts.

[> [> [> Other 'early' dustings -- SableHart, 06:43:52 11/08/02 Fri

Also, in Season 2, (I think it was "Passion") Buffy dusts Theresa, a vamp Angel made, while paying her respects at the funeral home with Xander. And don't forget "The Body" when the vamp rose in the middle of the hospital morgue. On AtS, they talked about vampire risings in more detail during the Darla-Drusilla arc, but I honestly can't remember how long it seemed to take. I think it was about 24 hours between Dru biting Darla and Angel finding Darla, but I could be totally off-base.

[> [> [> [> Darla took a day -- oboemaboe, 08:09:00 11/08/02 Fri

Dru turned her at night. The next day, Wes said that come nightfall (sometime before dawn) she would rise again.

Good memory, SH.

[> [> [> [> Re: And an early rising -- Freki, 13:12:45 11/08/02 Fri

Sheila, the girl that Dru turned in School Hard, seems to have risen within hours. She disappeared on the day of the Parent-Teacher conference, but showed up as a vampire during the attack that evening.

[> Is Sunnydale on Daylight Stakings Time? -- Darby, 09:14:15 11/08/02 Fri

Seriously, this seems to be whatever the plot requires.

If you had to explain it, it may be some complex interaction between the time of death (almost sunrise, daytime but indoors, etc.) and the onset of the next night.

As the embodiment of arrested adolescence, I personally just think that lots of vamps prefer to "sleep in" for a while before making that annoying trek to the surface.

- Darby, wondering if I've just grammatically described myself as the embodiment of arrested adolescence...

Silly Question that may have been asked, but I doubt it(Slight spoiler for Him) -- Artemis, 00:26:55 11/08/02 Fri

Did anyone besides me think that the use of the name RJ, and later Anyas' mistakenly calling him AJ, was ME making an inside joke regarding American Idol. Those were the names of two of the last ten contestants. Yes I watched the show. Don't shun me. But so did Alyson Hannigan and Alexis Denisof who were in the audience on the Final Night.

[> I thought it was funny -- luvthistle1, 02:00:36 11/08/02 Fri

I notice that too. I thought it was a inside joke.

[> LOL -- Rahael, 02:01:41 11/08/02 Fri

To my utter shame I have to own up and say that I have been watching "Popstars the Rivals" (British version) recently.

Yeah, I watch crap telly sometimes! What? It's good for pointing and laughing!

[> [> Re: LOL -- Deeva, 08:09:34 11/08/02 Fri

Ahh, Popstars. The early shows are the good ones to watch for the fingerpointing and laughing. I did that last year while in a cabin with a bunch of friends. They were totally amazed at some of the stuff that was coming out of my mouth about some of the contestants. I'm sorry when you go on a talent show ya gotta have some talent! It's a funny detail, I know, but somehow I think it's relevant.

[> Isnt that a Backstreet Boy? -- neaux ashamed to know this., 03:58:45 11/08/02 Fri

[> [> LOL! -- Doriander, 05:20:26 11/08/02 Fri

And the brother's name, Lance, is from N'Sync! Hee!

[> [> There is no shame in knowing who the boy bands are. -- Deeva, pop culture junkie & knows it. *g*, 08:13:50 11/08/02 Fri

A Great Speculation of the Final Showdown (minor spoilers and very wishful thinking) -- neaux who woke up this morning feeling smart, 04:08:58 11/08/02 Fri

Ok.. dont ask me why I was thinking about Buffy when I woke up this morning.. but I still have that Shapeshifting baddie on the brain.

But then it hit me like a Rock. or lemme rephrase that.

It hit me Just Like "THE ROCK" (tm) would hit Triple H.

What if the final battle really is a Battle Royale? Either Each Scoobie takes on one form of the shapeshifter in one huge battle or it becomes a tag-team match of the scoobies vs. the baddies.

Here is my List of contenders:

Warren vs. Xander (cuz Xander was scared and couldnt move when confronted with Warren's Gun)

Glory vs Dawn or Giles (Dawn vs Glory for obvious reasons... Giles vs Glory because he killed Ben??)

Adam vs Willow (Magic vs Machine)

Mayor vs .. FAITH (that's if she Returns)

Drucilla vs. Spike (The love would finally be lost)

Master vs. (Ok I'm stuck on this one. its Buffy or Dawn, I havent decided)

and then of course there is always a final form (for anyone who has played final fantasy)

Buffy fights a epic battle against all the morphs and kicks some ass.

So who did I leave out? Anya. I dont know how she fits into the puzzle. This might need revision. what if its a 2 x 2 match. Then I can put Anya and Willow together and Spike and Xander vs the baddies.

So that's my hairbrain theory.

Anyone else have a different Contender List??

[> You forgot the headline clash! -- Tchaikovsky, 04:15:42 11/08/02 Fri

Ladies and gentlemen: I give you

In the red corner, fighting for scatter-brain parkers the world over, defending the right for lack of underwear, undefeated in 20 bouts:

THE PARKING TICKET LADY

In the blue corner, fighting for bearded serviette-less slobs the world over, defending the right for dry cleaning,
undefeated in 24 bouts,

THE MUSTARD MAN

In the even of a tie, a decider will be the singing of 'Somewhere over the Rainbow', judged best or worst by, (a very incredulous looking) Council of Watchers.

The winner gets the right to their own spin-off show, Executive Producers thereof to be Joss Whedon with either Marti Noxon or David Fury, (to be decided depending on who is the lead actor).

[> I Can See the Closing Title now... -- Harry Parachute, 05:35:51 11/08/02 Fri

Executive Producers:
Joss Whedon
Marti Noxon
JBone

;P

[> [> Marti, TKO in round two. -- cjl, 07:06:29 11/08/02 Fri

[> Re: A Great Speculation of the Final Showdown (minor spoilers and very wishful thinking) -- Mackenzie, 07:20:52 11/08/02 Fri

I have been thinking about the final showdown too. Has anyone thought that maybe there might be (keeping fingers crossed) a cross over episode for this. It seems to me that both Angel and Buffy have been going toward this huge apocalyptic battle. Will they fight it together?

[> [> Re: A Great Speculation of the Final Showdown (minor spoilers and very wishful thinking) -- Thomas the Skeptic, 09:03:08 11/08/02 Fri

My Buffy-watching pal and I have speculated similarily but our other alternative, if there isn't a true crossover, is that the Scoobies and Angel Investigations will be fighting the same whatever-the-hell- morphy-really-is at the same time, only in two different locations, LA and good old Sunnyhell. This would be the ultimate crossover that isn't and a sly wink at we fans who resent the WB's belligerence on the whole crossover question.

[> [> [> We could call it the (wait for it...) -- pr10n, 12:47:31 11/08/02 Fri

Joss-over.

*SMAP* Hey!

A Twisted Mirror: BBB and "Him" (spoilers) -- Jarrod Harmier, 05:41:03 11/08/02 Fri

Posters on Usenet have been drawing parallels between "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered" and "Him" and saying that it's basically the same story. However, it isn't.

"Him" isn't like a retelling of the events that happened during BBB. Rather, it is a twisted reflection of those events.

In BBB, Xander actively wants to hurt Cordy after she dumped him on Valentine's Day. So, he blackmails Amy into getting her to do a love spell aimed at Cordy so he can dump her and let her know how it feels. (Okay, it's not the best decision Xander's ever made, but later he makes an important decision that really tells you what he values.) When it doesn't seem to work, he feels bad and decides to just go on. This is the moment when Buffy- -the person he really loves--really starts to notice him and this makes him fell better. However, "Buffy"'s degree of irony is matched only by crappy soaps and original "The Twilight Zone". Amy and other girls start to say similar things and Xander realizes that it's the spell causing Buffy to act this way. He asks for help from Giles who becomes angry at him and in the same scene Jenny Calender starts to come on to Xander which makes him very uncomfortable. A couple of minutes later, Buffy barges into the library wearing nothing but a black raincoat and high heels. Buffy offers herself to him, but he declines even though the thought of her liking him has filled him with hope. Why does he decline? He declines because he wants her to want him because she really wants to, not because she's being forced to by some spell. He also knows that he couldn't live with himself if goes through with what she is offering.

In "Him" R.J. is certainly NOT Xander. He may have been into comic books and "geek stuff" like Xander is but Xander showed a hell of a lot more character when Buffy offered herself to him in BBB than R.J. showed in the entire episode. From what we know, he got the jacket from his brother who got it from their father. (One possibility behind the jacket's power is that the father cast a spell on the jacket.) After that he "blossomed". Pretty words, but the reality is so much more sordid. Now, it doesn't look like he actually knew what the jacket could do because he would have given up much more of a fight when Xander and Spike stole it. However, he knew that he had some kind of power over woman and went to great lengths to exploit it. He seemed to figure that Dawn pushed the other football player down the stairs and liked that, had girls do his homework for him and even allowed Buffy to come on to him even though he had to know that this violated ethical boundaries. (The last one seems to be a combination of Buffy and Miss Calender from BBB.)

Now, R.J. was a jerk. That's much is obvious. However, it was never discussed how far R.J. had actually gone with his dates. Why is this important? If he had known about the effects of the jacket and still had sex with someone knowing that they were of diminished capacity, that would have constituted rape. Of course, he probably didn't know, but it is something to think about it.

Jarrod Harmier

Caffeine fuels my body, B/X fuels my soul.

[> Love your sig! -- Vickie, 10:22:53 11/08/02 Fri

Nice post. I don't know if I'd go as far against RJ as you do here, but he was definitely exhibiting jerkness.

BTW, don't think I've seen your handle here before. Welcome!

[> [> Re: Love your sig! -- Rahael, 10:26:52 11/08/02 Fri

If I'm not very much mistaken, not only has Jarrod been here before (long time ago) but he has also appeared on Angel!! (Friend of Gunn's!)

[> [> [> Or I could be imagining the second part... -- Rahael, 10:55:33 11/08/02 Fri

I have many delusions!

[> [> [> Re: Love your sig! -- Jarrod Harmier, 11:52:19 11/08/02 Fri

I was here last year in the summer. That I'm sure.

However, I've never appeared on the TV series "Angel" or any other TV series. The only acting experience I have was a lame school play in eigth grade where I had one line and a short video for a video production class where I played a slightly crazed gun clerk in one scene. In the short video that I don't think was ever edited because there was something wrong with some software, I had the interesting experience of actually doing a scene with a TEC-9 shoved in my pants, but covered by a dress shirt. Then I got to pull the TEC-9 out a bit. Watching the TEC-9 from a low angle camera shot was interesting and I actually remember a few of my lines from that. Fun times!

There might have been an actor with a name that was spelled similar to mine. I think there is actually a musician in Germany whose name is very similar to mine since my last name is actually of German origin but was made to look French in the distant past. (My mom did a people search once and told me about it over the phone.)

Jarrod Harmier

Caffeine fuels my body, B/X fuels my soul.

[> [> [> [> Yes, I'm delusional! -- Rahael, 12:13:34 11/08/02 Fri

dH, stop laughing! This is Raquel Welsh and Linda Cardinello all over again isn't it!

Interview with Joss TODAY on "Fresh Air"! -- tim, 05:53:25 11/08/02 Fri

I heard this morning that Joss Whedon will be the guest today on the National Public Radio program "Fresh Air." As with all public broadcasting here in the States, local air times vary, but you can listen to the interview from anywhere in the world at 3 PM Eastern time (8 PM GMT) by clicking here.

No promises are made one way or the other as to spoilers.

--th

[> forgot to say... -- tim, 05:56:16 11/08/02 Fri

For those of you who don't know, interviews on "Fresh Air" go into considerable depth--it's extremely common for them to last a half-hour or more. The teaser I heard indicated Joss was the only guest today, which usually means his interview will take up the bulk of the hour-long program.

Enjoy!

--th

[> [> It�s old... -- grifter, 07:45:26 11/08/02 Fri

...at least according to their website it first aired on May 9, 2000.
Could still be interesting though, you can download it from their website.

[> Re: Interview with Joss TODAY on "Fresh Air"! - - Mackenzie, 07:47:44 11/08/02 Fri

Bad News about spoilers, I checked the NPR website and this interview originally aired in May of 2000. It still will be interesting. Darryl McDaniels from Run DMC will also be on.

[> that's what i said! not that far below! -- anom, 08:20:02 11/08/02 Fri

This is the same interview I posted about under luna's "Marsters interview" post (maybe I shoulda started a new thread?), incl. a quote from the Fresh Air site, links, & the info that the interview originally aired in 2000.

Feels weird to link to another post that's still on the board! Not getting replies is one thing, but being ignored to the point of having the same info posted the next day? Aarrgghh!

[> [> Oops! So sorry! -- tim, 11:54:28 11/08/02 Fri

Certainly didn't mean to make you feel ignored. I was in a hurry when I got to work this morning; did a cursory search to see if anyone else had posted the information, but obviously didn't look hard enough. A thousand pardons!

--th

[> [> [> 'sokay...looks like nobody else saw it either... -- anom, 13:36:48 11/08/02 Fri

...& apparently, neither did I! I forgot to listen to it!

[> [> [> [> Re: Fresh Air -- Brian, 14:04:21 11/08/02 Fri

It was on at noon here in Louisville. I enjoyed hearing Joss talk about his creation even if it was two years old information. They played two cuts from the show:

Giles and Buffy from Welcome to the Hellmouth - "You're the chosen one...

Angelus and Buffy from Innocence - the morning after

And they ended with Walk through the fire from OMWF

Nothing new, but it gave my day a big lift.

[> Thanks for posting the links tim and anom! I enjoyed listening. -- ponygirl, 14:07:13 11/08/02 Fri

So how far did it go? (spoilers for "Him") -- Tyresues, 13:26:50 11/08/02 Fri

I've been away all week dealing with election fallout and whatnot, so I'm desperately trying to catch up on the board. Maybe someone could tell me if this has already been addressed, but ... did Buffy and RJ have sex? I mean, there was plenty of time between the last shot of them kissing and the moment Xander walked in on them - plus we only saw Dawn's reaction to what was going on when she discovered them. Also, there's the scene where she refers to RJ as her lover. Was she just goading Dawn, or was she serious? And I may have been imagining it (even though I rewound the tape and watched it twice) but it kinda looked to me like RJ's pants were pulled down a bit when Xander pulled Buffy off the boy.

I'm concerned because if they did have sex - that's some major ethical fallout. On one hand, it's rape. Although RJ seemed unaware of exactly how powerful the jacket spell was. Still, Buffy sorta forgave Spike in this episode (for the record... he knew how wrong it was) for his attempted rape. Doesn't what RJ did - or almost did - mount up to the same thing? With Spike it would have been violent rape, but with RJ it was more like date rape (where the girl was on Roofies or Special K - in this case, a spell -- we've alreay seen the magic/drugs pairing in the past).

On the other hand, Buffy is an authority figure at the school and no matter how far I'm willing to suspend my disbelief, there are some things that would have to be dealt with in a very mundane, non-Slayer ways. This may not be statuatory rape (his age is never really made clear) on her part, but it's still so wildly inappropriate that she would (at the very least) lose her job forever. This is true even in California. It's been all over the news lately.

Even if they didn't go all the way, RJ would (presumably) still remember that Mrs. Summers, Guidance Counselor, straddled him in an empty classroom and showed him at least part of her undergarments. Okay, so big stud man on campus almost makes it with a hot school adminsitrator - he's probably not complaining much - but if he's the braggart most teenage boys are, don't you think that'll come out eventually? What if he doesn't know how to deal with Buffy's apparent rejection of him after being so into him? I mean, he DID show up at her house, so he's at least interested in getting his rocks off or something.

Oh, I'm trying to suspend my disbelief, I really am, but I'm troubled by the lack of consequences for all the characters in this episode. I mean, "feeling embarrassed" isn't exactly the kind of fallout you expect from the ME team. Especially after Dawn almost kills herself, Buffy almost kills the principal, Willow almost performs gender reassignment surgery, and Anya does (?) commit a string of thefts. Add to that Buffy's demonstration of the Kama Sutra, Dawn's deliberate injuring of RJ's friend, and Dawn's horrible comments to Buffy -- the whole "we're not responsible for anything we did morally or legally" argument doesn't work in a world with continuity, memory and consequence.

Other thoughts -- I truly loved this episode, although I'm beginning to dislike Dawn very much. Which is weird because I've mostly liked her up until now. Maybe I just heard a bit too much of her voice in this episode. MT is a fine actress, and really showed off her comedic talent, but at some point the whole whiny Dawn thing just got really, really annoying. I blame it on too much time spent reading here.

Also, my favorite line from the whole show - "I'm the pushy queen of Slut Town." LOVE IT! In fact, I'm claiming it as my new alter-ego (when and if I should require an alter-ego on the board). In my first official comment as the pushy queen of Slut Town - that boy WAS hot. Did they cast him directly off the set of an Abercrombie & Fitch catalog shoot or what? I didn't need to be mesmerized by the jacket to see how hot he was. Oh, I wish Spike had been enthralled by the love letterman's jacket and had given that boy a sound thrashing.

Finally, hooray to ME for answering unanswered questions about Willow's sexual orientation. The whole question of whether Willow would be bisexual or lesbian was clearly established in a highly comedic way. Even though I've read comments by Joss that she would remain lesbian, I never believe anything said in an interview until it follows through on the show.

Tyreseus (aka The Pushy Queen of Slut Town)

[> Re: So how far did it go? (spoilers for "Him") -- Apophis, 13:42:21 11/08/02 Fri

I don't think they actually "did it." For one thing, that would undermine the light mood of the episode with a rather serious issue. For another, I think Buffy would've been pretty pissed off once the jacket was destroyed. As for RJ's bragging, I figure Buffy and maybe the rest of the gang gave him a little "talk" after the episode, convincing him of how bad an idea it would be to A) tell anyone about this or 2) try it again.

[> I'm voting "not that far." -- Earl Allison, 13:43:56 11/08/02 Fri

I enjoyed a lot of "Him," although there were questions and plot-holes aplenty.

Personally, I say the sex never happened. I mean, sure, ME is majorly out of touch lately, but to do THAT to their main character? The oogy-meter is reading the highest I've ever seen with that one!

Buffy would never, in real life, have the job she does. But, even ignoring that, this incident, deliberate or not, penetration or not, WOULD cost her her job. At least. She might well be up on statutory rape charges, too.

Frankly, after the attempted rape of S6, ME would be well- advised to avoid the wacky hijinx of sexual crimes/assault.

"Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered" did this part better. Sure, Joyce or Buffy or Jenny WOULD have had sex with Xander, but he tried to avoid them, and seemed actively uncomfortable.

I know this episode was played more for laughs, but the consequences of what Buffy did (or almost did), simply aren't that funny when one actually looks at them.

It's like the events just before Katrina's death. I admit, it was a silly, goofy fun, the Trio (Warren's actions excluded) drooling over French Maid Katrina -- but she sobered the situation up quickly -- it was RAPE! Or would have been.

There, ME dealt with the reality. In "Him," they seem oblivious.

Don't get me wrong, I liked a lot of it, and yes, I realize there are parts of Buffy that SHOULDN'T be examined too closely (please ignore the man behind the curtains), but in asking about this, that's what I came up with.

Uncomfortable in some ways to watch, and if you begin to examine it and follow through to logical conclusions ...

Not funny. Not at all.

Now, let the stones and flames start.

Take it and run.

[> I thought it was clear -- Sophist, 13:51:50 11/08/02 Fri

from Buffy's comments at the end that she and RJ did not have sex.

This may not be statuatory rape (his age is never really made clear) on her part

Under CA law, only females are "protected" against unlawful sexual intercourse (i.e., statutory rape). It's open season on/for under-18 boys. (Cynical comment of course.)

Buffy forgave Spike

I don't think it's that clear.

but with RJ it was more like date rape

Only if he realized the effect the jacket had and was taking advantage of it. I thought he was, but it wasn't clear.

Okay, so big stud man on campus almost makes it with a hot school adminsitrator - he's probably not complaining much - but if he's the braggart most teenage boys are, don't you think that'll come out eventually?

I'd have to agree with this. OTOH, maybe burning the jacket erased RJ's memories.

the whole "we're not responsible for anything we did morally or legally" argument doesn't work in a world with continuity, memory and consequence

There were no consequences from Willow's or Dawn's acts. I've spackled Buffy's best I can above. I'd have to agree about Anya.

[> [> Damn, I'll never make it on Jeopardy with Apophis and EA around -- Sophist, 13:55:06 11/08/02 Fri

[> [> R.J. Squealing -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:07:12 11/08/02 Fri

No one will believe him. With the jacket gone, his finesse with women is shot, and thus he'll most likely revert to his former, loserly state, just like his brother did when he gave up the jacket. Coming from Stud R.J., his telling people that he and Buffy almost did it would be big trouble. Coming from Recently-Made-A-Loser-Again R.J., I doubt many, if any people, will believe him.

And I think Anya's comment is half-right. We've seen time and again that, while someone is under a spell, they are not to be held responsible for their actions morally (see "Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered" or "Gingerbread" for examples). However, legally the jacket spell wouldn't make a difference, since the law and order system doesn't take magic into account. As long as the police don't find out anything (as is the usual case in Sunnydale) there shouldn't be a problem.

On another issue, I didn't have a huge problem with the R.J. and Buffy scene. It's not truly like date rape. A better (though more elaborate) comparison would be a guy accidentally knocking a substance into a woman's drink that would cause her to be extremely horny, and neither realized it happened. R.J. probably thought it was just his usual good chemistry with women that was responsible.

Lastly, a question for Sophist: if a teacher/counselor comes on to a student who is a minor, but is told not to go through with it by a friend, and no force is necessary to make her back off, does it count as attempted statutory rape? If it doesn't, than Buffy didn't do anything wrong there legally, either.

[> [> [> Responsibility (Spoiler for S6 Villains, & for S7 Him) -- Fred the obvious pseudonym, 15:02:29 11/08/02 Fri

Guys --

ME is pretty loose about Our Heroes taking responsibility for their actions.

Remember Willow tortured a man to death. While understandably distraught over the death of her lover, she wasn't under a spell, drugged, or otherwise bereft of her own self-control.

She did draw in the dark magic -- but that's not a defense as it was by her own choice. No one forced her to drain those books. In fact, IIRC, she did so after overpowering the legitimate owner of the books (Anya.)

So ME is willing to let major characters off the hook.

By comparison, Buffy's cradle-robbing was a minor peccadillo.

[> [> [> That's a hard question Finn -- Sophist, 18:57:43 11/08/02 Fri

I probably would need to know more details.

First, if the student is male, the answer is no (as I said above).

Second, an attempt generally involves some effort to commit the actual crime. It's a little hard to interpret "coming on to a student" as such an effort without knowing the exact details. If you can wait until Monday, I'll check what the cases say.

BTW, I am not intending to give actual legal advice here. I assume this is hypothetical and I'm answering as if this were an exam question, not a RL situation.

[> [> [> [> No RL implications intended. -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:26:03 11/08/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> Willow has a plea for temporary insanity...on both accounts, it was a crime of passion - - Charlemagne20, 20:15:49 11/08/02 Fri

Just after making love to the woman she'd fallen for, she's splattered with the person's blood. So she kills the man involved.

Our legal system forgives individuals of this

[> [> [> [> [> Would it really be a crime of passion? -- VR, 21:10:55 11/08/02 Fri

She may have had recently made love to the woman she loved, but she had the presence of mind to understand who it was Xander was talking about when he said it was Warren that shot Buffy. She walked, emphasis on walked, into the magick shop, specifically froze anya and absorbed the knowledge and power from the books, arming herself. It's not like when she killed him. It was quick and very shortly after. We're talking hours here. She went to the hospital and saved Buffy. She was calm and collected, smiling even. And when she left the hospital, she had one though on her mind -- to make Warren pay for what he did with his life. And when she found him, she didn't just outright killed him immediately, she drew it out, mentally torturing him and them flaying him. When she found out what he'd done to Katrina, she chose again to make him hurt by making her show up, either and illusion or the actual body. I vote illusion that was good enough to fool his senses. Maybe projected directly into his brain.

I'm also not saying that the source of her magick didn't come from a bad place, which had an influence on her. But, the events before she got her first boost of magick don't paint the same picture for me.

Just the Jack MaCoy that's manifested in me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Views of a crime junkie -- DEN, 23:26:55 11/08/02 Fri

The classic fictional treatment of that issue is ANATOMY OF A MURDER, written by R T Traver, published in 1954, and made into a good movie later. The plot focuses around a man who kills hs wife's rapist. The lawyer who narrates the story says that justification for a "crime of passion" defense depends essentially on whether it's possible to bring in the law. In that case it was, because the crime had already occurred, so the defendant is looking at a first-degree murder charge. What happens then is still worth the read. But while the law differs from state to state (ANATOMY is set in Michigan), the general pattern holds. Had Willow struck Warren down with a fireball in the immediate aftermath of Tara's murder,it would be one thing. But the time lapse between cause and consequence is enough in most states for a reasonably competent prosecutor to put our favorite witch on death row or behind bars for life. "Temporary insanity" cases work better on TV than in real life, where a favorable verdict on such a plea usually amounts to jury nullification. In other words, Willow;s lawyer MIGHT plead her insane and hope he can convince a jury that "the SOB needed killin'." But it's a high-risk strategy even when the defendant has Willow's puppy-dog eyes. Better to try a plea bargain and hope she gets out before her social security kicks in. The DA's office would probably go along rather than risk losing the conviction entirely.

[> [> [> I don't think he WOULD squeal. He got to make out and almost have sex with a teacher... -- Rob, 20:38:20 11/08/02 Fri

...and he didn't seem too upset by it. I don't see him telling anyone. It just wouldn't be cool. The fact that they were walked in on means that he'd understand why she couldn't do anything like that with him again. I don't see him getting all stalky or anything.

Rob

[> [> [> [> Re: I don't think he WOULD squeal. He got to make out and almost have sex with a teacher... -- LadyStarlight, 08:53:40 11/09/02 Sat

He seemed way too calm when Xander walked in on them. Kinda like it'd happened before and he'd charmed his way out of it.

[> [> Re: I thought it was clear -- Masq, 14:16:34 11/08/02 Fri

"Under CA law, only females are "protected" against unlawful sexual intercourse (i.e., statutory rape). It's open season on/for under-18 boys. (Cynical comment of course.)"

I've read through the California Statuatory rape laws, and it says nothing about either the gender of the adult or the minor in those laws. For it to be statuatory rape, certain kinds of physical conduct have to occur (forgetting details here), and one party has to be under 18, while the other is over 18 and at least 3 years older than the minor.

No exceptions for gender that I read about. Where did you find this info?

[> [> [> Why can't RJ be 18? Or Willow tidy up with magic? -- Steve, 14:37:05 11/08/02 Fri

He is shown as one of the older students in the school. While this doesn't clear up the mess entirely, it would get rid of the statutory rape business. But even if he's not 18, I don't think Buffy and RJ's conduct had reached the level required for a rape charge. Enough to get her fired, sure, but simple disbelief by the staff and the rest of the student body should help with that. Remember the principle was willing to take Dawn's word over the other jock's, and we can be pretty sure that RJ's track record with the principle is even worse.

Of course if all else fails, Willow could do a forgetting spell on the boy.

[> [> [> [> Re: Why can't RJ be 18? Or Willow tidy up with magic? -- Tyreseus, 15:01:12 11/08/02 Fri

Okay, I did a bit of digging on the legalities regarding CA law and school employee/student interaction.

Although the law doesn't differentiate regarding gender on statutory rape charges - district attorneys often do. While making leaps and bounds forward in gender equality, we still hold to certain beliefs. For instance: men can't BE raped, women are never the sexual agressors, etc. In fact, as far as I can tell, the only instances of statutory rape charges I can find in recent CA law (in a very brief search) with men as the victims included men as the victimizer, too. But you really don't want to get me started on the homophobic fears of people who buy into pedophile stereotypes.

Regarding the school employee/student relationship, there is no doubt that in the real world, Buffy would have been SO in the wrong. Even flirting with him would be cause for alarm in today's school system. Kissing him and straddling him are definately an example of innapropriate sexual behavior that would earn her a psychiatric evaluation, suspension, and possibly (if convicted) a lifelong requirement to identify herself to neighbors and employers as a sexual offender for the rest of her life. Sure, she probably would have recieved a reduced sentence (a probation period and community service) as a first time offender who isn't likely to repeat the crime, but still...

Since this isn't likely to be a plot the ME writers are eager to pursue, I assume that no one will ever find out about Buffy's attempted seduction of a student. Let's just chalk this one up on the "Sunnydale Police are Raving Idiots" tally.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Why can't RJ be 18? Or Willow tidy up with magic? -- 110v3w1110w, 00:03:19 11/09/02 Sat

it is totaly immpossible for a 16 year old male to be raped by someone looking like buffy

[> [> [> [> This is my view as well. More thoughts as well-- -- HonorH, 00:52:30 11/09/02 Sat

I'm going to take the stand that RJ didn't know about the jacket's power. His brother obviously didn't, and I'd think RJ would have been howling even more at Xander and Spike's larceny had he known the jacket was the source of his mojo (so to speak).

Secondly, I don't think anyone'll believe him now. The principal won't--all Buffy has to say is that he's lying, and Wood, obviously unimpressed to the max with RJ anyway, will take her word for it. Murky moral waters? Perhaps, but then, so was the whole love spell thing. I think a lie to avoid fallout is the simplest way to go. RJ may try to spread it around the school, but without his Mojo Jacket, will anyone believe him? I'm also fairly certain that, should other boys come to Buffy for "counseling," she'll disabuse them of their lascivious notions in short order.

Thirdly, I'm thinking a memory spell would be about the last thing Willow--or any of the Scoobies--would want. Besides, what with Sunnydale Denial Syndrome apparently still in full force, it's probably unnecessary.

Fourthly, someone at BC&S, I think, did a frame-by-frame and decided Buffy was sitting on the boy's chest rather than his crotch. As for her "lover" comment, all the girls were constructing fantasies around RJ; I wouldn't take it too seriously.

Finally, I'd really, really like RJ to have a run-in with Xander again. He could recognize Xander as one of the guys who stole the Mojo Jacket, and Xander could take him aside and explain what's what and why both Misses Summers are suddenly going out of their way to avoid him.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: This is my view as well. More thoughts as well-- -- DEN, 08:15:30 11/09/02 Sat

If RJ knows about the jacket, thestory loses a lot of its impact. I've sais I think the jacket is something unusual in the Buffyverse: a true magical object, whose impact is independent of the wearer's consciousness. That's part of why Willow's "spell checks" fail. It's not a spell but an enchantment that the Scoobies are facing.

[> [> [> Case authority -- Sophist, 18:59:06 11/08/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> Does "Case authority" mean...? -- Malandanza, 20:23:48 11/08/02 Fri

...that while the law doesn't specify a double standard for men and women, in practice it is the older men who are prosecuted while older women are not?

[> [> [> [> [> Correction/clarification -- Sophist, 20:43:57 11/08/02 Fri

Ya know, they shouldn't be allowed to amend statutes, especially in areas where I don't practice. Ahem...

The statute has been amended to be gender neutral. Earlier versions referred only to females and the cases upheld that against equal protection challenges (wrongly, in my view). That's now irrelevant.

After it passed the amendment, however, the Legislature added this language about its concerns (I'm quoting in full):

Sec. 2. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

"(a) Illicit sexual activity between adult males and teenage or younger girls in this state is resulting in the nation's highest teenage pregnancy and birth rate. In California, females under the age of 18 years gave birth to 28,065 children in 1994. Sixty-six percent of the fathers of those children were adult males, and 10,768 of those fathers were between the ages of 20 and 29 years. Many of these adult males are repeat offenders who have fathered more than one child by different teenage mothers, yet accept little or no responsibility for their actions or for the support of their children. The teenage birth rate and the number of teen pregnancies and births attributed to adult male fathers have risen significantly and consistently since 1982. In the United States, one in every 16 girls between the ages of 15 and 19 years has a child. In California, one in every eight children is born to a teenage mother.

"(b) California spent $3.08 billion in 1985 to assist families headed by teenagers. If those births had been delayed until the mothers were at least 20 years old, the state would have saved $1.23 billion in welfare and health care expenses.

"(c) Society can no longer ignore the disregard of statutory rape laws and the consequent increase in teenage pregnancies. The laws prohibiting adults from having sexual relations with persons under the age of 18 years must be more vigorously enforced. Adult males who prey upon minor girls must be held accountable for their conduct and accept responsibility for their actions.

"(d) It is the intent of the Legislature that district attorneys vigorously investigate and prosecute adults guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, particularly where that unlawful sexual intercourse results in pregnancy. It is also the intent of the Legislature to create civil liability for adults who engage in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor to help fund future efforts to prevent teenage pregnancy and deter adult sexual predators from victimizing minor girls."

This should give you a pretty good sense of how the District Attorneys interpret the statute.

Sorry for confusing things.

[> [> [> [> Recently "Nevada Case" Female teacher (OC) was convicted of statutory rape and other offenses. -- Briar Rose, 23:09:42 11/08/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Hadden case? -- Philistine, 13:58:21 11/09/02 Sat

If that's the one you mean, it involved some pretty hairy aggravating circumstances - which is generally what it takes before a woman will even be prosecuted for statutory rape, much less convicted and sentenced There's a related story at CNN.com which gives a few details of the Hadden case and touches on a few others as well:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/fyi/teachers.ednews/06/13/teacher.st udent.sex.ap/

Particularly telling are the judge's comments on sentencing in the New Jersey case. That judge is taking some well- deserved heat now, but there's still a lot less tolerance for adult males going for underage females than for the converse.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Hadden case? -- LadyStarlight, 14:48:44 11/09/02 Sat

, but there's still a lot less tolerance for adult males going for underage females than for the converse.

There's still a lot of cultural baggage around this issue. Mainly, that the boy/teen involved should be grateful for the experience. Because of this baggage, it's often not seen as abuse.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Crimes of status -- Sophist, 15:07:46 11/09/02 Sat

I guess I'm not much in favor of defining an act as a crime by the status of the victim rather than the impact on the victim. Whether something is abusive depends greatly on the attitudes and desires of both the participants and society. High school age kids are old enough that we should at least find out what they want before we indiscriminately label something as abuse.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Crimes of status -- LadyStarlight, 15:34:43 11/09/02 Sat

Okay, I can see your point.

This may be TMI, but it is germaine to the point, I think. I was involved with a 24 year old when I was 16. Totally consentual relationship, and that's what I would have said had anyone asked me.

However, it wasn't until years later that I realized how damaging that relationship was. Sometimes, no matter how mature a 15 to 17 year old is, they just don't have the life experience to back it up.

Not that I'm comparing that to R.J. getting a grope session from Buffy, you understand.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree w/ Sophist, yes - Haddon. -- Briar Rose, 16:14:46 11/09/02 Sat

the Haddon case was sort of unique because at the beginning the teen and the teacher both were ademant that no sexual relations had taken place. That she had removed him because his family life was abusive.

The case played out in such a way that noone outside the jury actually KNOWS what happened with the change in testimony. It wasn't until after the jury ruled that the teen changed his story to include sexual relations.

I think it has a lot to do with "public perception" versus "private choice" - it's always been okay for women to be in relationships with older men ( for reasons ranging from security to attraction to political motives) but younger men with older women is still seen as some type of deviant behavior by many. Assuming that a female teen is being "forced" and a male teen is "willing" is a matter of perspective. And most of it tends to be based on religion or other cultural theories and not on reality.

It's just as likely that a female teen is with an older male or female by free will as a male teen is. And even though it may produce "out of balance of power" relationships and later cause emotional regrets/scars, doesn't mean that all cases are the same or should be treated the same.

JMO

[> Agree, but.. -- Shiraz, 13:59:47 11/08/02 Fri

I'm going to stick to my guns and say RJ knew perfectly well what effect he had on the girls (whether or not he connected it with the jacket), and was exploiting it shamelessly to avoid work and eliminate rivals.

Therefore, I beleive he knew exactly what was going on when he was being "seduced" by Buffy.

Also I don't really beleive that Willow, Dawn, Anya and Buffy should suffer any conseqences (beyond embarassment) because ultimately there were no conseqences to their actions; i.e. Wood and Dawn: still alive, RJ: still a guy; Major property holders of Sunnydale: errr, had their goods and cash returned to them the very next morning with a note expressing heartfelt apologies (yeah, thats the ticket!).

-Shiraz

[> [> Re: Agree -- Arethusa, 14:14:20 11/08/02 Fri

IIRC, he deliberately planted the idea of Buffy getting the principal off his back in her mind, and practically thanked Dawn for taking care of his rival. I'm sure he knew about the jacket, but that makes me wonder why he didn't try to get it back from Xander and Spike, although maybe he didn't want to chase down two men-one a construction worker at his school (and possibly Buffy's SO), and the other a "compact yet muscular" man.

And I also believe that Anya returned the money. Hey, I can believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast....

[> [> [> Re: Agree -- Tyreseus, 14:36:40 11/08/02 Fri

I have a hard time seeing Anya returning the money - although I'm sure there will never again be mention of it one way or the other on the show. I can believe Anya the Capitalist, Anya the Communist, Anya the Vengeance Demon, Anya the fiance... but Anya the Apologetic Cat-burgler??

However, now that I'm thinking about it, how is Anya earning a living these days? I mean, the Magic Box hasn't been rebuilt by Xander Constuction Inc. yet. I presume that her vengeance demon weekly expense stipend has been suspended by d'Hoffryn, or at least tangled up in red tape. So maybe the reality is that Anya has finally found her identity - Anya the stealthy and blunt master thief! She stalks the rooftops of Sunnydale by night to maintain her stylish (and recently trashed by a demon) apartment.

[> [> [> [> I assume Anya will quietly use the money to rebuild the magic box. -- Steve, 14:38:56 11/08/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> Re: Agree -- Shiraz, 14:54:38 11/08/02 Fri

Leaving aside the whole messy business of how the scoobies support themselves (they have 1 and a half incomes, supporting 6 people at two addresses, and only one driver's licence between the lot of them).

I don't think Anya would keep the cash, there was just too much of it to hide. Besides that's a little too morally questionable for her reformed-demon statuts.

Maybe she's turned the Magic box into an online store shipping direct from the warehouse.

-Shiraz

[> [> [> [> [> Keeping the cash -- Tyreseus, 15:19:46 11/08/02 Fri

I count three addresses (Summers home, Xander's place and Anya's place) unless Anya has come to live in the Summers home. A minor quibble.

As for Anya not keeping the cash, why not? Is it morally quiestionable? Yeah. Is Anya the practical one who typically says/does what others only think to themselves? Yeah.

I can see Anya's thought process - "Well, I've already got the money. Those people I took it from have already filed their insurance claims. It's not like I ripped out anyone's hearts or anything. I'm much better at practical strategizing than Willow (except when she's evil). So I'll keep the money so that I can afford new furniture, and a jaunty new blouse, and a trip to the salon so I can straighten my hair like Buffy did at the Bronze."

Anya may be an ex-vengeance demon, but that doesn't mean she's suddenly leapt to perfect moral code. Let's not assume that because she felt really bad about killing people, she also feels bad about taking their children's college funds.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Keeping the cash -- Just George, 16:33:59 11/08/02 Fri

I'll bet that Anya keeps the money. She doesn't have any other income (no Magic Box and no Vengeance stipends) and she needs money to live. I think this is ME's way of deflecting the "how does Anya afford to live" question. It also shows that even though Anya is reformed, she s still a bit morally "grey".

Actually, if Anya keeps the money she stole it is an interesting demonstration of her development . Anya had embraced the capitalist ethic when she "grabbed on" to Giles and the Magic Box. Property rights are central to the effective functioning on capitalism. If Anya has decided to keep the money, she is taking a step away from adhering to some ones else's dogma and taking a step towards making her own decisions. She may not be making good decisions, but she is making them for herself!

-JG

[> [> [> [> [> Look out below -- pr10n, 16:50:50 11/08/02 Fri

Considering it's on the Hellmouth, does that make it a brick- and-Mordor?

Oh man, two in one day -- it must be the yellow paint in my office.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Ew! Bad pun! Somebody stomp on it! -- HonorH, 00:54:45 11/09/02 Sat

[> Button . . . pushed . . . stop . . . fist! -- HonorH, 00:40:40 11/09/02 Sat

DAWN'S NOT WHINY!!!!!

Okay, feeling better. Dawn hasn't been whiny this year at all except under a love spell that made them all act way out of whack. Gaaah, if I hear one more "whiny Dawn" comment, I'm gonna ask for chapter and verse of every single "whine" that's ever come out of Dawn's mouth, and you know what? There ain't that many!

Okay, *now* I think I feel better. Nothing to see here, folks, move it along . . .

[> [> Re: Button . . . pushed . . . stop . . . fist! -- LadyStarlight, 12:02:03 11/09/02 Sat

I kind of have to agree with you. I don't see Dawn as whiny either; just that she indulged in histrionics. Which was, IMHO, a way to get all those grown-up type people to quit angsting about whomever they were sleeping with and LISTEN to her for a bit. YMMV.

[> I have to say that scene made me really uncomfortable... -- Lilac, 05:22:39 11/09/02 Sat

because in October, a library aid in my son's high school was busted for having sex with three 16 & 17 year old boys (not at the same time, thank god) in a number of locations including several on the school grounds. I can assure you that this did not play out for laughs in real life. That woman, herself the mother of 6 sons from the ages of 8 through early 20's, is still sitting in jail as far as I know because no one will bail her out. Seems her husband is a mite perturbed with her.

The scene with Buffy and R.J. made me almost as uncomfortable as the AR in Seeing Red. There wasn't the same violence, physical or emotional, that the AR carried, but the betrayal of trust seemed just as real to me.

As far as the real life situation goes, I must say that this is the only time in my son's life that I have been pleased to say that he avoids the library like the plague.

My analysis of "Supersymmetry" is up -- Masquerade, 13:46:17 11/08/02 Fri

Here.

And while I'm on the subject of "Angel", does anyone have the scoop on how many episodes they plan to air before the holidays? It's usually ten, but a couple reputable websites I've visited say there will be NO NEW EPS between Nov. 17 and Jan 5!!!

Lapsing into a state of catatonia

[> Re: My analysis of "Supersymmetry" is up (Spoilers, Supersymmetry) -- Rahael, 14:29:37 11/08/02 Fri

Thanks Masq!

Just a quick thought. Fred realises that the person she looked up to was all the time the reason for her years of hell in Pylea. The kind, paternal academic-mentor.

Doesn't this fit in nicely with the theme of familial tension, the breaking of illusion and especially, conflict with the 'father'? The father being Seidel, Angel (for COnnor), Wesley's past as well as his tensions with Angel.

And Fred also discovers a new side to Fred.

Apologies if this has already been discussed. I didn't have much time to read the board when all this was going on.

[> [> Re: My analysis of "Supersymmetry" is up (Spoilers, Supersymmetry) -- Masq, 14:39:30 11/08/02 Fri

I knew the theme of vengeance was a common theme for ME of late--Connor taking out vengeance on Angel, Angel taking out vengeance on Wesley (and therefore being a tad bit hypocritical in this ep), and Fred taking out vengeance on Prof. Seidel.

I hadn't thought of it in terms of vengeance on father figures, exactly, although in Connor and Fred's case, I think you have a point!

Oh, and I don't recall this as a topic of discussion earlier this week--although there was a LOT of discussion of the ep, as you can see from my copious ATPo-poster quotage!

[> I'm not sure yet as the the schedule.... -- Rufus, 16:08:30 11/08/02 Fri

But just think.....Joss Whedon wrote and directed this latest ep..Spin the Bottle....:):):):):)

[> [> Did you see the interview with Joss about it at the WB Angel site? -- Masq, 16:51:08 11/08/02 Fri

http://www.thewb.com/Faces/Interview/0,8114,78946,00.html

[> [> [> Yes, I saw you posted that yesterday and it's on the Trollop Board now. -- Rufus, 17:38:21 11/08/02 Fri

[> According to a spoilery article on Sci Fi Wire Jeff Bell says ep 7 is last before Christmas break. -- Rufus, 18:00:19 11/08/02 Fri

Spoiler Article with Jeff Bell

[> [> Re: According to a spoilery article.... - - Masq, 07:56:57 11/09/02 Sat

Well, I'm not going to read it because of the "Spoiler" thing, but I am going go have severe stomach cramps now...

[> [> [> Oh, and Rufus? -- Masq, 08:14:14 11/09/02 Sat

Since I'm not going to read the article, could you tell me what reason he gives for doing this? If it's spoilery to the story, just say, "story reasons", 'cause it seems like a really bad idea, publicity- wise and ratings-wise.

[> [> [> [> Masq, I read it, and... (no spoilers) -- Rob, 11:27:25 11/09/02 Sat

...it seems like it's story-reasons. The article's spoilers were vague about what happens in ep 7, but it seems like it's gonna be something big. They may have wanted that type of huge climax/probably cliffhanger as the last ep before the break. Not that I don't think that pretty much stinks. Is this a record for the shortest amount of Buffy/Angel eps before a holiday break?

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> Otoh, it means part 2 of the season will have a lot more continuity. -- alcibiades, 12:33:04 11/09/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> And a lot more new episodes! : ) -- Masq, 13:46:14 11/09/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> Ok, ok, that makes sense, and will be great in spring. Guess I'm just Immediate Gratification Boy! -- Rob, 18:06:40 11/09/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> Actually No -- Rufus, 17:29:15 11/09/02 Sat

I can only see it this way....I'd rather suffer over a season where there is a surfeit of Chocolate, bright shiny lights and presents, than the suffering during the spring break....so more Angel after Christmas...hell during that season I have lots to do so it's not that bad.

[> Woo hoo! My second quotage on a Masq analysis (and my first for an AtS ep)! -- Rob, 20:11:14 11/08/02 Fri

[> [> Spoilery AtS (S4-6?) November 10 anyway.... -- Briar Rose, 23:05:38 11/08/02 Fri

Anyone else thinking the plot from "Tabula Rosa" has been resurrected, reworked and empowered for the upcoming eppy?

From TV guide: Loren casts a spell to get Cordelia to remember her past. It backfires and turns all the Angel Crew into their teenage selves. No one knows each other or remembers each other.

It sounds like Tabula Rosa except for the reverting to teenage personality. And wouldn't Cordy still remember Angel if she reverted to a teenage time in memories and personality, unless they mean 13 or 14?

[> Re: My analysis of "Supersymmetry" is up -- Sang, 13:37:02 11/09/02 Sat

The first time I was quated in ATPoBtVS&AtS. Great!..

BTW, when I told about this specific ep of Angel to Physics people (Grads, Profs etc). Immediate reaction by almost all of them was "there must be physics grad student behind it!". I originally rejected that idea because of the weird conference room setting. Then I realized that it was director's ignorance that made mistakes.

So I now think, maybe one of two new writers is (or was) majoring string theory or something like it in grad school. The reason is not because the details of string theory, but because if there is anyone who really want to snap professor's head and dump his body into hell, he/she must be a grad student.

By any other name? OT -- Jay (formerly JBone), 20:52:31 11/08/02 Fri

Hi, my name is Jay.

It's weird seeing my name like that after all this time. I've been fascinated by the "why I post" thread down below started by Finn Mac Cool and hijacked by dream of the consortium. And the discourse there has prompted me to do something that I have been thinking about for a while. I'm shedding this pseudonym for my real name. But ya'll can still call me JBone if you want.

The reasons are numerous and the really don't mean anything, but I'm going to tell ya anyway. Let's go back when I first started posting. Not here, but still, everyone had really cool, made up names. I had this nickname that I kind of enjoyed, so I joined in the fun. You can be who you want to be. But unfortunately, JBone is the farm boy that I've never been able to civilize. This includes bodily functions in the great wide open and all that yee-haw stuff that doesn't translate well to text.

Then I found this site and eventually this board. I was and continue to be impressed by the level of analysis and debate. Almost immediately I felt my education was insufficient, so while I read the more scholastic posts, I only responded to the more emotional posts. I started a few myself. And I'll admit, I've tried to peck a fight here and there. But I was so happy I found a site that argued and pondered the more technical aspects, I was determined to find a place.

This whole time I recognized that there was a community, but I never felt part of it. Really, I'm surprised that I was never accused of trollism. I guess I had too many moments (moments, not movements) in between where I was nice. But all the while, what kept me coming back was my love of this damn tv show, and what you people added to the experience. I even hunted that ego building white buffalo of a post that sparked conversation beyond what I myself posted. To little, if any, success.

Then something interesting happened. I've always been a big sports fan, and I got bored enough to work my love of this tv show into a tournament with a field of 64 that I oversaw. I screwed this up along the way. But as I was doing it, the pre-games that I told myself that the endeavor needed, forced me to look at characters from their pov's (points of view). I failed miserably in some cases, but for how partisan I was beforehand, I surprised myself a little when I started understanding characters that I never cut a break before.

Even better, I started feeling a part of this wonderful community. Regulars that I recognized and respected were responding to something that I was administrating and they were enjoying it. What a f*cking head rush! They're actually accepting me. I was walking on air for weeks. Until my tiebreakers came into play, anyway.

Where was I going with this? I don't know. But try this. You won't be seeing essays from me like the ones OnM, shadowkat, and Rufus can turn out. At the most, you'll see my initial thoughts on an episode. Before all the metaphor analysis makes it's way on the board. If you think I'm attacking someone, I hope you can see it for the load of crap it probably is. Cause there is some good ole boy stuff I just can't get rid of. Luckily, Rufus and Rob have given me the benefit of a doubt lately. And HonorH wacked the hell out of the ball I teed up for her with my troll post. Mostly, I'll keep reading and kicking in a smart ass remark here and there. If I have a thought that I think others have overlooked (unlikely, but possible), I'll pitch that in.

What does all of this have to do with me using my real name? Not much, except I don't want to be JBone full time anymore. And this is a conscience attempt to leave the meaner aspects of my former postings behind. Can you feel the love? Don't make me shake my ass, I'm not Shakira.

Did I tell you, I love these shows?

[> Cool! Another "real-namer" joins the ranks! -- Rob, 22:45:35 11/08/02 Fri

Glad to have ya in the club, Jay! I personally like using my real name. Back in my full-time Xena fandom days, I was known as "Xenafreak," and that was kind of fun, but for me, there's just something about people responding to and knowing my real name that I like. Not making a dig at anyone who uses psudonyms...I just prefer using my real name. Which I already said. Not very interesting story, is it? lol.

I can't exactly remember which post you said I gave you the benefit of the doubt on at the moment, but I'm sure you deserved it. ;o) I really do enjoy your posts, long essays or short, good ol' boy responses. Whatever, I'll read it. I read just about everything that gets posted that doesn't have "future spoilers" in the title.

And I think it's cool that you wanna use your real name now. Nice to "meet" you...again, Jay!

Rob

[> [> Re: Cool! Another "real-namer" joins the ranks! -- Jay, 16:32:12 11/09/02 Sat

I think that the post that I was referring to was a reply to your "10 reasons I hate 'Him'" post. I felt I was obvious that I was poking fun, but I'm not always certain how well sarcasm comes across in text. I was just crediting you for recognizing the dry humor.

Anyway, thanks for the hearty welcome. Giving up an established identity can be a little scary, but habit breaking. Which is a good thing, I think. I've come to admire those who can carry on multiple identities on a board, without much, if any, confusion to who they really are. I was trying to do this a short time back when I was looking for a "virtuous" identity. And we ended up coming up with MagicBone, which is truly a wacky identity. Just think you, Rob, only more hyper with clown makeup. Add in some physical humor, and I think you know where I'm going.

Unfortunately, MagicBone demands energy and devotion that I just can't spew out on impulse. Stay tuned, he may be back later.

[> LOL......I'm not Shakira -- Rufus, 23:00:36 11/08/02 Fri

And I'm not changing my name.....I like my name. Thanks for mentioning me with other people who actually make some sense. Off to giggle about the Shakira line again.....;)

[> I'll give up "JBone," if I have to, but I hope we get to keep "MagicBone!" -- dub ;o), 23:05:03 11/08/02 Fri

Seriously Jay, you're an integral part of this community, no matter what you call yourself. And the game was one of the few things that made this long, long summer bearable.

Glad you're here, buddy.

;o)

[> [> You don't have to give up anything -- Jay, 07:45:31 11/09/02 Sat

In fact, I don't believe you've seen the last of JBone. I'm sure I'll feel the need to rub my horns on some post sometime. And MagicBone, well, he's just too damn whacky to make any kind of prediction on.

[> Congrats! And enjoy your stay! -- Earl Allison, 03:53:27 11/09/02 Sat

Glad to have you here to post interesting things on the boards -- and your summer games were truly excellent!

Take it and run.

[> Nice to meet you, Jay.... -- LadyStarlight, 07:06:21 11/09/02 Sat

...pull up a chair & stay awhile.

[> Re: By any other name? OT -- Rahael, 07:13:22 11/09/02 Sat

Nice post. And I loved the tournament. Though not as much as dH was....I think he was obsessed. The first thing he'd ask me when I came online was "have you voted? go vote!"

[> [> Re: By any other name? OT -- Jay, 16:53:17 11/09/02 Sat

I noticed d'Herb's interest, where in the hell has he been lately anyway? He was definitely was one of the many that made the whole thing worthwhile. He was supportive early on, throughout, and his comments in the championship match, absolutely cracked me up. I think he has a future.

[> [> [> I'm right here! -- d'Herblay, 15:52:00 11/10/02 Sun

I suppose that to all appearances I might as well be another lurker, but I have my reasons. I figure that next summer, the obvious sequel will be a tournament of ATPo posters (my current thinking on the number one seeds? shadowkat, OnM, HonorH and either Darby or dubdub), and I'm trying to lower my profile so as to raise my odds. It's not how you do in the regular season, after all; it's all what you bring to the big dance!

Anyway, a warm and hearty welcome to Jay, who I don't expect to be all too different from JBone, but you never know. Myself, I'll stick with my pseudonym, but only because my real-world name (Daedalus Manwitch VanPrilydrizzt) would cause far too much confustion.

[> [> [> [> Now THAT could be cutthroat - - Tchaikovsky, 16:08:27 11/10/02 Sun

Just imagine the little comments posted underneath where we criticised one character over the other.

'I'm voting for d'Herblay because Tchaikovsky has no right to be in this competition in the first place. He/She has no sense of essay structure, grammar, uses English word forms, constucts long unreadable sentences, and seems to spend his/her time warbling round the edge of a completely different issue rather than actually attempting to reply to a totally legitimate post. And his/her 1812 Overture is just too loud'.

TCH

[> Good for you! -- ponygirl, 07:51:23 11/09/02 Sat

That's my brother's name so if I occasionally write "Jay you doofus" don't take it personally, it's just habit.

[> [> Re: Good for you! -- Jay, 16:55:47 11/09/02 Sat

Well, I've got four sisters, so I doubt that it would phase me much.

[> Hey, Jay! -- HonorH, 13:45:03 11/09/02 Sat

Fully understand your reasons for posting under your real name here. My pseudonym has kind of taken on a life of her own (not to mention a second personality) over the years, too, and I've thought about going to my real name. Unfortunately, it's common and boring, so no. But hey--to each his or her own (and maybe just a smidge more), and I look forward to chatting with you, Jay.

Katie

[> [> Re: Let the self-outing continue! -- pr10n (who is Kurt), 14:36:20 11/09/02 Sat

You know, this thread makes a powerful statement about the positive nature of this board-community: that folks are willing to reveal "stuff" about their IRL selves.

I spend a lot of time here, lurking mostly, since I am currently self-employed and my own webmaster so muhaha unlimited surfing uptime except for the client writing demands. I don't mind sharing a little bit of my life with ATPoBtVS, because it seems so natural to talk about Buffy in a real-life context. That's a tribute to ME, not some fanboy dateless rant -- [look l look r] I know that Buffy is TV, but it feels so real!

And so, much joy to the Poster Formerly Known as JBone for the summer time games, and hurrah for Jay and all the rest of the "new" board participants.

This is not to say I won't continue posting as "pr10n" who is a large part of my on-line participation -- "pr10n 8urn8ag" is the full name, oh-the-geekiness -- but I'm a real guy on this end of the monitor, and I'm glad you folks are out here with me.

[> [> [> Re: Let the self-outing continue! - - Jay, 17:24:13 11/09/02 Sat

Self-employed, how's that working out? I'm asking because I'm seriously considering starting my own business with a buddy of mine. The company that I've worked for the last 9 years went corporate last year. And I find out more every day that I really don't belong in the corporate world. Growing up the son of a dirt farmer, I always thought that I'd leave covering the paycheck to someone else. Even knowing all these risks, and seeing the downside firsthand, I'm sorely tempted to make the leap.

[> [> [> [> Re: Let the self-insuring continue! -- pr10n, 18:48:09 11/09/02 Sat

Self-employed, how's that working out?

I gotta tell ya, it's not a breeze. When I was laid off from my corporate tech writing job, I fluffed around on my severance pay and finally took a job with a company that went splat 2 months later, without paying me for the last month. Thanks for nuttin'.

Then I took contract work and freelancing for former coworkers, which was ok at first, if nervewracking: you're not really an employee, but you have to meet deadlines, blahblah. My wife mentioned that if I hunted down my own clients I could set my own prices and scope the projects myself... but the discussion didn't evolve into decisions.

Then one of the owners of my biggest client bought out the other owners and summarily dismissed all the "1099 guys" (refering to the US tax code for contractors). Poof, I was on rapidly dwindling income.

So we decided to leap into the self-employed thing, for a while at least, with me being manacled-to-keyboard guy and wife as, let us say with kindness, manager. And so far it's ok, but it's only been 2 months. Ask me in 2 more! :)

I do spend more time with wife and kids, for good and ill, but this hunting and gathering clients thing is tough.

What are your hopes and fears? My story is not utter bleakness and selling-of-child-to-feed-other-children, is it?

[> [> [> Why can't I get this? -- Wisewoman, 17:58:13 11/10/02 Sun

Is it the brain injury? Is it just blatant stupidity? HELP!!

pr10n 8urn8ag

I always thought your first name might be "pertinent" but that doesn't really work, and your surname started out at "eternity" something but then I lost it, and my head hurts...

*moan* *whimper* okay, okay *WHINE!* Are you happy now?

dub ;o)

[> [> [> [> Re: Why can't I get this? -- pr10n, 19:24:27 11/10/02 Sun

'cause it's overly lame and you have a built in filter?

Prions are proteins, smaller and less comlex then viruses, that doctors think are the nasties behind mad cow disease. So for a cyber-uber-punk-wannabe, "better" than a virus. The hacker elite-spelling uses 1 and 0 instead of "i" and "o" for a pun -- I/O being a term for data in/out, and 1 and 0 being that data.

Whereas you, being a reader of English, are trying to "license plate" the name, a valid decoding approach, with the decipher technique correct but with the wrong premise.

(This is so TMI now, but I'm hypnotized by myself -- HELP! I can't stop talking about me!)

So 8urn8ag = burnbag, and the psuedohacker biohazard circle is complete, and NOW I can never come back to this board unless I post as "BasementVamp" or something equally mundane.

P.S. My Evil Alter Ego name is "pr0ng" and that's nothing more than a vulgar spin on my...

(KNOCK KNOCK -- CRASH! No one expects the Spanish Inquisition of Pretention Police! Our chief weapons are fear and surprise and... and... zzzzz. zzzzzz. zzzzz.)

[> [> [> [> [> D'oh! Thanks ;o) -- dub, 20:05:24 11/10/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> LOL! I was wondering too -- Rahael, 06:14:25 11/11/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> Happy to help :) -- B@sementV@mp, 07:09:18 11/11/02 Mon

[> Mazol Tov (I'm a real namer too.) -- darrenK, 19:22:34 11/09/02 Sat

[> We enjoy the contributions of both personalities : ) -- Masquerade (AKA Nancy), 20:16:19 11/09/02 Sat

[> Re: By any other name? OT -- aliera, 21:22:48 11/09/02 Sat

wooosh.

(ok, haven't read the replies and what not...sorry)

It was never about the long dead philosphers (or the length of your post, sexual reference intended...if not wise) or your ability to dissect the hole in someone's argument or their grammar... as nice as those things are... and much desired... as is, and much like, my complete inability to withstand "Death by Chocolate XXX" or that cute guy in the letter jacket. No wait...he turned out to be a bore, verbally and...sorry, again, I digress.

But,

Welcome...

Jay

...and, I'll continue to look for your posts (under either incarnation.)

Current board | More November 2002