November 2003 posts


Previous November 2003  

More November 2003

Buffy- meaning -- angel's nibblet, 15:56:04 11/10/03 Mon

Found this while randomly searching for name meaning's of Buffy characters:

http://www.baby-names-world.com/profile.php?name=Buffy

Means 'God's promise' does it? *scratches non-existent female beard in thoughtful manner*

Haha I see 67% of people hate the name, sad sad sad.

I've always been interested in the significance that the character's names have to their personality/ role they play in the shows, as many of them seem quite aptly picked, whether this was planned or not.

There are other ones of course, for instance Winifred apparently means "friend of peace"

Replies:

[> Kendra -- angel's nibblet, 16:32:33 11/10/03 Mon

Here's another one:

http://www.baby-names-world.com/profile.php?name=Kendra

That's interesting isn't it? Kendra was all about the knowledge, she was very much what Watcher's Council vision of the perfect slayer; well read, isolated from her family, no friends, and her life was completely devoted to her slaying...

[> [> Procrastinating at work? Who me? -- Sheri, 15:30:23 11/11/03 Tue

Buffy-God's Promise
Faith-trust, faith
Joyce-rejoicing
Dawn-dawn
Oz-strength
Willow-freedom
Rupert-Bright Fame
Giles-baby goat
William-valiant protector
Spike-long, heavy nail
Liam-unwavering protector
Angel-Angelic
Darla-Dear, Loved One
Drusilla-Mighty
Cordelia-rope, heart, a sea jewel
Tara-rocky hill, tower
Kennedy-helmeted chief
Riley-valiant
Winnifred-friend of peace
Fred-Peaceful Ruler
Kendra-understaning, knowledge
(Ale)Xander-protector of mankind
Anya-Gracious
Wesley-west meadow
Lilah-Night
Lindsey-Linden Trees Near the Water
Daniel (Holtz):my judge is the Lord
Jasmine-gift from God
Connor-Much wanted (awe, sniff!)

[> [> [> Isn't it interesting that William and Liam mean almost exactly the same thing? -- angel's nibblet, 15:41:10 11/11/03 Tue

In fact if you chop off the Wil...but now I'm just stating the obvious

[> Xander, Giles, and Willow -- Vickie, 08:27:47 11/11/03 Tue

Alexander is protector of mankind (true).

Willow, they believe, is a male's name.

And Giles (poor fellow!) means a baby goat.

[> [> Rupert, however, means 'bright flame', awwwwww -- angel's nibblet, 15:37:52 11/11/03 Tue


[> [> [> So... Rupert Giles = Bright Flaming Baby Goat? -- Sheri, who is wondering about connections to Abraham/Isaac, 17:15:43 11/11/03 Tue


[> [> [> [> Now THAT is a disturbing image *blink* ! -- Vesica, 07:14:22 11/12/03 Wed


[> [> [> Isn't knowledge represented by a flame sometimes? -- DorianQ, 22:31:42 11/12/03 Wed


[> [> [> Bright FAME I think (from the German rod bert) to ease the mind of and juvenile caprine readers -- Celebaelin, 04:37:35 11/13/03 Thu


[> [> Re: Willow -- skeeve, 07:42:14 11/12/03 Wed

In the movie Willow, the title character was a male.
OT: Electronic Voting Debacle -- dmw, 10:59:57 11/13/03 Thu

Electronic voting, which in 2000 brought us the wonder of a small precinct in Florida casting -16,000 votes for Gore (yes, they registered a negative number of votes), brought us the spectacle last week of Boone County (population 19,000) returning approximately 144,000 votes (see the IndyStar article.)

Despite the reliability and security problems that plague electronic voting, voting machine manufacturers refuse to address such issues and claim their machines work fine, despite ample evidence (link to SecurityFocus summary article) to the contrary. The above article asks:

So, how do you know that the machine actually counted your vote? You don't! Oh sure, you may see a screen at the end of the process that shows you what you selected ... but how do you know that those choices are actually tabulated? The answer: trust the companies that make the machines. But that attitude, if it ever made sense, has been shown to be not just wrong but foolhardy in the past several months.


How do we know that our votes have been cast? Why are companies like Diebold that make the machines so reluctant to produce paper receipts so we can see what our votes were and recount them later? Why is electronic voting such a mess in the US when it seems to work fine in Australia, where the process and the software that implements it is completely open?


Replies:

[> Re: OT: Electronic Voting Debacle -- Sophist, 12:35:03 11/13/03 Thu

a small precinct in Florida casting -16,000 votes for Gore (yes, they registered a negative number of votes)

Geez, that makes Gore's win there even more impressive. :)

So, how do you know that the machine actually counted your vote? You don't! Oh sure, you may see a screen at the end of the process that shows you what you selected ... but how do you know that those choices are actually tabulated?

Hmm. This seems to be addressed to an individual voter. But, of course, an individual voter has no such assurance from any machine system because the ballots, being secret and all, can't be identified once they've been cast. Merely because I punched out some numbers or filled in some ovals doesn't guarantee that anyone actually counted my ballot. I take that on faith.

Every system has error rates. Obvious errors such as negative vote totals are actually preferable -- they're easier to spot and fix than small subtle ones. OTOH, it only makes sense to demand testing of a new system before adopting it on a wide scale.

[> [> Re: OT: Electronic Voting Debacle -- dmw, 13:20:00 11/13/03 Thu

Hmm. This seems to be addressed to an individual voter. But, of course, an individual voter has no such assurance from any machine system because the ballots, being secret and all, can't be identified once they've been cast. Merely because I punched out some numbers or filled in some ovals doesn't guarantee that anyone actually counted my ballot. I take that on faith.

It's true that paper ballot systems aren't as transparent as we might like, but paper ballots are much more transparent than electronic ballots, particularly to the people who monitor the security and reliability of the elections. You also have an audit trail and the possibility of recounting with paper ballots.

Every system has error rates. Obvious errors such as negative vote totals are actually preferable -- they're easier to spot and fix than small subtle ones.

That may be true, but what does the fact that the developers of such systems have made such large and obvious errors say about their quality control process in general? Nothing good, and in fact, as reported by the article quoted in my post above, Diebold's voting machines were found to have 328 security problems (26 of them considered critical).

They also maintain multiple sets of books for recording votes, one of which is visible to the ordinary user (such as the election official verifying that counting is being carried out in a proper manner), but the other of which is used for actual counting of votes. Neither is password protected and both can be modified without leaving any auditing trail behind that indicates they were changed. Even if it did log your changes, you could erase the audit trail afterwards since the system uses read/write magnetic media.

[> [> [> Re: OT: Electronic Voting Debacle -- Sophist, 13:52:27 11/13/03 Thu

paper ballots are much more transparent than electronic ballots, particularly to the people who monitor the security and reliability of the elections. You also have an audit trail and the possibility of recounting with paper ballots.

I agree that collectively paper ballots are somewhat more transparent. There is still the problem of theft or loss of the ballots, which is similar to the electronic problems you describe. Voting machines like those used in NY give rise to problems similar to the computerized systems. I see these problems as generically similar, different only in the way they express themselves. It's all data and the only issues are of storage and preservation.

what does the fact that the developers of such systems have made such large and obvious errors say about their quality control process in general?

That they need to make improvements. Seriously, I don't expect new systems to work perfectly the first time through. I expect real world performance to identify issues undiscoverable in the lab. I see the use of such machines in small areas as a form of beta testing that will, hopefully, work the bugs out.

Neither is password protected and both can be modified without leaving any auditing trail behind that indicates they were changed. Even if it did log your changes, you could erase the audit trail afterwards since the system uses read/write magnetic media.

Yes, though data recovery systems on computers these days can usually identify such changes. The possibility of corruption here, like the possibility of theft of paper ballots, doesn't strike me as reason alone to disqualify a system. Everything human is corruptible. Except Buffy, of course.

There is a system that is both transparent and nearly foolproof: open voting in which a voter declares a preference in front of his neighbors and friends and watches as the official records the vote on a public tally. This was the most common method of voting in the US prior to the 1870s. That system had its own deficiencies -- voters could be pressured to vote a preferred way by their employer or their machine boss. The historical evidence is that the shift to secret, and therefore nontransparent systems, led to less corruption.

[> [> [> [> Re: OT: Electronic Voting Debacle -- dmw, 14:48:30 11/13/03 Thu

Seriously, I don't expect new systems to work perfectly the first time through.

2003 was not the first, or even the second or third election, in which such systems have been deployed. My problem is not that they don't work perfectly, but that such systems show little if any concern or knowledge of computer security basics or quality control techniques.

I see the use of such machines in small areas as a form of beta testing that will, hopefully, work the bugs out.

One of the problems is that they're doing large scale deployments of these unreliable and insecure systems already. Look at the 2002 Georgia election debacle.

Yes, though data recovery systems on computers these days can usually identify such changes.

It's fairly easy to avoid detection by such software systems with a basic understanding of operating systems (I teach a unit on computer forensics), and while an atomic level microscope can find almost any alteration, they're fairly rare and quite expensive (the last quote I saw was $50,000 to look at one hard disk.)

The possibility of corruption here, like the possibility of theft of paper ballots, doesn't strike me as reason alone to disqualify a system. Everything human is corruptible.

The question isn't whether the systems are perfect, but whether it's more reliable and secure than what we have, and the answer is clear that the computer voting systems widely deployed in the US are worse on both counts than the commonly used paper systems. I'm not saying that you can't create a secure and reliable computer voting system, because people can (remember my mention of the good Australian system in my original post?), but there's no reason to rush into computer voting systems that are worse than our current system like we've been doing for the past few years.

At the very least, a computer voting system should provide:


We also need to ensure that such audits are performed before the deployment of any such systems and that the checksums are verified during every election in which such systems are used. We also need to ensure that people who verify elections have sufficient information security expertise to be able to perform their jobs as ably using electronic voting as they can with paper voting. That's going to require a lot of training, as the comments made by the elections boards on these matters so far display complete ignorance of such matters and leaked internal memos from Diebold have demonstrated how vendors play on that ignorance to deceive elections officials and alter voting records during elections.

We should not deploy computer voting systems for any election until these basic concerns have been addressed. Then we should deploy them only in small areas so we can gain real world experience with their potential problems, as you suggested.


[> [> [> Re: OT: Electronic Voting Debacle -- Ann, 10:23:20 11/14/03 Fri

As an employer they are not very kind to their employees. My coworker's husband works for Diebold. He is not compensated for his time. The expectations are very strict despite his good effort. From what she tells me, Diebold moves employees around the country repeatedly with no regard to their family situations and does not pay for the move. Overall it sounds like a horrible company to work for.

The tale about the voting machines that they give their employees is that there are errors in all machinery and programs. The fact that Diebold has political power and are in bed with the politicians is not considered to be an issue, she says, because all large companies have this situation. They do fund raisers for Bush. Senator Hegel (R-NE), is part owner of a similar company. I personally find it frightening that this happens and that this is not a bigger story in this country. A month or two ago, this story was featured in (I believe) The Independant in England.

[> Re: OT: Electronic Voting Debacle -- Eloise519, 13:46:36 11/13/03 Thu

I'm concerned, too. Just heard a radio discussion on this topic. Thanks for posting your thoughts and the article links. I have little faith in this e-voting technology which is proprietary and flawed. I understand some of the new voting machines used in the Cali recall were not tested or certified properly. Kinda missing the old days when you had to be physically present to steal a ballot box or intimidate voters to win an election.

[> Re: OT: Electronic Voting Debacle -- Vegeta, 14:59:24 11/13/03 Thu

DMW - "Electronic voting, which in 2000 brought us the wonder of a small percentage in Florida casting -16,000 votes for Gore..."

What in the hell are you talking about? Apparently, the sky is a much different color in your world, because that isn't what happened. There were no "negative" votes for Gore. There were a inordinate amount for Patrick Buchanon that did not jive with the national average. Regardless, Gore never led once in the state of Florida. Then with the help of the Florida Supreme Court, (that likes to legislate from the bench) attempted to allow the Gore team to count a voters intent and conduct a recount in counties of their choosing.
Basically, the Bush team siteing that the Florida Supreme Court's decision was unconstitutional, had the case pushed (incorrect wording, you know what I mean) to the Federal Supreme Court. The Federal Supreme Court decided that indeed the Florida Supreme Court's decision was unconstitutional and told them to fix it. Forty Five minutes later the head of the DNC said that Al Gore should concede.
That is the really basic short version of what happened. I just get really tired of people who still think that what happened in Florida was some kind of travisty. What the Gore team was doing was illelgal, plain and simple. If you're are gonna win an election at least try to play fair.

[> [> RTFA -- dmw, 15:47:03 11/13/03 Thu

In the real world, precinct 216's electronic voting machines produced -16022 negative votes for Gore. It happened. It's documented. RTFA. The Pat Buchanon issue was completely different--in another precinct and not related to electronic voting machines.

The rest of your article reads like a kneejerk reaction to something I didn't say. I never claimed that Gore did or should have won in Florida. I didn't vote for Gore in the election, and I have no personal interest in whether he should have won.

However, I do care about the spread of flawed electronic voting techniques in the US. As the article states, the negative votes were detected (I could hardly talk about them if they hadn't been) and didn't influence the election, but the fact that we found one error doesn't mean we detected all of them and, as you'd know, if you'd read the article instead of spouting off, there are many other problems with Diebold's voting machines. I think it's important that people know about these problems and discuss them instead of blindly accepting unreliable and insecure methods of counting votes like sheep.

[> [> This is a different subject, but since you brought it up.... -- Sophist, 16:01:12 11/13/03 Thu

There were no "negative" votes for Gore. There were a inordinate amount for Patrick Buchanon that did not jive with the national average.

You're talking about a different subject. dmw is talking about electronic voting. You're referring to the "butterfly ballot" in Palm Beach which confused some elderly Gore voters into voting for Pat Buchanan. Different counties, different issues.

Gore never led once in the state of Florida.

I don't think you mean this literally. The vote was so close there were swings both ways.

In any case, Gore actually did win FL. The key is in understanding the 2 different problems with the vote there. (Actually, there were more than 2 problems, but I'm only referring to the two most discussed.)

The first issue was the one involving the punch card ballots with hanging chads. This is the one that caught everyone's attention and was the issue that Gore argued in the courts. This is what they call the "undervote" case. "Undervote" means that a ballot was cast but no vote was recorded.

The recount done by the newspapers showed that most standards for evaluating these ballots left Bush leading.

However, there was another issue with the ballots called the "overvote" issue. An "overvote" occurred when, for example, someone filled in the circle on an optical scan ballot and wrote in the name of a candidate. Doing both of these things caused the ballot to be rejected. Rejecting such a ballot is fine if the voter filled in the box for Gore but wrote in Bush's name. The issue was what to do about the voter who filled in the box for Bush and wrote in Bush's name. That voter clearly intended to vote for Bush, but his/her vote was not counted.

Neither Bush nor Gore protested the exclusion of these ballots. That turned out to be a mistake by Gore: the newspaper recount showed that he would have won by several thousand votes if these ballots had been counted. That is what I mean when I say Gore actually won. There are other senses in which that's also true, but I won't go into them here.

the Florida Supreme Court, (that likes to legislate from the bench) attempted to allow the Gore team to count a voters intent

That was not the FL court, it was the language of the FL statute passed by a legislature that was 70% Republican and signed into law by Bush's brother. It is the same requirement that exists, AFAIK, in every single state. Ironically, George Bush signed such a law in Texas when he was governor there.

Federal Supreme Court decided that indeed the Florida Supreme Court's decision was unconstitutional

Yes, the Supreme Court did do this. However, very few legal experts, even very conservative ones, will defend the Supreme Court here. The Supreme Court's decision is generally considered indefensible on the merits. If anybody cares about this, I'll explain why but the explanation is pretty technical and very long.

[> [> [> Re: This is a different subject, but since you brought it up.... -- Eloise519, 09:55:53 11/14/03 Fri

I'm interested in the explanation. The Supreme Court's decision was blatantly partisan. Many of Court's decisions prior to the Presidential Selection upheld state's rights issues. Then the timely switcheroo...

[> [> [> [> Maybe it would be best -- Sophist, 10:43:12 11/14/03 Fri

if you e-mailed me about it. That way I don't have to use Masq's space for something so off topic.

How much legal background do you have?
Ah, to be English! -- Claudia, 13:33:15 11/13/03 Thu

I just saw "Spin the Bottle", two nights ago and I couldn't help but notice how it strongly reminded me of "Tabula Rasa". Everyone lost lost all or part of their memories. Both episodes featured a lovely mixture of high comedy and pathos. And for some reason, both featured some interesting comments on the English:

From "Spin the Bottle":

"WESLEY: There's no need to be snippety, Miss.

CORDELIA: This is a clarion call for snippety, Princess Charles.

WESLEY: It's Wesley, thank you. Wyndham-Pryce. (proudly) I am from the Watcher's Academy in southern Hampshire. In fact, I happen to be head boy.

CORDELIA: Gee, I wonder how you earned that nickname.

WESLEY: A lot of effort, I don't mind saying.

GUNN: Gunn.

WESLEY: (panics) Where?

GUNN: Me. That's my name. The short version.

WESLEY: Ah. What school do you attend?

(Gunn rolls his eyes, and Cordelia scoffs.)

CORDELIA: (walks up to Angel) So, we've heard from the socially handi-capable. What's your story?

ANGEL: Mad. You're all mad. These clothes. Your speech. This place. What land is this?

GUNN: What land is it supposed to be?

WESLEY: Yes, where do you hail from, friend?

ANGEL: I'm not your friend, you English pig. We never wanted you in Ireland. We don't want you now."


And from "Tabula Rasa":

" TARA: This is a magic shop. A-a-a real magic shop.

BUFFY: Well, maybe that's it. Maybe something magic happened-

GILES: (scoffs) Magic! Magic's all balderdash and chicanery. I'm afraid we don't know a bloody thing. Except I seem to be British, don't I? Uh, and a man. With ... glasses. Well, that narrows it down considerably.

DAWN: I don't like this.

BUFFY: It's okay, don't worry. We'll take care of each other.

GILES: We'll all get our memory back, and it'll all be right as rain.

SPIKE: Oh, listen to Mary Poppins. He's got his crust all stiff and upper with that nancy-boy accent. You Englishmen are always so... (pauses) Bloody hell! Sodding, blimey, shagging, knickers, bollocks, oh God! I'm English!

GILES: Welcome to the nancy tribe."


Oh, how I love Joss.

Replies:

[> Well! -- Celebaelin, 13:45:01 11/13/03 Thu

Familiarity breeds contempt as they say, if this sort of impoliteness continues I'm afraid I going to have to take back the ball that is the English language and have you all speaking German as was suggested back in 1776 before sanity prevailed in the vote. See how you like that. Nyah nyah na nyah nyah.

C

[> [> Huh? -- Claudia, 14:15:20 11/13/03 Thu

"Familiarity breeds contempt as they say, if this sort of impoliteness continues I'm afraid I going to have to take back the ball that is the English language and have you all speaking German as was suggested back in 1776 before sanity prevailed in the vote. See how you like that. Nyah nyah na nyah nyah.

C"


Excuse me, but what are you talking about?

[> [> [> You'll have to excuse Celebaelin -- Tchaikovsky, 14:32:49 11/13/03 Thu

Rumour has it he lives in Kennilworth. They don't speak quite like normal people. And I've heard tell they only have three fingers and a thumb on each hand.

Dein English Freund
TCH

[> [> [> [> I can make my own excuses thank you, should I think it necessary -- Celebaelin, 14:48:23 11/13/03 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> You can, but you don't have to. -- skeeve, 15:22:00 11/13/03 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> I'll get the beers in then -- Celebaelin, 15:25:16 11/13/03 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> Sorry -- Tchaikovsky, 04:25:22 11/14/03 Fri

Typically, I typed 'Kenilworth' with one 'n' and then adjusted it.

I was trying to be vaguely ironic or something, but I was in a rush, and it came out both unfunny and insulting. Sorry. I should by now have learnt the first rule of posting which is to be utterly transparent, because it's such a tricky form of communication.

If you're short on fingers, I think it's my turn to buy a round. ;-)

TCH

[> [> [> [> [> [> Sounds like a good plan to me -- Celebaelin, 05:06:56 11/14/03 Fri


[> [> [> Re: Huh? -- Celebaelin, 15:08:18 11/13/03 Thu

Of course I'll excuse you, although your 'tone' seems a little bit abrupt.

I thought it was fairly obvious. You commented on some jests at the expense of the English in 'Spin the Bottle' and 'Tabula Rasa', which I think were generally taken in good part, as these things always should be. Even oblique insults of this nature can however quickly lead to confusion.

I was refering to that fact that apparently, according to my possibly suspect information, in the early days of American history there was a vote as to which language would be adopted as the national tongue of the fledgeling USA, English or German. English won by one vote so I'm told.

I hope that clears up your misunderstanding.

Oh and TCH, there's only one 'n' in 'Kenilworth'; and with the three fingers thing surely you're thinking of Springfield? I swear to God getting a round of five drinks in must be a nightmare in Moe's, not that I actually have four friends of course, still, all the more for me.

C

[> [> [> [> You know, Cel... -- Random, 15:43:51 11/13/03 Thu

I don't care what everyone else says. I like you and I'll be your friend. So stop hoarding the effin' beer and share, dammit! You still have enough fingers to include me!

[> [> [> [> [> Sigh, and I wasn't supposed to be hammering it tonight... -- Celebaelin, 15:57:25 11/13/03 Thu

...hand gestures to barman in 'regular-speak' for another round and a tray (grin).

[> [> [> [> Re: Huh? -- CW, 18:00:03 11/13/03 Thu

There were also suggestions by influencial folks as the 13 colonies were breaking as many ties as possible with Britain that the new American nation speak Hebrew, French or Greek. This last one was rejected on the grounds "it would be more convient for us to keep the language (English) as it was, and make the English speak Greek."

In fact 90% of the people living in the 13 colonies at the time of the revolution were decended from English settlers, so any official vote was essentially pointless.

All of the above from imformation from The Story of English by McCrum, Cran, and MacNeil.

In fact, the US has no official language. Officially, we've been on the metric system for a long long time. Which shows that when it comes to day-to-day matters, 'official' may or may not mean anything here.

[> [> [> [> [> Historical comparisons -- Celebaelin, 02:47:11 11/14/03 Fri

I imagined that there would have been other suggestions at various stages and I'm slightly surprised that there weren't more; Latin for example might have made the list as a kind of pre-Esperanto Esperanto since it is totally different to modern Italian.

The comment about Greek seems very apt. I've often thought that the relationship between the USA and the UK is much like that between the ancient Romans and the Greeks respectively. Bearing in mind land area perhaps an educated man of the late 18th century might have made this prediction about the likely course of events. Thanks for the extra details.

C

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Historical comparisons -- dmw, 19:18:18 11/16/03 Sun

The comment about Greek seems very apt. I've often thought that the relationship between the USA and the UK is much like that between the ancient Romans and the Greeks respectively. Bearing in mind land area perhaps an educated man of the late 18th century might have made this prediction about the likely course of events.

I've had that same thought myself, and I suspect that may have been one of the reasons that the UK behaved so favorably towards the US regarding border disputes between the US and the various British North American colonies. Enforcing the Monroe Doctrine on the America's behalf during the first part of the 19th century was primarily in self-interest, but there may have been an element of prescience in that as well.

More recently, I've been thinking about how Britain converted its economic empire into a territorial one and how the US under Bush seems to be following in those same footsteps, if a bit more intentionally. If only we learned from the past, but reading Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers and similar books have made me realize that the dominant state has always made the same mistakes out of hubris and forgetfulness time and time agian over the centuries.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Trouble With Empires... -- Celebaelin, 06:35:57 11/17/03 Mon

...is that when they have an economic policy at all to speak of it is usually to impose an economy as near identical to their own as possible on a subject territory and this may simply be inappropriate for reasons of geography, resource, culture or whatever.

It is interesting to remember that the Romans 'invented' inflation as well their many technical innovations. I think it was the emperor Vespasian who decreed that it would be illegal and punishable by death for shopkeepers to increase their prices but by then the damage was done. The prices of everyday items were so high that the empire could no longer afford to equip enough legions to properly secure its' borders against men with beards barbarians.

Since Walpole the British have consistently fought their wars using 'the war chest' ie the treasury. There is even a slight suggestion that the Third Reich would have collapsed of its' own accord within a decade or two because without the expansionism and the North African and Russian oil their economy was unsustainable. It had of course been in deep trouble before Hitler and he had not solved the problems so much as deferred them. So from that point of view the Allied landings in Normandy were part of a huge humanitarian effort (perversely) rather than the only way to defeat the Germans and liberate Europe. As an adjunct to these events or possibly, depending on your point of view as one of the root causes of them a decrease in military expenditure and technological progress in the light of the influence of the powerful disarmament lobby after WWI reflected back on the economic health of European nations. Some would say that the downfall of the British Empire was at least in part due to an economic stagnation, a sort of manufacturing self-satisfaction leading to a failure to modernise.

I should probably stop talking about economics now because I don't know enough to sustain a debate really but perhaps a more informed poster could correct any errors and/or fill in some gaps.

C

[> [> [> [> [> Some states do, though (getting more OT with every sentence) -- mamcu (but was there a T?), 08:46:15 11/15/03 Sat

At the extreme risk of offending any Texans out there, it appears that the states most under threat of becoming Spanish-speaking are the ones who felt the greatest need to clarify what everybody ought to speak! I believe California's done it also--at least in the schools.

Of course my state has gone the de facto route--you aren't required to speak English to get a driver's license, but they don't publish the handbook in any other language. We're good at that kind of thing, having had lots of practice on other minorities.

[> [> [> [> [> [> The Virtues of English -- dmw, 19:31:45 11/16/03 Sun

While Spanish is easier to learn than English, I think there are good reasons to maintain English as the de facto official language of the US. Having a common language helps maintain the unity of a state; in fact, one of the basic means of establishing independence and a unique identity as a state is to declare that one has a language that's distinct from the state one is seceding from. Witness the attempts to differentiate Croatian from Serbian, Ukrainian from Russian, and many others.

While Spanish and English have approximately the same number of native speakers, English has far more secondary speakers and is the lingua franca of technology and science. There's a reason that India is the biggest destination for IT outsourcing and it's not because they're the cheapest or even because of the quality of their workforce. They have the advantage of using English throughout most of their scientific and technical education, an advantage which China doesn't have. Even the French with their pride in their language and culture use English-based computer languages and have to know English to access most scientific journals.

Knowing English is a huge advantage, one which I don't see dissipating in the near future. We should do what we can to help immigrants learn English, but w should not surrender this advantage.

[> Goodness gracious me.. I'm not American? -- MsGiles, 07:18:06 11/17/03 Mon

GILES: (scoffs) Magic! Magic's all balderdash and chicanery. I'm afraid we don't know a bloody thing. Except I seem to be British, don't I? Uh, and a man. With ... glasses. Well, that narrows it down considerably.


Giles and Spike wake up, no memory. When they speak, each hears his own accent and realises he's English. But why don't the others wake up, speak, and realise they're American? Do they *all* assume they're American, until they hear otherwise? And if so, why?

If I lost my memory, here in England, would I wake up, speak, and go 'Oh my God I'm English'? And then go into increasing shock as I realised everyone else was as well? Of course not. If I was American, lost my memory, and woke up in England, would I speak and immediately go 'Oh my God I'm American'? I suspect not. Would I even remember I was in England, as opposed to America? I suppose that would be decided by a combination of how long I had lived there, and how thoroughly my memory had been wiped.

The group's memories have been erased rather erratically, perhaps due to the spell's accidental expansion. They have forgotten each other, but remember enough cultural clues to start deducing their relationships and status, including accent, clothing, and the bickering of siblings. They have forgotten their names and their immediate history, but they remember the existence of college. They've forgotten the Magic Shop, and Giles seems to have forgotten the reality of magic. Does this mean he's flashing back to a time before he was a Watcher?

That Giles and Spike are both surprised to find they're English implies that they've been so long in America that they've begun to think of themselves as American. But neither of them have lost their accents, which, after a long stay in a country, is often a partly deliberate act, to do with hanging on to an identity. Neither of them take it for granted that they're English and wonder why they're surrounded by Americans, which I would have thought more likely.

Admittedly, Spike has lived so long in so many different places, it's anyone's guess when, where and who he would think he was if his memory was wiped. Perhaps helped by the odd clothing he is wearing when he wakes up, he seems to have forgotten his entire vampire life. he's not quite Spike, but not quite William either: the loss of his memory seems to have propelled him into a grey area, where he thinks he's good and human, he's forgotten that he's lost his soul. And while that hasn't brought it back, it has somehow softened his badness, for a time.

Some recent-ish films involving amnesia:
The Bourne Indentity (Liman 1988)
(Matt Damon is a CIA assassin who has lost his memory. He uses his killing skills to survive, while the CIA try to off him, and falls in lurve)
Dark City (Proyas 1988)
(in a futuristic BladeRunner-ish world, a man wakes up to find he's wanted for brutal murders of which he has no memories, and has to unravel the mystery of the world he lives in)
Desperately Seeking Susan (Seidelman 1985)
(A woman who fantasises about being someone else much wackier loses her memory and comes to believe she is that person, hijinks ensue)
The Long Kiss Goodnight (Harlin 1996)
(Eight year amnesiac schoolteacher searches for identity and finds she was a secret agent plotting to topple the government, clash of her old and more recent life results in much violence)
The Majestic (Darabont 2001)
(Jim Carrey is a scriptwriter suspected of communist leanings, he loses his memory and takes on another identity, much nicer, of a returned war hero)
Paris, Texas (Wenders 1984)
(A man who has disappeared in the Mexican desert for years returns without his memory, and has to rediscover language, his family and how to function as a father)
and Jackie Chan's Who Am I (Chan 1998)
Chan is a commando who loses his memory after a mission is betrayed, and lives with African tribesmen for some while, until the bad guys come after him. All he can remember (natch) is his martial art, and he has to use it to survive.

And I suppose you might count Minority Report, with Tom Cruise trying not to remember something he hasn't done yet ..

I speculate that in general these films use amnesia as a device to examine identity. Often the person who loses their memory is being given another chance at their life, a chance to make new relationships and establish a new way of living. Almost invariably, this new person is nicer, or is tending to become nicer, than the old one, though they may face fallout from the previous life in terms of people after them (particularly if the film is a thriller). Amnesia can be seen as a form of rebirth, of returning to a state of innocence, on the basis of which a new life can be mapped out.

Tabula Rasa seems partly to be about using memory loss as a way of establishing unrealised potential in the characters' relationships. Willow and Tara's attraction, without the complication of Willow's ego. Buffy and Spike as a team. Giles and Anya having a long-term working relationship. But the Englishness of Giles and Spike is re-affirmed right at that start. It's not something they're allowed to forget, even under the influence of Lethe's Bramble. Giles, Spike (and Wes) are clearly defined as English, they don't assimilate. I suppose in a way this values their Englishness: becoming American is not seen as an unrealised potential for them.

It's also a kind of 'other'ness, like being a demon or a vampire. Anya is assimilated: she's a demon but she has embraced US culture and rightwing politics. Giles refuses many aspects of Sunnydale culture, including dress codes, manners of speech, and technology. Spike is doubly other, being both a Brit and a vampire.

[> [> Accents -- Sophist, 08:43:57 11/17/03 Mon

But neither of them have lost their accents, which, after a long stay in a country, is often a partly deliberate act, to do with hanging on to an identity.

Actually, the most significant reason people keep accents is their age at the time of the move. Those over 14 at the time of the move rarely lose their accents. Those under 14 can; the younger they are, the more easily they will pick up the new speech patterns.

[> [> [> Much easier to change while young -- MsGiles, 09:19:29 11/17/03 Mon

If there are no other pressures (ie social pressures) most people wouldn't change any more.
But it's not impossible for people to change their accents to some extent as they get older.

Now here I'm thinking regional UK rather than transatlantic, but I know that during much living in the North of England (all since my late 20's) I've tended to pick up distinct northern speech patterns, and a lot of that is due to blending-in instincts. Granted I don't totally blend in (people can't always tell for definite where I grew up, because so many people have spent time in the south and lost the edge of their accent anyway), but when I go back south, they definitely think I've gone northern.


I'm also thinking of the tendency of Brit actors who've spent a long time in the States to go transatlantic in speech. The ability to 'do' accents is possessed by different people to very different degrees. Gary Oldman strikes me as someone who can 'do' an accent, but a lot of other actors have just gone mildly transatlantic, out of the context of any role.

Giles might be to old to change as well as not interested in changing. Spike must have changed his accent since being vamped, though, adopting a sort of East End punkish slang, with occasional glottal stops, to replace the more refined diction enjoyed by William. That's an image choice, and he's not chosen to rework that image as American.
Do Slayers age after puberty? -- skeeve, 15:40:32 11/13/03 Thu

Until recently, the question didn't matter much.
A Slayer didn't live that long.

Replies:

[> I'd say they only aged until they died... -- Random, 15:47:57 11/13/03 Thu

And -- distant memory -- Buffy did actually have breasts that were distinctly post-pubescent at one point back during the early seasons. And Faith still does.

[> [> Re: The first, second or third time? -- The First Naughty Virtue, 15:54:03 11/13/03 Thu

Vampires, however, don't age after being turned. They just, umm, do 'stuff' that can make them, erm, 'look' older. Yes, that's it.

[> Re: Do Slayers age after puberty? -- aperitis, 15:48:31 11/13/03 Thu

i would assume that since slayers are only human beings with infused power, endurance, and "spidersense", that they would age as any human being would, albeit more graceful than most.

[> Re: Do Slayers age after puberty? -- LittleBit, 16:03:13 11/13/03 Thu

Given that the age of puberty for girls is currently estimated as between 8 and 13 years of age, I think it's fairly safe to say that just about all the Slayers we've seen have aged past puberty. Nikki Wood certainly looked older than that to me, Buffy, Kendra and Faith were clearly aged beyond that point from my perspective, and I would have to say that all the Potentials-turned-Slayers appeared to be aged beyond that point.

[> [> Re: Do Slayers age after puberty? -- skeeve, 08:06:38 11/14/03 Fri

Perhaps I need a vocabulary lesson.
I had taken puberty to mean a time *period* from the beginning of sexual development to physical adulthood.
Does the 8 to 13 years figure refer to the beginning of menses?

To more precisely phrase my question: To what degree, it any, do Slayers deteriorate with time in the manner of other humans?
9 Shot Annihilation of the Father......spoilers for Lineage -- Rufus, 18:34:22 11/13/03 Thu

"By our interactions with each other we redeem us all." ML Von Franz

I keep bringing up this quote as it is the message that ATS sends out, even if we are too wrapped up in the story to see it. Thing is "we redeem us all" speaks of an end result and what we are seeing is the crap we all put each other through on the way to the end result be it good or bad. Redemption may occur but we are just as likely to send each other to hell as we are to redeem each other. It's in the quality of our or the characters on ATS interactions that makes the difference. Last night we saw an episode about Wesley which as he is my favorite character can't be a bad thing.

To start, Wes takes Fred on a mission that gets her hurt, and Angel is some pissed about that. He speaks to Wesley in a condescending way and dismisses him like a child who has displeased a father would. Wes leaves the office chastised and feeling like he can do no right. It's Eve that takes Angel to task over his treatment of his friend.....

Eve: Kinda hard on him weren't you?

Angel: She could have......

Eve: Been killed - so you said. I think you're making too big a deal of this, and from what I understand, her wound wasn't all that severe.

Angel: You weren't there, you didn't see her.

Eve: But she's okay and you're still beating him up.

Angel: He can be careless.

Eve: Focuses too much on the big picture? Overlooks the people involved?

Angel: Something like that.

Eve: Willing to risk anything....or anyone for the greater good. Look, hey....I'm just asking, could it be there is another reason you're getting so mad at him about this? Mmm stealing your son for instance.

Angel: We don't talk about my son.

Eve: You don't trust Wesley, do you? I mean, I can see that...he did turn Connor over to your sworn enemy.

Angel: He didn't mean for that to happen, he thought he was doing the right thing.

Eve: And I guess it all worked out, Connor's okay, you're happy, maybe Wesley knew what he was doing after all. Even if he doesn't remember any of it.

Angel: That's got nothing to do with.....I just want to be kept informed, that's all.

Eve: Is it? Or are you worried about the next time Wesley betrays you trying to do the right thing?

Angel doesn't trust Wesley, which has been clear for awhile now. He resents what Wesley did that caused the loss of Angel's son Connor. Thing is that what Wesley did was done because he thought it was the right thing to do at the time, not out of malice. Angel understands this on a level but he can't forgive him and Wesley can never make right what he doesn't realize he even did. All the progression of the characters last year is gone as most of them have no idea what Angel is all testy about.

But this episode is about fathers and the impact they can have upon the son. Wesley's father shows up and Wesley regresses even more while his fathers critical eye is upon him. Wesley of the two fisted gun fight becomes Wesley the guy who bumbles around the office slamming into workers. So, what is Roger Wyndam Pryce there for?

RWP: As you well know the Watcher's Council was destroyed last year.

Wes: I heard.

RWP: The remaining Watchers, myself included, have decided to reform the council and I've been sent to contact you.

Wes: Are you saying the council...wants me to come back?

RWP: Not necessarily, your name's proven to be a bone of contention. There is some who believe that your tenure as Watcher ranks as our most embarrassing failure.

Wes: Really? I beat out everybody dying in an explosion as most embarrassion failure?

RWP: Friends and colleagues lost their lives in that event Wesley, a little respect.

Wes: Sorry.

RWP: The Council have agreed to take you back...pending my assessment...I'm here to evaluate you.

Wes: I see....well I'll save you the trouble, I'm not interested.

RWP: This is no time to be stubborn, boy. The Council are giving you a chance to clear your name...our name.

Wes: Sorry you made the trip, but I'm perfectly happy where I am.

RWP: (laughs) Wolfram and Hart, so this is the haven of evil is it?

Wes: Not any more, this isn't the (he walks into a door) Wolfram and Hart (bumps into the secretary) Sorry!

Woman: It's okay, no problem.

Wes: Sorry.....sorry. You have the wrong idea about this place.

RWP: Do I? The atrocities committed by Wolfram and Hart are quite well documented.

Wes: We're working to change that, under our control this firms becoming a powerful weapon (didn't Angel say that a few eps ago?) one that I think can make a difference. Believe me, we take our work here very seriously.

Wesley is loyal to Angel and this overrides his family and Council ties, no wonder considering how he has been treated. This makes any criticism from Angel that much more humiliating and painful. He feels as Gunn mentioned last week, that he is making a difference.

They end up in Fred's lab where Mr. Pryce is capable of making Wes feel insignificant. He is able to defuse a bomb that Wesley tripped by touching the proto-human cyborg corpse. Thing is as we find out later, Mr. Pryce was more than met the eyes. When speaking to Fred a bit later Mr. Pryce says...

RWP: Oh, the academy didn't make him head boy for nothing....mind you as I recall the pickings were a bit slim that year.

This old fart doesn't give an inch and what subtle praise he gives, he snatches away by a snide comment. But the offices of Wolfram and Hart have a problem, and that problem is cyborgs there to do whatever. Upon research it becomes clear that the cyborgs are the "good guys".

So, what are the "good guys" up to, and it's Mr. Pryce who is the answer, at least part of an answer. He manages to get into the vault of Wolfram and Hart ostensibly to help Wes protect some books, he then knocks out his son, then seems to speak into a earpiece about phase two.

In the vault, Mr. Pryce retrieves a stick with a crystal on top.....and then he sets up Angel to be on the roof with him when he activates whatever that staff does. What he never counted on was his son being a bit more on the ball than he first thought.

RWP: Walk away from this Wesley. You'll never understand what we're trying to do here.

Wes: You're using the staff of Devosyn to take Angel's will - make him a slave. (I see we have Wesley's position on free-will) Your cyborgs panic a bit too easily. (I did miss out the cringe-worthy torture thing Wes did on that cyborg)

RWP: That creature is more dangerous to mankind than you realize.

Wes: You're wrong about him, he's not what you think.

RWP: He's a puppet, he always has been. To the Power's that Be, to Wolfram and Hart.......now he's ours.

So, Angel is on the list of goodies for not just the powers but for whatever Mr. Pryce represents....could they be the left overs from The Council, or something else? It's not made clear.

RWP: You know what that vampire is and what he's done and you follow him anyway?

Wes: Maybe I know what I'm doing. Why can't you trust that?

RWP: You disgraced yourself with the council. You join forces with him and you have the nerve to ask me why I can't trust you?

Wes: (in a reminder of the conversation Angel had with his dad in The Prodigal) I've done everything you ever asked, and I've done it well.

RWP: I asked for this......hmmmm I wanted to be humiliated?

Wes: No, I suppose I don't know what you really wanted. You never had any use for me as a child, and you can't bear the thought of me as an adult. Tell me father.....what is it that galls you so? That I was never as good at the job as you? Or, that I just might be better?

RWP: Oh yes.....this is Los Angeles, we have to talk about our feelings then maybe we'll hug.

Wes: It's doubtful.

RWP: Hand me that staff.

Wes: No.

RWP: No don't make me shoot you.

Wes: Go ahead.

RWP: Do you know how powerful that thing is?

Wes: I don't care.

RWP: I will kill you for it, please believe me.

Wes: Oh, I believe you. I was raised by you after all. But I drop this, the crystal shatters, and Angel is restored. So I reckon whether I live or die - your plan has failed.

RWP: I see, (he grabs Fred and puts a gun to her head) well then maybe if it's someone you care about........

For this scene to work we have to believe that Wesley believes that he has been interacting with his father from the start. The arguement on the roof is interesting for a few reasons, one that it wasn't necessary, as Mr. Pryce could have killed Wes and he didn't. He tried to talk his son into giving him what he wanted without shooting him. Then second, why the hell would a robot care what Wesley thinks, you'd think it would do the job and get away. So, when Wes pulls the trigger without hesitation, then proceeds to walk up to the target shooting all the time, he thinks he is killing his father. One shot could have done the job, but Wes fired into his father nine times. He walked over to the body and did the final shot long past the point it should have mattered. He didn't kill his father he annihilated him. That takes great emotion, and that emotion was for Fred. Wes would only have reacted the way he did for Fred, and she doesn't remember a thing about him caring for her as no one remembers everything about the past few months just some manipulated memories.

Wes then finishes off with Angel, who has some father killing under his belt. Angel also has the advantage of knowing why Wes did some of the things he has done as he has seen this type of thing before.

Wes: How are you doing?

Angel: Well, you know that the worst part about losing your free-will?

Wes: Having no control over your body?

Angel: Well, there's that and, you get really nauseous.

Wes: The effect should wear off before too long.

Angel: Any idea where these things came from and what they were trying to do with me?

Wes shakes his head indicating no.

Angel: Great....like we don't have enough to worry about, now the good guys may be after us too?

Wes: We have to assume we crossed some powerful forces when we took over this company.

Angel: The're all trying to bring us down, the perception is that we're weak.

Wes: No, the perception is I'm weak, that's why they went for me.

Angel: They're wrong, you do what you have to do to protect the people around you. You do what you know is right, regardless of the cost. You know I never really understood that. You're the guy who makes all the hard decisions even if you have to make em alone.

Wes: Righ now I feel like the guy who shot his own father.

Angel: Well, it was just a robot with a fancy glamour.

Wes: That thing knew everything about me.

Angel: If they had access to the Watcher's Council's old files, they'd have your background information, character assessments.

Wes: Psychological profiles, everything they need.

Angel: Well, like I said....don't beat yourself up. (what a change from the begining of the ep where Angel took the honours) Oh, you know....I killed my actual Dad, it was one of the first things I did when I became a vampire.

Wes: I hardly see how that's the same situation.

Angel: Yeah, I didn't really think that one through...you should get some rest.

Wes: So should you.

How is the killing of the father by Angel the same as the shooting of a robot by Wes.....well to me it's the feelings about the parent that are the same. Neither one of the men would have killed the father if they had been in a normal situation. Both men would have dealt with the constant emotional abuse by drinking, becoming a bit of a bumbling fool. Parents can either build you up, make you ready to be a capable, confident adult....or they can drag you down, make you doubt yourself....set you up to fail. The killing of the father wasn't the same, but the emotional conflict is. Angel and Wesley have a bit more in common than they thought.

It's Angel that really learns the most. It's by watching Wesley descend to a dark state does he really appreciate just what type of a man he is. Angel didn't see what happened to Wesley as Wesley was shut out of his life in season four. This time, Angel gets a view of just how hard Wesley works and just how hard Wesley takes failure. Angel said he didn't appreciate just how hard it can be to do the right thing. Now he does. I think that he has a new respect for Wesley that only he can appreciate cause he is the one with all the memories and all the explaining to do when and if that secret gets out of the bag.

Some of you will notice I haven't mentioned Spike at all, that's being saved for another post cause I think old Spike is more than the one with the jokes.

Replies:

[> Re: 9 Shot Annihilation of the Father......spoilers for Lineage -- Metron, 19:32:00 11/13/03 Thu

>>>The arguement on the roof is interesting for a few reasons, one that it wasn't necessary, as Mr. Pryce could have killed Wes and he didn't. He tried to talk his son into giving him what he wanted without shooting him.<<<

I think the reason Mr. CyborPryce *didn't* kill Wesley, both in the vault, and on the roof, was because the cyborgs *do* work for the good guys.

That's the only reason I can fathom. :)

[> [> Re: 9 Shot Annihilation of the Father......spoilers for Lineage -- Ames, 11:31:12 11/14/03 Fri

Rule#1 of recognizing good guys vs. bad guys in ambiguous situations:

The good guy never grabs the girl and threatens to kill her to get what he wants. Not allowed under any circumstances, even when the end justifies the means.

That's one reason why Wesley was free to shoot at that moment.

[> [> [> Re: 9 Shot Annihilation of the Father......spoilers for Lineage -- Dlgood, 12:14:49 11/14/03 Fri

He didn't kill his father he annihilated him. That takes great emotion, and that emotion was for Fred. Wes would only have reacted the way he did for Fred,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

IMHO, that first shot was for Fred, but the rest of the clip was for Wesley. In this particular case, he happened to kill his father for Fred. But knowing Wesley, he would have killed his father for other reasons as well. Wesely, is perhaps the most resolute character in the Buffyverse. If he believes in a cause, and sees something as necessary - he'll carry that act out no matter how harmful it might be to himself or anyone else. (Kidnapping Connor, trading his own life to give Faith a clean shot at Angelus, etc...)

That's the big difference. Angelus killed Liam's father, pretty much solely because of his resentments. It was a crime of passion. To a certain extent, yes, Wes killed his father for Fred. And to an extent, he emptied that clip because of his own resentments.

But it's not as simple as Angelus killing the father, because Wesley (who clearly loves his father) would still have killed him - dispassionately - if required. I don't doubt he would have shot Daddy if he'd grabbed Gunn, for example.

[> [> [> [> Re: 9 Shot Annihilation of the Father......spoilers for Lineage -- JM, 18:52:02 11/14/03 Fri

Exactly right, I think. The horror was partly due to the fact was not just a horrible deed, but conducted in anger. But it was exactly the same decision I believe he would have made for any of the others on his team. But maybe with only a single shot, and not the whole chamber.

[> [> [> Hmmm -- KdS, 12:31:42 11/14/03 Fri

The good guy never grabs the girl and threatens to kill her to get what he wants. Not allowed under any circumstances, even when the end justifies the means.

Buffy? Dru? Lie To Me?

Twelve Monkeys?

[> [> [> [> Re: Hmmm -- Ames, 13:37:33 11/14/03 Fri

I knew I was inviting people to come up with counter-examples. Just wondering what they would be. :-)

Ok, let's see:

Buffy and Dru in Lie to Me: doesn't count. Dru's not human, she's an evil vampire, and Buffy was free to kill her anyway. Good guy can use a free-kill bad guy as temporary hostage without violating the rule.

12 Monkeys: BruceW's character was not in his right mind, and not necessarily a good guy by the rules of present-day society. And anyway this one could also be seen as a special case of pretending to threaten someone who's really on your side (it was at least a grey area).

[> [> [> [> But, Dude -- Dlgood, 14:44:31 11/14/03 Fri

On the other hand, the good guy can shoot the hostage. Like in "Speed". Was it wrong of me to think that when RWP grabbed Fred on that rooftop?

[> [> [> Ahem -- Doug, 19:48:05 11/15/03 Sat

Travis Miller, aka Traveler72, from Hunter: the Reckoning would break that rule. He and a bunch of other hunters were tracking a Werewolf in Vancouver, and they found out about a young woman this werewolf had romantic intentions toward. So they kidnapped her, shoved guns in her face, tied her to a chair, and waited for the Werewolf to mount a rescue attempt. Now Travis was the closest thing to an unambiguous hero that Hunter had; he stopped any of the other Hunters from torturing the woman and when one of the other Hunters named Fisher tried to kill her after the battle so she couldn't tell the cops anything he put a bullet in the man's brain and let her go.

Now, Traveler72 was in many respects a hero (at least he was until a demon-tainted former comrade killed him in cold blood), but by your rule he couldn't have been; so what was he?

Or was this solely for Buffyverse characters?

[> [> Re: 9 Shot Annihilation of the Father......spoilers for Lineage -- Rufus, 18:05:36 11/14/03 Fri

The good guys don't point a gun at a girl in order to get what they want from a target. RoboPryce was relating to Wes just like his father would, or how Wes perceives his father would. That would be some program that could hesitate in a way that suggests a familial tie with someone, making me wonder that much more who made these protohumans. Wes shot without hesitation, RoboPryce hesitated...why?

[> [> [> Re: 9 Shot Annihilation of the Father......spoilers for Lineage -- JM, 18:44:26 11/14/03 Fri

I did wonder if the cyborg knew it was a cyborg, the programming may have been so complete that it didn't know it WASN'T RWP. The other point was that until Fred enters the equation, Wes had engineered a stable standoff. The two players have guns trained on each other. The cyborgs are vulnerable to gun shots. So the risks of shooting are too high. As soon as Rodger puts pressure on the trigger so will Wes, mutual annihilation with no certainty of recovering the staff and Angel.

The arrival of the chopper tilts the balance in the cyborg's favor. Even if they kill each other, his colleagues will succeed in the extraction. But (I think) Wes used the momentary distraction to take the upper hand. By moving to the edge of the roof, he negates Rodger's advantage. Wes wins whether he lives or dies, unless Rodger can acheive a perfect shot that kills Wes so suddenly that he doesn't have the chance to drop the staff, or doesn't involuntary release the staff in his death throws, and doesn't fall backwards. Not a good choice.

At this point, Rodger's only options are talking Wes down until he has reinforcements, or taking a human hostage. (Even if Angel were an acceptable hostage, bullets won't kill him.) Unfortunately for the cyborgs and their cause, taking Fred hostage was the exactly wrong choice.
Come one, come all! -- Vickie, 18:39:17 11/13/03 Thu

Join us in chat to celebrate anom's milestone birthday! If you cannot stay (she's not there yet), leave your greetings and virtual chocolates here!

<depositing a small, foil wrapped box upon the gift table>

Replies:

[> Happy Birthday, anom! Virtual chocolates for you! -- Scroll, who couldn't stay in chat long, 20:39:56 11/13/03 Thu


[> i'm there now! thanks for the chocolates, vickie & scroll! -- anom, 21:19:16 11/13/03 Thu

cjl, shadowkat, sdev, & sofdog kept me out late--but I finally got home for my chat party! C'mon in--there's cyber cake, ice cream, & chocolate!

[> Happy belated birthday anom!!! -- Briar Rose, 01:23:59 11/14/03 Fri


[> Happy belated B-day. -- fresne, 08:35:24 11/14/03 Fri


[> Sorry I had to leave so abruptly... -- Rob, 09:27:53 11/14/03 Fri

Thankfully, my laptop was reunited with its AC Adapter at about 9 AM this morning. They are very happy together and promise to never leave each other's sides again.

Rob

[> Happy belated birthday! -- Alison, 15:51:18 11/14/03 Fri

one last chance for true calling -- skpe, 19:11:34 11/13/03 Thu

Is anyone else going to give tru calling a look. After the previous two eps (both really bad) this is my last. I truly love ED but I dont have a lot of hope.

Replies:

[> I'm taping it -- Vickie, 19:15:29 11/13/03 Thu


[> [> Re:Although it has a long way to go -- Brian, 20:40:17 11/13/03 Thu

The third episode was better than the first two, even though the plot was very transparent. I'm sticking with it until the bitter end. I owe it to Faith.

[> That's enough for me -- Ames, 21:42:54 11/13/03 Thu

I just watched the 3rd episode that I taped earlier. I like ED, and I really hoped the show would improve, but it isn't happening. Tonight as I was watching I kept thinking:
a) I can see this ending coming a mile away.
b) Why on earth are these people doing these things? It makes no sense!
c) Why do producers hire a hot actress like ED and spend millions producing a TV series, and then forget to hire writers?
d) I wonder if that Buffy re-run is on right now?

[> [> I was happily surprised tonight..... (spoilers) -- Briar Rose, 01:22:54 11/14/03 Fri

The camera work has improved at least 50%.

I wasn't counting gratuitous boobie jiggles to the point of not caring about the story line like in the first two eps.

The feel of the show was better than it has been in the past - I especially liked the fact that she changed the situation with her grilfriend's date without it being as obvious as in the past eps. Her girlfriend practiced FREE WILL where in past eps that wasn't the case.

I do agree that the ending was rather pedestrian, although the acting was rather credible, but if the rumours that Drew Goddard will be stepping into the writing team are true, I'll be willing to stick around as long as it stays a Doug Petrie vehicle and not the garbage that we were given the first two installments.

All in all, I was rather impressed that they turned a dog of a show around so quickly! And it beats Survivor or Friends anyday, so I'm all for it.

[> Curse these eyes!! I watched it again -- neaux, 05:13:56 11/14/03 Fri

The show isnt horrible. but like I said last week, there is nothing else on tv.

I actually flipped the channels during commercial breaks, hoping to find something more interesting to watch from 8 pm - 9 pm and there really is nothing.

So my wife and I watch Tru Calling. again.

This episode, actually more tollerable than the first 2 episodes. I think if Tru can actually convince her brother and Davis that her "powers" are real then there could actually be more of a team effort involved in each show (which would definately strengthen the show in my opinion).

I still hate the recaps they throw in each episode at the 30 minute mark.

[> [> Re: Curse these eyes!! I watched it again -- CW, 06:12:48 11/14/03 Fri

Like everyone I saw a little improvement again. But, over all, I have to say the directing job was just as bad. It looked like second-rate TV. It seems like over and over ED is close to the right emotion for the scene but not quite, as if she's having to direct herself all the time. She definitely showing too little range of emotions. Too much of the show she's got her brow wrinkled with concern. I'm finding ED with her brow wrinkled more annoying than ED with her hair blowing in the promos. I think a more detemined and less worried Tru might work a lot better.

Personally, I wish the show would just get rid of Tru's brother and sister. Having family problems must have seemed like a great gimmick for the show, but both Mary and Harrison are such disgusting losers, that Tru is wasting too much valuable main-story time, keeping them from falling apart.

Like others have said the ironic-twist endings have become all too predictable after just three episodes. Either they need to make the endings more like the classic Alfred Hitchcock Presents series back in the 1950 when you knew there would be a trick ending, but it almost always was still surprising, or they need to let Tru be correct with her first impressions more often.

[> [> [> I saw last week's ep... -- VampRiley, 06:55:07 11/14/03 Fri

I was chatting with LB and she told me it was on. So, I switch over. I hadn't seen any ep at that point.

30 seconds in, I put the mute on, leaving my captioning on, as always. I'd be able to focus on the dialogue. But, I couldn't keep reading after a couple minutes.

I mean, she did read a full script before she signed on, right? Even with the limited number of Buffy/Angel eps she's done, she had to have learned something about story writting.

That's an unintended consequence of ME's magick. You may not like everything they do, but at least, after knowing what they've done, you learn about writing (setting, plot, dialogue, pacing) and you'll have a better grasp of things that seemed to be forced or too quick and in general, crappy writting.

But, I was already soured on this show from the start. The whole premise of going back in time to fix a death thing doesn't realy give me that sense of gripping drama that'll keep my attention for the full hour, wondering, when the commercial breaks are on, that if I leave to get a snack or something, whether or not I'm not gonna be able to get back in time before the break's over. Even if I were taping, that feeling still pops ups. I hate having to rewind at the end, to see a minute I missed in the middle of the story, but it's better than never seeing it at all. This is why I could never really get into 7 Days. They tried to throw in some sci-fi, but even that didn't keep my interest.

[> [> Re: Curse these eyes!! I watched it again -- skpe, 06:44:37 11/14/03 Fri

I agree with neaux
that there is nothing better and this ep was better than the last 2 but what a low bar. The writing still has a 'paint by numbers' feel. the constant flash backs, (I guess they believe that any one who watches this show is retarded and can't remember the story for more than 5 minutes), are just as annoying. And the all to familiar 'red hearings' make me feel like 3 eps into it and were already watching reruns.

[> [> Why recaps -- TexasGirl, 11:17:13 11/14/03 Fri

I'm guessing the recaps are for people who watched the new "Friends" episode and are looking for something else to watch. It might be annoying for people who watched the first half-hour, but it's not a bad strategy to try to pick up new viewers for the second half-hour.

[> [> [> TNT is doing that with eps of law and order, the recaping -- VR, 20:23:13 11/14/03 Fri


[> True Actually -- fresne, 08:34:06 11/14/03 Fri

At around 7:30, my housemate came home and said, "Let's go see Love Actually. It's playing at 8:00"

So, Tru was on last night, huh. Yeah, I think I made the right choice. The movie was like twenty romantic comedies smooshed into this big inter-threaded mass of mess of happy endings, near misses, bitter sweet, and plain bitter not quites. It began with a wedding and funeral, which given who made it, makes sense. Not precisely perfect, but now I'm thinking, yeah, Christmas, Good King Wenceslas, greeting my father at a little airport in a few weeks. Makes me feel all woobie.
How can Spike "affect" the World?....spoilers for Lineage -- Rufus, 03:00:47 11/14/03 Fri

Two things happend in Lineage that show a progression in how Spike can use his will to alter things around him. First the beaker in Fred's lab....he pushed it over letting it smash to the ground, but who would notice with cyborg man and the fact that Spike is taken for granted as being pretty much impotent. So, why was Eve watching him so intently? Then, Gunn is saved by Spike being able to punch a cyborg. From Hellbound.....

PAVAYNE
...all rules are mine. Reality bends. My desire. The way it was meant to...
SPIKE
Bending reality? I didn't just fade away. It was you. That's why they can't see me anymore.
PAVAYNE (O.S.)
Parlor tricks. To amuse... like your blood.
(Spike's wounds disappear, Pavayne chuckles)
Oh, yes. Nothing here without the will. Your voice... your body...

Then later......

SPIKE
Quite a bit, mate. Reality bends to desire. That was it, right? That's why I could touch Fred, write your name in the glass. All I had to do was want it bad enough.
(Spike looks down at his naked body and clothing appears on him again)
(an angry Spike glares at Pavayne)
And guess what I want to do now, you prissy son of a bitch!

All Spike had to do was want it bad enough, then he could do more than be a Casper. In Lineage he has taken that a bit further and has been working out his will. Then there is Eve......

Spike and Eve are in the elevator....
Spike: Not to sound self absorbed but you can't seem to keep your eyes off me.

Eve: Now, why would that make you sound self absorbed?

Spike: Don't think I haven't noticed you've been very keen on what I've been doing lately.

Eve: How's it going by the way? You able to affect the world yet?

Spike: Does that scare you? Worried that old Spike might be bustin loose of your shackle?

Eve: What are you talking about?

Spike: Save the innocent act on your "here to help" cheerleader routine. May work on Angel, but I see right through it. There's more to you than you're letting on.

Eve: Could say the same for you...unless you really are happy to haunt around here for eternity.

Spike: Well, that's the problem isn't it? Figure I'm trapped here for a reason, and you're part of that reason. That Amulet that did this to me - Wolfram and Hart gave it to Angel - gotta assume they meant to make him a ghost, not me. So.....why am I here? Why don't they just let me go?

Eve: Who said the amulet was meant for Angel?

Yeah, who said the amulet was meant for Angel? So, why is Spike picking up on Eve in a way the others seem to be too distracted to? Could it be all his Caspering has been more productive than watching Gunn at a urinal? One thing I did find a bit funny was the fact that Spike was so facinated by finding out that Wesley had been a head boy.....seems to me it kinda takes one head boy to know another. Spike has been comedy relief when he hasn't been straddling an abyss. But, just as watchers of the show are lamenting that Spike is acting the fool, he goes and proves something Angel brought up and seems to have forgotten in all his upper management stuff.....

From School Hard......

Angel: He's worse. (they all look at him) Once he starts something he doesn't stop until everything in his path is dead.

I find it hard to believe that the number two of evil vampires would be nothing more than a fool who cracks jokes, unless of course he wants people to think that way.

Replies:

[> Re: How can Spike "affect" the World?....spoilers for Lineage -- s'kat, 11:19:59 11/14/03 Fri

I find it hard to believe that the number two of evil vampires would be nothing more than a fool who cracks jokes, unless of course he wants people to think that way.

I'm beginning to strongly agree. If you've read the thread below, alcibades, JM, and pumpkinpuss make strong arguments supporting this. Each in their own ways and from three differing points of view. Now you do with yet another twist on it. It's almost like that story about the blind men and the elephant.

Which suddenly makes me start revisiting old Spike episodes.
Spike is an odd one. He says he's not very bright - yet, he has survived over 140 years. Not only that - he is considered to be the second worst vampire on record.

The way I determine if a metaphor/line is important and not just a joke or a mistake on the part of the writers is whether they repeat it.

Things I've noticed about Spike:

1. Persistance

All through Spike's arc - different people, from Giles to Angel have commented on Spike's persistence. "He's certainly persistent," Giles states in Harsh Light of Day S4
"Once he starts something, he doesn't stop" - Angel School Hard. Riley: "Do you think you have a chance with her?", Spike:"No. But a fella's got to try, do what he can do...what else is there?" Buffy herself noted how persistent Spike was in S5 when he continued to pursue her even after she disinvited him from her house.

2. Cleverness - putting on the act of the fool

Spike plays the fool in School Hard, his entrance, bragging, looking ugly - then whammo kills the guy, Dru shows up, and he's handsome. Later he sets up a vamp to be staked by Buffy, hanging back in the shadows studying her moves. When she defeats him in School Hard, he begins filming her to study her - Halloween. Realizes he doesn't have time to pursue her himself (What's My Line) - hires assassin's to keep her busy and gets Angel and successfuly cures Dru.

Then we have the whole Innocence to Becoming arc where we have Spike plotting his betrayal of Angelus. Biding his time. He puts on an act for Dru and Angelus, completely hoodwinks them. Pretends to be crippled. Pretends to be in support of the Acathala plan. But manages to save Giles' life and get Dru out of there. One wonders why Angel doesn't remember that? Or maybe he does, but never placed much importance on it - since it's Angelus' memory? Heck a lot was going on.

Same with the whole Gem of Amarra thing - we forget that Spike had to figure out where that thing was, hire help, and locate it. Then of course there's the legend about the soul that he goes after. The books that Doc has on Glory which he locates. Yet, Spike pretends to Giles and the others that he knows zip. I'm not very bright. Just a fighter. (Giles almost sees through the act in The New Man - I in Team, but Spike seems to revert to just being about the money, and Giles gives up. For good reason.)

We also have Yoko Factor - which was such a brilliant plan that the writers had to juggle a few things to get themselves out of it. Spike not only nailed each of the SG's weak points, he knew exactly which buttons to push.
Yoko Factor - was Spike's version of Soulless, where Angelus does the same thing.

And Dirty Girls/Touched - where Spike figures out Faith and everyone else fairly quickly.


The trickster - often appears to be foolish, lame jokes,
yet underneath all that is lots of intelligence.

The comparison to Wes is an interesting one, which I didn't notice before now - which is a trend ME started actually with Giles - this is the stumbling, foolish, clutzy character who isn't in reality stumbling, foolish or clutzy at all. In ATS and BTVS - you need to look beneath the surface act. Giles bumbling/stuttering professor who didn't appear to understand magic - hid a very astute, adept, scholar who not only knew how to use magic but had experience in the dark arts, he also knew and was willing to torture and/or kill someone to get something. Wes - the bumbling, sissy type, hid an astute, ruthless, man who was equally willing to do what was necessary. So what does Spike's fool hide?

[> [> Re: How can Spike "affect" the World?....spoilers for Lineage -- skeeve, 13:50:02 11/14/03 Fri

It's perhaps worth noting that, in court, the fool was often the smartest one in the room.

I don't believe Wes was putting on an act.
When he met Buffy, he had only encountered a vampire under "controlled conditions", which were unavailable in Sunnydale.
At the end of Graduataion, Wes was whining a bit.
He's changed since then.

[> [> [> If the fool persists in his folly, he will become wise -- mamcu, quoting Blake, 08:01:05 11/15/03 Sat


[> [> [> The Fool...(future spec) -- angel's nibblet, 21:22:38 11/15/03 Sat

"It's perhaps worth noting that, in court, the fool was often the smartest one in the room"

Totally agree!

For examples see many of Shakespeare's plays, especially the character of Feste in 'Twelfth NIght', who takes especial offence to being dismissed as simly a stupid clown. In fact he gets extremely bitter about it and takes his revenge in the form of an elaborate prank.

(This has probably been rehashed a million times but here's my take)

Because his place was to amuse, the Fool was allowed to say things that were inappropriate for others and make jokes at the expense of others as he wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

In some ways, Spike inhabited this role in Season 4 of Buffy, when he was hanging around the Scoobies a lot but couldn't really do anything (in the sense that, before he realised he could hurt other demons,he couldn't fall back on violence to get him through), until he started scheming with Adam to plot their downfall. He used his role as 'the fool' to trick everyone into thinking that he actually was a fool, which is why they didn't figure out Spike's plan until the last minute, when it became painfully obvious, because none of them had paid enough attention to what he was saying since they were so used to him not being able to affect anything, and too caught up in their own conflicts.

Maybe this is what is going to happen now? I don't mean that Spike will try to split the group up, because he needs them to figure out how to recorporealise him. Still, the situations are kinda similar...

Feel free, as always, to set me straight on any of this.

[> [> Re: How Spike thinks....spoilers for Lineage -- leslie, 15:22:43 11/14/03 Fri

I made a comment last week that got kind of lost in the shuffle--the one thing I really liked about TCToNC was when Spike figured out that to kill the Aztec demon you had to go for its heart, which he figured out not by thinking "scientifically" as Fred does but "poetically." (Another example of Spike and Fred being perfectly complementary characters.) He says that he knows this because the demon is a "mythic" being, and explains that when a mythic being wants hearts, that means that its own heart is its weak spot.

Okay, I am prejudiced, but as a mythologist I wanted to stand up and cheer. And I did, and alarmed the cats greatly. Mythology and poetry work by the same associative rules, and this is where Spike's former vocation as a poet has stood him in good stead. In fact, we could say that Spike now understands how poetry works better than William did. (I also think it's interesting that there have been repeated references to Spike's poetry this season.) He has become a figure of myth, and thus, dare I say it, a poem in himself.

And in a scientific world, a world that equates "myth" with "lies," Spike's mode of reasoning is completely dismissed--just lucky guesses, just stumbling on the right answer, even just bad writing to get out of a plot jam. I wanted to cheer because that little scene was the first explicit statement on ME's part that they do understand something about mythology (which I have suspected from the beginning, because they can make up folklore that actually works like folklore), and Spike is the mouthpiece of myth.

As for his ability to "affect" the world, this is kind of creepy, but about a year and a half ago I started writing a short story that is still hanging in Unfinished Land about the partial end of the world during a partial eclipse. The people caught in the grey area where the eclipse was not total turned into insubstantial yet living beings remarkably like what Spike is now, and the only way they could touch anything was to concentrate on it really hard, which made casual sex completely impossible. You could only have sex if the only thing you were thinking about was the person you were with--they had to completely fill your mind. And since I doubt that the minions of ME have been breaking into my apartment and riflinf through my files, I think the similarity of motifs has to do with thinking mythically.

[> [> [> I'd agree - regarding the mythology -- s'kat, 15:57:18 11/14/03 Fri

Not alone on wanting to cheer, as an amateur mythologist -I literally grinned. Actually this has happened twice now - the reference to myth and the reference to MC Escher - voila! think I, we're not as crazy as the casual viewers think we are, seeing references to myth and visual artists such as Escher in the show.

Mythology and poetry work by the same associative rules, and this is where Spike's former vocation as a poet has stood him in good stead. In fact, we could say that Spike now understands how poetry works better than William did. (I also think it's interesting that there have been repeated references to Spike's poetry this season.) He has become a figure of myth, and thus, dare I say it, a poem in himself.

It is interesting how much focus we've had on the poetry - which in reality is all about metaphor. Just as myth is.
And in the past - myth was retold in poetic form.

The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinquo in of itself feels like a visual epic poem, both in its structure and visual style. Not unlike Beowulf or the Greek myths of the heros of old.

And Spike? He always sees things in poetic terms. He is in a way a romantic. Note how he approaches the idea of getting a soul? Much in the same way as a mythic hero would.
When Buffy asks him about it - in Never Leave Me, he states - "I sought out a legend". The Gem of Amara - refered to by Giles as the vampire equivalent of the "holy
grail" - a legend, scoffs Giles, not real. Yet Spike finds it. Then in Angel, Spike tells tales. He tries to tell a heroic story about fighting a werewolf to Fred in Unleashed and is cut off in mid-sentence. He also tells Fred a tale about him and Wes and why Wes would have a vendetta against him - a tale Fred does not for one second believe, she sees it as a story - yet, isn't it interesting when Spike meets Roger, Wes' father - Roger states - "you slaughtered two watchers and an orphanage under "my" watch" - proving perhaps Spike had a reason to think Wes carried a grudge, maybe his tale wasn't entirely a tale after-all. The best lies after all retain a kernal of truth.

Spike's ability to spin a yarn is something the show has always spoken to - in Fool For Love, he spins wonderful tales about vampire daring - yet we see that what he says is a bit of an embellishment on what really happened.
And he states in FFL - that he is more interested in the imagination. I think when he became the vampire - he saw himself becoming a mythic warrior, saw the poetry in it.
It was an escape from the reality of human life - torture, pain, humilation, degradation - the mortal coil. Yet when he falls in love with Buffy, seeks the soul - he rediscovers the poetry of human existence, the pain of it, which while devastating can also be oddly efflugent - the burning up in Chosen. Spike oddly enough appears to be circling back to the person he once was - the person he never stopped being - the poet, the story-teller - yet at the same time he's bringing back to that persona...all he experienced as a vampire, which in of itself has a mythic resonance - it's like Ulysses who travels far away from his
routine human life, commits numerous violent acts, suffers trials and torments - only to return home...changed yet still the same man he started out as.

[> [> [> [> Spike finally became effulgent- I like that :-D -- angel's nibblet, 21:31:31 11/15/03 Sat

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in 'Fool For Love', Drusilla tells William, when she finds him in the alley, that she knows he's been looking for something shiny, something brilliant (will go search for exact quote) and in the end this is exactly what he became. In 'Chosen' he becomes so damn 'effulgent' that it kills him, which just goes to show that what he was looking for was there all along, inside of him (with a little help from that amulet of course).

Spike isn't just a poem, he's an epic!

[> [> [> [> Re: I'd agree - regarding the mythology -- punkinpuss, 10:43:02 11/16/03 Sun

Nice posts! Loved the poetic/mythic reading of that Spike scene, too.

BTW, Joss has actually referred to Spike as his Ulysses.

Marsters, even though he's almost always wrong about where narrative arcs are going, has said that Spike is getting back to what he was as a human: (from the BBC cult interview)
"Spike's was a very simple philosophy when we met him. I think that now he is forming one, and I think that the best thing that he has come up with so far is that a lot of being human is about degradation and pain and humiliation. I think he's starting to understand that for the first time. I think he got away from that by becoming a vampire and that's why he was so keen to stop being human, but he's getting back to being human now."

[> [> [> Alarming the Cats.........<g>...;) -- Rufus, 17:59:57 11/14/03 Fri

I noticed the poetry line myself and saw that there is this divide between myth and science that seems to be closing on the show. So, will science produce the next mythic creatures as the line between science and myth blurs?

And in a scientific world, a world that equates "myth" with "lies,"

Again the quote from The Matrix:Reloaded....there was an interesting comment by the Oracle about vampires as programs that are no longer doing what they should....

Oracle: Oh, well, not like me, but...look. See those birds? At some point a program was written to govern them. A program was written to watch over the trees, and the wind, sunrise and sunset. There are programs running all over the place. The ones doing their job, doing what they were meant to do are invisible, you'd never even know they were here. But the other ones, well, you hear about them all the time.

Neo: I've never heard of them.

Oracle: Oh, of course you have. Every time you've heard someone say they saw a ghost, or an angel. Every story you've ever heard about vampires, werewolves, or aliens. It's the system assimilating some program that's doing something they're not supposed to be doing.

[> [> [> Here's hoping your cats stay startled -- Ponygirl, 10:10:26 11/15/03 Sat

I liked your points. Really most of the episodes this season could be retold as folk/fairy tales, they have that feel to them. I was also reminded of Angel's penchant for poetic justice lately. I think there's a poetic solution coming, we just haven't heard the problem yet.

Leslie, you may have seen this before - it's an old article, but Neil Gaiman had this link up on his blog today. It's about the folklore of homeless children in Miami. Heartbreaking and amazing.

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/issues/1997-06-05/feature.html

[> [> [> [> THANK YOU... now my cats are startled too! -- phoenix, 15:29:09 11/15/03 Sat

I have just finished reading the article about the folklore of homeless children, and I'm pretty much lost for words, that was incredible, it reduced me to tears, and has given me a huge amount to think about.

Do you know where I could find more articles about this subject?

Oh, and how do I find my way to Neil Gaiman's site?

Thanks again.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Neil Gaiman -- Ponygirl, 08:56:47 11/16/03 Sun

You can check out his journal at www.neilgaiman.com. He updates it almost daily - always a good read.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Neil Gaiman. Thanks. -- phoenix, 03:39:12 11/17/03 Mon

Current board | More November 2003