FLM films - My Webpage

2003-02-25 15:53:29-08:00 - There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com>)


Spoiler Spacer: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always onions if that doesn't work.

2003-02-25 15:53:29-08:00 - There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com>)


Spoiler Spacer: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always onions if that doesn't work.

2003-02-25 18:19:49-08:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com>)


Ziggyman wrote: > > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... > > Spoiler Spacer: > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > onions if that doesn't work. > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. Tears are all the same.

2003-02-25 18:19:49-08:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com>)


Ziggyman wrote: > > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... > > Spoiler Spacer: > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > ; > > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > onions if that doesn't work. > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. Tears are all the same.

2003-02-25 19:51:39-08:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (reldevik@usa.net)


Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com>... > Spoiler Spacer: > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > onions if that doesn't work. --Obviously it had to be tears of true remorse. Tears of fear and self-pity, for example, wouldn't do. If Andrew hadn't had a real breakthrough and grasped the enormity of what he did to Jonathan, but instead had just cried because of Buffy's threat to him, I don't think that would have closed the seal. The Carmikls of this world should stick to shows like McGyver and shouldn't even try to deal with shows involving magic, fantasy, and the supernatural. Clairel

2003-02-25 19:51:39-08:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (reldevik@usa.net)


Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com>... > Spoiler Spacer: > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > onions if that doesn't work. --Obviously it had to be tears of true remorse. Tears of fear and self-pity, for example, wouldn't do. If Andrew hadn't had a real breakthrough and grasped the enormity of what he did to Jonathan, but instead had just cried because of Buffy's threat to him, I don't think that would have closed the seal. The Carmikls of this world should stick to shows like McGyver and shouldn't even try to deal with shows involving magic, fantasy, and the supernatural. Clairel

2003-02-25 20:58:13-08:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com>)


Shorty wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:53:29 -0800, Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote: > > >Spoiler Spacer: > >; > >; > >; > >; > >; > >; > >If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > >Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > >as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > >onions if that doesn't work. > > Oh, now you're just being silly. > Actually you're right, but I guess you wouldn't know that unless you read my post just before this in response to Growltiger in "Spoilers for Storyteller (For crying out loud)" where I preceded this with " but since the Buffyverse is a land with magical beings and souls and such, it would seem that it should make a difference that Andrews tears were from fear of being killed, not out of regret for killing Jonathan." I just thought I would have a little fun with the onion idea.

2003-02-25 20:58:13-08:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com>)


Shorty wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:53:29 -0800, Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote: > > >Spoiler Spacer: > >; > >; > >; > >; > >; > >; > >If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > >Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > >as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > >onions if that doesn't work. > > Oh, now you're just being silly. > Actually you're right, but I guess you wouldn't know that unless you read my post just before this in response to Growltiger in "Spoilers for Storyteller (For crying out loud)" where I preceded this with " but since the Buffyverse is a land with magical beings and souls and such, it would seem that it should make a difference that Andrews tears were from fear of being killed, not out of regret for killing Jonathan." I just thought I would have a little fun with the onion idea.

2003-02-25 21:38:47-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (-Andy- <a.stoffel@spamworm.adelphia.net>)


In article <vl9o5v4bfidmbrchqr6t1o11rl7uochsvu@4ax.com>, st <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:19:49 -0800, Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote: > > >Tears are all the same. > > Are you an expert on everything? Didn't you get the memo ?

2003-02-25 21:38:47-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (-Andy- <a.stoffel@spamworm.adelphia.net>)


In article <vl9o5v4bfidmbrchqr6t1o11rl7uochsvu@4ax.com>, st <striketoo@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:19:49 -0800, Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote: > > >Tears are all the same. > > Are you an expert on everything? Didn't you get the memo ?

2003-02-25 21:47:22-06:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote in news:b3hb1b$1lnjeo$2@ID-137314.news.dfncis.de: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> I think it had to be tears of redemption. >> > > Those weren't tears of redemption. One is not redeemed when one > admits wrongs and feels bad. That is simply a first step toward a > road of redemption. Otherwise, redemption doesn't mean much. You know that, and I know that -- but I'm no longer convinced that the BUFFY writers know that. There was a time that they treated murder as very serious business that changes a person forever. Now, judging from the way they've deal with the recent actions of Spike, and Anya. and Willow, and perhaps now Andrew, all it takes is a little whimpering and all is washed clean. -- Lord Usher "Don't we kill 'em any more?"

2003-02-25 21:47:22-06:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote in news:b3hb1b$1lnjeo$2@ID-137314.news.dfncis.de: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> I think it had to be tears of redemption. >> > > Those weren't tears of redemption. One is not redeemed when one > admits wrongs and feels bad. That is simply a first step toward a > road of redemption. Otherwise, redemption doesn't mean much. You know that, and I know that -- but I'm no longer convinced that the BUFFY writers know that. There was a time that they treated murder as very serious business that changes a person forever. Now, judging from the way they've deal with the recent actions of Spike, and Anya. and Willow, and perhaps now Andrew, all it takes is a little whimpering and all is washed clean. -- Lord Usher "Don't we kill 'em any more?"

2003-02-25 22:11:22-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <3E5C2445.65CC9209@rcn.com>, Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote: > Ziggyman wrote: > > > > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... > > > Spoiler Spacer: > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > > > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > > onions if that doesn't work. > > > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. > > Tears are all the same. This turns out not to be the case. Tears caused by emotional stress have subtle differences from tears caused by irritation of the eyes. See for example <http://www.epub.org.br/cm/n16/mente/crying-brain.html#Tears> -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-02-25 22:11:22-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <3E5C2445.65CC9209@rcn.com>, Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote: > Ziggyman wrote: > > > > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... > > > Spoiler Spacer: > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > > > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > > onions if that doesn't work. > > > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. > > Tears are all the same. This turns out not to be the case. Tears caused by emotional stress have subtle differences from tears caused by irritation of the eyes. See for example <http://www.epub.org.br/cm/n16/mente/crying-brain.html#Tears> -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-02-25 22:20:38-06:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in news:1faed770.0302251951.4cd4bd50@posting.google.com: > The Carmikls of this world should stick to shows like McGyver and > shouldn't even try to deal with shows involving magic, fantasy, and > the supernatural. I guess you missed the episodes of MACGYVER that saw him traveling back in time to the Old West. Or the two-parter in which he ended up in Camelot and met King Arthur. -- Lord Usher "Don't we kill 'em any more?"

2003-02-25 22:20:38-06:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in news:1faed770.0302251951.4cd4bd50@posting.google.com: > The Carmikls of this world should stick to shows like McGyver and > shouldn't even try to deal with shows involving magic, fantasy, and > the supernatural. I guess you missed the episodes of MACGYVER that saw him traveling back in time to the Old West. Or the two-parter in which he ended up in Camelot and met King Arthur. -- Lord Usher "Don't we kill 'em any more?"

2003-02-25 22:27:31-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Arnold Kim <kim5@erols.com>)


"Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message news:3E5C2445.65CC9209@rcn.com... > Ziggyman wrote: > > > > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... > > > Spoiler Spacer: > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > > > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > > onions if that doesn't work. > > > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. > > Tears are all the same. Carmikl, do you have any fun watching this series at all anymore? Seriously, what next? You're going to stop believing that there's magic in the show? Arnold Kim

2003-02-25 22:27:31-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Arnold Kim <kim5@erols.com>)


"Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message news:3E5C2445.65CC9209@rcn.com... > Ziggyman wrote: > > > > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... > > > Spoiler Spacer: > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > > > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > > onions if that doesn't work. > > > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. > > Tears are all the same. Carmikl, do you have any fun watching this series at all anymore? Seriously, what next? You're going to stop believing that there's magic in the show? Arnold Kim

2003-02-25 22:37:22-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <b3hc76$fbm$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, Arnold Kim <kim5@erols.com> wrote: > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > news:3E5C2445.65CC9209@rcn.com... > > Ziggyman wrote: > > > > > > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > > > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... > > > > Spoiler Spacer: > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > > > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his > > > > eyelid as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > > > onions if that doesn't work. > > > > > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. > > > > Tears are all the same. > > Carmikl, do you have any fun watching this series at all anymore? > > Seriously, what next? You're going to stop believing that there's magic in > the show? > > Arnold Kim And in this case he's wrong. There are subtle differences in the composition between tears caused by irritation of they eye, and tears from emotional stress. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-02-25 22:37:22-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <b3hc76$fbm$1@bob.news.rcn.net>, Arnold Kim <kim5@erols.com> wrote: > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > news:3E5C2445.65CC9209@rcn.com... > > Ziggyman wrote: > > > > > > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > > > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... > > > > Spoiler Spacer: > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > > > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his > > > > eyelid as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > > > onions if that doesn't work. > > > > > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. > > > > Tears are all the same. > > Carmikl, do you have any fun watching this series at all anymore? > > Seriously, what next? You're going to stop believing that there's magic in > the show? > > Arnold Kim And in this case he's wrong. There are subtle differences in the composition between tears caused by irritation of they eye, and tears from emotional stress. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-02-25 23:32:13-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <Xns932DE2E47AD82houseofusher@216.40.28.70>, Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote: > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > news:1faed770.0302251951.4cd4bd50@posting.google.com: > > > The Carmikls of this world should stick to shows like McGyver and > > shouldn't even try to deal with shows involving magic, fantasy, and > > the supernatural. > > I guess you missed the episodes of MACGYVER that saw him traveling back in > time to the Old West. Or the two-parter in which he ended up in Camelot and > met King Arthur. And just about every episode where he made something that couldn't possibly work. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-02-25 23:32:13-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <Xns932DE2E47AD82houseofusher@216.40.28.70>, Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote: > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > news:1faed770.0302251951.4cd4bd50@posting.google.com: > > > The Carmikls of this world should stick to shows like McGyver and > > shouldn't even try to deal with shows involving magic, fantasy, and > > the supernatural. > > I guess you missed the episodes of MACGYVER that saw him traveling back in > time to the Old West. Or the two-parter in which he ended up in Camelot and > met King Arthur. And just about every episode where he made something that couldn't possibly work. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-02-25 23:57:02-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Tom Breton <tehom@REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com>)


Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com> writes: > Ziggyman wrote: > > > > > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... > > > Spoiler Spacer: > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > > > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > > onions if that doesn't work. > > > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. > > Tears are all the same. Not neccessarily on BTVS. There's precedent: In PG, Angel's breath couldn't CPR Buffy, even though physically his breath should have at least as much oxygen as Xander's. -- Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom

2003-02-25 23:57:02-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Tom Breton <tehom@REMOVEpanNOSPAMix.com>)


Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com> writes: > Ziggyman wrote: > > > > > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... > > > Spoiler Spacer: > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > > > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > > onions if that doesn't work. > > > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. > > Tears are all the same. Not neccessarily on BTVS. There's precedent: In PG, Angel's breath couldn't CPR Buffy, even though physically his breath should have at least as much oxygen as Xander's. -- Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom

2003-02-26 00:03:21-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <3E5C4965.58846BF3@rcn.com>, Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote: > Shorty wrote: > > > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:53:29 -0800, Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote: > > > > >Spoiler Spacer: > > >; > > >; > > >; > > >; > > >; > > >; > > >If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > >Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > > >as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > >onions if that doesn't work. > > > > Oh, now you're just being silly. > > > > Actually you're right, but I guess you wouldn't know that unless you > read my post just before this in response to Growltiger in "Spoilers for > Storyteller (For crying out loud)" where I preceded this with " but > since the Buffyverse is a land with magical beings and souls and such, > it would seem that it should make a difference that Andrews tears were > from fear of being killed, not out of regret for killing Jonathan." I > just thought I would have a little fun with the onion idea. Even in the real world there are chemical differences between the tears produced by irritating the eye, and tears from emotional stress. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-02-26 00:03:21-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <3E5C4965.58846BF3@rcn.com>, Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote: > Shorty wrote: > > > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:53:29 -0800, Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote: > > > > >Spoiler Spacer: > > >; > > >; > > >; > > >; > > >; > > >; > > >If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > >Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > > >as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > >onions if that doesn't work. > > > > Oh, now you're just being silly. > > > > Actually you're right, but I guess you wouldn't know that unless you > read my post just before this in response to Growltiger in "Spoilers for > Storyteller (For crying out loud)" where I preceded this with " but > since the Buffyverse is a land with magical beings and souls and such, > it would seem that it should make a difference that Andrews tears were > from fear of being killed, not out of regret for killing Jonathan." I > just thought I would have a little fun with the onion idea. Even in the real world there are chemical differences between the tears produced by irritating the eye, and tears from emotional stress. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-02-26 00:27:10-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Erich <Erichattheredeye@hotmail.com>)


"Arnold Kim" <kim5@erols.com> wrote in message news:b3hc76$fbm$1@bob.news.rcn.net... > > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > news:3E5C2445.65CC9209@rcn.com... > > Ziggyman wrote: > > > > > > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > > > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... > > > > Spoiler Spacer: > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > > > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his > eyelid > > > > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > > > onions if that doesn't work. > > > > > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. > > > > Tears are all the same. > > Carmikl, do you have any fun watching this series at all anymore? > > Seriously, what next? You're going to stop believing that there's magic in > the show? It's easy to occasionally read some of this newsgroup now and then when I have time, or like after an episode, see some asinine nitpicking of his like that, and just really really hate the fellow. - Erich

2003-02-26 00:27:10-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Erich <Erichattheredeye@hotmail.com>)


"Arnold Kim" <kim5@erols.com> wrote in message news:b3hc76$fbm$1@bob.news.rcn.net... > > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > news:3E5C2445.65CC9209@rcn.com... > > Ziggyman wrote: > > > > > > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > > > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... > > > > Spoiler Spacer: > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > > > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his > eyelid > > > > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > > > onions if that doesn't work. > > > > > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. > > > > Tears are all the same. > > Carmikl, do you have any fun watching this series at all anymore? > > Seriously, what next? You're going to stop believing that there's magic in > the show? It's easy to occasionally read some of this newsgroup now and then when I have time, or like after an episode, see some asinine nitpicking of his like that, and just really really hate the fellow. - Erich

2003-02-26 01:36:14-08:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (sam_14042@yahoo.com)


Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns932DDD2B89BE1houseofusher@216.40.28.70>... > AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote in > news:b3hb1b$1lnjeo$2@ID-137314.news.dfncis.de: > > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > >> I think it had to be tears of redemption. > >> > > > > Those weren't tears of redemption. One is not redeemed when one > > admits wrongs and feels bad. That is simply a first step toward a > > road of redemption. Otherwise, redemption doesn't mean much. > > You know that, and I know that -- but I'm no longer convinced that the > BUFFY writers know that. There was a time that they treated murder as very > serious business that changes a person forever. Now, judging from the way > they've deal with the recent actions of Spike, and Anya. and Willow, and > perhaps now Andrew, all it takes is a little whimpering and all is washed > clean. Am I the only person here who heard them talking about this very thing *in the actual scene in question?* --- "When your blood pours out, it might save the world. What do you think about that? Does it buy it all back? Are you redeemed?" "No!" "Why not?" "Because I killed him. Because I... I listened to Warren and I pretended I thought it was him, but I knew it wasn't and I killed Jonathan and you're gonna kill me and I'm scared and I'm going to die. And this is what Jonathan felt." --- I mean, I like criticism as much as the next guy, but the whole end of the episode was about the fact that Andrew is not redeemed and can never make up for what he's done! --Sam

2003-02-26 01:36:14-08:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (sam_14042@yahoo.com)


Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns932DDD2B89BE1houseofusher@216.40.28.70>... > AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote in > news:b3hb1b$1lnjeo$2@ID-137314.news.dfncis.de: > > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > >> I think it had to be tears of redemption. > >> > > > > Those weren't tears of redemption. One is not redeemed when one > > admits wrongs and feels bad. That is simply a first step toward a > > road of redemption. Otherwise, redemption doesn't mean much. > > You know that, and I know that -- but I'm no longer convinced that the > BUFFY writers know that. There was a time that they treated murder as very > serious business that changes a person forever. Now, judging from the way > they've deal with the recent actions of Spike, and Anya. and Willow, and > perhaps now Andrew, all it takes is a little whimpering and all is washed > clean. Am I the only person here who heard them talking about this very thing *in the actual scene in question?* --- "When your blood pours out, it might save the world. What do you think about that? Does it buy it all back? Are you redeemed?" "No!" "Why not?" "Because I killed him. Because I... I listened to Warren and I pretended I thought it was him, but I knew it wasn't and I killed Jonathan and you're gonna kill me and I'm scared and I'm going to die. And this is what Jonathan felt." --- I mean, I like criticism as much as the next guy, but the whole end of the episode was about the fact that Andrew is not redeemed and can never make up for what he's done! --Sam

2003-02-26 02:13:42+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Ziggyman <asf@Fds.com>)


"Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... > Spoiler Spacer: > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > onions if that doesn't work. I think it had to be tears of redemption.

2003-02-26 02:13:42+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Ziggyman <asf@Fds.com>)


"Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... > Spoiler Spacer: > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > onions if that doesn't work. I think it had to be tears of redemption.

2003-02-26 02:38:22+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Latara <latara@silversenshi.net>)


> > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > > > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > > onions if that doesn't work. > > > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. > > Tears are all the same. Well, normally they are, but I think the magic aspect of the redemption was what caused it to close. I mean, Buffy was definitely trying to cause him to cry about Jonathan specifically.

2003-02-26 02:38:22+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Latara <latara@silversenshi.net>)


> > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > > > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > > onions if that doesn't work. > > > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. > > Tears are all the same. Well, normally they are, but I think the magic aspect of the redemption was what caused it to close. I mean, Buffy was definitely trying to cause him to cry about Jonathan specifically.

2003-02-26 03:02:42+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Japhy Grant <japhy@hotmail.com>)


"Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message news:3E5C2445.65CC9209@rcn.com... > Ziggyman wrote: > > > > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... > > > Spoiler Spacer: > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > > > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > > onions if that doesn't work. > > > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. > > Tears are all the same. Why Why Why? I suppose Snow White could have been roused from her sleep by Andrew's pig if they could get it to kiss her. Somebody's missing the point of Buffy: It's a moral allegory- this isn't Star Wars or Star Trek where things are based on a foundation of science and tech- it's based on vampires and witches. This kind of nitpicking is pointless. I mean- Buffy could have bought a bottle of saline and poured it on the seal as well, but nobody would tune in for that, would they? -J

2003-02-26 03:02:42+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Japhy Grant <japhy@hotmail.com>)


"Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message news:3E5C2445.65CC9209@rcn.com... > Ziggyman wrote: > > > > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... > > > Spoiler Spacer: > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > > > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > > onions if that doesn't work. > > > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. > > Tears are all the same. Why Why Why? I suppose Snow White could have been roused from her sleep by Andrew's pig if they could get it to kiss her. Somebody's missing the point of Buffy: It's a moral allegory- this isn't Star Wars or Star Trek where things are based on a foundation of science and tech- it's based on vampires and witches. This kind of nitpicking is pointless. I mean- Buffy could have bought a bottle of saline and poured it on the seal as well, but nobody would tune in for that, would they? -J

2003-02-26 03:07:24+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net>)


Ziggyman <asf@fds.com> wrote: > > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... >> Spoiler Spacer: >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left >> Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid >> as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always >> onions if that doesn't work. > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. > Those weren't tears of redemption. One is not redeemed when one admits wrongs and feels bad. That is simply a first step toward a road of redemption. Otherwise, redemption doesn't mean much. -- A.E. Jabbour "IN the second century of the Christian era, the Empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most civilised portion of mankind." Edward Gibbon, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"

2003-02-26 03:07:24+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net>)


Ziggyman <asf@fds.com> wrote: > > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... >> Spoiler Spacer: >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left >> Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid >> as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always >> onions if that doesn't work. > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. > Those weren't tears of redemption. One is not redeemed when one admits wrongs and feels bad. That is simply a first step toward a road of redemption. Otherwise, redemption doesn't mean much. -- A.E. Jabbour "IN the second century of the Christian era, the Empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most civilised portion of mankind." Edward Gibbon, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"

2003-02-26 03:17:16+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (REMOVEnick182@pacbell.net)


>> > I think it had to be tears of redemption. >> >> Tears are all the same. > >Not to the seal. Andrew had to turn his back and reject his evil evil >ways--and the seal of evil. > >At least that's possibility. Plus Buffy gets him to take this thing >seriously. > >-- Ken from Chicago > >P.S. "Aint nothing sadder than the tears of clown." > I just feel the relief..relief from the fear of things being glued together. Nick

2003-02-26 03:17:16+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (REMOVEnick182@pacbell.net)


>> > I think it had to be tears of redemption. >> >> Tears are all the same. > >Not to the seal. Andrew had to turn his back and reject his evil evil >ways--and the seal of evil. > >At least that's possibility. Plus Buffy gets him to take this thing >seriously. > >-- Ken from Chicago > >P.S. "Aint nothing sadder than the tears of clown." > I just feel the relief..relief from the fear of things being glued together. Nick

2003-02-26 03:40:26+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (stardreamer@mindspring.com)


In article <b3hb1b$1lnjeo$2@ID-137314.news.dfncis.de>, aej17DELETEME@comcast.net says... > >Ziggyman <asf@fds.com> wrote: >> >> "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message >> news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... >>> Spoiler Spacer: >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left >>> Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid >>> as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always >>> onions if that doesn't work. >> >> I think it had to be tears of redemption. >> > >Those weren't tears of redemption. One is not redeemed when one admits >wrongs and feels bad. That is simply a first step toward a road of >redemption. Otherwise, redemption doesn't mean much. I think the phrase really wanted above was "tears of remorse". Note also that tears and blood are fairly similar, chemically speaking. Celine -- Handmade jewelry at http://www.rubylane.com/shops/starcat "Only the powers of evil claim that doing good is boring." -- Diane Duane, _Nightfall at Algemron_

2003-02-26 03:40:26+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (stardreamer@mindspring.com)


In article <b3hb1b$1lnjeo$2@ID-137314.news.dfncis.de>, aej17DELETEME@comcast.net says... > >Ziggyman <asf@fds.com> wrote: >> >> "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message >> news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... >>> Spoiler Spacer: >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> ; >>> If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left >>> Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid >>> as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always >>> onions if that doesn't work. >> >> I think it had to be tears of redemption. >> > >Those weren't tears of redemption. One is not redeemed when one admits >wrongs and feels bad. That is simply a first step toward a road of >redemption. Otherwise, redemption doesn't mean much. I think the phrase really wanted above was "tears of remorse". Note also that tears and blood are fairly similar, chemically speaking. Celine -- Handmade jewelry at http://www.rubylane.com/shops/starcat "Only the powers of evil claim that doing good is boring." -- Diane Duane, _Nightfall at Algemron_

2003-02-26 04:00:19+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message news:3E5C2445.65CC9209@rcn.com... > Ziggyman wrote: > > > > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... > > > Spoiler Spacer: > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > > > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > > onions if that doesn't work. > > > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. > > Tears are all the same. Not to the seal. Andrew had to turn his back and reject his evil evil ways--and the seal of evil. At least that's possibility. Plus Buffy gets him to take this thing seriously. -- Ken from Chicago P.S. "Aint nothing sadder than the tears of clown."

2003-02-26 04:00:19+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message news:3E5C2445.65CC9209@rcn.com... > Ziggyman wrote: > > > > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... > > > Spoiler Spacer: > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > > > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > > onions if that doesn't work. > > > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. > > Tears are all the same. Not to the seal. Andrew had to turn his back and reject his evil evil ways--and the seal of evil. At least that's possibility. Plus Buffy gets him to take this thing seriously. -- Ken from Chicago P.S. "Aint nothing sadder than the tears of clown."

2003-02-26 04:25:38+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Bill Anderson <philidor@bellsouth.net>)


"Lord Usher" <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns932DE2E47AD82houseofusher@216.40.28.70... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > news:1faed770.0302251951.4cd4bd50@posting.google.com: > > > The Carmikls of this world should stick to shows like McGyver and > > shouldn't even try to deal with shows involving magic, fantasy, and > > the supernatural. > > I guess you missed the episodes of MACGYVER that saw him traveling back in > time to the Old West. Or the two-parter in which he ended up in Camelot and > met King Arthur. Then there was the one where he forged the Enchanted Safety-Pin of Briefcase Opening...

2003-02-26 04:25:38+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Bill Anderson <philidor@bellsouth.net>)


"Lord Usher" <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns932DE2E47AD82houseofusher@216.40.28.70... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > news:1faed770.0302251951.4cd4bd50@posting.google.com: > > > The Carmikls of this world should stick to shows like McGyver and > > shouldn't even try to deal with shows involving magic, fantasy, and > > the supernatural. > > I guess you missed the episodes of MACGYVER that saw him traveling back in > time to the Old West. Or the two-parter in which he ended up in Camelot and > met King Arthur. Then there was the one where he forged the Enchanted Safety-Pin of Briefcase Opening...

2003-02-26 04:41:25+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Shorty <notrealshorty@hotmail.com>)


On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:53:29 -0800, Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote: >Spoiler Spacer: >; >; >; >; >; >; >If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left >Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid >as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always >onions if that doesn't work. Oh, now you're just being silly. Shorty ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "I used to believe these were real people -- well, not real people, because I'm eminently sane, but I believed that they could have been people I knew. But now? There's no interior life there. I don't get the sense that they think or feel really anything other than what the writers decide they should think or feel to get them from point A to point B, no matter how contradictory those thoughts and feelings are to the thoughts and feelings they had last week, last month, or last year." - http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/story.cgi?show=12&story=4599

2003-02-26 04:41:25+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Shorty <notrealshorty@hotmail.com>)


On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:53:29 -0800, Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote: >Spoiler Spacer: >; >; >; >; >; >; >If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left >Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid >as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always >onions if that doesn't work. Oh, now you're just being silly. Shorty ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "I used to believe these were real people -- well, not real people, because I'm eminently sane, but I believed that they could have been people I knew. But now? There's no interior life there. I don't get the sense that they think or feel really anything other than what the writers decide they should think or feel to get them from point A to point B, no matter how contradictory those thoughts and feelings are to the thoughts and feelings they had last week, last month, or last year." - http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/story.cgi?show=12&story=4599

2003-02-26 04:48:42+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net>)


Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote: > AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote in > news:b3hb1b$1lnjeo$2@ID-137314.news.dfncis.de: > > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . >>> I think it had to be tears of redemption. >>> >> >> Those weren't tears of redemption. One is not redeemed when one >> admits wrongs and feels bad. That is simply a first step toward a >> road of redemption. Otherwise, redemption doesn't mean much. > > You know that, and I know that -- but I'm no longer convinced that the > BUFFY writers know that. There was a time that they treated murder as very > serious business that changes a person forever. Now, judging from the way > they've deal with the recent actions of Spike, and Anya. and Willow, and > perhaps now Andrew, all it takes is a little whimpering and all is washed > clean. > > -- > Lord Usher > "Don't we kill 'em any more?" Preach it, brother. As much as I was looking forward to Faith's return, I also was dreading it. Faith's road, as it ended up on ANGEL, was obviously the beginning of her acceptance. Angel tells her: Just because you've decided to change doesn't mean that the world is ready for you to. The truth is, no matter how much you suffer, no matter how many good deeds you do to try to make up for the past, you may never balance out the cosmic scale. The only thing I can promise you is that you'll probably be haunted - maybe for the rest of your life. Faith turns herself into the authorities, and, that's pretty much it. She's on her own road toward understanding her deeds, and seeking redemption. A big part of me wants her to remain on that road, un- fortunately out of view. I have the unsettling feeling that this "rest of your life" Angel spoke about is going to end in some pseudo- heroic sacrifice which supposed to redeem her in all our eyes. Her story was much more interesting and important when it couldn't be seen at all, in my opinion. It was the *idea* of Faith's struggle, a struggle that would haunt her for the rest of her life, that gave her the opportunity to be "seen" as heroic. Now, I guess, instead of Angel's speech to her, and her long, hard road we would get a the newly enlightened Andrew telling her to have a "nice cry. Everything will be ok." -- A.E. Jabbour "IN the second century of the Christian era, the Empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most civilised portion of mankind." Edward Gibbon, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"

2003-02-26 04:48:42+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net>)


Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote: > AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote in > news:b3hb1b$1lnjeo$2@ID-137314.news.dfncis.de: > > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . >>> I think it had to be tears of redemption. >>> >> >> Those weren't tears of redemption. One is not redeemed when one >> admits wrongs and feels bad. That is simply a first step toward a >> road of redemption. Otherwise, redemption doesn't mean much. > > You know that, and I know that -- but I'm no longer convinced that the > BUFFY writers know that. There was a time that they treated murder as very > serious business that changes a person forever. Now, judging from the way > they've deal with the recent actions of Spike, and Anya. and Willow, and > perhaps now Andrew, all it takes is a little whimpering and all is washed > clean. > > -- > Lord Usher > "Don't we kill 'em any more?" Preach it, brother. As much as I was looking forward to Faith's return, I also was dreading it. Faith's road, as it ended up on ANGEL, was obviously the beginning of her acceptance. Angel tells her: Just because you've decided to change doesn't mean that the world is ready for you to. The truth is, no matter how much you suffer, no matter how many good deeds you do to try to make up for the past, you may never balance out the cosmic scale. The only thing I can promise you is that you'll probably be haunted - maybe for the rest of your life. Faith turns herself into the authorities, and, that's pretty much it. She's on her own road toward understanding her deeds, and seeking redemption. A big part of me wants her to remain on that road, un- fortunately out of view. I have the unsettling feeling that this "rest of your life" Angel spoke about is going to end in some pseudo- heroic sacrifice which supposed to redeem her in all our eyes. Her story was much more interesting and important when it couldn't be seen at all, in my opinion. It was the *idea* of Faith's struggle, a struggle that would haunt her for the rest of her life, that gave her the opportunity to be "seen" as heroic. Now, I guess, instead of Angel's speech to her, and her long, hard road we would get a the newly enlightened Andrew telling her to have a "nice cry. Everything will be ok." -- A.E. Jabbour "IN the second century of the Christian era, the Empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most civilised portion of mankind." Edward Gibbon, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"

2003-02-26 06:36:45+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Growltiger <tyger@never.invalid>)


Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, lord_usher@hotmail.com wrote in article <Xns932DDD2B89BE1houseofusher@216.40.28.70>... > AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote in > news:b3hb1b$1lnjeo$2@ID-137314.news.dfncis.de: > > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > >> I think it had to be tears of redemption. > >> > > > > Those weren't tears of redemption. One is not redeemed when one > > admits wrongs and feels bad. That is simply a first step toward a > > road of redemption. Otherwise, redemption doesn't mean much. > > You know that, and I know that -- but I'm no longer convinced that the > BUFFY writers know that. There was a time that they treated murder as very > serious business that changes a person forever. Now, judging from the way > they've deal with the recent actions of Spike, and Anya. and Willow, and > perhaps now Andrew, all it takes is a little whimpering and all is washed > clean. > > Or it could be that they, the characters, all realize that they are lost souls but there is still a job to do and that personal redemption must wait. In there own ways, the principal characters have come to grips with this basic truth of life: Nobody gets out of here alive. -- Be seeing you, Growltiger

2003-02-26 06:36:45+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Growltiger <tyger@never.invalid>)


Previously on alt.tv.buffy-v-slayer, lord_usher@hotmail.com wrote in article <Xns932DDD2B89BE1houseofusher@216.40.28.70>... > AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote in > news:b3hb1b$1lnjeo$2@ID-137314.news.dfncis.de: > > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > >> I think it had to be tears of redemption. > >> > > > > Those weren't tears of redemption. One is not redeemed when one > > admits wrongs and feels bad. That is simply a first step toward a > > road of redemption. Otherwise, redemption doesn't mean much. > > You know that, and I know that -- but I'm no longer convinced that the > BUFFY writers know that. There was a time that they treated murder as very > serious business that changes a person forever. Now, judging from the way > they've deal with the recent actions of Spike, and Anya. and Willow, and > perhaps now Andrew, all it takes is a little whimpering and all is washed > clean. > > Or it could be that they, the characters, all realize that they are lost souls but there is still a job to do and that personal redemption must wait. In there own ways, the principal characters have come to grips with this basic truth of life: Nobody gets out of here alive. -- Be seeing you, Growltiger

2003-02-26 07:42:27+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Tom Breton wrote in message ... >Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com> writes: > >> Ziggyman wrote: >> >> > >> > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message >> > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... >> > > Spoiler Spacer: >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left >> > > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid >> > > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always >> > > onions if that doesn't work. >> > >> > I think it had to be tears of redemption. >> >> Tears are all the same. > >Not neccessarily on BTVS. There's precedent: In PG, Angel's breath >couldn't CPR Buffy, even though physically his breath should have at >least as much oxygen as Xander's. Or even more, since vampires seem to only breath when they need to activate their vocal chords or smoke. So they breath in and exhale two lungfulls of air flavoured with decades of decaying dead tissue? I can understand why Angel passed the job on to Xander. But how could Buffy kiss Angel and Spike? Is there some vampire strength breath cleaner? Are even Altoids "that" curiously strong?

2003-02-26 07:42:27+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Aethelrede <aethelrede@worldnet.att.net>)


Tom Breton wrote in message ... >Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com> writes: > >> Ziggyman wrote: >> >> > >> > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message >> > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... >> > > Spoiler Spacer: >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > ; >> > > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left >> > > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid >> > > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always >> > > onions if that doesn't work. >> > >> > I think it had to be tears of redemption. >> >> Tears are all the same. > >Not neccessarily on BTVS. There's precedent: In PG, Angel's breath >couldn't CPR Buffy, even though physically his breath should have at >least as much oxygen as Xander's. Or even more, since vampires seem to only breath when they need to activate their vocal chords or smoke. So they breath in and exhale two lungfulls of air flavoured with decades of decaying dead tissue? I can understand why Angel passed the job on to Xander. But how could Buffy kiss Angel and Spike? Is there some vampire strength breath cleaner? Are even Altoids "that" curiously strong?

2003-02-26 07:43:41-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On 26 Feb 2003 04:48:42 GMT, AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote: >Faith turns herself into the authorities "POOF! I'm the authorities!"

2003-02-26 07:43:41-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (forge <bake455@spamsucks.bellsouth.net>)


On 26 Feb 2003 04:48:42 GMT, AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote: >Faith turns herself into the authorities "POOF! I'm the authorities!"

2003-02-26 10:40:33-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... > Spoiler Spacer: > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > onions if that doesn't work. Ahhh....,but you see, my very literal on-line friend analyzing a metaphorical show, the tears had to be tears of atonement. No, Carmikl, a bottle of saline solution warmed up to human body temperature wouldn't work, either. ;) -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-02-26 10:40:33-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... > Spoiler Spacer: > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > ; > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > onions if that doesn't work. Ahhh....,but you see, my very literal on-line friend analyzing a metaphorical show, the tears had to be tears of atonement. No, Carmikl, a bottle of saline solution warmed up to human body temperature wouldn't work, either. ;) -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-02-26 10:41:28-08:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (smaug86@yahoo.com)


Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<3E5C4965.58846BF3@rcn.com>... > Shorty wrote: > > > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:53:29 -0800, Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote: > > > > >Spoiler Spacer: > > >; > > >; > > >; > > >; > > >; > > >; > > >If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > >Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > > >as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > >onions if that doesn't work. > > > > Oh, now you're just being silly. > > > > Actually you're right, but I guess you wouldn't know that unless you > read my post just before this in response to Growltiger in "Spoilers for > Storyteller (For crying out loud)" where I preceded this with " but > since the Buffyverse is a land with magical beings and souls and such, > it would seem that it should make a difference that Andrews tears were > from fear of being killed, not out of regret for killing Jonathan." I > just thought I would have a little fun with the onion idea. Considering your history of picking nits with the show regarding how things are supposed to work in the real world, nobody had a clue you were joking. Dude, all you do is nitpick. I can't imgaine anyone having fun watching the show while they are trying to make a list of all the things that shouldn't happen. Smaug69

2003-02-26 10:41:28-08:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (smaug86@yahoo.com)


Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message news:<3E5C4965.58846BF3@rcn.com>... > Shorty wrote: > > > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:53:29 -0800, Carmikl <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote: > > > > >Spoiler Spacer: > > >; > > >; > > >; > > >; > > >; > > >; > > >If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > >Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > > >as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > >onions if that doesn't work. > > > > Oh, now you're just being silly. > > > > Actually you're right, but I guess you wouldn't know that unless you > read my post just before this in response to Growltiger in "Spoilers for > Storyteller (For crying out loud)" where I preceded this with " but > since the Buffyverse is a land with magical beings and souls and such, > it would seem that it should make a difference that Andrews tears were > from fear of being killed, not out of regret for killing Jonathan." I > just thought I would have a little fun with the onion idea. Considering your history of picking nits with the show regarding how things are supposed to work in the real world, nobody had a clue you were joking. Dude, all you do is nitpick. I can't imgaine anyone having fun watching the show while they are trying to make a list of all the things that shouldn't happen. Smaug69

2003-02-26 10:43:23-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message news:250220032332136012%dsample@synapse.net... > In article <Xns932DE2E47AD82houseofusher@216.40.28.70>, Lord Usher > <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > > news:1faed770.0302251951.4cd4bd50@posting.google.com: > > > > > The Carmikls of this world should stick to shows like McGyver and > > > shouldn't even try to deal with shows involving magic, fantasy, and > > > the supernatural. > > > > I guess you missed the episodes of MACGYVER that saw him traveling back in > > time to the Old West. Or the two-parter in which he ended up in Camelot and > > met King Arthur. > > And just about every episode where he made something that couldn't > possibly work. Yes, but he was always hot and sexy while he was doing it. > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-02-26 10:43:23-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (DarkMagic <slnospambilan@comcast.net>)


"Don Sample" <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message news:250220032332136012%dsample@synapse.net... > In article <Xns932DE2E47AD82houseofusher@216.40.28.70>, Lord Usher > <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > > news:1faed770.0302251951.4cd4bd50@posting.google.com: > > > > > The Carmikls of this world should stick to shows like McGyver and > > > shouldn't even try to deal with shows involving magic, fantasy, and > > > the supernatural. > > > > I guess you missed the episodes of MACGYVER that saw him traveling back in > > time to the Old West. Or the two-parter in which he ended up in Camelot and > > met King Arthur. > > And just about every episode where he made something that couldn't > possibly work. Yes, but he was always hot and sexy while he was doing it. > -- Shannon Cordelia: "Angel is only happy when he's fighting evil. Let's drum up a little!" Doyle: "I don't know why we're looking for evil when we got you here."

2003-02-26 11:16:48+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Mikeith <on@berr.net>)


"Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message news:3E5C2445.65CC9209@rcn.com... > Ziggyman wrote: > > > > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... > > > Spoiler Spacer: > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > > > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > > onions if that doesn't work. > > > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. > > Tears are all the same. Still don't get it, do you. Watch something else, this show is not literal enough for you.

2003-02-26 11:16:48+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Mikeith <on@berr.net>)


"Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message news:3E5C2445.65CC9209@rcn.com... > Ziggyman wrote: > > > > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... > > > Spoiler Spacer: > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > ; > > > If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left > > > Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his eyelid > > > as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. There's always > > > onions if that doesn't work. > > > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. > > Tears are all the same. Still don't get it, do you. Watch something else, this show is not literal enough for you.

2003-02-26 11:29:08-06:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


Ziggyman wrote: > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... >> Spoiler Spacer: >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left >> Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his >> eyelid as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. >> There's always onions if that doesn't work. > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. They weren't tears of redemption, they were tears of fear. He didn't feel sorry he killed Jonathan until a knife was held to his throat, how much meaning is there in something that is coerced. Jul -- Spike: You're like a dog with a bone. Anya: So what? Spike: It's my bone.

2003-02-26 11:29:08-06:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Juleen <REMOVEsunryse@centurytel.net>)


Ziggyman wrote: > "Carmikl" <Carmikl@rcn.com> wrote in message > news:3E5C01F9.653FB64D@rcn.com... >> Spoiler Spacer: >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> ; >> If just any tears from Andrew would work, then Buffy could have left >> Andrew at home and just extracted some tears by manipulating his >> eyelid as you would when you have a speck of dust in your eye. >> There's always onions if that doesn't work. > > I think it had to be tears of redemption. They weren't tears of redemption, they were tears of fear. He didn't feel sorry he killed Jonathan until a knife was held to his throat, how much meaning is there in something that is coerced. Jul -- Spike: You're like a dog with a bone. Anya: So what? Spike: It's my bone.

2003-02-26 12:06:18+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net>)


Sam <sam_14042@yahoo.com> wrote: > Am I the only person here who heard them talking about this very thing > *in the actual scene in question?* > > --- [dialogue snipped] > --- > > I mean, I like criticism as much as the next guy, but the whole end of > the episode was about the fact that Andrew is not redeemed and can > never make up for what he's done! > > --Sam I read the sequence differently. That's all. Andrew feels remorse now, and feels sorry for himself, and feels that it is probably right that he will probably die in the upcoming battle (and I CANNOT believe that I am actually writing anything about Andrew). But it did seem as if they were attempting to show some almost instantaneous change which I am supposed to accept. Hey, the ending was the only reason I gave this episode a 0.25 instead of a flat out zero. Yes, it was sentimental and corny and it had to do with Andrew; but it was the best part of an otherwise ferociously insipid affair. However, I do feel as though it was something of a cheat, as well. Also, you will note, that what I was originally replying to was a post that claimed Andrew's tears were tears of redemption. I see your point concerning the dialogue. However, Buffy was mostly making the point that sacrificing Andrew wouldn't redeem him. That's fine. Clearly, Andrew can be redeemed; after all he is a human being with a soul. Fortunately, since the show is ending in six more episodes, we won't have to be subjected to that process. I'm mostly curious to see if they just forget about it in the next episode. -- A.E. Jabbour "IN the second century of the Christian era, the Empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most civilised portion of mankind." Edward Gibbon, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"

2003-02-26 12:06:18+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net>)


Sam <sam_14042@yahoo.com> wrote: > Am I the only person here who heard them talking about this very thing > *in the actual scene in question?* > > --- [dialogue snipped] > --- > > I mean, I like criticism as much as the next guy, but the whole end of > the episode was about the fact that Andrew is not redeemed and can > never make up for what he's done! > > --Sam I read the sequence differently. That's all. Andrew feels remorse now, and feels sorry for himself, and feels that it is probably right that he will probably die in the upcoming battle (and I CANNOT believe that I am actually writing anything about Andrew). But it did seem as if they were attempting to show some almost instantaneous change which I am supposed to accept. Hey, the ending was the only reason I gave this episode a 0.25 instead of a flat out zero. Yes, it was sentimental and corny and it had to do with Andrew; but it was the best part of an otherwise ferociously insipid affair. However, I do feel as though it was something of a cheat, as well. Also, you will note, that what I was originally replying to was a post that claimed Andrew's tears were tears of redemption. I see your point concerning the dialogue. However, Buffy was mostly making the point that sacrificing Andrew wouldn't redeem him. That's fine. Clearly, Andrew can be redeemed; after all he is a human being with a soul. Fortunately, since the show is ending in six more episodes, we won't have to be subjected to that process. I'm mostly curious to see if they just forget about it in the next episode. -- A.E. Jabbour "IN the second century of the Christian era, the Empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most civilised portion of mankind." Edward Gibbon, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"

2003-02-26 16:34:49+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Jonathan Roberts <nartsSPAMegg@pobBEox.coGONEm>)


(Lee S. Billings) wrote: > tears and blood are fairly similar, chemically speaking. So, we've had tears and blood, now we need sweat and toil to finish the phrase -- or, if you take the band, just the sweat. -- -- Jon jonathan roberts * guitar keyboard vocal * North River Preservation ------------------------------------------------------------------- My law firm? Naste, Brutus, and Short

2003-02-26 16:34:49+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Jonathan Roberts <nartsSPAMegg@pobBEox.coGONEm>)


(Lee S. Billings) wrote: > tears and blood are fairly similar, chemically speaking. So, we've had tears and blood, now we need sweat and toil to finish the phrase -- or, if you take the band, just the sweat. -- -- Jon jonathan roberts * guitar keyboard vocal * North River Preservation ------------------------------------------------------------------- My law firm? Naste, Brutus, and Short

2003-02-26 17:30:49-08:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Sam wrote: > Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns932DDD2B89BE1houseofusher@216.40.28.70>... > > AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote in > > news:b3hb1b$1lnjeo$2@ID-137314.news.dfncis.de: > > > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > >> I think it had to be tears of redemption. > > >> > > > > > > Those weren't tears of redemption. One is not redeemed when one > > > admits wrongs and feels bad. That is simply a first step toward a > > > road of redemption. Otherwise, redemption doesn't mean much. > > > > You know that, and I know that -- but I'm no longer convinced that the > > BUFFY writers know that. There was a time that they treated murder as very > > serious business that changes a person forever. Now, judging from the way > > they've deal with the recent actions of Spike, and Anya. and Willow, and > > perhaps now Andrew, all it takes is a little whimpering and all is washed > > clean. > > Am I the only person here who heard them talking about this very thing > *in the actual scene in question?* > > --- > > "When your blood pours out, it might save the world. What do you think > about that? Does it buy it all back? Are you redeemed?" > > "No!" > > "Why not?" > > "Because I killed him. Because I... I listened to Warren and I > pretended I thought it was him, but I knew it wasn't and I killed > Jonathan and you're gonna kill me and I'm scared and I'm going to die. > And this is what Jonathan felt." > > --- > > I mean, I like criticism as much as the next guy, but the whole end of > the episode was about the fact that Andrew is not redeemed and can > never make up for what he's done! But the fact that Andrew now realizes the above is a first step towards his redemption!

2003-02-26 17:30:49-08:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Tim Bruening <tsbrueni@pop.dcn.davis.ca.us>)


Sam wrote: > Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns932DDD2B89BE1houseofusher@216.40.28.70>... > > AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote in > > news:b3hb1b$1lnjeo$2@ID-137314.news.dfncis.de: > > > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > >> I think it had to be tears of redemption. > > >> > > > > > > Those weren't tears of redemption. One is not redeemed when one > > > admits wrongs and feels bad. That is simply a first step toward a > > > road of redemption. Otherwise, redemption doesn't mean much. > > > > You know that, and I know that -- but I'm no longer convinced that the > > BUFFY writers know that. There was a time that they treated murder as very > > serious business that changes a person forever. Now, judging from the way > > they've deal with the recent actions of Spike, and Anya. and Willow, and > > perhaps now Andrew, all it takes is a little whimpering and all is washed > > clean. > > Am I the only person here who heard them talking about this very thing > *in the actual scene in question?* > > --- > > "When your blood pours out, it might save the world. What do you think > about that? Does it buy it all back? Are you redeemed?" > > "No!" > > "Why not?" > > "Because I killed him. Because I... I listened to Warren and I > pretended I thought it was him, but I knew it wasn't and I killed > Jonathan and you're gonna kill me and I'm scared and I'm going to die. > And this is what Jonathan felt." > > --- > > I mean, I like criticism as much as the next guy, but the whole end of > the episode was about the fact that Andrew is not redeemed and can > never make up for what he's done! But the fact that Andrew now realizes the above is a first step towards his redemption!

2003-02-26 20:20:54+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (stardreamer@mindspring.com)


In article <5fe774aa.0302261041.2d5d150a@posting.google.com>, smaug86@yahoo.com says... >Dude, all you do is nitpick. I can't imgaine anyone having fun >watching the show while they are trying to make a list of all the >things that shouldn't happen. Ever seen the Star Trek Nitpicker's Guides? Yes, there are people who enjoy the show even while nitpicking it to death. It's part of the behavior that the Evil Nerds were intended to caricature. Celine -- Handmade jewelry at http://www.rubylane.com/shops/starcat "Only the powers of evil claim that doing good is boring." -- Diane Duane, _Nightfall at Algemron_

2003-02-26 20:20:54+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (stardreamer@mindspring.com)


In article <5fe774aa.0302261041.2d5d150a@posting.google.com>, smaug86@yahoo.com says... >Dude, all you do is nitpick. I can't imgaine anyone having fun >watching the show while they are trying to make a list of all the >things that shouldn't happen. Ever seen the Star Trek Nitpicker's Guides? Yes, there are people who enjoy the show even while nitpicking it to death. It's part of the behavior that the Evil Nerds were intended to caricature. Celine -- Handmade jewelry at http://www.rubylane.com/shops/starcat "Only the powers of evil claim that doing good is boring." -- Diane Duane, _Nightfall at Algemron_

2003-02-26 22:48:17-07:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (slapfish <slapfish@yahoo.com>)


> > And just about every episode where he made something that couldn't > > possibly work. > > Yes, but he was always hot and sexy while he was doing it. Yeah, I just LOVE a man that can make a hang glider out of a sleeping bag.

2003-02-26 22:48:17-07:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (slapfish <slapfish@yahoo.com>)


> > And just about every episode where he made something that couldn't > > possibly work. > > Yes, but he was always hot and sexy while he was doing it. Yeah, I just LOVE a man that can make a hang glider out of a sleeping bag.

2003-02-26 22:54:06-07:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (slapfish <slapfish@yahoo.com>)


> > I mean, I like criticism as much as the next guy, but the whole end of > > the episode was about the fact that Andrew is not redeemed and can > > never make up for what he's done! > > > > --Sam > > I read the sequence differently. That's all. Andrew feels remorse > now, and feels sorry for himself, and feels that it is probably > right that he will probably die in the upcoming battle (and I CANNOT > believe that I am actually writing anything about Andrew). But it did > seem as if they were attempting to show some almost instantaneous change > which I am supposed to accept. > > Hey, the ending was the only reason I gave this episode a 0.25 instead > of a flat out zero. Yes, it was sentimental and corny and it had to > do with Andrew; but it was the best part of an otherwise ferociously > insipid affair. However, I do feel as though it was something of a > cheat, as well. To be fair, I don't think we are meant to think that breaking down in tears means that he's forgiven, only that he has begun the process of redemption.

2003-02-26 22:54:06-07:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (slapfish <slapfish@yahoo.com>)


> > I mean, I like criticism as much as the next guy, but the whole end of > > the episode was about the fact that Andrew is not redeemed and can > > never make up for what he's done! > > > > --Sam > > I read the sequence differently. That's all. Andrew feels remorse > now, and feels sorry for himself, and feels that it is probably > right that he will probably die in the upcoming battle (and I CANNOT > believe that I am actually writing anything about Andrew). But it did > seem as if they were attempting to show some almost instantaneous change > which I am supposed to accept. > > Hey, the ending was the only reason I gave this episode a 0.25 instead > of a flat out zero. Yes, it was sentimental and corny and it had to > do with Andrew; but it was the best part of an otherwise ferociously > insipid affair. However, I do feel as though it was something of a > cheat, as well. To be fair, I don't think we are meant to think that breaking down in tears means that he's forgiven, only that he has begun the process of redemption.

2003-03-01 15:55:11-08:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (reldevik@usa.net)


sam_14042@yahoo.com (Sam) wrote in message news:<21ced21e.0302260136.89d30e7@posting.google.com>... > Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns932DDD2B89BE1houseofusher@216.40.28.70>... > > AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote in > > news:b3hb1b$1lnjeo$2@ID-137314.news.dfncis.de: > > > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > >> I think it had to be tears of redemption. > > >> > > > > > > Those weren't tears of redemption. One is not redeemed when one > > > admits wrongs and feels bad. That is simply a first step toward a > > > road of redemption. Otherwise, redemption doesn't mean much. > > > > You know that, and I know that -- but I'm no longer convinced that the > > BUFFY writers know that. There was a time that they treated murder as very > > serious business that changes a person forever. Now, judging from the way > > they've deal with the recent actions of Spike, and Anya. and Willow, and > > perhaps now Andrew, all it takes is a little whimpering and all is washed > > clean. > > Am I the only person here who heard them talking about this very thing > *in the actual scene in question?* > > --- > > "When your blood pours out, it might save the world. What do you think > about that? Does it buy it all back? Are you redeemed?" > > "No!" > > "Why not?" > > "Because I killed him. Because I... I listened to Warren and I > pretended I thought it was him, but I knew it wasn't and I killed > Jonathan and you're gonna kill me and I'm scared and I'm going to die. > And this is what Jonathan felt." > > --- > > I mean, I like criticism as much as the next guy, but the whole end of > the episode was about the fact that Andrew is not redeemed and can > never make up for what he's done! --You're absolutely right, Sam, and I'm really wondering what's with all the carping above your post on the thread. ME addresses the concerns of LU et al., and they don't even hear it?!? Buffy isn't giving Andrew an easy out; neither is ME. Since LU specifically mentioned Spike, I'd like to know just exactly what LU would like Spike to do about his past killings? Spike can't bring those people back to life. Spike could cry lots of tears about it, but what would that accomplish? Fighting the good fight, helping Buffy against the First, patrolling Sunnydale, etc., seem to me the most useful things Spike can do right now. Ditto Willow. What exactly is missing in ME's handling of characters such as Spike, Willow, and Andrew? Seems to me the concerns are all there, front and center. What do you want done with these characters, LU? Clairel

2003-03-01 15:55:11-08:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (reldevik@usa.net)


sam_14042@yahoo.com (Sam) wrote in message news:<21ced21e.0302260136.89d30e7@posting.google.com>... > Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns932DDD2B89BE1houseofusher@216.40.28.70>... > > AE Jabbour <aej17DELETEME@comcast.net> wrote in > > news:b3hb1b$1lnjeo$2@ID-137314.news.dfncis.de: > > > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > . > > >> I think it had to be tears of redemption. > > >> > > > > > > Those weren't tears of redemption. One is not redeemed when one > > > admits wrongs and feels bad. That is simply a first step toward a > > > road of redemption. Otherwise, redemption doesn't mean much. > > > > You know that, and I know that -- but I'm no longer convinced that the > > BUFFY writers know that. There was a time that they treated murder as very > > serious business that changes a person forever. Now, judging from the way > > they've deal with the recent actions of Spike, and Anya. and Willow, and > > perhaps now Andrew, all it takes is a little whimpering and all is washed > > clean. > > Am I the only person here who heard them talking about this very thing > *in the actual scene in question?* > > --- > > "When your blood pours out, it might save the world. What do you think > about that? Does it buy it all back? Are you redeemed?" > > "No!" > > "Why not?" > > "Because I killed him. Because I... I listened to Warren and I > pretended I thought it was him, but I knew it wasn't and I killed > Jonathan and you're gonna kill me and I'm scared and I'm going to die. > And this is what Jonathan felt." > > --- > > I mean, I like criticism as much as the next guy, but the whole end of > the episode was about the fact that Andrew is not redeemed and can > never make up for what he's done! --You're absolutely right, Sam, and I'm really wondering what's with all the carping above your post on the thread. ME addresses the concerns of LU et al., and they don't even hear it?!? Buffy isn't giving Andrew an easy out; neither is ME. Since LU specifically mentioned Spike, I'd like to know just exactly what LU would like Spike to do about his past killings? Spike can't bring those people back to life. Spike could cry lots of tears about it, but what would that accomplish? Fighting the good fight, helping Buffy against the First, patrolling Sunnydale, etc., seem to me the most useful things Spike can do right now. Ditto Willow. What exactly is missing in ME's handling of characters such as Spike, Willow, and Andrew? Seems to me the concerns are all there, front and center. What do you want done with these characters, LU? Clairel

2003-03-01 15:58:17-08:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (reldevik@usa.net)


Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns932DE2E47AD82houseofusher@216.40.28.70>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > news:1faed770.0302251951.4cd4bd50@posting.google.com: > > > The Carmikls of this world should stick to shows like McGyver and > > shouldn't even try to deal with shows involving magic, fantasy, and > > the supernatural. > > I guess you missed the episodes of MACGYVER that saw him traveling back in > time to the Old West. Or the two-parter in which he ended up in Camelot and > met King Arthur. --Hmm, I can't tell if you're joshing me or not, because I know the show MacGygver only by reputation. I've never actually seen it. I just knew it dealt with a lot of nuts-and-bolts kinds of things, the kinds of things that Carmikl seems preoccupied with. Clairel

2003-03-01 15:58:17-08:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (reldevik@usa.net)


Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns932DE2E47AD82houseofusher@216.40.28.70>... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > news:1faed770.0302251951.4cd4bd50@posting.google.com: > > > The Carmikls of this world should stick to shows like McGyver and > > shouldn't even try to deal with shows involving magic, fantasy, and > > the supernatural. > > I guess you missed the episodes of MACGYVER that saw him traveling back in > time to the Old West. Or the two-parter in which he ended up in Camelot and > met King Arthur. --Hmm, I can't tell if you're joshing me or not, because I know the show MacGygver only by reputation. I've never actually seen it. I just knew it dealt with a lot of nuts-and-bolts kinds of things, the kinds of things that Carmikl seems preoccupied with. Clairel

2003-03-01 15:59:46-08:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (reldevik@usa.net)


Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message news:<250220032332136012%dsample@synapse.net>... > In article <Xns932DE2E47AD82houseofusher@216.40.28.70>, Lord Usher > <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > > news:1faed770.0302251951.4cd4bd50@posting.google.com: > > > > > The Carmikls of this world should stick to shows like McGyver and > > > shouldn't even try to deal with shows involving magic, fantasy, and > > > the supernatural. > > > > I guess you missed the episodes of MACGYVER that saw him traveling back in > > time to the Old West. Or the two-parter in which he ended up in Camelot and > > met King Arthur. > > And just about every episode where he made something that couldn't > possibly work. --But at least that would give Carmikl lots of meaty issues to sink his/her teeth into. "You can't really make a nuclear weapon out of a ballpoint pen and a rubber band! The show it wrong!" That sort of thing. You see my point? Clairel

2003-03-01 15:59:46-08:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (reldevik@usa.net)


Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message news:<250220032332136012%dsample@synapse.net>... > In article <Xns932DE2E47AD82houseofusher@216.40.28.70>, Lord Usher > <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > > news:1faed770.0302251951.4cd4bd50@posting.google.com: > > > > > The Carmikls of this world should stick to shows like McGyver and > > > shouldn't even try to deal with shows involving magic, fantasy, and > > > the supernatural. > > > > I guess you missed the episodes of MACGYVER that saw him traveling back in > > time to the Old West. Or the two-parter in which he ended up in Camelot and > > met King Arthur. > > And just about every episode where he made something that couldn't > possibly work. --But at least that would give Carmikl lots of meaty issues to sink his/her teeth into. "You can't really make a nuclear weapon out of a ballpoint pen and a rubber band! The show it wrong!" That sort of thing. You see my point? Clairel

2003-03-01 19:18:26-07:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (slapfish <slapfish@yahoo.com>)


> > I guess you missed the episodes of MACGYVER that saw him traveling back in > > time to the Old West. Or the two-parter in which he ended up in Camelot and > > met King Arthur. > > --Hmm, I can't tell if you're joshing me or not, because I know the > show MacGygver only by reputation. I've never actually seen it. I > just knew it dealt with a lot of nuts-and-bolts kinds of things, the > kinds of things that Carmikl seems preoccupied with. Just out of curiosity does that mean you are too young to have seen McGyver, or did you just not watch it when it was on?

2003-03-01 19:18:26-07:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (slapfish <slapfish@yahoo.com>)


> > I guess you missed the episodes of MACGYVER that saw him traveling back in > > time to the Old West. Or the two-parter in which he ended up in Camelot and > > met King Arthur. > > --Hmm, I can't tell if you're joshing me or not, because I know the > show MacGygver only by reputation. I've never actually seen it. I > just knew it dealt with a lot of nuts-and-bolts kinds of things, the > kinds of things that Carmikl seems preoccupied with. Just out of curiosity does that mean you are too young to have seen McGyver, or did you just not watch it when it was on?

2003-03-02 10:43:41+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Cernunnos <Shaggyspike123@ns.sympatico.cam>)


"Japhy Grant" <japhy@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:m7W6a.34278$Mh3.14266343@twister.nyc.rr.com... \ this isn't Star Wars or Star Trek where > things are based on a foundation of science and tech- Heh... i nearly did a spit take when i read that part.

2003-03-02 10:43:41+00:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Cernunnos <Shaggyspike123@ns.sympatico.cam>)


"Japhy Grant" <japhy@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:m7W6a.34278$Mh3.14266343@twister.nyc.rr.com... \ this isn't Star Wars or Star Trek where > things are based on a foundation of science and tech- Heh... i nearly did a spit take when i read that part.

2003-03-02 11:10:11-06:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in news:1faed770.0303011558.5bf1a758@posting.google.com: >> I guess you missed the episodes of MACGYVER that saw him traveling >> back in time to the Old West. Or the two-parter in which he ended up >> in Camelot and met King Arthur. > > --Hmm, I can't tell if you're joshing me or not, because I know the > show MacGygver only by reputation. I've never actually seen it. No, I'm not joshin' ya. Though, to clarify, the Western/Camelot episodes were framed as dream sequences -- but they ended with silly echoes in the real world that suggested that, ooh, they might not be dreams after all! (For example, the first Old West dream sequence ends with MacGyver getting shot in the chest by the mean outlaw, but surviving because his trusty pocketknife is in his breast pocket and it stops the bullet. When he "wakes up," he's shocked to find an antique pocketknife in his breast pocket, complete with bullethole...) > I just knew it dealt with a lot of nuts-and-bolts kinds of things Well, it was supposed to be about science and engineering and reason and logic saving the day. But in truth it could be as fanciful as any SF series. (I didn't even mention his archnemesis, who had an inexplicable ability to survive unscathed all sorts of deadly falls and explosions. Or the time he discovered the Holy Grail...) -- Lord Usher "Don't we kill 'em any more?"

2003-03-02 11:10:11-06:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in news:1faed770.0303011558.5bf1a758@posting.google.com: >> I guess you missed the episodes of MACGYVER that saw him traveling >> back in time to the Old West. Or the two-parter in which he ended up >> in Camelot and met King Arthur. > > --Hmm, I can't tell if you're joshing me or not, because I know the > show MacGygver only by reputation. I've never actually seen it. No, I'm not joshin' ya. Though, to clarify, the Western/Camelot episodes were framed as dream sequences -- but they ended with silly echoes in the real world that suggested that, ooh, they might not be dreams after all! (For example, the first Old West dream sequence ends with MacGyver getting shot in the chest by the mean outlaw, but surviving because his trusty pocketknife is in his breast pocket and it stops the bullet. When he "wakes up," he's shocked to find an antique pocketknife in his breast pocket, complete with bullethole...) > I just knew it dealt with a lot of nuts-and-bolts kinds of things Well, it was supposed to be about science and engineering and reason and logic saving the day. But in truth it could be as fanciful as any SF series. (I didn't even mention his archnemesis, who had an inexplicable ability to survive unscathed all sorts of deadly falls and explosions. Or the time he discovered the Holy Grail...) -- Lord Usher "Don't we kill 'em any more?"

2003-03-02 16:57:05-06:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


sam_14042@yahoo.com (Sam) wrote in news:21ced21e.0302260136.89d30e7@posting.google.com: >> > Those weren't tears of redemption. One is not redeemed when one >> > admits wrongs and feels bad. That is simply a first step toward a >> > road of redemption. Otherwise, redemption doesn't mean much. >> >> You know that, and I know that -- but I'm no longer convinced that >> the BUFFY writers know that. There was a time that they treated >> murder as very serious business that changes a person forever. Now, >> judging from the way they've deal with the recent actions of Spike, >> and Anya. and Willow, and perhaps now Andrew, all it takes is a >> little whimpering and all is washed clean. > > Am I the only person here who heard them talking about this very thing > *in the actual scene in question?* > > --- > > "When your blood pours out, it might save the world. What do you think > about that? Does it buy it all back? Are you redeemed?" > > "No!" > > "Why not?" > > "Because I killed him. Because I... I listened to Warren and I > pretended I thought it was him, but I knew it wasn't and I killed > Jonathan and you're gonna kill me and I'm scared and I'm going to die. > And this is what Jonathan felt." > > --- > > I mean, I like criticism as much as the next guy, but the whole end of > the episode was about the fact that Andrew is not redeemed and can > never make up for what he's done! First of all, I wasn't referring primarily to Andrew in my list of redemption stories gone wrong. I listed "Spike, Anya, Willow, and *perhaps* now Andrew" -- because it's really too soon to say whether they'll do right by him. Second, I don't read the scene above quite as definitively as you do. Yes, Andrew realizes that what he's doing -- telling stories, figuring himself as a victim -- cannot redeem him. But then *he changes what he is doing*. And it isn't clear to me whether the episode ultimately says, "Andy cannot redeem himself with a single act" or "Andy couldn't have redeemed himself with *that* act -- but *this* one *does* redeem him." To me, in fact, the latter statement seem more in keeping with the way the seal metaphor works. Buffy convinces Andrew that words will not deactivate the seal, echoing the fact that telling stories cannot wash away Andrew's guilt. She tells him that blood could not have closed the seal, echoing the fact that figuring himself as a victim cannot wash away his guilt. But then his tears *do* neutralize the seal. Building off the parallels above, that suggests to me that we're supposed to think his genuine remorse *can* wash his guilt away. But we'll see how the writers use Andy in upcoming episodes. It's possible his quest for redemption will continue. But, judging from the way the writers have treated Willow and Anya and Spike, I think it's more likely that the writers just wanted to put the whole messy redemption thing behind them so Andrew could become another lovable member of the gang. -- Lord Usher "Don't we kill 'em any more?"

2003-03-02 16:57:05-06:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


sam_14042@yahoo.com (Sam) wrote in news:21ced21e.0302260136.89d30e7@posting.google.com: >> > Those weren't tears of redemption. One is not redeemed when one >> > admits wrongs and feels bad. That is simply a first step toward a >> > road of redemption. Otherwise, redemption doesn't mean much. >> >> You know that, and I know that -- but I'm no longer convinced that >> the BUFFY writers know that. There was a time that they treated >> murder as very serious business that changes a person forever. Now, >> judging from the way they've deal with the recent actions of Spike, >> and Anya. and Willow, and perhaps now Andrew, all it takes is a >> little whimpering and all is washed clean. > > Am I the only person here who heard them talking about this very thing > *in the actual scene in question?* > > --- > > "When your blood pours out, it might save the world. What do you think > about that? Does it buy it all back? Are you redeemed?" > > "No!" > > "Why not?" > > "Because I killed him. Because I... I listened to Warren and I > pretended I thought it was him, but I knew it wasn't and I killed > Jonathan and you're gonna kill me and I'm scared and I'm going to die. > And this is what Jonathan felt." > > --- > > I mean, I like criticism as much as the next guy, but the whole end of > the episode was about the fact that Andrew is not redeemed and can > never make up for what he's done! First of all, I wasn't referring primarily to Andrew in my list of redemption stories gone wrong. I listed "Spike, Anya, Willow, and *perhaps* now Andrew" -- because it's really too soon to say whether they'll do right by him. Second, I don't read the scene above quite as definitively as you do. Yes, Andrew realizes that what he's doing -- telling stories, figuring himself as a victim -- cannot redeem him. But then *he changes what he is doing*. And it isn't clear to me whether the episode ultimately says, "Andy cannot redeem himself with a single act" or "Andy couldn't have redeemed himself with *that* act -- but *this* one *does* redeem him." To me, in fact, the latter statement seem more in keeping with the way the seal metaphor works. Buffy convinces Andrew that words will not deactivate the seal, echoing the fact that telling stories cannot wash away Andrew's guilt. She tells him that blood could not have closed the seal, echoing the fact that figuring himself as a victim cannot wash away his guilt. But then his tears *do* neutralize the seal. Building off the parallels above, that suggests to me that we're supposed to think his genuine remorse *can* wash his guilt away. But we'll see how the writers use Andy in upcoming episodes. It's possible his quest for redemption will continue. But, judging from the way the writers have treated Willow and Anya and Spike, I think it's more likely that the writers just wanted to put the whole messy redemption thing behind them so Andrew could become another lovable member of the gang. -- Lord Usher "Don't we kill 'em any more?"

2003-03-02 18:02:20-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (KenM47 <KenM47@ix.netcom.com>)


Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote: <SNIP> > >Second, I don't read the scene above quite as definitively as you do. >Yes, Andrew realizes that what he's doing -- telling stories, figuring >himself as a victim -- cannot redeem him. But then *he changes what he >is doing*. And it isn't clear to me whether the episode ultimately says, >"Andy cannot redeem himself with a single act" or "Andy couldn't have >redeemed himself with *that* act -- but *this* one *does* redeem him." > >To me, in fact, the latter statement seem more in keeping with the way >the seal metaphor works. Buffy convinces Andrew that words will not >deactivate the seal, echoing the fact that telling stories cannot wash >away Andrew's guilt. She tells him that blood could not have closed the >seal, echoing the fact that figuring himself as a victim cannot wash >away his guilt. But then his tears *do* neutralize the seal. Building >off the parallels above, that suggests to me that we're supposed to >think his genuine remorse *can* wash his guilt away. > <SNIP> I tried and failed to say the same thing. Thanks LU. That was my read. The tears falling and deactivating the seal were supposed to be seen as now wiping Andrew's slate clean. That's how I saw it. I could be wrong. We've got 6 eps to see if we get any further clarification. Thanks again for your eloquence. Ken

2003-03-02 18:02:20-05:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (KenM47 <KenM47@ix.netcom.com>)


Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote: <SNIP> > >Second, I don't read the scene above quite as definitively as you do. >Yes, Andrew realizes that what he's doing -- telling stories, figuring >himself as a victim -- cannot redeem him. But then *he changes what he >is doing*. And it isn't clear to me whether the episode ultimately says, >"Andy cannot redeem himself with a single act" or "Andy couldn't have >redeemed himself with *that* act -- but *this* one *does* redeem him." > >To me, in fact, the latter statement seem more in keeping with the way >the seal metaphor works. Buffy convinces Andrew that words will not >deactivate the seal, echoing the fact that telling stories cannot wash >away Andrew's guilt. She tells him that blood could not have closed the >seal, echoing the fact that figuring himself as a victim cannot wash >away his guilt. But then his tears *do* neutralize the seal. Building >off the parallels above, that suggests to me that we're supposed to >think his genuine remorse *can* wash his guilt away. > <SNIP> I tried and failed to say the same thing. Thanks LU. That was my read. The tears falling and deactivating the seal were supposed to be seen as now wiping Andrew's slate clean. That's how I saw it. I could be wrong. We've got 6 eps to see if we get any further clarification. Thanks again for your eloquence. Ken

2003-03-03 15:36:14-08:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (reldevik@usa.net)


"slapfish" <slapfish@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<v62q7mnl3od425@corp.supernews.com>... > > > I guess you missed the episodes of MACGYVER that saw him traveling back > in > > > time to the Old West. Or the two-parter in which he ended up in Camelot > and > > > met King Arthur. > > > > --Hmm, I can't tell if you're joshing me or not, because I know the > > show MacGygver only by reputation. I've never actually seen it. I > > just knew it dealt with a lot of nuts-and-bolts kinds of things, the > > kinds of things that Carmikl seems preoccupied with. > > Just out of curiosity does that mean you are too young to have seen McGyver, > or did you just not watch it when it was on? --Me, young? I'm probably one of the oldest people on this NG. I watched the original Star Trek when it was on in the 60s. I saw the Beatles the first time they ever appeared on Ed Sullivan. I just never watched MacGyver. Other than SF/fantasy/horror, and a few comedy series such as Seinfeld, I watch very little broadcast TV. Cable is a different matter: Sopranos, CYE, Adult Swim on the Cartoon Network, lots of goodies on cable. Clairel

2003-03-03 15:36:14-08:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (reldevik@usa.net)


"slapfish" <slapfish@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<v62q7mnl3od425@corp.supernews.com>... > > > I guess you missed the episodes of MACGYVER that saw him traveling back > in > > > time to the Old West. Or the two-parter in which he ended up in Camelot > and > > > met King Arthur. > > > > --Hmm, I can't tell if you're joshing me or not, because I know the > > show MacGygver only by reputation. I've never actually seen it. I > > just knew it dealt with a lot of nuts-and-bolts kinds of things, the > > kinds of things that Carmikl seems preoccupied with. > > Just out of curiosity does that mean you are too young to have seen McGyver, > or did you just not watch it when it was on? --Me, young? I'm probably one of the oldest people on this NG. I watched the original Star Trek when it was on in the 60s. I saw the Beatles the first time they ever appeared on Ed Sullivan. I just never watched MacGyver. Other than SF/fantasy/horror, and a few comedy series such as Seinfeld, I watch very little broadcast TV. Cable is a different matter: Sopranos, CYE, Adult Swim on the Cartoon Network, lots of goodies on cable. Clairel

2003-03-03 15:38:53-08:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (reldevik@usa.net)


Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9332AB9C8B527houseofusher@216.40.28.72>... > sam_14042@yahoo.com (Sam) wrote in > news:21ced21e.0302260136.89d30e7@posting.google.com: > > >> > Those weren't tears of redemption. One is not redeemed when one > >> > admits wrongs and feels bad. That is simply a first step toward a > >> > road of redemption. Otherwise, redemption doesn't mean much. > >> > >> You know that, and I know that -- but I'm no longer convinced that > >> the BUFFY writers know that. There was a time that they treated > >> murder as very serious business that changes a person forever. Now, > >> judging from the way they've deal with the recent actions of Spike, > >> and Anya. and Willow, and perhaps now Andrew, all it takes is a > >> little whimpering and all is washed clean. > > > > Am I the only person here who heard them talking about this very thing > > *in the actual scene in question?* > > > > --- > > > > "When your blood pours out, it might save the world. What do you think > > about that? Does it buy it all back? Are you redeemed?" > > > > "No!" > > > > "Why not?" > > > > "Because I killed him. Because I... I listened to Warren and I > > pretended I thought it was him, but I knew it wasn't and I killed > > Jonathan and you're gonna kill me and I'm scared and I'm going to die. > > And this is what Jonathan felt." > > > > --- > > > > I mean, I like criticism as much as the next guy, but the whole end of > > the episode was about the fact that Andrew is not redeemed and can > > never make up for what he's done! > > First of all, I wasn't referring primarily to Andrew in my list of > redemption stories gone wrong. I listed "Spike, Anya, Willow, and > *perhaps* now Andrew" -- because it's really too soon to say whether > they'll do right by him. > > Second, I don't read the scene above quite as definitively as you do. > Yes, Andrew realizes that what he's doing -- telling stories, figuring > himself as a victim -- cannot redeem him. But then *he changes what he > is doing*. And it isn't clear to me whether the episode ultimately says, > "Andy cannot redeem himself with a single act" or "Andy couldn't have > redeemed himself with *that* act -- but *this* one *does* redeem him." > > To me, in fact, the latter statement seem more in keeping with the way > the seal metaphor works. Buffy convinces Andrew that words will not > deactivate the seal, echoing the fact that telling stories cannot wash > away Andrew's guilt. She tells him that blood could not have closed the > seal, echoing the fact that figuring himself as a victim cannot wash > away his guilt. But then his tears *do* neutralize the seal. Building > off the parallels above, that suggests to me that we're supposed to > think his genuine remorse *can* wash his guilt away. > > But we'll see how the writers use Andy in upcoming episodes. It's > possible his quest for redemption will continue. But, judging from the > way the writers have treated Willow and Anya and Spike, I think it's > more likely that the writers just wanted to put the whole messy > redemption thing behind them so Andrew could become another lovable > member of the gang. --I don't think that's what ME is doing with Andrew or with the other above-mentioned characters. See my previous post on this thread. It's very hard for me to see the source of dissatisfaction here: what, exactly, *should* ME be doing with these characters differently from what they are doing? Clairel

2003-03-03 15:38:53-08:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (reldevik@usa.net)


Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<Xns9332AB9C8B527houseofusher@216.40.28.72>... > sam_14042@yahoo.com (Sam) wrote in > news:21ced21e.0302260136.89d30e7@posting.google.com: > > >> > Those weren't tears of redemption. One is not redeemed when one > >> > admits wrongs and feels bad. That is simply a first step toward a > >> > road of redemption. Otherwise, redemption doesn't mean much. > >> > >> You know that, and I know that -- but I'm no longer convinced that > >> the BUFFY writers know that. There was a time that they treated > >> murder as very serious business that changes a person forever. Now, > >> judging from the way they've deal with the recent actions of Spike, > >> and Anya. and Willow, and perhaps now Andrew, all it takes is a > >> little whimpering and all is washed clean. > > > > Am I the only person here who heard them talking about this very thing > > *in the actual scene in question?* > > > > --- > > > > "When your blood pours out, it might save the world. What do you think > > about that? Does it buy it all back? Are you redeemed?" > > > > "No!" > > > > "Why not?" > > > > "Because I killed him. Because I... I listened to Warren and I > > pretended I thought it was him, but I knew it wasn't and I killed > > Jonathan and you're gonna kill me and I'm scared and I'm going to die. > > And this is what Jonathan felt." > > > > --- > > > > I mean, I like criticism as much as the next guy, but the whole end of > > the episode was about the fact that Andrew is not redeemed and can > > never make up for what he's done! > > First of all, I wasn't referring primarily to Andrew in my list of > redemption stories gone wrong. I listed "Spike, Anya, Willow, and > *perhaps* now Andrew" -- because it's really too soon to say whether > they'll do right by him. > > Second, I don't read the scene above quite as definitively as you do. > Yes, Andrew realizes that what he's doing -- telling stories, figuring > himself as a victim -- cannot redeem him. But then *he changes what he > is doing*. And it isn't clear to me whether the episode ultimately says, > "Andy cannot redeem himself with a single act" or "Andy couldn't have > redeemed himself with *that* act -- but *this* one *does* redeem him." > > To me, in fact, the latter statement seem more in keeping with the way > the seal metaphor works. Buffy convinces Andrew that words will not > deactivate the seal, echoing the fact that telling stories cannot wash > away Andrew's guilt. She tells him that blood could not have closed the > seal, echoing the fact that figuring himself as a victim cannot wash > away his guilt. But then his tears *do* neutralize the seal. Building > off the parallels above, that suggests to me that we're supposed to > think his genuine remorse *can* wash his guilt away. > > But we'll see how the writers use Andy in upcoming episodes. It's > possible his quest for redemption will continue. But, judging from the > way the writers have treated Willow and Anya and Spike, I think it's > more likely that the writers just wanted to put the whole messy > redemption thing behind them so Andrew could become another lovable > member of the gang. --I don't think that's what ME is doing with Andrew or with the other above-mentioned characters. See my previous post on this thread. It's very hard for me to see the source of dissatisfaction here: what, exactly, *should* ME be doing with these characters differently from what they are doing? Clairel

2003-03-06 01:17:17-06:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


KenM47 <KenM47@ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:r6356v0ie3usr13ko4ssc29nap8k9fpt90@4ax.com: >>To me, in fact, the latter statement seem more in keeping with the way >>the seal metaphor works. Buffy convinces Andrew that words will not >>deactivate the seal, echoing the fact that telling stories cannot wash >>away Andrew's guilt. She tells him that blood could not have closed the >>seal, echoing the fact that figuring himself as a victim cannot wash >>away his guilt. But then his tears *do* neutralize the seal. Building >>off the parallels above, that suggests to me that we're supposed to >>think his genuine remorse *can* wash his guilt away. >> > <SNIP> > > I tried and failed to say the same thing. Thanks LU. No prob. I does what I can. :) -- Lord Usher "Don't we kill 'em any more?"

2003-03-06 01:17:17-06:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


KenM47 <KenM47@ix.netcom.com> wrote in news:r6356v0ie3usr13ko4ssc29nap8k9fpt90@4ax.com: >>To me, in fact, the latter statement seem more in keeping with the way >>the seal metaphor works. Buffy convinces Andrew that words will not >>deactivate the seal, echoing the fact that telling stories cannot wash >>away Andrew's guilt. She tells him that blood could not have closed the >>seal, echoing the fact that figuring himself as a victim cannot wash >>away his guilt. But then his tears *do* neutralize the seal. Building >>off the parallels above, that suggests to me that we're supposed to >>think his genuine remorse *can* wash his guilt away. >> > <SNIP> > > I tried and failed to say the same thing. Thanks LU. No prob. I does what I can. :) -- Lord Usher "Don't we kill 'em any more?"

2003-03-06 02:23:19-06:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in news:1faed770.0303011555.48f12262@posting.google.com: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Since LU specifically mentioned Spike, I'd like to know just exactly > what LU would like Spike to do about his past killings? Acknowledge them? Wonder what they say about him? Explore how he's changed since then? > Fighting the good fight, helping Buffy against the First, patrolling > Sunnydale, etc., seem to me the most useful things Spike can do right > now. Ditto Willow. Who cares for useful? I didn't become a faithful fan of BUFFY because it shows the characters being useful every week. I became a fan because it took me into their heads and hearts and souls, and if a particular storyline is so dang urgent, so detached from the internal lives of Our Heroes, that it doesn't leave time to take me to those places anymore amid all the fantastic usefulness, then *it's a badly constructed storyline*. > What exactly is missing in ME's handling of characters such as Spike, > Willow, and Andrew? Seems to me the concerns are all there, front and > center. What do you want done with these characters, LU? Well, let's see... ANYA: Follow up on the fascinating identity issues that were set up in "Selfless." That episode made it clear that the root of Anya's evil is that she's used to defining herself by the men she loves and hates, and that to find peace she needs to discover who she is independent of whom she's loving or hating. Why haven't we seen her struggling with that question since then? Why haven't we seen her trying to figure out what part of her is the real her? Why haven't we witnessed her doing *anything* except snark and crack wise and moon over Xander? Especially since that last part means she's *still* defining herself by the man she's got -- indicating that she learned *nothing* from her experiences in "Selfless." :P SPIKE: Show us what we've been missing. Whereas ME have suspended Anya's arc for most of the year, they've just *skipped over* the important parts of Spike's. All the most interesting events have taken place off- screen: Spike's initial reaction to the weight of his soul. Buffy and the gang's reactions. Was it really more interesting for us to see the wacky Odd Couple shenanigans of "Him" than to discover what happened the first time Xander learned about soul-having Spike? One of the major parts of taking responsibility for your past actions is dealing with the way other people react to you based on what you've done. By refusing to show us these reactions -- not Xander learning about the soul, not Buffy confronting him about the rape -- the writers have prevented us from knowing if and how Spike has grown and healed. (Yeah, they may be doing some of that with Wood now, but that doesn't excuse the lack of development up to this point. It's not like the Spike/Wood confrontation is the be-all and end-all of evildoer/victim confrontations, and once Spike's dealt with that he can put the whole "facing my victims" thing behind him. One has only to look at the different things Angel's had to own up to -- murdering his father, defiling an innocent girl, spawning an evil protege, slaughtering a good man's family -- to realize that each one he surmounts plays a different role in his quest for atonement, peace, and self-knowledge.) WILLOW: The most egregious failure of all. The writers didn't suspend her storyline. They didn't resolve the major issues off-screen. Instead, they've pretended that nothing really *needs* resolving. Oh, sure, Willow's gotta be extra-careful with those dark magicks lest she become possessed with evilness, but that's nothing but a bait-and-switch. With rare exception, we haven't seen her deal with any of her *real* issues. Not "Will this magick do bad things to me?" but "Is there a part of *me* that's bad? We've seen Willow questioning whether her friends can forgive her; we've seen her question whether she's being untrue to Tara's memory. What we haven't seen her do is question *herself*, consider why she went bad and how that hate and rage will always be a part of her. How can I accept that she's becoming a better person if she hasn't even confronted what made her a worse person in the first place? (Aside from one brief moment in "Selfless," there's exactly one episode this season that has gotten to the heart of the Willow storyline, and that's "Get It Done." "That's how it works... that's how *I* work." This is the kind of thing Willow should be dealing with. But sure enough, just one episode later, all those pesky issues are water under the bridge and cute widdle Wiwwow is back to making kissy-face with her blander-than-bland girlfriend again. It sure is great those crazy kids made it out of their "bad place!" No, no need to *show* us how they overcame it. :( ) -- Lord Usher "Don't we kill 'em any more?"

2003-03-06 02:23:19-06:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com>)


reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in news:1faed770.0303011555.48f12262@posting.google.com: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Since LU specifically mentioned Spike, I'd like to know just exactly > what LU would like Spike to do about his past killings? Acknowledge them? Wonder what they say about him? Explore how he's changed since then? > Fighting the good fight, helping Buffy against the First, patrolling > Sunnydale, etc., seem to me the most useful things Spike can do right > now. Ditto Willow. Who cares for useful? I didn't become a faithful fan of BUFFY because it shows the characters being useful every week. I became a fan because it took me into their heads and hearts and souls, and if a particular storyline is so dang urgent, so detached from the internal lives of Our Heroes, that it doesn't leave time to take me to those places anymore amid all the fantastic usefulness, then *it's a badly constructed storyline*. > What exactly is missing in ME's handling of characters such as Spike, > Willow, and Andrew? Seems to me the concerns are all there, front and > center. What do you want done with these characters, LU? Well, let's see... ANYA: Follow up on the fascinating identity issues that were set up in "Selfless." That episode made it clear that the root of Anya's evil is that she's used to defining herself by the men she loves and hates, and that to find peace she needs to discover who she is independent of whom she's loving or hating. Why haven't we seen her struggling with that question since then? Why haven't we seen her trying to figure out what part of her is the real her? Why haven't we witnessed her doing *anything* except snark and crack wise and moon over Xander? Especially since that last part means she's *still* defining herself by the man she's got -- indicating that she learned *nothing* from her experiences in "Selfless." :P SPIKE: Show us what we've been missing. Whereas ME have suspended Anya's arc for most of the year, they've just *skipped over* the important parts of Spike's. All the most interesting events have taken place off- screen: Spike's initial reaction to the weight of his soul. Buffy and the gang's reactions. Was it really more interesting for us to see the wacky Odd Couple shenanigans of "Him" than to discover what happened the first time Xander learned about soul-having Spike? One of the major parts of taking responsibility for your past actions is dealing with the way other people react to you based on what you've done. By refusing to show us these reactions -- not Xander learning about the soul, not Buffy confronting him about the rape -- the writers have prevented us from knowing if and how Spike has grown and healed. (Yeah, they may be doing some of that with Wood now, but that doesn't excuse the lack of development up to this point. It's not like the Spike/Wood confrontation is the be-all and end-all of evildoer/victim confrontations, and once Spike's dealt with that he can put the whole "facing my victims" thing behind him. One has only to look at the different things Angel's had to own up to -- murdering his father, defiling an innocent girl, spawning an evil protege, slaughtering a good man's family -- to realize that each one he surmounts plays a different role in his quest for atonement, peace, and self-knowledge.) WILLOW: The most egregious failure of all. The writers didn't suspend her storyline. They didn't resolve the major issues off-screen. Instead, they've pretended that nothing really *needs* resolving. Oh, sure, Willow's gotta be extra-careful with those dark magicks lest she become possessed with evilness, but that's nothing but a bait-and-switch. With rare exception, we haven't seen her deal with any of her *real* issues. Not "Will this magick do bad things to me?" but "Is there a part of *me* that's bad? We've seen Willow questioning whether her friends can forgive her; we've seen her question whether she's being untrue to Tara's memory. What we haven't seen her do is question *herself*, consider why she went bad and how that hate and rage will always be a part of her. How can I accept that she's becoming a better person if she hasn't even confronted what made her a worse person in the first place? (Aside from one brief moment in "Selfless," there's exactly one episode this season that has gotten to the heart of the Willow storyline, and that's "Get It Done." "That's how it works... that's how *I* work." This is the kind of thing Willow should be dealing with. But sure enough, just one episode later, all those pesky issues are water under the bridge and cute widdle Wiwwow is back to making kissy-face with her blander-than-bland girlfriend again. It sure is great those crazy kids made it out of their "bad place!" No, no need to *show* us how they overcame it. :( ) -- Lord Usher "Don't we kill 'em any more?"

2003-03-08 15:25:43-07:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (slapfish <slapfish@yahoo.com>)


Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns9336178F7D220houseofusher@216.40.28.70... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > news:1faed770.0303011555.48f12262@posting.google.com: > > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > > Since LU specifically mentioned Spike, I'd like to know just exactly > > what LU would like Spike to do about his past killings? > > Acknowledge them? Wonder what they say about him? Explore how he's > changed since then? > > > Fighting the good fight, helping Buffy against the First, patrolling > > Sunnydale, etc., seem to me the most useful things Spike can do right > > now. Ditto Willow. > > Who cares for useful? I didn't become a faithful fan of BUFFY because it > shows the characters being useful every week. I became a fan because it > took me into their heads and hearts and souls, and if a particular > storyline is so dang urgent, so detached from the internal lives of Our > Heroes, that it doesn't leave time to take me to those places anymore > amid all the fantastic usefulness, then *it's a badly constructed > storyline*. > > > What exactly is missing in ME's handling of characters such as Spike, > > Willow, and Andrew? Seems to me the concerns are all there, front and > > center. What do you want done with these characters, LU? Incredibly well said. Why I am so disappointed week after week. I keep watching and hoping these things will be addressed because that's what really interesting, instead we get Andrew with his video camera, Spike tackling Giles, Willow/Kenndy lipfest and reminders that The First is coming. Down Dinner! Down!

2003-03-08 15:25:43-07:00 - Re: There's always onions (Spoilers for Storyteller) - (slapfish <slapfish@yahoo.com>)


Lord Usher <lord_usher@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Xns9336178F7D220houseofusher@216.40.28.70... > reldevik@usa.net (Clairel) wrote in > news:1faed770.0303011555.48f12262@posting.google.com: > > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > . > > Since LU specifically mentioned Spike, I'd like to know just exactly > > what LU would like Spike to do about his past killings? > > Acknowledge them? Wonder what they say about him? Explore how he's > changed since then? > > > Fighting the good fight, helping Buffy against the First, patrolling > > Sunnydale, etc., seem to me the most useful things Spike can do right > > now. Ditto Willow. > > Who cares for useful? I didn't become a faithful fan of BUFFY because it > shows the characters being useful every week. I became a fan because it > took me into their heads and hearts and souls, and if a particular > storyline is so dang urgent, so detached from the internal lives of Our > Heroes, that it doesn't leave time to take me to those places anymore > amid all the fantastic usefulness, then *it's a badly constructed > storyline*. > > > What exactly is missing in ME's handling of characters such as Spike, > > Willow, and Andrew? Seems to me the concerns are all there, front and > > center. What do you want done with these characters, LU? Incredibly well said. Why I am so disappointed week after week. I keep watching and hoping these things will be addressed because that's what really interesting, instead we get Andrew with his video camera, Spike tackling Giles, Willow/Kenndy lipfest and reminders that The First is coming. Down Dinner! Down!