FLM films - My Webpage

2003-01-21 00:15:28-06:00 - Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (JJ <Your>)


Please, correct me if I am wrong here. Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before a new Slayer is called? I am sorry, but Buffy is "out of the picture" as far as new Slayers go. Faith has to die, only Faith, before a new Slayer can and would be called. Why, you ask, do I make such a bold statement? It is simple, let take a quick look at the history (that we all know and love). -Buffy is called. -Buffy dies. -Kendra is called. -Buffy brought back by Xander. (Buffy retains abilities. But technically is no longer "The" Slayer.) -Kendra dies. -Faith is called. -Buffy dies again. ANY NEW SLAYER come to town, I think NOT! Why, Faith is still alive and kicking. -Buffy brought back Willow. So, the fact that there currently are STILL only two Slayers solidifies my standing that if Buffy dies, it means absolutely nothing in the calling of the NEXT Slayer. Correct?

2003-01-21 00:15:28-06:00 - Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (JJ <Your>)


Please, correct me if I am wrong here. Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before a new Slayer is called? I am sorry, but Buffy is "out of the picture" as far as new Slayers go. Faith has to die, only Faith, before a new Slayer can and would be called. Why, you ask, do I make such a bold statement? It is simple, let take a quick look at the history (that we all know and love). -Buffy is called. -Buffy dies. -Kendra is called. -Buffy brought back by Xander. (Buffy retains abilities. But technically is no longer "The" Slayer.) -Kendra dies. -Faith is called. -Buffy dies again. ANY NEW SLAYER come to town, I think NOT! Why, Faith is still alive and kicking. -Buffy brought back Willow. So, the fact that there currently are STILL only two Slayers solidifies my standing that if Buffy dies, it means absolutely nothing in the calling of the NEXT Slayer. Correct?

2003-01-21 00:24:20-06:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <Xns930ACB203D73Meyoucom@38.112.160.10>, JJ <Your> wrote: > Please, correct me if I am wrong here. > > Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before a new Slayer is called? I > am sorry, but Buffy is "out of the picture" as far as new Slayers go. Faith > has to die, only Faith, before a new Slayer can and would be called. > > Why, you ask, do I make such a bold statement? It is simple, let take a > quick look at the history (that we all know and love). > > -Buffy is called. > -Buffy dies. > -Kendra is called. > -Buffy brought back by Xander. (Buffy retains abilities. But technically is > no longer "The" Slayer.) > -Kendra dies. > -Faith is called. > -Buffy dies again. > ANY NEW SLAYER come to town, I think NOT! > Why, Faith is still alive and kicking. > -Buffy brought back Willow. > > So, the fact that there currently are STILL only two Slayers solidifies my > standing that if Buffy dies, it means absolutely nothing in the calling of > the NEXT Slayer. Buffy and the gang don't know that a third Slayer is ins't walking around. Maybe they think she's hiding in Cleveland... Or maybe they think Buffy didn't call a new Slayer because her death was mystical... Maybe they feel that only a natural death will call someone new. Inside the show the characters don't have access to the writer's public statements... all they know is what has happened before in the Buffyverse. And in the past everytime a Slayer died another Slayer was called. Since we know the Council does not have a perfect record in finding SITs maybe they never found the third Slayer, or maybe the FE got to her before anyone else and now she works for him. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-01-21 00:24:20-06:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <Xns930ACB203D73Meyoucom@38.112.160.10>, JJ <Your> wrote: > Please, correct me if I am wrong here. > > Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before a new Slayer is called? I > am sorry, but Buffy is "out of the picture" as far as new Slayers go. Faith > has to die, only Faith, before a new Slayer can and would be called. > > Why, you ask, do I make such a bold statement? It is simple, let take a > quick look at the history (that we all know and love). > > -Buffy is called. > -Buffy dies. > -Kendra is called. > -Buffy brought back by Xander. (Buffy retains abilities. But technically is > no longer "The" Slayer.) > -Kendra dies. > -Faith is called. > -Buffy dies again. > ANY NEW SLAYER come to town, I think NOT! > Why, Faith is still alive and kicking. > -Buffy brought back Willow. > > So, the fact that there currently are STILL only two Slayers solidifies my > standing that if Buffy dies, it means absolutely nothing in the calling of > the NEXT Slayer. Buffy and the gang don't know that a third Slayer is ins't walking around. Maybe they think she's hiding in Cleveland... Or maybe they think Buffy didn't call a new Slayer because her death was mystical... Maybe they feel that only a natural death will call someone new. Inside the show the characters don't have access to the writer's public statements... all they know is what has happened before in the Buffyverse. And in the past everytime a Slayer died another Slayer was called. Since we know the Council does not have a perfect record in finding SITs maybe they never found the third Slayer, or maybe the FE got to her before anyone else and now she works for him. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-01-21 01:42:15-06:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <1043133154.293345@queeg.ludd.luth.se>, Jag wrote: > Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> wrote: > : In article <Xns930ACB203D73Meyoucom@38.112.160.10>, JJ <Your> wrote: > : > :> Please, correct me if I am wrong here. > :> > :> Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before a new Slayer is called? I > :> am sorry, but Buffy is "out of the picture" as far as new Slayers go. > :> Faith > :> has to die, only Faith, before a new Slayer can and would be called. > :> > :> Why, you ask, do I make such a bold statement? It is simple, let take a > :> quick look at the history (that we all know and love). > :> > :> -Buffy is called. > :> -Buffy dies. > :> -Kendra is called. > :> -Buffy brought back by Xander. (Buffy retains abilities. But technically > :> is > :> no longer "The" Slayer.) > :> -Kendra dies. > :> -Faith is called. > :> -Buffy dies again. > :> ANY NEW SLAYER come to town, I think NOT! > :> Why, Faith is still alive and kicking. > :> -Buffy brought back Willow. > :> > :> So, the fact that there currently are STILL only two Slayers solidifies my > :> standing that if Buffy dies, it means absolutely nothing in the calling of > :> the NEXT Slayer. > : > : Buffy and the gang don't know that a third Slayer is ins't walking > : around. Maybe they think she's hiding in Cleveland... Or maybe they > : think Buffy didn't call a new Slayer because her death was mystical... > : Maybe they feel that only a natural death will call someone new. > : > > [snip] > > I think it extremely unlikely that only "natural" deaths would > call a new slayer, since most slayers would die from unnatural > causes... No. Most Slayers die from trauma. Nothing unnatural about that. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-01-21 01:42:15-06:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <1043133154.293345@queeg.ludd.luth.se>, Jag wrote: > Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> wrote: > : In article <Xns930ACB203D73Meyoucom@38.112.160.10>, JJ <Your> wrote: > : > :> Please, correct me if I am wrong here. > :> > :> Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before a new Slayer is called? I > :> am sorry, but Buffy is "out of the picture" as far as new Slayers go. > :> Faith > :> has to die, only Faith, before a new Slayer can and would be called. > :> > :> Why, you ask, do I make such a bold statement? It is simple, let take a > :> quick look at the history (that we all know and love). > :> > :> -Buffy is called. > :> -Buffy dies. > :> -Kendra is called. > :> -Buffy brought back by Xander. (Buffy retains abilities. But technically > :> is > :> no longer "The" Slayer.) > :> -Kendra dies. > :> -Faith is called. > :> -Buffy dies again. > :> ANY NEW SLAYER come to town, I think NOT! > :> Why, Faith is still alive and kicking. > :> -Buffy brought back Willow. > :> > :> So, the fact that there currently are STILL only two Slayers solidifies my > :> standing that if Buffy dies, it means absolutely nothing in the calling of > :> the NEXT Slayer. > : > : Buffy and the gang don't know that a third Slayer is ins't walking > : around. Maybe they think she's hiding in Cleveland... Or maybe they > : think Buffy didn't call a new Slayer because her death was mystical... > : Maybe they feel that only a natural death will call someone new. > : > > [snip] > > I think it extremely unlikely that only "natural" deaths would > call a new slayer, since most slayers would die from unnatural > causes... No. Most Slayers die from trauma. Nothing unnatural about that. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-01-21 01:55:28-06:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <210120030239328171%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > In article <1043133154.293345@queeg.ludd.luth.se>, Jag wrote: > > > Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> wrote: > > : In article <Xns930ACB203D73Meyoucom@38.112.160.10>, JJ <Your> wrote: > > : > > :> Please, correct me if I am wrong here. > > :> > > :> Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before a new Slayer is called? > > :> I > > :> am sorry, but Buffy is "out of the picture" as far as new Slayers go. > > :> Faith > > :> has to die, only Faith, before a new Slayer can and would be called. > > :> > > :> Why, you ask, do I make such a bold statement? It is simple, let take a > > :> quick look at the history (that we all know and love). > > :> > > :> -Buffy is called. > > :> -Buffy dies. > > :> -Kendra is called. > > :> -Buffy brought back by Xander. (Buffy retains abilities. But technically > > :> is > > :> no longer "The" Slayer.) > > :> -Kendra dies. > > :> -Faith is called. > > :> -Buffy dies again. > > :> ANY NEW SLAYER come to town, I think NOT! > > :> Why, Faith is still alive and kicking. > > :> -Buffy brought back Willow. > > :> > > :> So, the fact that there currently are STILL only two Slayers solidifies > > :> my > > :> standing that if Buffy dies, it means absolutely nothing in the calling > > :> of > > :> the NEXT Slayer. > > : > > : Buffy and the gang don't know that a third Slayer is ins't walking > > : around. Maybe they think she's hiding in Cleveland... Or maybe they > > : think Buffy didn't call a new Slayer because her death was mystical... > > : Maybe they feel that only a natural death will call someone new. > > : > > > > [snip] > > > > I think it extremely unlikely that only "natural" deaths would > > call a new slayer, since most slayers would die from unnatural > > causes... > > No. Most Slayers die from trauma. Nothing unnatural about that. Well... considering the context of this discussion (about why everyone in the show seems to think Buffy's death will call a new Slayer) its not really important what we think but what the SITs and Scoobies think. And it been proven time and time again that for all their powers and abilities they're not very bright. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-01-21 01:55:28-06:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <210120030239328171%dsample@synapse.net>, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote: > In article <1043133154.293345@queeg.ludd.luth.se>, Jag wrote: > > > Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> wrote: > > : In article <Xns930ACB203D73Meyoucom@38.112.160.10>, JJ <Your> wrote: > > : > > :> Please, correct me if I am wrong here. > > :> > > :> Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before a new Slayer is called? > > :> I > > :> am sorry, but Buffy is "out of the picture" as far as new Slayers go. > > :> Faith > > :> has to die, only Faith, before a new Slayer can and would be called. > > :> > > :> Why, you ask, do I make such a bold statement? It is simple, let take a > > :> quick look at the history (that we all know and love). > > :> > > :> -Buffy is called. > > :> -Buffy dies. > > :> -Kendra is called. > > :> -Buffy brought back by Xander. (Buffy retains abilities. But technically > > :> is > > :> no longer "The" Slayer.) > > :> -Kendra dies. > > :> -Faith is called. > > :> -Buffy dies again. > > :> ANY NEW SLAYER come to town, I think NOT! > > :> Why, Faith is still alive and kicking. > > :> -Buffy brought back Willow. > > :> > > :> So, the fact that there currently are STILL only two Slayers solidifies > > :> my > > :> standing that if Buffy dies, it means absolutely nothing in the calling > > :> of > > :> the NEXT Slayer. > > : > > : Buffy and the gang don't know that a third Slayer is ins't walking > > : around. Maybe they think she's hiding in Cleveland... Or maybe they > > : think Buffy didn't call a new Slayer because her death was mystical... > > : Maybe they feel that only a natural death will call someone new. > > : > > > > [snip] > > > > I think it extremely unlikely that only "natural" deaths would > > call a new slayer, since most slayers would die from unnatural > > causes... > > No. Most Slayers die from trauma. Nothing unnatural about that. Well... considering the context of this discussion (about why everyone in the show seems to think Buffy's death will call a new Slayer) its not really important what we think but what the SITs and Scoobies think. And it been proven time and time again that for all their powers and abilities they're not very bright. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-01-21 02:44:49-05:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <Xns930ACB203D73Meyoucom@38.112.160.10>, JJ <Your> wrote: >Please, correct me if I am wrong here. >Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before a new Slayer is called? I >am sorry, but Buffy is "out of the picture" as far as new Slayers go. Faith >has to die, only Faith, before a new Slayer can and would be called. There's no evidence for that. >Why, you ask, do I make such a bold statement? It is simple, let take a >quick look at the history (that we all know and love). >-Buffy is called. >-Buffy dies. >-Kendra is called. >-Buffy brought back by Xander. (Buffy retains abilities. But technically is >no longer "The" Slayer.) This is simply not the case. There are no "technicallies." We don't know how this works at all. Joss might or might not have decided this, but he has never firmly established it on screen. >-Kendra dies. >-Faith is called. >-Buffy dies again. >ANY NEW SLAYER come to town, I think NOT! Which has nothing to do with it. The rule is not "One slayer dies, and another one moves to Sunnydale." The rule is "One slayer dies, and another is called." Just because none came to town does _not_ mean that none were called. > Why, Faith is still alive and kicking. >-Buffy brought back Willow. >So, the fact that there currently are STILL only two Slayers solidifies my >standing that if Buffy dies, it means absolutely nothing in the calling of >the NEXT Slayer. >Correct? No. We don't know that there are "still only two slayers." For all we know, there's one running around Cambodia right now. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-01-21 02:44:49-05:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu>)


In article <Xns930ACB203D73Meyoucom@38.112.160.10>, JJ <Your> wrote: >Please, correct me if I am wrong here. >Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before a new Slayer is called? I >am sorry, but Buffy is "out of the picture" as far as new Slayers go. Faith >has to die, only Faith, before a new Slayer can and would be called. There's no evidence for that. >Why, you ask, do I make such a bold statement? It is simple, let take a >quick look at the history (that we all know and love). >-Buffy is called. >-Buffy dies. >-Kendra is called. >-Buffy brought back by Xander. (Buffy retains abilities. But technically is >no longer "The" Slayer.) This is simply not the case. There are no "technicallies." We don't know how this works at all. Joss might or might not have decided this, but he has never firmly established it on screen. >-Kendra dies. >-Faith is called. >-Buffy dies again. >ANY NEW SLAYER come to town, I think NOT! Which has nothing to do with it. The rule is not "One slayer dies, and another one moves to Sunnydale." The rule is "One slayer dies, and another is called." Just because none came to town does _not_ mean that none were called. > Why, Faith is still alive and kicking. >-Buffy brought back Willow. >So, the fact that there currently are STILL only two Slayers solidifies my >standing that if Buffy dies, it means absolutely nothing in the calling of >the NEXT Slayer. >Correct? No. We don't know that there are "still only two slayers." For all we know, there's one running around Cambodia right now. --------------------------------------------- David M. Nieporent nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu

2003-01-21 06:28:58-06:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <Xns930ACB203D73Meyoucom@38.112.160.10>, JJ <Your> wrote: > Please, correct me if I am wrong here. > > Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before a new Slayer is called? I > am sorry, but Buffy is "out of the picture" as far as new Slayers go. Says who? > Faith > has to die, only Faith, before a new Slayer can and would be called. > > Why, you ask, do I make such a bold statement? It is simple, let take a > quick look at the history (that we all know and love). > > -Buffy is called. > -Buffy dies. > -Kendra is called. > -Buffy brought back by Xander. (Buffy retains abilities. But technically > is no longer "The" Slayer.) Says who? Not the show. The characters on the show have kept calling her "The" Slayer the entire time. > ANY NEW SLAYER come to town, I think NOT! Why does she have to "come to town"? > So, the fact that there currently are STILL only two Slayers solidifies > my standing that if Buffy dies, it means absolutely nothing in the calling > of the NEXT Slayer. > > Correct? Not necessarily.

2003-01-21 06:28:58-06:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (BTR1701 <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com>)


In article <Xns930ACB203D73Meyoucom@38.112.160.10>, JJ <Your> wrote: > Please, correct me if I am wrong here. > > Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before a new Slayer is called? I > am sorry, but Buffy is "out of the picture" as far as new Slayers go. Says who? > Faith > has to die, only Faith, before a new Slayer can and would be called. > > Why, you ask, do I make such a bold statement? It is simple, let take a > quick look at the history (that we all know and love). > > -Buffy is called. > -Buffy dies. > -Kendra is called. > -Buffy brought back by Xander. (Buffy retains abilities. But technically > is no longer "The" Slayer.) Says who? Not the show. The characters on the show have kept calling her "The" Slayer the entire time. > ANY NEW SLAYER come to town, I think NOT! Why does she have to "come to town"? > So, the fact that there currently are STILL only two Slayers solidifies > my standing that if Buffy dies, it means absolutely nothing in the calling > of the NEXT Slayer. > > Correct? Not necessarily.

2003-01-21 07:44:17-06:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (Alberich <Alberich@somewhere.com>)


In article <BTR1702-1187A7.06285821012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1702 @ix.netcom.com says... > In article <Xns930ACB203D73Meyoucom@38.112.160.10>, JJ <Your> wrote: > > > Please, correct me if I am wrong here. > > > > Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before a new Slayer is called? I > > am sorry, but Buffy is "out of the picture" as far as new Slayers go. > > Says who? > > > Faith > > has to die, only Faith, before a new Slayer can and would be called. > > > > Why, you ask, do I make such a bold statement? It is simple, let take a > > quick look at the history (that we all know and love). > > > > -Buffy is called. > > -Buffy dies. > > -Kendra is called. > > -Buffy brought back by Xander. (Buffy retains abilities. But technically > > is no longer "The" Slayer.) > > Says who? Not the show. The characters on the show have kept calling her > "The" Slayer the entire time. > > > ANY NEW SLAYER come to town, I think NOT! > > Why does she have to "come to town"? > > > So, the fact that there currently are STILL only two Slayers solidifies > > my standing that if Buffy dies, it means absolutely nothing in the calling > > of the NEXT Slayer. > > > > Correct? > > Not necessarily. > I think it's high time Giles explains the facts about the calling of new Slayers. It's interesting we don't get Giles official rendering of this information. But now rumors are coming up that suggests Giles isn't Giles. However, this Giles isn't a manifestation of the First, but someone or something else. We'll be getting an answer to this pretty soon as the Scoobies get suspicious of Giles's strange not touching or feeling deal. Supposedly, the Scoobies all take Giles to an abandoned place and start touching him frantically to see if he's real. It should be a funny scene. However, I have doubts this "Giles" is going to be telling them the truth of what happened in Sleeper. You'll have to listen carefully to his answer on this matter because whatever he says will be saying alot about what the Scoobies are really facing. This stuff about whether or not there's a Third Slayer certainly hasn't been answered and I'm surprised the Scoobies don't raise this possibility up. From my perspective it's beginning to look like there IS a third Slayer but for some reason hasn't been announced. Plotwise I can see why this is...I'm beginning to suspect that Principal Wood is a watcher and he knows who this person is but isn't saying for security reasons. I think the First is desperately trying to kill off the Slayer line so that the real Slayer is forced to show up and reveal herself. It might be Kennedy. We just don't know. Kennedy might have cut a deal with the First...we just don't know. The wildest theory I'm hearing right now is the rumor about Glory returning and a "shocking" revelation about her past. Supposedly she was human once and was the Slayer in her time but became so powerful that she was transformed into a god. Something is up with Buffy. Her conversation with the vampire Holden in Conversations with Dead People was a giveaway that Buffy is beginning to feel she's way above her own friends. The line where she says she feels superior to the others should be an important clue. I found her statement disturbing. This comment by Buffy isn't getting alot of discussion because maybe people thought this was a throwaway line by Buffy. But I'm taking this comment by Buffy more seriously and I think it ties into what the First was describing in Lessons at the end. It said it's about power. Buffy also makes the telling remark in Conversations with Dead People that she feels something beneath her. "From Beneath, It Devours" She paraphrases that saying in the conversation she had with Holden and this is yet another clue that Buffy may be slowly going mad. Tie that in with her growing powers as a Slayer and you've got the ingredients of a really big fall coming. Especially since Buffy is giving all those feel good speeches toward the end of each episode recently. Joss is going to do something pretty shocking that it will take our breath away so I'd really start paying more attention to the clues about Buffy. Clues like the black leather jackets, her comments about feeling superior, even Buffy's attitude to her friends is subtly changing. These are all indications that Buffy is slowly turning evil. I think this is the reason why Spike has become so important. I think he's going to see this about Buffy and will realize she's not the same since The Gift. Right now all the attention spans are focused on The First Evil. But I really think this is a red herring. The real Big Bad hasn't been revealed yet and when it is will take our breath away. Joss Whedon stated that "our worst nightmare" will happen. What do you think he's referring to when he made that statement? What IS our worst nightmare happening on the Buffyverse? Buffy turning Big Bad. Count on it. With Faith coming back, I think we'll definitely start seeing the differences between her and Buffy. And those differences won't be pretty. It'll be Faith that looks good compared to Buffy. I just have a feeling about this and I think my suspicions will turn out to be accurate.

2003-01-21 07:44:17-06:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (Alberich <Alberich@somewhere.com>)


In article <BTR1702-1187A7.06285821012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1702 @ix.netcom.com says... > In article <Xns930ACB203D73Meyoucom@38.112.160.10>, JJ <Your> wrote: > > > Please, correct me if I am wrong here. > > > > Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before a new Slayer is called? I > > am sorry, but Buffy is "out of the picture" as far as new Slayers go. > > Says who? > > > Faith > > has to die, only Faith, before a new Slayer can and would be called. > > > > Why, you ask, do I make such a bold statement? It is simple, let take a > > quick look at the history (that we all know and love). > > > > -Buffy is called. > > -Buffy dies. > > -Kendra is called. > > -Buffy brought back by Xander. (Buffy retains abilities. But technically > > is no longer "The" Slayer.) > > Says who? Not the show. The characters on the show have kept calling her > "The" Slayer the entire time. > > > ANY NEW SLAYER come to town, I think NOT! > > Why does she have to "come to town"? > > > So, the fact that there currently are STILL only two Slayers solidifies > > my standing that if Buffy dies, it means absolutely nothing in the calling > > of the NEXT Slayer. > > > > Correct? > > Not necessarily. > I think it's high time Giles explains the facts about the calling of new Slayers. It's interesting we don't get Giles official rendering of this information. But now rumors are coming up that suggests Giles isn't Giles. However, this Giles isn't a manifestation of the First, but someone or something else. We'll be getting an answer to this pretty soon as the Scoobies get suspicious of Giles's strange not touching or feeling deal. Supposedly, the Scoobies all take Giles to an abandoned place and start touching him frantically to see if he's real. It should be a funny scene. However, I have doubts this "Giles" is going to be telling them the truth of what happened in Sleeper. You'll have to listen carefully to his answer on this matter because whatever he says will be saying alot about what the Scoobies are really facing. This stuff about whether or not there's a Third Slayer certainly hasn't been answered and I'm surprised the Scoobies don't raise this possibility up. From my perspective it's beginning to look like there IS a third Slayer but for some reason hasn't been announced. Plotwise I can see why this is...I'm beginning to suspect that Principal Wood is a watcher and he knows who this person is but isn't saying for security reasons. I think the First is desperately trying to kill off the Slayer line so that the real Slayer is forced to show up and reveal herself. It might be Kennedy. We just don't know. Kennedy might have cut a deal with the First...we just don't know. The wildest theory I'm hearing right now is the rumor about Glory returning and a "shocking" revelation about her past. Supposedly she was human once and was the Slayer in her time but became so powerful that she was transformed into a god. Something is up with Buffy. Her conversation with the vampire Holden in Conversations with Dead People was a giveaway that Buffy is beginning to feel she's way above her own friends. The line where she says she feels superior to the others should be an important clue. I found her statement disturbing. This comment by Buffy isn't getting alot of discussion because maybe people thought this was a throwaway line by Buffy. But I'm taking this comment by Buffy more seriously and I think it ties into what the First was describing in Lessons at the end. It said it's about power. Buffy also makes the telling remark in Conversations with Dead People that she feels something beneath her. "From Beneath, It Devours" She paraphrases that saying in the conversation she had with Holden and this is yet another clue that Buffy may be slowly going mad. Tie that in with her growing powers as a Slayer and you've got the ingredients of a really big fall coming. Especially since Buffy is giving all those feel good speeches toward the end of each episode recently. Joss is going to do something pretty shocking that it will take our breath away so I'd really start paying more attention to the clues about Buffy. Clues like the black leather jackets, her comments about feeling superior, even Buffy's attitude to her friends is subtly changing. These are all indications that Buffy is slowly turning evil. I think this is the reason why Spike has become so important. I think he's going to see this about Buffy and will realize she's not the same since The Gift. Right now all the attention spans are focused on The First Evil. But I really think this is a red herring. The real Big Bad hasn't been revealed yet and when it is will take our breath away. Joss Whedon stated that "our worst nightmare" will happen. What do you think he's referring to when he made that statement? What IS our worst nightmare happening on the Buffyverse? Buffy turning Big Bad. Count on it. With Faith coming back, I think we'll definitely start seeing the differences between her and Buffy. And those differences won't be pretty. It'll be Faith that looks good compared to Buffy. I just have a feeling about this and I think my suspicions will turn out to be accurate.

2003-01-21 09:39:23-08:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (salmoneous@aol.com)


JJ > Please, correct me if I am wrong here. OK > Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before a new Slayer is called? I > am sorry, but Buffy is "out of the picture" as far as new Slayers go. I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no evidense that Buffy is out of the picture. > Why, you ask, do I make such a bold statement? It is simple, let take a > quick look at the history (that we all know and love). OK > -Buffy is called. check > -Buffy dies. check > -Kendra is called. check > -Buffy brought back by Xander. (Buffy retains abilities. But technically is > no longer "The" Slayer.) Whooooah. Hold on their partner. Where on earth do you get the idea that Buffy is technically no longer the slayer? If this is true, why does Buffy always refer to herself (post first reserection) as The Slayer, or even Slayer Comma The? Why do all the people who know something about Slayerlore - the council, the undead, etc. - all continue to refer to Buffy as The Slayer? > So, the fact that there currently are STILL only two Slayers solidifies my > standing that if Buffy dies, it means absolutely nothing in the calling of > the NEXT Slayer. We have no evidence either way as to whether there are two or three slayers out there. > Correct? Nope. Well, maybe. You logic and facts seem a bit off. But you still may be right about how the Slayer calling mechanism works. But you are wrong to say it is established. As for me, well, the Mayor thought Buffy's death would call a new slayer, and I'm going to take his word over the neisayers on this newsgroup ;)

2003-01-21 09:39:23-08:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (salmoneous@aol.com)


JJ > Please, correct me if I am wrong here. OK > Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before a new Slayer is called? I > am sorry, but Buffy is "out of the picture" as far as new Slayers go. I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no evidense that Buffy is out of the picture. > Why, you ask, do I make such a bold statement? It is simple, let take a > quick look at the history (that we all know and love). OK > -Buffy is called. check > -Buffy dies. check > -Kendra is called. check > -Buffy brought back by Xander. (Buffy retains abilities. But technically is > no longer "The" Slayer.) Whooooah. Hold on their partner. Where on earth do you get the idea that Buffy is technically no longer the slayer? If this is true, why does Buffy always refer to herself (post first reserection) as The Slayer, or even Slayer Comma The? Why do all the people who know something about Slayerlore - the council, the undead, etc. - all continue to refer to Buffy as The Slayer? > So, the fact that there currently are STILL only two Slayers solidifies my > standing that if Buffy dies, it means absolutely nothing in the calling of > the NEXT Slayer. We have no evidence either way as to whether there are two or three slayers out there. > Correct? Nope. Well, maybe. You logic and facts seem a bit off. But you still may be right about how the Slayer calling mechanism works. But you are wrong to say it is established. As for me, well, the Mayor thought Buffy's death would call a new slayer, and I'm going to take his word over the neisayers on this newsgroup ;)

2003-01-21 13:10:17-08:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (smaug86@yahoo.com)


Alberich <Alberich@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1897182288cd33a9989871@news.cyburban.com>... <snip> > > Not necessarily. > > > I think it's high time Giles explains the facts about the calling of new > Slayers. Why? We already know the story. One Slayer dies...the next one's called. Giles was flummoxed with the introduction of a second Slayer so I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be able to shed any more light on it than you or I. > It's interesting we don't get Giles official rendering of this > information. We already did back in the very first episode. > But now rumors are coming up that suggests Giles isn't > Giles. Those aren't rumors. Those are speculations made by observing events that have unfolded on the screen. Rumors are what people are passing around regarding Glory returning- which I find strange since we haven't heard any word about Clare Kramer being signed on for any new episodes and yet we knew Eliza Dushku was coming back quite some time ago. And before you say, "Well, they could be keeping it a secret," remember that this is Hollywood we are talking about; There are no secrets. > However, this Giles isn't a manifestation of the First, but > someone or something else. We'll be getting an answer to this pretty > soon as the Scoobies get suspicious of Giles's strange not touching or > feeling deal. Supposedly, the Scoobies all take Giles to an abandoned > place and start touching him frantically to see if he's real. It should > be a funny scene. However, I have doubts this "Giles" is going to be > telling them the truth of what happened in Sleeper. You'll have to > listen carefully to his answer on this matter because whatever he says > will be saying alot about what the Scoobies are really facing. Giles is the thing feeds on your bottom. > This stuff about whether or not there's a Third Slayer certainly hasn't > been answered and I'm surprised the Scoobies don't raise this > possibility up. From my perspective it's beginning to look like there IS > a third Slayer but for some reason hasn't been announced. Plotwise I can > see why this is Plus, it fits with the whole "One Slayer dies, the next one's called" mantra. <snip> > Right now all the attention spans are focused on The First Evil. But I > really think this is a red herring. The real Big Bad hasn't been > revealed yet and when it is will take our breath away. Joss Whedon > stated that "our worst nightmare" will happen. What do you think he's > referring to when he made that statement? You are showing your newbie-ness. Joss says just about anything he can to mess with the fans. It is his raison d'�tre. Smaug69(Who's wondering why we haven't seen Principal Wood for quite some time)

2003-01-21 13:10:17-08:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (smaug86@yahoo.com)


Alberich <Alberich@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.1897182288cd33a9989871@news.cyburban.com>... <snip> > > Not necessarily. > > > I think it's high time Giles explains the facts about the calling of new > Slayers. Why? We already know the story. One Slayer dies...the next one's called. Giles was flummoxed with the introduction of a second Slayer so I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be able to shed any more light on it than you or I. > It's interesting we don't get Giles official rendering of this > information. We already did back in the very first episode. > But now rumors are coming up that suggests Giles isn't > Giles. Those aren't rumors. Those are speculations made by observing events that have unfolded on the screen. Rumors are what people are passing around regarding Glory returning- which I find strange since we haven't heard any word about Clare Kramer being signed on for any new episodes and yet we knew Eliza Dushku was coming back quite some time ago. And before you say, "Well, they could be keeping it a secret," remember that this is Hollywood we are talking about; There are no secrets. > However, this Giles isn't a manifestation of the First, but > someone or something else. We'll be getting an answer to this pretty > soon as the Scoobies get suspicious of Giles's strange not touching or > feeling deal. Supposedly, the Scoobies all take Giles to an abandoned > place and start touching him frantically to see if he's real. It should > be a funny scene. However, I have doubts this "Giles" is going to be > telling them the truth of what happened in Sleeper. You'll have to > listen carefully to his answer on this matter because whatever he says > will be saying alot about what the Scoobies are really facing. Giles is the thing feeds on your bottom. > This stuff about whether or not there's a Third Slayer certainly hasn't > been answered and I'm surprised the Scoobies don't raise this > possibility up. From my perspective it's beginning to look like there IS > a third Slayer but for some reason hasn't been announced. Plotwise I can > see why this is Plus, it fits with the whole "One Slayer dies, the next one's called" mantra. <snip> > Right now all the attention spans are focused on The First Evil. But I > really think this is a red herring. The real Big Bad hasn't been > revealed yet and when it is will take our breath away. Joss Whedon > stated that "our worst nightmare" will happen. What do you think he's > referring to when he made that statement? You are showing your newbie-ness. Joss says just about anything he can to mess with the fans. It is his raison d'�tre. Smaug69(Who's wondering why we haven't seen Principal Wood for quite some time)

2003-01-21 15:21:23-05:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (BKM <trashbin@thebottomofthestairs.com>)


"Alberich" <Alberich@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1897182288cd33a9989871@news.cyburban.com... > In article <BTR1702-1187A7.06285821012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1702 > @ix.netcom.com says... > > In article <Xns930ACB203D73Meyoucom@38.112.160.10>, JJ <Your> wrote: > > > > > I think it's high time Giles explains the facts about the calling of new > Slayers. It's interesting we don't get Giles official rendering of this > information. There's no reason to believe that Giles, or anyone else, knows the "facts". It's doubtful that TPTB handed down a tablet with official slayer rules. The "rules" were probably made up by the Council from centuries of observation. And centuries of observation showed that a slayer was called, she fought, she died, and another was called. This consistency created the "rules" that there is one slayer and when she dies another is called. Of course, Bufffy brought an end to that consistency. If the line goes through Faith as many assume then the "rules" stay intact. If another slayer was called as many others suggest and she just hasn't shown up yet then the "rules" go out the window. So, there's no reason to believe that Giles knows anymore about this than we do. Of course, a third slayer could be used for a sequel. In an interview, Joss said that he wasn't intersested in Dawn the Slayer as he didn't want a Dawson's-Creek version of Buffy. Anyway it would be rather redundant. He did express some interest in a sequel with Faith, but would Eliza want to do a series? A third slayer could be the answer. This way Faith could still show up for special episodes.

2003-01-21 15:21:23-05:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (BKM <trashbin@thebottomofthestairs.com>)


"Alberich" <Alberich@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1897182288cd33a9989871@news.cyburban.com... > In article <BTR1702-1187A7.06285821012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, BTR1702 > @ix.netcom.com says... > > In article <Xns930ACB203D73Meyoucom@38.112.160.10>, JJ <Your> wrote: > > > > > I think it's high time Giles explains the facts about the calling of new > Slayers. It's interesting we don't get Giles official rendering of this > information. There's no reason to believe that Giles, or anyone else, knows the "facts". It's doubtful that TPTB handed down a tablet with official slayer rules. The "rules" were probably made up by the Council from centuries of observation. And centuries of observation showed that a slayer was called, she fought, she died, and another was called. This consistency created the "rules" that there is one slayer and when she dies another is called. Of course, Bufffy brought an end to that consistency. If the line goes through Faith as many assume then the "rules" stay intact. If another slayer was called as many others suggest and she just hasn't shown up yet then the "rules" go out the window. So, there's no reason to believe that Giles knows anymore about this than we do. Of course, a third slayer could be used for a sequel. In an interview, Joss said that he wasn't intersested in Dawn the Slayer as he didn't want a Dawson's-Creek version of Buffy. Anyway it would be rather redundant. He did express some interest in a sequel with Faith, but would Eliza want to do a series? A third slayer could be the answer. This way Faith could still show up for special episodes.

2003-01-21 15:23:22-05:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (BKM <trashbin@thebottomofthestairs.com>)


"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:BTR1702-1187A7.06285821012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > In article <Xns930ACB203D73Meyoucom@38.112.160.10>, JJ <Your> wrote: > > > Says who? Not the show. The characters on the show have kept calling her > "The" Slayer the entire time. > What else would they call her? Buffy the Unofficial Slayer? Whether or not Buffy is "The Slayer", as long as her name is Buffy and she slays she will be known as "Buffy The Vampire Slayer". It's like US Presidents. Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr are all called "Mr. President", but only one is "The President".

2003-01-21 15:23:22-05:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (BKM <trashbin@thebottomofthestairs.com>)


"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:BTR1702-1187A7.06285821012003@nntp.ix.netcom.com... > In article <Xns930ACB203D73Meyoucom@38.112.160.10>, JJ <Your> wrote: > > > Says who? Not the show. The characters on the show have kept calling her > "The" Slayer the entire time. > What else would they call her? Buffy the Unofficial Slayer? Whether or not Buffy is "The Slayer", as long as her name is Buffy and she slays she will be known as "Buffy The Vampire Slayer". It's like US Presidents. Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr are all called "Mr. President", but only one is "The President".

2003-01-21 18:37:53+00:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:15:28 -0600, JJ <Your> wrote: >Please, correct me if I am wrong here. > >Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before a new Slayer is called? I >am sorry, but Buffy is "out of the picture" as far as new Slayers go. Faith >has to die, only Faith, before a new Slayer can and would be called. > >Why, you ask, do I make such a bold statement? It is simple, let take a >quick look at the history (that we all know and love). > >-Buffy is called. >-Buffy dies. >-Kendra is called. >-Buffy brought back by Xander. (Buffy retains abilities. But technically is >no longer "The" Slayer.) >-Kendra dies. >-Faith is called. >-Buffy dies again. >ANY NEW SLAYER come to town, I think NOT! > Why, Faith is still alive and kicking. >-Buffy brought back Willow. > >So, the fact that there currently are STILL only two Slayers solidifies my >standing that if Buffy dies, it means absolutely nothing in the calling of >the NEXT Slayer. > >Correct? I wondered this exact same thing. Maybe they don't know? What is clear to us is not always apparent to them. Stimpson

2003-01-21 18:37:53+00:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - ("Stimpson J. Cat" <house@next.tuesday>)


On Tue, 21 Jan 2003 00:15:28 -0600, JJ <Your> wrote: >Please, correct me if I am wrong here. > >Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before a new Slayer is called? I >am sorry, but Buffy is "out of the picture" as far as new Slayers go. Faith >has to die, only Faith, before a new Slayer can and would be called. > >Why, you ask, do I make such a bold statement? It is simple, let take a >quick look at the history (that we all know and love). > >-Buffy is called. >-Buffy dies. >-Kendra is called. >-Buffy brought back by Xander. (Buffy retains abilities. But technically is >no longer "The" Slayer.) >-Kendra dies. >-Faith is called. >-Buffy dies again. >ANY NEW SLAYER come to town, I think NOT! > Why, Faith is still alive and kicking. >-Buffy brought back Willow. > >So, the fact that there currently are STILL only two Slayers solidifies my >standing that if Buffy dies, it means absolutely nothing in the calling of >the NEXT Slayer. > >Correct? I wondered this exact same thing. Maybe they don't know? What is clear to us is not always apparent to them. Stimpson

2003-01-21 19:03:19-05:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (Erich <Erichattheredeye@hotmail.com>)


"Darwin Fish" <a@a.edu> wrote in message news:a-B02FA3.00241921012003@husk.cso.niu.edu... > Buffy and the gang don't know that a third Slayer is ins't walking > around. Maybe they think she's hiding in Cleveland... Or maybe they > think Buffy didn't call a new Slayer because her death was mystical... > Maybe they feel that only a natural death will call someone new. So you're saying that if Buffy had never died fighting the master, and if her first and final (without any ressurection) death occured jumping into Glory's mystical portal of fun, that the slayer lineage would end? That seems unlikely to me. - Erich

2003-01-21 19:03:19-05:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (Erich <Erichattheredeye@hotmail.com>)


"Darwin Fish" <a@a.edu> wrote in message news:a-B02FA3.00241921012003@husk.cso.niu.edu... > Buffy and the gang don't know that a third Slayer is ins't walking > around. Maybe they think she's hiding in Cleveland... Or maybe they > think Buffy didn't call a new Slayer because her death was mystical... > Maybe they feel that only a natural death will call someone new. So you're saying that if Buffy had never died fighting the master, and if her first and final (without any ressurection) death occured jumping into Glory's mystical portal of fun, that the slayer lineage would end? That seems unlikely to me. - Erich

2003-01-22 05:55:34-08:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (salmoneous@aol.com)


> What else would they call her? Buffy the Unofficial Slayer? Whether or not > Buffy is "The Slayer", as long as her name is Buffy and she slays she will > be known as "Buffy The Vampire Slayer". The problem are the umpteen posts we get on this board by people saying Buffy isn't "the" slayer anymore; that Faith is "the" Slayer, and Buffy just an extra. Which is silly when everyone still calls Buffy "The Slayer" and no one ever calls Faith "The Slayer." If Buffy weren't "the" Slayer, they could do what they do with Faith - call her "Buffy" or "a Slayer". > It's like US Presidents. Ford, > Carter, Reagan, > Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr are all called "Mr. President", but only one is > "The President". If this analagy holds, then Buffy is the one and only Slayer, since she is the only one called "The Slayer".

2003-01-22 05:55:34-08:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (salmoneous@aol.com)


> What else would they call her? Buffy the Unofficial Slayer? Whether or not > Buffy is "The Slayer", as long as her name is Buffy and she slays she will > be known as "Buffy The Vampire Slayer". The problem are the umpteen posts we get on this board by people saying Buffy isn't "the" slayer anymore; that Faith is "the" Slayer, and Buffy just an extra. Which is silly when everyone still calls Buffy "The Slayer" and no one ever calls Faith "The Slayer." If Buffy weren't "the" Slayer, they could do what they do with Faith - call her "Buffy" or "a Slayer". > It's like US Presidents. Ford, > Carter, Reagan, > Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr are all called "Mr. President", but only one is > "The President". If this analagy holds, then Buffy is the one and only Slayer, since she is the only one called "The Slayer".

2003-01-22 17:07:01-05:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (BKM <trashbin@thebottomofthestairs.com>)


"salmoneous" <salmoneous@aol.com> wrote in message news:54daff87.0301220555.3d8c4d36@posting.google.com... > > What else would they call her? Buffy the Unofficial Slayer? Whether or not > > Buffy is "The Slayer", as long as her name is Buffy and she slays she will > > be known as "Buffy The Vampire Slayer". > > The problem are the umpteen posts we get on this board by people > saying Buffy isn't "the" slayer anymore; that Faith is "the" Slayer, > and Buffy just an extra. Which is silly when everyone still calls > Buffy "The Slayer" and no one ever calls Faith "The Slayer." If Buffy > weren't "the" Slayer, they could do what they do with Faith - call her > "Buffy" or "a Slayer". > > > It's like US Presidents. Ford, > > Carter, Reagan, > > Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr are all called "Mr. President", but only one is > > "The President". > > If this analagy holds, then Buffy is the one and only Slayer, since > she is the only one called "The Slayer". No, George W Bush isn't President because he's called "Mr. President", he's President because he received the most Electoral votes even though Al Gore received more popular votes. If the majority of the people called Al Gore "Mr. President" that wouldn't make him president. It doesn't matter what someone is called, it matters what they are. Buffy is/was "The Slayer" because she received that "mystical something" that turns a somewhat ordinary teenage girl into the "Chosen One", not because the Scooby Gang calls her "The Slayer". And when Buffy died, Kendra received that "mystical something" and became a/the Slayer. Whether Buffy retained that "mystical something" after her death and is still a full-fledged Slayer or just a semi-Slayer is unknown.

2003-01-22 17:07:01-05:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (BKM <trashbin@thebottomofthestairs.com>)


"salmoneous" <salmoneous@aol.com> wrote in message news:54daff87.0301220555.3d8c4d36@posting.google.com... > > What else would they call her? Buffy the Unofficial Slayer? Whether or not > > Buffy is "The Slayer", as long as her name is Buffy and she slays she will > > be known as "Buffy The Vampire Slayer". > > The problem are the umpteen posts we get on this board by people > saying Buffy isn't "the" slayer anymore; that Faith is "the" Slayer, > and Buffy just an extra. Which is silly when everyone still calls > Buffy "The Slayer" and no one ever calls Faith "The Slayer." If Buffy > weren't "the" Slayer, they could do what they do with Faith - call her > "Buffy" or "a Slayer". > > > It's like US Presidents. Ford, > > Carter, Reagan, > > Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr are all called "Mr. President", but only one is > > "The President". > > If this analagy holds, then Buffy is the one and only Slayer, since > she is the only one called "The Slayer". No, George W Bush isn't President because he's called "Mr. President", he's President because he received the most Electoral votes even though Al Gore received more popular votes. If the majority of the people called Al Gore "Mr. President" that wouldn't make him president. It doesn't matter what someone is called, it matters what they are. Buffy is/was "The Slayer" because she received that "mystical something" that turns a somewhat ordinary teenage girl into the "Chosen One", not because the Scooby Gang calls her "The Slayer". And when Buffy died, Kendra received that "mystical something" and became a/the Slayer. Whether Buffy retained that "mystical something" after her death and is still a full-fledged Slayer or just a semi-Slayer is unknown.

2003-01-22 18:32:11-05:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (Tyler Sherkin <t_sherkin@hotmail.com>)


She seems to still retain Slayer strength and such. "BKM" <trashbin@thebottomofthestairs.com> wrote in message news:_o6cnUK55didtLKjXTWc3w@comcast.com... > > "salmoneous" <salmoneous@aol.com> wrote in message > news:54daff87.0301220555.3d8c4d36@posting.google.com... > > > What else would they call her? Buffy the Unofficial Slayer? Whether or > not > > > Buffy is "The Slayer", as long as her name is Buffy and she slays she > will > > > be known as "Buffy The Vampire Slayer". > > > > The problem are the umpteen posts we get on this board by people > > saying Buffy isn't "the" slayer anymore; that Faith is "the" Slayer, > > and Buffy just an extra. Which is silly when everyone still calls > > Buffy "The Slayer" and no one ever calls Faith "The Slayer." If Buffy > > weren't "the" Slayer, they could do what they do with Faith - call her > > "Buffy" or "a Slayer". > > > > > It's like US Presidents. Ford, > > > Carter, Reagan, > > > Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr are all called "Mr. President", but only one > is > > > "The President". > > > > If this analagy holds, then Buffy is the one and only Slayer, since > > she is the only one called "The Slayer". > > No, George W Bush isn't President because he's called "Mr. President", he's > President because he received the most Electoral votes even though Al Gore > received more popular votes. If the majority of the people called Al Gore > "Mr. President" that wouldn't make him president. > > It doesn't matter what someone is called, it matters what they are. Buffy > is/was "The Slayer" because she received that "mystical something" that > turns a somewhat ordinary teenage girl into the "Chosen One", not because > the Scooby Gang calls her "The Slayer". And when Buffy died, Kendra received > that "mystical something" and became a/the Slayer. Whether Buffy retained > that "mystical something" after her death and is still a full-fledged Slayer > or just a semi-Slayer is unknown. > >

2003-01-22 18:32:11-05:00 - Re: Why do they keep saying Buffy has to die before the next Slayer is called? - (Tyler Sherkin <t_sherkin@hotmail.com>)


She seems to still retain Slayer strength and such. "BKM" <trashbin@thebottomofthestairs.com> wrote in message news:_o6cnUK55didtLKjXTWc3w@comcast.com... > > "salmoneous" <salmoneous@aol.com> wrote in message > news:54daff87.0301220555.3d8c4d36@posting.google.com... > > > What else would they call her? Buffy the Unofficial Slayer? Whether or > not > > > Buffy is "The Slayer", as long as her name is Buffy and she slays she > will > > > be known as "Buffy The Vampire Slayer". > > > > The problem are the umpteen posts we get on this board by people > > saying Buffy isn't "the" slayer anymore; that Faith is "the" Slayer, > > and Buffy just an extra. Which is silly when everyone still calls > > Buffy "The Slayer" and no one ever calls Faith "The Slayer." If Buffy > > weren't "the" Slayer, they could do what they do with Faith - call her > > "Buffy" or "a Slayer". > > > > > It's like US Presidents. Ford, > > > Carter, Reagan, > > > Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr are all called "Mr. President", but only one > is > > > "The President". > > > > If this analagy holds, then Buffy is the one and only Slayer, since > > she is the only one called "The Slayer". > > No, George W Bush isn't President because he's called "Mr. President", he's > President because he received the most Electoral votes even though Al Gore > received more popular votes. If the majority of the people called Al Gore > "Mr. President" that wouldn't make him president. > > It doesn't matter what someone is called, it matters what they are. Buffy > is/was "The Slayer" because she received that "mystical something" that > turns a somewhat ordinary teenage girl into the "Chosen One", not because > the Scooby Gang calls her "The Slayer". And when Buffy died, Kendra received > that "mystical something" and became a/the Slayer. Whether Buffy retained > that "mystical something" after her death and is still a full-fledged Slayer > or just a semi-Slayer is unknown. > >