FLM films - My Webpage

2003-01-11 22:54:15-05:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - ("j.deuce" <jballou921@hotmail.com>)


"Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message news:Xns9300E36172D62mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > This may be a repetition of previous threads, but I haven't seen them. > > 1. So, why can the one take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > dead people? We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. She was > never resurrected. That would explain why Spike could hit her, why he > thought she came back wrong. > > 2. The episode "Normal Again" was an early attempt by the One to divide > the Scoobies and isolate Buffy. Her (second) death is mentioned as a > return to normalcy. She had been there before some months previous, or > maybe not. Buffy describes her hiatus as having been in heaven. The > asylum is hardly heaven. > > What remains to be seen is whether Buffy's mother's ghost is really > Joyce or the One, or either one at different times. > If the First was really Buffy's real mom- in the scenario that Normal Again was the real world, then she wouldn't acknowledge Dawn, since Dawn didn't exist in Normal Again.

2003-01-11 22:54:15-05:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - ("j.deuce" <jballou921@hotmail.com>)


"Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message news:Xns9300E36172D62mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > This may be a repetition of previous threads, but I haven't seen them. > > 1. So, why can the one take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > dead people? We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. She was > never resurrected. That would explain why Spike could hit her, why he > thought she came back wrong. > > 2. The episode "Normal Again" was an early attempt by the One to divide > the Scoobies and isolate Buffy. Her (second) death is mentioned as a > return to normalcy. She had been there before some months previous, or > maybe not. Buffy describes her hiatus as having been in heaven. The > asylum is hardly heaven. > > What remains to be seen is whether Buffy's mother's ghost is really > Joyce or the One, or either one at different times. > If the First was really Buffy's real mom- in the scenario that Normal Again was the real world, then she wouldn't acknowledge Dawn, since Dawn didn't exist in Normal Again.

2003-01-12 02:30:19-06:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <mw9U9.23757$Dn.3699@sccrnsc03>, Daryl Barnett <atthesea@attbi.com> wrote: > "Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > news:Xns9300E36172D62mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > > This may be a repetition of previous threads, but I haven't seen them. > > > > 1. So, why can the one take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > > dead people? We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > > season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. She was > > never resurrected. That would explain why Spike could hit her, why he > > thought she came back wrong. > > I don't believe that Buffy is dead. I don't agree that the resurrection did > not work. She is alive and living amongst the living. Buffy and Spike > thought that Buffy came back "wrong". Tara researched it and told Buffy > that she didn't come back wrong but that she came back "different". Maybe > it is this "difference" that enabled the FE to impersonate Buffy. Maybe it > is related to the mystical death she suffered. Some thoughts at least... The whole "came back wrong" thing has been nothing but a red herring all along. Things are screwed up for the simple reason that Buffy *came* *back*! That's the thing that dead people aren't supposed to do. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-01-12 02:30:19-06:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <mw9U9.23757$Dn.3699@sccrnsc03>, Daryl Barnett <atthesea@attbi.com> wrote: > "Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > news:Xns9300E36172D62mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > > This may be a repetition of previous threads, but I haven't seen them. > > > > 1. So, why can the one take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > > dead people? We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > > season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. She was > > never resurrected. That would explain why Spike could hit her, why he > > thought she came back wrong. > > I don't believe that Buffy is dead. I don't agree that the resurrection did > not work. She is alive and living amongst the living. Buffy and Spike > thought that Buffy came back "wrong". Tara researched it and told Buffy > that she didn't come back wrong but that she came back "different". Maybe > it is this "difference" that enabled the FE to impersonate Buffy. Maybe it > is related to the mystical death she suffered. Some thoughts at least... The whole "came back wrong" thing has been nothing but a red herring all along. Things are screwed up for the simple reason that Buffy *came* *back*! That's the thing that dead people aren't supposed to do. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-01-12 03:21:09+00:00 - The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com>)


This may be a repetition of previous threads, but I haven't seen them. 1. So, why can the one take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate dead people? We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. She was never resurrected. That would explain why Spike could hit her, why he thought she came back wrong. 2. The episode "Normal Again" was an early attempt by the One to divide the Scoobies and isolate Buffy. Her (second) death is mentioned as a return to normalcy. She had been there before some months previous, or maybe not. Buffy describes her hiatus as having been in heaven. The asylum is hardly heaven. What remains to be seen is whether Buffy's mother's ghost is really Joyce or the One, or either one at different times. -- Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. Jos��� Mart���

2003-01-12 03:21:09+00:00 - The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com>)


This may be a repetition of previous threads, but I haven't seen them. 1. So, why can the one take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate dead people? We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. She was never resurrected. That would explain why Spike could hit her, why he thought she came back wrong. 2. The episode "Normal Again" was an early attempt by the One to divide the Scoobies and isolate Buffy. Her (second) death is mentioned as a return to normalcy. She had been there before some months previous, or maybe not. Buffy describes her hiatus as having been in heaven. The asylum is hardly heaven. What remains to be seen is whether Buffy's mother's ghost is really Joyce or the One, or either one at different times. -- Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. Jos��� Mart���

2003-01-12 08:17:22+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Daryl Barnett <atthesea@attbi.com>)


"Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message news:Xns9300E36172D62mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > This may be a repetition of previous threads, but I haven't seen them. > > 1. So, why can the one take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > dead people? We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. She was > never resurrected. That would explain why Spike could hit her, why he > thought she came back wrong. I don't believe that Buffy is dead. I don't agree that the resurrection did not work. She is alive and living amongst the living. Buffy and Spike thought that Buffy came back "wrong". Tara researched it and told Buffy that she didn't come back wrong but that she came back "different". Maybe it is this "difference" that enabled the FE to impersonate Buffy. Maybe it is related to the mystical death she suffered. Some thoughts at least... > 2. The episode "Normal Again" was an early attempt by the One to divide > the Scoobies and isolate Buffy. Her (second) death is mentioned as a > return to normalcy. She had been there before some months previous, or > maybe not. Buffy describes her hiatus as having been in heaven. The > asylum is hardly heaven. Well, it has been told many times in BtVS that there are countless heaven and hell dimensions. (Esoteric writings denote that there are other heavens besides the Judeo-Xian heaven.) Buffy could have gone to the safe and secure environment of the asylum and felt happy and at peace there compared to the tumultuous, hellish life she was living in Sunnydale. It's all relative, isn't it? db

2003-01-12 08:17:22+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Daryl Barnett <atthesea@attbi.com>)


"Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message news:Xns9300E36172D62mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > This may be a repetition of previous threads, but I haven't seen them. > > 1. So, why can the one take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > dead people? We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. She was > never resurrected. That would explain why Spike could hit her, why he > thought she came back wrong. I don't believe that Buffy is dead. I don't agree that the resurrection did not work. She is alive and living amongst the living. Buffy and Spike thought that Buffy came back "wrong". Tara researched it and told Buffy that she didn't come back wrong but that she came back "different". Maybe it is this "difference" that enabled the FE to impersonate Buffy. Maybe it is related to the mystical death she suffered. Some thoughts at least... > 2. The episode "Normal Again" was an early attempt by the One to divide > the Scoobies and isolate Buffy. Her (second) death is mentioned as a > return to normalcy. She had been there before some months previous, or > maybe not. Buffy describes her hiatus as having been in heaven. The > asylum is hardly heaven. Well, it has been told many times in BtVS that there are countless heaven and hell dimensions. (Esoteric writings denote that there are other heavens besides the Judeo-Xian heaven.) Buffy could have gone to the safe and secure environment of the asylum and felt happy and at peace there compared to the tumultuous, hellish life she was living in Sunnydale. It's all relative, isn't it? db

2003-01-12 09:44:46-08:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (DanielArmato@aol.com)


Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message news:<120120030327321483%dsample@synapse.net>... > In article <mw9U9.23757$Dn.3699@sccrnsc03>, Daryl Barnett > <atthesea@attbi.com> wrote: > > > "Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > > news:Xns9300E36172D62mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > > > This may be a repetition of previous threads, but I haven't seen them. > > > > > > 1. So, why can the one take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > > > dead people? We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > > > season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. She was > > > never resurrected. That would explain why Spike could hit her, why he > > > thought she came back wrong. > > > > I don't believe that Buffy is dead. I don't agree that the resurrection did > > not work. She is alive and living amongst the living. Buffy and Spike > > thought that Buffy came back "wrong". Tara researched it and told Buffy > > that she didn't come back wrong but that she came back "different". Maybe > > it is this "difference" that enabled the FE to impersonate Buffy. Maybe it > > is related to the mystical death she suffered. Some thoughts at least... > > The whole "came back wrong" thing has been nothing but a red herring > all along. Things are screwed up for the simple reason that Buffy > *came* *back*! > > That's the thing that dead people aren't supposed to do. Indeed, Joss said that bringing Buffy back wouldn't be easy...and boy was he right. This is a very good thing for the show's mythology in general. If it were easy, everybody (who is in the know) would be doing it. I guess there are reasons why it is not common practice and we saw and are continuing to see them, big time. That said, I'm glad she did come back :)

2003-01-12 09:44:46-08:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (DanielArmato@aol.com)


Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> wrote in message news:<120120030327321483%dsample@synapse.net>... > In article <mw9U9.23757$Dn.3699@sccrnsc03>, Daryl Barnett > <atthesea@attbi.com> wrote: > > > "Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > > news:Xns9300E36172D62mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > > > This may be a repetition of previous threads, but I haven't seen them. > > > > > > 1. So, why can the one take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > > > dead people? We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > > > season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. She was > > > never resurrected. That would explain why Spike could hit her, why he > > > thought she came back wrong. > > > > I don't believe that Buffy is dead. I don't agree that the resurrection did > > not work. She is alive and living amongst the living. Buffy and Spike > > thought that Buffy came back "wrong". Tara researched it and told Buffy > > that she didn't come back wrong but that she came back "different". Maybe > > it is this "difference" that enabled the FE to impersonate Buffy. Maybe it > > is related to the mystical death she suffered. Some thoughts at least... > > The whole "came back wrong" thing has been nothing but a red herring > all along. Things are screwed up for the simple reason that Buffy > *came* *back*! > > That's the thing that dead people aren't supposed to do. Indeed, Joss said that bringing Buffy back wouldn't be easy...and boy was he right. This is a very good thing for the show's mythology in general. If it were easy, everybody (who is in the know) would be doing it. I guess there are reasons why it is not common practice and we saw and are continuing to see them, big time. That said, I'm glad she did come back :)

2003-01-12 10:48:12+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"j.deuce" <jballou921@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:avqotc$8b33$1@netnews.upenn.edu... > > "Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > news:Xns9300E36172D62mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > > This may be a repetition of previous threads, but I haven't seen them. > > > > 1. So, why can the one take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > > dead people? We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > > season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. She was > > never resurrected. That would explain why Spike could hit her, why he > > thought she came back wrong. > > > > 2. The episode "Normal Again" was an early attempt by the One to divide > > the Scoobies and isolate Buffy. Her (second) death is mentioned as a > > return to normalcy. She had been there before some months previous, or > > maybe not. Buffy describes her hiatus as having been in heaven. The > > asylum is hardly heaven. > > > > What remains to be seen is whether Buffy's mother's ghost is really > > Joyce or the One, or either one at different times. > > > If the First was really Buffy's real mom- in the scenario that Normal Again > was the real world, then she wouldn't acknowledge Dawn, since Dawn didn't > exist in Normal Again. > > > Ah, but maybe Buffy's ... a ZOMBIE! We've seen from "The Zeppo" they can be quite lifelike. We know Willow screwed up the return. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 10:48:12+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"j.deuce" <jballou921@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:avqotc$8b33$1@netnews.upenn.edu... > > "Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > news:Xns9300E36172D62mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > > This may be a repetition of previous threads, but I haven't seen them. > > > > 1. So, why can the one take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > > dead people? We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > > season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. She was > > never resurrected. That would explain why Spike could hit her, why he > > thought she came back wrong. > > > > 2. The episode "Normal Again" was an early attempt by the One to divide > > the Scoobies and isolate Buffy. Her (second) death is mentioned as a > > return to normalcy. She had been there before some months previous, or > > maybe not. Buffy describes her hiatus as having been in heaven. The > > asylum is hardly heaven. > > > > What remains to be seen is whether Buffy's mother's ghost is really > > Joyce or the One, or either one at different times. > > > If the First was really Buffy's real mom- in the scenario that Normal Again > was the real world, then she wouldn't acknowledge Dawn, since Dawn didn't > exist in Normal Again. > > > Ah, but maybe Buffy's ... a ZOMBIE! We've seen from "The Zeppo" they can be quite lifelike. We know Willow screwed up the return. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 14:14:39+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com>)


Dans un moment de folie, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> ���crivit: >> I don't believe that Buffy is dead. I don't agree that the >> resurrection did not work. She is alive and living amongst the >> living. Buffy and Spike thought that Buffy came back "wrong". >> Tara researched it and told Buffy that she didn't come back wrong >> but that she came back "different". Maybe it is this >> "difference" that enabled the FE to impersonate Buffy. Maybe it >> is related to the mystical death she suffered. Some thoughts at >> least... > > The whole "came back wrong" thing has been nothing but a red > herring all along. Things are screwed up for the simple reason > that Buffy *came* *back*! Or implanting the notion that it's a red herring is a red herring in itself. > That's the thing that dead people aren't supposed to do. However she's done that twice. Why is the second time so much more important than the first if it's the "act" itself that triggers this weirdness? I remember thinking the supposed explanation that was given (don't remember it exactly) was not entirely satisfactory. -- Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. Jos��� Mart���

2003-01-12 14:14:39+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com>)


Dans un moment de folie, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> ���crivit: >> I don't believe that Buffy is dead. I don't agree that the >> resurrection did not work. She is alive and living amongst the >> living. Buffy and Spike thought that Buffy came back "wrong". >> Tara researched it and told Buffy that she didn't come back wrong >> but that she came back "different". Maybe it is this >> "difference" that enabled the FE to impersonate Buffy. Maybe it >> is related to the mystical death she suffered. Some thoughts at >> least... > > The whole "came back wrong" thing has been nothing but a red > herring all along. Things are screwed up for the simple reason > that Buffy *came* *back*! Or implanting the notion that it's a red herring is a red herring in itself. > That's the thing that dead people aren't supposed to do. However she's done that twice. Why is the second time so much more important than the first if it's the "act" itself that triggers this weirdness? I remember thinking the supposed explanation that was given (don't remember it exactly) was not entirely satisfactory. -- Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. Jos��� Mart���

2003-01-12 15:15:16+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com>)


Dans un moment de folie, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> ���crivit: > > "Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > news:Xns93015E08EFD67mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... >> Dans un moment de folie, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> >> ���crivit: >> >> >> I don't believe that Buffy is dead. I don't agree that the >> >> resurrection did not work. She is alive and living amongst >> >> the living. Buffy and Spike thought that Buffy came back >> >> "wrong". Tara researched it and told Buffy that she didn't >> >> come back wrong but that she came back "different". Maybe it >> >> is this "difference" that enabled the FE to impersonate Buffy. >> >> Maybe it is related to the mystical death she suffered. Some >> >> thoughts at least... >> > >> > The whole "came back wrong" thing has been nothing but a red >> > herring all along. Things are screwed up for the simple reason >> > that Buffy *came* *back*! >> >> Or implanting the notion that it's a red herring is a red herring >> in itself. >> >> > That's the thing that dead people aren't supposed to do. >> >> However she's done that twice. Why is the second time so much >> more important than the first if it's the "act" itself that >> triggers this weirdness? I remember thinking the supposed >> explanation that was given (don't remember it exactly) was not >> entirely satisfactory. >> >> -- >> >> Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. >> >> Jos��� Mart��� > > First time she was CLINICALLY dead. The second time she was dead > and BURIED. And she was killed MYSTICALLY (as opposed to drowning, > had the Master drained her completely, no CPR could revive her). Right. And that may or may not be significant. Being buried is not a consideration as the slayerette that the One impersonated was not buried either nor did she die a mystical death (at least as far as we know it's not a mystical death). -- Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. Jos��� Mart���

2003-01-12 15:15:16+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com>)


Dans un moment de folie, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> ���crivit: > > "Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > news:Xns93015E08EFD67mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... >> Dans un moment de folie, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> >> ���crivit: >> >> >> I don't believe that Buffy is dead. I don't agree that the >> >> resurrection did not work. She is alive and living amongst >> >> the living. Buffy and Spike thought that Buffy came back >> >> "wrong". Tara researched it and told Buffy that she didn't >> >> come back wrong but that she came back "different". Maybe it >> >> is this "difference" that enabled the FE to impersonate Buffy. >> >> Maybe it is related to the mystical death she suffered. Some >> >> thoughts at least... >> > >> > The whole "came back wrong" thing has been nothing but a red >> > herring all along. Things are screwed up for the simple reason >> > that Buffy *came* *back*! >> >> Or implanting the notion that it's a red herring is a red herring >> in itself. >> >> > That's the thing that dead people aren't supposed to do. >> >> However she's done that twice. Why is the second time so much >> more important than the first if it's the "act" itself that >> triggers this weirdness? I remember thinking the supposed >> explanation that was given (don't remember it exactly) was not >> entirely satisfactory. >> >> -- >> >> Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. >> >> Jos��� Mart��� > > First time she was CLINICALLY dead. The second time she was dead > and BURIED. And she was killed MYSTICALLY (as opposed to drowning, > had the Master drained her completely, no CPR could revive her). Right. And that may or may not be significant. Being buried is not a consideration as the slayerette that the One impersonated was not buried either nor did she die a mystical death (at least as far as we know it's not a mystical death). -- Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. Jos��� Mart���

2003-01-12 15:43:15+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message news:Xns93015E08EFD67mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > Dans un moment de folie, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> ���crivit: > > >> I don't believe that Buffy is dead. I don't agree that the > >> resurrection did not work. She is alive and living amongst the > >> living. Buffy and Spike thought that Buffy came back "wrong". > >> Tara researched it and told Buffy that she didn't come back wrong > >> but that she came back "different". Maybe it is this > >> "difference" that enabled the FE to impersonate Buffy. Maybe it > >> is related to the mystical death she suffered. Some thoughts at > >> least... > > > > The whole "came back wrong" thing has been nothing but a red > > herring all along. Things are screwed up for the simple reason > > that Buffy *came* *back*! > > Or implanting the notion that it's a red herring is a red herring in > itself. > > > That's the thing that dead people aren't supposed to do. > > However she's done that twice. Why is the second time so much more > important than the first if it's the "act" itself that triggers this > weirdness? I remember thinking the supposed explanation that was > given (don't remember it exactly) was not entirely satisfactory. > > -- > > Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. > > Jos��� Mart��� First time she was CLINICALLY dead. The second time she was dead and BURIED. And she was killed MYSTICALLY (as opposed to drowning, had the Master drained her completely, no CPR could revive her). -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 15:43:15+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message news:Xns93015E08EFD67mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > Dans un moment de folie, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> ���crivit: > > >> I don't believe that Buffy is dead. I don't agree that the > >> resurrection did not work. She is alive and living amongst the > >> living. Buffy and Spike thought that Buffy came back "wrong". > >> Tara researched it and told Buffy that she didn't come back wrong > >> but that she came back "different". Maybe it is this > >> "difference" that enabled the FE to impersonate Buffy. Maybe it > >> is related to the mystical death she suffered. Some thoughts at > >> least... > > > > The whole "came back wrong" thing has been nothing but a red > > herring all along. Things are screwed up for the simple reason > > that Buffy *came* *back*! > > Or implanting the notion that it's a red herring is a red herring in > itself. > > > That's the thing that dead people aren't supposed to do. > > However she's done that twice. Why is the second time so much more > important than the first if it's the "act" itself that triggers this > weirdness? I remember thinking the supposed explanation that was > given (don't remember it exactly) was not entirely satisfactory. > > -- > > Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. > > Jos��� Mart��� First time she was CLINICALLY dead. The second time she was dead and BURIED. And she was killed MYSTICALLY (as opposed to drowning, had the Master drained her completely, no CPR could revive her). -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 16:48:24+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message news:Xns9301684FC8D01mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > Dans un moment de folie, "Ken" > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> ���crivit: > > > > > "Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > > news:Xns93015E08EFD67mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > >> Dans un moment de folie, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> > >> ���crivit: > >> > >> >> I don't believe that Buffy is dead. I don't agree that the > >> >> resurrection did not work. She is alive and living amongst > >> >> the living. Buffy and Spike thought that Buffy came back > >> >> "wrong". Tara researched it and told Buffy that she didn't > >> >> come back wrong but that she came back "different". Maybe it > >> >> is this "difference" that enabled the FE to impersonate Buffy. > >> >> Maybe it is related to the mystical death she suffered. Some > >> >> thoughts at least... > >> > > >> > The whole "came back wrong" thing has been nothing but a red > >> > herring all along. Things are screwed up for the simple reason > >> > that Buffy *came* *back*! > >> > >> Or implanting the notion that it's a red herring is a red herring > >> in itself. > >> > >> > That's the thing that dead people aren't supposed to do. > >> > >> However she's done that twice. Why is the second time so much > >> more important than the first if it's the "act" itself that > >> triggers this weirdness? I remember thinking the supposed > >> explanation that was given (don't remember it exactly) was not > >> entirely satisfactory. > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. > >> > >> Jos��� Mart��� > > > > First time she was CLINICALLY dead. The second time she was dead > > and BURIED. And she was killed MYSTICALLY (as opposed to drowning, > > had the Master drained her completely, no CPR could revive her). > > Right. And that may or may not be significant. Being buried is not > a consideration as the slayerette that the One impersonated was not > buried either nor did she die a mystical death (at least as far as we > know it's not a mystical death). > > -- > > Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. > > Jos��� Mart��� Ah, but RECOVERING from a mystical death might have drawn the attention of the FE. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 16:48:24+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message news:Xns9301684FC8D01mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > Dans un moment de folie, "Ken" > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> ���crivit: > > > > > "Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > > news:Xns93015E08EFD67mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > >> Dans un moment de folie, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> > >> ���crivit: > >> > >> >> I don't believe that Buffy is dead. I don't agree that the > >> >> resurrection did not work. She is alive and living amongst > >> >> the living. Buffy and Spike thought that Buffy came back > >> >> "wrong". Tara researched it and told Buffy that she didn't > >> >> come back wrong but that she came back "different". Maybe it > >> >> is this "difference" that enabled the FE to impersonate Buffy. > >> >> Maybe it is related to the mystical death she suffered. Some > >> >> thoughts at least... > >> > > >> > The whole "came back wrong" thing has been nothing but a red > >> > herring all along. Things are screwed up for the simple reason > >> > that Buffy *came* *back*! > >> > >> Or implanting the notion that it's a red herring is a red herring > >> in itself. > >> > >> > That's the thing that dead people aren't supposed to do. > >> > >> However she's done that twice. Why is the second time so much > >> more important than the first if it's the "act" itself that > >> triggers this weirdness? I remember thinking the supposed > >> explanation that was given (don't remember it exactly) was not > >> entirely satisfactory. > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. > >> > >> Jos��� Mart��� > > > > First time she was CLINICALLY dead. The second time she was dead > > and BURIED. And she was killed MYSTICALLY (as opposed to drowning, > > had the Master drained her completely, no CPR could revive her). > > Right. And that may or may not be significant. Being buried is not > a consideration as the slayerette that the One impersonated was not > buried either nor did she die a mystical death (at least as far as we > know it's not a mystical death). > > -- > > Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. > > Jos��� Mart��� Ah, but RECOVERING from a mystical death might have drawn the attention of the FE. -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 17:01:11+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <MJbU9.7194$qU5.5543929@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "j.deuce" <jballou921@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:avqotc$8b33$1@netnews.upenn.edu... > > > > "Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > > news:Xns9300E36172D62mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > > > This may be a repetition of previous threads, but I haven't seen them. > > > > > > 1. So, why can the one take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > > > dead people? We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > > > season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. She was > > > never resurrected. That would explain why Spike could hit her, why he > > > thought she came back wrong. > > > > > > 2. The episode "Normal Again" was an early attempt by the One to divide > > > the Scoobies and isolate Buffy. Her (second) death is mentioned as a > > > return to normalcy. She had been there before some months previous, or > > > maybe not. Buffy describes her hiatus as having been in heaven. The > > > asylum is hardly heaven. > > > > > > What remains to be seen is whether Buffy's mother's ghost is really > > > Joyce or the One, or either one at different times. > > > > > If the First was really Buffy's real mom- in the scenario that Normal > Again > > was the real world, then she wouldn't acknowledge Dawn, since Dawn didn't > > exist in Normal Again. > > > > > > > > Ah, but maybe Buffy's ... a ZOMBIE! We've seen from "The Zeppo" they can be > quite lifelike. We know Willow screwed up the return. Actually Giles is the zombie, don't tell anyone. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-01-12 17:01:11+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <MJbU9.7194$qU5.5543929@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "j.deuce" <jballou921@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:avqotc$8b33$1@netnews.upenn.edu... > > > > "Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > > news:Xns9300E36172D62mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > > > This may be a repetition of previous threads, but I haven't seen them. > > > > > > 1. So, why can the one take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > > > dead people? We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > > > season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. She was > > > never resurrected. That would explain why Spike could hit her, why he > > > thought she came back wrong. > > > > > > 2. The episode "Normal Again" was an early attempt by the One to divide > > > the Scoobies and isolate Buffy. Her (second) death is mentioned as a > > > return to normalcy. She had been there before some months previous, or > > > maybe not. Buffy describes her hiatus as having been in heaven. The > > > asylum is hardly heaven. > > > > > > What remains to be seen is whether Buffy's mother's ghost is really > > > Joyce or the One, or either one at different times. > > > > > If the First was really Buffy's real mom- in the scenario that Normal > Again > > was the real world, then she wouldn't acknowledge Dawn, since Dawn didn't > > exist in Normal Again. > > > > > > > > Ah, but maybe Buffy's ... a ZOMBIE! We've seen from "The Zeppo" they can be > quite lifelike. We know Willow screwed up the return. Actually Giles is the zombie, don't tell anyone. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-01-12 17:07:22+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <s%gU9.7229$qU5.5572885@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > news:Xns9301684FC8D01mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > > Dans un moment de folie, "Ken" > > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> ���crivit: > > > > > > > > "Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > > > news:Xns93015E08EFD67mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > > >> Dans un moment de folie, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> > > >> ���crivit: > > >> > > >> >> I don't believe that Buffy is dead. I don't agree that the > > >> >> resurrection did not work. She is alive and living amongst > > >> >> the living. Buffy and Spike thought that Buffy came back > > >> >> "wrong". Tara researched it and told Buffy that she didn't > > >> >> come back wrong but that she came back "different". Maybe it > > >> >> is this "difference" that enabled the FE to impersonate Buffy. > > >> >> Maybe it is related to the mystical death she suffered. Some > > >> >> thoughts at least... > > >> > > > >> > The whole "came back wrong" thing has been nothing but a red > > >> > herring all along. Things are screwed up for the simple reason > > >> > that Buffy *came* *back*! > > >> > > >> Or implanting the notion that it's a red herring is a red herring > > >> in itself. > > >> > > >> > That's the thing that dead people aren't supposed to do. > > >> > > >> However she's done that twice. Why is the second time so much > > >> more important than the first if it's the "act" itself that > > >> triggers this weirdness? I remember thinking the supposed > > >> explanation that was given (don't remember it exactly) was not > > >> entirely satisfactory. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. > > >> > > >> Jos��� Mart��� > > > > > > First time she was CLINICALLY dead. The second time she was dead > > > and BURIED. And she was killed MYSTICALLY (as opposed to drowning, > > > had the Master drained her completely, no CPR could revive her). > > > > Right. And that may or may not be significant. Being buried is not > > a consideration as the slayerette that the One impersonated was not > > buried either nor did she die a mystical death (at least as far as we > > know it's not a mystical death). > > > > -- > > > > Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. > > > > Jos��� Mart��� > > > Ah, but RECOVERING from a mystical death might have drawn the attention of > the FE. I can sort of see the FE being annoyed the first time Buffy came back but decided to chalk it up as a minor, but legal, loophole that would soon correct itself. However, when the other Scoobies brought Buffy back the second time that was simply cheating and it pissed the FE off. Maybe it pissed off the PTB too, dragging one of their warriors out of her justly deserved reward, so they're okay with the FE going on a rampage until Buffy is returned to the grave. Of course, only time will tell if she'll make the grade for heaven a second time. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-01-12 17:07:22+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <s%gU9.7229$qU5.5572885@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > "Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > news:Xns9301684FC8D01mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > > Dans un moment de folie, "Ken" > > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> ���crivit: > > > > > > > > "Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > > > news:Xns93015E08EFD67mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > > >> Dans un moment de folie, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> > > >> ���crivit: > > >> > > >> >> I don't believe that Buffy is dead. I don't agree that the > > >> >> resurrection did not work. She is alive and living amongst > > >> >> the living. Buffy and Spike thought that Buffy came back > > >> >> "wrong". Tara researched it and told Buffy that she didn't > > >> >> come back wrong but that she came back "different". Maybe it > > >> >> is this "difference" that enabled the FE to impersonate Buffy. > > >> >> Maybe it is related to the mystical death she suffered. Some > > >> >> thoughts at least... > > >> > > > >> > The whole "came back wrong" thing has been nothing but a red > > >> > herring all along. Things are screwed up for the simple reason > > >> > that Buffy *came* *back*! > > >> > > >> Or implanting the notion that it's a red herring is a red herring > > >> in itself. > > >> > > >> > That's the thing that dead people aren't supposed to do. > > >> > > >> However she's done that twice. Why is the second time so much > > >> more important than the first if it's the "act" itself that > > >> triggers this weirdness? I remember thinking the supposed > > >> explanation that was given (don't remember it exactly) was not > > >> entirely satisfactory. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> > > >> Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. > > >> > > >> Jos��� Mart��� > > > > > > First time she was CLINICALLY dead. The second time she was dead > > > and BURIED. And she was killed MYSTICALLY (as opposed to drowning, > > > had the Master drained her completely, no CPR could revive her). > > > > Right. And that may or may not be significant. Being buried is not > > a consideration as the slayerette that the One impersonated was not > > buried either nor did she die a mystical death (at least as far as we > > know it's not a mystical death). > > > > -- > > > > Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. > > > > Jos��� Mart��� > > > Ah, but RECOVERING from a mystical death might have drawn the attention of > the FE. I can sort of see the FE being annoyed the first time Buffy came back but decided to chalk it up as a minor, but legal, loophole that would soon correct itself. However, when the other Scoobies brought Buffy back the second time that was simply cheating and it pissed the FE off. Maybe it pissed off the PTB too, dragging one of their warriors out of her justly deserved reward, so they're okay with the FE going on a rampage until Buffy is returned to the grave. Of course, only time will tell if she'll make the grade for heaven a second time. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-01-12 18:45:50+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Darwin Fish" <a@a.edu> wrote in message news:a-A800CF.11012612012003@netnews.worldnet.att.net... > In article <MJbU9.7194$qU5.5543929@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, > "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > "j.deuce" <jballou921@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:avqotc$8b33$1@netnews.upenn.edu... > > > > > > "Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > > > news:Xns9300E36172D62mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > > > > This may be a repetition of previous threads, but I haven't seen them. > > > > > > > > 1. So, why can the one take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > > > > dead people? We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > > > > season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. She was > > > > never resurrected. That would explain why Spike could hit her, why he > > > > thought she came back wrong. > > > > > > > > 2. The episode "Normal Again" was an early attempt by the One to divide > > > > the Scoobies and isolate Buffy. Her (second) death is mentioned as a > > > > return to normalcy. She had been there before some months previous, or > > > > maybe not. Buffy describes her hiatus as having been in heaven. The > > > > asylum is hardly heaven. > > > > > > > > What remains to be seen is whether Buffy's mother's ghost is really > > > > Joyce or the One, or either one at different times. > > > > > > > If the First was really Buffy's real mom- in the scenario that Normal > > Again > > > was the real world, then she wouldn't acknowledge Dawn, since Dawn didn't > > > exist in Normal Again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, but maybe Buffy's ... a ZOMBIE! We've seen from "The Zeppo" they can be > > quite lifelike. We know Willow screwed up the return. > > Actually Giles is the zombie, don't tell anyone. > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Let the Darwin Fishes swim! > www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nooo! Buffy has dibs on being a zombie first! -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 18:45:50+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Darwin Fish" <a@a.edu> wrote in message news:a-A800CF.11012612012003@netnews.worldnet.att.net... > In article <MJbU9.7194$qU5.5543929@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, > "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > "j.deuce" <jballou921@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:avqotc$8b33$1@netnews.upenn.edu... > > > > > > "Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > > > news:Xns9300E36172D62mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > > > > This may be a repetition of previous threads, but I haven't seen them. > > > > > > > > 1. So, why can the one take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > > > > dead people? We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > > > > season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. She was > > > > never resurrected. That would explain why Spike could hit her, why he > > > > thought she came back wrong. > > > > > > > > 2. The episode "Normal Again" was an early attempt by the One to divide > > > > the Scoobies and isolate Buffy. Her (second) death is mentioned as a > > > > return to normalcy. She had been there before some months previous, or > > > > maybe not. Buffy describes her hiatus as having been in heaven. The > > > > asylum is hardly heaven. > > > > > > > > What remains to be seen is whether Buffy's mother's ghost is really > > > > Joyce or the One, or either one at different times. > > > > > > > If the First was really Buffy's real mom- in the scenario that Normal > > Again > > > was the real world, then she wouldn't acknowledge Dawn, since Dawn didn't > > > exist in Normal Again. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ah, but maybe Buffy's ... a ZOMBIE! We've seen from "The Zeppo" they can be > > quite lifelike. We know Willow screwed up the return. > > Actually Giles is the zombie, don't tell anyone. > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Let the Darwin Fishes swim! > www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nooo! Buffy has dibs on being a zombie first! -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 18:46:56+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Darwin Fish" <a@a.edu> wrote in message news:a-C9BEFC.11073612012003@netnews.worldnet.att.net... > In article <s%gU9.7229$qU5.5572885@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, > "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > "Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > > news:Xns9301684FC8D01mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > > > Dans un moment de folie, "Ken" > > > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> ���crivit: > > > > > > > > > > > "Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > > > > news:Xns93015E08EFD67mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > > > >> Dans un moment de folie, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> > > > >> ���crivit: > > > >> > > > >> >> I don't believe that Buffy is dead. I don't agree that the > > > >> >> resurrection did not work. She is alive and living amongst > > > >> >> the living. Buffy and Spike thought that Buffy came back > > > >> >> "wrong". Tara researched it and told Buffy that she didn't > > > >> >> come back wrong but that she came back "different". Maybe it > > > >> >> is this "difference" that enabled the FE to impersonate Buffy. > > > >> >> Maybe it is related to the mystical death she suffered. Some > > > >> >> thoughts at least... > > > >> > > > > >> > The whole "came back wrong" thing has been nothing but a red > > > >> > herring all along. Things are screwed up for the simple reason > > > >> > that Buffy *came* *back*! > > > >> > > > >> Or implanting the notion that it's a red herring is a red herring > > > >> in itself. > > > >> > > > >> > That's the thing that dead people aren't supposed to do. > > > >> > > > >> However she's done that twice. Why is the second time so much > > > >> more important than the first if it's the "act" itself that > > > >> triggers this weirdness? I remember thinking the supposed > > > >> explanation that was given (don't remember it exactly) was not > > > >> entirely satisfactory. > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> > > > >> Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. > > > >> > > > >> Jos��� Mart��� > > > > > > > > First time she was CLINICALLY dead. The second time she was dead > > > > and BURIED. And she was killed MYSTICALLY (as opposed to drowning, > > > > had the Master drained her completely, no CPR could revive her). > > > > > > Right. And that may or may not be significant. Being buried is not > > > a consideration as the slayerette that the One impersonated was not > > > buried either nor did she die a mystical death (at least as far as we > > > know it's not a mystical death). > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. > > > > > > Jos��� Mart��� > > > > > > Ah, but RECOVERING from a mystical death might have drawn the attention of > > the FE. > > I can sort of see the FE being annoyed the first time Buffy came back > but decided to chalk it up as a minor, but legal, loophole that would > soon correct itself. However, when the other Scoobies brought Buffy back > the second time that was simply cheating and it pissed the FE off. Maybe > it pissed off the PTB too, dragging one of their warriors out of her > justly deserved reward, so they're okay with the FE going on a rampage > until Buffy is returned to the grave. Of course, only time will tell if > she'll make the grade for heaven a second time. > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Let the Darwin Fishes swim! > www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- How else is them ''meddlin kids'' gonna learn? -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 18:46:56+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Ken <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net>)


"Darwin Fish" <a@a.edu> wrote in message news:a-C9BEFC.11073612012003@netnews.worldnet.att.net... > In article <s%gU9.7229$qU5.5572885@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com>, > "Ken" <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> wrote: > > > "Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > > news:Xns9301684FC8D01mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > > > Dans un moment de folie, "Ken" > > > <kwicker_erase_this_part@ameritech.net> ���crivit: > > > > > > > > > > > "Michel Boucher" <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > > > > news:Xns93015E08EFD67mortimertherat@130.133.1.4... > > > >> Dans un moment de folie, Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net> > > > >> ���crivit: > > > >> > > > >> >> I don't believe that Buffy is dead. I don't agree that the > > > >> >> resurrection did not work. She is alive and living amongst > > > >> >> the living. Buffy and Spike thought that Buffy came back > > > >> >> "wrong". Tara researched it and told Buffy that she didn't > > > >> >> come back wrong but that she came back "different". Maybe it > > > >> >> is this "difference" that enabled the FE to impersonate Buffy. > > > >> >> Maybe it is related to the mystical death she suffered. Some > > > >> >> thoughts at least... > > > >> > > > > >> > The whole "came back wrong" thing has been nothing but a red > > > >> > herring all along. Things are screwed up for the simple reason > > > >> > that Buffy *came* *back*! > > > >> > > > >> Or implanting the notion that it's a red herring is a red herring > > > >> in itself. > > > >> > > > >> > That's the thing that dead people aren't supposed to do. > > > >> > > > >> However she's done that twice. Why is the second time so much > > > >> more important than the first if it's the "act" itself that > > > >> triggers this weirdness? I remember thinking the supposed > > > >> explanation that was given (don't remember it exactly) was not > > > >> entirely satisfactory. > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> > > > >> Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. > > > >> > > > >> Jos��� Mart��� > > > > > > > > First time she was CLINICALLY dead. The second time she was dead > > > > and BURIED. And she was killed MYSTICALLY (as opposed to drowning, > > > > had the Master drained her completely, no CPR could revive her). > > > > > > Right. And that may or may not be significant. Being buried is not > > > a consideration as the slayerette that the One impersonated was not > > > buried either nor did she die a mystical death (at least as far as we > > > know it's not a mystical death). > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. > > > > > > Jos��� Mart��� > > > > > > Ah, but RECOVERING from a mystical death might have drawn the attention of > > the FE. > > I can sort of see the FE being annoyed the first time Buffy came back > but decided to chalk it up as a minor, but legal, loophole that would > soon correct itself. However, when the other Scoobies brought Buffy back > the second time that was simply cheating and it pissed the FE off. Maybe > it pissed off the PTB too, dragging one of their warriors out of her > justly deserved reward, so they're okay with the FE going on a rampage > until Buffy is returned to the grave. Of course, only time will tell if > she'll make the grade for heaven a second time. > > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Let the Darwin Fishes swim! > www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- How else is them ''meddlin kids'' gonna learn? -- Ken from Chicago

2003-01-12 21:06:42+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com>)


Dans un moment de folie, Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> ���crivit: > Of course, only time will tell if she'll make the grade for > heaven a second time. Are you suggesting she could be darned to heck? ;-) -- Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. Jos��� Mart���

2003-01-12 21:06:42+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com>)


Dans un moment de folie, Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> ���crivit: > Of course, only time will tell if she'll make the grade for > heaven a second time. Are you suggesting she could be darned to heck? ;-) -- Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. Jos��� Mart���

2003-01-13 04:11:33+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com>)




2003-01-13 04:11:33+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com>)




2003-01-13 12:48:33-07:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (William George Ferguson <william.george.ferguson@domail.maricopa.edu>)


>Dans un moment de folie, Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com> >�crivit: >> Buffy died twice. It can take the form of anyone who has died. Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote: >That's not what was said. "It can take the form of dead people" is >what I remember. If Buffy is alive, she is not dead, ergo it should >not be able to take her form.

2003-01-13 12:48:33-07:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (William George Ferguson <william.george.ferguson@domail.maricopa.edu>)


>Dans un moment de folie, Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com> >�crivit: >> Buffy died twice. It can take the form of anyone who has died. Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote: >That's not what was said. "It can take the form of dead people" is >what I remember. If Buffy is alive, she is not dead, ergo it should >not be able to take her form.

2003-01-13 13:14:32+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com>)


Dans un moment de folie, Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com> ���crivit: > It's called the First(First Evil), not the One. Ok. But obviously you knew who I was talking about :-) >> take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate >>dead people? > > Buffy died twice. It can take the form of anyone who has died. That's not what was said. "It can take the form of dead people" is what I remember. If Buffy is alive, she is not dead, ergo it should not be able to take her form. >>We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of >>season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. > > No, she's alive. That we know for sure. Again, you think you do, because that's how the scripts have been written so far except for the odd clue they've dropped. -- Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. Jos��� Mart���

2003-01-13 13:14:32+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com>)


Dans un moment de folie, Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com> ���crivit: > It's called the First(First Evil), not the One. Ok. But obviously you knew who I was talking about :-) >> take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate >>dead people? > > Buffy died twice. It can take the form of anyone who has died. That's not what was said. "It can take the form of dead people" is what I remember. If Buffy is alive, she is not dead, ergo it should not be able to take her form. >>We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of >>season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. > > No, she's alive. That we know for sure. Again, you think you do, because that's how the scripts have been written so far except for the odd clue they've dropped. -- Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. Jos��� Mart���

2003-01-13 13:53:42-08:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (smaug86@yahoo.com)


Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<Xns930253D786F3Dmortimertherat@130.133.1.4>... > Dans un moment de folie, Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com> > �crivit: > > > It's called the First(First Evil), not the One. > > Ok. But obviously you knew who I was talking about :-) Yes, but you should at least be able to get it right. Some people not too familiar with Buffy might think you are talking about Highlander or that recent Jet Li film. > >> take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > >>dead people? > > > > Buffy died twice. It can take the form of anyone who has died. > > That's not what was said. "It can take the form of dead people" is > what I remember. If Buffy is alive, she is not dead, ergo it should > not be able to take her form. It can take the form of people who HAVE died- not just those who are now dead. > >>We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > >>season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. > > > > No, she's alive. That we know for sure. > > Again, you think you do, because that's how the scripts have been > written so far except for the odd clue they've dropped. I don't think I do. I know. Please don't wrack your brain over this. It's just not worth it. Buffy is alive and kicking. Don't you think Tara's spell to check Buffy out in Season 6 would have revealed something more than a deep molecular tan? Like the fact that she was DEAD?!? Smaug69(Who's alive and eating CHOKLIT)

2003-01-13 13:53:42-08:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (smaug86@yahoo.com)


Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<Xns930253D786F3Dmortimertherat@130.133.1.4>... > Dans un moment de folie, Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com> > �crivit: > > > It's called the First(First Evil), not the One. > > Ok. But obviously you knew who I was talking about :-) Yes, but you should at least be able to get it right. Some people not too familiar with Buffy might think you are talking about Highlander or that recent Jet Li film. > >> take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > >>dead people? > > > > Buffy died twice. It can take the form of anyone who has died. > > That's not what was said. "It can take the form of dead people" is > what I remember. If Buffy is alive, she is not dead, ergo it should > not be able to take her form. It can take the form of people who HAVE died- not just those who are now dead. > >>We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > >>season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. > > > > No, she's alive. That we know for sure. > > Again, you think you do, because that's how the scripts have been > written so far except for the odd clue they've dropped. I don't think I do. I know. Please don't wrack your brain over this. It's just not worth it. Buffy is alive and kicking. Don't you think Tara's spell to check Buffy out in Season 6 would have revealed something more than a deep molecular tan? Like the fact that she was DEAD?!? Smaug69(Who's alive and eating CHOKLIT)

2003-01-13 16:04:47-06:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <5fe774aa.0301131353.41f22f90@posting.google.com>, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) wrote: > Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > news:<Xns930253D786F3Dmortimertherat@130.133.1.4>... > > Dans un moment de folie, Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com> > > ���crivit: > > > > > It's called the First(First Evil), not the One. > > > > Ok. But obviously you knew who I was talking about :-) > > Yes, but you should at least be able to get it right. Some people not > too familiar with Buffy might think you are talking about Highlander > or that recent Jet Li film. > > > >> take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > > >>dead people? > > > > > > Buffy died twice. It can take the form of anyone who has died. > > > > That's not what was said. "It can take the form of dead people" is > > what I remember. If Buffy is alive, she is not dead, ergo it should > > not be able to take her form. > > It can take the form of people who HAVE died- not just those who are > now dead. > > > >>We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > > >>season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. > > > > > > No, she's alive. That we know for sure. > > > > Again, you think you do, because that's how the scripts have been > > written so far except for the odd clue they've dropped. > > I don't think I do. I know. Please don't wrack your brain over this. > It's just not worth it. Buffy is alive and kicking. > > Don't you think Tara's spell to check Buffy out in Season 6 would have > revealed something more than a deep molecular tan? Like the fact that > she was DEAD?!? Tara did a spell? I only remember her saying that she reviewed Willow's spell and that there was nothing in it that could have resulted in Buffy coming back "wrong". And while I'm willing to agree that the spell, on paper, was correct I don't think anyone can argue that the execution of the spell was without flaws; broken urn, demon bikers, etc... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-01-13 16:04:47-06:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <5fe774aa.0301131353.41f22f90@posting.google.com>, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) wrote: > Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > news:<Xns930253D786F3Dmortimertherat@130.133.1.4>... > > Dans un moment de folie, Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com> > > ���crivit: > > > > > It's called the First(First Evil), not the One. > > > > Ok. But obviously you knew who I was talking about :-) > > Yes, but you should at least be able to get it right. Some people not > too familiar with Buffy might think you are talking about Highlander > or that recent Jet Li film. > > > >> take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > > >>dead people? > > > > > > Buffy died twice. It can take the form of anyone who has died. > > > > That's not what was said. "It can take the form of dead people" is > > what I remember. If Buffy is alive, she is not dead, ergo it should > > not be able to take her form. > > It can take the form of people who HAVE died- not just those who are > now dead. > > > >>We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > > >>season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. > > > > > > No, she's alive. That we know for sure. > > > > Again, you think you do, because that's how the scripts have been > > written so far except for the odd clue they've dropped. > > I don't think I do. I know. Please don't wrack your brain over this. > It's just not worth it. Buffy is alive and kicking. > > Don't you think Tara's spell to check Buffy out in Season 6 would have > revealed something more than a deep molecular tan? Like the fact that > she was DEAD?!? Tara did a spell? I only remember her saying that she reviewed Willow's spell and that there was nothing in it that could have resulted in Buffy coming back "wrong". And while I'm willing to agree that the spell, on paper, was correct I don't think anyone can argue that the execution of the spell was without flaws; broken urn, demon bikers, etc... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-01-13 23:03:58+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (JustMe <whome@nospam.com>)


"Darwin Fish" <a@a.edu> wrote in message news:a-620DDB.16044613012003@husk.cso.niu.edu... > In article <5fe774aa.0301131353.41f22f90@posting.google.com>, > smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) wrote: > > > Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > > news:<Xns930253D786F3Dmortimertherat@130.133.1.4>... > > > Dans un moment de folie, Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com> > > > ���crivit: > > > > > > > It's called the First(First Evil), not the One. > > > > > > Ok. But obviously you knew who I was talking about :-) > > > > Yes, but you should at least be able to get it right. Some people not > > too familiar with Buffy might think you are talking about Highlander > > or that recent Jet Li film. > > > > > >> take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > > > >>dead people? > > > > > > > > Buffy died twice. It can take the form of anyone who has died. > > > > > > That's not what was said. "It can take the form of dead people" is > > > what I remember. If Buffy is alive, she is not dead, ergo it should > > > not be able to take her form. > > > > It can take the form of people who HAVE died- not just those who are > > now dead. > > > > > >>We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > > > >>season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. > > > > > > > > No, she's alive. That we know for sure. > > > > > > Again, you think you do, because that's how the scripts have been > > > written so far except for the odd clue they've dropped. > > > > I don't think I do. I know. Please don't wrack your brain over this. > > It's just not worth it. Buffy is alive and kicking. > > > > Don't you think Tara's spell to check Buffy out in Season 6 would have > > revealed something more than a deep molecular tan? Like the fact that > > she was DEAD?!? > > Tara did a spell? I only remember her saying that she reviewed Willow's > spell and that there was nothing in it that could have resulted in Buffy > coming back "wrong". And while I'm willing to agree that the spell, on > paper, was correct I don't think anyone can argue that the execution of > the spell was without flaws; broken urn, demon bikers, etc... > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Let the Darwin Fishes swim! > www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, Giles stated that the First could imperonated poeple who had DIED, in the next episode Willow misqouted him, stating DEAD people, which isn't accurate.

2003-01-13 23:03:58+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (JustMe <whome@nospam.com>)


"Darwin Fish" <a@a.edu> wrote in message news:a-620DDB.16044613012003@husk.cso.niu.edu... > In article <5fe774aa.0301131353.41f22f90@posting.google.com>, > smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) wrote: > > > Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > > news:<Xns930253D786F3Dmortimertherat@130.133.1.4>... > > > Dans un moment de folie, Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com> > > > ���crivit: > > > > > > > It's called the First(First Evil), not the One. > > > > > > Ok. But obviously you knew who I was talking about :-) > > > > Yes, but you should at least be able to get it right. Some people not > > too familiar with Buffy might think you are talking about Highlander > > or that recent Jet Li film. > > > > > >> take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > > > >>dead people? > > > > > > > > Buffy died twice. It can take the form of anyone who has died. > > > > > > That's not what was said. "It can take the form of dead people" is > > > what I remember. If Buffy is alive, she is not dead, ergo it should > > > not be able to take her form. > > > > It can take the form of people who HAVE died- not just those who are > > now dead. > > > > > >>We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > > > >>season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. > > > > > > > > No, she's alive. That we know for sure. > > > > > > Again, you think you do, because that's how the scripts have been > > > written so far except for the odd clue they've dropped. > > > > I don't think I do. I know. Please don't wrack your brain over this. > > It's just not worth it. Buffy is alive and kicking. > > > > Don't you think Tara's spell to check Buffy out in Season 6 would have > > revealed something more than a deep molecular tan? Like the fact that > > she was DEAD?!? > > Tara did a spell? I only remember her saying that she reviewed Willow's > spell and that there was nothing in it that could have resulted in Buffy > coming back "wrong". And while I'm willing to agree that the spell, on > paper, was correct I don't think anyone can argue that the execution of > the spell was without flaws; broken urn, demon bikers, etc... > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Let the Darwin Fishes swim! > www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, Giles stated that the First could imperonated poeple who had DIED, in the next episode Willow misqouted him, stating DEAD people, which isn't accurate.

2003-01-14 00:17:56-06:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <l5472vo4cmqd103e5c52hgchlv7os2rv82@4ax.com>, Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com> wrote: > From somewhere over there Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> > mumbled incoherently: > > >Dans un moment de folie, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) ���crivit: > > > >>> >> take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > >>> >>dead people? > >>> > > >>> > Buffy died twice. It can take the form of anyone who has died. > >>> > >>> That's not what was said. "It can take the form of dead people" > >>> is what I remember. If Buffy is alive, she is not dead, ergo it > >>> should not be able to take her form. > >> > >> It can take the form of people who HAVE died- not just those who > >> are now dead. > > > >Giles said "who have died" which does not necessarily include those > >who are now living...we know that a requisite is death, but not how > >that applies to the resurrected...you're assuming here. Willow says > >"who are dead". Is she misquoting or clarifying? > > I was going by what Giles said. > > >>> >>We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > >>> >>season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. > >>> > > >>> > No, she's alive. That we know for sure. > > > >Oy... > > > >> I don't think I do. I know. Please don't wrack your brain over > >> this. It's just not worth it. Buffy is alive and kicking. > >> > >> Don't you think Tara's spell to check Buffy out in Season 6 would > >> have revealed something more than a deep molecular tan? Like the > >> fact that she was DEAD?!? > > > >Tara did not do a spell. She looked over Willow's spell. > > Tara had to perform some kind of magick to determine that Buffy only > had a deep molecular tan. She's not knowledge girl and I doubt that > information could be gleaned from just looking at the recipe and the > incantation. It's equally likely that Tara just said that to make Buffy feel better since she could sense Buffy was quite upset. Plus, it's in Tara's best interest to believe that Buffy can back fundamentally okay otherwise she would have to face the guilt of bringing Buffy back from heaven "damaged". -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-01-14 00:17:56-06:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <l5472vo4cmqd103e5c52hgchlv7os2rv82@4ax.com>, Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com> wrote: > From somewhere over there Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> > mumbled incoherently: > > >Dans un moment de folie, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) ���crivit: > > > >>> >> take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > >>> >>dead people? > >>> > > >>> > Buffy died twice. It can take the form of anyone who has died. > >>> > >>> That's not what was said. "It can take the form of dead people" > >>> is what I remember. If Buffy is alive, she is not dead, ergo it > >>> should not be able to take her form. > >> > >> It can take the form of people who HAVE died- not just those who > >> are now dead. > > > >Giles said "who have died" which does not necessarily include those > >who are now living...we know that a requisite is death, but not how > >that applies to the resurrected...you're assuming here. Willow says > >"who are dead". Is she misquoting or clarifying? > > I was going by what Giles said. > > >>> >>We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > >>> >>season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. > >>> > > >>> > No, she's alive. That we know for sure. > > > >Oy... > > > >> I don't think I do. I know. Please don't wrack your brain over > >> this. It's just not worth it. Buffy is alive and kicking. > >> > >> Don't you think Tara's spell to check Buffy out in Season 6 would > >> have revealed something more than a deep molecular tan? Like the > >> fact that she was DEAD?!? > > > >Tara did not do a spell. She looked over Willow's spell. > > Tara had to perform some kind of magick to determine that Buffy only > had a deep molecular tan. She's not knowledge girl and I doubt that > information could be gleaned from just looking at the recipe and the > incantation. It's equally likely that Tara just said that to make Buffy feel better since she could sense Buffy was quite upset. Plus, it's in Tara's best interest to believe that Buffy can back fundamentally okay otherwise she would have to face the guilt of bringing Buffy back from heaven "damaged". -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-01-14 00:48:56-05:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - ("Michael C." <mcsuper5@usol.com>)


On 13 Jan 2003 13:14:32 GMT, Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote: >Dans un moment de folie, Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com> >�crivit: > >> It's called the First(First Evil), not the One. > >Ok. But obviously you knew who I was talking about :-) > >>> take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate >>>dead people? >> >> Buffy died twice. It can take the form of anyone who has died. > >That's not what was said. "It can take the form of dead people" is >what I remember. If Buffy is alive, she is not dead, ergo it should >not be able to take her form. > >>>We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of >>>season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. >> >> No, she's alive. That we know for sure. > >Again, you think you do, because that's how the scripts have been >written so far except for the odd clue they've dropped. Her vitals were pretty good for a dead woman, remember the little trip she took to the hospital when she got shot. -- Michael C. mcsuper5@usol.com http://mcsuper5.freeshell.org/

2003-01-14 00:48:56-05:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - ("Michael C." <mcsuper5@usol.com>)


On 13 Jan 2003 13:14:32 GMT, Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote: >Dans un moment de folie, Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com> >�crivit: > >> It's called the First(First Evil), not the One. > >Ok. But obviously you knew who I was talking about :-) > >>> take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate >>>dead people? >> >> Buffy died twice. It can take the form of anyone who has died. > >That's not what was said. "It can take the form of dead people" is >what I remember. If Buffy is alive, she is not dead, ergo it should >not be able to take her form. > >>>We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of >>>season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. >> >> No, she's alive. That we know for sure. > >Again, you think you do, because that's how the scripts have been >written so far except for the odd clue they've dropped. Her vitals were pretty good for a dead woman, remember the little trip she took to the hospital when she got shot. -- Michael C. mcsuper5@usol.com http://mcsuper5.freeshell.org/

2003-01-14 02:11:56+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com>)


Dans un moment de folie, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) ���crivit: >> >> take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate >> >>dead people? >> > >> > Buffy died twice. It can take the form of anyone who has died. >> >> That's not what was said. "It can take the form of dead people" >> is what I remember. If Buffy is alive, she is not dead, ergo it >> should not be able to take her form. > > It can take the form of people who HAVE died- not just those who > are now dead. Giles said "who have died" which does not necessarily include those who are now living...we know that a requisite is death, but not how that applies to the resurrected...you're assuming here. Willow says "who are dead". Is she misquoting or clarifying? >> >>We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of >> >>season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. >> > >> > No, she's alive. That we know for sure. Oy... > I don't think I do. I know. Please don't wrack your brain over > this. It's just not worth it. Buffy is alive and kicking. > > Don't you think Tara's spell to check Buffy out in Season 6 would > have revealed something more than a deep molecular tan? Like the > fact that she was DEAD?!? Tara did not do a spell. She looked over Willow's spell. But Spike who was fighting Buffy was able to hurt her. He can't do that to living humans; the chip forbids it. Of course, Warren said his chip was not malfunctioning (and it isn't in other cases) so why can he hurt Buffy? I think we think we know...but whether we truly know is something else entirely. -- Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. Jos��� Mart���

2003-01-14 02:11:56+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com>)


Dans un moment de folie, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) ���crivit: >> >> take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate >> >>dead people? >> > >> > Buffy died twice. It can take the form of anyone who has died. >> >> That's not what was said. "It can take the form of dead people" >> is what I remember. If Buffy is alive, she is not dead, ergo it >> should not be able to take her form. > > It can take the form of people who HAVE died- not just those who > are now dead. Giles said "who have died" which does not necessarily include those who are now living...we know that a requisite is death, but not how that applies to the resurrected...you're assuming here. Willow says "who are dead". Is she misquoting or clarifying? >> >>We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of >> >>season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. >> > >> > No, she's alive. That we know for sure. Oy... > I don't think I do. I know. Please don't wrack your brain over > this. It's just not worth it. Buffy is alive and kicking. > > Don't you think Tara's spell to check Buffy out in Season 6 would > have revealed something more than a deep molecular tan? Like the > fact that she was DEAD?!? Tara did not do a spell. She looked over Willow's spell. But Spike who was fighting Buffy was able to hurt her. He can't do that to living humans; the chip forbids it. Of course, Warren said his chip was not malfunctioning (and it isn't in other cases) so why can he hurt Buffy? I think we think we know...but whether we truly know is something else entirely. -- Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. Jos��� Mart���

2003-01-14 04:22:54+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com>)




2003-01-14 04:22:54+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com>)




2003-01-14 04:26:46+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com>)




2003-01-14 04:26:46+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com>)




2003-01-14 06:05:48-08:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (smaug86@yahoo.com)


Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> wrote in message news:<a-4E128E.00175614012003@husk.cso.niu.edu>... > In article <l5472vo4cmqd103e5c52hgchlv7os2rv82@4ax.com>, > Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com> wrote: > > > From somewhere over there Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> > > mumbled incoherently: > > > > >Dans un moment de folie, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) �crivit: > > > > > >>> >> take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > > >>> >>dead people? > > >>> > > > >>> > Buffy died twice. It can take the form of anyone who has died. > > >>> > > >>> That's not what was said. "It can take the form of dead people" > > >>> is what I remember. If Buffy is alive, she is not dead, ergo it > > >>> should not be able to take her form. > > >> > > >> It can take the form of people who HAVE died- not just those who > > >> are now dead. > > > > > >Giles said "who have died" which does not necessarily include those > > >who are now living...we know that a requisite is death, but not how > > >that applies to the resurrected...you're assuming here. Willow says > > >"who are dead". Is she misquoting or clarifying? > > > > I was going by what Giles said. > > > > >>> >>We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > > >>> >>season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. > > >>> > > > >>> > No, she's alive. That we know for sure. > > > > > >Oy... > > > > > >> I don't think I do. I know. Please don't wrack your brain over > > >> this. It's just not worth it. Buffy is alive and kicking. > > >> > > >> Don't you think Tara's spell to check Buffy out in Season 6 would > > >> have revealed something more than a deep molecular tan? Like the > > >> fact that she was DEAD?!? > > > > > >Tara did not do a spell. She looked over Willow's spell. > > > > Tara had to perform some kind of magick to determine that Buffy only > > had a deep molecular tan. She's not knowledge girl and I doubt that > > information could be gleaned from just looking at the recipe and the > > incantation. > > It's equally likely that Tara just said that to make Buffy feel better > since she could sense Buffy was quite upset. Plus, it's in Tara's best > interest to believe that Buffy can back fundamentally okay otherwise she > would have to face the guilt of bringing Buffy back from heaven > "damaged". So you're telling me that Tara lied to Buffy and actually did no magick or research of any kind? That she just arbitrarily made up the "changed on a molecular level but not really different" line just to be nice? And that particular little detail is still up in the air? Oh, brother. Smaug69

2003-01-14 06:05:48-08:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (smaug86@yahoo.com)


Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> wrote in message news:<a-4E128E.00175614012003@husk.cso.niu.edu>... > In article <l5472vo4cmqd103e5c52hgchlv7os2rv82@4ax.com>, > Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com> wrote: > > > From somewhere over there Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> > > mumbled incoherently: > > > > >Dans un moment de folie, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) �crivit: > > > > > >>> >> take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > > >>> >>dead people? > > >>> > > > >>> > Buffy died twice. It can take the form of anyone who has died. > > >>> > > >>> That's not what was said. "It can take the form of dead people" > > >>> is what I remember. If Buffy is alive, she is not dead, ergo it > > >>> should not be able to take her form. > > >> > > >> It can take the form of people who HAVE died- not just those who > > >> are now dead. > > > > > >Giles said "who have died" which does not necessarily include those > > >who are now living...we know that a requisite is death, but not how > > >that applies to the resurrected...you're assuming here. Willow says > > >"who are dead". Is she misquoting or clarifying? > > > > I was going by what Giles said. > > > > >>> >>We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > > >>> >>season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. > > >>> > > > >>> > No, she's alive. That we know for sure. > > > > > >Oy... > > > > > >> I don't think I do. I know. Please don't wrack your brain over > > >> this. It's just not worth it. Buffy is alive and kicking. > > >> > > >> Don't you think Tara's spell to check Buffy out in Season 6 would > > >> have revealed something more than a deep molecular tan? Like the > > >> fact that she was DEAD?!? > > > > > >Tara did not do a spell. She looked over Willow's spell. > > > > Tara had to perform some kind of magick to determine that Buffy only > > had a deep molecular tan. She's not knowledge girl and I doubt that > > information could be gleaned from just looking at the recipe and the > > incantation. > > It's equally likely that Tara just said that to make Buffy feel better > since she could sense Buffy was quite upset. Plus, it's in Tara's best > interest to believe that Buffy can back fundamentally okay otherwise she > would have to face the guilt of bringing Buffy back from heaven > "damaged". So you're telling me that Tara lied to Buffy and actually did no magick or research of any kind? That she just arbitrarily made up the "changed on a molecular level but not really different" line just to be nice? And that particular little detail is still up in the air? Oh, brother. Smaug69

2003-01-14 08:36:46-06:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <5fe774aa.0301140605.56987e30@posting.google.com>, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) wrote: > Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> wrote in message > news:<a-4E128E.00175614012003@husk.cso.niu.edu>... > > In article <l5472vo4cmqd103e5c52hgchlv7os2rv82@4ax.com>, > > Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com> wrote: > > > > > From somewhere over there Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> > > > mumbled incoherently: > > > > > > >Dans un moment de folie, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) ���crivit: > > > > > > > >>> >> take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > > > >>> >>dead people? > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Buffy died twice. It can take the form of anyone who has died. > > > >>> > > > >>> That's not what was said. "It can take the form of dead people" > > > >>> is what I remember. If Buffy is alive, she is not dead, ergo it > > > >>> should not be able to take her form. > > > >> > > > >> It can take the form of people who HAVE died- not just those who > > > >> are now dead. > > > > > > > >Giles said "who have died" which does not necessarily include those > > > >who are now living...we know that a requisite is death, but not how > > > >that applies to the resurrected...you're assuming here. Willow says > > > >"who are dead". Is she misquoting or clarifying? > > > > > > I was going by what Giles said. > > > > > > >>> >>We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > > > >>> >>season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > No, she's alive. That we know for sure. > > > > > > > >Oy... > > > > > > > >> I don't think I do. I know. Please don't wrack your brain over > > > >> this. It's just not worth it. Buffy is alive and kicking. > > > >> > > > >> Don't you think Tara's spell to check Buffy out in Season 6 would > > > >> have revealed something more than a deep molecular tan? Like the > > > >> fact that she was DEAD?!? > > > > > > > >Tara did not do a spell. She looked over Willow's spell. > > > > > > Tara had to perform some kind of magick to determine that Buffy only > > > had a deep molecular tan. She's not knowledge girl and I doubt that > > > information could be gleaned from just looking at the recipe and the > > > incantation. > > > > It's equally likely that Tara just said that to make Buffy feel better > > since she could sense Buffy was quite upset. Plus, it's in Tara's best > > interest to believe that Buffy can back fundamentally okay otherwise she > > would have to face the guilt of bringing Buffy back from heaven > > "damaged". > > So you're telling me that Tara lied to Buffy and actually did no > magick or research of any kind? That she just arbitrarily made up the > "changed on a molecular level but not really different" line just to > be nice? And that particular little detail is still up in the air? Oh, > brother. Oh... I'm sure she did research since the script said she did. However, nothing she said implied anything more then that and everything about Tara's character has shown her to be smeone who avoids conflict. She was trying to comfortt Buffy, but honestly... she has no idea how Spike's chip work and she pulled her theory out of her ass to protect Buffy. I mean, hey... I'm annoyed too that MEscrewed up some much of S6 with sloppy dialogue and poor plotting but that's what we are stuck with. If you want to fanfic an explication go right ahead, I'll do that too. However, its still up in the air and there is nothing we can do about it. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-01-14 08:36:46-06:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <5fe774aa.0301140605.56987e30@posting.google.com>, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) wrote: > Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> wrote in message > news:<a-4E128E.00175614012003@husk.cso.niu.edu>... > > In article <l5472vo4cmqd103e5c52hgchlv7os2rv82@4ax.com>, > > Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com> wrote: > > > > > From somewhere over there Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> > > > mumbled incoherently: > > > > > > >Dans un moment de folie, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) ���crivit: > > > > > > > >>> >> take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > > > >>> >>dead people? > > > >>> > > > > >>> > Buffy died twice. It can take the form of anyone who has died. > > > >>> > > > >>> That's not what was said. "It can take the form of dead people" > > > >>> is what I remember. If Buffy is alive, she is not dead, ergo it > > > >>> should not be able to take her form. > > > >> > > > >> It can take the form of people who HAVE died- not just those who > > > >> are now dead. > > > > > > > >Giles said "who have died" which does not necessarily include those > > > >who are now living...we know that a requisite is death, but not how > > > >that applies to the resurrected...you're assuming here. Willow says > > > >"who are dead". Is she misquoting or clarifying? > > > > > > I was going by what Giles said. > > > > > > >>> >>We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of > > > >>> >>season 6, but I think the answer is simple. Buffy is dead. > > > >>> > > > > >>> > No, she's alive. That we know for sure. > > > > > > > >Oy... > > > > > > > >> I don't think I do. I know. Please don't wrack your brain over > > > >> this. It's just not worth it. Buffy is alive and kicking. > > > >> > > > >> Don't you think Tara's spell to check Buffy out in Season 6 would > > > >> have revealed something more than a deep molecular tan? Like the > > > >> fact that she was DEAD?!? > > > > > > > >Tara did not do a spell. She looked over Willow's spell. > > > > > > Tara had to perform some kind of magick to determine that Buffy only > > > had a deep molecular tan. She's not knowledge girl and I doubt that > > > information could be gleaned from just looking at the recipe and the > > > incantation. > > > > It's equally likely that Tara just said that to make Buffy feel better > > since she could sense Buffy was quite upset. Plus, it's in Tara's best > > interest to believe that Buffy can back fundamentally okay otherwise she > > would have to face the guilt of bringing Buffy back from heaven > > "damaged". > > So you're telling me that Tara lied to Buffy and actually did no > magick or research of any kind? That she just arbitrarily made up the > "changed on a molecular level but not really different" line just to > be nice? And that particular little detail is still up in the air? Oh, > brother. Oh... I'm sure she did research since the script said she did. However, nothing she said implied anything more then that and everything about Tara's character has shown her to be smeone who avoids conflict. She was trying to comfortt Buffy, but honestly... she has no idea how Spike's chip work and she pulled her theory out of her ass to protect Buffy. I mean, hey... I'm annoyed too that MEscrewed up some much of S6 with sloppy dialogue and poor plotting but that's what we are stuck with. If you want to fanfic an explication go right ahead, I'll do that too. However, its still up in the air and there is nothing we can do about it. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-01-14 12:59:31-08:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (smaug86@yahoo.com)


Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> wrote in message news:<a-345D78.08364614012003@husk.cso.niu.edu>... <snip> > > > It's equally likely that Tara just said that to make Buffy feel better > > > since she could sense Buffy was quite upset. Plus, it's in Tara's best > > > interest to believe that Buffy can back fundamentally okay otherwise she > > > would have to face the guilt of bringing Buffy back from heaven > > > "damaged". > > > > So you're telling me that Tara lied to Buffy and actually did no > > magick or research of any kind? That she just arbitrarily made up the > > "changed on a molecular level but not really different" line just to > > be nice? And that particular little detail is still up in the air? Oh, > > brother. > > Oh... I'm sure she did research since the script said she did. Magick is the really the only way she could tell if Buffy had come back "wrong." Looking some stuff up in a book ain't gonna cut it. Even Giles would have admitted as much. > However, > nothing she said implied anything more then that and everything about > Tara's character has shown her to be smeone who avoids conflict. She was > trying to comfortt Buffy, but honestly... she has no idea how Spike's > chip work and she pulled her theory out of her ass to protect Buffy. Sorry, but I need a little more proof than "Tara didn't like conflicts and was trying to protect Buffy and make her feel better." You can comfort yourself with this theory, but nothing we saw onscreen supports it. Of course, nothing onscreen supports that she did any magick or research either. But she did give an explanation and you have no proof that she lied. > I > mean, hey... I'm annoyed too that MEscrewed up some much of S6 with > sloppy dialogue and poor plotting but that's what we are stuck with. If > you want to fanfic an explication go right ahead, I'll do that too. > However, its still up in the air and there is nothing we can do about it. I don't believe it's up in the air. We got an onscreen explanation. It may be lame and it may raise a few more questions, but it was given. The only way it would be still up in the air is if Tara had said, "I don't know, Buffy. I don't have any way of finding out. Sorry." Smaug69

2003-01-14 12:59:31-08:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (smaug86@yahoo.com)


Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> wrote in message news:<a-345D78.08364614012003@husk.cso.niu.edu>... <snip> > > > It's equally likely that Tara just said that to make Buffy feel better > > > since she could sense Buffy was quite upset. Plus, it's in Tara's best > > > interest to believe that Buffy can back fundamentally okay otherwise she > > > would have to face the guilt of bringing Buffy back from heaven > > > "damaged". > > > > So you're telling me that Tara lied to Buffy and actually did no > > magick or research of any kind? That she just arbitrarily made up the > > "changed on a molecular level but not really different" line just to > > be nice? And that particular little detail is still up in the air? Oh, > > brother. > > Oh... I'm sure she did research since the script said she did. Magick is the really the only way she could tell if Buffy had come back "wrong." Looking some stuff up in a book ain't gonna cut it. Even Giles would have admitted as much. > However, > nothing she said implied anything more then that and everything about > Tara's character has shown her to be smeone who avoids conflict. She was > trying to comfortt Buffy, but honestly... she has no idea how Spike's > chip work and she pulled her theory out of her ass to protect Buffy. Sorry, but I need a little more proof than "Tara didn't like conflicts and was trying to protect Buffy and make her feel better." You can comfort yourself with this theory, but nothing we saw onscreen supports it. Of course, nothing onscreen supports that she did any magick or research either. But she did give an explanation and you have no proof that she lied. > I > mean, hey... I'm annoyed too that MEscrewed up some much of S6 with > sloppy dialogue and poor plotting but that's what we are stuck with. If > you want to fanfic an explication go right ahead, I'll do that too. > However, its still up in the air and there is nothing we can do about it. I don't believe it's up in the air. We got an onscreen explanation. It may be lame and it may raise a few more questions, but it was given. The only way it would be still up in the air is if Tara had said, "I don't know, Buffy. I don't have any way of finding out. Sorry." Smaug69

2003-01-15 11:26:43-06:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <Xns930446DE7EC05mortimertherat@130.133.1.4>, Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote: > Dans un moment de folie, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) �crivit: > > > So you're telling me that Tara lied to Buffy and actually did no > > magick or research of any kind? That she just arbitrarily made up > > the "changed on a molecular level but not really different" line > > just to be nice? And that particular little detail is still up in > > the air? Oh, brother. > > In defense of that argument, did you see her do anything? It was one > time when there was mention of magic but no quick scene where the > character is seen DOING magic. You can't assume what you don't see > (and even then...). You have to remember that Tara was Aura Girl. She spotted that Faith in Buffy wasn't really Buffy without knowing either of them, and without doing any sort of visible spell. I think she started out with the assumption "Of course she's Buffy." and started looking for other reasons that the chip wouldn't react to her. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-01-15 11:26:43-06:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Don Sample <dsample@synapse.net>)


In article <Xns930446DE7EC05mortimertherat@130.133.1.4>, Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote: > Dans un moment de folie, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) �crivit: > > > So you're telling me that Tara lied to Buffy and actually did no > > magick or research of any kind? That she just arbitrarily made up > > the "changed on a molecular level but not really different" line > > just to be nice? And that particular little detail is still up in > > the air? Oh, brother. > > In defense of that argument, did you see her do anything? It was one > time when there was mention of magic but no quick scene where the > character is seen DOING magic. You can't assume what you don't see > (and even then...). You have to remember that Tara was Aura Girl. She spotted that Faith in Buffy wasn't really Buffy without knowing either of them, and without doing any sort of visible spell. I think she started out with the assumption "Of course she's Buffy." and started looking for other reasons that the chip wouldn't react to her. -- Don Sample, dsample@synapse.net Visit the Buffy Body Count at http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/ Quando omni flunkus moritati

2003-01-15 11:58:02+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com>)


Dans un moment de folie, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) ���crivit: >> > >Tara did not do a spell. She looked over Willow's spell. >> > >> > Tara had to perform some kind of magick to determine that Buffy >> > only had a deep molecular tan. She's not knowledge girl and I >> > doubt that information could be gleaned from just looking at >> > the recipe and the incantation. >> >> It's equally likely that Tara just said that to make Buffy feel >> better since she could sense Buffy was quite upset. Plus, it's in >> Tara's best interest to believe that Buffy can back fundamentally >> okay otherwise she would have to face the guilt of bringing Buffy >> back from heaven "damaged". > > So you're telling me that Tara lied to Buffy and actually did no > magick or research of any kind? That she just arbitrarily made up > the "changed on a molecular level but not really different" line > just to be nice? And that particular little detail is still up in > the air? Oh, brother. In defense of that argument, did you see her do anything? It was one time when there was mention of magic but no quick scene where the character is seen DOING magic. You can't assume what you don't see (and even then...). -- Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. Jos��� Mart���

2003-01-15 11:58:02+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com>)


Dans un moment de folie, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) ���crivit: >> > >Tara did not do a spell. She looked over Willow's spell. >> > >> > Tara had to perform some kind of magick to determine that Buffy >> > only had a deep molecular tan. She's not knowledge girl and I >> > doubt that information could be gleaned from just looking at >> > the recipe and the incantation. >> >> It's equally likely that Tara just said that to make Buffy feel >> better since she could sense Buffy was quite upset. Plus, it's in >> Tara's best interest to believe that Buffy can back fundamentally >> okay otherwise she would have to face the guilt of bringing Buffy >> back from heaven "damaged". > > So you're telling me that Tara lied to Buffy and actually did no > magick or research of any kind? That she just arbitrarily made up > the "changed on a molecular level but not really different" line > just to be nice? And that particular little detail is still up in > the air? Oh, brother. In defense of that argument, did you see her do anything? It was one time when there was mention of magic but no quick scene where the character is seen DOING magic. You can't assume what you don't see (and even then...). -- Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. Jos��� Mart���

2003-01-15 12:15:54-08:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (smaug86@yahoo.com)


Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<Xns930446DE7EC05mortimertherat@130.133.1.4>... > Dans un moment de folie, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) �crivit: > > >> > >Tara did not do a spell. She looked over Willow's spell. > >> > > >> > Tara had to perform some kind of magick to determine that Buffy > >> > only had a deep molecular tan. She's not knowledge girl and I > >> > doubt that information could be gleaned from just looking at > >> > the recipe and the incantation. > >> > >> It's equally likely that Tara just said that to make Buffy feel > >> better since she could sense Buffy was quite upset. Plus, it's in > >> Tara's best interest to believe that Buffy can back fundamentally > >> okay otherwise she would have to face the guilt of bringing Buffy > >> back from heaven "damaged". > > > > So you're telling me that Tara lied to Buffy and actually did no > > magick or research of any kind? That she just arbitrarily made up > > the "changed on a molecular level but not really different" line > > just to be nice? And that particular little detail is still up in > > the air? Oh, brother. > > In defense of that argument, did you see her do anything? It was one > time when there was mention of magic but no quick scene where the > character is seen DOING magic. You can't assume what you don't see > (and even then...). Yes, but let's assume she did do something and she wasn't lying to Buffy. What would she do? We know that she wasn't knowledge girl and that Willow was the one that was good with the books(her words). And we know that Tara has been practicing magick since she was little. And I think a spell would more likely determine Buffy's present nature than reading anything in a book.(Something like the revealing trance/spell that Buffy did in Season 5) I find that to be a more plausible explanation. YMMV. Smaug69

2003-01-15 12:15:54-08:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (smaug86@yahoo.com)


Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<Xns930446DE7EC05mortimertherat@130.133.1.4>... > Dans un moment de folie, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) �crivit: > > >> > >Tara did not do a spell. She looked over Willow's spell. > >> > > >> > Tara had to perform some kind of magick to determine that Buffy > >> > only had a deep molecular tan. She's not knowledge girl and I > >> > doubt that information could be gleaned from just looking at > >> > the recipe and the incantation. > >> > >> It's equally likely that Tara just said that to make Buffy feel > >> better since she could sense Buffy was quite upset. Plus, it's in > >> Tara's best interest to believe that Buffy can back fundamentally > >> okay otherwise she would have to face the guilt of bringing Buffy > >> back from heaven "damaged". > > > > So you're telling me that Tara lied to Buffy and actually did no > > magick or research of any kind? That she just arbitrarily made up > > the "changed on a molecular level but not really different" line > > just to be nice? And that particular little detail is still up in > > the air? Oh, brother. > > In defense of that argument, did you see her do anything? It was one > time when there was mention of magic but no quick scene where the > character is seen DOING magic. You can't assume what you don't see > (and even then...). Yes, but let's assume she did do something and she wasn't lying to Buffy. What would she do? We know that she wasn't knowledge girl and that Willow was the one that was good with the books(her words). And we know that Tara has been practicing magick since she was little. And I think a spell would more likely determine Buffy's present nature than reading anything in a book.(Something like the revealing trance/spell that Buffy did in Season 5) I find that to be a more plausible explanation. YMMV. Smaug69

2003-01-15 22:52:39+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com>)


Dans un moment de folie, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) ���crivit: >> In defense of that argument, did you see her do anything? It was >> one time when there was mention of magic but no quick scene >> where the character is seen DOING magic. You can't assume what >> you don't see (and even then...). > > Yes, but let's assume she did do something and she wasn't lying to > Buffy. If we assume that, the rest of your posited explanation is plausible, but we can refrain from assuming anything and just draw conclusions from the information we DO have which is that we don't know what she did or didn't do. Based on that, we can't advance anything more than a pusillanimous hypothesis based on previous behaviour to support the case for the spell over the case for the non-spell. -- Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. Jos��� Mart���

2003-01-15 22:52:39+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com>)


Dans un moment de folie, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) ���crivit: >> In defense of that argument, did you see her do anything? It was >> one time when there was mention of magic but no quick scene >> where the character is seen DOING magic. You can't assume what >> you don't see (and even then...). > > Yes, but let's assume she did do something and she wasn't lying to > Buffy. If we assume that, the rest of your posited explanation is plausible, but we can refrain from assuming anything and just draw conclusions from the information we DO have which is that we don't know what she did or didn't do. Based on that, we can't advance anything more than a pusillanimous hypothesis based on previous behaviour to support the case for the spell over the case for the non-spell. -- Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. Jos��� Mart���

2003-01-15 23:48:18-05:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <3ccc2v0kvqvv1u48jc05gnvo38ahuhrmbm@4ax.com>, Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com> wrote: > From somewhere over there Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> > mumbled incoherently: > > >Dans un moment de folie, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) ���crivit: > > > >>> In defense of that argument, did you see her do anything? It was > >>> one time when there was mention of magic but no quick scene > >>> where the character is seen DOING magic. You can't assume what > >>> you don't see (and even then...). > >> > >> Yes, but let's assume she did do something and she wasn't lying to > >> Buffy. > > > >If we assume that, the rest of your posited explanation is plausible, > >but we can refrain from assuming anything and just draw conclusions > >from the information we DO have which is that we don't know what she > >did or didn't do. Based on that, we can't advance anything more than a > >pusillanimous hypothesis based on previous behaviour to support the > >case for the spell over the case for the non-spell. > > Well, Tara was able to tell that Buffy wasn't Buffy when she and Faith > had switched bodies. Maybe she was able to use that "power" to > determine if Buffy was different. That's right... she used to do that whole aura reading thing. I can buy that. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-01-15 23:48:18-05:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Darwin Fish <a@a.edu>)


In article <3ccc2v0kvqvv1u48jc05gnvo38ahuhrmbm@4ax.com>, Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com> wrote: > From somewhere over there Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> > mumbled incoherently: > > >Dans un moment de folie, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) ���crivit: > > > >>> In defense of that argument, did you see her do anything? It was > >>> one time when there was mention of magic but no quick scene > >>> where the character is seen DOING magic. You can't assume what > >>> you don't see (and even then...). > >> > >> Yes, but let's assume she did do something and she wasn't lying to > >> Buffy. > > > >If we assume that, the rest of your posited explanation is plausible, > >but we can refrain from assuming anything and just draw conclusions > >from the information we DO have which is that we don't know what she > >did or didn't do. Based on that, we can't advance anything more than a > >pusillanimous hypothesis based on previous behaviour to support the > >case for the spell over the case for the non-spell. > > Well, Tara was able to tell that Buffy wasn't Buffy when she and Faith > had switched bodies. Maybe she was able to use that "power" to > determine if Buffy was different. That's right... she used to do that whole aura reading thing. I can buy that. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let the Darwin Fishes swim! www.darwin-fish.com/fish.html -------------------------------------------------------------------------

2003-01-16 04:15:16+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com>)




2003-01-16 04:15:16+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Smaug69 <smaug69xx@carolinaxx.rrxx.com>)




2003-01-16 12:49:01-08:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (smaug86@yahoo.com)


Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93055153A2905mortimertherat@130.133.1.4>... > Dans un moment de folie, Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> �crivit: > > >> Well, Tara was able to tell that Buffy wasn't Buffy when she and > >> Faith had switched bodies. Maybe she was able to use that "power" > >> to determine if Buffy was different. > > > > That's right... she used to do that whole aura reading thing. I > > can buy that. > > But that wasn't what she said. She said she had looked at the spell to > bring Buffy back and that there was nothing wrong with it. There's no > aura to a spell...a smell maybe, but no aura. Tara said she double-checked everything, but I don't see how she can find anything out about Buffy without checking Buffy herself. It makes no sense. Smaug69

2003-01-16 12:49:01-08:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (smaug86@yahoo.com)


Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message news:<Xns93055153A2905mortimertherat@130.133.1.4>... > Dans un moment de folie, Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> �crivit: > > >> Well, Tara was able to tell that Buffy wasn't Buffy when she and > >> Faith had switched bodies. Maybe she was able to use that "power" > >> to determine if Buffy was different. > > > > That's right... she used to do that whole aura reading thing. I > > can buy that. > > But that wasn't what she said. She said she had looked at the spell to > bring Buffy back and that there was nothing wrong with it. There's no > aura to a spell...a smell maybe, but no aura. Tara said she double-checked everything, but I don't see how she can find anything out about Buffy without checking Buffy herself. It makes no sense. Smaug69

2003-01-16 12:59:43+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com>)


Dans un moment de folie, Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> ���crivit: >> Well, Tara was able to tell that Buffy wasn't Buffy when she and >> Faith had switched bodies. Maybe she was able to use that "power" >> to determine if Buffy was different. > > That's right... she used to do that whole aura reading thing. I > can buy that. But that wasn't what she said. She said she had looked at the spell to bring Buffy back and that there was nothing wrong with it. There's no aura to a spell...a smell maybe, but no aura. -- Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. Jos��� Mart���

2003-01-16 12:59:43+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com>)


Dans un moment de folie, Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> ���crivit: >> Well, Tara was able to tell that Buffy wasn't Buffy when she and >> Faith had switched bodies. Maybe she was able to use that "power" >> to determine if Buffy was different. > > That's right... she used to do that whole aura reading thing. I > can buy that. But that wasn't what she said. She said she had looked at the spell to bring Buffy back and that there was nothing wrong with it. There's no aura to a spell...a smell maybe, but no aura. -- Es la hora de los hornos y no se ha de ver m���s que la luz. Jos��� Mart���

2003-01-16 17:27:17-05:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net>)


In article <5fe774aa.0301161249.24b9fd4c@posting.google.com>, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) wrote: > Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > news:<Xns93055153A2905mortimertherat@130.133.1.4>... > > Dans un moment de folie, Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> ���crivit: > > > > >> Well, Tara was able to tell that Buffy wasn't Buffy when she and > > >> Faith had switched bodies. Maybe she was able to use that "power" > > >> to determine if Buffy was different. > > > > > > That's right... she used to do that whole aura reading thing. I > > > can buy that. > > > > But that wasn't what she said. She said she had looked at the spell to > > bring Buffy back and that there was nothing wrong with it. There's no > > aura to a spell...a smell maybe, but no aura. > > Tara said she double-checked everything, but I don't see how she can > find anything out about Buffy without checking Buffy herself. It > makes no sense. > Which is everybodies major criticism, saying that Willow's spell checked out therefore Buffy must be okay makes no sense. You'd think ME would just throw in some line about Tara using mystical means to verify Buffy's well-being... Otherwise why have Tara tell Buffy she has a molecular sunburn? As far as Tara knew a simpler explanation would be that Spike's chip was starting to breakdown.. that's what Spike thought after all and I can't believe Tara visited Warren to examine his own research into the subject...

2003-01-16 17:27:17-05:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Snuggles <postmaster@spamcop.net>)


In article <5fe774aa.0301161249.24b9fd4c@posting.google.com>, smaug86@yahoo.com (Smaug69) wrote: > Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote in message > news:<Xns93055153A2905mortimertherat@130.133.1.4>... > > Dans un moment de folie, Darwin Fish <a@a.edu> ���crivit: > > > > >> Well, Tara was able to tell that Buffy wasn't Buffy when she and > > >> Faith had switched bodies. Maybe she was able to use that "power" > > >> to determine if Buffy was different. > > > > > > That's right... she used to do that whole aura reading thing. I > > > can buy that. > > > > But that wasn't what she said. She said she had looked at the spell to > > bring Buffy back and that there was nothing wrong with it. There's no > > aura to a spell...a smell maybe, but no aura. > > Tara said she double-checked everything, but I don't see how she can > find anything out about Buffy without checking Buffy herself. It > makes no sense. > Which is everybodies major criticism, saying that Willow's spell checked out therefore Buffy must be okay makes no sense. You'd think ME would just throw in some line about Tara using mystical means to verify Buffy's well-being... Otherwise why have Tara tell Buffy she has a molecular sunburn? As far as Tara knew a simpler explanation would be that Spike's chip was starting to breakdown.. that's what Spike thought after all and I can't believe Tara visited Warren to examine his own research into the subject...

2003-01-19 21:41:18+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote: > This may be a repetition of previous threads, but I haven't seen them. > 1. So, why can the one take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > dead people? We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of No the first can only imitate people who have died. Regardless of their current state. Buffy first died at the end of S1. The first has also been able to take the forms of Drusilla and Spike, who originally died in the 19th century, but are now undead.

2003-01-19 21:41:18+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote: > This may be a repetition of previous threads, but I haven't seen them. > 1. So, why can the one take the form of Buffy if it can only imitate > dead people? We've had a lot of clues to this since the beginning of No the first can only imitate people who have died. Regardless of their current state. Buffy first died at the end of S1. The first has also been able to take the forms of Drusilla and Spike, who originally died in the 19th century, but are now undead.

2003-01-19 21:45:40+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote: > Tara did not do a spell. She looked over Willow's spell. But Spike > who was fighting Buffy was able to hurt her. He can't do that to > living humans; the chip forbids it. Of course, Warren said his chip > was not malfunctioning (and it isn't in other cases) so why can he > hurt Buffy? I think we think we know...but whether we truly know is Because the Initutive never tested it on resurected humans :) > something else entirely.

2003-01-19 21:45:40+00:00 - Re: The One and Buffy (changed premises) - (Mark Evans <mpe@anacon.freeserve.co.uk>)


Michel Boucher <alsandorz@rogers.com> wrote: > Tara did not do a spell. She looked over Willow's spell. But Spike > who was fighting Buffy was able to hurt her. He can't do that to > living humans; the chip forbids it. Of course, Warren said his chip > was not malfunctioning (and it isn't in other cases) so why can he > hurt Buffy? I think we think we know...but whether we truly know is Because the Initutive never tested it on resurected humans :) > something else entirely.