HIGHLA-L Digest - 16 Jul 2001 - Special issue (#2001-204)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@LISTS.PSU.EDU)
Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:00:15 -0400
There are 16 messages totalling 826 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. OT: Do not go gently.... (2)
2. K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers) (2)
3. Characters and bathrooms....
4. K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writer s) (3)
5. K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writer
s) (2)
6. K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic
writers)
7. Touchy AP question (3)
8. Plugged (2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:25:09 -0400
From: Elaine Nicol <ElaineN@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: OT: Do not go gently....
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
ok
>> Whedon was demonstrating
the difference between the fantasy death that pervades his series and the
Real Thing. He shows what *really* happens, and gives some guidelines of
what
needs to be done. He provides realistic reactions. <<
I know what he was trying to do, but I don't think it worked. As I say I
only lost my own Mother just 6 weeks ago now. The feelings are still
pretty intense. I don't feel he hit the spot with it. I admire him
greatly for doing it. As you say it's something people don't talk about.
I have had the most incredulous looks from people for saying 'my Mum died'
instead of saying things like 'my Mum passed on' or 'I lost my Mum', just
the simple use of the word died seems to scare people. I give Joss full
credit for trying to do it in fact 11 out of 10, but he didn't get it right
at least for me.
Elaine.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 11:25:10 -0400
From: Elaine Nicol <ElaineN@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: OT: Do not go gently....
>>
(Still recovering from Nocturnal ) ;) <<
<BG>
It's all that partying.
Elaine. - Who is just back from another convention.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:34:29 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za>
Subject: Re: K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
Liser wrote:
>Absolutely. As much as I adore Methos, this is all his fault. <G> I
>also happen to think that the CAH arc was both the best thing and the
>worst for Highlander. But that's a different topic. :-)
So, let's change the header and talk about it! I'd love to hear
what you have to say.
>I don't find slash fans to be either perverse or criminal. Sometimes
>I find the character assassination (to use Wendy's terms) to be a
>criminal act on the part of the writers... <g>
Well, character assassination can be found in gen as well as slash.
>Yep. Yep. And that's what Carmel and I have been talking about.
>Different perceptions. Different interpretations. And I don't have
>a problem with the concept of two people seeing the same thing two
>different ways. What I have a problem with is the tendency (in my
>experience) for slash fans to *insist* that "their way" is right and
>I am blind/prudish/dumb/homophobic/wrong for seeing things MY way.
No, no, I never said that. (And I'm sorry if it seemed like I was.)
As I said, slash fans get defensive quite easily, but if you don't
see slash, I'm fine with that.
>Oh...you know...this one is just as weak as the "Methos lived for
>5000 Years" argument, IMO. I know *you* were just kidding....but
>people DO use this as justification. Lack of evidence for one thing
>is not evidence for another. Period.
Oh, I know. The thing is, we don't have evidence for a lot of
things. I guess what slash fans are saying is that lack of evidence
doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't have happened.
>There is plenty of het fic that concerns itself with people and
>emotions, too.
I know. But it bores me.
>How does this equate with the theory that you see slashy subtext, then?
It doesn't. :) Some slash writers write stories regardless of whether
there is subtext or not. Some 'see' subtext, then write. I think what
some do (well, I do) is recognise chemistry, equate that (for whatever
reason - I'm not a psychiatrist) with slash, and *then* see the
subtext. I don't know exactly, but it's worth asking the question.
>So...and I'm sure you'll whap me with your flagpole if I'm wrong here
><g>... part of the thrill of slash is the clandestine nature of it?
>It's no fun read or write about two gay men in a relationship...there
>has to be the "badness" (forgive the word--it's the only one I can
>find) of slashing someone who otherwise wouldn't be in that situation?
Yes. There is something to the theory that it's the "forbidden" aspect
that attracts people to slash. My favourite het fanfic is Beauty and
the Beast... again, the forbidden aspect. I think if gay people could
be open, and there weren't all these issues around it, then it
wouldn't be seen as forbidden, and perhaps slash would not exist in
the form it does.
>I'm with Wendy. I think that SOME slash is Mary Sue in
>disguise--laboring under the delusion that it can't be labeled as
>such if the character isn't female.
NO! (See my post to Wendy about this.) Hey, if you like I'll send
you the URL to my Mary Sue stories and you can compare!
>Yes, it's fine. And dandy, even. :-) I just don't grok it. To
>each their own, as they say. I wish I DID understand it, though. I
>feel like I'm missing out on something. :-)
I wish I could explain it, I really do. People have been trying for
years. Perhaps it's a case of, "For those who understand, no
explanation is necessary. For those who do not understand, no
explanation is possible." (I forget whose quote that is.)
>>(The implication being, of
>>course, that to some people it's better for Methos to go around
>>murdering people than to be bisexual or homosexual.)
>Oh, wow. I don't know that I would have drawn THAT conclusion, but...
Actually, it's not my conclusion, but it does fit. I was basically
quoting a really good slash essay called "The Generic Slash Defense
Form Letter". Unfortunately, it concerns itself only with Blake's 7
slash, otherwise I'd post the relevant part.
>Okay. Forgot about that line.
I *love* that line!!
>Yes, we're agreed that canon is not slash...err...that slash is not
>canon. Sorry...Monday at an ungodly hour.
First day back at school corrupting... I mean, educating young minds. :)
- Marina.
\\ "But then, we saw that Obi-Wan doth look upon ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// Qui-Gon with lust, and that Mr. Lucas was not || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ likely to include that in the next movie, so we ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// said screw it and wrote it ourselves." - Warning || \\
\\ page of the 'Master & Apprentice' slash site || //
//==fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za=Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie==\\
I want to go back to my home planet - if someone would please tell
me where it is! - Tarryn
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 17:34:31 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za>
Subject: Re: Characters and bathrooms....
Tarryn wrote:
>That's what I like about Babylon 5 - they go to the toilet! We've only
>seen 3 seasons so far, but I'm sure it was Garibaldi who had to rush off,
>or was late coming to a meeting because he'd been to the bathroom.
And they eat, and talk like real people. ("Someone at Earthgov has
gone completely mental!") <g>
>I was relieved (sorry! bad pun, naughty pun, sneaky in there like that!)
>to find restrooms in the bluepints for the Starship Enterprise 'D'.
I think the first thing anybody looks for in the blueprints is the
toilets!
>Surely all those years of rolling around the bridge (Marina, stop it! I
>didn't write this so you could slash it! *g*)
Watch it, hey. I know where you live. :)
>Okay, obligatory HL reference - What happens in a fight (or a quickening,
>for that matter) if you really have to pee, would your opponent wait for
>you to finish, or whack you from behind? (What a way to go! - pun, you're
>hanging around again)
I'm sure Immortals can 'hold it'... after all, if their bladder bursts
it will just heal, right? <g>
- Marina, agreed that a dose of silliness is sometimes good.
\\ "But then, we saw that Obi-Wan doth look upon ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// Qui-Gon with lust, and that Mr. Lucas was not || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ likely to include that in the next movie, so we ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// said screw it and wrote it ourselves." - Warning || \\
\\ page of the 'Master & Apprentice' slash site || //
//==fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za=Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie==\\
I want to go back to my home planet - if someone would please tell
me where it is! - Tarryn
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:24:11 -0400
From: LC Krakowka <liser@lightlink.com>
Subject: Re: K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writer s)
Carmel and I are talking about slash:
>
>Liser: <<...I can buy Methos as bi-sexual (though I don't see any canonical
>evidence for
>it--everything is to the contrary...). But, I'm sorry, I just don't
>believe that Duncan is. And forget about Richie. ...>>
Carmel:
>
>Ah - but I never mentioned Richie as bi-sexual.
True. I'm sorry...I was speaking generally--as in "I don't *ever*
buy Richie being slashed"...not responding directly to what you were
saying.
> I spoke of Methos and
>Duncan. You see I don't think or aruge that you are wrong in terms of what
>you see and saw on the screen. But I saw something different - something
>that spoke to me on both a subliminal and even a more obvious level that
>sent enough signals to make sense of a possible future sexual relationship
>between Duncan and Methos. I never saw another man *look* at Duncan the way
>Methos did (when Duncan first came down those steps of Methos' apartment. I
>wasn't expecting it - hadn't thought about it...and suddenly I was staring
>at the screen saying "What was *that*!"....when Methos came into the Barge
>with Joe in Finale *I* saw him look Duncan up and down as if he was his
>favorite dessert...I could name numerous other instances, many to do with
>trying to explain why Methos took the time and effort that he constantly did
>with Duncan to keep him safe.
See...and this is what it all boils down to, I think. I saw both of
those looks, too. And, to me, the thought of them being even
remotely sexual in nature never occurred. I saw that first one--in
"Methos"-- as very...assessing, with a hint of amusement and a smirk.
He knew he was about to rock Duncan's world view (and not THAT way
<g>) and found that entertaining. He had the upper hand and was
relishing that fact.
I must confess, I don't remember the look in Finale. But I'm sure I
didn't see it as sexual. :-)
I don't know why I don't see slashy subtext. I just don't.
Though...now I have been submerged in enough of the slash culture to
recognize things that other people will see as slashy. I can point
to the screen (sometimes) and say "Oh! The slashers are going to LOVE
that!"...but I don't see it as sexual myself--I just recognize that
others will.
Sometimes, I'm still in the dark, though.
>
>
>
>Liser: << Of course, I suppose that--strictly speaking-- once anyone puts
>the first word of a piece of fic down on the screen it's in violation of
>canon...>>
Carmel:
>Yes, I agree. So we're not arguing that canon cannot be violated - just the
>extent of that violation.
Yes, I suppose we are.
All I can say, though, is that--for me-- slash feels like more a
violation of canon than a piece of "regular" fic. I think it has
something to do with characterization. Most regular fic makes some
attempt to keep the characters *in character*--which I suppose I
translate somehow to "in canon". Slash, to me, is often out of
character by it's very nature--so it's "out of canon". And that's
too far for my liking. I don't find the Duncan MacLeod that is having
sex with Joe Dawson to be recognizable as the same Duncan I watched
on my tv.
>I actually take great pains to keep my stories
>consistent with the events that occurred in the Series but of course I
>accept that I am also basing the stories on my own interpretations. My
>challenge is to make my interpretation believable to my readers and in this
>I succeed with some and I fail with some, as does any writer in any genre.
This is a good point. I can think of several HL stories that *I*
have found perfectly within the limit of character (thus canon) that
plenty of other people have thought to be totally wrong.
>Liser: <<..Canon, IMO, is what you see on screen. And--on screen-we don't
>see Duncan
>lusting after Methos or vise-verse.
Carmel:
>This is a complex argument just on its own. We didn't see many things on
>film. Someone once said that we never saw Duncan go to the toilet or shower
>or Tessa complain of PMT. I never saw Duncan eat certain foods or travel to
>many places that fanfic has him travel to. The challenge is that we know
>many many things occurred *off* screen and will continue to occur, in
>Duncan's world, after Ep #119.
Yes, yes. The bathroom argument again. :-)
Here's the thing, though. I think it's one thing to assume that
Duncan MacLeod, as a human being, has the same needs that other
humans have (Eat. Sleep. Relieve himself.) and quite another to
assume that Duncan MacLeod, as a man whom we have only seen sleeping
with women, also harbors secret lust for Methos.
The reason they don't show us Duncan taking his morning
constitutional is because it's not an important act. It's not
crucial to development of plot or character. Duncan's change of
sexual heart would, IMO, be very crucial to development of
character--if not plot as well.
You're right. The challenge is to further the story of Highlander by
writing fic of any kind. But, I just have a hard time fitting
"Duncan MacLeod, Lover of Men" into that story.
> If you are a writer who cares about
>consistency you have to write these things that we never saw as believable.
>If large sections of a readership agree with me and my interpretation, does
>that make us all wrong or all right??
I suppose that depends on who you ask.
Ask a fellow slash fan and you're right.
Ask someone who hates slash and you're wrong--no matter if you're
the majority or not.
Ask me and I'll tell you I don't know.
Ask Donna Lettow, Gillian Horvath, or David A. and they'll tell you
you're wrong. Very wrong.
>
>Interestingly Peter does admit that both he and Adrian were very aware of
>the homo-erotic content of the shared Quickening. When I was talking ot
>Nadia Cameron in London recently she said that Adrian, as Director, actually
>asked her and Lizzie to play up the Amanda/Rebecca relationship's bi-sexual
>aspect. So I think that we can safely assume that the lead actors would not
>be at all shocked to learn that viewers were seeing this sub-text and that
>we were in fact, not having this view actively discouraged. (That is not to
>say that any fictional depiction is fair game, by the way.) But it does
>indicate that the leads and sometimes Director were aware of the complexity
>of the characters and their age and the times they lived through and
>presented enough of the sub-text to leave another rich layer of
>interpretation there for those who wanted to pursue it.
Another common argument. :-)
And this one is particularly sticky for me.
I'm not entirely sure I think it matters one rip *what* Peter or
Adrian or anyone but the writers think is going on. This,
admittedly, is probably a bias of mine--as a writer myself I think I
tend to fall down on that side of the fence.
Television is a hard medium to draw these lines in, though. Both
writer and actor help to define character...can we imagine what
Duncan would be like if Lorenzo Lammas had been cast to play him?
But, I still find myself feeling like what the writer says is law. I
think I feel like writers create characters and actors *help* to
define them. And I think that something like sexual preference falls
under the "create" process, not the "define".
Carmel, about the Methos living for 5000 years argument:
>
>Yes - i agree with you. This is a perfectly valid argument. There is no
>proof whatsoever that Methos has the background that I suggested, nor that
>he was ever involved in sex with anyone but women. But I am not saying that
>he *did* have the background I suggested - just that in the context of my
>arriving at a believable scenario then *I* can pose the hypothesis I did and
>be staisfied that it is believable.
Yeah, okay. I think you see this particular point of argument more
fluidly than many. I have been in plenty of these discussions where
the fact that Methos lived through times when homosexual
relationships were the norm means that he MUST have had them.
That's annoying. :-)
> But once you
>*do* see what I see regarding Duncan and Methos then you believe that Methos
>is bi-sexual and then you look for explanations of it and see whether they
>might hold up. I would argue that my interpretation is a believable one
>given the times Methos lived through and his age.
Yes, it is. But I'm not sure that you have to go back to the social
customs Ancient Greece to justify a character's bi-sexuality.
Especially Methos'. (If you were trying to justify it, that is.)
>
>Yes - it is Carmel!canon (I *like* that)....and you're right - I was never
>suggesting that it was true or applied acorss the board. AS you say, I was
>attttempting to expalin how *I* came to see the D/M subtext and how I
>continue to see it. I accept completely that it is highly personal and was
>attempting to answer the questions you posed.
Gotcha. Thanks. :-)
Liser
--
--
Lisa Krakowka ** liser@lightlink.com
Originality does not consist in saying what no one has
ever said before, but in saying exactly what you think yourself.
--James Stephen
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 12:38:15 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
Sometimes
>I find the character assassination (to use Wendy's terms) to be a
>criminal act on the part of the writers... <g>
Well, character assassination can be found in gen as well as slash.
Yes. Try Duncan in Money No Object for example.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:04:27 +0200
From: Marina Bailey <fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za>
Subject: Re: K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writer s)
One quick thing.
Liser wrote:
>Television is a hard medium to draw these lines in, though. Both
>writer and actor help to define character...
>But, I still find myself feeling like what the writer says is law. I
>think I feel like writers create characters and actors *help* to
>define them. And I think that something like sexual preference falls
>under the "create" process, not the "define".
As you say, in TV it's hard to draw the lines. But I have seen
examples of actors not liking the way a script was, and changing
it. Also directors changing stuff to suit *their* vision. In
that case, it doesn't matter what the writer said, does it?
Because up on the screen is something the writer didn't intend.
I have, for example, the script for the last episode of "Forever
Knight" ("Last Knight". I love Uncle!! Sorry.) And during the
scene where Nick bites Natalie, it clearly says in the script
that Natalie enjoys it and actually grabs Nick to stop him from
pulling away. But Catherine Disher did not play it that way. She
always played Natalie as scared of Nick's vampy side. And in the
filmed version of that scene, you can clearly see that Natalie
is scared, not turned on. She doesn't pull him closer, she sort
of stands there not knowing what to do. So in that case it really
doesn't matter what the writer wanted; what's up on the screen is
what we got.
As a writer myself, I do know where you are coming from, though.
When I wrote the script for our school play ("An African Tale:
Demana's Amazing Journey"; videotapes available for a low price! <g>),
the director changed a lot of things, even adding a second main
character! Luckily, the play was a huge hit and we couldn't
accommodate all the people who wanted to see it. So I was happy
to take credit for how good it was. But if people hadn't liked it...
I would have blamed the director for messing with my artistic vision.
Heh.
On another topic, but this is the last post I'm allowed:
>>Well, character assassination can be found in gen as well as slash.
>Yes. Try Duncan in Money No Object for example.
Or Richie in Archangel. :) (:::Ducking:::)
- Marina.
\\ "But then, we saw that Obi-Wan doth look upon ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// Qui-Gon with lust, and that Mr. Lucas was not || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ likely to include that in the next movie, so we ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// said screw it and wrote it ourselves." - Warning || \\
\\ page of the 'Master & Apprentice' slash site || //
//==fdd-tmar@netactive.co.za=Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie==\\
I want to go back to my home planet - if someone would please tell
me where it is! - Tarryn
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 19:24:18 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: K/S,
sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writer s)
Liser:
> Here's the thing, though. I think it's one thing to assume that
> Duncan MacLeod, as a human being, has the same needs that other
> humans have (Eat. Sleep. Relieve himself.) and quite another to
> assume that Duncan MacLeod, as a man whom we have only seen sleeping
> with women, also harbors secret lust for Methos.
Oh heck - we KNOW Duncan relieves himself! We've seen
him do it on screen - sort of - that's "canon" <g>
(flashback with Brian Cullen in Courage when the two of them
are standing behind the carriage)
Jette
Glory may be fleeting, but obscurity is forever!
bosslady@scotlandmail.com
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fanfic.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 19:06:38 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: K/S,
sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writers)
> Marina--
> > Consequently, most slash stories are very well written.
>
Nina
> Compared to WHAT? If you really think that, you need to read some other
> stuff for comparison, beyond fanfic--try some professionally written
> material for a change. A phone book, even....
heh heh - compared to the official tie in novel I just had the
misfortune to read? ST:TNG crossover with the X-Men.
If I'd read it as a fanfic I'd have given the author some
*feedback* along the lines of "too many characters and
you don't seem to be familiar with most of them, the original
storyline suffers as a result of trying to fit in cameos for them
all, dialogue does NOT ring true for any of them - don't give
up your day job yet" ....... except someone already paid him
for it!!!!
Compared to that some of the worst slash fanfic was more
*in canon* and in character!! (and better paced)
(ST:TNG "Planet X")
Jette
Glory may be fleeting, but obscurity is forever!
bosslady@scotlandmail.com
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fanfic.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 19:17:34 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: K/S,
sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writer s)
Liser
> I don't know why I don't see slashy subtext. I just don't.
> Though...now I have been submerged in enough of the slash culture to
> recognize things that other people will see as slashy. I can point
> to the screen (sometimes) and say "Oh! The slashers are going to LOVE
> that!"...but I don't see it as sexual myself--I just recognize that
> others will.
You and me both. Can see bits that I KNOW the slashers will
love - but to me it isn't at all "homo-erotic".
Jette
Glory may be fleeting, but obscurity is forever!
bosslady@scotlandmail.com
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fanfic.html
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 15:46:22 EDT
From: PWFan16@aol.com
Subject: Touchy AP question
This is NOT meant to offend ANYONE it is just a question,
My friend who also loves Highlander said someone sent her a pic of AP in the
buff.
She sent it to me and I have seen the pic.
It is DEFINELTY his face and looks like his chest but I have NEVER seen
anyone on any of my Highlander related lists say that AP did any nude
modeling.
I would think that if someone knew that it would have hit all the lists or
sites at someone point.
So does anyone know if this is a fake pic or a real pic and if it is a fake
pic is there someplace to report this kind of thing.
Thanks
L
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:07:37 EDT
From: Dena Jo <DenaJo2@cs.com>
Subject: Re: Touchy AP question
In a message dated 7/16/01 12:47:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, PWFan16@aol.co=
m=20
writes:
> So does anyone know if this is a fake pic or a real pic and if it is a fa=
ke
> pic is there someplace to report this kind of thing.
>=20
I know someone who specializes in identifying fake photographs on the net. =20
If you send the pic to me, I'll be happy to pass it on to him for his opinio=
n.
Dena =F4.=F4
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:07:21 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Touchy AP question
In a message dated 7/16/2001 2:46:52 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
PWFan16@aol.com writes:
> said someone sent her a pic of AP in the
> buff.
>
>
This came up as a question on the old AOL board when "Rebecca" posted there.
The site in question was passed on to her/them and it was reported back that
AP says he has never done a nude shot [and had his chance with the Playgirl
piece but posed for all photos there fully clothed], and a lawsuit was
supposed to have been put into place against the porn site that advertized
his picture. No doubt it was one of those photo manipulation deals. If
there is another site posting such a photo I would certainly pass it on to
the current PEACE email address.
uspeace@celebrityblvd.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 21:39:57 +0100
From: "John Mosby (B)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Plugged
Okay. This is blatant pluggage, but I'll make it brief and hope nobody
minds.
Just a heads up for the Buffy fans on this list (and I saw what you did at
Nocturnal and you should be ashamed ;)) The exclusive Joss Whedon interviews
/ Nocturnal features I did will be in the next issues of both Dreamwatch and
Impact. Both should be out in about 10 days time in the UK.
Impact will be running a pieceon the Reunion Con with material from myself
and Big John Bierly, probably in the edition that comes out in the UK at the
end of September. We're working on doing some Tracker stuff later in the
year.
Bearing in mind the full and fair coverage we gave Endgame, let me know if
there's any particular feature/coverage/interviews you'd like us to consider
in the future. And no, the Debra Douglass centrefold is a not an option.
Yet.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elaine Nicol" <ElaineN@compuserve.com>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2001 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: [HL] OT: Do not go gently....
> >>
> (Still recovering from Nocturnal ) ;) <<
>
>
> <BG>
> It's all that partying.
>
> Elaine. - Who is just back from another convention.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:56:57 -1000
From: Geiger <geiger@maui.net>
Subject: Re: K/S, sociology and other stuff (Was: ATTN: All Fan Fic writer s)
> Nina said: <<..OK, so you're saying that Methos did all he did for DM
> _because he in lust_???..>>
> Carmel: ROTFLMAO...er...no, Nina...I'm not saying that.....
Then, Carmel, you should be more careful in how you communicate.
> Nina: <<..So, you are saying that sex between 2 men is decadent?...>>
> Carmel: ROTFLMAO...er...no, Nina...I'm not saying that.....
Then, Carmel, you should be more careful in how you communicate.
> Nina: <<..Huh? If "damaging the franchise" is the standard, how come BP
> allowed HL2, HL3, season 6 of HL:TS, Raven, & HL:EG?..>>
> Carmel: Why don't you ask him Nina??
The better question is--Why didn't YOU ask him?
Nina
geiger@maui.net
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:00:23 +0100
From: Jette Goldie <jette@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Plugged
> Just a heads up for the Buffy fans on this list (and I saw what you did at
> Nocturnal and you should be ashamed ;))
Och, but she confessed everything to me - had a few stories
about you too ;-)
> Impact will be running a pieceon the Reunion Con with material from myself
> and Big John Bierly, probably in the edition that comes out in the UK at
the
> end of September. We're working on doing some Tracker stuff later in the
> year.
>
Oh oh.
You won't be bringing a photographer will you?
;-)
Jette
Glory may be fleeting, but obscurity is forever!
bosslady@scotlandmail.com
http://www.jette.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/fanfic.html
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 16 Jul 2001 - Special issue (#2001-204)
****************************************************************