HIGHLA-L Digest - 9 Jul 2003 to 10 Jul 2003 (#2003-148)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:00:01 -0400
There are 20 messages totalling 798 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Take Back The Night/Methos (2)
2. OT: Re: Philosophy! (And square dancing!)
3. Creative urge (Was: Re: Fanfic & Morals) (2)
4. Philosophy! (And square dancing!) (4)
5. Fanfic & Morals
6. Philosophy! (No square dancing!) (4)
7. Mortal Sins (2)
8. HL Season 1, 2 and Best Of DVDs? (2)
9. Fanfic & Morals--UNNAMED FACTION!
10. Season 1 DVDs at Barnes & Noble
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:11:14 -0500
From: Candyce Byrne <footlite@intertex.net>
Subject: Re: Take Back The Night/Methos
>At 04:29 PM -0700 7/8/03, FKMel wrote:
>
>
>>TBTN-Interesting ep...I don't think female warriors
>>were all that common back then. And gotta love the
>>shirtless scene.
And R. Shelton wrote:
>
>I don't know much about very early England (wasn't it like, before
>100 A.D.?) but most of the women in her 'tribe' (for want of a better
>word) looked like they were fighting women. Any History majors out
>there? <g> I'm only an English [language] major so that doesn't help
>much.
>
I'm dredging the back recesses of my memory here, but I seem to
recall that the women of the Indo-European tribes of...um, Europe,
which we have come to call Celts although that's not a very good name
for them, were noted for picking up arms and fighting alongside their
husbands. Additionally, they had a strong warrior tradition that
included training schools; it was thought advantageous for male
warriors to train with female teachers and vice versa, so the student
would learn combat from all angles and perspectives. War was a
favorite sport.
Romans were also Indo-Europeans but their women were a bit less
belligerent. Or at least the Gaulish women came as a shock to Caesar
when he encountered them.
Candy
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 22:17:04 -0700
From: FKMel <sgt_buck_frobisher@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Take Back The Night/Methos
> I'm dredging the back recesses of my memory here,
> but I seem to
> recall that the women of the Indo-European tribes
> of...um, Europe,
> which we have come to call Celts although that's not
> a very good name
> for them, <snip>
Why isn't it a good name? I don't know a whole lot
about these things.
Mel
=====
The trouble with immortality is that it tends to go on forever-Herb Cain
FK:NickNatPacker, Knight of the Cross,Knightie, Natpacker/Highlander:Duncan Flag-Waver/Due South Fan/Tracker Fan/Angel Fan/Port Charles Fan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:12:09 -0700
From: Jen <Data@cyberg8t.com>
Subject: OT: Re: Philosophy! (And square dancing!)
Wasn't following the thread at all, but the subject got me. "Philosophy and
Square Dancing" sounds like a really great title for a fanfic. May I steal
it? :-D
Jen
>
> Fairy Killer
> jjswbt@earthlink.net
> http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:56:34 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Creative urge (Was: Re: Fanfic & Morals)
Nina wrote:
>Moi? Marina, I'm sorry to see you resorting to the misleading shorthand
>that others find so useful. I'm all for creativity--people can indulge
>their creative urges at will, writing whatever they want.
Okay. I just remember you saying, in a previous discussion, that you
didn't like or agree with the idea that someone could have a creative
urge that *forced* them to write. So you were only talking about
fanfic, then?
>Are you also arguing that these poor people are _forced_ to distribute &
>sell it, too?
Um, I didn't say anything about that. What a person does with their
finished product is up to them and neither you nor I have any control
over it. I was just taking issue with the idea that the truly "creative
urge" doesn't exist. Which apparently wasn't necessary, if you actually
do think it exists.
- Marina.
\\ "You've heard it said that living well is ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// the best revenge? Au contraire - living || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ forever is the best revenge." - Lacroix ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
//=============tmar@sifl.iid.co.za=============|| \\
\\=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie============//
"Blair's always working the room, going for the golden opportunity.
Jim just waits until they show up at his door all needy." - Grey
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 07:53:20 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Philosophy! (And square dancing!)
In a message dated 7/9/2003 8:02:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, Dotiran@aol.com
writes:
> Perhaps. But we should not be too quick to dismiss it. All of the freedoms
> of
> western society and all of the *beloved* "rights" so advocated in it are
> based upon the natural law.
>
We need to be cautious. We're skirting too near areas of contention where one
individual's scurrilous amorality is another individual's beloved right. The
mores and rules imposed by one philosophy will often provide intolerance for
those of another, and there are often consequences. They're called "wars."
My philosophy has always leaned toward the one that says each person has the
right to act however he wishes provided his actions do not interfere with
anyone else, and that each person be held accountable and responsible for his own
actions: a person's freedom ends at the end of another's nose.
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 08:04:56 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Philosophy! (And square dancing!)
In a message dated 7/9/2003 8:53:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, Dotiran@aol.com
writes:
> It just so > happens that the western world has more often structured and
> > attempted to articulate some of these truths of our humanity.
> >
> [talking back to myself :)] Notice that I say "more often attempted to
> articulate". I would not want to imply that only westerners have done so.
> Confucius occasionally mentions the "Mandate of Heaven." As one Confuscius
> scholar wrote "He appears to interpret this to mean the natural law or moral
> order within things. Men must seek to live within this order."
> (Analects 3:13)
>
Do you mean that Westerners "more often attempted to articulate the mandate
of heaven" than non-Westerners...by the Judeo-Christian standard of religious
philosophy? So that if it isn't recognized by that standard, it's validity is
open to question? The "order" that men must seek to live within must be a
traditional Western order that has one ineffible God and the attendant rules and
laws that govern his behavior...that can be recognized in *our* culture?
Moving beyond that philosophical comfort zone can either be a terrible
sin...or the steps toward understanding.
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:41:10 +1000
From: Carmel Macpherson <tunnack@webone.com.au>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
Hi all
Nina said: <<..So, you aren't able to discuss this further in a calm &
rational manner? Whatever works for you--I totally understand. Too bad,
though--so many interesting issues left unresolved...>>
But Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiina I thought I *was* discussing it in
a calm and rational manner <wg>....this is me at my calmest and most
rational.....I genuinely don't know what else there is to say???
1. DPP substantially own the intellectual property in the HL characters and
environment.
2. They own the copyright in the scripts and screen portrayal of the movies
and the series.
3. I do not have their permission to write or distribute my HL fanfic.
4. I make no profit from my fanfic.
5. If told to cease and desist I would - but ceasing and desisting does not
necessarily imply that I am breaching copyright or "moral rights" or
necessarily any other form of intellectual property. This could only be
determined on the facts by a court and the court's decision would be based
on assessment of the level of originality in the derivative work. to my
knowledge this has not as yet been legally tested. See: 'Copyright 101:A
Brief Introduction To Copyright For Fan Fiction Writers' at:
http://www.whoosh.org/issue25/lee1a.html
6. Until told to cease and desist by the copyright owners I shall keep on
writing and posting to my HL web page.
Whether this makes me a slime-ridden worthless piece of immoral pond scum is
irrelevant since this shouldn't be a theological argument we are having. If
I 'am' those things, then that is between me and my long-suffering
Confessor. You, Nina, are not my Confessor :-)
Maybe DPP don't issue Cease and Desist orders because they acknowledge that
there are swings and roundabouts with fanfic - it keeps alive their
characters and fan interest and this helps feed prospective purchasers of HL
goods??? Maybe they are totally ignorant (as you suggest) of what is on
their official website and also of all the HL fanfic all over the web???
Maybe they don't care??? Who knows???
At the end of the day, however, it is *their* call, not yours Nina, to
decide what will happen with fanfic in the HL universe.
Kind regards
@ Carmel Macpherson
<<<@{}=================>>>
@ carmel@hldu.org
http://www.hldu.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
HLDU6: 29 April - 1 May, 2005. Sydney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:03:35 -0400
From: SenseiRob@aol.com
Subject: Re: Philosophy! (And square dancing!)
Wendy:
> > The Philosophy of Natural Law is just one of a hundred branches of
> > philosophy.
Dotiran:
> Perhaps. But we should not be too quick to dismiss it. All of the freedoms of
> western society and all of the *beloved* "rights" so
> advocated in it are
> based upon the natural law.
What are these rights in western society, exactly? Those set down in laws, in the documents of government, codified in the religions? These change and evolve along with society, hardly demonstrative of the immutable natural law/philosophy that you expound. The quandary is simple: since "All of the freedoms of western society and all of the *beloved* "rights" so advocated in it are based upon the natural law", and western society has changed dramatically over time, then logically so has 'the natural law'. But then how can this philosophy we've been hard-coded for possibly exist?
You tap-dance (or is that square dance?) around in a cloud of vague generalizations hinting that these natural laws exist, with absolutely no specifics. That's hardly a discussion. I'm interested in knowing what you and others think are inherent basic human moral underpinnings, these instinctive behaviors we're coded for. Really.
Personally, I believe people are taught how to behave. The rules, consequences for breaking them, right and wrong. People learn from what they are taught and their own experience, then use that as a basis to decide for themselves how to act. There's no Jiminy Cricket moral conscience whispering in my ear when I make decisions. I simply don't have a hard-coded "THOU SHALT NOT...!" red flashing light that indicates a bad moral choice. Does anyone?
-Rob (Well, maybe Immortals do) (Perhaps the *buzz* means "Don't kill that guy!") (And everyone has it wrong)
SenseiRob@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 16:25:05 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Philosophy! (No square dancing!)
I said:
>> The Philosophy of Natural Law is just one of a hundred branches of
>> philosophy.
Dotiran wrote:
>Perhaps.
Perhaps? As in...maybe it *isn't* one of a hundred branches of philosophy?
Or
Perhaps ..as in.... "yes, you grudgingly admit that the Philosophy of Natural Law is not the *only* possible theory of philosophy?
>But we should not be too quick to dismiss it.
Can I roll my eyes again? <g>
I wasn't dismissing it ......as a *theory* or as a possible belief system. I might even appreciate some of its tenets. But my (or your) appreciation of the theory is not the same thing as saying that the theory is the One Universal Eternal Truth. Natural Law is *one* way of looking at the world and history and morals and all those big questions of life, the universe, and everything. It provides *one* set of answers and explanations. Other philosophies offer other sets of answers and explanations.
>All of the freedoms
>of western society and all of the *beloved* "rights" so advocated in it are
>based upon the natural law.
They are based on lots of things...of which the theory of Natural Law is one. Other culture at other times have been governed by other systems including, for example, one called Divine Right. Each of these systems placed certain responsibilities on its citizens and offered certain rights/freedoms. The people living under these systems felt that their system of government was "right" - until such time as they decided it was wrong...and then they changed it. Usually the new system was based on a new philosophy and declared "right" again.
I believe that our moral codes evolve as times and circumstances change...not as Universal Truths are revealed (How do we know these are *the* Universal Truths and not just another step along the way to some *other* Ultimate Enlightenment?). Past moral codes (or differing moral codes today ) are not "wrong" or 'misguided" or "underdeveloped" or "unenlightened" or "lacking in an understanding of natural law" -----they are simply different. My opinions are based on observable facts - this is what the people said was moral, this is how they acted, this is how these things changed from one century to the next. Your opinions appear to be based on a "philosophy" which states that regardless of demonstrable facts, something else is actually the Truth.
On the one hand, I will happily debate varying interpretations of a set of facts ( Did the nose painting mean anything? Was Tessa likely to leave Duncan if she hadn't died? Was Richie's motorcycle racing foolish or fun?) because there can be two (or more) rational interpretations of facts and people may actually learn something or change their opinion because of the back-and-forth of intelligent debate.
OTOH, it is, however, fruitless to debate when one side of the question is backed "only" by belief. There can be no back-and-forth of ideas because one side sees the issue as "absolute" and provides no grist for the debate mill beyond "faith" or "belief" which can not be debated.
OTOH, if you are willing to spell out in specific detail just what this universal natural moral code is....and which philosophers I need to read to find these universal morals spelled out in detail - along with the factual basis for believing that these morals versus some other morals are the One True Morals ... I'd be happy to do some research and then come back to the debate. Again...I'm interested in specifics.
Wendy(Still hung up on evidence after all these years.)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:25:17 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Philosophy! (No square dancing!)
In a message dated 7/10/2003 3:27:06 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
jjswbt@earthlink.net writes:
> OTOH, it is, however, fruitless to debate when one side of the question is
> backed "only" by belief.
or one's lack thereof.
and you are right in this, it is "pointless" to argue uiversal truths, e.g.
on life and death, with someone who thinks it even vaguely falls into the
category of a debate on "Was Richie's motorcycle racing foolish or fun?" We are in
a parallel universe at this point.
>>Can I roll my eyes again? <g>
Any eye you can roll I can roll better *vbeg*
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:35:22 -0700
From: FKMel <sgt_buck_frobisher@yahoo.com>
Subject: Mortal Sins
Well, I can't say I'm sad to see Anne go, though I do
understand her reasonings. How many of us think she
probably would have run into major problems during
Mac's post-DQ psycho period? I think that might have
happened. And even if not, look at how many times an
Immie used Tessa for leverage or bait (and then there
was Caleb...but that's another story)...she always
seemed to be cheating death. And Anne's pregnant
besides. Immies and families just don't mix no matter
how much it hurts not to have one. I think Mac just
experienced what Richie did in Line of Fire.
Anyway, after Tessa died, he never seemed to find any
good women IMO. And maybe he *was* better off
alone..falling in love is a wonderful thing but not
everybody is cut out to love an Immie. Besides, I bet
Mac was worried he'd end up with a Tessa redux on his
hands if Anne stayed. But he did do the smart thing
and let her make the choice.
The Quickening: That had to hurt...talk about bad
Q's....maybe not the biggest Q ever (anyone wanna bet
how much Methos' Q would destroy? LOL) but definately
an evil one. I wanted to run over there and hold him
for a while while he was curled up on the ground. He
looked like he needed it.
BTW, is it me or is Mac starting to be less particular
about who he tells his secret to? He said he told
Tessa because he trusted her with his life....and he
waited, what, three years? He sure told Anne awful
quick. And Charlie, who deserved to know what he was
up against, found out too late.
Mel, who thinks that no, Tessa wouldn't have left and
that's why she had to die...leaving would've been too OOC.
=====
The trouble with immortality is that it tends to go on forever-Herb Cain
FK:NickNatPacker, Knight of the Cross,Knightie, Natpacker/Highlander:Duncan Flag-Waver/Due South Fan/Tracker Fan/Angel Fan/Port Charles Fan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 23:00:03 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Out&About)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Philosophy! (No square dancing!)
With respect Rottie, I wouldn't lump the two questions as being on the same
scale - but I would agree that if two people claim that their
(different)belief system is the universal truth and they believe that said
belief/knowledge is absolute ( a knowledge based on the knowledge supplied
by degree of faith) then the discussion is bound for an ecumenical deadlock.
Doesn't mean the discussion itself is pointless, but it makes a conversion
or possibilty of agreement rather low on the curve.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: <Dotiran@aol.com>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: [HL] Philosophy! (No square dancing!)
> In a message dated 7/10/2003 3:27:06 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> jjswbt@earthlink.net writes:
>
> > OTOH, it is, however, fruitless to debate when one side of the question
is
> > backed "only" by belief.
>
> or one's lack thereof.
> and you are right in this, it is "pointless" to argue uiversal truths,
e.g.
> on life and death, with someone who thinks it even vaguely falls into the
> category of a debate on "Was Richie's motorcycle racing foolish or fun?"
We are in
> a parallel universe at this point.
>
> >>Can I roll my eyes again? <g>
>
> Any eye you can roll I can roll better *vbeg*
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:07:40 -0700
From: FKMel <sgt_buck_frobisher@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Mortal Sins
I didn't think about this point much until I saw
somebody bring it up somewhere else. But it's a good
one. I know that children and immies don't mix well
and that loving an immie isn't for everyone...but did
Anne have to be so cruel? She should have waited to
commit until she'd seen everything rather than get
Mac's hopes of maybe raising a child up and then yank
it all away. I think it's offical: I don't like her.
Mel
=====
The trouble with immortality is that it tends to go on forever-Herb Cain
FK:NickNatPacker, Knight of the Cross,Knightie, Natpacker/Highlander:Duncan Flag-Waver/Due South Fan/Tracker Fan/Angel Fan/Port Charles Fan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 19:34:37 -0400
From: Heidi <heidi@apocalypse.org>
Subject: HL Season 1, 2 and Best Of DVDs?
I was looking at the official web site a few days ago and in the extra
features for the Season 1 DVD set they list-
Flashback Buttons: activate each episode's flashback scenes.
Q Button: takes you straight to the Quickening.
I've been told by people who bought the set from them that those don't
actually exist. I'm curious if maybe some sets didn't have them but
they were added later on. So does anyone have those features on a set
they got from The Store? On a side note it's interesting to see that
the picture they now have on the site is the artwork from the Anchor
Bay set, not the set they were originally selling.
Also for the `Best Of' DVD set they list-
Rare Behind-the-Scenes Footage
Through rare footage and photographs, impromptu demonstrations and
MRussell's wonderfully candid interviews with (list of a few actors
etc edited out for space) and the whole Highlander cast and crew,
you'll share the most intimate, revealing and, yes, humorous details
surrounding these bona fide classics
I expect the `rare footage' is just the interviews that were part of
of the video release but the site says "whole cast and crew". And from
what I remember the tapes had a few but far from all the major cast
and crew. So I expect it's just creative wording, or does the DVD
actually have extra footage that wasn't in the video set? Has anyone
heard if there are any plans for Anchor Bay to get the rights to it?
I had asked when they first announced they'd be doing the full season
sets but I think they just said they'd be doing the season sets and
didn't really answer the Best Of question either way.
For the Season 2 DVD set it's interesting to see that the Anchor
Bay set lists "Audio and Video Commentary with actor Adrian Paul" as
one of the features, but that's not mentioned as part of the set
the HL Store sells. I wouldn't be suprised if they were different
since the HL Store site says their set is 8 discs but Best Buy and
Barnes & Noble list the Anchor Bay one as 9 discs. Since The Store
sites says Season 2 is now shipping, has anyone actually bought
from them and recieved it? If so are the AP comments on there?
=}{=
(heidi@apocalypse.org)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:18:15 -0400
From: TCBO2 <TCBO2@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals--UNNAMED FACTION!
Mel:
> Mel, who doesn't like the idea of Nick and LaCroix
> togther (and who's hoping no members of the Unnamed
> Faction heard that LOL)
____________________________________________________
<<Oh, Mel, Really?!
Cousin Robin
Cousin, UF, Cerk Perk>>
______________________________________________________
Hey, Robin! :-D Read any good fic about "The R" lately? <g>
<snerk> I am a *very* longterm, (hardcore) member of the=20
Unnamed Faction - and proud of it. Nick & LaCroix are VAMPIRES
who by definition are highly erotic constructs...and there has=20
never been any question at all about LaCroix' sexual as well as
paternal involvement with Nick the Brick (as in thick as a).=20
Natalie, OTOH, was a mewling, annoying, PITA and I think most of
us breathed a sigh of relief when she passed from this mortal coil. =
<VEG>
That left Nick finally free to be the "loving son" he was always meant
to be . . . to the great Master Vampire who made him. That was the
entire basis of "The R" (Relationship) between them--the eroticism=20
and the father-son conflict over Nick's Duncan-esque brooding and
"guilty" feelings about past kills (for food).
ObHLR: Methos and LaCroix (in the time immediately prior to the=20
eruption of Vesuvius KNEW EACH OTHER! Methos was at Herculaneum
and the great Roman General Lucius (LaCroix) was his next door=20
neighbor in Pompey. Two wealthy villa owners certainly socialized
and interacted as "fellow Romans."
TCBO2=20
UF-er & Passionate C.E.R.K. Fan <with 88 .wav files! of LaCroix>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:52:56 -0400
From: Heidi <heidi@apocalypse.org>
Subject: Season 1 DVDs at Barnes & Noble
Barnes & Noble currently has the Season 1 DVD set on sale for $53.98.
That's the best price I've seen so far for the set. (And if you go to
www.dealios.com first and search for Barnes & Noble they have a
coupon code for B&N for $5 off if you spend over $50.) So any of
you haven't bought Season 1 yet, might want to check it out. I'm
not sure how long the sale price is good for, and I have no idea if
the price is the same in their stores on only on their www.bn.com site.
Their price for Season 2 is still higher then Best Buy though.
=}{=
(heidi@apocalypse.org)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:03:42 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Creative urge (Was: Re: Fanfic & Morals)
me before--
> >Moi? Marina, I'm sorry to see you resorting to the misleading shorthand
> >that others find so useful. I'm all for creativity--people can indulge
> >their creative urges at will, writing whatever they want.
Marina--
> Okay. I just remember you saying, in a previous discussion, that you
> didn't like or agree with the idea that someone could have a creative
> urge that *forced* them to write.
Again, I think you must have misunderstood the context of the discussion, or
are remembering inaccurately. Do I ALWAYS qualify mention of illicit fanfic
as that which is being distributed or sold? Probably not--I credit anyone
following along w/ ... the ability to follow along. Maybe I'm
over-generous. But, fanfic that's kept private is by definition a non-issue
in these discussions. It's almost always fanfic that's "out there" that we
are talking about here.
Create at will--but don't sell or otherwise distribute what belongs to
others. That's too long for a tattoo.... Should I have cards made?
Buttons?
me before--
> >Are you also arguing that these poor people are _forced_ to distribute &
> >sell it, too?
Marina--
> Um, I didn't say anything about that. SNIP
> I was just taking issue with the idea that the truly "creative
> urge" doesn't exist. Which apparently wasn't necessary, if you actually
> do think it exists.
I'm quite sure it does exist. No one here has argued that it does not
exist, to my knowledge. Rather a paper tiger, then, isn't it? What "my
muse made me do it" does NOT justify is the public spewing of fanfic.
Still, that's how people usually use the concept, when they plaster some
loooooong story over an otherwise interesting & newsy email list, for
instance--"Here's my latest! My muse is working me overtime!! I didn't
sleep for a week over this one!!! Hope you all like it!!!! Send me oodles
of lovely feedback!!!!!" So, if you are confused about the creative urge
business, you might look at how it is frequently misused by (public)
fanficers.
Earlier you said--
>>>So there's a spectrum of opinions about the whole thing. A person
can't say that all actors/PTB are disgusted by slash or think it
demeans their characters. Some do; some don't.>>>
Speaking of paper tigers, who, exactly, ever said here (or anyplace) that
ALL actors or TPTB detest slash?
But, as you say, some are on the record as thinking it demeans their
characters & being disgusted by it. You went on quite a while about actors
& others who, according to the grapevine at least, are thought to have at
some time said something cute or less than 100% negative about slash. What
I wonder is--are you saying that justifies them being slashed? That it's OK
_because_ they don't mind? Because, if so, then do you think fanficers
should ONLY slash them (people OK w/ it), while leaving the others (those
who detest being slashed) alone? Interesting. And I doubt very much that
you feel that way. So, if that is NOT the case--if you think fanficers
should slash any & all they please--then what relevance is it if this actor
or that TPTB says something like "whatever floats one's boat"? (And, as
always, we are talking about slash that's "out there" in the world,
distributed in some fashion.) If it doesn't matter that some actors & TPTB
detest slash, then how can it be relevent that some are OK w/ it?
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 15:14:21 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Philosophy! (And square dancing!)
Leah--
> We're skirting too near areas of contention where one
> individual's scurrilous amorality is another individual's beloved right.
And "your" Highlander & Stargate calendars fall into which category?
> My philosophy has always leaned toward the one that says each person has
the
> right to act however he wishes provided his actions do not interfere with
> anyone else, and that each person be held accountable and responsible for
his own
> actions: a person's freedom ends at the end of another's nose.
Personally, I'd rather be punched in the nose than have my copyright
violated.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:35:30 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Philosophy! (No square dancing!)
I said (along with many things Rottie chooses to ignore)
>> OTOH, it is, however, fruitless to debate when one side of the question
>is backed "only" by belief.
Rottie:
>or one's lack thereof.
Actually, I *have* beliefs. I just don't use them as "facts" . And when I do, rarely, trot them out for public display, I am willing to explain how I came by them and how I support my belief in them when faced with opinions and beliefs that are to the contrary.
>and you are right in this, it is "pointless" to argue uiversal truths, e.g.
>on life and death, with someone who thinks it even vaguely falls into the
>category of a debate on "Was Richie's motorcycle racing foolish or fun?"
:::bites tongue very hard to avoid snapping :::::
:::ouch::::
Are you trying to be ......um.....dense?
::::::bites harder::::::
The two questions are in fact similar because they can both be the subject of rational discussion. Or not. Whether a topic is frivolous or deadly serious.is immaterial to the manner in which an intelligent debate is conducted. I have had hours of spirited intelligent discussion on lots of silly topics (including a decade of debate over a TV show about Immortals) and I have engaged in many hours of debate on topics like "Do women have souls? "Is there a Heaven and Hell" and "Which came first, man or god?" - debates in which both sides of the discussion marshalled *facts* as well as theories and beliefs. It can be done and done well....you just appear unwilling or unable to do it. On numerous occasions in this discussion you have been asked (and not just by me) for something beyond your stated belief that a universal truth existed. You have been asked to consider a number of hypotheticals - and answered each time with a non-answer. The rules of good discussion are the rules!
of good discussion (Hey! A universal truth!) regardless of subject matter. *If* all you have to bring to the debate is your own personal belief that Truth Is Universal..then you really have nothing to bring to the debate.
>We are in a parallel universe at this point.
No. I'm right here in the real universe. The one that asks for facts, figures, examples, names, references, citations, *something* , as well as personal belief.
>>>Can I roll my eyes again? <g>
>
>Any eye you can roll I can roll better *vbeg*
Perhaps.
But can you offer any support for your position beyond your own personal belief? That, after all, has been the question all along.
Wendy(Harumph!)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:41:17 EDT
From: Robin Tidwell <Robinchristine79@aol.com>
Subject: Re: HL Season 1, 2 and Best Of DVDs?
In a message dated 7/10/2003 7:35:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,
heidi@apocalypse.org writes:
> I've been told by people who bought the set from them that those don't
> actually exist. I'm curious if maybe some sets didn't have them but
> they were added later on. So does anyone have those features on a set
> they got from The Store? On a side note it's interesting to see that
> the picture they now have on the site is the artwork from the Anchor
> Bay set, not the set they were originally selling.
>
I got my season 1 at Walmart, and it has the button to take you straight to
the Quickening.
Robin
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 9 Jul 2003 to 10 Jul 2003 (#2003-148)
**************************************************************