HIGHLA-L Digest - 14 Mar 2006 (#2006-56)
HIGHLA-L automatic digest system (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:00:05 -0500
There are 7 messages totalling 427 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Debbie? Debbie? RE: HL Alum HI Debbie!!
2. HLWW, Carmel and Cons... (4)
3. HIGHLA-L Digest - 13 Mar 2006 to 14 Mar 2006 - Special issue (#2006-55)
4. Source SPOILERS--possibly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 13:34:29 -0500
From: Wendy <Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Debbie? Debbie? RE: HL Alum HI Debbie!!
On "Brokeback Mountain":
> >OTOH, perhaps you just thought the acting was shite.<eg>
Marina:
> I'm not sure the acting was shite, exactly, because the
> characters behaved pretty much like in the story. The film
> just... goes on and on. Bleah. Only one proper gay sex scene?
> And no nakedness? What's the point?
Ah, I see.
I think you have hit upon the problem of making this kind of movie for
an American audience. While many mainstream (and by "mainstream" I mean
heterosexual) people would pay to see two closeted gay shepherds pine
for each other (with one sex scene), many fewer would have paid to see
the movie if the characters were less conflicted and had more sex. For
Americans to go see it, it *can't* be about two guys in love with each
other and able to openly express it- unless you want to remake "The
Birdcage" again. Comedy gays are OK, dramatic dying gays are OK, happy
sexually active gays are box-office poison.
Further, if Heath and Jake had played characters who were at all at ease
with their sexuality (and by "at ease" I mean they got nekkid and
sweaty often) , too many Americans would assume that Heath and Jake were
actually gay. That assumption would kill their chances of playing
non-gay studs in future movies.
As it was, the story is very much the way such characters in America
would have lived- their lives would have gone on and on and there would
have been little sex (except under circumstances were it wouldn't get
noticed). So, the short story and the movie may be more realistic than
is truly good for interesting story-telling (and by "interesting" I mean
of interest to perverts like you<eg>).
Wendy (Closing in on the 5 post a day rule)(DEBBIE!)(Stop me before I
post again!)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:50:39 -0500
From: Wendy <Immortals_Incorporated@cox.net>
Subject: Re: HLWW, Carmel and Cons...
John defends Fort HLWW:
> You insinuate the events are about where Carmel wants to go
> on holiday, more than where a good convention can take place...
I don't remember saying there was anything *wrong* with Carmel making
the decision on where to have a convention based (even in small part) on
where she wanted to go. She's the head of the organization, she gets to
choose. I'm sure she has 100 different criteria. Personal preference is
allowed to be one of them. God knows that if I were in charge, we'd be
going to places *I* liked.
> Of course, if it's not a tourist hot-spot you'd
>probably complain
I don't actually give a rat's ass where HLWW holds its conventions.
>probably isn't enough for you to think it'd be a great time
> and venue for the event.
I think Leeds sounded lovely (winter weather or not) . I like England.
Were I interested in going to a HL convention at this point, Leeds would
be a plus, not a negative, in my book. (Maybe you don't know me quite as
well as you think?) I went to *Baltimore* for a HL convention.
Baltimore, for God's sake! You don't think Leeds sounds better than
Baltimore <G> (Truth in advertising, I like Baltimore)
>Would love to hear suggestions about where
> you'd find acceptable. Actually, I probably wouldn't as it's
> pretty obvious nowhere and nothing would be good enough
Again, major *wrong* assumption on your part. Australia, France,
Vancouver, Leeds, San Juan, Bora Bora, Denver, Chicago, Moscow .... all
nice places for a HL convention.
> hey, it's much more fun to sit and snipe at those running it
> than actually feel the need to attend an event before
> criticising it and the people that ran it, isn't it?
The only comment I can think of to which you might be referring is as
follows:
"The one that was ill-organized, expensive and left people hungry?
(In the grand tradition of HL conventions everywhere <eg>)"
Note again- it says "in the grand tradition of HL conventions
everywhere". That means others besides HLWW conventions. The lack of
organization, expense of things and the lack of food is something that I
have heard after every con going back decades. It doesn't matter who
runs it or what fandom, some fans will find things confusing, everyone
will wince at $$$$ prices and somewhere along the line, the food always
runs out. (Anyone remember a certain breakfast/brunch in ...1997?) It's
a standing joke. And you can't be so naïve (or egotistical) as to think
that you could put on a convention (anywhere, anytime) that wouldn't
disappoint a few people in even a small way. Even people who had a great
time and would return for another convention should be expected to
bitch a bit about perceived high prices, lack of signage, and minuscule
food portions. That's human nature.
> You basically say that the HLWW list is more about everyday
> chat than strictly HLWW subjects.
No, I basically said that HLWW is more about everyday chat that *HL*
subjects. There is a difference. And the everyday chatting doesn't make
HLWW a bad place. It just makes it a place I am less likely to spend a
lot of time on. I wouldn't go to HLWW and insist that everyone stop
talking about non-HL related subjects (I did whine about the Bond poll-
*once*). If that is what the majority of new HL fans wants, that is what
they most certainly should have. Likewise, of course, we snarky,
negative, unpleasant denizens of HIGHLA should be left unmolested in
our domain.
>Perhaps more people
> would be actively seeking out THIS list if there weren't
> several posters who enjoyed snarky comments that are more
> about scoring points rather than asking genuine questions
My experience has been that most of the snarky people don't need to
*ask* questions. And those same snarky people are actually very good at
*answering* questions. And I don't care if more people actively seek out
this list *if* they seek it out looking for weather reports or the
latest on the Bond poll.
> the HL future might be good or might suck, but it's
> quite amazing to see the relish in which a product that isn't
> out there yet is being dismembered already.
Dismembering the franchise's future is a very old tradition here. Give
us a good product, we'll love it forever, give us shite and we won't
forget. We know next to nothing about what "The Source" will be about -
except what DDP has put up on the web site (post apocalypse, quest, lost
love). We're free to speculate what that means and, based on past
experience, guess that it could be bloody awful. It could be great,
too. I'm open to that possibility. I would embrace a great new movie
with a coherent plot and shiny acting. When someone gives us more
information to work with, we will, I'm sure, revise our opinions.
>People don't come here as much because of the
>geleful negativity, so don't blame another list
> because it's got (rightly or wrongly) a more positive attitude.
Blame? Somewhere along the line you seem to have gotten the idea that I
*want* this List to be more like HLWW. I don't. It works very well to
have a number of differing venues each with its own personality. One
isn’t better - in an objective sense - than the other. I don't "blame"
HLWW for being chatty, you needn't blame HIGHLA for being snarky.
> Perhaps most importantly you just claimed the following:
>
> "I have no issue with Carmel. She took hold of a fandom and
> has found a way to make it pay. Bravo to her. Sincerely. I
> mean it. She had the foresight to see that the future of HL
> was in convention staging and she put herself in a position
> to do the job. Someone besides DDP should be making a living
> off of HL fans, why not Carmel? "
> That can't go unchecked and as Carmel isn't here to squash
> those insinuations as fast as they need to be, I will.
Carmel isn't here?
> You
> absolutely make that sound as if Carmel makes personal profit
> from HLWW and that is completely untrue.
And why do *you* make it sound like it would be *bad* if it *were* her
job? I never claimed, nor would I , that Carmel was somehow secretly
skimming money off the fan club. Far from it. Running HLWW must be close
to a full time "job" and if one of the cons managed to make a profit (
I know that most don't) she would be within her rights, IMO, to take
said tiny profit as compensation for all her hard work. Even non-profit
corporations pay their staff. It's not wrong, or a crime, or morally
reprehensible and I never said it was. If she *doesn't* take any salary
of any kind, she's even more dedicated that I imagined. (And I imagine
Carmel is damned dedicated)
>I wonder if you'd be prepared
> to come to an event and make the claims you make here to her face?
Just what claims are you on your very high horse about? I admire
Carmel's dedication to all things HL. She started out a common fan (
and I mean that in the nicest way) and worked her way up to being both a
BNF and the head of the only authorized HL fan club. That takes drive.
It's something she obviously wanted badly and was willing to work for.
She clearly cares a lot more about the continuation and growth of HL
fandom that I ever did. Just as clearly she "gets" something in
return...the satisfaction of a job well done, some modest applause from
the fans, a bit of closeness to the stars, name recognition within the
fandom, etc. None of these are *bad* things. It's not anything I ever
would have thought about and certainly nothing I am envious of (as
others have hinted).
> It's a free world
Or so we would like to believe.
> But in doing so, get your facts right
How about you take a deep breath and step back far enough to see that
Carmel was never under attack.
> and throw borderline libelous
> insinuations into the pot for light relief?
Oh , give me a break. Borderline libelous? You're a journalist...you
should know better than that.
> The next event for HLWW is the Vancouver con in late 2007. We
> thought we'd give you a good eighteen months to complain
> about how bad we're doing in advance.
Ah...so it really *wasn't* about defending Carmel. It was about
defending your convention-throwing skills?
Wendy (Congratulations to anyone who has actually read this far.)
Immortals Inc.
immortals_incorporated@cox.net
"Weasels for Eternity"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:51:42 -0800
From: FKMel <sgt_buck_frobisher@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: HIGHLA-L Digest - 13 Mar 2006 to 14 Mar 2006 - Special issue (#2006-55)
*peeks in* I didn't leave for very long, just resubbed
went nomail for a time basically. I guess I can't get
enough of it that easy lol.
Anyway, despite the occasional rumblings, I enjoyed
the laughs the last few posts of the digest gave me.
The list that is.
All good. Whole list good.
LOL@ boring slash, I can't say, 'cause it's not really
my cuppa tea, although sometimes a really good one
will get me to read, but it was funny anyway.
Mel
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 22:07:16 -0000
From: ElaineN <Elainen@inguz.co.uk>
Subject: Re: HLWW, Carmel and Cons...
>>the head of the only authorized HL fan club. <<
Just a minor point, but Claymore is still going, and it's official too.
We are small being in Scotland, but have meetings, and have a web page,
which I am in the process of building when my health and real life
allows. I am also in contact with Carmel, just before anyone gets the
idea there might be a problem there.
I wasn't in Leeds, but health and finances permitting I would have been.
Elaine.
Same Clan, Different vintage.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:43:57 -0600
From: Kamil <kamilaa@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: HLWW, Carmel and Cons...
<Marina>
Slash good.
<Jette>
slash boring.
<me>
Speaking of predictable. . . . .
--
Kamil
Crassus: Do you consider the eating of oysters to be moral and the
eating of snails to be immoral?
Antoninus: No, master.
Crassus: Of course not. It is all a matter of taste, isn't it?
Antoninus: Yes, master.
Crassus: And taste is not the same as appetite, and therefore not a
question of morals.
Antoninus: It could be argued so, master.
Crassus: My robe, Antoninus. My taste includes . . . both snails and oysters.
Spartacus
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:10:24 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Source SPOILERS--possibly
Wendy--
> I think he just sounded old. Things he could do easily at 30 are so much
> harder at 40 and even harder at 50. (Did AP change his birthdate?)(The
> imbd says 1959)( thought it use to say 1955.)
No, I'm pretty sure he went from that silly not-telling-his-age business to
admitting to 1959--which happens to be the year I was born so I remember....
(Plus--Barbie was invented, & Hawaii got statehood.)
>In any event, the man is
> at least pushing 47 and all that kicking and punching and swinging a
> sword is hard on the old joints.
Amen! But those sounds were ridiculous. Talk about bad drama!
Nina (the only "spoiler" I made up was about Methos being a daddy) (that
would just be wrong) (they have to save something for the rest of the
trilogy, after all) (the rest of the stuff was reportedly in the film clip)
(which sounded deadly boring, really) (& there's some guy w/ white or blue
skin) (did they learn nothing from the Zeist debacle?) (& they're probably
going to shoot another ending) (which isn't encouraging) (maybe the film can
be saved in the editing room) (oh God....)
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 16:13:41 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: HLWW, Carmel and Cons...
Rottie (making me think of that old rendering unto God & Caesar business)--
>the magnificent Carmel McPherson [without whose efforts fandom would have
all but disappeared],
Bullshit. If Endgame couldn't kill HL fandom, nothing can.
>>> [as for me I prefer hanging
out at the unofficial but old time fan former Rysher BB, Holyground
.....it's
safer there :)]>>>
Way too cluttered w/ birthday wishes, prayer requests, & badly done
political rants. Also, some nimrod keeps hounding this really nice (if
rather dim) person about how & when her posts appear & somehow get in the
way of his reading the board; it's snarky, negative & toxic. Other than
that--it's boring over there. But, to each his/her own.
John hurtles himself into the non-fray--
> So, Wendy, not a fan of HLWW (and despite what you say, Carmel as well)
> then?
Huh? Did I miss something juicy? Or are you just really, really bored?
> (Fact: *I* was the one who instigated the Royal Armouries in Leeds
Oh--so it's all about you. Now this makes sense.
> You basically say that the HLWW list is more about everyday chat than
> strictly HLWW subjects.
No, the differences between that list & this list were aptly enumerated.
What's wrong w/ that? As I said at the time, it really comes down to
whether one wants to be run by Carmel or not-run by Debbie. It's always
good to have choices. Really, John, it sounds like you/Carmel/HLWW (it's
impossible to say which, since your post commingles the 3) might have a
problem w/ THIS list & that fact some people discuss all things Highlander
HERE rather than someplace more regulated & official. Is that what this is
really all about?
> I'm less inclined to take any crap from someone who wasn't there, yet
> somehow seems able to take opportunistic pot-shots at the organisation and
> its events from the safety of her keyboard.
>Or is it just easier and more fun to pick them apart from a safe distance
>and throw borderline libelous insinations into the pot for light relief?
Libelous? Sounds like you need a nap. And possibly medication. You've
gone from querulous indignation right through tiresome pontification to
slavering lunacy. Stop. I don't even like you, & I'm embarrassed for you.
Nina (so, Joe's gonna die....) (brilliant, really) (why on earth didn't
they do him in during the series?) (might have perked up season 6) (nah)
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 14 Mar 2006 (#2006-56)
***********************************************