|
Post by Dalton on Jun 28, 2003 18:00:08 GMT -5
Dear Chairmembers of the VHISN
First, I would like to thank you all for taking the time out of your busy schedules to chair these worthy areas of study and their accomanying (sometimes VERY long) well-written theses (that's with a "TH", NOT an "F".
However, I have, upon reflection (I can do that, being a non-vampire), realized that there remains a seat unfilled.
Therefore, I would like to propose myself for the postion of Professor of Anyaology. Anyalolgy is the study and application of short, pointed, snarky, relevant and usually tactless statements as this chair deems necessary to rein in some of the worthy wordies out there.
Diane Ullman BS (You already know what THAT is!) MS (meaning More of the Same) Ph.D. (Piled Higher and Deeper)
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 28, 2003 18:01:08 GMT -5
:...I asked what exactly made Dawn realize Amanda was the Potential, not she...:
Dawn realied who the real Potential was when the Bringers attacked Amanda instead of herself. Also, when the Willow conjured up the glowing ball of orange energy that was supposed to find the next potential, it only SEEMED to go to Dawn. Actually, Amanda was on the other side of the door looking for Buffy after her (off-screen) encounter with the vampire at the high school.
:Have I yet sufficiently annoyed all concerned?:
Not yet, Nan. Keep trying.
Fondly, Diane
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 28, 2003 18:02:14 GMT -5
Thank you for the mini synopsis! I can't believe I missed it! My Tivo failed me, its supposed to record anything he's listed in. Oh well, that's what I get for relying on a machine. I wouldn't have been able to see it anyway, my husband, a.k.a. The Remote Controller, got home from work about 12:30 and had to watch Cops for the 10000th time. I'm starting to regret having only 1 tv.
Did JM say anything else interesting? I'd appreciate some more scraps.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 28, 2003 18:04:39 GMT -5
>The following long list of quotes is merely evidence. Don't feel the need to read it all now and skip down to past the first set of astericks to read my actual posting. I simply provided the quoted postings so you wouldn't have to search thru the backlog as I did.<
(From ATS/JM #5) #379 Suggested Group Name and a Question By Alexandra K.
Suggested name instead of Spikoholics or Spikettes: the Soulful Spike Society, building on our Linguistics Chair's suggestion of the Soulful Society. (We could call ourselves 'S' Cubed, or the SCubies.)*Grin*
#5 Re. ATS/JM #5 Post #377 Moving boards, Names By vlad imp
I love the name "The Soulful Spike Society" and the term "The S'cubies." I am still chuckling as I write this. I think the title for the group is succinct in describing what this area is about and non-gender specific.(I am sure that Robert feels as I do about the importance of this *G*) And the nickname for the members is equisitely punful. A perfect example of the intelligence inherent in the members.
My vote definitely lies with The Soulful Spike Society and the monicker "the S'cubies (or just "Scubies"). I would like to second Alex's motion to call the board The Soulful Spike Society and call for a vote. Perhaps the next board could be called just that with maybe a paranthetical:
#6 Names By water gal
I agree with vlad imp. The Soulful Spike Society. Why didn't I put the Spike in there in the first place? I should point out however that I am not the chair in Linguistics, that position is already capably occupied. I'm just a gal who was freezing her tushie off and had to keep her mind occupied. Thinking up names was just a way of keeping the gears turning.
Now, the question is, how do we want to spell the abreviation?
SCubies, S'cubies or some other variation. I kind of like the appostrophe vlad added. Alexandra, this is the absolute best abreviated name anyone could have come up with. THhe SSS just doesn't look right.
#40 Will the faculty Chairs please step forward? By water gal
I have not gotten a position as Chair yet, but I would like to present myself for the position of chair of Nosferoengineering (NosfEng.) All those against feel free to say Nay!
#42 Re: Will the faculty Chairs please step forward? By Miss Pamela
Miss Pamela, Chair of Nosferolinguistics - VHISN.
#82 Re #17: Thermodynamics have never been so much fun! By Miss Pamela
Yes, it sure does - in fact, I'll go ahead and throw my vote in for "S'cubies" or "S'Cubies" as the new group name. And I very much like the single apostrophe in the name, by the way.
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
The afformentioned quotes are provided so that there is a clear understanding of what was said leading up to the postings #87-#90 on this thread. I hope to clear up some confusion, place credit in the proper places and make an apology or two.
First off:
After careful examination of the facts, it seems that indeed, Miss Pamela is the Chair of Linguistics as she pointed out. My error lay in the speed at which I was trying to validate my facts while writing my petition for the job as TA. I picked up what Alexandra said in her post #379:
"the Soulful Spike Society, building on our Linguistics Chair's suggestion of the Soulful Society."
and added in half the info gleaned from Water Gal's post #6 :
"The Soulful Spike Society. Why didn't I put the Spike in there in the first place?"
Alexandra, our harried Chair of Nosferoanatomy and Physiology made a teensy error in attributing the "Spike Society" to the Chair of Linguistics. Then, Water Gal took credit for the "Spike Society" but stated (clearly I might add, even tho' I missed it. I was in a hurry I guess) that she was not the person of this august seat and was infact not even on the faculty. I simply saw her take credit and Alex say that it was the Chair of Linguistics. It is entirely my fault and I would like to take this time to apologize. Would you buy that I had tonight's new episode still dancing about on the brain?
*sighs just knowing that this will have a negative effect on his TA application*
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
Now, as far as the apostrophe goes, in the original posting Alex offered us two terms:
'S' Cubed, or the SCubies
My posting ATS/JM #5 of "the S'cubies (or just "Scubies")" was the first time that an apostrophe was ever used in conjunction with the word "Scubies". I would agree however that jointly Alex and Miss Pam (and perhaps Water Gal) did introduce the concept of a capitalized C as the second letter. I am all for giving credit where credit is due! However, I still maintain that the spelling of S'cubies in just the afformentioned way is mine. Water Gal even goes so far as noting in her post immediately following my #5 that :
"I kind of like the appostrophe vlad added."
In other words, the apostrophe is mine, mine..allll mine!! *clings to it like Daffy Duck did to the gem in that classic Bugs Bunny cartoon*
*** *** *** *** *** *** ***
And finally, but hardly from being last in importance or consideration:
Miss Pam, I would like to take this time to apologize on behalf of myself and everyone else that posts to this board if you have ever gotten the feeling that your postings were taken less seriously than anyone elses or if you were ever to have been made to feel unappreciated. You are by far one of my favorite posters. You are funny and quick. You make wonderful puns (if there is such a thing *wink*) and I think your serious analysis of the show and Mr. Marsters to be insightful and interesting.
I find you truly a delight, as I do several other members of this posting board. I am incredibly happy to have found all of you and that you all have taken me in. As Nan put it a while back: "This place feels like home." It does, and you m'dear Pam, sharer of late night discussions when we should be asleep and nearly everyone else is, are like one of my favorite sisters. The one that sits up eating cookies at the kitchen table with me after I slink in home way too late and am trying to avoid the parents. *S* *gives her a big ol' hug*
Edited By Vlad I at 1/22/2003 8:33:00 AM.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 28, 2003 18:05:27 GMT -5
I don't think you are being ignored, I think the problem is in the number of posts. One of the reasons that I felt more comfortable on this board was that in addition to being highly entertained and intellectually stimulated, it was just plain old easier for me to keep up with all the posts. I only get very short snippets of time on the computer due to my children and I don't have time to either take notes on what I want to respond to or go back and find it in the previous posts, so I usually end up responding to the posts on the last page I read.
Sometimes I don't respond because I don't have the time to develop a cohesive argument. If I had the time(or a job where I could sneak time on the computer) I would post more articulate and interesting thoughts. I know its not obvious from my posts, but I used to be a literate, professional person who could carry on discussions that last more than a few minutes. As it is, I am enjoying reading such detailed observations from everyone.
And I'd like to apply for the older(does 30 count as older?)non-traditional student who is afraid to raise her hand in class because she has been out of the loop so long, but loves every minute of her second chance at education. Now I must go. Grapes are being demanded of me and then I'll come back to check the rest of the posts.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 28, 2003 18:06:44 GMT -5
Gia,
I recorded the interview last night on my brand spanking new video capture card. While the whole thing is too huge to be able to send or post or email, I am currently extracting the audio from it and will soon change it into an MP3. This, I should be able to post on my web site and let those that are interested download it. I will make every attempt to shrink it as small as possible while still retaining a clear audio. Bear with me as all this is taking place on new equipment. I jsut discovered my old soiftware i used to use for .wav editing doesnt work on XP *ssighs* So, I am currently as we speak, looking for a nice piece of freeware to let me edit the audio track. I should have it done in an a hour or two and I will post how it can be obtained then. I hope this will help to satisfy your jonesing (or is that jamesing? *wink*
As far as the interview itself, I would almost have to aggree with Miss Pam completely. He seems extremely nice and understated while still exhuberant. There is a definite passion there. And remember this is coming from a man. He does seem nice.
Also, right towards the beginning he reconfirms that he will be there on the show as long as there is a show. He's in for the long haul. He seems ot know where his bread is buttered. Ladies and gentlemen, we do not have another David Caruso here! *L*
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 28, 2003 18:09:04 GMT -5
I saw James on Kilborne. His appearance was very brief, it followed an endless appearance by Liza Minelli and scary looking husband, David Gest. I can't imagine why that face got 50 times more screen time than James, but there you go.
Here's what I remember: James came on all excited about having met Liza. Unsurprisingly, he did not gush over Gest. He mentioned trying to wean himself off coffee, but he seemed like he'd just drank 20 cups, he was smiling and bouncing and enthusiastic about everything. His voice seemed very hoarse.
He said - let's see - he was using ginko baloba and exercise and slapping himself in the face to keep awake, instead of coffee, when working late. He demonstrated the face-slapping. Craig mentioned the hair, and he said yeah, he'd rather grow it out, but he can't. He mentioned that he had such a huge head, they couldn't find a wig to fit him as William, and settled for the only one that would. (I need my measuring tape, I tell you! I KNEW that head was extra large).
What else - he told a story of noticing two young teen girls pointing at him and giggling at the laundromat, so he went over thinking he'd make their day and talk to them. But time went by and they never mentioned Buffy and suddenly one of them looked at him and said: "You know, we're THIRTEEN!", as if she thought he was a perv trying to pick them up. So this mortified him and taught him never to assume people know who you are.
Craig showed his new "Ghost of the Robot" CD, and played about 2 seconds of a song called "Good-bye". James said he loved "pretending to be a rock star" for one night now and then, because his popularity from the show allowed him to attract a crowd. He said it was especially nice for some really young (19 or 20) members of his band. He added that acting is his first love though.
Which one of you let out that scream when he told Craig he let his hair grow back by just letting it go two-tone? Screaming James fans made their presence known. Craig asked about his female following, and he said that since his wardrobe consisted mostly of "just a sock" in Season 6, his popularity among women had skyrocketed.
Anyhow, it was short but fun. He was so energetic and fast talking, that if it was someone else, I might guess he was "coked up". But since I've seen him in the DVD interviews and elsewhere, I know this is just him. But it was at that type of "high energy" level. Whew. I can believe five hours straight.
Edited By Spring Summers at 1/22/2003 9:18:00 AM.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 28, 2003 18:13:44 GMT -5
Okay, the natives have been placated with grapes for a few minutes so I can post something else. A few people asked where Spike was sleeping and I have the sinking suspicion that he is being restrained when he sleeps. Hopefully I'm wrong. When Buffy was in the basement, she said something to the SITs about The First not controlling Spike right now. Does that mean she still thinks he could be controlled? Or was she just trying to scare the SITs into thinking Spike was a real threat? I'm hoping its the latter, since the rest of the episode showed them working so well together. I loved the scene in the graveyard. Definite tension there. Although they didn't let the shirt get pulled up far enough.
Most of the episode felt like filler to me. I was disappointed we didn't get to see Spike healing more and more regrouping on the Scoobies part. I guess that would have been too much to ask. We didn't get to see what happened after the church scene either. When Spike says he was afraid Buffy was going to get interesting, thats about when the episode started to hum a little bit.
Dawn being the next SIT was the last bit of spoiler info I read before swearing off spoilers for the season. I was pleasantly surprised when it turned out not to be her. I did not see that coming. For some reason I thought Amanda tasted the blood on her neck, so I assumed she'd turn out to be a vampire. I guess that puts Dawn the Vampire Slayer to rest.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 28, 2003 18:15:10 GMT -5
Spring, thank you for your thoughtful response.
As much as I would love to watch "Crush" to see your references first hand, I have no tape of that show and have never actually seen it for myself (sigh). A re-read of the shooting script will have to suffice. But I do see what you mean about Spike's prostestations of change having begun before any substantial change had yet taken place. Still, there is a distinction between Spike's gradual change for the better which began early on with infinitesimal baby steps amid much confusion, back sliding and no encouragement from the side lines, and actual redemption which, as I said, Spike never alluded to except as "Randy", and that was at a time when substantial change was already well under way. And while I agree that his protestestations of change early in Season Five may have been the basis of Sanguine's comments about how Spike (like Andrew) talked the talk before he walked the walk of redemption, that distinction between actual redemption and change is a sticking point for me that bars me from agreeing with her.
Also I think that if we're supposed to be talking about parallels between Andrew and Spike (or how they differ in like circumstances) then it isn't fair to compare what Spike did after he was free of his confinement by the Scoobies and living independently again as Andrew has not yet reached that point. Since I'm going just by my past reading of the scripts please correct me if I'm wrong here but did Spike ever claim anything other than an inability to harm anyone/anything (as he then thought) anymore while he was staying with the the Scoob's? Andrew is claiming redemption without any foundation of substantiating action.
Still, I do believe Andrew is sincere in believing his own claims. Spike's struggle of reform and redemption is not really comparable as his starting place was a truly evil nature. Andrew on the the other hand Andrew was never evil, only weak and impressionable.
Why do I feel as though I am straying from the subject. I want to end this now and focus on last night's episode, so again, thank you for Spring for your thoughtful insights.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jun 28, 2003 18:16:19 GMT -5
Before I can switch gears over to the new episode I just want to say, thank you once again Spring for your insights into what I consider to be Buffy's reprehensible behavior towards Spike in Season Six. Your personal experience certainly relates well to how Buffy handled her relationship with Spike. It made me consider my own tendencies, (mostly in the past) to cruelly lash out at my mother because she would take it and still love me afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 1, 2003 22:16:17 GMT -5
Still catching up with the posts and just finished reading your #53 Rusty.
Thank you for your insights. Your use of the term "contrasts" was what I was trying to get at when I said that it seemed Sanguine was talking more about Spike and Andrew's differences in like circumstances (reliance on the Scoob's) than on their parallels. But I'd been stuck on the fact that Sanguine had referred to "parallels" (iirc).
Anyway, I loved your analysis. Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 1, 2003 22:17:25 GMT -5
deborah: You've never seen "Crush"? Bummer! You must keep your eyes open for it, it's a great one when it comes to James' acting. He is wonderful in it, going from nervous, love-sick guy trying to act cool around Buffy, to unsuccessfully being seductive, to getting completely confused and hurt by Buffy's rejection - to absolutely furious with her. Reading the script is good, but this is one where the performance - by both JM & SMG - was extra-good and important to get the nuances.
As far as Sanguine's analogy - I don't think it is either perfect or particularly well-worded, but my best guess is that she is referring to the fact that both Andrew and Spike, at some point or another, start talking about converting to good, being good now, when really they aren't. If you try to take it much beyond that, then yes, you run into a lot of differences between the two.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 1, 2003 22:18:22 GMT -5
Am still not caught up with the postings but maybe by the time I get to the end someone will have answered this.
What was the line Spike says in the the Crypt to Buffy that begins "Work, work work..." I couldn't catch it. It seems as if Buffy starts responding with a snotty comment but then changes it when the SITs find the vampire.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 1, 2003 22:19:27 GMT -5
There are several posts I really want to reply to including Miss Pamela's, (Don't feel rejected. We adore you.)but they just keep piling up and I have to get to work.
On my recent trip I had to drive for serveral hours so I listened to alot of CD's I ahdn't pulled out in awhile. The discussion of Spike & Andrew made me think of a cut on SheDaisy. I think it's called Everybody Needs a Revival.
"Have I really lost my soul?/If so I don't know where it went./ But if it's the only way back home,/ I guess I might as well repent.*
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 1, 2003 22:20:09 GMT -5
When I have time I'll try to pull together a list of chairs, students, janitors etc. Maybe we could add it to the front of the thread to keep track. We don't want to ignore anyone's application (or research) due to volume on the board.
|
|