PUSHER was a 'Shipper!! *gak*!
Mary Lynn
...and that's all i have to say about that.
-mar, USTB
****************************************
"Personally, I like my sexual tension resolved."
"Yea... but if you resolve it, it's no longer tense is it?!?"
****************************************
Eric Johns
In article <31ABB0...@mail.multiverse.com>, tha...@mail.multiverse.com
says...
>
>...and that's all i have to say about that.
>
and here is this wonderful episode just LOADED with it, and you HATED the
ep? That's how I am reading what you are saying here...I have to wonder
what exactly DO you consider an episode that could/would fulfill your
expectations as far as a balance between UST and plot goes...it doesn't get
any better than PUSHER, IMVHO...
Kristel
Mary Lynn
Eric Johns wrote:
>
> In article <31ABB0...@mail.multiverse.com>, tha...@mail.multiverse.com
> says...
> >
> >...and that's all i have to say about that.
> >
> Okay, I gotta say that I don't get this one...you claim to love the UST,
> and here is this wonderful episode just LOADED with it, and you HATED the
> ep? That's how I am reading what you are saying here...
i *do* love the UST, and what would ruin it??? BY DEFINITION ALONE, M&S
"GETTING TOGETHER" WOULD RUIN THE UST!!!!!
*BY DEFINITION*!!!!!!!!!!
all i'm doing here is saying that the Pusher HIMSELF, the man, *not* the
episode, was a shipper - *by definition*. it sickened me the way M&S's actions
were interpreted by the shippers as "the closest they have come...." and "M&S
are gonna 'do it', i just know it!!" yadda yadda yadda - *gak*. so, IMVHO, that
made the man himself a "shipper". they ruined it for me, i *did not* hate the ep,
but now i can't watch the episode without thinking about how warm and fuzzy it
made certain people.
> ...I have to wonder
> what exactly DO you consider an episode that could/would fulfill your
> expectations as far as a balance between UST and plot goes...it doesn't get
> any better than PUSHER, IMVHO...
FYI, the ep"Pusher" was *not* my idea of perfect UST. i found that in earlier
ep's, like the Jersey Devil and Fire. Subtle, easy to miss, professional, and the
plot was nowhere near dependent upon it. *that* is what i love about my UST,
but it is not the only thing i love about the X-Files.
Nancy Lemieux
In article <31AE41...@mail.multiverse.com>,
tha...@mail.multiverse.com wrote:
: all i'm doing here is saying that the Pusher HIMSELF, the man, *not* the
: episode, was a shipper - *by definition*. it sickened me the way M&S's
actions
: were interpreted by the shippers as "the closest they have come...." and "M&S
Why? What is so sickening about how close Mulder and Scully were?
How else would you interpret the handholding, the saddened looks, the fear
in her eyes, the way he fights to stop himself from shooting her?
: are gonna 'do it', i just know it!!" yadda yadda yadda - *gak*. so,
IMVHO, that
: made the man himself a "shipper". they ruined it for me, i *did not*
hate the ep,
paraphrasing: Pusher noticed how close Mulder and his partner were, and
asked how well they work together. Now, if that isn't double entendre,
then I don't know what is. Face it, Pusher, the episode, was the epitome
of shippyness. It's the Mecca of relationshippers far and wide. It's the
template we hope may be used for other episodes... to show how the actual
relationship between the leads did not in any way destroy the plot.
Coming a in second would be One Breath, with a very distant third as
Wetwired.
: but now i can't watch the episode without thinking about how warm and
fuzzy it
: made certain people.
I don't know. How can you? I guess if the clues are there, you just
can't run away from it.
I can't reproach you for having your own opinions of the characters, but
I'm not about to have any remorse for the way I feel, and I'm not going to
feel guilty that you can't accept our point of view and it disturbs you.
Next time, why don't you skip over anything that has the words 'shipper','
shippy',' relationshipper',' non-relationshipper', etc. in the subject
line?
:
: > ...I have to wonder
: > what exactly DO you consider an episode that could/would fulfill your
: > expectations as far as a balance between UST and plot goes...it doesn't get
: > any better than PUSHER, IMVHO...
:
: FYI, the ep"Pusher" was *not* my idea of perfect UST. i found that in
earlier
: ep's, like the Jersey Devil and Fire. Subtle, easy to miss,
professional, and the
: plot was nowhere near dependent upon it. *that* is what i love about my UST,
: but it is not the only thing i love about the X-Files.
Okay. I have question for you. What did you think of the UST in
Irresistible, Firewalker or Our Town? Would you consider that low key?
If you think so, consider this... there was as much contact and implied
feeling in those episodes as in Pusher... Heck, even the pilot had as
much contact. (and I don't mean 'contact' in the Due South meaning <vbg>)
What do you think is more indicative of feeling? a couple of quick shots
of handholding, or risking getting shot to save your partner, and a slow
caress of the cheek (firewalker)? How about slowly brushing the hair away
from the face while looking directly in the eyes, then pressing against
the cheek for a short instant, with yet a lingering look in the eyes...
even while there's a stampede going on all around you (Our Town)? So, you
have no problems with these episodes, but yet Pusher now disgusts you?
I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense to me.
If you want, I can indicate all the shippy moments in every episode, so
that I disturb your viewing pleasure forever. <g> ;)
: "Personally, I like my sexual tension resolved."
: "Yea... but if you resolve it, it's no longer tense is it?!?"
I also have a few problems with your sig. My first one is the constantly
repeated and very false claim that relationshippers want to see sexual
resolution. If I wanted meaningless sex, a la Melrose Place, I'd watch
that. As a matter of fact, this is the type of shows I stay away from.
Why does relationship automatically equate with sex? What is wrong with
more episodes like Pusher, Our Town, etc?
Secondly, if you think that sex automatically eliminates sexual tension,
then you are also mistaken. The essence is in the subtlety that you so
greatly prize. Show us a skinfest, and you'll turn off most viewers.
Show us a stolen kiss, a squeeze of the hand before the agents face an
adversary, show us great worry when one partner is in
danger/kidnapped/injured, show us handholding when one partner is in the
hospital, show us the two together, sleeping, when the phone rings
(assuming the sexual issue is breached), show us longing looks, show us
vows of support and faith, stop having Mulder ditch Scully at every other
turn, show us just a teensie bit more emotion rather than having them
break down behind closed doors.
All the above could very easily be incorporated, and seems to be done more
and more so in parts of third season, without ruining the main plot in any
way. I don't want any "Agent Mulder, we need your help!" "Not now, I'm
busy.. <starts necking with Scully in the car>" It's illogical,
unrealistic, and quite damaging to the plotline.
Make no mistake about it... I think the characters of Mulder and Scully as
they are written belong together, and the logical conclusion is that
someday they will have sex/get married/whatever... but it doesn't mean
that until such a time they have to repress all emotions and feelings for
each other. It's counterproductive, gives people ulcers, and doesn't
work, because let's face it... even Pusher saw right through their little
game. :)
Nancy
******
FoLC, X-Phile Relationshipper and DueSer
Mary Lynn
My server is acting up again, i can't seem to find my response to this response,
so i am re-responding again (*whew*!):
Eric Johns wrote:
>
> In article <31ABB0...@mail.multiverse.com>, tha...@mail.multiverse.com
> says...
> >
> >...and that's all i have to say about that.
> >
> Okay, I gotta say that I don't get this one...you claim to love the UST,
yes, i *do* love the UST - and what would RUIN UST? M&S getting "together",
that's what. it would rip the "UN" right out of unresolved and i would be left with
nothing but shiny happy people that would make me sick when i watched them.
and just because i love the UST does not mean i am a "closet 'shipper", as i have
been accused of being. 5 sides to every coin, right?
> and here is this wonderful episode just LOADED with it, and you HATED the
> ep? That's how I am reading what you are saying here...
you *are* reading it wrong. i *did not* hate the ep - i rather liked it... until
the 'shippers got ahold of it and re-interpreted it in all sorts of ways that made
me SICK. on that level, in the sense that the Pusher (the character himself, not
the ep) made them oh-so-close, he reminded me of a shipper with too much
influence over the series. and that's how *i* am reading it.....
> I have to wonder
> what exactly DO you consider an episode that could/would fulfill your
> expectations as far as a balance between UST and plot goes...it doesn't get
> any better than PUSHER, IMVHO...
>
> Kristel
well, it was not Pusher, i can tell you that. i prefer the kind of UST displayed in
earlier ep's like Fire, Genderbender or Jersey Devil. ooh, and the ones with the
rift in full blown mode. *very* entertaining.
this part is for everyone else who may be confused by where i am standing on
this. as i have stated in earlier posts, i am *not* a 'shipper, it would ruin the
show. i am not an "anti-", as M&S already have a relationship. i belong neither
to the DDEB or the GATB. i do not worship Scully as a saint, but i do think that a
statue could be erected in her honor.... i started the USTB (for Unresolved
Sexual Tension Brigade) as a *lark*, a joke, and to have something to refer to
make a sig for the ends of my posts. it has gotten a bit out of hand.... but my
whole point was to state that it is the UST of their relationship that i enjoy. and
as i have also already stated: give in to it, eliminate it, or depend on it for story
lines, and i will probably stop watching the X-Files... because: i never watched it
for anything but the X-Files themselves in the first place; great acting,
attractive stars, *totally cool* bit parts, faboo subtle effects and interesting
stories kept me tuned in. and the UST? well... that's a great little side show.
albeit a freakish side show.... i hope it doesn't go away, either through use of the
rift or whatever else.... but if it becomes the focal point? god forbid.
there. hope i cleared it up.
-mar, USTB
****************************************
"Personally, I like my sexual tension resolved."
"Yea... but if you resolve it, it's no longer tense is it?!?"
****************************************
Eric Johns
>
>> Okay, I gotta say that I don't get this one...you claim to love the UST,
>
> yes, i *do* love the UST - and what would RUIN UST? M&S getting
"together",
>that's what. it would rip the "UN" right out of unresolved and i would be
left with
>nothing but shiny happy people that would make me sick when i watched
them.
>and just because i love the UST does not mean i am a "closet 'shipper", as
i have
>been accused of being. 5 sides to every coin, right?
>
romantically does not HAVE to make them shiny happy people...we don't want
that either! We have said this OVER AND OVER and everybody is still
accusing us of wanting that very thing! If you are going to damn us, at
least damn us for what we are actually saying. Don't put words in our
mouths and then condemn US for speaking them...
Okay, you didn't like the PUSHER analogy...let's go to something a little
more distant...let's try ICE. Now, if you do enjoy the UST, or let's just,
for the moment, leave it at ST, as the resolution status is irrelevent for
this argument...
The scene in the closet where Mulder and Scully examine each other's
necks...let's say that this scene happens with the established knowledge
that they are lovers. They touch each other, the sexual tension fairly
crackled in the air, all of us who recognize that tension get tingles down
our spines...how would that scene be any less electrifying if it had
happened in the context that they were not just partners, but lovers...that
they had been forced to pull guns on one another now knowing if one or the
other is infected by the worms? How would it be any less exciting, the
EXACT same scene, with that knowledge established? THAT is what we are
asking for, that electricity, in slightly larger quantities than we already
get, coupled with the knowledge that they are together romantically. We
want to know that when a situation comes that forces them to argue or to
question one another, the they have a personal stake in this as well as a
professional, that there is a deeper underlying issue that will have to
eventually be addressed, even if we don't happen to see it addressed in the
course of the show.
HOW would this change, or, as people insist on saying, ruin the show?
>whole point was to state that it is the UST of their relationship that i
enjoy. and
>as i have also already stated: give in to it, eliminate it, or depend on
it for story
>lines, and i will probably stop watching the X-Files... because: i never
watched it
>for anything but the X-Files themselves in the first place; great acting,
>attractive stars, *totally cool* bit parts, faboo subtle effects and
interesting
>stories kept me tuned in. and the UST? well... that's a great little side
show.
>albeit a freakish side show.... i hope it doesn't go away, either through
use of the
>rift or whatever else.... but if it becomes the focal point? god forbid.
> there. hope i cleared it up.
>
Okay...I have just presented you with a scenario that proves that the show
can continue WITH Mulder and Scully in love and in a romantic relationship
without falling into any of the traps that you have mentioned...they do not
become angsty, the tension is there, but not the focus, there is still
plenty of action, the plot is intact...WHY would such a situation not work?
It COULD work, WOULD work, if given a chance, in the context that we
'shippers have described. The relationship would not become the focus of
the show or the story lines...and THAT is what we want...Now, having
established this, I want to know WHY this would be a bad thing for you.
Kristel
Mary Lynn
Eric Johns wrote:
> Okay...I have just presented you with a scenario that proves that the show
> can continue WITH Mulder and Scully in love and in a romantic relationship
> without falling into any of the traps that you have mentioned...they do not
> become angsty, the tension is there, but not the focus, there is still
> plenty of action, the plot is intact...WHY would such a situation not work?
uh, sorry, but your little scenario proved NOTHING to me. you 'shippers keep
saying this crap over and over again - "just a little confirmation" or "a tiny
little indication that they are in love" or "perhaps seeing them receive a call to
arms whilst sleeping in the same bed" - *gak*... THEN WHY DO IT AT ALL?????
god, Parateam, save me here! no matter what anyone says, if the relationship
were to suddenly become romantic "in-love" stuff, the focal point would
automatically *become* the M&S relationship, and excuse me, but CC
*himself* has already stated this! why bother calling it the X-Files after
that?!?! why not just call it the "SEX-Files".... sure. fine. WHATEVER. call it
anything - just as long as you call it "Something That Mary Lynn Will No Longer
Watch" - and i know quite a few will be joining me in that department.
OKAY, ONE LAST TIME FOR ANYONE TOO SLOW TO HAVE GOTTEN IT BY NOW
(AND I WILL SURELY USE SOME REAL SMALL WORDS):
1. i do not want M&S to "get together".
2. i like the UST, a lot. it is neat. it is sick. and i like the "UN" part *most
especially*. have i made that clear? the "UN" part. the "UN" part. the "UN" part.
the "UN" part. the "UN" part. the "UN" part. the "UN" part.
3. as i have said before to others, the UST is *not* the only, and certainly not
the first or the foremost reason i continue to watch the X-Files.
4. and lastly, as i have also said before to others, i dwell in the comfort of
knowing that the show's creator already feels the *same way* about an M/S
'romance' and the attraction to a *small* level of UST, and attention to the
things that has already made the show a hit, things that have very little to do
with UST or romance or M/S sexual situations.
-mar, no siggie - as it is obviously not being read anyway.
a Morrison
Mary Lynn <tha...@mail.multiverse.com> wrote:
>Eric Johns wrote:
>> Okay...I have just presented you with a scenario that proves that the show
>> can continue WITH Mulder and Scully in love and in a romantic relationship
>> without falling into any of the traps that you have mentioned.<snip.>
>>..why would such a situation not work?
> you 'shippers keep saying this crap over and over again - "just a little confirmation" or "a tiny
>little indication that they are in love" or "perhaps seeing them receive a call to
>arms whilst sleeping in the same bed" - *gak*...
I have to put my .02 in. I can resist no longer.
What is it that people can't believe that two professionals, of
opposite gender, can work together without falling in love. It happens
in movies (Jurassic Park, Twister) and now people want to wreck the
X-Files! Why don't you 'shippers pretend that off-screen Scully and
Mulder kisses, thought hmm no sparks but great friendship and go from
there?
Scully and Mulder are a great *professional* team. 'Shippers provide
terrific fodder for people who think that single women and men can't
work together because they would be too distracted by the sex thing.
I think the X-files could still be mythic without them falling in
love. I could be unclear about the mythic thing though because I have
just been following posts.
Cass and her companions Rufus the Cairn and Teak the Toller
Kristel S. Oxley-Johns
In article <31B13B...@mail.multiverse.com>, Mary says...
> uh, sorry, but your little scenario proved NOTHING to me. you 'shippers keep
>saying this crap over and over again - "just a little confirmation" or "a tiny
>little indication that they are in love" or "perhaps seeing them receive a call to
>arms whilst sleeping in the same bed" - *gak*... THEN WHY DO IT AT ALL?????
Um, because we believe that these two are in love and want to see them find
completion in each other in a world in which they have no one else?
>god, Parateam, save me here! no matter what anyone says, if the relationship
>were to suddenly become romantic "in-love" stuff, the focal point would
>automatically *become* the M&S relationship, and excuse me, but CC
>*himself* has already stated this!
What we are trying to prove here is that the romance becoming the focal point
of the show DOES NOT have to be the case, if the romnce is handled correctly.
A television show does not write itself, and if the writers do not want to
make it about the romance, they have that control...If CC insists that there
is no other way a relationship can be written, he and everyone else who
believes him is giving him FAR TOO LITTLE CREDIT! Come on, this show
is about the impossible being possible...they buck the odds and the
standards and the predictibility that usually plague television shows on
a weekly basis, but suddenly they feel that to present a romance, they can
only do it one way? Puh-lease...that is the weakest arguement of all.
CC and Co have the greatest creative talent in the television industry, they
could a way to prevent that from happening...
>why bother calling it the X-Files after
>that?!?! why not just call it the "SEX-Files".... sure. fine. WHATEVER.
You brought up sex, not me...I have told you before that is NOT what I want
to see, nor is it what anyone else wants to see, so why don't we leave that
argument alone now...
>1. i do not want M&S to "get together".
>
I understand your stand on the matter...what I want to know is why, if the
romance is presented in such a way that it does not take over the show,
that it does not have plots revolving around it, and it does not ruin
the atmosphere od the show, would this all of a sudden make this show
you love something you couldn't stand?
>2. i like the UST, a lot. it is neat. it is sick. and i like the "UN" part *most
>especially*. have i made that clear? the "UN" part. the "UN" part. the "UN" part.
>the "UN" part. the "UN" part. the "UN" part. the "UN" part.
>
Again, I understand hat quite clearly...what I am asking is why? If all
the excitement and chemistry between the characters is still there, what
does the resolution status matter?
>3. as i have said before to others, the UST is *not* the only, and certainly not
>the first or the foremost reason i continue to watch the X-Files.
>
Well, I don't watch it for the relationship either, but I do admit that the
chemistry between the characters is one of the things that first caught my
eye. I don't remember which episode it was, but the first time I was
flipping through channels and the X-Files caught my eye, I was drawn in
by the situations being presented, but at the same time, I saw the characters
interact and thought, "These two are in love." Right off the bat, it was
that apparent to me. And I have a mailing list full of people who will
say the same thing. One person even said once that a friend sat down to
watch the show with her and after thirty seconds said "I didn't know these
two were a couple!" or something like that...
>4. and lastly, as i have also said before to others, i dwell in the comfort of
>knowing that the show's creator already feels the *same way* about an M/S
>'romance' and the attraction to a *small* level of UST, and attention to the
>things that has already made the show a hit, things that have very little to do
>with UST or romance or M/S sexual situations.
What we have been trying to illustrate is that the romance could happen
without taking over the show, without being the focus of the plots, without
doing away with the nafarious government conspiracies or the monster of the
week. And I ask you, again, since you have not yet answered me on this
point, if that were the case, why would it be a bad thing?
Kristel
Stef Davies
>>
What is it that people can't believe that two professionals, of
opposite gender, can work together without falling in love.<<
If only people would take the trouble to read the posts, and follow the
discussion before making sweeping generalisations about a position other
than their own.
These quotations are *exactly* why we have been having this discussion,
and for the $&%!! time, I'll say.....no-one is saying that two people
can't work together without falling in love. I CHALLENGE you to find ANY
post where we have said that 'two people who work together will always
fall in love.'
But the way the relationship bewteen *these* two CHARACTERS has been
presented is not platonic, in my opinion. It does however, piss me off
mightily when it is stated that because I hold that view I am incapable
of appreciating that platonic relationships exist. How many more times
do we have to say this??
>>Scully and Mulder are a great *professional* team. 'Shippers provide
terrific fodder for people who think that single women and men can't
work together because they would be too distracted by the sex thing. <<
Call me naive if you must, but I didn't realise that 'the sex thing'
only applied to single people! The most torrid affairs that I have ever
known in the workplace have taken place bewteen those who were married.
'The sex thing' applies to human beings no matter what their sexual
orientation or marital status.....
Please, those of you who hold a different view about their relationship
- that's fine, surely....variety makes for an interesting word, but
please don't proffer ludicrous arguments and pretend they are ours.
Stef
!^NavFont02F05540004HL55524A
Serotonin Pete
Pusher wasn't a 'shipper. He merely was aware of Mulder and Scully's
emotional insecurities and was messing with their heads.
<<< Serotonin Pete >>>
Kristel S. Oxley-Johns
In article <4os9gm$8...@kryten.awinc.com>, cnfm...@awinc.com says...
>I have to put my .02 in. I can resist no longer.
>
>What is it that people can't believe that two professionals, of
>opposite gender, can work together without falling in love. It happens
>in movies (Jurassic Park, Twister) and now people want to wreck the
>X-Files! Why don't you 'shippers pretend that off-screen Scully and
>Mulder kisses, thought hmm no sparks but great friendship and go from
>there?
>
It is obvious you haven't been following this discussion TOO closely or
you would know that we have already been over this.
We do not feel that all male/female profession associations must
evolve into romance, but we do feel that THESE two characters have those
things which would consitute a great love affair. I do not believe that
every such relationship must include romance, but I do see romantic
undertones in this relationship, and as these two have SO much chemistry
and are SO alone in the world, it seems right to me that they should
turn to one another. Is that the case in all situations? No. But I
do feel that it is the case here. And if you had been paying any
attention to what we have been saying here, you would see that we
have illustrated quite clearly that including a romantic relationship
between the two characters does NOT have to "wreck" the show.
>Scully and Mulder are a great *professional* team. 'Shippers provide
>terrific fodder for people who think that single women and men can't
>work together because they would be too distracted by the sex thing.
>
Where did you see us say that? You are accusing us of saying things
that we have never said. If you are going to participate in this
discussion, at least stick with the issues that are truly being dealt
with.
>I think the X-files could still be mythic without them falling in
>love. I could be unclear about the mythic thing though because I have
>just been following posts.
We are not saying that it couldn't, but we are saying that Mulder and
Scully have all the markings of an epic love affair, and we would
like to see them together.
Kristel
J. H. Madigan
On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Serotonin Pete wrote:
> Pusher wasn't a 'shipper. He merely was aware of Mulder and Scully's
> emotional insecurities and was messing with their heads.
Yep, and if that insecurity doesn't exist then the episode basically
disappears. So much for "proof" of an M&S romance not changing
the show.
The same could be said for Wetwired. I know someone out there has other
examples.
JM
J. H. Madigan
On 1 Jun 1996, Eric Johns wrote:
> The scene in the closet where Mulder and Scully examine each other's
> necks...let's say that this scene happens with the established knowledge
> that they are lovers. They touch each other, the sexual tension fairly
> crackled in the air, all of us who recognize that tension get tingles down
> our spines...how would that scene be any less electrifying if it had
> happened in the context that they were not just partners, but lovers...that
> they had been forced to pull guns on one another now knowing if one or the
> other is infected by the worms? How would it be any less exciting, the
> EXACT same scene, with that knowledge established? THAT is what we are
> asking for, that electricity, in slightly larger quantities than we already
> get, coupled with the knowledge that they are together romantically. We
> want to know that when a situation comes that forces them to argue or to
> question one another, the they have a personal stake in this as well as a
> professional, that there is a deeper underlying issue that will have to
> eventually be addressed, even if we don't happen to see it addressed in the
> course of the show.
>
> HOW would this change, or, as people insist on saying, ruin the show?
The problem with this example IMO is that you are taking a single scene
from a single episode out of context. I don't beleive "the EXACT same
scene" could be developed in the context of an M&S romance. If it is
true that the M&S relationship (the one which currently exists) is
central to the show - and you will certainly get no argument from me that
it is ONE of the central elements of the X-Files - then how can changing
their relationship not alter the show? _Any_ episode would have to be
handled differently in its entirety if such a large change were to be
made in M&S's relationship, and I certainly think the change would be
significant. I remain completely unconvinced that M&S are "in love" or
"made for each other". In fact, based on the traits of the characters
and of the Files, I'd say they are quite ill-suited to one another, and I
would find a romance quite lacking in credebility.
> Okay...I have just presented you with a scenario that proves that the show
> can continue WITH Mulder and Scully in love and in a romantic relationship
> without falling into any of the traps that you have mentioned...they do not
> become angsty, the tension is there, but not the focus, there is still
> plenty of action, the plot is intact...WHY would such a situation not work?
How can you say "the plot is intact" without examining the entire episode?
> It COULD work, WOULD work, if given a chance, in the context that we
> 'shippers have described. The relationship would not become the focus of
> the show or the story lines...and THAT is what we want...Now, having
> established this, I want to know WHY this would be a bad thing for you.
You haven't established anything IMO.
JM
Nancy Lemieux
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.91.96060...@axe.humboldt.edu>,
"J. H. Madigan" <jh...@axe.humboldt.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Serotonin Pete wrote:
>
> > Pusher wasn't a 'shipper. He merely was aware of Mulder and Scully's
> > emotional insecurities and was messing with their heads.
>
> Yep, and if that insecurity doesn't exist then the episode basically
> disappears. So much for "proof" of an M&S romance not changing
> the show.
Ah, but you miss the point entirely. This is not 'proof' that a romance
would change the show... this is exploiting the relationship that already
exists within the show. Many other episodes have included
'relationshippy' moments, yet you don't label them as changing the show.
I'm thinking Firewalker, where Mulder is willing to take a bullet to go
back and check on Scully. This is just as intense, and I would rate it as
close to a relationship as Pusher, yet no one cries wolf on that one.
In case I haven't made myself clear, Pusher was specifically written to
show the closeness of Mulder and Scully. Same goes for Wetwired.
Do I, as an avid relationshipper, want all episodes to be like this?
Goodness, no!
Am I glad they showed an episode like Pusher?
Yes!!!!! I think whoever came up with this idea is a god and should be
revered as such! <g>
What most people seem unable to grasp about our point of view is the fact
that we don't want all the episodes to be like Pusher. We like the
monster of the week, the mythology, and the 'just plain wierd or comical'
episodes as much as the next person. The plots don't have to change.
What we want to see is a little more acknowledgement of the relationship
(hence our name) developing between these two main characters. In Avatar,
when Scully got knocked out in the batroom (that happens a lot to her,
doesn't it? <g>), Mulder barely glances her way to ask her if she's
alright. Compare that to Firewalker, or Our Town, where he takes the time
to make sure she's okay, even touches her cheek tenderly or pushes the
hair out of her eyes, and you'll come to understand how we despise the
fact that:
a) Their relationship is not portrayed evenly
b) This hasn't created a public outcry, yet is the exact treatment we wish for.
What has become really annoying is the fact that many people who don't
agree with the relationshipper point of view think that all we want to see
is sex, and Mulder and Scully giving each other soft looks and ignoring
criminals. Not only is this greatly exaggerated, but it makes me wonder
if those who reply to posts take the time to read what we are saying,
because the same arguments cycle back, despite our constantly defining our
position. (then again, since ever week there's requests for GIFs of naked
DD or GA, that shouldn't surprise me)
Okay, so even though I've already read about 5 posts saying this today,
I'll say it again, with the hopes that the sixth time's the charm.
-We are perfectly aware that men and women can work together without
having any feelings for each other.
-We do state, however, that many successful relationships have started in
situations where men and women work together.
-We also state that given the way Mulder and Scully are portrayed, and the
way they have interacted in the past and up to now, very strongly hints
that their partnership is far from platonic, and that they are both
harbouring deep feelings for each other.
-We believe that with the talent that has been shown so far by the writers
for the X-Files, that a low-key romance could easily be included in the
show without 'ruining it'. Since I'm at work, I don't presently have
proof for this, but there is opinion even from the media that this could
be successfully done (i.e. X-Files *isn't* Moonlighting or Northern
Exposure, or Cheers). I will be posting this article tonight. To assume
that adding a hint of romance would ruin the show is to insult the
intelligence of all those involved with the X-Files.
-To show Mulder and Scully hopping in the sack would greatly cheapen the
show. The success of the X-Files has been their low-key approach...
implying rather than showing graphically. Keeping in this spirit, we ask
that any romance be shown through small things... handholding, more
contact (hugging, leaning against each other on a stakeout), maybe even an
occasional kiss, having Scully walk out of the shower in the same room,
while Mulder, still in bed, answers the phone...
Notice how none of these are skinfests, and in no way reflect such shows
as Melrose Place (which others accuse us of wanting, even though I've
never seen this show in my life, and have no desire to do so).
Lastly, I must say that while some suggest that Mulder and Scully could
'get together' at or near the end of the series, I would be particularily
repulsed by this, not only for its cheap ploy at trying to satisfy, but
also for its lack of finesse and subtlety that I have come to love and
accept as an X-Files standard.
This post is already long, and I don't know how many people will have had
the patience to read this far, so I'll stop now. :)
Nancy
Nancy Lemieux
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.91.96060...@axe.humboldt.edu>,
"J. H. Madigan" <jh...@axe.humboldt.edu> wrote:
> On 1 Jun 1996, Eric Johns wrote:
<snip>
> > HOW would this change, or, as people insist on saying, ruin the show?
>
> The problem with this example IMO is that you are taking a single scene
> from a single episode out of context. I don't beleive "the EXACT same
> scene" could be developed in the context of an M&S romance. If it is
> true that the M&S relationship (the one which currently exists) is
> central to the show - and you will certainly get no argument from me that
> it is ONE of the central elements of the X-Files - then how can changing
> their relationship not alter the show? _Any_ episode would have to be
> handled differently in its entirety if such a large change were to be
> made in M&S's relationship, and I certainly think the change would be
What do you mean? They would still be investigating, they would still be
interviewing victims and interrogating criminals, they would still get
stonewalled, they would still be searching for the truth, they would still
have lost family members, they would still have differences of opinion and
arguments over procedure, they would still get shot at, they would still
find monsters of the week, they would still call each other up on their
cellular phones... do you get my point? You haven't explained how this
would have to be modified, and I would like specific examples.
> significant. I remain completely unconvinced that M&S are "in love" or
> "made for each other". In fact, based on the traits of the characters
> and of the Files, I'd say they are quite ill-suited to one another, and I
> would find a romance quite lacking in credebility.
The fact that you find their characters unsuitable for romance is
subjective, and therefore I'm afraid I won't try and convince you
otherwise, because I just don't have the energy to go into a long,
drawn-out debate over personalities and compatibility. Besides, chances
are you don't want to think otherwise, so I won't impose that on you.
Suffice it to say that I think they are well matched.
> > Okay...I have just presented you with a scenario that proves that the show
> > can continue WITH Mulder and Scully in love and in a romantic relationship
> > without falling into any of the traps that you have mentioned...they do not
> > become angsty, the tension is there, but not the focus, there is still
> > plenty of action, the plot is intact...WHY would such a situation not work?
>
> How can you say "the plot is intact" without examining the entire episode?
Okaaayyyy... Then please state examples where the rest of the episode
would be affected because I myself find no problem with what was written
above.
>
> > It COULD work, WOULD work, if given a chance, in the context that we
> > 'shippers have described. The relationship would not become the focus of
> > the show or the story lines...and THAT is what we want...Now, having
> > established this, I want to know WHY this would be a bad thing for you.
>
> You haven't established anything IMO.
And you haven't refuted anything. Unless you give a more precise outline
of the places/reasons why this wouldn't work, I'm afraid you won't
convince anybody of your point of view.
Kristel has worked with examples of episodes that have aired, and has
given what I find to be convincing arguments as to why a romance could be
worked into this scenario, which is a nice compromise, since the case
still gets solved, and those who want romance see it. You, on the other
hand, have not provided examples of how this would be unacceptable. At
this time, the burden of proof rests on you.
I look foreward to seeing your examples.
Nancy
Stef Davies
>> you 'shippers keep
saying this crap over and over again <<
What a shame that you have to resort to foul language...obviously your
position is so weak that you can't express yourself any other way.
I try to respect the position of people who hold views other than my own
except when they become personally insulting. Clearly you are unable to
do so.
Stef Davies
--
Stef Davies 10057...@compuserve.com
06/04/96 17:36
---------
Using: OUI 1.5 Beta 2 from http://www.dvorak.com
Parateam
Nancy bitterly writes:
<<Kristel has worked with examples of episodes that have aired, and has
given what I find to be convincing arguments as to why a romance could be
worked into this scenario, which is a nice compromise, since the case
still gets solved, and those who want romance see it.>>
I'd be interested in seeing the examples of the "changed" episodes.
Perhaps this was something that was discussed and posted quite a while
ago, so don't get back on that bitter horse and flame me for being a
doofus. OBVIOUSLY, those of us who are attempting to discuss these points
haven't seen these examples. We're not blockheads, you know.
If the postings by the relationshippers are going to continue to be
patronizing and mollifying SIMPLY because SOME of us haven't been here for
the whole ride and would just like to know where you stand and why you
stand there, then perhaps we should stop this right now. Nancy, really,
if you don't want to discuss it, PLEASE leave it to those of us who do.
You guys are all sounding a bit too snappish for a simple discussion.
Nancy Lemieux
Since I was born in an asbestos mining town, I'm naturally flame
resistant, so this didn't bother me in the least. However, it did amuse
me, and I feel compelled to reply.
In article <4p36qk$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, para...@aol.com (Parateam)
wrote:
> Nancy bitterly writes:
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!
> <<Kristel has worked with examples of episodes that have aired, and has
> given what I find to be convincing arguments as to why a romance could be
> worked into this scenario, which is a nice compromise, since the case
> still gets solved, and those who want romance see it.>>
I'm still trying to find a single bitter note in the above paragraph....
>
> I'd be interested in seeing the examples of the "changed" episodes.
See, the problem I have with that statement is the fact that Kristel did
give examples of changed episodes in the original post which you responded
to. You then went on to say that this would change other parts of the
episode, without mentioning which segments you thought would be
affected... I'm still waiting to read about those specific unworkable
scenes...
> Perhaps this was something that was discussed and posted quite a while
> ago, so don't get back on that bitter horse and flame me for being a
> doofus. OBVIOUSLY, those of us who are attempting to discuss these points
> haven't seen these examples. We're not blockheads, you know.
But there was an example in the very post you replied to originally, the
one which I challenged you to come up with examples.
> If the postings by the relationshippers are going to continue to be
> patronizing and mollifying SIMPLY because SOME of us haven't been here for
I just can't understand that statement. Does that mean that if a person
doesn't answer by flaming, then you're being patronizing and mollifying,
because believe me, some of the posts here (and I'm not referring to
yours) are quite offensive or blatantly flammatory. I'd consider your
post here as the beginnings of a personal attack, but I'd rather not get
into a flame war, so I'll let it pass. Please, give me examples of how
I've been patronizing. I'd hate to come off as something I'm not
generally. I have tried to convincingly put forth my point of view,
without resorting to such low tactics as personal attacks or flaming.
This is my usual tone. If it is unacceptable for you, then I apologize,
but I won't change it (unless you come up with proof that I was
condescending).
> the whole ride and would just like to know where you stand and why you
> stand there, then perhaps we should stop this right now. Nancy, really,
> if you don't want to discuss it, PLEASE leave it to those of us who do.
> You guys are all sounding a bit too snappish for a simple discussion.
Snappish, no. Defending our position, and putting forth our low opinion
of flames, yes.
Nancy
Ken Simons
Oh God, here I am intervening in this wretched debate ...
I am doing this solely in order to address the scene in "Ice"
that's been discussed, because I think it's a great scene and I
don't like to see it read out of context. Remember, this is a
very early episode. The scene is about a developing relationship
of trust between two people who don't know each other
particularly well and have no strong reasons to trust each other.
Trust being the main theme of the show.
It seems to me there are three sources of tension:
1) They are required to turn their backs on each other, which
under the circumstances requires a huge leap of faith
2) they are violating the boundaries of socially permitted touch
between two people at their level of acquaintance
3) the sexual tension between them (which is not only unresolved
but unacknowledged) makes them uncomfortable about touching each
other.
If they were lovers, _none_ of these sources of tension would
exist.
Also -- to keep things in context -- if such a scene occurred
now, the first two reasons wouldn't really apply. It would be a
much weaker scene. It belongs where it is, and as it is.
That's _all_ I'm going to say about it.
maggie h
Parateam
Nancy breezily writes:
<<Since I was born in an asbestos mining town, I'm naturally flame
resistant, so this didn't bother me in the least. However, it did amuse
me, and I feel compelled to reply.>>
Hey, LOL backatcha!! Um, where *is* that town, anyhow?
<<See, the problem I have with that statement is the fact that Kristel did
give examples of changed episodes in the original post which you responded
to. You then went on to say that this would change other parts of the
episode, without mentioning which segments you thought would be
affected... I'm still waiting to read about those specific unworkable
scenes...>>
Actually, Nancy, we're tag-teaming you here. That wasn't me. However, if
you're referring to the changed episode being Ice, and Ice alone, I'm not
quite getting there. Are you saying that if they had acknowledged any
attraction during the examination scene, that nothing else in the episode
would have changed? I'm just wondering if the burden of proof here is on
us or on you, that's all. It seems to me (TO ME!! TO NOBODY ELSE!! I'M
SPEAKING FOR ME!!) that the changed episodes (I'm sorry, but I haven't
seen any examples of this) are simply proving your point to others who
also believe that they should have a romance and already have a sexual
attraction.
<<But there was an example in the very post you replied to originally, the
one which I challenged you to come up with examples.>>
Again, tweren't me.
<<Please, give me examples of how I've been patronizing. I'd hate to
come off as something I'm not generally. I have tried to convincingly put
forth my point of view,
without resorting to such low tactics as personal attacks or flaming.>>
Well, it's the attitude of "Okay, even though we've discussed this
THOUSANDS of times before, I SUPPOSE we'll deign to mention it yet again."
I get that attitude from a lot of you who have been around the boards for
awhile and my point is that if you really feel that the subject is growing
tiresome, don't get involved again. To be sniped at (and that's how it
comes across) because we haven't seen posts from months ago seems quite
unfair. You seem to be coming to this discussion with baggage (probably
from nasty, inflammatory discussions of the past) and you seem unwilling
to discard that and treat us like relatively sane people who just want to
discuss this.
That's all. I, also, come from Flame-Retardent Central!!
Mary Lynn
Stef Davies wrote:
>
> >> you 'shippers keep
> saying this crap over and over again <<
>
> What a shame that you have to resort to foul language...obviously your
> position is so weak that you can't express yourself any other way.
oh yea, right.... crap is "foul" language... like when Mulder HIMSELF said it near
the end of the War of the Coprophages. since you are so taken aback by that
word, i'll assume that you are completely uninterested in seeing saint Scully
kiss him on the mouth now, right....?
i express myself just dandy, thank you! i think it is "crap", i call it "crap"! i
usually call "crap" as i see it.
> I try to respect the position of people who hold views other than my own
> except when they become personally insulting. Clearly you are unable to
> do so.
>
> Stef Davies
the only thing i respect when it comes to internet arguments is the Freedom of
Speech Act. i can express myself any way i see fit. and, HELLO, so can you. if
my choice of specific words are not delicate enough for you, that's tough. how do
i feel about the words *you* chose to express yourself? since you have chosen
to critique mine, i'll do the same for you: i don't find them *animated* enough.
what a shame that you have to resort to boring language.
but thanks to the miricle of F. of S., you *too* are free to express yourself
any way *you* see fit. so, Please, Respond.
-mar, USTB
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"There are these "relationshipers" who kind of dominate
the online chats. I'm a little dismayed because I don't want
to do a show about fuzzy warm Mulder and Scully. Never."
- Chris Carter interview
Rolling Stone, May 16, 1996; page 42
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mary Lynn
Nancy Lemieux wrote:
> And you haven't refuted anything. Unless you give a more precise outline
> of the places/reasons why this wouldn't work, I'm afraid you won't
> convince anybody of your point of view.
*huh*??? he has convinced me.
> Kristel has worked with examples of episodes that have aired, and has
> given what I find to be convincing arguments as to why a romance could be
> worked into this scenario, which is a nice compromise, since the case
> still gets solved, and those who want romance see it.
wrong. a "comprimise" would be for the romance dreamers to go on digging the UST and
pretending that is is already underway as a romance.... that way the rest of us can (yawn, i'll
say it again...) continue to enjoy what we already like about the X-Files, which is what we
*already* *have*. however, if romance becomes part of the plot, only the 'shippers will be
much happier, and what we like will be good and gone.
> You, on the other
> hand, have not provided examples of how this would be unacceptable. At
> this time, the burden of proof rests on you.
YOU WANT AN EXAMPLE? well, go watch a great little show called The X-Files. WITHOUT
ANY MODIFICATIONS.
there's your example.
Mary Lynn
Kristel S. Oxley-Johns wrote:
> Um, because we believe that these two are in love and want to see them find
> completion in each other in a world in which they have no one else?
for lack of a nicer way of putting it, and i don't want to upset Stef so again, i
find that sappy. *you* believe that they are "in love" and *you* want them to
complete each other. so the show should change.... just because *you* want it?
NOT. :-p
> What we are trying to prove here is that the romance becoming the focal point
> of the show DOES NOT have to be the case
(snip! server can't handle the large quoted text!)
> they could a way to prevent that from happening...
this show is about The X-Files. not about Mulder and Scully magically
completeing each other. what
"plagues" television is true love dramas. i don't wanna watch that......
> >why bother calling it the X-Files after
> >that?!?! why not just call it the "SEX-Files".... sure. fine. WHATEVER.
>
> You brought up sex, not me...I have told you before that is NOT what I want
> to see, nor is it what anyone else wants to see, so why don't we leave that
> argument alone now...
oh, yes, in understand your argument now. you are right. they are "in love".
and they will stay so
very chaste. they adore one another. and if they *ever* reveal that to each
other, they *will NOT*
have sex. they will remain strong and pure, because.... just admitting it to each
other,
*confirming* that it exists, will be enough for them......... Sure. Fine.
WHATEVER.
> >1. i do not want M&S to "get together".
> I understand your stand on the matter...what I want to know is why,
(snip!)
> would this all of a sudden make this show
> you love something you couldn't stand?
as i have already stated, i like the UST, but i do not watch the show for it. if
they suddenly become
an item, it *will* be a different show.
and, HELLO: because i do not want M&S to get together, it will be a show that i
will no longer like. how many times do i have to explain that correlation............
> >2. i like the UST, a lot. it is neat. it is sick. and i like the "UN" part *most
> >especially*. have i made that clear? the "UN" part. the "UN" part. the "UN" part.
> >the "UN" part. the "UN" part. the "UN" part. the "UN" part.
> Again, I understand hat quite clearly...what I am asking is why? If all
> the excitement and chemistry between the characters is still there, what
> does the resolution status matter?
gods above.... why the "UN" part? WHY THE HELL NOT??? i like it. as i have
said before, it is a
sick little side show. HERE------>> Resolve it, and it is gone. 'nuff said.
> I saw the characters
> interact and thought, "These two are in love." Right off the bat, it was
> that apparent to me.
and right off the bat, it was apparent to me that a unique, platonic, working
relationship between
two people of the opposite sex was being presented. it was new. it was different.
it still *IS*.
> What we have been trying to illustrate is that the romance could happen
> without taking over the show, without being the focus of the plots, without
> doing away with the nafarious government conspiracies or the monster of the
> week. And I ask you, again, since you have not yet answered me on this
> point, if that were the case, why would it be a bad thing?
>
> Kristel
well, i guess what we are trying to illustrate is that the romance is simply not
wanted. and as i
have said in another post, *you* go ahead and pretend you have what you need.
*i'm* already
happy with what i see. that way, we *both* get what we want, yes?
Mary Lynn
Kristel S. Oxley-Johns wrote:
> We are not saying that it couldn't, but we are saying that Mulder and
> Scully have all the markings of an epic love affair,
if you want an epic love affair, go read Dr. Zhivago. or Gone With The Wind. or
Jane Eyre. or a Fabio novel.
oh, and keep in mind that nearly all "epic love affairs" do NOT work out, do NOT
have happy endings, and more often than not, one of the main characters
involved in the "epic love affair" ends up really, really dead. this is just a tv
show, it ain't no "epic".
> and we would
> like to see them together.
>
> Kristel
well, *we* don't. so there, nyaaaah.
bostongirl
On Jun 05, 1996 21:05:52 in article <Re: PUSHER was a 'Shipper!! *gak*!>,
'Mary Lynn <tha...@mail.multiverse.com>' wrote:
>> and we would
>> like to see them together.
>>
>> Kristel
>
>well, *we* don't. so there, nyaaaah.<
--
Jackie
Kristel S. Oxley-Johns
In article <4p59at$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, para...@aol.com says...
>
>Actually, Nancy, we're tag-teaming you here. That wasn't me. However, if
>you're referring to the changed episode being Ice, and Ice alone, I'm not
>quite getting there. Are you saying that if they had acknowledged any
>attraction during the examination scene, that nothing else in the episode
>would have changed? I'm just wondering if the burden of proof here is on
>us or on you, that's all. It seems to me (TO ME!! TO NOBODY ELSE!! I'M
>SPEAKING FOR ME!!) that the changed episodes (I'm sorry, but I haven't
>seen any examples of this) are simply proving your point to others who
>also believe that they should have a romance and already have a sexual
>attraction.
>
scene. I was saying what if the EXACT SAME SCENE were to happen with the
knowledge that they were lovers pre-established. Not a single word of that
scene, or action, would be changed. All the chemistry and electricity
would still be there, perhaps for slightly different reasons, but it would
still be there.
Let me attempt to clarify. First, there is this man, Scully's lover, who
is suddenly acting as though any of them might attack him at any
second. He has his gun drawn, he is shouting, afraid, and for the
general safety of everyone present, she is forced to pull a gun on him,
which she abhors doing. She pleads with him to cooperate, knowing it
is killing her inside to have to do this to the man she loves, but
forced by necessity to do it.
And in the face of the urgency of her pleas, the anguish in her voice
when she says "but you may not be who you are." he acquiesces. He allows
himself to be locked up with the fear filled knowledge that "In here, I
will be safe than you."
Scully is near-frantic to either prove that this man she loves is either
not infected, or to find a way to cure him (all this with the scenes
happening EXACTLY as we have seen them) and when it seems she has found
a way, she goes to him again. He is hurt and angry and feeling betrayed,
not sure who he can trust anymore. He loves her, but she pulled a gun on
him, for crying out loud, so how is he supposed to react to that. So
she draws upon the trust and love inherent between them to convince him
to allow her to examine him, and when she does so, we get a multitude
of emotions, from fear of what she might find touching his neck to relief
when she finds nothing, to pleasure at even this minor contact with her
lover, and then, when he reciprocates the exam, we see her fear when he
grabs her, and then the electricity when he touches her, touches a person
he has touched countless times before, but needs to reassure himself, and
her. All the pleasure and the passion that they feel for each other
comes out in these touches, lurking beneath the surface because they are,
above and beyond all else, professionals, and they are in danger. But
between them there is also the understanding that, if circumstances were
different...or perhaps when they get home...
Now, again, this is how I feel that scene could be interpreted, the EXACT,
word for word, action for action scene, if they were established beforehand
as lovers, or at least, as being in love. Like I said, this is to
support my argument that an established romance need not detract from the
excitement that we all feel when they touch or make subtle innuendo, those
elements which make the UST so appealing to us all. Now, it doesn't have
to be overt or overwhelming, but there is an entire wealth of meaning
which would be added into those moments like in ICE and PUSHER and episodes
yet to come, with such a knowledge established.
And again, THAT is what I want to see.
>Well, it's the attitude of "Okay, even though we've discussed this
>THOUSANDS of times before, I SUPPOSE we'll deign to mention it yet again."
> I get that attitude from a lot of you who have been around the boards for
>awhile and my point is that if you really feel that the subject is growing
>tiresome, don't get involved again. To be sniped at (and that's how it
>comes across) because we haven't seen posts from months ago seems quite
>unfair. You seem to be coming to this discussion with baggage (probably
>from nasty, inflammatory discussions of the past) and you seem unwilling
>to discard that and treat us like relatively sane people who just want to
>discuss this.
>
Okay, I must admit, I have been snippy lately. For a while, it seemed that
we were going around in circles, and then people started posting saying
we were wanting things that I stated quite clearly when this all began
that we didn't want, which in turn, made me impatient, because what are
they doing joining this debate when they don't understand half of what
has already been going on?
I'm better now. I have had a chance to back off a couple of days and get
some perspective. This newsgroup is not a terribly pleasant place to
be, esp with all the ridiculous GA bashing going on which I have to wade
through to get to this point. I was starting to get frustrated.
Kristel
JohnBear
Parateam wrote:
>
> Nancy bitterly writes:
There is not one *bitter* word in Nancy's post. I suggest that you examine
your own choice of phrasing if you wish to see *bitter*.
>
> <<Kristel has worked with examples of episodes that have aired, and has
> given what I find to be convincing arguments as to why a romance could be
> worked into this scenario, which is a nice compromise, since the case
> still gets solved, and those who want romance see it.>>
>
> I'd be interested in seeing the examples of the "changed" episodes.
> Perhaps this was something that was discussed and posted quite a while
> ago, so don't get back on that bitter horse and flame me for being a
> doofus. OBVIOUSLY, those of us who are attempting to discuss these points
> haven't seen these examples. We're not blockheads, you know.
While Kristel's post was indeed some weeks ago, a polite request to atx would
probably get them re-posted. (Kristel, if you read this and still have copies
of your old posts, would you please send them to Parateam, who OBVIOUSLY feels
left out of the discussion???)
> If the postings by the relationshippers are going to continue to be
> patronizing and mollifying SIMPLY because SOME of us haven't been here for
> the whole ride and would just like to know where you stand and why you
> stand there, then perhaps we should stop this right now. Nancy, really,
> if you don't want to discuss it, PLEASE leave it to those of us who do.
> You guys are all sounding a bit too snappish for a simple discussion.
My dear Parateam, We only get patronizing as a defense against people who feel
they have to lash out at us. However, considering the tone that the
discourse on this topic has seems to have taken, maybe a "cease fire" for
a week would be a good idea? Of course I'm going to speak my peace first. <eg>
As for your own feelings upon the subject, if you staunchly believe that the
show would be ruined by M&S pursuing a romantic relationship then that is your opinion.
Those of use who believe differently feel that by acknowleging the romantic feelings
between Mulder and Scully the show will be enhanced. The fights, looks, touches, and
even the inevitable hostage situations that they will get themselves into would take
on a deeper meaning. And btw, in case you haven't been checking the group for more than
the last few weeks, you should know that we *don't* want The X-Files to turn into
The XXX-Files; that's a subject for atxc.
That's all for now.
JohnBear
JohnBear
JohnBear
Sorry about the extra posts, but things got wacked on my end for a minute
there.
JohnBear
Nancy Lemieux
In article <31B62C...@mail.multiverse.com>,
tha...@mail.multiverse.com wrote:
: Kristel S. Oxley-Johns wrote:
: > Um, because we believe that these two are in love and want to see them find
: > completion in each other in a world in which they have no one else?
:
: for lack of a nicer way of putting it, and i don't want to upset Stef
so again, i
: find that sappy. *you* believe that they are "in love" and *you* want them to
: complete each other. so the show should change.... just because *you*
want it?
: NOT. :-p
And the show shouldn't change just because you don't want it to? That
argument can be used both ways...
: this show is about The X-Files. not about Mulder and Scully magically
: completeing each other. what
: "plagues" television is true love dramas. i don't wanna watch that......
Like it or not, it is the very fact that they compliment each other that
makes the show work at all as is... the skeptic and the believer, evening
each other's views out. So your argument doesn't hold together.
: > You brought up sex, not me...I have told you before that is NOT what I want
: > to see, nor is it what anyone else wants to see, so why don't we leave that
: > argument alone now...
:
: oh, yes, in understand your argument now. you are right. they are "in
love".
: and they will stay so
: very chaste. they adore one another. and if they *ever* reveal that to each
: other, they *will NOT*
: have sex. they will remain strong and pure, because.... just admitting
it to each
: other,
: *confirming* that it exists, will be enough for them......... Sure. Fine.
: WHATEVER.
As so many are quick to point out, active romance between partners is
frowned upon... therefore, they might admit their feelings, but not act on
them in the near future because of Bureau policy... thereby making each
touch, look, implied meaning so much more charged and powerful.
: as i have already stated, i like the UST, but i do not watch the show
for it. if
: they suddenly become
: an item, it *will* be a different show.
: and, HELLO: because i do not want M&S to get together, it will be a
show that i
: will no longer like. how many times do i have to explain that
correlation............
What if it were later on said that they were an item all along... would
you burn all your X-File tapes?
: gods above.... why the "UN" part? WHY THE HELL NOT??? i like it. as i have
: said before, it is a
: sick little side show. HERE------>> Resolve it, and it is gone. 'nuff said.
What I find bizarre is that people think sexual encounter makes all sexual
tension disappear. It mutates into something different, andmany times
even more charged, but unless it's a meaningless fling between
silicone-enhanced drones (think Baywatch, Melrose Place) who care nothing
for each other, it doesn't disappear.
: well, i guess what we are trying to illustrate is that the romance is
simply not
: wanted. and as i
: have said in another post, *you* go ahead and pretend you have what you need.
: *i'm* already
: happy with what i see. that way, we *both* get what we want, yes?
:
To quote practically directly from your first paragraph... *you* don't
want romance, therefore it's alright to generalize that romance is simply
not wanted? I think not! Just the fact that this thread is not dying is
proof enough that there is more than one camp on this subject, and you'll
just have to live with that. There will always be a group that wants
romance, and thus, it is incorrect to say that romance is simply not
wanted.
******
FoLC, X-Phile Relationshipper and DueSer
Coleen Sullivan-Baier
In <4p6nom$p...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>
If you girls don't STOP THIS and play nice, you will all
get sent to alt.tv.olsentwins, then you will REALLY have something to
fight about (...MaryKate is best...NO, ASHLEY is best)
XXXXXXXXgizzieXXXXXXXX (what's a mother to do??)
Nancy Lemieux
In article <31B627...@mail.multiverse.com>,
tha...@mail.multiverse.com wrote:
: Nancy Lemieux wrote:
: > And you haven't refuted anything. Unless you give a more precise outline
: > of the places/reasons why this wouldn't work, I'm afraid you won't
: > convince anybody of your point of view.
:
: *huh*??? he has convinced me.
So, you mean by that you were all for a Mulder/Scully romance before
thalion wrote something, and that the arguments he brought forth have made
you change camps? Otherwise, you weren't 'convinced', you were just
reading material that backs up your beliefs.
:
: > Kristel has worked with examples of episodes that have aired, and has
: > given what I find to be convincing arguments as to why a romance could be
: > worked into this scenario, which is a nice compromise, since the case
: > still gets solved, and those who want romance see it.
:
: wrong. a "comprimise" would be for the romance dreamers to go on
digging the UST and
: pretending that is is already underway as a romance.... that way the
rest of us can (yawn, i'll
: say it again...) continue to enjoy what we already like about the
X-Files, which is what we
: *already* *have*. however, if romance becomes part of the plot, only
the 'shippers will be
: much happier, and what we like will be good and gone.
That sound a lot more like a status quo. For there to be a compromise,
both parties have to give something... I don't see any of that in what you
wrote above.
:
: > You, on the other
: > hand, have not provided examples of how this would be unacceptable. At
: > this time, the burden of proof rests on you.
:
: YOU WANT AN EXAMPLE? well, go watch a great little show called The
X-Files. WITHOUT
: ANY MODIFICATIONS.
: there's your example.
Well, that is off topic. I asked for specific scenes that would be
'spoiled forever' if there were to be a romance. I field all
suggestions...
Nancy
Nancy Lemieux
In article <31B62E...@mail.multiverse.com>,
tha...@mail.multiverse.com wrote:
: Kristel S. Oxley-Johns wrote:
: > We are not saying that it couldn't, but we are saying that Mulder and
: > Scully have all the markings of an epic love affair,
:
: if you want an epic love affair, go read Dr. Zhivago. or Gone With The
Wind. or
: Jane Eyre. or a Fabio novel.
: oh, and keep in mind that nearly all "epic love affairs" do NOT work
out, do NOT
: have happy endings, and more often than not, one of the main characters
: involved in the "epic love affair" ends up really, really dead. this is
just a tv
: show, it ain't no "epic".
Where does it say that epic is restricted to the written media? I've read
many great classics, and I've seen them on screen too. If people didn't
want to see things done again, why would they read more than one 'epic'
story? There is more than one way to write things, otherwise nothing
would be written anymore.
:
: > and we would
: > like to see them together.
: >
: > Kristel
:
: well, *we* don't. so there, nyaaaah.
Oh yes, really mature....
: the online chats. I'm a little dismayed because I don't want
: to do a show about fuzzy warm Mulder and Scully. Never."
I don't want fuzzy warm Mulder and Scully.. I want passionate and closely
linked Mulder and Scully, bonded from the knowledge that not only are they
friends, but they are soulmates and know it. Sex can come later.
:
: - Chris Carter interview
: Rolling Stone, May 16, 1996; page 42
: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
******
John Madigan
In article <lemieux-0406...@132.206.101.175> lem...@medcor.mcgill.ca
(Nancy Lemieux) writes:
I've been gone for a while. Sorry everyone, my newsreader choked (I'm sure
you're all terribly dissapointed). And oh yeah ... this is going to be the
short version since my original attempt at a reply got screwed up.
What do you mean? They would still be investigating, they would still be
interviewing victims and interrogating criminals, they would still get
stonewalled, they would still be searching for the truth, they would still
have lost family members, they would still have differences of opinion and
arguments over procedure, they would still get shot at, they would still
find monsters of the week, they would still call each other up on their
cellular phones... do you get my point? You haven't explained how this
would have to be modified, and I would like specific examples.
How would those basic elements of communication and running-around-doing-
something have to be altered. Well, they wouldn't have to be altered in and
of themselves. After all, you can't have any sort of story without
communication and running-around-doing-something, can you? The problem is
they'd be running around doing something as Romantically Involved Leads, which
is the second-oldest cliche in storytelling next to the Happy Ending (don't
tell me you want one of _those_ too, please). The level of trust implied and
the unambiguous nature of the bond would pretty much kill a lot of what they
do. For instance, in Wetwired we have an episode where people are induced to
act violently due to paranoia created from pre-existing fears. Scully's worst
fear is that Mulder will betray her. If they have a relationship where she
knows beyond any pre-existing doubt that she can trust Mulder implicitly, then
her fear is induced only by the evil signal from the tube without any personal
element. Either the episode can't happen, her paranoia has to be directed
towards, say, Skinner, or (and?) we're in serious cliche and unbelieveabiliy
territory. Any show can have romantic leads turned against one another by
some outside force. The X-Files plays in this case and in others on the
unresolved nature of M&S's current relationship. So I guess you can take this
as a specific example of The X-Files turned into cliche-ville, or at best made
average. After all, it's not so strange to be paranoid about your boss.
The fact that you find their characters unsuitable for romance is
subjective, and therefore I'm afraid I won't try and convince you
otherwise, because I just don't have the energy to go into a long,
drawn-out debate over personalities and compatibility. Besides, chances
are you don't want to think otherwise, so I won't impose that on you.
Suffice it to say that I think they are well matched.
And I don't have the energy to write out whole episodes or scenes worth of
altered X-Files. It just ain't what I do. My main objection to an M&S
romance (or one of the important ones anyway) in terms of how it would
negatively effect the show rests on the misplaced nature of a healty romance
in this show about corruption, lies, uncertainty, disturbed people, etc. The
show would suffer from synergistic effects. There is interaction between the
various elements of the show, a major one of which is the M&S relationship.
Alter that relationship in a fundamental manner, and look out. Things won't
be the same, that's for sure. As I tried to express above, if a critical
element of credible doubt is removed you don't get an improvement. Either the
episodes need to be changed to salvage some believability, or we're in cliche
territory.
Someone already got to Ice, and I cannot improve upon that post. For my own
part, I'll just say that the examples you cite cross the line from drama into
melodrama. They are better examples of what would have to change due to an
M&S romance than anything I could write.
given what I find to be convincing arguments as to why a romance could be
worked into this scenario, which is a nice compromise, since the case
still gets solved, and those who want romance see it. You, on the other
hand, have not provided examples of how this would be unacceptable. At
this time, the burden of proof rests on you.
First of all, you find them convincing. Fine. I find them to be the opposite.
Secondly, I stated somewhere else that I think proving anything in
this forum is impossible except in the most limited sense; but to the extent
that it is, the burden of proof seems to me to be on those who wish to make a
change. Then again, it's not as though CC is going to change anything based
on what you, I or anybody says. This is not a democracy. This is Chris
Carter's Benevolent Dictatorship, and if you don't like it you can leave. It
will still be that way if he *does* do the M&S romance thing, and at that time
I guess you can laugh your head off, but don't hold your breath. Third, your
"compormise" has nothing to do with why I watch the X-Files. If I were
interested in seeing the case get solved, I'd watch Dragnet reruns.
Any spelling or formatting errors are the fault of this retarded backup
newsreader.
Sorry if none of this is specific enough for you, but actually my objections
are a tad bit more fundamental then "oh no, M&S would have to do XYZ in the
second scene".
JM
J. H. Madigan
On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Nancy Lemieux wrote:
> So, you mean by that you were all for a Mulder/Scully romance before
> thalion wrote something, and that the arguments he brought forth have made
> you change camps? Otherwise, you weren't 'convinced', you were just
> reading material that backs up your beliefs.
_That_ could be said about a number of people. For example ...
> : > Kristel has worked with examples of episodes that have aired, and has
> : > given what I find to be convincing arguments as to why a romance could be
> : > worked into this scenario,
Now do you think we can stay away from these pot/kettle situations from
now on? We all seem to be pretty set in our opinions. Naturally we're
going to tend to like reading stuff that supports our own, although I've
read stuf that I didn't agree with 100% (or even very much) that I
greatly enjoyed. None of it fell into the "prove it/already did/so
there" category though.
> That sound a lot more like a status quo. For there to be a compromise,
> both parties have to give something... I don't see any of that in what you
> wrote above.
Once again, if you want compromise, you'll have to talk to Mr. Carter.
It's not like what we argue about here is going to mean a pile of rats
asses to how the shows are actually written. What you are asking for is
not Mary Lynn's, mine, or anybody's to give up besides him.
JM
Nancy Lemieux
In article <JHM2.96J...@fuller.cnrs.humboldt.edu>,
jh...@fuller.cnrs.humboldt.edu (John Madigan) wrote:
: In article <lemieux-0406...@132.206.101.175> lem...@medcor.mcgill.ca
: (Nancy Lemieux) writes:
: What do you mean? They would still be investigating, they would
still be
: interviewing victims and interrogating criminals, they would still get
: stonewalled, they would still be searching for the truth, they would still
: have lost family members, they would still have differences of opinion and
: arguments over procedure, they would still get shot at, they would still
: find monsters of the week, they would still call each other up on their
: cellular phones... do you get my point? You haven't explained how this
: would have to be modified, and I would like specific examples.
:
: How would those basic elements of communication and running-around-doing-
: something have to be altered. Well, they wouldn't have to be altered in and
: of themselves. After all, you can't have any sort of story without
: communication and running-around-doing-something, can you? The problem is
: they'd be running around doing something as Romantically Involved Leads,
which
I'm not denying that romantically involved leads exist... every story out
there has been done before. What I'm saying is that the X-files doesn't
have to take the pressure to get them hopping into the sack every chance
they get like in a bad Arnold movie (eeewww!). Most 'romantic' leads are
all over each other and mushy and whatnot... what I'm saying is that CC et
al. has a chance to make this a new, fresh approach. After all, if you
think about it, TV shows about monsters of the week and UFOs and
government conspiracies have been done to death too, yet XF manages to
give it a fresh twist.
: is the second-oldest cliche in storytelling next to the Happy Ending (don't
: tell me you want one of _those_ too, please). The level of trust implied and
Goodness, no! Just because we know that Mulder and Scully are in love
doesn't mean that the road would be any easier for them.
: the unambiguous nature of the bond would pretty much kill a lot of what they
: do. For instance, in Wetwired we have an episode where people are induced to
: act violently due to paranoia created from pre-existing fears. Scully's worst
: fear is that Mulder will betray her. If they have a relationship where she
: knows beyond any pre-existing doubt that she can trust Mulder implicitly, then
: her fear is induced only by the evil signal from the tube without any personal
: element. Either the episode can't happen, her paranoia has to be directed
I have a problem with what you wrote above. You're assuming that if they
know they love each other, then it cements the relationship forever. Not
true. I don't know of a single relationship where things are rosy all the
time. People still have fears and doubts. Even with the relationships as
it supposedly is right now (platonic), Scully trusts Mulder implicitly.
Heck, back in season 1 she was already ready to put her life on the line
only for him.
In other words, even if they were admitting their feelings, it doesn't
mean that the same exact effect might not have happened, but it would have
brought even more tension between them, and would have destroyed Scully
even more to think that Mulder, the man she loves and whom she *thought*
loved her, had betrayed her by going to the other side.
: towards, say, Skinner, or (and?) we're in serious cliche and unbelieveabiliy
: territory. Any show can have romantic leads turned against one another by
: some outside force. The X-Files plays in this case and in others on the
: unresolved nature of M&S's current relationship. So I guess you can take this
: as a specific example of The X-Files turned into cliche-ville, or at best made
: average. After all, it's not so strange to be paranoid about your boss.
As you've seen in my above argument, I still think she would be in fear of
Mulder's actions. Therefore, I see no validity in this supposed changing
of fears towards that of her boss.
As for cliches, a man/woman investigative team is a cliche in itself - so
is a show about government conspiracies, or about UFO's and other
unexplained phenomenon - as I mentioned previously.
: And I don't have the energy to write out whole episodes or scenes worth of
: altered X-Files. It just ain't what I do. My main objection to an M&S
: romance (or one of the important ones anyway) in terms of how it would
: negatively effect the show rests on the misplaced nature of a healty romance
: in this show about corruption, lies, uncertainty, disturbed people, etc. The
: show would suffer from synergistic effects. There is interaction between the
: various elements of the show, a major one of which is the M&S relationship.
: Alter that relationship in a fundamental manner, and look out. Things won't
: be the same, that's for sure. As I tried to express above, if a critical
: element of credible doubt is removed you don't get an improvement.
Either the
: episodes need to be changed to salvage some believability, or we're in cliche
: territory.
To assume that the writers of the show would delve into a cliche
relationship is, IMNSHO, to greatly underestimate them. They've managed
to take stories used before (UFO abductions and government conspiracies)
and present them in a different manner. Why do you then contend that any
attempt at romance would be treated any differently? As I see it, the
characters are already in love, so I predict no great alterations in the
overall dynamics of the show. They're already using one to get to the
other (Erlenmeyer Flask, End Game, Pusher), whether by kidnapping or
whatnot, so that method wouldn't change. What would change is the depth
of the viewer involvement, since you know they mean so much *more* to each
other than if it were just a platonic work relationship. The tensions
increases that extra notch... the suspense is that much more gripping....
: First of all, you find them convincing. Fine. I find them to be the
opposite.
: Secondly, I stated somewhere else that I think proving anything in
: this forum is impossible except in the most limited sense; but to the extent
: that it is, the burden of proof seems to me to be on those who wish to make a
: change. Then again, it's not as though CC is going to change anything based
Which is why we are constantly keeping up with the debate and continuing
to give examples of situations where romance would enhance the show, and
how it would not change the overall storyline, and how it could actually
be beneficial in some cases. Just the fact the the X-Files is being moved
to Sunday night, with a different viewing public (Sunday is a family
night) means that the X-Files as we know it may have some pressure to
change its style (but let's not get into *that* debate, please!).
As for the burden of proof, I guess it's relative... I see myself as
proving my point, not to specifically to convert anyone here (although
that would be nice :), but as a means to show that other points of view
may also be valid. As I feel I present a solid case, I think it is the
non-relationshipper's job to try and give specific examples to counter my
arguments, and that is why I state the burden of proof is on them.
: on what you, I or anybody says. This is not a democracy. This is Chris
: Carter's Benevolent Dictatorship, and if you don't like it you can leave. It
: will still be that way if he *does* do the M&S romance thing, and at that time
: I guess you can laugh your head off, but don't hold your breath. Third, your
: "compormise" has nothing to do with why I watch the X-Files. If I were
: interested in seeing the case get solved, I'd watch Dragnet reruns.
Hey they actually solve *some* of the cases! Okay, not *that* many <g>,
but some... Go ahead and watch Dragnet reruns if you want. As for what I
said on the compromise, I haven't kept my posts, so it's impossible for me
to go back and check if I misphrased it or if you misinterpreted it, but
as I believed I mentioned before, the compromise would involve some giving
on both sides... I don't see what this has to do with case solving per
se...
: Any spelling or formatting errors are the fault of this retarded backup
: newsreader.
Duly noted, although I don't think I really noticed anything wrong with
your post (other than the actual arguments you put forth). <g> :)
: Sorry if none of this is specific enough for you, but actually my objections
: are a tad bit more fundamental then "oh no, M&S would have to do XYZ in the
: second scene".
I understand your technique, but it still doesn't satisfy me (not that I
suppose any argument against romance would). You see, my original
challenge was and still is to find me specific scenes where romance
wouldn't work. You complied and gave me the Wetwired example. I then
went about counter-arguing how this would not be affected by romance.
Feel free to re-examine my arguments, or supply another example.
Otherwise, anyone else who's been watching this debate closely and has an
example in mind can jump in...
I'll be reading those arguments when I get back from my weekend vacation.
Nancy
Nancy Lemieux
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.91.96060...@axe.humboldt.edu>,
"J. H. Madigan" <jh...@axe.humboldt.edu> wrote:
: Now do you think we can stay away from these pot/kettle situations from
: now on? We all seem to be pretty set in our opinions. Naturally we're
Agreed.
: going to tend to like reading stuff that supports our own, although I've
: read stuf that I didn't agree with 100% (or even very much) that I
: greatly enjoyed. None of it fell into the "prove it/already did/so
: there" category though.
I've been having fun with this debate in general. It gets my 'juices'
flowing. My only problem is that some people (not you...) feel that their
only form of arguing is to flame, or give insulting comments, or stoop to
childish comebacks. I don't like those very much, and it's very hard for
me to hold back from flaming. However, I feel it wouldn't do anything to
advance the relationshipper cause, and I therefore usually choose to
ignore such comments.
: > That sound a lot more like a status quo. For there to be a compromise,
: > both parties have to give something... I don't see any of that in what you
: > wrote above.
:
: Once again, if you want compromise, you'll have to talk to Mr. Carter.
: It's not like what we argue about here is going to mean a pile of rats
: asses to how the shows are actually written. What you are asking for is
: not Mary Lynn's, mine, or anybody's to give up besides him.
Oh, I'm perfectly aware of that... but it was not me who suggested the
compromise. I don't keep copies of the relevant posts, so there's no way
for me to say who did, but the person said that a compromise would be for
the show to stay as it is and for relationshippers to keep on reading more
into a situation than there supposedly is. This is what I was arguing
over. It wasn't the possibility that there might actually be a change,
but rather on the concept of what a compromise is.
As for talking to Mr. Carter... I doubt my opinion or those of all other
shippers who debate here would make a great dent on his plan, but I am
under the impression that he surfs the net quite a bit, including this
BBS, so for all we know, he may be more aware of this debate than we
think. I would be rather happy if he were, because this would be a
perfect chance to set him straight on what he thinks relationshippers
want. I am, of course, referring to his quote where he stated that he
thought relationshippers wanted a 'warm and fuzzy Mulder and Scully'. (I
apologize if I misquoted, but I know it's in someone's sig)
I know Kristel had written him a letter outlining the exact nature of our
thoughts and beliefs, signed by dozens of relationshippers including
myself, but I don't know if she has sent it. (Krisel, care to elighten us
on that?)
I would like to outline that while I am aware of his possible presence, it
is not the only reason why I continue this debate. I like arguing my
point of view and debating over finer points of episodes as I see them. I
have also been able to contact and recruit new relationshippers, who
weren't aware of our organization, so that in itself is reward enough for
me. :) Oh, and if I convert someone along the way, well it will make all
this that much sweeter. :)
KIMBERLY A PIFER
Nancy Lemieux (lem...@medcor.mcgill.ca) wrote:
: In article <Pine.PMDF.3.91.96060...@axe.humboldt.edu>,
: Nancy
I think I'm a middle of the road 'shipper. I've come to the conclusion that
Mulder and Scully have feelings for each other which are definitely deeper
than friendship. However, I'm not sure I want to see this portrayed in the
show any more than it already has been. Given the established personalities
of these characters, I think it is reasonable to suppose that they might
continue on for some time w/o revealing their feelings to each other, Scully
because of her reserved nature and recent experiences of loss and Mulder
because his work is his passion. I respect your position, particularly about
acknowledging a relationship late in the series (that would be really lame),
but I'm really reticient about furthering M & S's relationship. It's sort of
that fear of ruining a great friendship with sex. I know all good things
must end but I'd hate to see it happen prematurely b/c of poor handling plot/
script wise. It would be difficult to watch the show and not notice that
the undercurrent of emotion between M & S is often sexual/romantic but I
think that it is just that, the fact that it is an undercurrent, that is
a major strength/subtlety of the show. I admit that the inconsistency in
the depiction of their relationship (and I'm not necessarily talking
romantic here) is sometimes annoying but I think that, too, is in keeping
with their respective characters, especially Mulder who is often too
wrapped up in his own problems to be concerned with anyone/thing else.
Kim :-)
Parateam
John bitterly writes:
<<There is not one *bitter* word in Nancy's post. I suggest that you
examine your own choice of phrasing if you wish to see *bitter*.>>
Oooh, someone's knickers are in a twist!
-- Gigantic <G>, just so nobody gets the wrong idea.
Parateam
Nancy unbitterly writes:
<<I asked for specific scenes that would be
'spoiled forever' if there were to be a romance. I field all
suggestions...>>
You can start with the pilot and end with Talitha Cumi. That's all the
evidence I need. ;-)
-- Kay, trying to figure out how using the word "bitterly" *isn't* funny.
Parateam
Nancy cheerfully, never bitterly, John, writes:
<<I have also been able to contact and recruit new relationshippers, who
weren't aware of our organization, so that in itself is reward enough for
me. :)>>
Hey, nobody told me you guys were recruiting!! Grrr...something must be
done about this...
<yet another enormous <G> for those who aren't into the subtleties of the
humor in here>
Mary Lynn
Nancy Lemieux wrote:
> Just the fact that this thread is not dying is
> proof enough that there is more than one camp on this subject, and you'll
> just have to live with that. There will always be a group that wants
> romance, and thus, it is incorrect to say that romance is simply not
> wanted.
>
> FoLC, X-Phile Relationshipper and DueSer
yes. but. one more time and then i am done with this silly thread i started.
i *already* have what i want. CC made the statement below to back it up.
THEREFORE, by definition of the fact that i am *already* getting what i want, it
is *you* who has somethng to "live" with...er.... "without" that is: Romantic
Resolution and Confirmation. It ain't there. If it don't change, I will never be left
wanting.
and as far as burning my X-Files tapes, again, it is a moot point. Romance has
not been confirmed, again read CC's own quote below. I won't read more into the
UST that is already present (birthday present!), I will never need to pretend that
they have been "in love" all this time and.....
I'M FINISHED WITH THIS ARGUMENT...... i have to finish the disgusting fanfic
with Parateam. It's really *much* more important, and i guess i have grown
tired of this discussion.
-mar, USTB
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"There are these "relationshipers" who kind of dominate
the online chats. I'm a little dismayed because I don't want
to do a show about fuzzy warm Mulder and Scully. Never."
- Chris Carter interview
Mary Lynn
Nancy Lemieux wrote:
> : Kristel S. Oxley-Johns wrote:
> : > and we would
> : > like to see them together.
> : >
> : > Kristel
> :
> : well, *we* don't. so there, nyaaaah.
>
> Oh yes, really mature....
hrumph. have you shippers NO sense of caustic, nasty, dark humor???? don't
you laugh at all when you read those Fabio novels?
J. H. Madigan
Aye Caramba, there are just too many little bits and pieces to reply to!
I can't keep up with the volume (#'s that is, not decibels), at some
point I must deal with the rest of my life (or it will disappear!). To
Nancy in particular, I am going to try to reply to as many of your messages
at once as I possibly can.
I am already failing miserably to be brief. Oh well ...
Anyhow, believe it or not, I actually agree with major parts of _this_
post, in particular ...
>
(i.e. X-Files *isn't* Moonlighting or Northern
> Exposure, or Cheers).
and the criticism of the flammage which sometimes passes for discussion,
and the "you only want M&S to screw" stuff. A couple of other things
which are annoying are
* "We've proven with specific examples etc." ... I don't think
those examples have been successful at "proof" on the whole. In fact
they really don't cut it to me. Obviously there is agreement and
disagreement about this, so that's something I think we should - oops <g>
- I would like to agree to disagree about and drop.
* "We" in general. It is obvious that even R's and non-R's do
not, in fact, say or think the same things. They define R-hood and
non-R-hood differently. I think this pro and anti generalization is a
red herring. Besides, I *really* wish people would speak for themselves.
I try to. I mean, I don't care what "we" think, I'd rather hear from
individuals not speaking in the name of some group or other. It's much
more interesting that way.
I detected a major difference in personal taste (not to say that's _bad_,
just that it's there) in the following...
> What we want to see is a little more acknowledgement of the relationship
> (hence our name) developing between these two main characters. In Avatar,
> when Scully got knocked out in the batroom (that happens a lot to her,
> doesn't it? <g>), Mulder barely glances her way to ask her if she's
> alright. Compare that to Firewalker, or Our Town, where he takes the time
> to make sure she's okay, even touches her cheek tenderly or pushes the
> hair out of her eyes, and you'll come to understand how we despise the
> fact that:
> a) Their relationship is not portrayed evenly
> b) This hasn't created a public outcry, yet is the exact treatment we wish
> for.
I _like_ the fact that their relationship is not portrayed evenly, and in
fact I'd say that a large part of the reason why it isn't portrayed evenly
is because Mulder's character isn't exactly even. I've said it before and
I'll probably say it again ... this Mulder guy is nuts. His behavior is
basically dictated by his obsession. He's intelligent, he's a nut with a
_point_, but he's still nuts. He's mercurial, sensitive one moment and
utterly unconcerned with anyone but himself the next. Consistency is a
bit much to ask from him outside of consistently obsessed.
That's one more thing we can agree to disagree about and drop. ;-) I'll bet
your taste in music and food is different from mine too (blasphemy)! <VBG>
On to some other stuff .. from different messages. This is going to get
confusing, bear with me, and I apologize ahead of time for the extreme
snipping I'g going to do.
> That, as I
> have mentioned before, is preposterous, and speaks very little of your
> faith in the writers and crew and cast of the X-Files.
I'll only speak about the faith issue. My faith in the Files
creators is sizeable, but not absolute. There are limits to what
you can do in TV. I think a romance between the leads is
implausible due to the characters and situations. It would be hard
for CC to explain those problems away or deal with them in a
believable fashion IMO.
>> [As one example, Mulder's
>> driven ideology, so overwhelming it excludes all else from his life, makes
>> him an interesting character-- if he were to be involved with Scully (or
>> anybody else) he just wouldn't be the same Ahab.]
>Care to explain that statement? How would he not be the same? What sides
>of his personality would change?
I'll take a crack at that one. IMO, the previous poster got the cause/effect
relationship muddled, which may have been an accident. Mulder is driven,
obsessive, Ahab-like, and emotionally disturbed. He's not really into
women which aren't on film or on paper, unless they're disturbed folks
like Kirsten in 3 or manipulators like Phoebe. He's not good
relationship material in the romantic sense at all. _That_ has to be
different _before_ an involvement with Scully is credible (IMO, natch).
> Last time I checked, freedom of speech was still allowed.
So now I'm against FoS? Now people _are_ taking this too seriously. <G>
> The fact that we can support our argument with facts is already a good
> sign that this is a logical, reasonable approach.
Ah ah - I said _may_ have supported your arguments with facts. You don't
think I'm going to concede _that_ on a blanket basis do you? <G> Sure,
there are some facts out there. Some of "we" (and "they" too) support
their arguments well, and some of "we" and "they" don't. And then a lot
of "we" and "they" think the same facts support different positions.
Ah, what a tangled web!
> The sad thing is that no one in TV industry has had the guts to go out on a
> limb and try a normal relationship between investigators since, oh, Hart
> to Hart....
If Northern Exposure and Moonlighting are out of the picture, then why is
H to H (which I thought was schlock BTW, but that's another story) a
valid comparison?
Also, I don't think a "normal" anything will work in the X-Files. I like
the Files in part 'cos it isn't normal in any way shape or form. I mean,
here we have _good television_, a phrase which is very nearly oxymoronic.
> The ubiquitous we actually represents hundreds of people... If you want,
> I could get them all to send you an email or two to prove that.
Ah ... no. That won't be necessary. All I'm saying is I'm tired of
hearing "we" when it is individuals I'd prefer to hear from.
>> Not just the UST (If ain't U, even behind the scenes, it ain't tense), but
>> a hell of a lot of the other dramatic possibilities opened up by things
>> such as the feared, dreaded and packed with UST "Rift". In fact,
> Give me two examples of UST in Hell Money...
Bad example. I haven't watched HM in some time (since it aired), but I
recall it being drab in many respects. Actually, I'd prefer to find you
UST in Syzyzgy, or other dramatic possibilities in Ouiblette, where the
Rift is essential to the story. Mulder had to go that one alone due in
part to his inner demons, and in part because of the fact that no one
trusted him to be the least bit objective about the case, including (and
most notable) Scully. No rift, no drama. Of course that isn't
_necessarily_ the case, such as in Pusher, but you can't do Pusher over
and over again and have a good series (I know Nancy, that's not what you
want).
> So we do agree on something. Fanfiction is good for what it is, but in no
> way represents a dogma of what relationshippers want for the show.
Good!
> if you would realize that you are not arguing against the proper points
> (i.e. relationshippers aren't using fanfic as examples), then we can get
> down to the debating what creates and keeps tension.
There's another thread about what does that by one Maggie Helwig. Check
it out.
> Could you send me a copy of those arguments, because I haven't seen any so
> far.
I'll try to dig up what I've got and send them to you privately. I'm not
real hot on the idea of reposting them for various reasons.
And with that, I'm gonna take a break for a while. It's not that I'm not
enjoying the discussion. It's just that my wife is threatening to kill me
if this keeps up <g>. Gotta listen to the boss.
Until later,
JM
Stef Davies
>> I'd be interested in seeing the examples of the "changed" episodes.
Perhaps this was something that was discussed and posted quite a while
ago, <<
No, actually. It was the post before the one Nancy was replying to - not
really very far to look back, or much trouble to take.
We just get so fed-up with being accused of being too
stupid/naive/unsophisticated to appreciate that platonic relationships
exist, and irritated with providing specific, concrete examples - as
Nancy and Kristel have done - only to have the same accusation that it
would change the show without any attempt by the accuser to refute the
actual points made, to deconstruct the actual examples cited.
Stef
--
Stef Davies 10057...@compuserve.com
06/08/96 21:55
---------
Using: OUI 1.5 Beta 2 from http://www.dvorak.com
Stef Davies
In article <4p4p64$i...@news.interlog.com>, From
ksi...@gold.interlog.com (Ken Simons), the following was written:
> It seems to me there are three sources of tension:
> 1) They are required to turn their backs on each other, which
> under the circumstances requires a huge leap of faith
> 2) they are violating the boundaries of socially permitted touch
> between two people at their level of acquaintance
> 3) the sexual tension between them (which is not only unresolved
> but unacknowledged) makes them uncomfortable about touching each
> other.
>
> If they were lovers, _none_ of these sources of tension would
> exist.
>
> Also -- to keep things in context -- if such a scene occurred
> now, the first two reasons wouldn't really apply. It would be a
> much weaker scene. It belongs where it is, and as it is.
>
1) and 2) do not work for me at all. Just didn't occur. I too analyse
text, but neither of those elements were apparent in my viewing of the
scene. Nohing at all was made of the back-turning in that room.
3) - now we really get to it. What you analyse *is* one of the sources
of tension .... along with the fact that a) each one of them
desperately wants to beleive that the other is free of infection, wants
to trust, and yet b) has good reason to fear that the other MAY be
infected. Of course, written as Kristel suggests, some of the lines of
this scene would be different, but the a) and b) tension would be even
greater.
You say that the scene would be weaker - that is your subjective
opinion. Mine is different, and your opinion is neither more significant
nor carries more weight than mine so that you can suggest that yours is
the *only and true* way of viewing.
Stef Davies
In article <31B62E...@mail.multiverse.com>, From Mary Lynn
<tha...@mail.multiverse.com>, the following was written:
: and we would
: like to see them together.
:
: Kristel
>
> well, *we* don't. so there, nyaaaah.
My, my, Mary Lynn. *What* an adult contribution to the debate.
Take yourself up the wooden stairs to bedforshire now, dear - I'll be up
with your medication in a minute.
Stef
--
Stef Davies 10057...@compuserve.com
06/09/96 00:36
Stef Davies
>> for lack of a nicer way of putting it, and i don't want to upset
Stef <<
I have no idea who you are, nor do I give a toss what you think of me,
so please don't cite my name in your little sarcastic snide comments.
Stef Davies
>> It ain't there. If it don't change, I will never be left
wanting. <<
No, you can just carry on as blind as you clearly are now. If you want
to argue that red is blue, that's your privilege. Without the UST - and
the potential for more - CC would lose HALF his audience. He's playing a
very clever game.
But YOU are being played along with the rest of us.
Stef
--
Stef Davies 10057...@compuserve.com
06/09/96 00:35
Stef Davies
>> oh yea, right.... crap is "foul" language...
Actually, in England, where I come from...(maybe you are unaware that
the internet isn't the sole preserve of continental America)..to use the
word 'crap' in the way that you used it *is* foul language. Not as bad
as 'fuck' - but coarse, crude and vulgar nevertheless - the resort of
someone who has a very poor command of the language. Hmmm ...now maybe I
understand. 'Bugger' is foul language here too - not a word to be used
in front of children, and *that* was in WoC too.
Regardless of your ignorance, you can hardly deny that you intended to
be denigratory and insulting, rather than actually debate the point.
> the only thing i respect when it comes to internet arguments is >the
Freedom of >Speech Act.
Ah...I see that you *do* think the internet is the sole preserve of the
United States of America, and that the whole world should be subject to
your laws. Bad luck....the internet is too amorphous for xenophobes to
control, thankfully.
Stef
England.
--
Stef Davies 10057...@compuserve.com
06/09/96 00:36
Stef Davies
>> hrumph. have you shippers NO sense of caustic, nasty, dark
humor???? don't you laugh at all when you read those Fabio novels? <<
I'm sure we do, Mary Lynn - shame your post didn't qualify as any of the
above.
Pardon my English ignorance, but exactly *who* is Fabio, and why do you
feel it is so important to use him/her/it as an example??
Stef
Stef Davies
>> I'M FINISHED WITH THIS ARGUMENT...... i have to finish the
disgusting fanfic with Parateam. It's really *much* more important, and
i guess i have grown tired of this discussion. <<
Well, either you can't take the heat....or you don't like losing.
Don't fret - you're no great loss to the debate.
There's nothing inherently 'disgusting' about fanfic - unless the author
chooses to make it so. Don't be surprised, then, if nobody cares to read
it.
Stef
--
Stef Davies 10057...@compuserve.com
06/09/96 00:35
Kristel S. Oxley-Johns
In article <31B8AC...@mail.multiverse.com>, Mary says...
>> Oh yes, really mature....
>
Okay: That's it...I apologize for any incendiary comments held herein,
but this post sends my attemtps at keeping this discussion genteel
RIGHT out the window, at least, for the moment.
>
> hrumph. have you shippers NO sense of caustic, nasty, dark humor????
No, we do have a sense of humor, but we ARE trying to have an intelligent
conversation here, a point which has obviously passed you by.
don't
>you laugh at all when you read those Fabio novels?
>
Excuse me, but on what grounds do you base that comment? Have you met any
of us, conversed with any of us, much less seen those works which decorate
our bookshelves. Why the hell is it that you feel, just because we have
made several valid points which you obviously cannot refute, you decide
that you need to slam us personally? You know absolutely NOTHING about
our lives, and to imply that you do is the most arrogant, rude, and
insulting form of presumption whatsoever. I am glad you have stated that
you are leaving this discussion, because though I attemtped to give your
posts the benefit of the doubt, you obviously have nothing of merit to
add.
Kristel
Kristel S. Oxley-Johns
In article <4pacuv$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, para...@aol.com says...
Oh, no, I found this quite amusing. However you did make no attempt to
generalize what sort of personal lives we may or may not have. I appreciate
that.
And don't worry--we only recruit those who have romantic inclinations to
begin with (I have a mailing list full of these, and BTW, the letter to
CC is on its way with, I believe, 107 signatures supporting our POV)
or show that they might be receptive to the idea.
Kristel
Kristel S. Oxley-Johns
In article <4pacn9$f...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, para...@aol.com says...
>You can start with the pilot and end with Talitha Cumi. That's all the
>evidence I need. ;-)
>
I am afraid that if you are unable to be any more specific, then you
really have no argument at all. Nancy asked for SCENES.
Kristel
Kristel S. Oxley-Johns
>: > You brought up sex, not me...I have told you before that is NOT what I want
>: > to see, nor is it what anyone else wants to see, so why don't we leave that
>: > argument alone now...
>:
>: oh, yes, in understand your argument now. you are right. they are "in
>love".
>: and they will stay so
>: very chaste. they adore one another. and if they *ever* reveal that to each
>: other, they *will NOT*
>: have sex. they will remain strong and pure, because.... just admitting
>it to each
>: other,
>: *confirming* that it exists, will be enough for them......... Sure. Fine.
>: WHATEVER.
>
Okay, I would like to know where precisely you saw me say THAT? What I
have been saying, if you have bothered to read it, is that we want a
relationship (romantic, of course) which is based upon their love for
each other, their absolute devotion to one another and their common cause.
We feel that, just out of basic realism (Come on, folks, this IS the 90's)
that relationship would include sex. But the point I was trying to make
is that we do not want:
A) a relationship about sex with absolutely NO basis in love, which is what
we have been oft-accused of wanting.
and
B) The show to revolve around this romance and its by-product, sex. The
sex would be implied with nothing more than what we get currently in the
UST, and most certainly would not be dipicted in an overt fashion, nor
would we get lots of WAFFy "Mulder and Scully lounging around in the
sack" scenes. WE ABSOLUTELY *DO NOT* WANT THIS! Can I make that point
any clearer? These are SUBTLE changes which we are asking for, not
overt ones, and that is a point which many seem to be intentionally
missing, since no matter how many times we repeat it, we get accused
of asking for the exact opposite.
If I wanted Melrose Place, the night of the week I set aside for the
television show I WILL NOT miss would not be Friday, 9 pm.
Kristel
Kristel S. Oxley-Johns
In article <lemieux-0606...@s-01.das.mcgill.ca>, lem...@medcor.mcgill.ca says...
>
>In article <31B62E...@mail.multiverse.com>,
>: > Scully have all the markings of an epic love affair,
>:
>: if you want an epic love affair, go read Dr. Zhivago. or Gone With The
>Wind. or
>: Jane Eyre. or a Fabio novel.
>: oh, and keep in mind that nearly all "epic love affairs" do NOT work
>out, do NOT
>: have happy endings, and more often than not, one of the main characters
>: involved in the "epic love affair" ends up really, really dead. this is
>just a tv
>: show, it ain't no "epic".
A good example of the fallacy of this is one of my all-time favorite movies
"Dances With Wolves" (the fact that it is one of many Kevin Costner
self-glorification vehicles is ignored since its cinematic acheivements
more than make up for that flaw) You had this epic story in which the
characters are embroiled in conflict, and you had a little romance thrown
in, but it did not in any way detract from or take over the story that
they were trying to tell. The story was about the quest of self-discovery
that John Dunbar was on, and it so happened to include the discovery of the
woman who would make his life complete, who would be the other half of
himself. How did it end? Admittedly, not happily, but we did not see
some tragic ending in which one character sobs over the corpse of their
departed beloved. We see the two of them leave together, joined in their
hearts and their resolve to accomplish this duty which fate has seen
fit to bestow upon them. Their resolve is strengthened, not weakened, by
the fact that each is all the other has, that whatever they are into, they
are into it together to whatever end might be found.
That is the sort of epic which we who are pro-romance are discussing here,
not TRAGEDY, which you seem to be confusing our points with.
Kristel
Kristel S. Oxley-Johns
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.91.96060...@axe.humboldt.edu>, "J. says...
> * "We" in general. It is obvious that even R's and non-R's do
>not, in fact, say or think the same things. They define R-hood and
>non-R-hood differently. I think this pro and anti generalization is a
>red herring. Besides, I *really* wish people would speak for themselves.
>I try to. I mean, I don't care what "we" think, I'd rather hear from
>individuals not speaking in the name of some group or other. It's much
>more interesting that way.
>
The reason that I use we is because the opinions I try to express here
are not just from myself, but from the dozens and dozens of people on
my mailing list who share these opinions but are unable, for one reason
or another, to be here and represent themselves. I try to signify when I
am speaking for just myself on a matter that not everyone will agree with.
Kristel
Stacey Thorp
Kill this thread!
--
Stacey
That's not yogurt! http://www.delta.edu/~slthorp
In article <09960504121111.O...@compuserve.com>, 10057...@compuserve.com (Stef Davies) says:
>
>>> you 'shippers keep
>saying this crap over and over again <<
>
>What a shame that you have to resort to foul language...obviously your
>position is so weak that you can't express yourself any other way.
>
>I try to respect the position of people who hold views other than my own
>except when they become personally insulting. Clearly you are unable to
>do so.
>
>
>Stef Davies
>
>--
>Stef Davies 10057...@compuserve.com
>06/04/96 17:36
Kristel S. Oxley-Johns
In article <09960509002941.O...@compuserve.com>, 10057...@compuserve.com says...
>
>>> hrumph. have you shippers NO sense of caustic, nasty, dark
>
>I'm sure we do, Mary Lynn - shame your post didn't qualify as any of the
>above.
>
>Pardon my English ignorance, but exactly *who* is Fabio, and why do you
>feel it is so important to use him/her/it as an example??
>
big posing for the covers of Johanna Lindsey novels and whom someone
somewhere along the line thought was sexy. He has now cashing in up
that supposed sexiness (I personnally don't see it) and has begun to
apply his limited brainpower to writing romance novels himself to
continue to thrill the female audience that drooled over him on the
covers of OTHER people's novels.
Now, I have never been adverse to reading a little pulp romance for
diversion from time to time, but to imply that because I am a romantic
at heart all I do is sit around all day reading trashy books and sucking
on bonbons, or that I obviously have so little brainpower that Fabio
is the only reading I could possibly understand, is not only grotesquely
untrue, it was just plain out of line. I have not stooped to make personal
comments in the course of this discussion, and it was quite rude and
uncalled for for Mary Lynn to do the same.
Kristel
Mary Lynn
now that the thread's meaning has been totally lost (dontcha just love what
future generatios can do ?!?)......
Stef-
i see that you had the idunnowhats to post this letter in its *entirety* directly
to my own mail box, yet you broke it up in little pieces and put in on the public
NG. sure. Fine. WHATEVER. i shall return the favor......
Stef Davies wrote:
>
> >> for lack of a nicer way of putting it, and i don't want to upset
> Stef <<
>
> I have no idea who you are, nor do I give a toss what you think of me,
> so please don't cite my name in your little sarcastic snide comments.
then do not leave yourself open to such citings by critiquing and debating on a
very *public* newsgroup! then do not sign your name to your posts! i have seen
many others *refer* to many others on the NG, so i was hardly doing something
that hasn't been done before. and as far as my comments being snide, that is my
personality, so live with it.
> >> oh yea, right.... crap is "foul" language...
>
> Actually, in England, where I come from...(maybe you are unaware that
> the internet isn't the sole preserve of continental America)..to use the
> word 'crap' in the way that you used it *is* foul language.
again, posting and corresponding on a NG without international boundaries is
something that we all have to contend with. i am certainly not the only one who
uses what you or someone's dictionary calls "foul" language in my posts.
1) *foul* is in the eye of the beholder.
2) NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO JUMP ON THE INTERNET AND READ ANY POSTING.
3) if you don't like it, don't read it.
4) if you didn't like it after you read it, don't read it twice.
5) you read it twice, didn't you? otherwise you would not be able to quote it,
would you?
6) if you critique me openly on the internet, i shall fight back.
> Regardless of your ignorance, you can hardly deny that you intended to
> be denigratory and insulting, rather than actually debate the point.
you stated: "I have no idea who you are". and *you* have no idea who *i* am.
again, i debate the way i choose. and if you had actually read what i wrote, i
made my point, regardless of the "language" or sentence structure or
misspellings with which i chose to make it. this is not Congress, or..... er, um,
excuse me, *Parliment*, for that matter. it is a tv show. a damn- er, ah, a
*darn* good one, but JUST a tv show nonetheless. it is not an epic. it is not a
romance. it will not define the Zeitgeist for generations to come (yawn). it is
just a tv show.
> > the only thing i respect when it comes to internet arguments is >the
> Freedom of >Speech Act.
>
> Ah...I see that you *do* think the internet is the sole preserve of the
> United Sates of America, and that the whole world should be subject to
> your laws. Bad luck....the internet is too amorphous for xenophobes to
> control, thankfully.
xenophobe? hardly. Stef, you know *nothing* about me! how can you call me
that? my use of what you deem to be "foul" language has nothing to do with how i
feel about people of different nations. and i am perfectly aware that i know
nothing about you!
i do not seek to control the internet. i do not want anyone to "control" the
internet. as you are so fond of pointing out, i am an American, and control of the
internet, in my opinion, would be a direct violation of freedom of speech. so,
*NO*, i do not seek to control the internet. just as you are allowed to write to
me and tell me how "foul" i am, i am allowed to write back to you, defend
myself, tell you what to do with it, in any manner i see fit, yadda yadda
yadda...... and please, feel free to respond ANY WAY YOU SEE FIT.
speaking about opinions, i *am* of the opinion that the 'shippers seek to control
alt.tv.x-files. i am of the OPINION, got it? i am entitled to my opinion, just as
you are...... incidently, also regarding control of the internet, i still seem to be
posting, don't i?
> >> I'M FINISHED WITH THIS ARGUMENT...... i have to finish the
> disgusting fanfic with Parateam. It's really *much* more important, and
> i guess i have grown tired of this discussion. <<
>
> Well, either you can't take the heat....or you don't like losing.
> Don't fret - you're no great loss to the debate.
it is no great debate. it is silly to continue saying that something exists that
does not, or to hope for something that will never happen. i have made my point,
i grow tired of "debates" where i find i am repeating myself more than twice. CC
has already proven his worth to me, by giving the world an example of two
intelligent individuals - *ficticious* intelligent individuals - who have great
control over themselves. i do not have such control over myself, but then again i
am not a ficticious individual, nor do i desire such control over myself at the
present time. i have lost absolutely nothing in this debate, as my position in this
argument has *NOT* been altered. i believe i have made that very clear.
> There's nothing inherently 'disgusting' about fanfic - unless the author
> chooses to make it so.
as i do. as i have every right to. you are not even aware of wht disgusts me
about my fanfic, are you Stef? it may surprise you. but then, as you state
below, i can only assume that you will *not* be reading it, so you will never
know what it is that disgusts me about my fanfic, will you?
> Don't be surprised, then, if nobody cares to read
> it.
yea, well...... i will be neither surprised or dissapointed if *you* do not read
it. please, Stef, do *not* read it. i beg of you.
"3) if you don't like it, don't read it. "
i may not have a really large degree, but i do have enough smarts to realize
that you, like i, do not speak for the entire world. *someone* is going to read it,
likely the 7 individauls who have already requested that i send it directly to
their mailboxes. yea, *they* might be reading it.........
M.R. Power
4A...@mail.multiverse.com> <lemieux-0606...@s-01.das.mcgill.ca> <31B8AC...@mail.multiverse.com>
Organization: Public Data Network/Chatlink
Distribution:
:hrumph. have you shippers NO sense of caustic, nasty, dark humor???? don't
: you laugh at all when you read those Fabio novels?
And what makes you think we read "Fabio" novels? That's making a pretty
big assumption there. I personally lean towards Kurt Vonnegut, EM
Forster, HP Lovecraft and Tony Hillerman - none of whom, to the best of my
knowledge, has ever written a bodice-ripper. I've tried to stay out of
the 'shipper/non-'shipper debate, because I believe that we all
have the right to our own opinion and I can see the points of both sides
(though I'm cautiously `shipper myself.) However, to resort to the use
of stereotypes and ridicule doesn't do us justice - or you, for that
matter.
: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
: "There are these "relationshipers" who kind of dominate
: the online chats. I'm a little dismayed because I don't want
: to do a show about fuzzy warm Mulder and Scully. Never."
Neither do I! That's what's so great about the potential for romance
between them, IMHO - there ain't nothin' fuzzy and warm about either of
their lives. I, for one, can't imagine them settling down in suburbia
with two kids and a well-manicured lawn (though a friend of mine and I
came up with a scenario, in which, to escape from Cancerman and Co., our
heroes are forced to disguise themselves as - ahem - "Caucasian refuse" and
hide out in a third-hand single-wide trailer with some rusted out cars in
the yard and all the related paraphenalia. Skinner hides out with them,
out back in a travel trailer - aka the guest cottage. <G>) What I would
like to see is not frilly romance and them jumping each other's bones when
they ought to be out catching the fat-sucking vampires. I'd like to see
allusions to the fact that their relationship has taken a new turn, and
how they deal with that. Although I'm not an FBI agent, it seems not
unlikely that this might happen in the bureau once in a while.
And, just for the record, someone a while back asked, "Well, if
they were the same gender, would you still see the potential there for a
love affair?" Being the open-minded sort, and having spent much of my
formative years amongst the "family" (not the Mafia!), I'd have to say,
well, yes. Some of the glances, touches, etc. aren't the types of things
platonic friends usually share, whatever their gender - at least, I think
so. Your mileage may, of course, vary.
May you walk in light and love,
Blackbird
______________________________________________________________________________
Blackbird - blac...@budget.net
"So I wake in the morning and I step outside,
I take a deep breath and I get real high
Then I scream from the top of my lungs
What's goin' on?" - 4 Non Blondes "What's Up?"
"The reward for conformity is that everyone likes you but yourself."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parateam
<<There's nothing inherently 'disgusting' about fanfic - unless the author
it.>>
You have got to be one of the nastiest post-ers out there. You claim that
you want to discuss this on friendly terms, but you are never able to do
so. If you ever read anything I write I'll never know about it, 'cause I
don't expect that you'll ever communicate with anyone who doesn't write
romantic fanfic and who doesn't originate in the pithy British Isles. I'm
going to Gossamer to look up some of your stuff. I'm dying to see how far
your writing skills have progressed.
Mary Lynn
Kristel S. Oxley-Johns wrote:
> Okay: That's it...I apologize for any incendiary comments held herein,
> but this post sends my attemtps at keeping this discussion genteel
> RIGHT out the window, at least, for the moment.
*COOL*!!! GO GIRL!!!!!
> > hrumph. have you shippers NO sense of caustic, nasty, dark humor????
>
> No, we do have a sense of humor, but we ARE trying to have an intelligent
> conversation here, a point which has obviously passed you by.
the internet is *no* place for intelligent conversation.
> > don't you laugh at all when you read those Fabio novels?
> >
> Excuse me, but on what grounds do you base that comment? Have you met any
> of us, conversed with any of us, much less seen those works which decorate
> our bookshelves. Why the hell is it that you feel, just because we have
> made several valid points which you obviously cannot refute, you decide
> that you need to slam us personally? You know absolutely NOTHING about
> our lives, and to imply that you do is the most arrogant, rude, and
> insulting form of presumption whatsoever. I am glad you have stated that
> you are leaving this discussion, because though I attemtped to give your
> posts the benefit of the doubt, you obviously have nothing of merit to
> add.
>
> Kristel
i am leaving the discussion of the thread, not personal insults.
well.... if one of your buddies can call me a "xenophobe" without knowing
anything about *me* either........
and, incidently, the 'fabio' reference *was* my sense of humor in action. like i
said, you didn't recognize it. feel free to call me a totally cold robot of a human
who doesn't believe in true love or epic romances as anything more than
unrealizable concepts. you will probably make *me* laugh in the process. but
that's just my sense of humor.........
-mar, USTB
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"There are these "relationshipers" who kind of dominate
the online chats. I'm a little dismayed because I don't want
to do a show about fuzzy warm Mulder and Scully. Never."
- Chris Carter interview
Mary Lynn
Kristel S. Oxley-Johns wrote:
>
> >: > You brought up sex, not me...I have told you before that is NOT what I want
> >: > to see, nor is it what anyone else wants to see, so why don't we leave that
> >: > argument alone now...
> >:
> >: oh, yes, in understand your argument now. you are right. they are "in
> >love".
> >: and they will stay so
> >: very chaste. they adore one another. and if they *ever* reveal that to each
> >: other, they *will NOT*
> >: have sex. they will remain strong and pure, because.... just admitting
> >it to each
> >: other,
> >: *confirming* that it exists, will be enough for them......... Sure. Fine.
> >: WHATEVER.
> >
> Okay, I would like to know where precisely you saw me say THAT?
i see it right here (i *am* trying to make you understand my confusion, cuz i
obviously couldn't do it through a sense of humor):
are you expecting me to be believe that two gorgeous, caring people, who
finally admit that they are in love (which i still do not believe they are), would
be portrayed *realistically* by _not_ revealing that they have a sex life -
together - after admitting this "love" to one another? i see no logic in that as a
plot, nor do i see any reason to do it as described within the parameters below:
> What I have been saying, if you have bothered to read it, is that we want a
> relationship (romantic, of course) which is based upon their love for
> each other, their absolute devotion to one another and their common cause.
understood. you want romance. makes me *sick*, but still: that is understood.
ok?
> We feel that, just out of basic realism (Come on, folks, this IS the 90's)
> that relationship would include sex. But the point I was trying to make
> is that we do not want:
> A) a relationship about sex with absolutely NO basis in love, which is what
> we have been oft-accused of wanting.
> and
> B) The show to revolve around this romance and its by-product, sex. The
> sex would be implied with nothing more than what we get currently in the
> UST, and most certainly would not be dipicted in an overt fashion,
but why do it at all, then?
this is what i do not understand: if what you want is to be that subtle, as subtle
as the UST *already* is, why do it at all?
> These are SUBTLE changes which we are asking for, not
> overt ones, and that is a point which many seem to be intentionally
> missing, since no matter how many times we repeat it, we get accused
> of asking for the exact opposite.
ok..... you are asking for subtle changes, yet, as before that, you said:
> The sex would be implied with nothing more than what we get currently in the
> UST,
so again i ask, why do it at all? if you want nothing more than what the UST
already implies, i'd say you are already getting what you want.
-mar, USTB <------ vainly attempting to be "nice", tho it's difficult....
Mary Lynn
Kristel S. Oxley-Johns wrote:
> A good example of the fallacy of this is one of my all-time favorite movies
> "Dances With Wolves" (the fact that it is one of many Kevin Costner
> self-glorification vehicles is ignored since its cinematic acheivements
> more than make up for that flaw) You had this epic story
> Their resolve is strengthened, not weakened, by
> the fact that each is all the other has, that whatever they are into, they
> are into it together to whatever end might be found.
that argument is completely justifiable (and i mean that, despite the fact that i
can't stand Costner or his movies), but unfortunately i do not consider Dances
With Wolves to be an epic love affair. i don't think that epic love affair stories
are created often or easily.
most importantly, i *still* do not consider X-Files to have the potential to be
an epic love affair. it's nothing more than a great *tv show*.................
-mar, USTB
Parateam
<<Actually, in England, where I come from...(maybe you are unaware that
the internet isn't the sole preserve of continental America)>>
Stef's from ENGLAND?? :::gasp::: I didn't know that!!
Kristel S. Oxley-Johns
In article <31BCB6...@mail.multiverse.com>, Mary says...
>> Okay, I would like to know where precisely you saw me say THAT?
>
> i see it right here (i *am* trying to make you understand my confusion, cuz i
>obviously couldn't do it through a sense of humor):
> are you expecting me to be believe that two gorgeous, caring people, who
>finally admit that they are in love (which i still do not believe they are), would
>be portrayed *realistically* by _not_ revealing that they have a sex life -
>together - after admitting this "love" to one another? i see no logic in that as a
>plot, nor do i see any reason to do it as described within the parameters below:
>
What I am saying, have said before, and will continue to say again, is that
there WILL be love and its by-product in the romance, sex, portrayed, but
not in a overt fashion which would completely obliterate the point of the
X-Files...a hint here and there is all that we want.
>> What I have been saying, if you have bothered to read it, is that we want a
>> relationship (romantic, of course) which is based upon their love for
>> each other, their absolute devotion to one another and their common cause.
>
> understood. you want romance. makes me *sick*, but still: that is understood.
>ok?
>
By "romance" are you accusing us of wanting the warm fuzzy's again? Because
that is not it at all, and if you think that, then you do not truly
understand at all.
Take any one of a number of eps for an example, even a "rift" ep would
work in this scenario. Like Grotesque. You have this really intense,
horrific case that has Mulder really strung out and Scully worried to
death about him...esp in light of the fact that they don't seem to be
communicating all that well these days. Then, you get to the end, to
some resolution, and in the sort of relationship that we would like to
see portrayed, you know that though they have been sublimating their
feelings for one another while working on the case, which they always must
do, being professionals before all else, that they are going to go home
together, to a place where they have sanctuary from the rest of the
world and all its evils, where they can comfort and console and protect
each other. The writers of XF are MASTERS of implication and insinuation.
I don't see why they can't work this in without burdening the show with it:
all it takes is a look, a touch between the two, maybe a murmured word as
they walk off together. It would in no way have any bearing on the plot
of the episode except in regards to the fact that, we know when Mulder
goes over the edge like that, we know that Scully's concern is not just
out of a professional motivation. When she goes to ream someone like she
did Mulder's old mentor (name escapes me) she is acting more in the
vein of a venging lioness than a law-enforcement professional, that she
has a personal stake in this. Is it mainly just a mental satisfaction?
Yes, but it is a harmless one, and one that need not affect the way that
the stories of the show unfold, so I am still afraid that I don't see
why people have such a problem with it.
>> We feel that, just out of basic realism (Come on, folks, this IS the 90's)
>> that relationship would include sex. But the point I was trying to make
>> is that we do not want:
>> A) a relationship about sex with absolutely NO basis in love, which is what
>> we have been oft-accused of wanting.
>> and
>> B) The show to revolve around this romance and its by-product, sex. The
>> sex would be implied with nothing more than what we get currently in the
>> UST, and most certainly would not be dipicted in an overt fashion,
>
> but why do it at all, then?
>
As I said before, a mental satisfaction. Certainly we do not want the show
to become syrupy, but we care about the show and its characters enough to
internalize it quite a bit (this is why we are all here, right?) and what
we 'shippers see (yes, we ARE romantics--cannot forget that fact) when we
look at the show and its characters, whom, having internalized them already,
we have come to care about to a degree, is two people who are desperately
alone in the world, who are each all the other has to turn to. Now, I
guess as a romantic, I personally feel that every person is entitled to and
needs desperately for completion in themselves the love of that person
who is the other half of themselves. From a standpoint at which I
look at the characters as though they were real people, I see that Mulder
and Scully have found this in each other, in the way that they balance one
another out, and it seems foolish to me that, bein both so alone in the
world, they wouldn't seize this love and this opportunity presented to them
with both hands, clinging all the harder to it for solace and strength in
those times when there is nothing else. From a writer's standpoint, I
also see that there is great dramatic and plot potential in such an
occurence. How much greater would Mulder and Scully's peril be from the
nefarious forces working against them with the confirmed knowledge that
they are each all the other has, that they are each that thing which the
other would be incomplete without? How can that be used against them? How
can they sabotage themselves with it? It becomes an Achille's heel, one
that they must guard jealously against discovery lest it be used to
bring them low. After all, Mulder has already made some pretty still
sacrifices for Scully...how much more so if she were more than his partner
and friend, but also his lover and soul-mate?
> ok..... you are asking for subtle changes, yet, as before that, you said:
>
>> The sex would be implied with nothing more than what we get currently in the
>> UST,
>
> so again i ask, why do it at all? if you want nothing more than what the UST
>already implies, i'd say you are already getting what you want.
>
No, not quite...that would include NO change...we want this acknowledged...
subtly, but still acknowledged.
Kristel, who appreciates your attempt at civility.
Pretz
Kristel S. Oxley-Johns <kjo...@mail2.alliance.net> wrote:
>I don't see why they can't work this in without burdening the show with >it: all it takes is a look, a touch between the two, maybe=
a murmured >word as they walk off together. It would in no way have any bearing on >the plot of the episode except in regards to t=
he fact that, we know >when Mulder goes over the edge like that, we know that Scully's concern >is not just out of a professional mo=
tivation. When she goes to ream >someone like she did Mulder's old mentor (name escapes me) she is >acting more in the vein of a ve=
nging lioness than a law-enforcement >professional, that she has a personal stake in this. Is it mainly just >a mental satisfaction=
? Yes, but it is a harmless one, and one that need >not affect the way that the stories of the show unfold, so I am still >afraid th=
at I don't see why people have such a problem with it.
Aaack!! I have been reading all these relationship threads for a month or so and haven't gotten involved as of yet because I am not=
a "relationshipper", nor an "anti-relationshipper", but merely a viewer whose only wish is that the X-Files remains an entertaining=
and rewarding hour of TV (no matter how the writers manage it), but now I have to get my two cents in.
Kristel, there has been so much discussion back and forth and sooo many points made on both sides and you "still don't see why peopl=
e have such a problem with it" ("it" being the writers and creators of the X-Files subtley acknowledging the romantic love you see a=
s currently existing between Scully and Mulder.) Have you been "listening" to what the anti-relationshippers have been saying? Nob=
ody thinks you need to agree with them, but at this point not even being able to see their stance!! Why bother to discuss . . . .?
Anyway, to put it simply, you belive Mulder and Scully are currently in love and that love should be realized in the format of the s=
how. Those who "have a problem with it" **don't** believe Mulder and Scully are in love and therefore **don't** belive that love s=
hould be realized in the format of the show!! Seems very clear to me.
The relationshipper belief that Mulder and Scully are in love is an interpretation, an inference, perhaps a gut feeling. It is not =
a "fact" in the context of the show. Others have different interpretations and inferences, thus causing their "problem" with accept=
ing that your inferences and interpretations should be realized on the show. As I said before, I don't care what happens as long as=
the show remains entertaining, but I have made an effort to understand where both sides of this debate are coming from. **Pretz
Parateam
Kristel (hi Kristel!) writes:
<<When she goes to ream someone like she did Mulder's old mentor (name
escapes me) she is acting more in the
vein of a venging lioness than a law-enforcement professional, that she
has a personal stake in this.>>
In our view, her personal stake is a platonic one and a professional one.
She was not abducted because she and Mulder are in love. Going from "she
defends him" to "she defends him because she loves him" seems to disregard
all other reasons, external forces, etc. that could be involved.
<<Is it mainly just a mental satisfaction?
Yes, but it is a harmless one, and one that need not affect the way that
the stories of the show unfold, so I am still afraid that I don't see why
people have such a problem with it.>>
If the satisfaction that you would feel is a harmless one, then why do you
need to feel it? If you truly believe (and I know that you do) that they
are either already in love or destined to be together romantically, and
you feel this very strongly, then it isn't harmless to you, right? If it
needn't affect how the stories of the show unfold, then it isn't powerful
enough to be included.
<<in the sort of relationship that we would like to see portrayed, you
know that though they have been sublimating their feelings for one another
while working on the case, which they always must do, being professionals
before all else, that they are going to go home together, to a place where
they have sanctuary from the rest of the world and all its evils, where
they can comfort and console and protect each other.>>
Well, I already feel like it's M & S against the world and I think they're
doing a mighty fine job of putting up a united front without the
entanglement of romance.
<<It would in no way have any bearing on the plot of the episode except in
regards to the fact that, we know when Mulder goes over the edge like
that, we know that Scully's concern is not just out of a professional
motivation.>>
But see, I don't think that Scully's concern is motivated by her
professional considerations. To my mind, Mulder and Scully are closer
than any other *team* on TV, and that closeness comes from the "us against
the world" philosophy that X-Files operates under. Scully's concern is
professional AND personal. They are friends. Friends are concerned and
care about friends.
<<I personally feel that every person is entitled to and
needs desperately for completion in themselves the love of that person who
is the other half of themselves.>>
I understand this, but I don't feel that Scully is the other half of
Mulder or vice versa.
<<From a writer's standpoint, I also see that there is great dramatic and
plot potential in such an occurence.>>
From a screenwriter's standpoint, it narrows the focus to the romance and
places constrictions on what the writers can and cannot do. The
characters, while being fairly well defined at this point, are also
loosely defined enough to allow all sorts of "extreme possibilites"
storywise. Put them together and you have to acknowledge it, just like
you have to acknowledge Samantha, Cancer Man, Mulder's dad, Scully's
sister...it's too constrictive for me.
<<It becomes an Achille's heel, one that they must guard jealously against
discovery lest it be used to bring them low.>>
And it becomes a red herring. Mulder's got enough Achilles heels to
juggle at this point and it's quite a stretch for me to believe that they
would endanger themselves even more by becoming romantically involved.
Ah! The end...\
Serotonin Pete
In article <4pddc2$8...@doc.zippo.com>, Kristel S. Oxley-Johns
<kjo...@mail2.alliance.net> wrote:
> The reason that I use we is because the opinions I try to express here
> are not just from myself, but from the dozens and dozens of people on
> my mailing list who share these opinions but are unable, for one reason
> or another, to be here and represent themselves.
I assume these "dozens and dozens of people" have net access. It's easy
to get a newsreading program. It doesn't take too much ability to post on
one of these threads (I use myself as an example). So where are all these
hoardes of people longing for Mulder and Scully to cast away their stern
facades, smile into each others eyes, and throw themselves together in a
lasting passionate embrace before a sunset backgrond?
Just because 'shippers posts read like Moby Dick, I don't think that it
has escaped anyone that all the redundant kilobytes defending the
pro-romance position come pretty much from just two, maybe three, people.
You know who else is suspected of using "we" all the time as if he had a
large following to defend his postion? Ted Kaczynski in _Industrial
Society and it's Future_ (aka the Unabomber's Manifesto). Not that
there's any connection. Just though you'd like to know.
By the way, I've decided I don't like the term "'shipper" because they
already have a relationship. Anyone else? I'm moving tomorrow so I'll be
off line awhile. I know you'll all miss me :)
/\\\\
Ser< @T@ >nin Pete
| o |
--- -Admit nothing, deny everything, make counteraccusations-
pr...@azstarnet.com
I'm re-posting this in a more readable format (I hope). I really hate
Netscape for newsgroups!!!!
> Kristel S. Oxley-Johns <kjo...@mail2.alliance.net> wrote:
>
> I don't see why they can't work this in without burdening the show with
it: all it takes is a >look, a touch between the two, maybe a murmured
word as they walk off together. It >would in no way have any bearing on
the plot of the episode except in regards to the >fact that, we know when
Mulder goes over the edge like that, we know that Scully's >concern is not
just out of a professional motivation. When she goes to ream someone
>like she did Mulder's old mentor (name escapes me) she is acting more in
the vein of >avenging lioness than a law-enforcement professional, that
she has a personal stake in >this. Is it mainly just a mental
satisfaction? Yes, but it is a harmless one, and one that >need not affect
the way that the stories of the show unfold, so I am still afraid that I
don't >see why people have such a problem with it.
Aaack!! I have been reading all these relationship threads for a month
or so and haven't gotten involved as of yet because I am not a
"relationshipper", nor an "anti-relationshipper", but merely a viewer
whose only wish is that the X-Files remains an entertaining and rewarding
hour of TV (no matter how the writers manage it), but now I have to get my
two cents in.
Kristel, there has been so much discussion back and forth and sooo many
points made on both sides and you "still don't see why people have such a
problem with it" ("it" being the writers and creators of the X-Files
subtley acknowledging the romantic love you see a s currently existing
between Scully and Mulder.) Have you been "listening" to what the
anti-relationshippers have been saying? Nobody thinks you need to agree
with them, but at this point not even being able to see their stance!!
Why bother to discuss . . . .?
Anyway, to put it simply, you belive Mulder and Scully are currently in
love and that love should be realized in the format of the show. Those
who "have a problem with it" **don't** believe Mulder and Scully are in
love and therefore **don't** belive that love should be realized in the
format of the show!! Seems very clear to me.
The relationshipper belief that Mulder and Scully are in love is an
interpretation, an inference, perhaps a gut feeling. It is not a "fact"
in the context of the show. Others have different interpretations and
inferences, thus causing their "problem" with accepting that your
inferences and interpretations should be realized on the show. As I said
before, I don't care what happens as long as the show remains
Lucas
Speaking as one of those people Kristel was talking about, I really wasn't
interested in getting involved in this thread because I thought it was
pretty inane. The thing that everyone seems to agree on is that the
X-Files is a great show created by people with talent and imagination.
Yet, apparently, not enough guts to allow characters to develope three
dimentionally. I frankly wouldn't be terribly upset if nothing happened
romantically with Scully and Mulder. Its not my creation and I realize
that I don't get a vote. What I really object to is the gutless answers
about how the show will turn into Moonlighting, or that the loss of
tension will make the overall effectiveness of the show disintegrate.
Chris Carter has given interviews in which he states that this is a plot
driven show. If this is true than despite the personal lives of the main
characters, the overall effect of the show should remain intact. It would
give the viewer more of a reason to care about the outcomes of the plots
if we have more of an emotional investment in the characters.
Not to mention that the writing of the show is so good, even in the less
successful episodes, that I'm sure that the writers can handle the
challenge.
Jessica Lucas
--
I penetrated a fine membrane, a membrane of probability......
Ever so gently I went over the edge- And looking up to see a twelve engined thing like a giant bloated boomerang, all wing, thrumming its way east with an elephantine grace, so low that I could count the rivets in its dull silver Skin, and hear......maybe.....the echo of jazz. -William Gibson (The Gernsbach Continuum)
Jessica Lucas
osgo...@mailo.starnetinc.com
Kristel S. Oxley-Johns
In article <wmains-1306...@sibyrkni.extern.ucsd.edu>, wma...@popmail.ucsd.edu says...
>
>I assume these "dozens and dozens of people" have net access. It's easy
>to get a newsreading program. It doesn't take too much ability to post on
>one of these threads (I use myself as an example). So where are all these
>hoardes of people longing for Mulder and Scully to cast away their stern
>facades, smile into each others eyes, and throw themselves together in a
>lasting passionate embrace before a sunset backgrond?
>
I could send you (privately, no way I will post it here) the "who xf-romantics"
file for both the instant form and the digest form that was necessitated
by the high traffic of the list, a file which has over 180 names on it.
>Just because 'shippers posts read like Moby Dick, I don't think that it
>has escaped anyone that all the redundant kilobytes defending the
>pro-romance position come pretty much from just two, maybe three, people.
>
You are making accusations here which have absolutely no basis in fact. HERE,
sir, ARE THE FACTS:
1: It is possible that all they have is e-mail access and nothing else. We
have dozens and dozens of people on the list who would like nothing better
than to be able to join in our chats on IRC too, but they can't because of
this...Until November, when I got this account, I had that same problem.
How then, could they subscribe to the list? Word of mouth, or from the
e-mail of other shippers with whom they communicate, so that they learn
that the list exists, and how to subscribe.
2: People often have limited funds. It may be possible that they can only
afford the on-line time required to download their mail, and can't spend
the cash to haunt the newsgroups or the web.
3: They might be from a server which does not allow access to the newsgroups.
>
>You know who else is suspected of using "we" all the time as if he had a
>large following to defend his postion? Ted Kaczynski in _Industrial
>Society and it's Future_ (aka the Unabomber's Manifesto). Not that
>there's any connection. Just though you'd like to know.
>
Oh, that is cute. It seems obvious to me that there are only a few
regulars expressing anti-romance opinions as well. Yet you don;t see us
accusing you of being the only ones. What's the matter? Have your
arguments gotten so tired that you have to resort to slinging mud? Are you
that worn down? Poor dear--maybe you should just give up since you are
obviously lacking anything of substance to contribute.
>By the way, I've decided I don't like the term "'shipper" because they
>already have a relationship. Anyone else? I'm moving tomorrow so I'll be
>off line awhile. I know you'll all miss me :)
>
Good thing you are being sarcastic, because it saves me the trouble of saying
"not hardly".
Kristel
Kristel S. Oxley-Johns
In article <pretz-13069...@usr1ip12.azstarnet.com>, pr...@azstarnet.com says...
> Kristel, there has been so much discussion back and forth and sooo many
>points made on both sides and you "still don't see why people have such a
>problem with it" ("it" being the writers and creators of the X-Files
>subtley acknowledging the romantic love you see a s currently existing
>between Scully and Mulder.) Have you been "listening" to what the
>anti-relationshippers have been saying? Nobody thinks you need to agree
>with them, but at this point not even being able to see their stance!!
>Why bother to discuss . . . .?
>
> Anyway, to put it simply, you belive Mulder and Scully are currently in
>love and that love should be realized in the format of the show. Those
>who "have a problem with it" **don't** believe Mulder and Scully are in
>love and therefore **don't** belive that love should be realized in the
>format of the show!! Seems very clear to me.
>
>The relationshipper belief that Mulder and Scully are in love is an
>interpretation, an inference, perhaps a gut feeling. It is not a "fact"
>in the context of the show. Others have different interpretations and
>inferences, thus causing their "problem" with accepting that your
>inferences and interpretations should be realized on the show. As I said
>before, I don't care what happens as long as the show remains
>entertaining, but I have made an effort to understand where both sides of
>this debate are coming from. **Pretz
What I am trying to say is that I have been endevoring to erase all the
fallacies and misconceptions about the pro-romance POV, and show how, with
the misconceptions gone, the pro-romance faction would like to see the
romance done on the show. Which, I believe, I have been pretty clear in
expressing (whether or not I "proved" anything is subjective, but I think
we can all agree that I have expressed it quite clearly, hmm?)
What I am saying that I do not understand is the fact that almost all the
anti-romance arguments (ALMOST, I said) have found their basis in one of
the stereotypes and misconceptions that I and the others and those whom
I represent have been struggling to put down. Without those misconceptions
for a base (i.e--the romance would overwhelm the show, or the show would
only be about sex then or all the 'shippers want is sex, or God forbid, it
would become like Moonlighting *gag!*) the arguments have nothing on which
to stand, and yet people keep falling back to them and not addressing what it
is we actually want in the context that we want it. That is why I don't
understand all the resistence, because the resistence was previously based
on misconceptions, and now that those have been put down, does the
resistence to the idea merely exist out of habit? The misconceptions and
fallacies put such a bad taste in the mouths of those who are anti-romance
in regards to the idea that they can't get rid of it even though the
offending matter has been spit out?
Kristel
Serotonin Pete
I was watching "Grotesque" last night and thought about Mulder and Scully
having a relationship... and cringed. Especially when Scully burst into
the studio while Mulder was holding a gun on the Behavioral science unit
guy (Bill something). Anything but a professional involvement between the
two would have ruined an otherwise cool scene. "Mulder!! Drop the gun!!
Now!!" would have been replaced by "No Fox, noooo" with tears welling in
Scully's eyes as she concludes her loved one has gone insane. Excuse me
while I barf... I'm back, that felt good.
Now don't give me this "that's not what we really want" crap because it's
bullshit. That IS what you want-- once people cross a certain line,
professional detachment becomes unbelievable, if not impossible. If the
feelings between Mulder and Scully were openly those of romantic love,
Scully would not have behaved in that way, she might have even sided with
Mulder. Mulder would have figured that Scully was not going to pull the
trigger because of their involvement (I wouldn't shoot someone I loved in
a romantic way, short of her being a lethal threat to me), so Mulder would
not have dropped the gun. The BSU-guy would have surrendered right there
or been quickly shot as he tried to escape.
<<< Serotonin Pete >>>
Serotonin Pete
>Guys, this person, names Seratonin Pete posted this to atxf, acusing
>me of being only a single person lying about representing the views
>of dozens. This really burned me up, and I addressed it on the
>newsgroup, but if you would all be so kind, even those who just lurk
>here on the list, would you please e-mail this guy, let him know that
>you exist and that you support what I am doing over at atfx, and
>possibly let him know why it is that you can't be there yourselves to
>represent yourselves? I have been speaking for the masses over
>there, and have been accused of making the masses up.
>
>His address is: wma...@popmail.ecsd.edu
Herešs the breakdown of responses I got from Kristelšs mail campaign.
Looks like 14 responses came in June 15, 2 responses from the 16, 1 from
the 17th and 1 from the 18th. I anticipate a trickle that will continue,
but so far there is a total of 18. My policy with personal eMail is to
respond at least once to everything I get, which I did, so many of my
responses are short and are not proofread. That doesnšt mean I didnšt
think your points were good, it just meant it was getting late. No
gaurantees IÅ¡ll be able to respond in the future because as I said I just
moved, so that account will be going down shortly and I havenšt started a
new one yet. In some of my replies I may have responded to us
non-romancers as łwe˛. That doesnšt mean Išm speaking for them-- I donšt
want to speak for them since they a fully capable of speaking for
themselves. It was either just convenient, or a mistake.
Since you donšt mind Kristel generalizing your opinions, Išll take the
liberty of generalizing your opinions as well.
Kristel was Å‚burnedË› about my reference to the unabomber, and many of you
shared her indignation. The point of this reference was not to slander
Kristel-- it was to piss (IÅ¡m sorry, I know you are a polite, sensitive
bunch) you romancers off, so that you would be motivated to respond, and
it looks like it worked. But only half way. While you were motivated to
respond, it was not in the way I intended. I wanted the lurkers on usenet
to start posting replies so everone would benefit from their fresh points
of view. Instead, you just wrote me eMail so only I benefited from your
thoughts.
At no time did I really think there is only a couple people out there who
support a romance. Of the millions of people with some form of internet
access, I know there is more than Kristel, or the 17 responders, or even
Å‚dozens and dozensË› out there on the internet who want to see a romance.
Thatšs why I defend the anti-romance position so vigorously.
I also understand from a couple of your responses that Kristel gave you a
directive not to try to change my opinion. Awww, how nice. My guess is,
though, she feared I might respond in kind by trying to change some of
your minds, and God forbid might even succeed or at least raise doubt. I
felt free to try to change your minds anyway.
If Kristel ever went to court she would be assured of numerous good
character witnesses from this group. Many of you admonished me how
Kristel is above the flames and petty bickering that us anti-romancers
resort to. This leads me to wonder if if the person who keeps posting on
usenet is really Kristelšs evil twin or morphing alien :)
<<< Serotonin Pete >>>
Piper
If this appears twice, with slightly different comments, I apologize.
I am having minor problems with my server.
wma...@popmail.ucsd.edu (Serotonin Pete) wrote:
> My policy with personal eMail is to
>respond at least once to everything I get, which I did, so many of my
>responses are short and are not proofread. That doesnšt mean I didnšt
>think your points were good, it just meant it was getting late.
Oh, is this why your replies were so varied? In some of them you
were kind of rude, while in others you were actually flirting. And
all of our posts were rather similar. Hmmmm...a little consistency
would be nice.
No
>gaurantees IÅ¡ll be able to respond in the future because as I said I just
>moved, so that account will be going down shortly and I havenšt started a
>new one yet.
Awww...how sad. <just a little sarcasm stemming from your "awww, how
nice" comment>
In some of my replies I may have responded to us
>non-romancers as łwe˛. That doesnšt mean Išm speaking for them-- I donšt
>want to speak for them since they a fully capable of speaking for
>themselves. It was either just convenient, or a mistake.
Most people *are* aware that you are not speaking for the multitudes
when you use the phrase "we". "We" actually *are* intelligent, you
know. Maybe that's why we write posts that "resemble Moby Dick".
>Kristel was Å‚burnedË› about my reference to the unabomber, and many of you
>shared her indignation. The point of this reference was not to slander
>Kristel-- it was to piss (IÅ¡m sorry, I know you are a polite, sensitive
>bunch) you romancers off, so that you would be motivated to respond, and
>it looks like it worked. But only half way. While you were motivated to
>respond, it was not in the way I intended. I wanted the lurkers on usenet
>to start posting replies so everone would benefit from their fresh points
>of view. Instead, you just wrote me eMail so only I benefited from your
>thoughts.
>
Maybe the reason we only wrote to you was because we didn't feel the
need to annoy the people on the newsgroup with messages that were
responding to *your* message. We were just trying to tell you that
we existed. And then, again, there are those of us who do not have
usenet access, and so therefore could only reply through e-mail. I
realize that you are trying to "motivate" us to come and join in the
fray, but you don't need to insult any of us personally, or make
inflammatory insults about Kristel, whom you don't even know. It was
unnecessary and uncalled for, and yes, we *do* take great offense
from it, as I'm sure you would if you were linked, even in the subtle
manner in which you did it, to someone such as the Unabomber. Feel
free to discuss, but stay away from personal attacks.
>At no time did I really think there is only a couple people out there who
>support a romance. Of the millions of people with some form of internet
>access, I know there is more than Kristel, or the 17 responders, or even
>Å‚dozens and dozensË› out there on the internet who want to see a romance.
>Thatšs why I defend the anti-romance position so vigorously.
Ummm...what? I don't understand your point here. Why, if you know
that there are more romantics out there, do you need to defend your
position vigorously? Is it because you're worried that we might have
a point, and others may see it? Are you that insecure? Explain
please.
>I also understand from a couple of your responses that Kristel gave you a
>directive not to try to change my opinion. Awww, how nice. My guess is,
>though, she feared I might respond in kind by trying to change some of
>your minds, and God forbid might even succeed or at least raise doubt. I
>felt free to try to change your minds anyway.
Go ahead. You can try. However, I wanted to point out that Kristel
never told us "not to try to change your opinion", but instead told
us to be polite and not to flame while letting you know our position
on the issue. Awww, now wasn't *that* nice? I know where I stand, so
feel free to try to change my opinion. Kristel knows that I am a big
girl who can make up my own mind, and she's not so insecure as to try
to protect us from *you*. Also, you have a right to your opinion, as
do we, so why would we want to change that? If someone happens to
see our point and changes their mind, great. More power to them...it
doesn't really affect me. If they don't, oh well. Life goes on. But,
a word of suggestion to you: talk about the issues, not the people
who are debating them...and stay away from "Unabomber" references,
please.
>If Kristel ever went to court she would be assured of numerous good
>character witnesses from this group. Many of you admonished me how
>Kristel is above the flames and petty bickering that us anti-romancers
>resort to. This leads me to wonder if if the person who keeps posting on
>usenet is really Kristelšs evil twin or morphing alien :)
Hmmm...amusing. And yes, she would have many people defending her
because she has *earned* our respect, admiration, and loyalty. I
think "our" point was that, difficult as it may be, she tries to stay
out of fanning the fire of the flame war, and urges us to do the
same. I apologize if the tone of this letter is in any way perceived
as being bad, but I felt compelled to come out of the woodwork to
respond. So, in a way, I guess you succeeded, but I stil feel that
you could have accomplished the same thing by making relevant points,
rather than provoking us. Claiming that you were merely trying to
get lurkers out of their dark lair by illogically proclaiming that we
must not exist (though you say now that that wasn't *really* what you
meant) and by comparing Kristel, however subtly, to the Unabomber
(which obviously *did* upset us because it was really low) still
doesn't wash with me and many other romantics. I'm sure that you
would be just as upset as us if someone compared you to someone like
the Unabomber, so consider that in the future. We are out here, and
we're not going anywhere. So grow up and discuss the issues, instead
of writing silly, childish, illogical posts to try to draw us into
this discussion. If we want to be here, we'll come. If not, then
that's our right, and it in no way affects you. If you stay away
from personal attacks, however implied, then so will the rest of us.
~Piper, a Very Proud Member of the Romantics' Association~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Life has taught us that love does not consist in gazing at
each other but in looking outward together in the same direction."
~Antoine de Sainte-Exupery~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Park
Serotonin Pete (wma...@popmail.ucsd.edu) writes:
>[If DS had been emotionally committed to FM, she would probably have sided
with him], Mulder would
> not have dropped the gun. The BSU-guy would have surrendered right there
> or been quickly shot as he tried to escape.
>
. . . which would probably have made for a tidier ending, as the episode was
essentially over once Patterson's motives had been revealed. We didn't
really need another chase scene.
--John Park
Serotonin Pete
In article <4qigk2$7...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Piper
<XF-P...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Oh, is this why your replies were so varied? In some of them you
> were kind of rude, while in others you were actually flirting. And
> all of our posts were rather similar. Hmmmm...a little consistency
> would be nice.
My replies were consistent. Generally they matched the tone of the eMail
that I received. Jealous? (It was not my intention to be rude though, on
any post, although it might have just happened that way, or those reading
the posts might just be sensitive. Either way, apologies to any I
offended.)
> Most people *are* aware that you are not speaking for the multitudes
> when you use the phrase "we". "We" actually *are* intelligent, you
> know. Maybe that's why we write posts that "resemble Moby Dick".
Intelligence is knowing that more people will read your posts if you make
your many good points quickly, and being able to distill such good points
down to a few lines.
> Maybe the reason we only wrote to you was because we didn't feel the
> need to annoy the people on the newsgroup with messages that were
> responding to *your* message.
I understand that. Remember, my original post was intended to raise
discussion within this newsgroup-- not your eMail circle.
> >At no time did I really think there is only a couple people out there who
> >support a romance. Of the millions of people with some form of internet
> >access, I know there is more than Kristel, or the 17 responders, or even
> >Å‚dozens and dozensË› out there on the internet who want to see a romance.
> >ThatÄ…s why I defend the anti-romance position so vigorously.
>
> Ummm...what? I don't understand your point here. Why, if you know
> that there are more romantics out there, do you need to defend your
> position vigorously? Is it because you're worried that we might have
> a point, and others may see it? Are you that insecure? Explain
> please.
If there were only a handful of pro-romantics there would be little need
to defend our position. However, since there are probably quite a few, if
they all expound their view unopposed then executives at Fox might catch
wind of it and put pressure on Chris Carter to make a programming change
for the worse.
> I stil feel that
> you could have accomplished the same thing by making relevant points,
> rather than provoking us. (snip)
> So grow up and discuss the issues, instead
> of writing silly, childish, illogical posts to try to draw us into
> this discussion.
I've tried that. I'm still trying. See my post about "Grotesque".
I was wondering, as easy as it is to send eMail stating to the effect "I
support a romance and Kristel is my representative and I don't post on
usenet because I can't or don't want to," how do romancers out there feel
about a 7-10% response rate from your group?
<<< Serotonin Pete >>>
Serotonin Pete
In article <4qilfq$2...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
af...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (John Park) wrote:
> . . . which would probably have made for a tidier ending, as the episode was
> essentially over once Patterson's motives had been revealed. We didn't
> really need another chase scene.
I agree that I don't watch X-Files for the action sequences. Still, I
thought this one was pretty good.
<<< Serotonin Pete >>>
Andre Bridget
***wma...@popmail.ucsd.edu (Serotonin Pete) wrote:
>
>I was watching "Grotesque" last night and thought about Mulder and
Scully
>having a relationship... and cringed. Especially when Scully burst
into
>the studio while Mulder was holding a gun on the Behavioral science
unit
>guy (Bill something). Anything but a professional involvement between
the
>two would have ruined an otherwise cool scene. "Mulder!! Drop the
gun!!
>Now!!" would have been replaced by "No Fox, noooo" with tears welling
in
>Scully's eyes as she concludes her loved one has gone insane. Excuse
me
>while I barf... I'm back, that felt good.
>
>
> <<< Serotonin Pete >>>
Added to her behavior in "Wetwire" you have to accept the fact the Scully
does not trust Mulder as much as he trusts her. After three years she
should know him better than anyone. If she still thinks he could be crazy
enough to commit murder or to make a deal with Cancer Man then she
probably never trust him the way he has to be trusted in order for a
personal, romantic relationship to develop.
-
AJ_is_A_Happy_Mum UFQ...@prodigy.com
Mary Lynn
Serotonin Pete wrote:
(snip!)
> once people cross a certain line,
> professional detachment becomes unbelievable, if not impossible. If the
> feelings between Mulder and Scully were openly those of romantic love,
> Scully would not have behaved in that way, she might have even sided with
> Mulder. Mulder would have figured that Scully was not going to pull the
> trigger because of their involvement
(snip!)
i agree with you, Pete. i have been told by numerous people that M&S becoming
romantically involved would *not* change the show in any way, and i simply
cannot accept that.
it would go from the show as it is, to a show where the two leads are involved
romatically. this idea, without "showing" romance or even implying it on a
regular basis, would change M&S's relationship in a way that myself and many
others do not want it to change.
i know that many of those who oppose either the UST being resolved, or a
"romance" being brought to light, are in opposition to this idea *alone*, not how
the writers would attempt to realize it.
-mar
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This Space For Rent
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken Simons
Well, I have been on here arguing the anti-relationship side
before, but this particular argument I'm going to disagree with.
Serotonin Pete contends that if Mulder and Scully were
romantically involved, she couldn't hold a gun on him in the
climactic moment of "Grotesque". I think there are holes in the
contention. First of all, it is quite clear that, capital-R
Relationship aside, M & S are very close friends who care about
each other a lot. I believe it is quite correct to say that they
love each other, though there may not be much of a romantic or
sexual component to that, i.e. they are not necessarily "in love"
(personally, I believe they are not, though this may be partly
due to active policing of emotions on both sides). Anyhow, I
think we can take it as given that they're good friends with an
unusually high level of mutual dependence and near-constant
contact -- Scully gets anxious because Mulder hasn't spoken to
her much for *two days*, for godssake. And, this being the case,
Scully has nevertheless shot him once already.
Now, I truly don't understand why it's credible that she could
shoot such a good friend to protect him from himself, and not
hold a gun on someone she was "in love" with, for the same
reason. This seems to me to be quite a slight on friendship
actually -- I mean, yeah, I myself couldn't shoot my lover, but I
couldn't shoot my best friend either.
Scully is a very tough woman. Part of the unspoken agreement of
the partnership is that she will protect Mulder from himself by
whatever means necessary. And he (probably not consciously)
trusts her to do that.
Actually I think "Grotesque" is a very interesting episode for
what it says about the way these two do relate, and makes it
clear that, whatever the relationship may be exactly, it's
something very important. Yes, they're not getting along at that
point, but they're fighting the way that two people who matter a
lot to each other do. Mulder in particular seems to be getting
into a seriously self-destructive pattern in the way that you do
when you're in the middle of alienating someone important
(hurting yourself in order to punish the other person). I think
the detail about him turning off his cell phone but still
carrying it is quite revealing and rather touching (given that no
one but Scully ever calls him, and in the terms of the show the
cell phone roughly equals contact with Scully). It's like he's
pushing her away as hard as he can, but still hoping that somehow
she's going to magically break through and save him. Which --
inadvertently -- she does. I think it's significant that it is
when Scully manages to accidentally call him on Niemhauser's
phone that his mind starts to clear enough for him to figure out
what's going on. He's still being fairly rude and not seeming to
listen much to what she's saying, but I think it's partly the
assurance that she's somehow going to find him no matter what he
does that enables him to start pulling himself together.
Partly along the same lines, it's interesting that in the
confrontation between Patterson and Scully, he's clearly treating
her not as Mulder's partner, but as "Mulder's woman". This is
insulting enough, but he caps it by giving her the exact advice
that women in stories like these are always being given about
"their" men -- don't stand in his way, let him do what he has to
do, etc. He probably really thinks that Scully will accept this.
(In fact, if he's truly dissociative and/or possessed, he may
even believe he's saying it for Mulder's own good). One of the
things I love the most about this episode is the shot of Scully
immediately after he has moved away, with this restrained but
definite "Fuck you" expression on her face. It's a great Scully
moment.
Now I suppose everyone will jump on me for being a shipper but
what the hell, I've already been jumped on for being an anti-
shipper. I contain multitudes.
maggie helwig
Nancy Lemieux
In article <wmains-2206...@cnc100080.concentric.net>,
wma...@popmail.ucsd.edu (Serotonin Pete) wrote:
: I was watching "Grotesque" last night and thought about Mulder and Scully
: having a relationship... and cringed. Especially when Scully burst into
: the studio while Mulder was holding a gun on the Behavioral science unit
: guy (Bill something). Anything but a professional involvement between the
: two would have ruined an otherwise cool scene. "Mulder!! Drop the gun!!
: Now!!" would have been replaced by "No Fox, noooo" with tears welling in
: Scully's eyes as she concludes her loved one has gone insane. Excuse me
: while I barf... I'm back, that felt good.
:
: Now don't give me this "that's not what we really want" crap because it's
: bullshit. That IS what you want-- once people cross a certain line,
: professional detachment becomes unbelievable, if not impossible. If the
: feelings between Mulder and Scully were openly those of romantic love,
: Scully would not have behaved in that way, she might have even sided with
: Mulder. Mulder would have figured that Scully was not going to pull the
: trigger because of their involvement (I wouldn't shoot someone I loved in
: a romantic way, short of her being a lethal threat to me), so Mulder would
: not have dropped the gun. The BSU-guy would have surrendered right there
: or been quickly shot as he tried to escape.
:
I was going to give a long, drawn-out argument against this, but it turns
out that one of your own camp did it just fine.
Maggie Helwig (whose email says Ken Simons) actually went through an
eloquent explanation that Scully is professional enough to not act like
this under any circumstance, whether Mulder is just a close friend and
partner, or someone she has feelings for.
I myself am under the impression that Scully was already in love in Ice
and Anasazi, yet she both points a gun at him *and* shoots him. Okay, you
can counter-argue the 'in love' part, but you can still see that her
behaviour is professional.
If you're not satisfied, re-post the top part (because it disappers off my
news server in record time), and I'll try a more personal rebuttal.
Nancy
******
FoLC, X-Phile Relationshipper and DueSer
Nancy Lemieux
In article <wmains-2306...@cnc100079.concentric.net>,
wma...@popmail.ucsd.edu (Serotonin Pete) wrote:
: > Most people *are* aware that you are not speaking for the multitudes
: > when you use the phrase "we". "We" actually *are* intelligent, you
: > know. Maybe that's why we write posts that "resemble Moby Dick".
:
: Intelligence is knowing that more people will read your posts if you make
: your many good points quickly, and being able to distill such good points
: down to a few lines.
Intelligence is also knowing that a point worth proving is worth proving
well, which means replying in depth to posts challenging me, since when I
keep to short posts, I get accused of not giving any real examples of how
a romantic relationship would not affect the show overall. I have given
plenty of examples, and wait in turn for the opposite.
: If there were only a handful of pro-romantics there would be little need
: to defend our position. However, since there are probably quite a few, if
: they all expound their view unopposed then executives at Fox might catch
: wind of it and put pressure on Chris Carter to make a programming change
: for the worse.
And yet again, that's *your* opinion on the subject. Chris Carter is a
big boy. He's resisted network executives' pressure for romance before.
With a very successful show in his hands, what makes you think he would
fold now? If any romance in the future happens, have no doubt that it
will be of his making.
: I've tried that. I'm still trying. See my post about "Grotesque".
So relevant, in fact, that a non-relationshipper has undermined your
arguments. But please do keep posting. I have no doubt that some of your
points are valid.
: I was wondering, as easy as it is to send eMail stating to the effect "I
: support a romance and Kristel is my representative and I don't post on
: usenet because I can't or don't want to," how do romancers out there feel
: about a 7-10% response rate from your group?
Well, how about the fact that there are only a handful of
non-relationshippers on this newsgroup (which gets *lots* of traffic) that
actually respond to relationshipper posts? I'm sure your numbers are well
below the 7-10% rate. I have also talked to listers who simply refused to
email you because the only response they could come with would have been
construed as a flame, and they didn't want to get into a flame war.
Piper
wma...@popmail.ucsd.edu (Serotonin Pete) wrote:
>In article <4qigk2$7...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Piper
><XF-P...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>My replies were consistent. Generally they matched the tone of the eMail
>that I received. Jealous?
Jealous?? Hardly. I don't even know you, nor do I think we'd get along
if we were acquainted. I am quite content with my already busy social
life, thank you.
(It was not my intention to be rude though, on
>any post, although it might have just happened that way, or those reading
>the posts might just be sensitive. Either way, apologies to any I
>offended.)
Just for the record, you were not rude to me in your message. I'm just
relaying what others told me...so, you have no need to apologize to me.
> Most people *are* aware that you are not speaking for the multitudes
>> when you use the phrase "we". "We" actually *are* intelligent, you
>> know. Maybe that's why we write posts that "resemble Moby Dick".
>
>Intelligence is knowing that more people will read your posts if you make
>your many good points quickly, and being able to distill such good points
>down to a few lines.
This may be your definition of intelligence. I don't agree entirely with
it, because there is so much to it then that. But, your "definition"
has nothing to do with the *we* versus *I* discussion. Why do you have
such a problem with the fact that many of the posts written by the
romantics are long? This seems to be a real sore spot with you. Why is
that?
>> Ummm...what? I don't understand your point here. Why, if you know
>> that there are more romantics out there, do you need to defend your
>> position vigorously? Is it because you're worried that we might have
>> a point, and others may see it? Are you that insecure? Explain
>> please.
>
>If there were only a handful of pro-romantics there would be little need
>to defend our position. However, since there are probably quite a few, if
>they all expound their view unopposed then executives at Fox might catch
>wind of it and put pressure on Chris Carter to make a programming change
>for the worse.
Just a question--why would that make it worse? Please expound upon that,
and try to say something else other than "two people can work together
without falling in love", because while that is true, I don't think it
supports your position well. I'm looking for something a little more
substantial, same as you.
>I've tried that. I'm still trying. See my post about "Grotesque".
I did. And I feel no need to respond to it, because once again, you have
a right to your opinion, as do I, and you are obviously as set in your
ways as I am in mine, so why should I waste the energy?
>I was wondering, as easy as it is to send eMail stating to the effect "I
>support a romance and Kristel is my representative and I don't post on
>usenet because I can't or don't want to," how do romancers out there feel
>about a 7-10% response rate from your group?
Maybe no one cared enough about your message to take the time out of
their lives to write to you. Maybe they had better things to do. I don't
know. (I can't speak for them because I am not them =)
Piper
wma...@popmail.ucsd.edu (Serotonin Pete) wrote:
>In article <4qigk2$7...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Piper
><XF-P...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>My replies were consistent. Generally they matched the tone of the eMail
>that I received. Jealous?
Jealous?? Hardly. I don't even know you, nor do I think we'd get along
if we were acquainted. I am quite content with my already busy social
life, thank you.
(It was not my intention to be rude though, on
>any post, although it might have just happened that way, or those reading
>the posts might just be sensitive. Either way, apologies to any I
>offended.)
Just for the record, you were not rude to me in your message. I'm just
relaying what others told me...so, you have no need to apologize to me.
> Most people *are* aware that you are not speaking for the multitudes
>> when you use the phrase "we". "We" actually *are* intelligent, you
>> know. Maybe that's why we write posts that "resemble Moby Dick".
>
>Intelligence is knowing that more people will read your posts if you make
>your many good points quickly, and being able to distill such good points
>down to a few lines.
This may be your definition of intelligence. I don't agree entirely with
it, because there is so much to it then that. But, your "definition"
has nothing to do with the *we* versus *I* discussion. Why do you have
such a problem with the fact that many of the posts written by the
romantics are long? This seems to be a real sore spot with you. Why is
that?
>> Ummm...what? I don't understand your point here. Why, if you know
>> that there are more romantics out there, do you need to defend your
>> position vigorously? Is it because you're worried that we might have
>> a point, and others may see it? Are you that insecure? Explain
>> please.
>
>If there were only a handful of pro-romantics there would be little need
>to defend our position. However, since there are probably quite a few, if
>they all expound their view unopposed then executives at Fox might catch
>wind of it and put pressure on Chris Carter to make a programming change
>for the worse.
Just a question--why would that make it worse? Please expound upon that,
and try to say something else other than "two people can work together
without falling in love", because while that is true, I don't think it
supports your position well. I'm looking for something a little more
substantial, same as you.
>I've tried that. I'm still trying. See my post about "Grotesque".
I did. And I feel no need to respond to it, because once again, you have
a right to your opinion, as do I, and you are obviously as set in your
ways as I am in mine, so why should I waste the energy?
>I was wondering, as easy as it is to send eMail stating to the effect "I
>support a romance and Kristel is my representative and I don't post on
>usenet because I can't or don't want to," how do romancers out there feel
>about a 7-10% response rate from your group?
Maybe no one cared enough about your message to take the time out of
their lives to write to you. Maybe they had better things to do. I don't
know. (I can't speak for them because I am not them =)
~Piper, a Very Proud Member of the Romantics' Association~
Serotonin Pete
<kjo...@mail2.alliance.net> wrote:
> Sorry to disappoint you and your apparent need for attention, Pete, but
> you will not be inciting me today. I usually make it a point to repond
> only to those posts with some intellectual merit,
SO!! We FINALLY MEET!! You are NOTHING against my POWER!! :)
> Pete, you are making astounding leaps of rationalization here, but there
> is one tiny problem: Your springboard is broke. In order for the situation
> you describe to be true, several things would have to happen:
>
> The writers would have to lose and and all writing ability they have (or CC
> would have to have hired Aaron Spelling)
>
> DD and GA would have to have lost ALL acting talent they have in order to
> break the habit of "underacting" which they are so proud of and stoop to the
> melodramatic.
>
> CC would have to have lost his mind, and the viewers all sense of taste.
I agree with everything you say here. Indeed, if a romance were started
then all of these conditions would have been met.
> Now, the flaws in your argument.
>
> <snip>
>
> In other words, it would be exactly what we got.
To summarize, you were arguing that Scully can behave in the way she did
("Mulder!! Drop the gun!! Now!!") despite romantic involvement. The
problem is you assume people can quickly and effectively alternate between
professional detachment and romantic passion as the situation demands.
Reality does not support this, even idealistically it is a stretch.
Therefore, keeping the scene intact despite a romance would be, to me,
highly unbelievable.
Alternately, you might have been arguing this scene was NOT one of
sporadic professional detachment, but Scully acting upon her affection
toward Mulder.
I'll keep that in mind if we ever have a steamy love affair :)
<<< Serotonin Pete >>>
Nancy Lemieux
In article <wmains-2906...@cnc100095.concentric.net>,
wma...@popmail.ucsd.edu (Serotonin Pete) wrote:
: > In other words, it would be exactly what we got.
:
: To summarize, you were arguing that Scully can behave in the way she did
: ("Mulder!! Drop the gun!! Now!!") despite romantic involvement. The
: problem is you assume people can quickly and effectively alternate between
: professional detachment and romantic passion as the situation demands.
: Reality does not support this, even idealistically it is a stretch.
: Therefore, keeping the scene intact despite a romance would be, to me,
: highly unbelievable.
I prefer to argue it as you believing Scully is not able to bring Mulder
'back in line'. Why is it so implauble that you can love someone and
still do something like that for their own good? I guess it's the same
reason parents punish their children. You love them, but you have to do
what's right. Don't mistake passion with good judgement. One does not
necessarily preclude the other. Granted, Scully would probably hate doing
this much more if they were involved, but her behaviour over the years
gives no hints that she would suddenly 'lose it' in this case.
: Alternately, you might have been arguing this scene was NOT one of
: sporadic professional detachment, but Scully acting upon her affection
: toward Mulder.
What's so sporadic about it? Scully is always the professional. Too much
for her own good, some would argue. Tough love. Ever heard of it?
Nancy
***********
FoLC, DueSer and X-Phile Relationshipper
Kristel S Oxley-Johns
In article <wmains-2906...@cnc100095.concentric.net>, wma...@popmail.ucsd.edu says...
>
>In article <4qr3mc$n...@doc.zippo.com>, Kristel S. Oxley-Johns
><kjo...@mail2.alliance.net> wrote:
>
>> Sorry to disappoint you and your apparent need for attention, Pete, but
>> you will not be inciting me today. I usually make it a point to repond
>> only to those posts with some intellectual merit,
>
>SO!! We FINALLY MEET!! You are NOTHING against my POWER!! :)
>
>> Pete, you are making astounding leaps of rationalization here, but there
>> is one tiny problem: Your springboard is broke. In order for the situation
>> you describe to be true, several things would have to happen:
>>
>> The writers would have to lose and and all writing ability they have (or CC
>> would have to have hired Aaron Spelling)
>>
>> DD and GA would have to have lost ALL acting talent they have in order to
>> break the habit of "underacting" which they are so proud of and stoop to the
>> melodramatic.
>>
>> CC would have to have lost his mind, and the viewers all sense of taste.
>
>I agree with everything you say here. Indeed, if a romance were started
>then all of these conditions would have been met.
>
Why? People you complain that *we* (and I do mean *we* since this complaint
has been made about all the shippers who post here) do not give examples of
what we mean, and yet to make sweeping statements like that with absolutely
nothing to support them.
Why would those things have had to happen for there to be a romance? Why is
it not possible to write a romance which sits placidly in the background while
Mulder and Scully dig up dastardly government conspiracies or battle the
monster of the week? Why is it impossible for the writers to create just
such a romance without sinking into melodrama?
The answer? It's not. It *can* be done, but there seems to be a problem:
People lack faith in the ability of this writing team that keeps them
entertained and amused and even sometimes enthralled week after week. IMO
CC and Co is the best damned writing team on TV today, but all of a sudden,
gosh, the decide to try to tackle the romance and they can no longer tell
a story?
>> Now, the flaws in your argument.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> In other words, it would be exactly what we got.
>
>To summarize, you were arguing that Scully can behave in the way she did
>("Mulder!! Drop the gun!! Now!!") despite romantic involvement. The
>problem is you assume people can quickly and effectively alternate between
>professional detachment and romantic passion as the situation demands.
>Reality does not support this, even idealistically it is a stretch.
>Therefore, keeping the scene intact despite a romance would be, to me,
>highly unbelievable.
>
Okay, why is it that people *can* work together without becoming lovers,
which I fully conceed, but *can't* be lovers and still be professionally
detached when the time comes...and what has happened to the concept of
"tough love"...she did it without wimping out in Ice and Anasazi...where is
the difference?
>Alternately, you might have been arguing this scene was NOT one of
>sporadic professional detachment, but Scully acting upon her affection
>toward Mulder.
>
You are putting words in my mouth. I said no such thing...she was concerned,
she was worried, she was frightened, and she wanted to make sure no one got
hurt...she was doing her job, first and foremost, but that DOES NOT preclude
any affection she might feel...You are saything there can only be one or
the other...I am asking you "why not both?"
>I'll keep that in mind if we ever have a steamy love affair :)
>
Keep dreaming.
Kristel
Mulder
> Oh, so now you're a mindreader? You're good... you're really good! Not!
When
> have we ever said *that* is what we want? We just want something
natural, human...
> and sure, it may be the way *other* shows have gone, but then, they
probably had
> crappy writing teams. Has it ever occurred to you, even once, that we
want something
> different, and respect the XF writers enough to think they can give it
to us?
>
I myself am a relationshipper. I completely agree with you. I believe
that there were times when the lack of some kind of display of emotion
toward each other was unrealistic. One such situation was when he saved
her from being beheaded by the cannibals. You can't tell me that when
somebody showes up, and saves you from being beheaded and eaten that isn't
even worth a kiss. Also, this is just one example. He is always saving
her from something or another. Now I understand why people would be
against it. In some cases relationships have limited what a show can do,
and lead to it's downfall. But for god's sake they are only human. Even
people with the strongest integrity break down eventually.
Parateam
Kristel writes:
<<It *can* be done, but there seems to be a problem:
People lack faith in the ability of this writing team that keeps them
entertained and amused and even sometimes enthralled week after week. IMO
CC and Co is the best damned writing team on TV today, but all of a
sudden,
gosh, the decide to try to tackle the romance and they can no longer tell
a story?>>
To me (just MY OPINION, okay?), this statement sits at odds with
everything we've discussed so far. See, I (and others, I'm sure) *do*
have an awful lot of faith in the writers and I'm appalled that you would
insinuate and imply that I *do not*. THAT offends me. The fact that you
believe that the writers are the best on TV (which really ain't saying
much, the state of TV being what it is) yet you diss them over and over
again for making the relationship stagnate to such a degree that you
believe a romance is the only saving grace, makes no sense.
You CANNOT dictate to a writer and tell them what to write. If you're
Fox, you can. If you're CC, you can. But we, the fans, have no right
going there. None at all. Hey, if it were the other way around and I
wanted them to have a romance, I would understand why they weren't having
one and I would *respect* CC and the writers for their decision. If I'm
not happy with it, I don't watch it. I never, never, never attempt to
tell the powers that be what to think and how to write these characters.
I don't think that there are a lot of people out there who get where I'm
coming from with this idea, but the instant you write something and have
people coming down on you because they're interpreting the characters
differently is the day you'll understand. I'm not trying to be obnoxious
or argumentative about this. It's my experience in this screwed up
industry and I *hope* that nobody else ever has to sit through a story
meeting with idiots.
There are reasons that Mulder and Scully don't have a romance, and to
scream at CC because of this is unwarranted and disrespectful.
Nancy Lemieux
In article <4r9atk$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, para...@aol.com (Parateam)
wrote:
: Kristel writes:
:
: <<It *can* be done, but there seems to be a problem:
: People lack faith in the ability of this writing team that keeps them
: entertained and amused and even sometimes enthralled week after week. IMO
: CC and Co is the best damned writing team on TV today, but all of a
: sudden,
: gosh, the decide to try to tackle the romance and they can no longer tell
: a story?>>
:
: To me (just MY OPINION, okay?), this statement sits at odds with
: everything we've discussed so far. See, I (and others, I'm sure) *do*
: have an awful lot of faith in the writers and I'm appalled that you would
: insinuate and imply that I *do not*. THAT offends me. The fact that you
And yet you go on and say that a romance could not be written without
having the characters drastically changed, thereby ruining the show, which
is not true, so whether you want to admit it or not, you *are* insulting
the writers.
: believe that the writers are the best on TV (which really ain't saying
: much, the state of TV being what it is) yet you diss them over and over
Hold it right there! I don't diss the writers. Kristel hasn't dissed the
writers. To say we think the characters are in love has more to do with
the way the scenes are portrayed (and thus the way the actors, director,
etc choose to 'do' the scene) than anything else. If I remember
correctly, we've given *dozen* of examples where a romance could be
portrayed with little or no changes to actual scripts.
: again for making the relationship stagnate to such a degree that you
: believe a romance is the only saving grace, makes no sense.
Oh, and where have you read that? I can't believe you would write
something like that! The X-Files isn't declining, and relationshipper
arguments have been that it would only add a new depth to the partnership.
:
: You CANNOT dictate to a writer and tell them what to write. If you're
: Fox, you can. If you're CC, you can. But we, the fans, have no right
: going there. None at all. Hey, if it were the other way around and I
This seems to be the only argument you come up with. I'm sorry, but tell
me how I'm dictating by airing my opinions in an open forum. If I were to
walk into Ten Thirteen Productions, bully my way into Chris Carter's
office, and point an automatic weapon his way and say he'd better write a
romance *or else*, *then* I'd be bullying him. Otherwise, I'm just
debating a point in a newsgroup, and that's tough noogies if you're
insulted *for* CC.
: wanted them to have a romance, I would understand why they weren't having
: one and I would *respect* CC and the writers for their decision. If I'm
: not happy with it, I don't watch it. I never, never, never attempt to
I'm *happy* with the X-Files, but that doesn't mean I'm not free to think
of ways to make it better yet.
: I don't think that there are a lot of people out there who get where I'm
: coming from with this idea, but the instant you write something and have
: people coming down on you because they're interpreting the characters
: differently is the day you'll understand. I'm not trying to be obnoxious
Well, I've written things, and in every fanfic forum I've sent my stories,
I've never gotten responses where people said that I was interpreting the
characters all wrong. Quite the contrary. Food for thought.
: There are reasons that Mulder and Scully don't have a romance, and to
: scream at CC because of this is unwarranted and disrespectful.
Bwaaaa haaaa haaaa. <chuckle> <snort> Oh please, tell me, where am I screaming?
J. H. Madigan
I know I said I was going to stay away from this for a while ... OK, two
days, I guess that is "a while" of some kind.
On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, Nancy Lemieux wrote:
> And yet you go on and say that a romance could not be written without
> having the characters drastically changed,
Love is a powerful thing. At least one of at least two things would have
to happen.
1) In order to love, the characters have to change.
2) Love has to change the characters in some way.
3) Parateam? Anyone?
Or, if you're me, considering the characters I'd say Mulder, at least,
has to do a *hell* of a lot of 1. 2 should follow. That is, if this is to
be done in a credible fashion, you know, not dropped out of the air like a
falling safe...
> thereby ruining the show,
Thereby certainly altering the show's chemistry, and in my _opinion_ not
for the better.
> which is not true,
If and only if you _believe_ the characters are already in love, which in
my _opinion_ is not apparent, and is contradicted by the show itself (3,
Sysygy, Revelations, Ouiblette, etc.), In that case the characters
wouldn't have to change. But, IMO, it is not credible that love wouldn't
change them and how they act towards one another.
> so whether you want to admit it or not, you *are* insulting the writers.
*Say what?* That doesn't follow. I think the reason why there is no
romance in the show is because the writers are good enough to recognize
the problems inherent in developing a romance between the leads, and
therefore stay away from it. Also, they recognize that the idea of two
partners in love has nothing to do with what the show is about, and
they're also good enough not to have to lean on such a tired device.
They're capable of better than creating false tension with a hastily
arranged romance.
<Sarcasm mode on> Now that I read that over, that's pretty insulting to
the writers. <Sarcasm mode off>
Seriously, the only way I could see it is if the entire creative team
developed a romance over the course of a season or so. Even then, I
still wonder if the development would be beneficial. My reservations
really wouldn't be entirely addressed, but at least it would be more
credible than just declaring that the characters have been in love for
ages. That would really be a cheap stunt which is well beneath the
talents of our beloved writers.
So much for insulting the writers.
JM
J. H. Madigan
On Mon, 1 Jul 1996, Mulder wrote:
One such situation was when he saved
> her from being beheaded by the cannibals. You can't tell me that when
> somebody showes up, and saves you from being beheaded and eaten that isn't
> even worth a kiss. Also, this is just one example. He is always saving
> her from something or another.
Right. Hero and heroine are in love. Heroine gets tied up and put in
mortal danger. Hero rescues heroine. Hero gets a kiss, and later, we
are given to assume, hero and heroine screw (even though we don't get to
see it) ...
This is _exactly_ the kind of unoriginal, melodramatic shlock I _don't_
want to see.
Besides, people should save one another from being beheaded and eaten by
cannibals on general principles, for _nothing_, and not expect kisses and
sex afterward. Certainly M&S should expect such things from one another
'cos its their job to protect each other, if for no other reason.
JM
"WHAT! No kiss? Hand me that axe! <CHOP! Thud. Roll roll roll ...>
Parateam
Nancy (who's ON MY CASE!!) writes:
<<And yet you go on and say that a romance could not be written without
having the characters drastically changed, thereby ruining the show, which
is not true, so whether you want to admit it or not, you *are* insulting
the writers.>>
Hey, I work in the industry, I can insult whomever I want. But seriously,
you can't dictate to me what's true and what's not. You do not know for
sure that a romance wouldn't ruin the show. I'm sorry, Nancy, but I've
got some experience with this sort of thing and I feel that I am more
qualified (I don't know what you do, so it's not a blanket statement,
okay?) to say that it WOULD ruin the show.
<<To say we think the characters are in love has more to do with the way
the scenes are portrayed (and thus the way the actors, director, etc
choose to 'do' the scene) than anything else.>>
Okay, wait just a minute. You have no respect for CC or for the writers.
You believe that Mulder and Scully are in love, yet the man who created
them says that they are not. But you still say that they are. You have
no respect for him.
<<If I remember correctly, we've given *dozen* of examples where a romance
could be portrayed with little or no changes to actual scripts.>>
Um, no. You may have convinced yourselves, but we (I, at any rate) remain
unconvinced. Just because you put forth examples doesn't mean that the
examples mean a darned thing to me or to anyone but yourself. On that, I
hope, we can agree.
<<Oh, and where have you read that? I can't believe you would write
something like that! The X-Files isn't declining, and relationshipper
arguments have been that it would only add a new depth to the
partnership.>>
I wrote something like that because a few people said that this is
precisely why they want a romance. If you don't believe that, then fine,
no problem, but others do. You're not speaking for others, are you? And
those of us who do not want a romance like the way the depth is being
added to their relationship just the way it is.
<<This seems to be the only argument you come up with. I'm sorry, but
tell me how I'm dictating by airing my opinions in an open forum.>>
It's fairly obvious that you only skim my posts for something that ticks
you off. Whether you want to admit it or not, you ARE dictating to CC.
You're telling him that his characters are in love. See, once again
(you'll skip this, I'm sure), my problem is that you want ME to believe
that Mulder and Scully are in love. CC has said they're not. If I wanted
them to be in love, I would say so. I would never presume to tell the
creator that he's wrong. In essence, this is exactly what you're doing.
<<I'm *happy* with the X-Files, but that doesn't mean I'm not free to
think of ways to make it better yet.>>
You waffle back and forth between saying "Mulder and Scully are in love
and have been for some time", to "I love the show and just think that the
addition of a romance would make it better". So, which is it? Just want
to be clear on this point.
<<Well, I've written things, and in every fanfic forum I've sent my
stories, I've never gotten responses where people said that I was
interpreting the characters all wrong. Quite the contrary. Food for
thought.>>
Well, I'm not talking about fanfic, I'm talking about a producer with an
agenda. When I read a script, I never tell the writer that their
characters are wrong, or that they're interpreting them wrong. I can tell
them how to fix what they've got. The reason this argument sticks in my
craw is because you go way past interpreting the characters by saying that
they ARE in love and CC just doesn't know it and won't admit it.
<<Bwaaaa haaaa haaaa. <chuckle> <snort> Oh please, tell me, where am I
screaming?>>
Oh please, stop taking everything so literally, okay? Geez.
achase
Parateam and Nancy argued thus:
> :See, I (and others, I'm sure) *do* have an awful lot of faith in the
writers and I'm appalled that you would
> And yet you go on and say that a romance could not be written without
> having the characters drastically changed, thereby ruining the show, which
> is not true, so whether you want to admit it or not, you *are* insulting
This is just the sort of thing I was attempting to address in my earlier
(verbose) posting. Parateam's statement that the inclusion of romance
would create drastic changes and thereby ruin the show is an
opinion/prediction/subjective thought/inference and perhaps people should
be more careful to make the distinction (both in their own posts and when
reading others). Thereby too, Nancy, you cannot say Parateam's opinion
"is not true". Your belief that the creative team could accomplish the
inclusion of romance with grace is also an opinion, not the truth and not
provable in a empirical fashion. If we could all take a deep breath and
be sure to differentiate, things wouldn't get so thorny. As they say:
"the proof is in the pudding" (and thereby not in the arguments of people
standing around in the kitchen watching the chef at work). If a romance
does become part of the X-Files universe, then we will all get to try the
pudding for ourselves and see if we like it!
>I don't diss the writers. To say we think the characters are in love has
more to do with
> the way the scenes are portrayed (and thus the way the actors, director,
> etc choose to 'do' the scene) than anything else. If I remember
> correctly, we've given *dozen* of examples where a romance could be
> portrayed with little or no changes to actual scripts. (Nancy)
And because the whole argument is subjective I can use those exact same
scenes and the way they are portrayed to illustrate that FM and DS have a
wonderful friendship that fascinates me. Those scenes are fact but the
interpretation of them comes from inside you, like I said before, your
reading of the scene comes from your individual life experiences. And
again, you have given many examples of where a romance "could" be
portrayed with few changes to the actual script, but those examples
(convincing or not) are speculation, not fact. Sigh. Now I feel like I
should go chide some of the anti-shippers for being so hardline and trying
to pass _their_ speculations off as fact, cause I am trying to be
even-handed about this. But I'm too tired today (it's 100 degress at 2:00
a.m where I live!! makes for poor sleeping) a.chase