Buffy 3.13 The Zeppo (Spoilers)
P@rick
*** SPOILERS for Buffy 3.13 The Zeppo ***
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
This episode gave me a dual feeling when I first saw it. It is very very
funny. Well, it being a Xander episode, that's no surprise. But the other
side to it, the world coming to it's end and the Scoobies not too excited
about their chances. That creates a big contrast. Question is, does the
contrast make this episode brilliant, or does it leave the viewer dazed and
confused, not knowing what to think of it. Now I tend to go with the former.
There are two different storylines running simultaniously in this episode.
The main one is about Xander being left out of the preparation for the
battle because basically he is of no use to the Scoobies. We then follow
Xander spending his time with some newly found friends. The other storyline
is that of the Scoobies trying to prevent the impending opening of the
Hellmouth and subsequent destruction of the world. We see how they try to do
the best they can acting on the little information that is available. And we
see that they are not very positive about the outcome of the battle.
Now there is one strong reason why these two storylines wouldn't work
together. The situation at hand is portrayed as being the greatest threat
the world has ever faced. Even with two Slayers, the chances of saving the
world are very uncertain. Things are definately *not* looking good. Now
these themes are by themselves sufficient ingredients for a very exciting
episode. But thrown in is the Xander storyline which, at face value, is just
meant to be funny. This comic relief doesn't blend very well with the
seriousness and graveness of the possible ending of the world. It prevents
the viewer from getting involved in the ending-of-the-world storyline and it
ruins the atmosphere.
Personally, I must say I only felt this way when we first saw the Scoobies
fighting the big demon. For the rest, it completely worked for me.
It *was* the big contrast that made this episode work. When you are able to
distinguish the different storylines, and know which is main line and which
is the supporting line, it all works out.
The whole point of this episode was Xander feeling useless to the Scoobies.
When they all are trying very hard to prevent the destruction of the world,
they still have time to tell Xander that he'd better stay out of the way. No
time for fooling around. Since the Scoobies are the only friends Xander has,
and real close ones too, and since Xander has faced numerous threats side by
side with them, this hurts him at his very deepest. Basically he feels like
he might as well don't exist. And sure enough, he manages to get himself in
trouble with a bunch of dead guys. A very first sign of his braveness is
that he isn't at all scared off by it. His natural reaction is to seek help
with Buffy (but she is busy in a *serious* scene with Angel) and then with
Giles. When he realises he is all alone in this, he is determined to deal
with the situation by himself and is ready to act. When the going gets
tough, Xander gets going. And he manages to prevent the school from blowing
up. In the process taking out three zombies and escaping from the Sisters.
He effectively proves his worth in dealing with difficult situation and
basically proves the Scoobies wrong in considering him a liability rather
then of help.
The great thing about this, of course, is that both the Scoobies and Xander
don't know about this. By preventing the bomb from exploding Xander prevents
the world from ending. But he doesn't know that, and neither do the
Scoobies. Actually, because Xander didn't get to play, he ended up in a
position to stop the zombies. Would he have been fighting the demon, the
bomb would have exploded and the battle would be lost.
This is why it's so great that the ending-of-the-world scenario was treated
so seriously and heavily. When the end of times is near, useless Xander
saves the day. And all the more contrasting with Xander's own battle, which
he fought in his own special, but ultimately effective way. This shows that
Xander is useful to the Scoobies in his own respect. Without having
supernatural powers, but using human virtues like courage and
resourcefulness.
So when you approach this episode the right way, it all works like a charm.
Take it any different way, and you end up feeling uncomfortable about it.
Furthermore, this episode was packed with funny stuff. Cordelia excelled at
locating and striking Xander's nerves. Xander's lines were very funny. He
got an enormous ego boost from this. And oh yeah, Xander had sex! I can't
believe Xander had sex!
Bye, Patrick
--
Keeper of the Willowism, "And I'm eating this banana. Lunchtime be damned!"
Protector of Willow and Oz waking up together
Keeper of the Wily Willow Charms
ThreadMaker [tm]
Yorrit
"P@rick" <P.J.Mee...@students.fss.uu.nl> wrote:
> Did anyone bring the marshmallows?
>
> *** SPOILERS for Buffy 3.13 The Zeppo ***
Wich reminds my, is the spoiler-thing settled yet?
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
>
>
End of the World, come on, they've faced a lot of big danger, and now
they're all crying about that the world's going to end, that demon
wasn't that bad. and if it was that bad, we havent seen much of the
battle and all.
> The great thing about this, of course, is that both the Scoobies and
Xander
> don't know about this. By preventing the bomb from exploding Xander
prevents
> the world from ending. But he doesn't know that, and neither do the
> Scoobies. Actually, because Xander didn't get to play, he ended up in
a
> position to stop the zombies. Would he have been fighting the demon,
the
> bomb would have exploded and the battle would be lost.
well, if Xander wasn't 'hanging out' with those dead guys, maybe they
wouldn't get the idea for a 'cake'.
That demon sure got the school, how are they going to cover up that?
I bet that next ep, the school, and especially the Library, are fixed
and nothing's lost.
Yorrit
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
P@rick
> > *** SPOILERS for Buffy 3.13 The Zeppo ***
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
> > *
>
> End of the World, come on, they've faced a lot of big danger, and now
> they're all crying about that the world's going to end, that demon
> wasn't that bad. and if it was that bad, we havent seen much of the
> battle and all.
Well that's just it. The situation was very serious. Those demon-sisters
were very strong, the demon coming from the Hellmouth was too. And if the
demon wasn't stopped, the Hellmouth would open even further and the demons
would unstoppable. The seriousness of the situation was explained and the
worried faces of the Scoobies spoke volumes. But that wasn't the main focus
of this episode, and neither was their battle with the demon. The focus was
on Xander and his fight. And for me, that created a special atmosphere which
I really enjoyed.
> That demon sure got the school, how are they going to cover up that?
> I bet that next ep, the school, and especially the Library, are fixed
> and nothing's lost.
I'm guessing that the Hellmouth closes and restores itself, because it's a
mystical spot. But the rest of the damage? Well, those burglars in Sunnydale
are getting wilder every day...
Bye, Patrick
P@rick
> Wich reminds my, is the spoiler-thing settled yet?
It isn't really settled. I made a suggestion about it, but there was little
response. Someone suggested a different policy, but that wouldn't make
things easier.
There were no replies from people who read here and live in a country that's
behind on the BBC schedule. Nor were there people who directly opposed to my
suggestion.
So here's the deal I guess: we use spoilerspace until an episode has aired
for the second time (the Fridaynight repeat) on BBC2. After that,
spoilerspace is no longer required. I use the Fridaynight repeat as the
dividing line, because some people wait for the uncut version that is shown
then.
Of course I can't force people to apply the same rules as I do. So this is
by no means official. But this is the way I do it, and this is my
suggestion. If you're ok with it, then fine. If you're not, then post your
opinion and explain why not and what your suggestion is.
I don't know what the formal spoiler-policy of this NG has to say about
this. If somebody does, please post it to the group.
Bye, Patrick
Yorrit
"P@rick" <P.J.Mee...@students.fss.uu.nl> wrote:
> I don't know what the formal spoiler-policy of this NG has to say
> about
> this. If somebody does, please post it to the group.
That are old rules, and old rules mean conservativity, and that's not
good.
Mattia Valente
OOH!!!! TAGS!!!!! Got that from that other group, huh? Only tag
poilcy we have here (officially, at least according to the ever
unfindable and incomplete abe FAQ) is the language tagging. OT
kinda snuck in there too...at least we don't tag for Buffy or
Angel ep reviews (thank god for that.)
> Yorrit wrote:
>
> > Wich reminds my, is the spoiler-thing settled yet?
>
> It isn't really settled. I made a suggestion about it, but there was little
> response. Someone suggested a different policy, but that wouldn't make
> things easier.
Which different poilcy are you referring to? No spoiler spaces on
stuff aired on the beeb?
> There were no replies from people who read here and live in a country that's
> behind on the BBC schedule. Nor were there people who directly opposed to my
> suggestion.
In other words, take that as a yes. I recall asking people who
disagreed to speak up. Nobody did.
> So here's the deal I guess: we use spoilerspace until an episode has aired
> for the second time (the Fridaynight repeat) on BBC2. After that,
> spoilerspace is no longer required. I use the Fridaynight repeat as the
> dividing line, because some people wait for the uncut version that is shown
> then.
So....almost exactly the same rules as uk.media.buffy-v-slayer?
Hmm...I say we take the first showing as the cutoff line. If
people didn't watch, they can just abstain from reading the posts
(clearly stat the ep being discussed in the subject header) until
they have watched. You can't go around protecting people because
they missed a show (or chose not to watch it.) Anyway, the pretty
much all the people I know of who only watch the uncut repeat
have already seen the ep once (at least) anyway, so who is it we
are protecting, exactly? Another point being that this way you
don't end up with threads with mixed spoilerspace/no
spoilerspace. Once the space is there, its easy enough to leave
in, and mixed I for one find a little annoying.
> Of course I can't force people to apply the same rules as I do. So this is
> by no means official. But this is the way I do it, and this is my
> suggestion. If you're ok with it, then fine. If you're not, then post your
> opinion and explain why not and what your suggestion is.
I did, see above :-p
> I don't know what the formal spoiler-policy of this NG has to say about
> this. If somebody does, please post it to the group.
I don't think there is a formal policy (other than everything is
a spoiler) Who started the group again? I thought George and
XanderX (who doesn't hang around here anymore..) IIRC the FAQ has
never yet been completed, and was a cursory guide to posting at
best. I'd say its basically up to the core group of posters (ie,
the top 20 list posters with more than 2 posts to their name ;-)
to decide on this issue. If at that point we get a bunch of
complaints from people, we can always reverse the decision.
Discussing S4 eps without spoilerspace is prety much out of the
question though.
Thoughts?
Mattia
PostMeister[tm]
Mattia Valente
>
> In article <8l6pml$21g$1...@news.surfnet.nl>,
> "P@rick" <P.J.Mee...@students.fss.uu.nl> wrote:
>
> > about
> > this. If somebody does, please post it to the group.
>
> good.
Err...pray elaborate. Since when do old rules=conservative? They
don't by definition, at least. And anyway, is conservatieve
always bad? Enoughsillyness, to seriousness:
The old rules were vague, covering all bases in the early days of
the group, when its demographic was as yet vague. Now abe has a
distinct character and population, and reform is called for (sort
of. Not very enthusiastically, I might add ;-) I'm actually for a
slightly more radical reform than P@tty boy is, but I won't
impliment it unless there's agreement about it (at least tacit.)
That's why I tend to point out lack of SSpaces even when it may
seem redundant.
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
Devils advocate at work again..
P@rick
> "P@rick" wrote:
>
> OOH!!!! TAGS!!!!! Got that from that other group, huh
I just *luve* tags
> > It isn't really settled. I made a suggestion about it, but there was
little
> > response. Someone suggested a different policy, but that wouldn't make
> > things easier.
>
> Which different poilcy are you referring to? No spoiler spaces on
> stuff aired on the beeb?
Claudia had the following idea (translated): I you want to start a
discussion about an episode, you first post a message with nothing in the
message-body, just the subject in the header. Then you reply to that message
with the actual message.
I replied that this was even more laborious, and that it didn't settle the
issue at hand.
> > So here's the deal I guess: we use spoilerspace until an episode has
aired
> > for the second time (the Fridaynight repeat) on BBC2. After that,
> > spoilerspace is no longer required. I use the Fridaynight repeat as the
> > dividing line, because some people wait for the uncut version that is
shown
> > then.
>
> So....almost exactly the same rules as uk.media.buffy-v-slayer?
> Hmm...I say we take the first showing as the cutoff line. If
> people didn't watch, they can just abstain from reading the posts
> (clearly stat the ep being discussed in the subject header) until
> they have watched. You can't go around protecting people because
> they missed a show (or chose not to watch it.)/
I agree on that. But since there's only two days between the first and
second showing, I don't think it's much trouble using spoilerspace until the
second showing. Spoilerspace is mainly used to protect people who quick read
most messages and jump from one message to the other. A spoilerwarning in
the header isn't effective for them. So for those people skipping the
messages when they have not yet watched the episode isn't an option.
/ Anyway, the pretty
> much all the people I know of who only watch the uncut repeat
> have already seen the ep once (at least) anyway, so who is it we
> are protecting, exactly?/
Mostly people who lurk here I guess. And people from Schotland.
/ Another point being that this way you
> don't end up with threads with mixed spoilerspace/no
> spoilerspace. Once the space is there, its easy enough to leave
> in, and mixed I for one find a little annoying.
Well, spoilerspace is always a bit annoying. I don't see how it gets more
annoying when there are also messages without it in the thread. After the
second airing, all spoilerspace can be cut.
> I'd say its basically up to the core group of posters (ie,
> the top 20 list posters with more than 2 posts to their name ;-)
> to decide on this issue./
But still we have to take the interests of the lurkers into account. We
wouldn't want to scare them off.
/ If at that point we get a bunch of
> complaints from people, we can always reverse the decision.
That's a possibility. I don't think we would get much protests exactly
because there are only two days between the first and the second airing.
Only problem would remain with people who watch BBC Schotland. But lord
knows how many (or rather few) visit this NG. Most of them are in u.m.t.b
methinks. But maybe a lot of them read both NGs.
Personally, I wouldn't mind dropping spoilerspace after the first airing.
But I try to take other people's interests into consideration. The problem
is that we don't hear from those other people. So maybe they are very
limited in numbers. OTOH, summer holiday is not the time to expect a big
response.
We could try your suggestion Mattia, and see what happens. We can't decide
for other people how to behave. But we can defy the (non-existent) rules a
bit and see what happens.
Bye, Patrick
feeling a bit like a rebel
Mattia Valente
>
> Mattia Valente wrote:
>
> > "P@rick" wrote:
> >
> > OOH!!!! TAGS!!!!! Got that from that other group, huh
>
> I just *luve* tags
Loser.
:-p
> > Which different poilcy are you referring to? No spoiler spaces on
> > stuff aired on the beeb?
>
> Claudia had the following idea (translated): I you want to start a
> discussion about an episode, you first post a message with nothing in the
> message-body, just the subject in the header. Then you reply to that message
> with the actual message.
Too complicated, and sort of annoying (sorry Claudia ;-), don't
buy this.
> I replied that this was even more laborious, and that it didn't settle the
> issue at hand.
Indeed.
> > So....almost exactly the same rules as uk.media.buffy-v-slayer?
> > Hmm...I say we take the first showing as the cutoff line. If
> > people didn't watch, they can just abstain from reading the posts
> > (clearly stat the ep being discussed in the subject header) until
> > they have watched. You can't go around protecting people because
> > they missed a show (or chose not to watch it.)/
>
> I agree on that. But since there's only two days between the first and
> second showing, I don't think it's much trouble using spoilerspace until the
> second showing. Spoilerspace is mainly used to protect people who quick read
> most messages and jump from one message to the other. A spoilerwarning in
> the header isn't effective for them. So for those people skipping the
> messages when they have not yet watched the episode isn't an option.
Its not much trouble, but my POINT is, unless you start a new
thread after the repeat, You're still gonna have spoiler space in
part of the thread. Leaving it in once its there isn't really a
problem, but we are trying to get rid of as much spoilerspace as
possible, right? I'm still waiting for those people who might be
opposed to removing spoilerspace to say something (its not scary,
we don't bite, and we don't mind opposin viewpoints! Really!
Speak up lurkers!)
Honestly, though, if people can't be bothered to read headers
because they skim through at light speed, thats quite honestly
their problem. Sorry if I say so. Its not that hard to do, I
might add, read subject headers.
> > Anyway, the pretty
> > much all the people I know of who only watch the uncut repeat
> > have already seen the ep once (at least) anyway, so who is it we
> > are protecting, exactly?/
>
> Mostly people who lurk here I guess. And people from Schotland.
BBC airing times have changed, anyway; Scotland, N Ireland, Wales
and England all get the first showing on wednesday evening. All
of the above save Scotland get the repeat on Friday (the Scots
get it on Saturday night.) SO they aren't being protected
anymore. And pray, which lurkers do you mean? Once its been on,
its been on. Its like inserting spoilerspaces because some people
recorded the ep but haven't watched it yet.
> > Another point being that this way you
> > don't end up with threads with mixed spoilerspace/no
> > spoilerspace. Once the space is there, its easy enough to leave
> > in, and mixed I for one find a little annoying.
>
> Well, spoilerspace is always a bit annoying. I don't see how it gets more
> annoying when there are also messages without it in the thread. After the
> second airing, all spoilerspace can be cut.
From new messages only. Its not esthetically pleaseing
[ducks]
> > I'd say its basically up to the core group of posters (ie,
> > the top 20 list posters with more than 2 posts to their name ;-)
> > to decide on this issue.
>
> But still we have to take the interests of the lurkers into account. We
> wouldn't want to scare them off.
Unless I hear SOMETHING or SOMEONE saying that spoiler space for
BBC aired eps is a good thing (a lurker whom it might benefit,
not someone like you whom the lack of space doesn't bother either
way ;-) I'm sticking to my views. That or everyone else disagrees
with me.
> > If at that point we get a bunch of
> > complaints from people, we can always reverse the decision.
>
> That's a possibility. I don't think we would get much protests exactly
> because there are only two days between the first and the second airing.
> Only problem would remain with people who watch BBC Schotland. But lord
> knows how many (or rather few) visit this NG. Most of them are in u.m.t.b
> methinks. But maybe a lot of them read both NGs.
Right...possibly. Although its been quite terribly quiet in here
for a while now. I don't want much protest, I'm looking for ANY
protest. Of course, everyone's on holiday (me too starting monday
:-)))) so that may skew the representation.
> Personally, I wouldn't mind dropping spoilerspace after the first airing.
> But I try to take other people's interests into consideration. The problem
> is that we don't hear from those other people. So maybe they are very
> limited in numbers. OTOH, summer holiday is not the time to expect a big
> response.
Right...what I said above..I really should read ahead..
> We could try your suggestion Mattia, and see what happens. We can't decide
> for other people how to behave. But we can defy the (non-existent) rules a
> bit and see what happens.
Hehe ;-) Or we could wait until Summer is over. I doubt we'll get
complints until then, if then at all. The rules man (George, if
anyone, I guess) isn't even lurking momentarily, methinks.
> Bye, Patrick
> feeling a bit like a rebel
Ooohh.....daring indeed!!!
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
2 quotes coming, one just a LITTLE long :-p
Willow: "She was already smoking in fifth grade. Once I was
lookout for her."
Xander: "You’re bad to the bone."
Willow: "I’m a rebel."
-School Hard
Willow: "No, Ma, hear this! I’m a rebel! I’m having a rebellion!"
Sheila: "Honey, you don’t need to act out like this to prove your
specialness."
Willow: "Mom, I’m not acting out. I’m a witch! I-I can make
pencils float. And I can summon the four ele-ments. Okay, two,
but four soon. A-and I’mdating a musician!"
Sheila: "Oh, Willow!"
Willow: "Thickly sarcastic I worship Beelzebub. I do his
biddings. Do you see any goats around? No, because I sacrificed
them!"
Sheila: "Willow, please!"
Willow: "All bow before Satan!"
Sheila: "I’m not listening to this."
Willow: "Prince of Night, I summon you. Come fill me with your
black, naughty evil!"
-Gingerbread
Rob
P@rick <P.J.Mee...@students.fss.VampWillow.uu.nl> schreef in
berichtnieuws 8l52nb$2hm$1...@news.surfnet.nl...
> Did anyone bring the marshmallows?
>
> *** SPOILERS for Buffy 3.13 The Zeppo ***
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
> *
>
storyline is even less important than you think.
Every thing that is besides the Xander storyline is in itself not important
and has no repercussions to the rest of the season.
The only effect that the other storyline has, is to accentuate the Xander
storyline. This ep is about Xander and his place in the scooby gang. The
only point of that "end of the world" storyline is that Xander is not in it.
He seems somewhat of an outsider within the group, but it turns out in the
end that he is just as important as the others. Just in his own way.
Bye, Rob
Miriam Rocke
:
: Honestly, though, if people can't be bothered to read headers
: because they skim through at light speed, thats quite honestly
: their problem. Sorry if I say so. Its not that hard to do, I
: might add, read subject headers.
I just have to respond to this...
I don't read headers separately from the posts, mainly because it
takes three times as much effort. (To go from one post to the next, I
only have to hit either right arrow or tab. To go back to where I can
see the headers before I go to the next post, I have to hit q, down,
and enter. For one post, it doesn't seem like a lot of effort. But
for a lot of posts, and taking in connection speeds if I'm dialing up,
it adds up to rather a lot.)
If I come across a thread I don't want to read-- say, one tagged by
[french] or [dutch]-- I can skip over the whole thread (and, again,
one keystroke-- ctrl-K -- will simultaneously mark the thread as read,
and go to the next one), but that doesn't help in terms of spoilage.
Granted, I'm not going to be spoiled, except by rumors of the future.
But if I *were* rather behind you lot, and y'all adopted a "if you
can't read headers, then tough shit", I'd probably be more likely to
leave the newsgroup than keep going back to the index.
...just a thought. :)
Mir
--
Miriam Rocke "Just so we're clear, you guys
mrr...@ucdavis.edu know you're nuts, right?"
http://handel.cipic.ucdavis.edu/~mrrocke/ --BtVS, "Gingerbread"
P@rick
> "P@rick" wrote:
> Its not much trouble, but my POINT is, unless you start a new
> thread after the repeat, You're still gonna have spoiler space in
> part of the thread./
In the older messages. Ok I get it.
/ Leaving it in once its there isn't really a
> problem, but we are trying to get rid of as much spoilerspace as
> possible, right?
Right
> Honestly, though, if people can't be bothered to read headers
> because they skim through at light speed, thats quite honestly
> their problem./
Well, quickreading is more common in NG with heavy traffic. So I guess that
doesn't apply here.
/ Sorry if I say so. Its not that hard to do, I
> might add, read subject headers.
Apparently some people use the 'next unread message' option to read the
messages. And apparently they don't see the headers that way. I don't know
if this is usual practice though. And people who want to avoid being spoiled
should know better than not reading the headers.
> BBC airing times have changed, anyway; Scotland, N Ireland, Wales
> and England all get the first showing on wednesday evening./
Ok, so that's not a problem.
[..]
> And pray, which lurkers do you mean? Once its been on,
> its been on. Its like inserting spoilerspaces because some people
> recorded the ep but haven't watched it yet.
But waiting for the uncut version is a legitimate reason to skip the first
airing. We can't allow for people who tape it and watch it maybe six days
later. OTOH, people who want to watch the uncut version can skip the
spoilery messages by reading the headers.
> Of course, everyone's on holiday (me too starting monday :-))))
You're leaving again?
(upset) What, you just stopped by for your lint brush and now
you're ready to go?
(heavy with sarcasm) Have a good time. Oh, oh, and don't forget
to *not* write.
Don't you just love them Willow quotes ;o)
> > We could try your suggestion Mattia, and see what happens. We can't
decide
> > for other people how to behave. But we can defy the (non-existent) rules
a
> > bit and see what happens.
>
> Hehe ;-) Or we could wait until Summer is over. I doubt we'll get
> complints until then, if then at all. The rules man (George, if
> anyone, I guess) isn't even lurking momentarily, methinks.
Well, I think I'll start right away. I usually write a review anyway, so
let's see what happens. This is what I'll do: I clearly state in the header
which episode it's about and that spoilers are to be expected (like I always
do). I could give a spoilerwarning in the message body, but that would be
cut in the first reply anyway so what's the use.
> > Bye, Patrick
> > feeling a bit like a rebel
>
> Ooohh.....daring indeed!!!
>
> Mattia
> ReplyMeister[tm]
> 2 quotes coming, one just a LITTLE long :-p
[two appropriate Willow quotes]
See, Willow and me, we're alike. We share the same mind, we're both rebels!
Bye, Patrick
Soul Rebel
P@rick
> I don't read headers separately from the posts, mainly because it
> takes three times as much effort. (To go from one post to the next, I
> only have to hit either right arrow or tab. To go back to where I can
> see the headers before I go to the next post, I have to hit q, down,
> and enter. For one post, it doesn't seem like a lot of effort. But
> for a lot of posts, and taking in connection speeds if I'm dialing up,
> it adds up to rather a lot.)
But you can't see the header when you read a message? Seems very strange,
even M$ OE has this feature. Hell, in OE there's simply no way to read a
message without seeing the header as well. So if I only put a spoilerwarning
in the header (like the one I always put in the header of my reviews) you
don't see the warning at all?
> Granted, I'm not going to be spoiled, except by rumors of the future.
> But if I *were* rather behind you lot, and y'all adopted a "if you
> can't read headers, then tough shit", I'd probably be more likely to
> leave the newsgroup than keep going back to the index.
The thing is that I (we?) just can't imagine reading a message without being
able to see the header at the same time. It seems strange to me that you can
jump to the next message not knowing what it's about (that's what a header
tells you). Were not trying to scare people off, we're trying to make things
easier for the posters (i.e. limiting the use of spoilerspace).
> ...just a thought. :)
Hey, thanks very much. This is insightful. Wish more people would speak up.
And while you're at it, where would you draw the line in using spoilerspace?
From which ep, from which airing etc. is spoilerspace no longer obligatory
IYHO?
Bye, Patrick
inquiring mind that needs to know
P@rick
> I agree with most you say. But I think that the second (end of the
world)
> storyline is even less important than you think.
> Every thing that is besides the Xander storyline is in itself not
important
> and has no repercussions to the rest of the season.
> The only effect that the other storyline has, is to accentuate the Xander
> storyline. This ep is about Xander and his place in the scooby gang.
The
> only point of that "end of the world" storyline is that Xander is not in
it.
> He seems somewhat of an outsider within the group, but it turns out in the
> end that he is just as important as the others. Just in his own way.
I totally agree. The B-plot doesn't work and doesn't support the A-plot if
the threat
of the Apocalypse isn't made tangible. The viewer must be convinced that
things are getting really serious and must fear for the worst. This is done
by ominous scenes like the Buffy/Angel scene ("Buffy, this is worse than
anything we've ever faced."), the Buffy/Willy scene, Willow implicitly
saying farewell to Xander, Faith almost being defeated by a Sister. All
those scenes spell doom and mortal danger. And it really worked for me.
Which is a great accomplishment, because those scenes were constantly
alternated with the humourous Xander scenes. As a viewer you constantly have
to switch between the two emotions. And humor and fear are two contrasting
emotions. It's very easy to get it wrong, but here it worked brilliantly. So
the more believable the two plots are, the greater the contrast gets, and
the better the whole thing works. If the B-plot doesn't work, the whole
thing collapses. So this is the importance of the B-plot.
I must say that the actual fighting scene didn't really add to the
Apocalyptic feeling. But the more important scenes in the B-plot were the
ones that built up that feeling.
Like you said the events of the B-plot won't carry through the rest of the
season. The fact that Buffy was impressed by Giles' effort ("I don't know
how you managed. It was the bravest thing I've ever seen.") will help in
restoring their relationship. But for the rest, no repercussions.
Bye, Patrick
busybee
in my country, the whole of s3 has aired, only s4 is spoiler.
but i suggest, if you don't want to get too many spoiler spaces in threads,
either
code in rot 13
or
[SPOILER] TAG in the message title absolutely at least!
see ya
busybee
P@rick
> but i suggest, if you don't want to get too many spoiler spaces in
threads,
> either
> code in rot 13
I think it would be a real pain to decode each and every message with
spoilers in it.
> or
> [SPOILER] TAG in the message title absolutely at least!
That sounds better to me. We could use tags, or put SPOILER in the header
otherwise. Something like: Buffy 3.16 Doppelgangland SPOILERS.
Bye, Patrick
Yorrit
"P@rick" <P.J.Mee...@students.fss.uu.nl> wrote:
> > or
> > [SPOILER] TAG in the message title absolutely at least!
>
> That sounds better to me. We could use tags, or put SPOILER in the
header
> otherwise. Something like: Buffy 3.16 Doppelgangland SPOILERS.
>
> Bye, Patrick
Don't we already do that?
Yorrit
> > or
> > [SPOILER] TAG in the message title absolutely at least!
>
> That sounds better to me. We could use tags, or put SPOILER in the
header
> otherwise. Something like: Buffy 3.16 Doppelgangland SPOILERS.
>
Yorrit
Mattia Valente <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
> P@tty boy
Don't call him that. It destroys his masculinity. Makes him look like a
Nancy-boy.
P@rick
> Mattia Valente <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
>
> > P@tty boy
>
> Don't call him that. It destroys his masculinity. Makes him look like a
> Nancy-boy.
Yeah man. I'm not a Nancy-boy!
<hides Nancy-Boy hairgel>
What made you think that?
Bye, Patrick
very masculine
P@rick
> "P@rick" wrote:
>
>
> > We could use tags, or put SPOILER in the header otherwise.
> > Something like: Buffy 3.16 Doppelgangland SPOILERS.
> Don't we already do that?
Yeah we do.
Actually, this discussion is drifting away from my original intention. What
I want to know is from which episode/season on, spoilerspace is no longer
required in this NG. Up till now, we used the Fridaynight airing of Buffy as
the dividing line. Since this is a European NG, I want to know if this
dividing line is the right one. Actually, I want to move the line a little.
My suggestion is that spoilerspace is no longer required for episodes that
have aired on BBC on Wednesday. What I need is for people to speak up if
this dividing line means they're gonna get spoiled because their country is
behind on the BBC schedule. I don't think this also concerns people who wait
until the Fridaynight repeat, because they had the chance to watch it on
Wednesday. If they don't want to get spoiled, they will have to skip some
messages 'till Friday. But this is a point of debate I guess.
I think that an episode either requires spoilerwarnings or not. So I don't
really want to discuss the spoilerwarnings we use, because I think that's
already clear. What we need to decide is *when* to use it.
I think I will repeat this META discussion somewhere late August, when most
people are probably back from their holidays. At this time the number of
reactions is just too low to call it a discussion, and to make decisions
based on it.
Bye, Patrick
Yorrit
I didn't thought that. Mattia called you "P@tty boy", and I just said
that you probably wouldn't like it if people called you that. So, I was
standing up for you.
P@rick
> I didn't thought that. Mattia called you "P@tty boy", and I just said
> that you probably wouldn't like it if people called you that. So, I was
> standing up for you.
Thank you. And you scared Mattia off too. I don't think we'll be hearing
from him for a while!
Bye, Patrick
Luke Croll
nts.fss.VampWillow.uu.nl> writes
>busybee wrote:
>
>> but i suggest, if you don't want to get too many spoiler spaces in
>threads,
>> either
>> code in rot 13
>
>I think it would be a real pain to decode each and every message with
>spoilers in it.
>
be very good if it couldn't.
>> or
>> [SPOILER] TAG in the message title absolutely at least!
>
>That sounds better to me. We could use tags, or put SPOILER in the header
>otherwise. Something like: Buffy 3.16 Doppelgangland SPOILERS.
>
>Bye, Patrick
That's what they do in most newsgroups, plus the addition of spoiler
space - hitting enter 30 times.
--
Luke Croll
The alt.books.dean-koontz FAQ is found at:
http://www.mills1.demon.co.uk/FAQ.htm
Luke Croll
Kleiweg <kle...@let.rug.invalid> writes
>Luke Croll skriver...
>
>> Can Outlook Express do ROT-13? As the majority here use it, it would not
>> be very good if it couldn't.
>
Vg pna. BX.
Miriam Rocke
: Miriam Rocke wrote:
:
: > I don't read headers separately from the posts, mainly because it
: > takes three times as much effort. (To go from one post to the next, I
: > only have to hit either right arrow or tab. To go back to where I can
: > see the headers before I go to the next post, I have to hit q, down,
: > and enter. For one post, it doesn't seem like a lot of effort. But
: > for a lot of posts, and taking in connection speeds if I'm dialing up,
: > it adds up to rather a lot.)
:
: But you can't see the header when you read a message? Seems very strange,
: even M$ OE has this feature. Hell, in OE there's simply no way to read a
: message without seeing the header as well. So if I only put a spoilerwarning
: in the header (like the one I always put in the header of my reviews) you
: don't see the warning at all?
See the header? Sure. Read the header?
Why would I?
Okay, yes, if I were in risk of being spoiled, I might get in the
habit of looking up to the header before reading the message. But for
the most part, it's an efficiency thing. Why look all the way up
(okay, so it's a whole, like, two or three inches; no making fun of
me, please) to the header, when the text starts *below* the header and
I can usually figure out the subject of the post from, well, the post?
I *do* look at the header if I'm uncertain about something-- if I'm
confused about which group I'm in (happens!), or if the post is a
"This thread has drifted" type thing and I want to see what the
original subject is, or if (in this newsgroup) the thread is dutch or
it's just a mislanguaged post.
But that's only after I've read some of the post; and if it contained
spoilers, I would have read that, and I can't easily forget something
that I'm trying to forget. (Sadly, I *can* easily forget things I
have to remember, but that's not the same thing.) Which is why
spoiler space is so nice-- even if my screen is tall enough that the
sspace doesn't cover the whole thing, I can still recognize the
pattern and think "this is spoiler space, better not glance below"
before I've read anything damaging.
And my point? I have absolutely no clue.
: Hey, thanks very much. This is insightful.
It would be more insightful if I actually cared about spoiler space.
<g> Aside from future-rumors, I generally advocate spoiler space only
for other people, not for my sake. But, hey.
: And while you're at it, where would you draw the line in using spoilerspace?
: From which ep, from which airing etc. is spoilerspace no longer obligatory
: IYHO?
Spoiler space is no longer obligatory when all people reading the
group have seen the episode. But that's the point, isn't it, figuring
that out? (Not to mention the confusion of people who don't watch it
when it airs...)
IMO:
I don't think we need to be responsible for keeping every possible
newsgroup lurker spoiler-free, as that would mean spoiler-spacing
pretty much every single post. (There are people who actually--
gaspshock-- *haven't* seen a *single* episode of Buffy.) On US
groups, I've seen spoiler-space requirements of a week after initial
airing; my personal rule, for lists I post to, is putting spoiler
space until the weekend after the ep airs. Obviously, an identical
rule wouldn't work here, 'cause of the whole different country thing.
But it seems to me (could be wrong though) that the majority of
posters here are Dutch. I don't know how many Brits we have, but from
what I can tell the BBC airings are the farthest behind; so I guess
I'd vote for the spoiler-space-until-BBC-airing. Which airing, I have
no clue. :)
That, or-- if we really *don't* have that many viewers whose only
recourse is the BBC-- spoiler-space up until the last-- okay, this
sentence is going to be confusing no matter how I write it, so
simplifying: There are people who are known to post to this group.
Those people belong to countries that have known airing dates. For
any given episode, one of that set of airing dates is latest; and said
latest airing date is predictable. Back to the point, spoiler-space
up until the last known airing date, and then maybe mention (in header
or in the top of the text or somewhere) if there's going to be an
in-depth discussion of a (non-spoiler-spaced) episode.
Or is that all too complicated? Probably.
Disclaimer: I'm really really exhausted, and my head's fuzzy from fun
bouncy painkillers. Don't expect me to make any sense. Gibble.
P@rick
> P@rick wrote:
> See the header? Sure. Read the header?
>
> Why would I?
>
> Okay, yes, if I were in risk of being spoiled, I might get in the
> habit of looking up to the header before reading the message. But for
> the most part, it's an efficiency thing
Ok, so you're not in risk of being spoiled. But for people who are and use
the same strategy as you do, I don't think we need to apply extra
protection. It's just their own choise and so it's their own responsability.
> And my point? I have absolutely no clue.
I think your point is that you're not very representative ;o)
That is to say, you're not the kind of person we apply spoilerprotection
for. Say, you watch Buffy on Sky? So you've seen S4 already, right? Has
Angel S1 aired in the UK already?
> Spoiler space is no longer obligatory when all people reading the
> group have seen the episode. But that's the point, isn't it, figuring
> that out?/
You guessed it.
/ (Not to mention the confusion of people who don't watch it
> when it airs...)
Well, personally I'm not too concerned about them.
> I don't think we need to be responsible for keeping every possible
> newsgroup lurker spoiler-free, as that would mean spoiler-spacing
> pretty much every single post./
Like I said, I wasn't planning on doing that. So we need a clear dividing
line.
/ (There are people who actually--
> gaspshock-- *haven't* seen a *single* episode of Buffy.)/
What are they doing in this group?
/ <SNIP>
> But it seems to me (could be wrong though) that the majority of
> posters here are Dutch. I don't know how many Brits we have, but from
> what I can tell the BBC airings are the farthest behind; so I guess
> I'd vote for the spoiler-space-until-BBC-airing. Which airing, I have
> no clue. :)
That's what I'm thinking too. Except I have a clue. Spoilerspace until the
first airing. If people are putting off watching until the uncut version,
they also can put off reading posts about the episode. Especially if those
posts are clearly marked in the header (and people *read* the headers ;o).
So we actually need two kinds of spoilerprotection: use warnings in the
header and body *and* spoilerspace for eps that haven't aired in BBC yet,
use warnings in header and body until the second airing on BBC.
> <SNIP confusing bit>
> so simplifying: There are people who are known to post to this group.
> Those people belong to countries that have known airing dates. For
> any given episode, one of that set of airing dates is latest; and said
> latest airing date is predictable./
So that would be setting the standards to the situation of the regular
posters. I don't think that's a good thing. A NG is not solely about the
regulars, so we have to take the lurkers' situation into account as well. We
may never find out how many people follow the BBC airing schedule. But even
if there are few, we should follow that schedule as well. We always did, and
that's not really the point. The question is (IMO) where we draw the
dividing line using the BBC schedule, as there are two airing dates.
/ Back to the point, spoiler-space
> up until the last known airing date, and then maybe mention (in header
> or in the top of the text or somewhere) if there's going to be an
> in-depth discussion of a (non-spoiler-spaced) episode.
Pretty much my thoughts as well. So no complaints from me.
> Or is that all too complicated? Probably.
We can assume some level of intelligence with people who use computers to
access Usenet, can't we? Umm actually... never mind.
> Disclaimer: I'm really really exhausted, and my head's fuzzy from fun
> bouncy painkillers. Don't expect me to make any sense. Gibble.
Hey, as long as the pills work huh? Is it a passing thing? At least your
pills are fun and bouncy. Aren't they difficult to take when they're bouncy?
And half of your post actually made sense. I'm not sure whether I'm
referring to the right half though.
;o)
Bye, Patrick
Miriam Rocke
:
: Ok, so you're not in risk of being spoiled. But for people who are and use
: the same strategy as you do, I don't think we need to apply extra
: protection. It's just their own choise and so it's their own responsability.
Which wasn't my point, but wasn't not my point either, so I'll just go
over here in a corner and play with this nice pretty clay, shall I?
: > And my point? I have absolutely no clue.
:
: I think your point is that you're not very representative ;o)
Yeah. That. I'm a rebel.
: for. Say, you watch Buffy on Sky? So you've seen S4 already, right? Has
: Angel S1 aired in the UK already?
Eh...heh. I watch Buffy on the WB. :) I've seen BS4 and AS1, but I
don't have the slightest clue whether they've aired on Sky yet. (I
also don't lurk on umtb any more...)
: > I don't think we need to be responsible for keeping every possible
: > newsgroup lurker spoiler-free, as that would mean spoiler-spacing
: > pretty much every single post./
:
: Like I said, I wasn't planning on doing that. So we need a clear dividing
: line.
Here. <draws a bright pink line in the sand>.
Now if we can only figure out where 'here' is...
: / (There are people who actually--
: > gaspshock-- *haven't* seen a *single* episode of Buffy.)/
:
: What are they doing in this group?
Uh. Trolling? <G>
: posts are clearly marked in the header (and people *read* the headers ;o).
*thbpt*
: So that would be setting the standards to the situation of the regular
: posters.
Not setting it to the situation of the regular posters-- setting it to
the situation of *any known* poster. I mean, all it would take is
someone saying "Hey, I live in Gerkoffelland, and we don't get the
episodes until three and a half weeks after <latest known airdate>",
and voila, we have a new latest known airdate.
Setting the newsgroup to the standards of the *regulars* is bad, but
setting it to hypothetical standards of any lurkers who may or may not
be there is silly. Or is it?
: > Or is that all too complicated? Probably.
:
: We can assume some level of intelligence with people who use computers to
: access Usenet, can't we? Umm actually... never mind.
Intelligence? *Usenet*? <g>
: > Disclaimer: I'm really really exhausted, and my head's fuzzy from fun
: > bouncy painkillers. Don't expect me to make any sense. Gibble.
:
: Hey, as long as the pills work huh? Is it a passing thing? At least your
: pills are fun and bouncy. Aren't they difficult to take when they're bouncy?
Yeah; and yeah, it is, but I'll be nice and loopy for a while; and no.
You just have to tap them on the head, which stuns them, and then you
pop them into your mouth quick while they're motionless. The wriggle
while they're going down is interesting, though.
: And half of your post actually made sense. I'm not sure whether I'm
: referring to the right half though.
As long as the left half made sense. I don't care about the right half.
P@rick
> P@rick wrote:
> Which wasn't my point, but wasn't not my point either, so I'll just go
> over here in a corner and play with this nice pretty clay, shall I?
As long as you don't make a mess. And for god's sake try to keep it off your
clothes this time. Say, that's a nice Buffy figure you made there... oh,
it's Willow? And the stake she's holding is actually a Pez Witch... ah, I
see.
> : for. Say, you watch Buffy on Sky? So you've seen S4 already, right? Has
> : Angel S1 aired in the UK already?
>
> Eh...heh. I watch Buffy on the WB. :) I've seen BS4 and AS1, but I
> don't have the slightest clue whether they've aired on Sky yet. (I
> also don't lurk on umtb any more...)
<Giles>
I-I-I see. Y-yes. Yes uh... uhm.. I-I didn't figure you for a.. an American.
Please for.. forgive me m-my ignorance.
</Giles>
> : Like I said, I wasn't planning on doing that. So we need a clear
dividing
> : line.
>
> Here. <draws a bright pink line in the sand>.
>
> Now if we can only figure out where 'here' is...
<puts his beach chair next to the pink line>
I don't care. As long as it's somewhere on this California beach. Aaah, love
the weather. Could you pass me the suncream please. Oh, ehm, I'll rub your
back and you'll rub mine?
Got some more of that pink stuff? We could draw some more lines and play
some beachvolley.
> : What are they doing in this group?
>
> Uh. Trolling? <G>
Could it be? I don't think trolling is allowed in this NG, so it couldn't
be, could it?
> : So that would be setting the standards to the situation of the regular
> : posters.
>
> Not setting it to the situation of the regular posters-- setting it to
> the situation of *any known* poster. I mean, all it would take is
> someone saying "Hey, I live in Gerkoffelland, and we don't get the
> episodes until three and a half weeks after <latest known airdate>",
> and voila, we have a new latest known airdate.
You're right about that. I'm planning to start that META discussion again
when most people are back from their holidays. Then we'll settle this thing
once and for all!
Bye, Patrick
Miriam Rocke
:
: > Which wasn't my point, but wasn't not my point either, so I'll just go
: > over here in a corner and play with this nice pretty clay, shall I?
:
: As long as you don't make a mess. And for god's sake try to keep it off your
: clothes this time.
Awwwww, you're no fun. *pout*
: Say, that's a nice Buffy figure you made there... oh,
: it's Willow? And the stake she's holding is actually a Pez Witch... ah, I
: see.
Of *course* it's a Willow, goof. I don'like Buffy. And, see, here's
a Giles figure I made-- well, sort of, it got a bit melted-- and an Oz
figure, holding a guitar. Really. You can see it if you, like, squint...
: > : for. Say, you watch Buffy on Sky? So you've seen S4 already, right? Has
: > : Angel S1 aired in the UK already?
: >
: > Eh...heh. I watch Buffy on the WB. :) I've seen BS4 and AS1, but I
: > don't have the slightest clue whether they've aired on Sky yet. (I
: > also don't lurk on umtb any more...)
:
: <Giles>
: I-I-I see. Y-yes. Yes uh... uhm.. I-I didn't figure you for a.. an American.
: Please for.. forgive me m-my ignorance.
: </Giles>
What, I'm too-- nice? wacky? insane?-- to be an American? Hmph.
<g> The fact that I have a .edu address is kind of a giveaway,
though-- I don't think other countries have that, do they?
: > : What are they doing in this group?
: >
: > Uh. Trolling? <G>
:
: Could it be? I don't think trolling is allowed in this NG, so it couldn't
: be, could it?
Dang. *quickly puts the trolling equipment away*
Mir
who realizes this post has no purpose whatsoever...
busybee
> Can Outlook Express do ROT-13? As the majority here use it, it would not
> be very good if it couldn't.
outlook can uncode rot 13 but not code it
anyhow, a friend of mine has created an exe file to do it with just
copy-paste
so contact me if you want it, i'll transfer you to his page
see ya
busybee
P@rick
> P@rick wrote:
> :
> : it's Willow? And the stake she's holding is actually a Pez Witch... ah,
I
> : see.
>
> Of *course* it's a Willow, goof. I don'like Buffy. And, see, here's
> a Giles figure I made-- well, sort of, it got a bit melted-- and an Oz
> figure, holding a guitar. Really. You can see it if you, like, squint...
Sorry, I didn't recognize Willow with the gray hair. And Oz, although his
hair is recognizable in every color. Here's some paint. Give them some nice
colors.
Got some clay left? Think I'm gonna make me a Dru. And after Dru a Jenny. I
miss Dru, I miss Jenny.
> What, I'm too-- nice? wacky? insane?-- to be an American?/
I wouldn't know. I think I've proven that I couldn't recognize an American
if I stumbled over one.
/> <g> The fact that I have a .edu address is kind of a giveaway,
> though-- I don't think other countries have that, do they?
No. The US is actually the only country where people get an .education. In
fact, the Dutch extension is .nl (no learning).
> Mir
> who realizes this post has no purpose whatsoever...
That's why I changed the header. But anyway, although we don't have rerun
hell around here, we're still suffering from some season slack. So posts
with no purpose whatsoever actually do have a purpose and that's to
entertain us until the Buffy/Angel related posts catch on again.
Bye, Patrick
now I think I'll give Dru a long darkred dress....
Miriam Rocke
: > :
: > : Say, that's a nice Buffy figure you made there... oh,
: > : it's Willow? And the stake she's holding is actually a Pez Witch... ah,
: I
: > : see.
: >
: > Of *course* it's a Willow, goof. I don'like Buffy. And, see, here's
: > a Giles figure I made-- well, sort of, it got a bit melted-- and an Oz
: > figure, holding a guitar. Really. You can see it if you, like, squint...
:
: Sorry, I didn't recognize Willow with the gray hair. And Oz, although his
: hair is recognizable in every color. Here's some paint. Give them some nice
: colors.
Ooh, thankee. *smiles happily*
: Got some clay left? Think I'm gonna make me a Dru. And after Dru a Jenny. I
: miss Dru, I miss Jenny.
Here's a chunk. Of clay. And yeah, I miss Jenny too.
(*mutternotdeaddammitmutter*)
: /> <g> The fact that I have a .edu address is kind of a giveaway,
: > though-- I don't think other countries have that, do they?
:
: No. The US is actually the only country where people get an .education. In
: fact, the Dutch extension is .nl (no learning).
*snicker*
(What I *meant* is that other countries have a country extension, and
there is no "edu" country extension. But I think you knew that.)
: > Mir
: > who realizes this post has no purpose whatsoever...
:
: That's why I changed the header. But anyway, although we don't have rerun
: hell around here, we're still suffering from some season slack. So posts
: with no purpose whatsoever actually do have a purpose and that's to
: entertain us until the Buffy/Angel related posts catch on again.
Yeah. But then, that's also the purpose of fanfic. <G> I really
need to get back into Buffy fanfic...I have a whole bunch of ideas
that need writing.
P@rick
> I really need to get back into Buffy fanfic...I have a whole bunch of
ideas
> that need writing.
You can stop painting now. Here's a pen and paper. Let us know when you've
finished the first story, ok?
Bye, Patrick