Buffy S1.6 The Pack
Saskia
I just watched this for the first time and I found it very disturbing
and actually quite scary sometimes. Anyone remember it? It's the one
where Xander and four mean classmates are possessed by some hyena
spirit thing after sneeking into the Hyena cage in the zoo.
They eat the pig and the principal (disgusting!) and almost some more
people.
Xander was very convincing as 'bad guy'. We've seen this before in I
can't remember which ep, but he was really good in this one.
The only not-so-good thing was the ending. All of sudden Xander's
'curse' was gone just because the zookeeper tried to kill Willow...
bit lame I thought. And we never saw what happened to the others. Are
they still possessed or was it lifted when the zookeeper died? Not a
very satisfactory ending of an otherwise very exciting episode.
Almost running out of 'new' episodes now.... :((
--
Saskia
Giles: Xander's taken to teasing the less fortunate?
Buffy: Uh-huh.
Giles: And, there's been a noticeable change in both clothing and
demeanor?
Buffy: Yes.
Giles: And, well, otherwise all his spare time is spent lounging about
with imbeciles.
Buffy: It's bad, isn't it.
Giles: It's devastating. He's turned into a sixteen-year-old boy. Of
course, you'll have to kill him.
Miriam Rocke
: disturbing... !!!
But oh so fun... ;)
: The only not-so-good thing was the ending. All of sudden Xander's
: 'curse' was gone just because the zookeeper tried to kill Willow...
: bit lame I thought.
Well, *that* bit wasn't lame. It wasn't like Xander suddenly went
"oh, Willow's in danger-- better shake off the curse!". The zookeeper
did the appropriate ritual (same as Kyle et al had done in the
beginning), and got the power(s) transfered over to him.
: And we never saw what happened to the others. Are
: they still possessed or was it lifted when the zookeeper died?
They wouldn't be still possessed, any more than Xander is. I don't
know whether they, like, had to go into therapy, or whether they did
the usual Hellmouthian repression.
<snip>
: Buffy: It's bad, isn't it.
: Giles: It's devastating. He's turned into a sixteen-year-old boy. Of
: course, you'll have to kill him.
*snicker* I like that moment. First-season Giles is adorable...
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"
Saskia
Miriam Rocke schreef:
> Saskia (che...@cistron.nl) wrote:
> : The only not-so-good thing was the ending. All of sudden Xander's
> : 'curse' was gone just because the zookeeper tried to kill Willow...
> : bit lame I thought.
>
> Well, *that* bit wasn't lame. It wasn't like Xander suddenly went
> "oh, Willow's in danger-- better shake off the curse!".
Well, that's exactly what it looked like to me!
> The zookeeper
> did the appropriate ritual (same as Kyle et al had done in the
> beginning), and got the power(s) transfered over to him.
I must not have been paying attention... I didn't see any ritual! I
think... oh well, better rewatch this one <sigh> ;)
> They wouldn't be still possessed, any more than Xander is. I don't
> know whether they, like, had to go into therapy, or whether they did
> the usual Hellmouthian repression.
:-))
> *snicker* I like that moment. First-season Giles is adorable...
Sure is! Everyone is so good this first season. Each season is really
quite different... almost like they had different writers or directors
for each one.
--
Saskia
Jonathan Black
> Miriam Rocke schreef:
>
> > The zookeeper did the appropriate ritual (same as Kyle et al
> > had done in the beginning), and got the power(s) transfered
> > over to him.
>
> I must not have been paying attention... I didn't see any
> ritual! I think... oh well, better rewatch this one <sigh> ;)
Rewatching is a good thing, as I'm now discovering, since despite
having seen it like only a month ago or something, I don't
remember enough about this episode to coherently respond to your
original post. Ritual? <bluff>Oh yeah, I'm sure that was in there
somewhere...</bluff>
> > First-season Giles is adorable...
>
> Sure is! Everyone is so good this first season.
And Sarah Gellar is sooooo cute (chubby cheeks rule!), the
wonderful Miss Hannigan's hair is of respectable length (long
hair rulez!), need I go on? Ah, the good old days...
--
J o N a T H a N
"Does anyone remember when we used to be explorers?"
--Picard, Star Trek: Insurrection
Saskia
Jonathan Black schreef:
> Rewatching is a good thing, as I'm now discovering, since despite
> having seen it like only a month ago or something, I don't
> remember enough about this episode
Yes it's a thing I've learned with Buffy. Always watch an episode at
least twice!
> to coherently respond
Well uh...<ahem> ... no, never mind... ;-p
> And Sarah Gellar is sooooo cute (chubby cheeks rule!),
True, she's looking a lot healthier here.
> wonderful Miss Hannigan's hair is of respectable length (long
> hair rulez!), need I go on? Ah, the good old days...
Yeah, but really long hair like that is for the young and reckless.
She's a respectable older lady now so the shorter hair fits her age.
You just wait, not too long from now you're going to want to cut your
hair too :))
--
Saskia
Miriam Rocke
: Miriam Rocke schreef:
: > Saskia (che...@cistron.nl) wrote:
:
: > Well, *that* bit wasn't lame. It wasn't like Xander suddenly went
: > "oh, Willow's in danger-- better shake off the curse!".
:
: Well, that's exactly what it looked like to me!
: > The zookeeper
: > did the appropriate ritual (same as Kyle et al had done in the
: > beginning), and got the power(s) transfered over to him.
:
: I must not have been paying attention... I didn't see any ritual! I
: think... oh well, better rewatch this one <sigh> ;)
<g>
It might have been cut from your version (which would have been rather
silly-- I mean, hello, plot point!) But it was definitely there.
From AleXander's transcript:
Willow: Buffy, it's a trap!
Xander grabs Buffy from behind and they fall to the floor. The others
come in and get on top of her, too.
Zookeeper: YU BA YA SA NA!
The pack looks up at him, and their eyes all flash green. Then the
zookeeper's eyes flash green. He turns to Willow and growls. He drops
the knife, grabs her head and moves in to bite her.
Xander: Willow!
He gets up and charges the zookeeper, knocking him down and away from
Willow.
<snip fight scene>
: > *snicker* I like that moment. First-season Giles is adorable...
:
: Sure is! Everyone is so good this first season. Each season is really
: quite different... almost like they had different writers or directors
: for each one.
Or something...though I really like the feel of first season and
(especially early) second season. I think partly because there were
so many fresh concepts-- I mean, where other than Buffy is the
evil-killer-ish sinister animated dummy actually a demon *hunter*?--
and partly because it was...well, it was about the group, about the
Hellmouth, more than about Little Miss Whiney and her Whiney Pals.
(Yes, I'm slightly bitter. <g>)
Mir
--
Miriam Rocke "Why couldn't Xander be possessed
mrr...@ucdavis.edu by a puppy, or some ducks?"
http://handel.cipic.ucdavis.edu/~mrrocke/ --BtVS, "The Pack"
Jonathan Black
> Yes it's a thing I've learned with Buffy. Always watch an
> episode at least twice!
At the very, very least.
> > to coherently respond
>
> Well uh...<ahem> ... no, never mind... ;-p
Are you feeling all right?
> > wonderful Miss Hannigan's hair is of respectable length (long
> > hair rulez!), need I go on? Ah, the good old days...
>
> Yeah, but really long hair like that is for the young and
> reckless. She's a respectable older lady now so the shorter
> hair fits her age.
Hmm. Maybe, but let's not forget she supposed to be playing a
charachter who's what, 7 or 8 years younger than herself. And
hell, it's not even the lack of length that really bothers me,
her season 3 look was still fine in my book. Season 4 however was
a real turn-off for me. I remember back in April when S4
premiered on Net5 everyone was all drooling over Willow's new
look, I just didn't really get it. I mean it's OK, but it's not
like I thought it was a real improvement. Ah well, better shut up
before I lose coherence.
> You just wait, not too long from now you're going to want to
> cut your hair too :))
[checks his reflection in the monitor]
I see your point.
--
J o N a "Yay, not a single smiley in this post :) DOH!" T H a N
"Willow, you cut off your hair! That's a new look."
"Yeah, it's just a sudden whim I had... in August."
--Sheila / Willow, `Gingerbread'
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
P@rick
> And Sarah Gellar is sooooo cute (chubby cheeks rule!), the
> wonderful Miss Hannigan's hair is of respectable length (long
> hair rulez!), need I go on? Ah, the good old days...
*sigh*
Can't wait to get my hands on the DVD's. And a DVD player of course...
*SIGH*
Bye, Patrick
not buying the tapes when he knows he will buy the DVD's
Mattia Valente
>
> disturbing... !!!
Quite..I love S1 a lot, in hindsight. Possibly also because its the
season I haven't seen very many times at all.
> I just watched this for the first time and I found it very disturbing
> and actually quite scary sometimes. Anyone remember it? It's the one
Typical S1 stuff, I say. Good scares, nice dose of humor, pretty damn
good allround. Not as scary as some, but one of the 'scarier' ones, I
would agree..
> They eat the pig and the principal (disgusting!) and almost some more
> people.
Yep. And NO recollection of any of it! So he says anyway...his little
lie gets uncovered mightily in Phases, with the whole werewolf deal.
Another great scene.
> Xander was very convincing as 'bad guy'. We've seen this before in I
> can't remember which ep, but he was really good in this one.
Xander as a bad guy? He was a vamp in 'The Wish', you mean that?
Probably do, can't think of any other real Bad Guy moments for the X
man...
> The only not-so-good thing was the ending. All of sudden Xander's
> 'curse' was gone just because the zookeeper tried to kill Willow...
Umm...not quite. Zookeeper performed the ritual correctly and
appropriated the powers for himself, IIRC.
> bit lame I thought. And we never saw what happened to the others. Are
> they still possessed or was it lifted when the zookeeper died? Not a
> very satisfactory ending of an otherwise very exciting episode.
I guess they got 'depossesed' as the zookeeper did the thing with the
big hyena head on the ground (ritual) and got the powers himself. I'd
say a rewatch of that bit is in order ;-)
> Almost running out of 'new' episodes now.... :((
Aahhh...I still envy you ;-)
> Giles: It's devastating. He's turned into a sixteen-year-old boy. Of
> course, you'll have to kill him.
Don't you just LOVE Giles? S1 Giles is the reason we miss the library so
much these days, methinks. Not to mention the slightly more rounded and
verry attractive SMG, and our sweet little innocent Willow...aah, the
good old days......
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
Must buy DVD player soon...
Rob
Saskia <che...@cistron.nl> schreef in berichtnieuws
39A41980...@cistron.nl...
> disturbing... !!!
>
> I just watched this for the first time and I found it very disturbing
> and actually quite scary sometimes. Anyone remember it? It's the one
> spirit thing after sneeking into the Hyena cage in the zoo.
>
> people.
>
> can't remember which ep, but he was really good in this one.
>
Yes. I am not a real Xander fan. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike him
either but I could do without him. Anyway, the times I *do* really like
him are the times when he is bad (like in this ep and also in "The Wish").
Or when he has something serious to say, like the times he has a quarrel
with Buffy. (In "Dead man's party" for instance).
> The only not-so-good thing was the ending. All of sudden Xander's
> 'curse' was gone just because the zookeeper tried to kill Willow...
> bit lame I thought. And we never saw what happened to the others. Are
> they still possessed or was it lifted when the zookeeper died? Not a
> very satisfactory ending of an otherwise very exciting episode.
>
As far as I can remember, the curse was lifted for all of them at the same
time. Because of the ritual the zookeeper performed (which included doing
something evil, or something).
> Almost running out of 'new' episodes now.... :((
>
I know how you feel. :-(
Bye, Rob
Mattia Valente
> > *snicker* I like that moment. First-season Giles is adorable...
>
> Sure is! Everyone is so good this first season. Each season is really
> quite different... almost like they had different writers or directors
> for each one.
Well, I think the development of all the characters is quite well done.
Especially the transition from S1 to S2 (dealing with her death) and of
course the whole S2/S3 thing, lets not forget that (how could we? ;-)
The ambiance/types of stories has changed, though, mainly in S4, IMHO.
S2 was just good. Very good, in fact, despite a couple of duds (Bad Eggs
and Go Fish come to mind.) with a good dose of drama and humor. S3 was
darker, in many ways, every one was more grown up, more problems,
dissension within the ranks, treason and the stuff that isn't spoiler
free yet, too. S4 so far has been a little too much on the campy, and
not enough with the whole serious side. A little odd so far, but the
character development has stayed pretty much on track.
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
Mattia Valente
>
> Rewatching is a good thing, as I'm now discovering, since despite
> having seen it like only a month ago or something, I don't
> original post. Ritual? <bluff>Oh yeah, I'm sure that was in there
> somewhere...</bluff>
Hehehe...JB, you NEED those DVDs. Really! You do! Random access Buffy
eps in digital quality; you could pop it in, zip along to the necessary
part and rewatch the section at will! THink of the possibilities!
And of course, you should watch the eps a couple more times in entirety
for good measure ;-)
> And Sarah Gellar is sooooo cute (chubby cheeks rule!), the
> wonderful Miss Hannigan's hair is of respectable length (long
> hair rulez!), need I go on? Ah, the good old days...
Hmmm.....indeed....the now days are good, but back then was
somehow..better, in some ways :-)
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
Mattia Valente
> Saskia wrote:
>
> > Yes it's a thing I've learned with Buffy. Always watch an
> > episode at least twice!
>
> At the very, very least.
Indeed! Thrice is the minimum reccomended amount, if you ask me
(although 2 watchings of things like 'Go Fish' may be excused..)
> > Well uh...<ahem> ... no, never mind... ;-p
>
> Are you feeling all right?
Yes, do tell...now we're all worried again!
> > Yeah, but really long hair like that is for the young and
> > reckless. She's a respectable older lady now so the shorter
> > hair fits her age.
Umm...really?
> Hmm. Maybe, but let's not forget she supposed to be playing a
> charachter who's what, 7 or 8 years younger than herself. And
> hell, it's not even the lack of length that really bothers me,
True, true. So what DOES really bother you then?
> her season 3 look was still fine in my book. Season 4 however was
> a real turn-off for me. I remember back in April when S4
> premiered on Net5 everyone was all drooling over Willow's new
> look, I just didn't really get it. I mean it's OK, but it's not
> like I thought it was a real improvement. Ah well, better shut up
> before I lose coherence.
Well, OK, I admit I like her earlier looks a lot. But I can't say I
dislike the S4 look at all! Its new, its fresh, and it fits her persona
now. She's changed a lot since the early days..
> > You just wait, not too long from now you're going to want to
> > cut your hair too :))
>
> [checks his reflection in the monitor]
What kind of weid monitor do you have?
> I see your point.
Hmmm...is this a trend here? I'm wondering, how many of you guys (and
girls, for that matter) have long hair? I wonder how the images I've
made of you guys conforms to reality. I know what George looks like, and
what Dave looks like (neither were what I had imagined, to be honest ;-)
but I'm wondering how terribly off my mental images of the rest of you
are...
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
Short hair, BTW. Had it long(ish) once, in, oh, 8th grade...
Mattia Valente
> *sigh*
>
> Can't wait to get my hands on the DVD's. And a DVD player of course...
>
> *SIGH*
> Bye, Patrick
> not buying the tapes when he knows he will buy the DVD's
All I can say here is Ditto. Replace 'Patrick' with 'Mattia' and you've
got it spot on..
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
george van hal
Mattia Valente <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
> Jonathan Black wrote:
> > Saskia wrote:
> >
> > > Yes it's a thing I've learned with Buffy. Always watch an
> > > episode at least twice!
> >
> > At the very, very least.
>
> Indeed! Thrice is the minimum reccomended amount, if you ask me
> (although 2 watchings of things like 'Go Fish' may be excused..)
No they may not! Even eps like Go Fish need to be seen at least twice
(or a lot more, just for the whole cheese factor ;-))
> > her season 3 look was still fine in my book. Season 4 however was
> > a real turn-off for me. I remember back in April when S4
> > premiered on Net5 everyone was all drooling over Willow's new
> > look, I just didn't really get it. I mean it's OK, but it's not
> > like I thought it was a real improvement. Ah well, better shut up
> > before I lose coherence.
>
> Well, OK, I admit I like her earlier looks a lot. But I can't say I
> dislike the S4 look at all! Its new, its fresh, and it fits her
persona
> now. She's changed a lot since the early days..
I must say that I liked willows hair best in s3. I'm mostly not
*really* a long hair man. I mean, I like it on some people, but Alyson
is most definatly a short hair type of girl. I actually like her s1 do
the least....
Although I like the s1 sarah the best. I used to think "wow, thats one
pretty lady" when watching s1 sarah (and I must admit her apareance was
what made me watch those first two eps or so). Now sarahs looking a lot
less nice. Really hating that skinny holywood trend. Lots of actrices
are looking a lot less atractive atm. I mean, not that anyone has to
overdo it and go straight to Roseane like proportions, but a little
flesh on bodies I mostly consider a good thing. Ah well, must stop this
before I start Anorexia discussions again (for the record: I don't
think these people are anorexic. I just think they could *look* better.
Purely an esthetic thing)
> > > You just wait, not too long from now you're going to want to
> > > cut your hair too :))
> >
> > [checks his reflection in the monitor]
>
> What kind of weid monitor do you have?
Yeah, man. I really couldn't do that. Even if I tried realy, realy
hard.....
> > I see your point.
>
> Hmmm...is this a trend here? I'm wondering, how many of you guys (and
> girls, for that matter) have long hair? I wonder how the images I've
> made of you guys conforms to reality. I know what George looks like,
and
> what Dave looks like (neither were what I had imagined, to be honest
;-)
> but I'm wondering how terribly off my mental images of the rest of
you
> are...
Well since mattia last saw me, my apereance (hair wise) has changed a
bit. Now my hair is fairly short (like I usually like it. Just too lazy
to go to a hairdresser regularly ;-)). Oh and the mustache is gone
(too lazy to shave ;-)). And did I still have that "sikje" (excuse my
dutch) when we met up? That horrible thing is gone now as well ;-)
Anyways I'm thinking we should do some photo's on the abe pages. Unless
there's a lot of people in here afriad to do the photo thing ;-)
See Ya,
George
Who may have ended up in the wrong newsgroup. Are we *actually*
discussing hairdo's now??
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
george van hal
Regretedly I've already bought some tapes (upto s3 box1)...
Not sure what to do with those now. Perhaps I should sell 'em...
Ah well....
But I'll most certainly be buying the DVDs (I've been wanting a DVD
player for some time now. I mean, as a huge film fan, those extra's are
sounding *realy* good). But Anyways what I meant to ask: Anyone here a
DVD expert? I really want to go into the DVD player subject before
deciding what I want to buy (one to hook up directly to a tv. A DVD-ROM
etc. The possibilities are largish...). So anyone got any info? Know
where I could go for some info? Any sites or perhaps some shops that
have lrage amounts of info? Tips of any other sorts??
See Ya,
George
P@rick
> But I'll most certainly be buying the DVDs (I've been wanting a DVD
> player for some time now. I mean, as a huge film fan, those extra's are
> sounding *realy* good). But Anyways what I meant to ask: Anyone here a
> DVD expert?
Whatever you do, don't ask Jonathan. He doesn't even know what a DVD is. And
he really hates talking about DVD's and why R1 (NTSC) is better than R2
(PAL).
This is absolutely *not* his pet subject.
Bye, Patrick
go ahead Jonathan, you know you want to
Mattia Valente
> Mattia Valente <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
> > Indeed! Thrice is the minimum reccomended amount, if you ask me
> > (although 2 watchings of things like 'Go Fish' may be excused..)
>
> No they may not! Even eps like Go Fish need to be seen at least twice
> (or a lot more, just for the whole cheese factor ;-))
Umm...George? Remember that thing about reading what you reply to? Try
it sometime, I hear it works..
<ducks>
And anyway, you can rewatch the cheese eps many many times (I've seen Go
Fish about 4 times by now..) but it should always be in sequence, not as
a standalone because of the cheese factor. IMVHO of course..
> I must say that I liked willows hair best in s3. I'm mostly not
> *really* a long hair man. I mean, I like it on some people, but Alyson
> is most definatly a short hair type of girl. I actually like her s1 do
> the least....
Oooh...thats a dangerous statment you've made there, bucko. Watch
yourself! I can't really decide which Willow hair I like best atm.
They're all so very nice. The short look is nice and spunky though
(George! Clean those thoughts!)
> Although I like the s1 sarah the best. I used to think "wow, thats one
> pretty lady" when watching s1 sarah (and I must admit her apareance was
> what made me watch those first two eps or so). Now sarahs looking a lot
> less nice. Really hating that skinny holywood trend. Lots of actrices
^^^^^^^^
George, that's dutch. its 'actresses' in English
<ducks. I'm trying to piss you off. is it working? ;-P>
> are looking a lot less atractive atm. I mean, not that anyone has to
> overdo it and go straight to Roseane like proportions, but a little
> flesh on bodies I mostly consider a good thing. Ah well, must stop this
Well, indeed, SMG looks great in S1, and a little less great in
subsequent seasons. Its that whole young fresh rosy cheeks look, I
guess. To be quite honest, I didn't really get the whole 'SMG is so damn
beautiful and foxy' thing at first, was sorta stuck on Willow. Grew on
me after about, oh, half an ep, never looked back since. :-)
> before I start Anorexia discussions again (for the record: I don't
> think these people are anorexic. I just think they could *look* better.
> Purely an esthetic thing)
Right..my thoughts exactly (although, do you thing AH is in need of
plumping up? methinks she looks fine the way she is.)
> > What kind of weid monitor do you have?
>
> Yeah, man. I really couldn't do that. Even if I tried realy, realy
> hard.....
Well, if you turn off the monitor, and get some approriate lighting, its
possible to get some sort of image. Not a very good one though.
> Well since mattia last saw me, my apereance (hair wise) has changed a
> bit. Now my hair is fairly short (like I usually like it. Just too lazy
> to go to a hairdresser regularly ;-)). Oh and the mustache is gone
Well, mine's done the much shorter thing again (I'm way to lazy to get
it cut..was it medium length or short when we met up? Damned if I
know...)
> (too lazy to shave ;-)). And did I still have that "sikje" (excuse my
> dutch) when we met up? That horrible thing is gone now as well ;-)
Hmm...I actually can't seem to recall. I don't *think* you did, but I'm
not sure. I think I saw a photo of you with it, so that may be confusing
me. Come on, you should be able to figure this out, shouldn't you?
> Anyways I'm thinking we should do some photo's on the abe pages. Unless
> there's a lot of people in here afriad to do the photo thing ;-)
Hmm...I guess. I'd say its up to the poster whether they want one up or
not. I don't mind (there are a coupla pics of me on the net already..)
No requirement or anything like that, though.
> See Ya,
> George
> Who may have ended up in the wrong newsgroup. Are we *actually*
> discussing hairdo's now??
Indeed. Oh, what's your favorite mousse? Or is it Gel? Hairspray?
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
Cordelia: "Your shower is in here, right? You have mousse? – Of course
you do."
--Angel, Room with a View
Mattia Valente
> Regretedly I've already bought some tapes (upto s3 box1)...
> Not sure what to do with those now. Perhaps I should sell 'em...
> Ah well....
Or keep in in shrink wrap. They're the numbered collectors edition
thingies, right? Try auctioning them off to some fool collector in 25
years or so ;)
> But I'll most certainly be buying the DVDs (I've been wanting a DVD
> player for some time now. I mean, as a huge film fan, those extra's are
> sounding *realy* good). But Anyways what I meant to ask: Anyone here a
Oh indeed. I'm a big movie buff myself (although my list of older movies
that I really should watch is always growing and growing and...), and
DVDs are cooler than Videos, and better quality too.
> DVD expert? I really want to go into the DVD player subject before
> deciding what I want to buy (one to hook up directly to a tv. A DVD-ROM
> etc. The possibilities are largish...). So anyone got any info? Know
> where I could go for some info? Any sites or perhaps some shops that
> have lrage amounts of info? Tips of any other sorts??
Lots and lots of web sites. Just do a web search, tons turn up (I don't
have anything bookmarked over here..) JB is the resident 'expert' on the
subject, I guess, esp. as far as PC-DVD is concerned. Things you will
want are a multi-region player (or region free, in other words.),
basially. I would go over to your newsagent and pick up one of the DVD
buyers guide magazines (lots of them out) for some pricing, etc. etc. PC
DVD you need a region free or crackable drive (see the net for lists)
and a Sigma Designs Hollywood+ MPEG2 decoder card, which you can hook up
to your TV. (card sold under many names..) SOmething like that. I'm
still trying to figure out if I should do the PC-DVD thing or spend
double the money on a region free player. Can the standalone DVD players
handle DVD-ROM data? No right? That makes the PC DVD option a little
more attractive...(my Tv's next to my PC, and will be for the next
number of years, I predict, so..)
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
Jonathan Black
> Jonathan Black wrote:
>
> [Willow ("Who Else?")]
>
> > her season 3 look was still fine in my book. Season 4 however
> > was a real turn-off for me. I remember back in April when S4
> > premiered on Net5 everyone was all drooling over Willow's new
> > look, I just didn't really get it. I mean it's OK, but it's
> > not like I thought it was a real improvement. Ah well, better
> > shut up before I lose coherence.
>
> Well, OK, I admit I like her earlier looks a lot. But I can't
> say I dislike the S4 look at all! Its new, its fresh, and it
> fits her persona now. She's changed a lot since the early
> days..
Yeah, well the S4 look sometimes just goes a little too far for
me. You know that new series of BtVS posters that came out in the
UK a while ago, you can see them at <http://www.gbposters.co.uk>.
Well, the one of Willow is just not good enough for me:
http://www.gbposters.co.uk/images/products/large/FP0785.jpg
Now, I'm a considerable Alyson Hannigan fan, but I just could not
bring myself to buy this poster. That hair-do is *appalling*. It
does nothing for her. I'd far rather have the one of Cordelia, or
one of the Buffy ones (not the red leather one, it sucks) or,
hell, even the Angel one with the gates. Why on earth can't they
do a proper poster of Aly, e.g. the picture that appears in mini
along the side of this one, that'd be great.
http://www.gbposters.co.uk/images/products/large/FP0618.jpg
Oh well...
> > [checks his reflection in the monitor]
>
> What kind of weid monitor do you have?
With a black background, you *can* see your reflection, try it :)
--
J o N a T H a N
"There's something wrong with my hair?! Oh my god..."
--Cordelia, `The Puppet Show'
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Jonathan Black
> But I'll most certainly be buying the DVDs (I've been wanting a
> DVD player for some time now. I mean, as a huge film fan, those
> extra's are sounding *realy* good). But Anyways what I meant to
> ask: Anyone here a DVD expert? I really want to go into the DVD
> player subject before deciding what I want to buy (one to hook
> up directly to a tv. A DVD-ROM etc. The possibilities are
> largish...). So anyone got any info? Know where I could go for
> some info? Any sites or perhaps some shops that have lrage
> amounts of info? Tips of any other sorts??
Well I've had my PC-DVD kit for a couple of years now. At the
time I chose for that as opposed to a stand-alone DVD player
simply because it was all I could afford. I'd far rather have a
stand-alone player, really, as my interest in DVD stems pretty
much exclusively from film buff motivations. I'm not that
interested in DVD-ROM stuff. At the moment, it may still be the
cheapest option, but not by very much any more I don't think. In
newsgroups like nl.media.dvd I see people talking about region
free stand-alone players for NLG 500-600, which is what I paid
for the PC-DVD kit two years ago.
Anyway, rather than me rambling on for too much longer (much as
I'd love to), I could also point you to this site, which I think
will have some pretty good info to get you started.
Bye,
george van hal
> > Jonathan Black wrote:
> >
> > [Willow ("Who Else?")]
> Yeah, well the S4 look sometimes just goes a little too far for
> me. You know that new series of BtVS posters that came out in the
> UK a while ago, you can see them at <http://www.gbposters.co.uk>.
> Well, the one of Willow is just not good enough for me:
>
> http://www.gbposters.co.uk/images/products/large/FP0785.jpg
>
> Now, I'm a considerable Alyson Hannigan fan, but I just could not
> bring myself to buy this poster. That hair-do is *appalling*. It
> does nothing for her.
Ok. Here's where I disagree. That is one good looking poster. Really
like her hairdo this way. Admitedly, I tend to realy like short hair
and I must say that alyson looks realy, realy good in that picture.....
But hey tasted differ (and this time only in small protions. Because I
mean, we're discussing difenrences in tastes on the hairdo of the same
girl...;-))
See Ya,
George
Mattia's God [tm] - Can you tell I'm loving this title ;-)?
Jonathan Black
> Whatever you do, don't ask Jonathan. He doesn't even know what
> a DVD is. And he really hates talking about DVD's and why R1
> (NTSC) is better than R2 (PAL). This is absolutely *not* his
> pet subject.
>
> Bye, Patrick
> go ahead Jonathan, you know you want to
No... please... not again... I can't take it any more. George,
surely you've heard my rantings on this subject before? Never
seen these threads in nksf?
http://deja.com/=dnc/viewthread.xp?AN=646430553
http://deja.com/=dnc/viewthread.xp?AN=657855494
Or how about some articles on the subject?
http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~mdem/Articles/PALvsNTSC/PALvsNTSC.html
http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~mdem/Articles/PALSpeedUp/PALSpeedUp.html
Here's a quote from one of them:
"Movies on PAL DVDs play back 4% faster than their NTSC
counterparts. The great majority of people will never notice
this, but for a small minority, this is an intolerable
artefact."
To some it up, I'm part of that `small minority'. Yay me :-(
--
J o N a T H a N
"I'm just gonna go home, lie down and listen
to country music. The music of pain."
--Xander, `Prophecy Girl'
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
george van hal
100...@deadlock.et.tudelft.nl>,
Jonathan Black <jona...@ch.twi.tudelft.nl> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, george van hal wrote:
>
> > But I'll most certainly be buying the DVDs (I've been wanting a
> > DVD player for some time now. I mean, as a huge film fan, those
> > extra's are sounding *realy* good). But Anyways what I meant to
> > ask: Anyone here a DVD expert? I really want to go into the DVD
> > player subject before deciding what I want to buy (one to hook
> > up directly to a tv. A DVD-ROM etc. The possibilities are
> > largish...). So anyone got any info? Know where I could go for
> > some info? Any sites or perhaps some shops that have lrage
> > amounts of info? Tips of any other sorts??
>
> Well I've had my PC-DVD kit for a couple of years now. At the
> time I chose for that as opposed to a stand-alone DVD player
> simply because it was all I could afford.
I really hear you there ;-)
I'd far rather have a
> stand-alone player, really, as my interest in DVD stems pretty
> much exclusively from film buff motivations. I'm not that
> interested in DVD-ROM stuff.
Agreeing there as well. I mean it seems so much simpler to just have a
stand alone player without all the installation problems of a DVD-rom
player etc. Also, I don't have any more room in my tower for a internal
player, so I'd have to buy an extrenal one. Which seems to me to be
more expensive than a stand alone player (Only real demand I have there
is that it gives me picture and sound. Can't afford a suround sound
system etc. anyways)
At the moment, it may still be the
> cheapest option, but not by very much any more I don't think. In
> newsgroups like nl.media.dvd I see people talking about region
> free stand-alone players for NLG 500-600, which is what I paid
> for the PC-DVD kit two years ago.
Realy?? For a region-free player? Hmm...that sounds really good. Hope I
can find that somewhere (allready have some 500 odd NLG stashed away
for the player, so it seems I can afford one soonish...)
> Anyway, rather than me rambling on for too much longer (much as
> I'd love to), I could also point you to this site, which I think
> will have some pretty good info to get you started.
>
> http://www.7thzone.com/
Thanks! I've been doing the internet search thing, but it hardly gave
me any good links :-)
See Ya,
George
Mattia's God [tm]
Jonathan Black
> Well, indeed, SMG looks great in S1, and a little less great in
> subsequent seasons. Its that whole young fresh rosy cheeks
> look, I guess. To be quite honest, I didn't really get the
> whole 'SMG is so damn beautiful and foxy' thing at first, was
> sorta stuck on Willow. Grew on me after about, oh, half an ep,
> never looked back since. :-)
Oh no, I was definitely watching for Sarah in the beginning
(though she wasn't enough to keep me watching past 4V03). Never
really noticed Willow I don't think, until my Jan 2000 rebirth...
> > before I start Anorexia discussions again (for the record: I
> > don't think these people are anorexic. I just think they
> > could *look* better. Purely an esthetic thing)
>
> Right..my thoughts exactly (although, do you thing AH is in
> need of plumping up? methinks she looks fine the way she is.)
Hmm... Aly plumped up... nah, don't think that would really work.
> Cordelia: "Your shower is in here, right? You have mousse?
> Of course you do."
> --Angel, Room with a View
I believe the official title of that is actually `Rm w/a Vu',
though I don't quite know what to use as an official source, with
the episode titles never being shown on screen and all (one of
the things that bugs me a little).
--
J o N a T H a N
QuoteMeister [tm]
Xander: "Cordelia, man, she does love titles!"
Willow: "Oh, God! Remember in sixth grade with the field trip?"
--`Invisible Girl' [`Out of Mind, Out of Sight',
whatever. See? A simple on screen title would have
made this argument moot, but I digress...]
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Jonathan Black
> Jonathan Black wrote:
>
> > http://www.gbposters.co.uk/images/products/large/FP0785.jpg
> >
> > Now, I'm a considerable Alyson Hannigan fan, but I just could
> > not bring myself to buy this poster. That hair-do is
> > *appalling*. It does nothing for her.
>
> Ok. Here's where I disagree. That is one good looking poster.
> Really like her hairdo this way. Admitedly, I tend to realy
> like short hair and I must say that alyson looks realy, realy
> good in that picture.....
WOOOOO-HOOOOOO!!! YES!!! Give me five, Georgey m'boy! We actually
managed it! We... wait for it... *DIS*agree on something! How
about that? I must say, this feels great, don't you agree? DOH!
> But hey tasted differ (and this time only in small protions.
> Because I mean, we're discussing difenrences in tastes on the
> hairdo of the same girl...;-))
I think you meant "tastes" differ. And it's "differences". And
"really" has two l's, even when not at the beginning of a
sentence.
;-)
--
J o N a T H a N
QuoteMeister [tm]
"For us to have a conversation about a guy, there'd have to be a
guy for us to have a conversation about. Is that a sentence?"
--Buffy, `Angel'
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
george van hal
>
> > Jonathan Black wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.gbposters.co.uk/images/products/large/FP0785.jpg
> > >
> > > Now, I'm a considerable Alyson Hannigan fan, but I just could
> > > not bring myself to buy this poster. That hair-do is
> > > *appalling*. It does nothing for her.
> >
> > Ok. Here's where I disagree. That is one good looking poster.
> > Really like her hairdo this way. Admitedly, I tend to realy
> > like short hair and I must say that alyson looks realy, realy
> > good in that picture.....
>
> WOOOOO-HOOOOOO!!! YES!!! Give me five, Georgey m'boy! We actually
> managed it! We... wait for it... *DIS*agree on something! How
> about that? I must say, this feels great, don't you agree? DOH!
Yes. I didn't realise it, but I guess you're right. This is indeed a
first. We disagree. Yay! ;-)
> > But hey tasted differ (and this time only in small protions.
> > Because I mean, we're discussing difenrences in tastes on the
> > hairdo of the same girl...;-))
>
> I think you meant "tastes" differ. And it's "differences". And
> "really" has two l's, even when not at the beginning of a
> sentence.
Ok, now you and mattia are just simply ganging up on me. Not fair!
See Ya,
George
Mattia's God [tm] - Yes I'm now using this title just to annoy the hell
out of Mattia ;-)
Jonathan Black
> Jonathan Black wrote:
>
> > In newsgroups like nl.media.dvd I see people talking about
> > region free stand-alone players for NLG 500-600, which is
> > what I paid for the PC-DVD kit two years ago.
>
> Realy?? For a region-free player? Hmm...that sounds really
> good. Hope I can find that somewhere (allready have some 500
> odd NLG stashed away for the player, so it seems I can afford
> one soonish...)
I think they talk about MediaMarkt a lot in that group
(nl.media.dvd). It's a large electronics superstore in Rotterdam,
opening one in A'dam soon as well I think, maybe already have.
Apparently they have some pretty attractive prices.
Saskia
Miriam Rocke schreef:
> Saskia (che...@cistron.nl) wrote:
> : Miriam Rocke schreef:
> : > Saskia (che...@cistron.nl) wrote:
> :
> : I must not have been paying attention... I didn't see any ritual! I
> : think... oh well, better rewatch this one <sigh> ;)
> Zookeeper: YU BA YA SA NA!
>
> The pack looks up at him, and their eyes all flash green. Then the
> zookeeper's eyes flash green. He turns to Willow and growls. He drops
> the knife, grabs her head and moves in to bite her.
That was it? Gee I must have blinked my eyes :-/
The zookeeper, I thought, turned out to be bad, so why would he
perform the ritual that would get rid of the hyena in the kids? But I
get it now, after reading Mattia's reply. <sigh> what a relief.
> Or something...though I really like the feel of first season and
> (especially early) second season. I think partly because there were
> so many fresh concepts-- I mean, where other than Buffy is the
> evil-killer-ish sinister animated dummy actually a demon *hunter*?--
> and partly because it was...well, it was about the group, about the
> Hellmouth, more than about Little Miss Whiney and her Whiney Pals.
> (Yes, I'm slightly bitter. <g>)
Mir! You sound ... I dunno, a bit bitter! <g>
--
Saskia
george van hal
Indeed. Very interesting ;-) Thanks for the info yet again JB....
Anyways, must start reading that nl.media.dvd group. Also must start
searching if that maediamarkt store has an online companion...
See Ya,
George
Mattia Valente
> Mattia Valente wrote:
> > Well, OK, I admit I like her earlier looks a lot. But I can't
> > say I dislike the S4 look at all! Its new, its fresh, and it
> > fits her persona now. She's changed a lot since the early
> > days..
>
> me. You know that new series of BtVS posters that came out in the
> UK a while ago, you can see them at <http://www.gbposters.co.uk>.
> Well, the one of Willow is just not good enough for me:
Well, I didn't. I'm probably the fan with the least merchandise here. (I
own the watchers guide. Thats it. And a bunch of videos, but nothing I
bought.) Don't have that many posters, but that's beside the point
here..
> http://www.gbposters.co.uk/images/products/large/FP0785.jpg
Hmmm....
> Now, I'm a considerable Alyson Hannigan fan, but I just could not
> bring myself to buy this poster. That hair-do is *appalling*. It
> does nothing for her. I'd far rather have the one of Cordelia, or
Um, no. Disagree here. I love that look! Its great, really! I'm going
along with George on this one, methinks. I'm not categorically a short
hair or long hair kinda guy, they've both got their undeniablt charms.
So does medium hair, for that matter. And anyway, whats wrong with CC?
;-)
> one of the Buffy ones (not the red leather one, it sucks) or,
> hell, even the Angel one with the gates. Why on earth can't they
> do a proper poster of Aly, e.g. the picture that appears in mini
> along the side of this one, that'd be great.
>
> http://www.gbposters.co.uk/images/products/large/FP0618.jpg
Indeed, that would be quite nice. Or some retrospecitve S1, 2 and 3
posters, for that matter. A poster for every man's tastes!
> > > [checks his reflection in the monitor]
> >
> > What kind of weid monitor do you have?
>
> With a black background, you *can* see your reflection, try it :)
Ahh....OK, now it makes sense. SHould've known though, I've seen a
screenshot of your compu, noticed the BG, though not very conciously.
So, in answering, long hair, medium hair or short hair?
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
Mattia Valente
<SNIP George on geat Willow poster>
> Mattia's God [tm] - Can you tell I'm loving this title ;-)?
*sigh*
Why does he take things so seriously? And why was I stupid enough to say
a thing like that? I mean, George, don't you KNOW that there is only
Joss?
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
Atheist (or agnostic, which is basically the same thing) if you must
know :-)
Mattia Valente
> Mattia Valente wrote:
> (though she wasn't enough to keep me watching past 4V03). Never
> really noticed Willow I don't think, until my Jan 2000 rebirth...
Hehe...you see, if you'd been like me and decided that Willow was the
most attractive girl on the show (she's definately the one I noticed.
And not in the leather look, either. The normal Willow look.) you
wouldn't have missed out the early days. Not that you haven't made up
for it with a vengance by now..
> > Right..my thoughts exactly (although, do you thing AH is in
> > need of plumping up? methinks she looks fine the way she is.)
>
> Hmm... Aly plumped up... nah, don't think that would really work.
I agree...*shiver* I just had an image of AH doing the nutty professor.
Scary, that.
> > Cordelia: "Your shower is in here, right? You have mousse? –
> > Of course you do."
> > --Angel, Room with a View
>
> I believe the official title of that is actually `Rm w/a Vu',
Hmm...quite possible. It makes more sense that way (as in, an ad in the
paper or somesuch.) actually.
> though I don't quite know what to use as an official source, with
> the episode titles never being shown on screen and all (one of
> the things that bugs me a little).
Right..I guess the official Buffy website is the place for those. Right?
Does Angel even HAVE an official web site? And anyway, in my defence, I
couldn't get the transcripts, so I did this one from memory (watched it
last week, that quote stuck.)
> --`Invisible Girl' [`Out of Mind, Out of Sight',
> whatever. See? A simple on screen title would have
> made this argument moot, but I digress...]
Didn't they change the name retroactively or something? I'd say the
watchers guides (the new ones out or is coming soon, right?) would be a
good source for this kind of junk. IMHO, OOMOOS is a lot Cooler than IG
as an abbreviation.
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
> Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Mattia Valente
> I think they talk about MediaMarkt a lot in that group
> (nl.media.dvd). It's a large electronics superstore in Rotterdam,
> opening one in A'dam soon as well I think, maybe already have.
> Apparently they have some pretty attractive prices.
Hmmm...very interesting indeed...I'll check the yellow pages or
something in Amsterdam to see if they've got one opened there, and I'll
lurk around in nl.media.dvd for a while, methinks...So a region free DVD
player for the cost of my 4 head VCR...interesting proposition indeed.
Thing is, I want one that's also got disabled macrovision. I'm a pirate
at heart, I guees ;-)
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
Also the broke-an-cashless mesiter[tm] atm..Mom? Dad? Chirstmas present
maybe?
george van hal
Mattia Valente <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
> george van hal wrote:
> <SNIP George on geat Willow poster>
>
> > Mattia's God [tm] - Can you tell I'm loving this title ;-)?
>
> *sigh*
>
> Why does he take things so seriously?
Who? Me?? :-p
And why was I stupid enough to say
> a thing like that?
Yep. That's the question you're going to be asking yourself for some
time to come....;-)
I mean, George, don't you KNOW that there is only
> Joss?
Of course. There's only one Joss. And he *is* God [tm]. Still doesn't
mean I can't have fun with your little slip-up ;-)
See Ya,
George
Mattia's God [tm]
And also an Atheist. Just got the record ;-)
Miriam Rocke
:
: > Or something...though I really like the feel of first season and
: > (especially early) second season. I think partly because there were
: > so many fresh concepts-- I mean, where other than Buffy is the
: > evil-killer-ish sinister animated dummy actually a demon *hunter*?--
: > and partly because it was...well, it was about the group, about the
: > Hellmouth, more than about Little Miss Whiney and her Whiney Pals.
: > (Yes, I'm slightly bitter. <g>)
:
: Mir! You sound ... I dunno, a bit bitter! <g>
Really? You sure? 'Cause, y'know, I'm *never* bitter...
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"
Miriam Rocke
<snippity doo dah>
: Mattia
: ReplyMeister[tm]
: Atheist (or agnostic, which is basically the same thing) if you must
: know :-)
...actually, atheist and agnostic are *not* the same thing. Atheist
(from the greek roots "a-", meaning not, and, um, "thei", meaning god,
or something like that) is someone who denies the existence of God.
Agnostic (from, again, Greek-- "agnostos", meaning "unknown") is
someone who believes it's impossible to know whether God exists or
not. So an atheist says "There is no God", whereas an agnostic says
"We can't know if there's a God."
Jonathan Black
> I'm probably the fan with the least merchandise here. (I own
> the watchers guide. Thats it. And a bunch of videos, but
> nothing I bought.) Don't have that many posters, but that's
> beside the point here..
Oh well I don't really have any BtVS merchandise either (yet :)).
I saw these posters when I was over in the UK last month, but the
Willow one just totally threw me off. Normally, hers was of
course the one I would have bought, if any, but I just found
myself not liking it at all and then I couldn't decide which of
the others to get so I ended up getting none of them.
> > http://www.gbposters.co.uk/images/products/large/FP0785.jpg
>
> > Now, I'm a considerable Alyson Hannigan fan, but I just could
> > not bring myself to buy this poster. That hair-do is
> > *appalling*. It does nothing for her. I'd far rather have the
> > one of Cordelia, or [...]
>
> Um, no. Disagree here. I love that look! Its great, really! I'm
> going along with George on this one, methinks.
Hey, you and George are ganging up on me! ;-) Well, I stand by my
opinion. I am a huge fan of Alyson, but this picture of her is
just plain bad. Her hair looks like a wig in it, and it takes
away from her beautiful face. Quite frankly, I hardly recognize
her here.
> I'm not categorically a short hair or long hair kinda guy,
> they've both got their undeniablt charms.
There's a typo in there, Mattia.
> So does medium hair, for that matter. And anyway, whats wrong
> with CC? ;-)
CC? Charisma? Not a thing that I can see. As I said, in absence
of an acceptable poster of Aly, I was this far [holds up thumb
and forefinger to indicate a distance of approximately 6
millimetres (for Peter: that about a quarter of an inch, oh no,
other way round, DOH!)] away from getting the Cordelia poster.
This is a great poster of her (I believe Slayage used this
picture for version 8.72 alpha of their site or something, didn't
they?). She is beautiful, <yoda> and underrated </yoda>, in the
sense that we never seem to mention her that much, do we? It's
always Aly, Aly, Aly, with the occasional nod to Sarah, but I
mean, yeah, Charisma is in fact very attractive.
> Indeed, that would be quite nice. Or some retrospecitve S1, 2
> and 3 posters, for that matter. A poster for every man's
> tastes!
Yep. (Yay, pointless replyage!)
> So, in answering, long hair, medium hair or short hair?
What would you say, Saskia? Have to go with long, eh? Yep. Long
it is. Never used to have this, but about a year and a bit ago I
forgot to get it cut for a bit too long a time, and since then
kind of started experimenting with letting it grow longer and
longer. Seems a pity to put a stop to it now :)
--
J o N a T H a N
Cordelia: "What am I missing?"
Doyle: "Not a thing that I can see."
--`I Fall to Pieces'
Angel
Jonathan Black
> Anyways, must start reading that nl.media.dvd group. Also must
> start searching if that maediamarkt store has an online
> companion...
Hmm... <http://www.mediamarkt.com>, but there's not much there.
It'd be cool if they had their whole selection of products up
there for you to browse through, order, have delivered to your
door and all, but alas, you're gonna have to get off your ass and
haul it over to Rotterdam. Life is hard.
--
J o N a T H a N
"Well, not much goes on in a one
Starbucks town like Sunnydale."
--Xander, `Welcome to the Hellmouth'
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Jonathan Black
> > > --Angel, Room with a View
> >
> > I believe the official title of that is actually `Rm w/a Vu',
> > though I don't quite know what to use as an official source,
> > with the episode titles never being shown on screen and all
> > (one of the things that bugs me a little).
>
> Right..I guess the official Buffy website is the place for
> those. Right? Does Angel even HAVE an official web site?
My point exactly. Where's the Angel equivalent of buffy.com?
Doesn't seem to be one. If you go the WB's site...
http://www.thewb.com/scripts/wbshows.cgi?DisplayDay=Tuesday
... and click on Buffy, there's a link to buffy.com, but with
Angel, nothing, zip, zilch, nada.
> > --`Invisible Girl' [`Out of Mind, Out of Sight',
> > whatever. See? A simple on screen title would have
> > made this argument moot, but I digress...]
>
> Didn't they change the name retroactively or something?
I have no idea :)
> I'd say the watchers guides (the new ones out or is coming
> soon, right?) would be a good source for this kind of junk.
> IMHO, OOMOOS is a lot Cooler than IG as an abbreviation.
Oh yeah, abbreviations, very important point.
--
J o N a T H a N
"I have to go. I have to go on one of my pointless patrols
and react to some vampires. If that's alright with MOO.
And *nice* acronym, Mom."
--Buffy, `Gingerbread'
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Saskia
Jonathan Black schreef:
>
> Oh well I don't really have any BtVS merchandise either (yet :)).
I haven't got anything. I only bought the Star Trek Encyclopedia after
having been a fan for years. Buffywise, I saw a book that looked
something I might buy. Forget what it was tho... could have been the
Sunnydale Yearbook.
> Hey, you and George are ganging up on me! ;-) Well, I stand by my
> opinion. I am a huge fan of Alyson, but this picture of her is
> just plain bad.
Well I wouldn't say *bad*, but she doesn't look like Willow anymore.
> > So, in answering, long hair, medium hair or short hair?
>
> What would you say, Saskia? Have to go with long, eh? Yep. Long
> it is.
Yep definitely long. Looks nice too :)
--
Saskia
george van hal
>
> > Anyways, must start reading that nl.media.dvd group. Also must
> > start searching if that maediamarkt store has an online
> > companion...
>
> Hmm... <http://www.mediamarkt.com>, but there's not much there.
Indeed. And I'm definatly not about to download their "reclame folder"
in pdf format....
> It'd be cool if they had their whole selection of products up
> there for you to browse through, order, have delivered to your
> door and all, but alas, you're gonna have to get off your ass and
> haul it over to Rotterdam. Life is hard.
Pffff. You can say that again. I mean *all* the way to Rotterdam. I'm
tired allready ;-)
See Ya,
George
LazyMeister [tm]
george van hal
Saskia <che...@cistron.nl> wrote:
>
>
> Jonathan Black schreef:
> >
> > Oh well I don't really have any BtVS merchandise either (yet :)).
>
> I haven't got anything. I only bought the Star Trek Encyclopedia after
> having been a fan for years. Buffywise, I saw a book that looked
> something I might buy. Forget what it was tho... could have been the
> Sunnydale Yearbook.
Ok, so three of the main posters in this group lack serious Buffy
merchandising? Didn't see that one coming. Me I'm stocked up with Buffy
merchandising (its a hobby ;-)). Mattia has seen my room and can
testify to its Buffy oriented obsesiveness. Also as far as oficial
guides go, I own most of 'em. Can't really beat the watchers guide
though. Also photo's, glasses stuff like that. Oh and of course the
master action figure which is really cool...
Lots of more thing. Anyone here reading the Buffy comic? If so, anyone
noticed that letter I got published in there last month? Ah well.....
> > Hey, you and George are ganging up on me! ;-) Well, I stand by my
> > opinion. I am a huge fan of Alyson, but this picture of her is
> > just plain bad.
>
> Well I wouldn't say *bad*, but she doesn't look like Willow anymore.
She *does*. She looks like s4 willow. s4 willow, is, however, a new
type of willow. More self confident and stuffs. But that really doesn't
make her any less sweet and atracktive.......
> > > So, in answering, long hair, medium hair or short hair?
> >
> > What would you say, Saskia? Have to go with long, eh? Yep. Long
> > it is.
>
> Yep definitely long. Looks nice too :)
Well just have to trust you on that one ;-)
See Ya,
George
Who's now wondering if there are people in this newsgroup equally
adicted to Buffy merchandise....
Yorrit
> Yeah, well the S4 look sometimes just goes a little too far for
> me. You know that new series of BtVS posters that came out in the
> UK a while ago, you can see them at <http://www.gbposters.co.uk>.
> Well, the one of Willow is just not good enough for me:
>
> http://www.gbposters.co.uk/images/products/large/FP0785.jpg
>
> Now, I'm a considerable Alyson Hannigan fan, but I just could not
> bring myself to buy this poster. That hair-do is *appalling*. It
> does nothing for her. I'd far rather have the one of Cordelia, or
> one of the Buffy ones (not the red leather one, it sucks) or,
> hell, even the Angel one with the gates. Why on earth can't they
> do a proper poster of Aly, e.g. the picture that appears in mini
> along the side of this one, that'd be great.
I agree, her hair on that poster ain't good (that's the mild version of
my opinion), but I think I'm still gonna buy it, since there isn't any
alterative (or is there? tell my there is!).
Yorrit
Jonathan Black
> Jonathan Black schreef:
> >
> > Oh well I don't really have any BtVS merchandise either
> > (yet :)).
>
> I haven't got anything.
Not counting video's eh? :))
> I only bought the Star Trek Encyclopedia after having been a
> fan for years. Buffywise, I saw a book that looked something I
> might buy. Forget what it was tho... could have been the
> Sunnydale Yearbook.
Yeah, books are nice, I might look into getting some sort of nice
Buffy book sometime. I have a very old version of the Star Trek
Encycolpedia (only goes up to TNG-S6/DS9-S1 or something), and
The Star Trek: The Next Generation Compation.
> > Hey, you and George are ganging up on me! ;-) Well, I stand
> > by my opinion. I am a huge fan of Alyson, but this picture of
> > her is just plain bad.
>
> Well I wouldn't say *bad*, but she doesn't look like Willow
> anymore.
Yes, that's very well, put, Saskia. The picture isn't "bad", it
just sucks. IMHO of course.
> > > So, in answering, long hair, medium hair or short hair?
> >
> > What would you say, Saskia? Have to go with long, eh? Yep. Long
> > it is.
>
> Yep definitely long. Looks nice too :)
You mean that? Thanks :) My mother keeps nagging the heck out of
me to get rid of it, she hates it :)
--
J o N a "Earshot thread, coming up yet, anyone?" T H a N
Jonathan Black
> > http://www.gbposters.co.uk/images/products/large/FP0785.jpg
> >
> > Now, I'm a considerable Alyson Hannigan fan, but I just could not
> > bring myself to buy this poster. That hair-do is *appalling*. It
> > does nothing for her.
> I agree, her hair on that poster ain't good (that's the mild
> version of my opinion), [...]
Aha! Somebody agrees.
> [...] but I think I'm still gonna buy it, since there isn't any
> alterative (or is there? tell my there is!).
There is: don't buy it :) If you mean is this the only Willow
poster in existence, maybe, I don't really know. I'm not that
much of a poster buff. Sad state of affairs if this is the only
poster of Aly in the whole wide world, though... Where's P@rick?
He's the finest, most loyal Aly fan of the lot of us I think,
surely he can supply us with some decent posters of the girl.
--
J o N a T H a N
Andrea
george said:
>Ok, so three of the main posters in this group lack serious Buffy
>merchandising?
Add me to the list. Oh <blush> guess I'm not what you'd call a main poster
any more. Um. Sorry. Forget it.
Anyway, I've never bought anything Buffy-ish. Yet. I *will* buy the DVD's,
since I *will* have a (PC-) DVD very, very soon. And it's not that I don't
want to buy Buffy merchandise, it's just that I've got way too much B7 and
Voy stuff already. I really can't afford another fandom, so I pretend I
don't need it. :)
Andrea :))
Yorrit
Yeah. P@trick, are there any decent posters of her?
Mattia Valente
> ...actually, atheist and agnostic are *not* the same thing. Atheist
> (from the greek roots "a-", meaning not, and, um, "thei", meaning god,
> or something like that) is someone who denies the existence of God.
> Agnostic (from, again, Greek-- "agnostos", meaning "unknown") is
> someone who believes it's impossible to know whether God exists or
> not. So an atheist says "There is no God", whereas an agnostic says
> "We can't know if there's a God."
Well, yes, I do actually know that (not the whole greek roots thing,
never took greek,never will, never missed it. I fake the latin becuse I
speak Italian..) but I was being a bit of a joker. Point for me is, on
the one hand, only a fool will speak in total absulotes about an
uncertainty (existence of God), so the Atheist is as set in his ways as
the believer because each has a categorically firm position on the
subject. Both rigid, neither productive.
The agnostic is a wannabe intelletual, methinks, because he says that
you can't be sure there is a god or not. In other words, he can't make
up his mind, but then again, for all intents and purposes, he doesn't
really believe in a deity. He's uncertain, saying he'll believe if
there's proof, essentially. He can't be vindicated, ever, by proof of
Gods existence since that's something impossible, by definition (I'm not
talking in a possible afterlife here.) Its a matter of faith, one way or
the other. In my view, there's no real functional difference betwwen the
two, other than the flexibility or indecisiveness (glass half empty/half
full) of the agnostic.
Personally, I'm not sure what camp I fall into, which pretty much makes
me an agnostic, I guess. Bit too much of a constricting label for me, so
I alternately use one or the other. I don't believe in a 'God' in the
commonly religious sense of the word. I guess there's some sort of other
level, but I haven't made contact with it extensively myself. That there
is 'something' out there, maybe. SOmething controlling everything and
judging, I'd say big fat no. The 'Clockmaker God' is the closest thing
to a deity that I can envision, and even then its a bit of a stretch.
Well, that was utterly pointless, really. Basically, I'm a little
confused, I guess. Got clear ideas, but lots of unknowns, and taking
things on 'Faith' is not my thing. ;-)
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
Mattia Valente
> Mattia Valente <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
> > > Mattia's God [tm] - Can you tell I'm loving this title ;-)?
> >
> > *sigh*
> >
> > Why does he take things so seriously?
>
> Who? Me?? :-p
Well, I'll give you exactly one (thans 1) guess.
> > And why was I stupid enough to say
> > a thing like that?
>
> Yep. That's the question you're going to be asking yourself for some
> time to come....;-)
<slap>
There. Have another sardine.
> > I mean, George, don't you KNOW that there is only
> > Joss?
>
> Of course. There's only one Joss. And he *is* God [tm]. Still doesn't
> mean I can't have fun with your little slip-up ;-)
*sigh* I guess you're entit;ed to your amusement. I'd say its only
appropriate in messages that are, well, intelecshual (ie, LRT[tm] type)
and not in serious discussions of eps, but that's just me ;-)
BTW, notice how none of us (that I've noticed so far) seems to be
particualarly religious? Secular society, I tell you...try this in a US
newsgroup, wonder what would happen..loonies out of the woodwork and all
that.
> George
<CENSOR>
> And also an Atheist. Just got the record ;-)
Hehe...are you REALLY an atheist though? Do you not believe in anything,
or are you just indifferent and a little undecisive? Maybe an agnostic?
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
Mattia Valente
> > Hmm... <http://www.mediamarkt.com>, but there's not much there.
>
> Indeed. And I'm definatly not about to download their "reclame folder"
> in pdf format....
Yeah, that would be like, work.
> Pffff. You can say that again. I mean *all* the way to Rotterdam. I'm
> tired allready ;-)
Hehe..thats what, a half hour (no, less, probably) on the train or
something? And your OV card is valid again. Really really lazy..
> George
> LazyMeister [tm]
Yess! It took!
Mattia
YaddaYaddaMeister[tm]
Hmm...this title suddenly acquired a whole new meaning, I just
realized...
Mattia Valente
> > I haven't got anything.
>
> Not counting video's eh? :))
And that ain't nothing, either. Techinically, though, I'm not sure its
real merchandise. Its the show itself, albeit in a sellable packaging.
> Yeah, books are nice, I might look into getting some sort of nice
> Buffy book sometime. I have a very old version of the Star Trek
I'd go for the watchers guide(s) personally. Nice little books, nothing
new there, but what do you expect, really? I've flipped through the
yearbook, and it looks interesting, though I probably wouldn't buy it. I
bet George has it though ;-)
> Encycolpedia (only goes up to TNG-S6/DS9-S1 or something), and
> The Star Trek: The Next Generation Compation.
Jonathan, there's a typo in there. And a weird one at that..
<ducks>
As far as ST stuff goes, I have a number of books (which are actually
quite bad, I've noticed.) and the ST TNG tech manual which is a lot of
fun. Especially the footnotes.
> Yes, that's very well, put, Saskia. The picture isn't "bad", it
> just sucks. IMHO of course.
Aah. And that's supposed to be better than bad? Interesting...
> You mean that? Thanks :) My mother keeps nagging the heck out of
> me to get rid of it, she hates it :)
Hehe..that sounds familiar..I keep saying I'm going to let it grow, see
what happens, but I've never actually done it. Maybe I will, maybe I
won't. Who knows?
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
Mattia Valente
> merchandising (its a hobby ;-)). Mattia has seen my room and can
> testify to its Buffy oriented obsesiveness. Also as far as oficial
Indeed. Verry nicely stocked up on Buffy stuff. You walk in to Geroge's
house, and you'de have to be blind not to notice what his fave show is.
Even his desktop theme is Buffy oriented, and so is his sound scheme,
IIRC..(I've actually been toying with the idea of making a couple of
desktop schemes for fun..) Oh, and he has lots and lots of movies, I
wonder what'll happen when he gets his DVD player....
> guides go, I own most of 'em. Can't really beat the watchers guide
> though. Also photo's, glasses stuff like that. Oh and of course the
> master action figure which is really cool...
Hehe..not the buffy one? BTW, the ABC has a glass and a couple of Mugs
in their showcase now.
> Lots of more thing. Anyone here reading the Buffy comic? If so, anyone
> noticed that letter I got published in there last month? Ah well.....
Nope. Never read comics, to be honest. not my thing.
> She *does*. She looks like s4 willow. s4 willow, is, however, a new
> type of willow. More self confident and stuffs. But that really doesn't
> make her any less sweet and atracktive.......
Ahh...its making your english go all funny too, I see..
<ducks>
> > Yep definitely long. Looks nice too :)
>
> Well just have to trust you on that one ;-)
For now, anyway. IRL sometime or other, no?
> Who's now wondering if there are people in this newsgroup equally
> adicted to Buffy merchandise....
So am I..who's left? Fuzzy, Yorrit, P@trick, Wheez, Miriam (pretty much
a reg by now ;-)...I doubt Saskia has anything (too new and all that)
but that may come. Main reason for me is people think I'm weird and
obsessed (which I may be) and I have no money. :-))
Mattia
Replyeister[tm]
Xander X
<jona...@ch.twi.tudelft.nl> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, george van hal wrote:
>
>> Anyways, must start reading that nl.media.dvd group. Also must
>> start searching if that maediamarkt store has an online
>> companion...
You can go to http://www.elvic.nl
They have a huge collection of region 1 dvd's and they sell modified
dvd players (region free and macrovision free (not shure about
macrovision tho'))
I did buy a pc-dvd player tho' as it was cheap. (i got the creative
dxr3, which is a wonderful player)
But, what's dvd without a widescreen tv? So I bought myself a Sony
WEGA 28" widescreen tv, probably the most expensive tv I *ever* bought
(NFL 1999,-)
Can't wait until I have those Buffy DVD's!
_
X-rays are now diagnosing even rare X-factors
Xander X
On Thu, 24 Aug 2000 17:09:08 +0200, Jonathan Black
<jona...@ch.twi.tudelft.nl> wrote:
<snippage>
>Here's a quote from one of them:
>
> "Movies on PAL DVDs play back 4% faster than their NTSC
> counterparts. The great majority of people will never notice
> this, but for a small minority, this is an intolerable
> artefact."
>
>To some it up, I'm part of that `small minority'. Yay me :-(
Add me to that minority also :( I hate those pal DVD's
Not only because of mentioned speed, but the transfers on pal DVD's
are just bad. I'll stick to my R1 DVD's :)
Mattia Valente
> You can go to http://www.elvic.nl
Thanks much..<adds to bookmarks>
> But, what's dvd without a widescreen tv? So I bought myself a Sony
> WEGA 28" widescreen tv, probably the most expensive tv I *ever* bought
> (NFL 1999,-)
Wow...don't have that kind of money. And besides, who knows if Buffy
will be widescreen? S1 won't be, the others could be, but why? It was
designed and broadcast for a 4:3 ratio (of course, for all other DVDs,
you have a point, widescreen rules. And of course surround sound,
IMNSHO..) Anyway, I'll take em any way they come..
Enough on that, its been discussed to death elsewhere, with no
productive results..
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
Jonathan Black
> [...] And besides, who knows if Buffy will be widescreen? S1
> won't be, the others could be, but why? It was designed and
> broadcast for a 4:3 ratio (of course, for all other DVDs, you
> have a point, widescreen rules. And of course surround sound,
> IMNSHO..) Anyway, I'll take em any way they come..
>
> Enough on that, its been discussed to death elsewhere, with no
> productive results..
Argh, yes, yes, pet subject time again, which I'd *love* to get
into again but don't have the time or energy for at the moment.
Can I throw in a few links?
Here's a thread:
http://deja.com/=dnc/viewthread.xp?AN=658651280
In particular this post is interesting :)
http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=659007127
Oh, and of course this page:
http://www.muffle.uklinux.net/
Suffice to say, I'm axiously awaiting the start of season 4 on
BBC TWO to see if they will finally start using widescreen tapes
for Buffy (though of course it would be cropped to 14:9 on the
analogue service, which is all we get over here in NL).
--
J o N a T H a N
"You're not getting the big picture here. I have
no strength, I have no coordination..."
--Buffy, `Helpless'
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Mattia Valente
> Argh, yes, yes, pet subject time again, which I'd *love* to get
> into again but don't have the time or energy for at the moment.
> Can I throw in a few links?
Sure thing! Educate the masses! A worthy goal indeed....;-)
> Suffice to say, I'm axiously awaiting the start of season 4 on
> BBC TWO to see if they will finally start using widescreen tapes
> for Buffy (though of course it would be cropped to 14:9 on the
> analogue service, which is all we get over here in NL).
I wonder if they'll actually do it though..we know they exist, but has
any Buffy ep ever been broadcast in widescreen format? According to link
number 3, its proof that they exist, but from there to having them seen
other than on DVD is another thing completely. BTW, do you even own a WS
TV, Jonathan? Or do you just like letterboxed movies? ;-))
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
Likes letterboxed movies. Most of the time.
Jonathan Black
> Jonathan Black wrote:
>
> > Suffice to say, I'm axiously awaiting the start of season 4
> > on BBC TWO to see if they will finally start using widescreen
> > tapes for Buffy (though of course it would be cropped to 14:9
> > on the analogue service, which is all we get over here in
> > NL).
>
> I wonder if they'll actually do it though..we know they exist,
> but has any Buffy ep ever been broadcast in widescreen format?
I think it's safe to say no. But don't forget the BBC were also
the first in the world to show The X-Files in widescren (it went
16:9 as from season 6). The UK is pretty much leading the world
as far as widescreen TV penetration is concerned. You see more
and more programmes on BBC1/2 these days that are shown with
smallish black bars on them, creating a 14:9 sort of ratio. This
means they were made in widescreen and can be seen in full 16:9
if you have one of the digital TV services avaiable in the UK
(unfortunately they crop them to 14:9 on analogue as a
compromise, for fear of too many complaints about "black bars").
Most of these are their own productions like Eastenders etc., but
they seem keen to show imported material in 16:9 if it is
available. The X-Files and recently Neighbours are examples of
this.
> According to link number 3, its proof that they exist, [...]
Yep, that page looks pretty convincing, although seeing that MTV
FANatic episode (which those WS shots were taken from) for myself
a few weeks back did raise some doubts in my mind, as I outlined
in the umtb-thread I already pointed to, and in more detail in
this post from uk.tech.digital-tv:
http://deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=658938725
Hopefully I'm just being paranoid :)
> [...] but from there to having them seen other than on DVD is
> another thing completely.
Yeah, well, if DVD's the only place we get them, that'd be good
enough for me. But I'm kinda hoping the BBC will show them for
S4, as that would be final proof that they do exist and are meant
to be used. All those 4:3 comments from Joss are disturbing :)
> BTW, do you even own a WS TV, Jonathan? Or do you just like
> letterboxed movies? ;-))
Yeah, I picked up a 32" Philips WS set (from the bargain corner
of the Philips Personeelswinkel, dad works there) for NLG 1499
last Xmas. I think it's like one of the crappiest (well,
simplest) models and it had with "verpakkingsschade", hence the
discount. But it's OK. Hey, 32", that's a good 80 cm (hi Peter!).
Unfortunately it developed a fault a few months ago, in the form
an annoying red glow to the picture with some red lines as well,
especially visible on dark scenes. According to USENET, this is a
common structural fault in this range of models and it means the
picture tube has to be replaced. Of course, it's under guarantee,
but man, what a hassle to have to go and get that fixed. Still
haven't got around to doing that. This is what you get for buying
the cheapest model: crap, crap, crap. I'm really starting to
believe the stuff about Philips sucking ass. I bet X has no
trouble at all with his Sony. Next time round, I may just have to
turn to the dark side and buy some quality Japanese product for a
change instead of this Eurotrash. I've already pretty much
decided my surround sound amp, when I get round to somehow
convincing myself I can afford it, will be a Yamaha. Hell,
Philips hardly even make any. Jeez, I'm ranting. You're supposed
to stop me when I do that...
--
J o N a T H a N
Guy #2: "Thanks for the loan, man. Our sound system sucks."
Oz: "Mi Casio es su Casio."
--`Fear, Itself'
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
george van hal
Mattia Valente <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
> george van hal wrote:
> > Mattia Valente <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
> > > > Mattia's God [tm] - Can you tell I'm loving this title ;-)?
> > >
> > > *sigh*
> > >
> > > Why does he take things so seriously?
> >
> > Who? Me?? :-p
>
> Well, I'll give you exactly one (thans 1) guess.
Ermm....than I'd have to go with: no ;-)
> > > And why was I stupid enough to say
> > > a thing like that?
> >
> > Yep. That's the question you're going to be asking yourself for some
> > time to come....;-)
>
> <slap>
>
> There. Have another sardine.
<looks behind him, at the huge trunk filled with sardines> Thanks. But
I think I really have more than enough......
> > > I mean, George, don't you KNOW that there is only
> > > Joss?
> >
> > Of course. There's only one Joss. And he *is* God [tm]. Still
doesn't
> > mean I can't have fun with your little slip-up ;-)
>
> *sigh* I guess you're entit;ed to your amusement.
Yes. That's what I thought as well......
I'd say its only
> appropriate in messages that are, well, intelecshual (ie, LRT[tm]
type)
> and not in serious discussions of eps, but that's just me ;-)
Yep. That's definatly just you <evil> Muhahahahah </evil>
> BTW, notice how none of us (that I've noticed so far) seems to be
> particualarly religious? Secular society, I tell you...try this in a
US
> newsgroup, wonder what would happen..loonies out of the woodwork and
all
> that.
Yep. I assume this thread would've turned into a weird religious
discussion thread allready. Was reading a thread about dracula in the
us newsgroup yesterday and they managed to turn *that* into a thread
about how to interpet the bible/genesis and evolution theorie, so.....
> > George
> <CENSOR>
> > And also an Atheist. Just got the record ;-)
>
> Hehe...are you REALLY an atheist though? Do you not believe in
anything,or are you just indifferent and a little undecisive? Maybe an
agnostic?
Think I would be an agnostic. I'd be the first to admit we simply can't
know. If you'd ask me to place my money on either of the possibilities,
I'd definatly go with "no god" though. I mean, to me its almost the
same as if people would run around saying "there are pink elephants
flying around when no ones looking". Theres no evidence whatsoever to
suport or proof that claim, but when asked i'd definatly go with
the "no pink elephants" option. Thats sorta how I feel about religion
as well.
See Ya,
George
george van hal
"Andrea" <en...@club.tip.nl> wrote:
>
> george said:
>
> >Ok, so three of the main posters in this group lack serious Buffy
> >merchandising?
>
poster any more. Um. Sorry. Forget it.
Yeah. What happened? Been so very disapointed with s4? You used to be
one of the 3, posibly 4 main regs together with me, peter and possibly
rob. Then mattia and p@trick came along and you sorta left. They scare
you off ;-)?
Anyways you're still more than welcome to reastablish your reg status
;-)
> Anyway, I've never bought anything Buffy-ish. Yet. I *will* buy the
DVD's,
> since I *will* have a (PC-) DVD very, very soon. And it's not that I
don't
> want to buy Buffy merchandise, it's just that I've got way too much
B7 and
> Voy stuff already. I really can't afford another fandom, so I pretend
I
> don't need it. :)
See, now thats just a lame exuse. You know you want it! Now just go out
and buy some Buffy merchandise!
See Ya,
George
Really not sponsored by FOX.....
george van hal
Buffy
> > merchandising (its a hobby ;-)). Mattia has seen my room and can
> > testify to its Buffy oriented obsesiveness. Also as far as oficial
>
> Indeed. Verry nicely stocked up on Buffy stuff. You walk in to
Geroge's
> house, and you'de have to be blind not to notice what his fave show
is.
Yep. X-files all the way ;-)
> Even his desktop theme is Buffy oriented, and so is his sound scheme,
> IIRC..(I've actually been toying with the idea of making a couple of
> desktop schemes for fun..) Oh, and he has lots and lots of movies, I
> wonder what'll happen when he gets his DVD player....
I'll get even more movies ;-) I probably wont be buying the DVDs of
movies I allready own on tape (Buffy being the exception of course ;-
)), but I'll probably be buying new movies on DVD only....
> > guides go, I own most of 'em. Can't really beat the watchers guide
> > though. Also photo's, glasses stuff like that. Oh and of course the
> > master action figure which is really cool...
>
> Hehe..not the buffy one?
Nope. That one sucked. The one of the master was really cool as a
decoration. The others just didn't look good enough. I'd still have
bought them though, if I had the money.....
BTW, the ABC has a glass and a couple of Mugs
> in their showcase now.
Yep. Noticed that. The pricing of the mug kept me off though (somewhere
around fl 30,-. For a *mug*. I mean come on...) and the glasses are the
same as the ones they have at warp 9. Also, I've already got more than
enough buffy related glasses.... (well not really. But its the money
issue again, see ;-))
> > Lots of more thing. Anyone here reading the Buffy comic? If so,
anyone
> > noticed that letter I got published in there last month? Ah
well.....
>
> Nope. Never read comics, to be honest. not my thing.
Well, you could definatly make an exception for the Christopher Golden
written comics that are around atm. They are *really* very good. Also
some funny quotes...
Two jump to mind:
<Giles comes walking toward Buffy, Willow and Xander at a fair>
Giles: "Buffy. All of you. We have a problem."
Xander: "Do we really? Cuz I'm starting to think that's just your way
of saying hello."
And
Xander: "So, Giles, when you say "Demon arms dealer" you do mean
weapons, right?"
Golden really gets the characters, and unlike the previous comics the
stories are really good. Emtotionally as well. The characters really
are where they should be and come across as being "three dimensional"
instead of flat charicatures of their tv show counterparts.....
> > She *does*. She looks like s4 willow. s4 willow, is, however, a new
> > type of willow. More self confident and stuffs. But that really
doesn't
> > make her any less sweet and atracktive.......
>
> Ahh...its making your english go all funny too, I see..
>
> <ducks>
Grumble Grumble. You're starting to get real close to starting this
war, Valente...
> > > Yep definitely long. Looks nice too :)
> >
> > Well just have to trust you on that one ;-)
>
> For now, anyway. IRL sometime or other, no?
Oh, yes. Definatly :-) We really should start making plans for that
some time in the future.....
> > Who's now wondering if there are people in this newsgroup equally
> > adicted to Buffy merchandise....
>
> So am I..who's left? Fuzzy, Yorrit, P@trick, Wheez, Miriam (pretty
much
> a reg by now ;-)...I doubt Saskia has anything (too new and all that)
> but that may come. Main reason for me is people think I'm weird and
> obsessed (which I may be) and I have no money. :-))
Hmm. I'm placing my bets on Fuzzy, P@trick and Miriam here. Was I
right??
See Ya,
George
george van hal
> >
> > Indeed. And I'm definatly not about to download their "reclame
folder"
> > in pdf format....
>
> Yeah, that would be like, work.
I *know*. And, I mean that would be, like, totally impossible. I mean,
me and work. No way!
> > Pffff. You can say that again. I mean *all* the way to Rotterdam.
I'm
> > tired allready ;-)
>
> Hehe..thats what, a half hour (no, less, probably) on the train or
> something? And your OV card is valid again. Really really lazy..
Really not denying that ;-)
> > George
> > LazyMeister [tm]
>
> Yess! It took!
Yup. Doesn't mean I forgot 'bout the other one though [1]
See Ya,
George
LazyMeister [tm]
[1] You thought, I'd use it. Right? Well you were.................
right!! I'm Mattia's God [tm] <evil> Muhahahahahah </evil>
Mattia Valente
> I think it's safe to say no. But don't forget the BBC were also
> the first in the world to show The X-Files in widescren (it went
> 16:9 as from season 6). The UK is pretty much leading the world
> as far as widescreen TV penetration is concerned. You see more
Oooh...goody! Well, I'm just interested to see if there is any real
positive difference there. Is it better, worse, don't make no real
difference? Definately curious though, and we should find out in not too
much more time (what, a month and a bit? Something like that, anyway..)
> and more programmes on BBC1/2 these days that are shown with
> smallish black bars on them, creating a 14:9 sort of ratio. This
> means they were made in widescreen and can be seen in full 16:9
> if you have one of the digital TV services avaiable in the UK
> (unfortunately they crop them to 14:9 on analogue as a
> compromise, for fear of too many complaints about "black bars").
Annoying, really. I like black bars (OK, my TV is large enough to deal
with them, it gets annoying on anything too small though.) I wish they'd
let the dutch cable companies get access to the beeb via sattelite or
something, instead of the oft lousy landline via Calais (or wherever)
that screws us over quite often.
> Most of these are their own productions like Eastenders etc., but
Bizarre concept, really. Soap opera's in widescreen. What's the world
coming to, I ask you?
> they seem keen to show imported material in 16:9 if it its
> available. The X-Files and recently Neighbours are examples of
> this.
Again, one show where I can understand it (X-Files...are all the DVDs
of XF WS or only the last season? Is that even out on DVD yet? What is
out on DVD? Actually, don't bother answering that, doesn't really matter
;-) Neighbours..another odd example, I must say. Who cares if neighbours
is in widescreen? I surely don't (OKm so I don't watch Neighbours or
Eastenders, but still..)
> > According to link number 3, its proof that they exist, [...]
>
> Yep, that page looks pretty convincing, although seeing that MTV
> FANatic episode (which those WS shots were taken from) for myself
> a few weeks back did raise some doubts in my mind, as I outlined
> in the umtb-thread I already pointed to, and in more detail in
> this post from uk.tech.digital-tv:
Yeah, the whole title scene thing you mentioned..I was lurking (purely
by chance, don't do it much anymore..too many other things to do, too
many flamewars over there..) We shall indeed see, although in this case,
WS is just a pleasant bonus, not a dire necessity.
> Hopefully I'm just being paranoid :)
:-))
> > [...] but from there to having them seen other than on DVD is
> > another thing completely.
>
> Yeah, well, if DVD's the only place we get them, that'd be good
> enough for me. But I'm kinda hoping the BBC will show them for
Right. Which is the place you'll finally get to see buffy the way it was
meant to be seen: Pristine image, great sound, no logos!! Yay!!! BBC
comes close, except for the cutting on the first showing, and the not so
extremely great video quality. Oh, and annoying BBC voice over lady
during the credits, of course...
> S4, as that would be final proof that they do exist and are meant
> to be used. All those 4:3 comments from Joss are disturbing :)
Yeah, but Joss is like, unreliable. He was probably the last person to
know about DVD releases, if you believe him. Even pretty recent quotes
have him saying that, when you can seemingly preorder from australia
already! I'm sticking to the waiting for R1 idea for now, though...
> > BTW, do you even own a WS TV, Jonathan? Or do you just like
> > letterboxed movies? ;-))
>
> Yeah, I picked up a 32" Philips WS set (from the bargain corner
> of the Philips Personeelswinkel, dad works there) for NLG 1499
> last Xmas. I think it's like one of the crappiest (well,
Kewll...I have a cheapish Samsung 55cm unit. Colors are a little naff
before you adjust them (can you say bright and jarring, anyone? Tint has
to go WAAY down, contrast a little, and its just fine.) Its pretty good,
and about as big as can fit in my tiny room (although space COULD be
made...;-) Got a new, champagne colored Sharp 4 head VCR, very pleased
with it so far. Easy to use, no problems, NTSC playback works like a
charm (better than on the unit here in Paris, which is Multi System, but
a little screwed up..BTW, PAL 60 playback still has the sound problem,
right? Or wrong? A simple yes or no here is ok, btw ;-)
> simplest) models and it had with "verpakkingsschade", hence the
> discount. But it's OK. Hey, 32", that's a good 80 cm (hi Peter!).
:-))
Thats really big. Too big for my humble abode (I can't get further away
than about 3 meters from the screen. 55 is just fine for now :-))
> Unfortunately it developed a fault a few months ago, in the form
> an annoying red glow to the picture with some red lines as well,
> especially visible on dark scenes. According to USENET, this is a
Annoying.
> common structural fault in this range of models and it means the
> picture tube has to be replaced. Of course, it's under guarantee,
> but man, what a hassle to have to go and get that fixed. Still
Just go do it before the warranty runs out. I've procarstinated a little
too long once in the past..Verry stupid, and verry annoying (not to
mention costly..)
> haven't got around to doing that. This is what you get for buying
> the cheapest model: crap, crap, crap. I'm really starting to
Ah well..This is kind of my thing with buying standalone DVD players:
don't have much cash, but don't want to buy a crappy player to save a
coupla guilders. PC DVD was more attractive because of that, although a
standalone unit IS a lot cooler, handier and hassle free. And of course
it has a remote ;-)
> believe the stuff about Philips sucking ass. I bet X has no
> trouble at all with his Sony. Next time round, I may just have to
> turn to the dark side and buy some quality Japanese product for a
> change instead of this Eurotrash. I've already pretty much
I like sony stuff (except for my discman, which is all scewed up now for
no apparent reason. The lat one lasted 7 years though, so I'm not
complainig..;-) I'd probably go for a Sony if I went widescreen. After
good market research, of course ;-) Bought the Sharp VCR (stereo 4 head,
blah blah blah..) because the sony's were wither older models or really
expensive S-VHS units. The lower price (equal to the sharp) had less
features, etc. etc. I'm even pleasantly surprised by the quality I get
using the Long Play function on the thing (I have on tape with about 8
hours of Buffy/Farscape eps :-))
> decided my surround sound amp, when I get round to somehow
> convincing myself I can afford it, will be a Yamaha. Hell,
Hehe...and you haven't even started to mention speakers yet...My 'dream'
setup is a THX certified set (possibly Jamo speakers, dunno about the
amp yet. Yamaha does make good stuff though..), inlcuding some rumbler
untis you can build into your couch for that special 'Bass' feel...You
can get amps that do both Dolby Digital and DTS with an upgrade kit (or
built in..) right? But do you need different speakers? Whatever...I
digress a little. My more realistic setup for the moment is getting
myself a VideoLogic surround sound speaker set (complete with amp and
decoder for about 250 pounds.), dolby digital gizmo. Gets great reviews
everywhere (As do practically allof their other speakers.) and has
amazing bang for the buck. Its not a high end system, but value for
moeny is there (most amps cost more than this whole package..)
> Philips hardly even make any. Jeez, I'm ranting. You're supposed
> to stop me when I do that...
Why? We all rant. I rant, you rant, too!
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
P@rick
> The agnostic is a wannabe intelletual, methinks, because he says that
> you can't be sure there is a god or not. In other words, he can't make
> up his mind, but then again, for all intents and purposes, he doesn't
> really believe in a deity. He's uncertain, saying he'll believe if
> there's proof, essentially.
And that's so very stupid, saying that you'll believe when there's proof.
When there's proof, there's no need to belief anymore. The whole thing about
believing is that you're convinced that something is fact, when it has not
been proven. When it has been proven, believing turns in to knowing.
> Personally, I'm not sure what camp I fall into, which pretty much makes
> me an agnostic, I guess. Bit too much of a constricting label for me, so
> I alternately use one or the other. I don't believe in a 'God' in the
> commonly religious sense of the word. I guess there's some sort of other
> level, but I haven't made contact with it extensively myself. That there
> is 'something' out there, maybe. SOmething controlling everything and
> judging, I'd say big fat no. The 'Clockmaker God' is the closest thing
> to a deity that I can envision, and even then its a bit of a stretch.
I always 'hate' it when people say "I don't believe in God, but I believe
*something* is there". That's so shallow, you might as well believe nothing.
I don't believe in anything, but I'm open to it. I.e. I'm not saying that
those who believe are wasting their time. But it all seems a bit unlikely to
me. If all the events mentioned in the bible for instance actually did
occur, the reports about these events will be grossly deformed.
I do however think that things like consciousness, being, feeling and
thinking can't be explained completely by electric pulses, cells and
molecules. And that leaves room for concepts like spirit, life energy
etcetera. But in my view, it doesn't automatically follow that there is a
Divine Being or even life after death.
Bye, Patrick
Jonathan Black
> Jonathan Black wrote:
>
> > [...] they [the BBC] seem keen to show imported material in
> > 16:9 if it its available. The X-Files and recently Neighbours
> > are examples of this.
>
> Again, one show where I can understand it (X-Files...are all
> the DVDs of XF WS or only the last season? Is that even out on
> DVD yet? What is out on DVD?
In R1, X-Files S1 came out in May (I have that!) and S2 is due in
November (pro'ly have to get that too!), however they didn't
start shooting in 16:9 until S6 so these are still. Fox have
indicated that they will release their TV show DVD box sets in
16:9 where applicable, so some hope for WS Buffy there, from S3
onwards I think.
> Actually, don't bother answering that, doesn't really matter ;-)
Oops, I answered anyway, sorry :)
> Neighbours..another odd example, I must say. Who cares if
> neighbours is in widescreen? I surely don't (OKm so I don't
> watch Neighbours or Eastenders, but still..)
Well, I think you just have to see it as all of TV simply moving
to 16:9. UK is the furthest with this at the moment, eventually
everything will be 16:9, though it may take some years yet. It's
just like colour, stereo, whatever.
> Got a new, champagne colored Sharp 4 head VCR, very pleased
> with it so far. Easy to use, no problems, NTSC playback works
> like a charm (better than on the unit here in Paris, which is
> Multi System, but a little screwed up..BTW, PAL 60 playback
> still has the sound problem, right? Or wrong? A simple yes or
> no here is ok, btw ;-)
No :) I take it you mean that pitch problem "we talked about"
(understatement of the year, there), the 4.167% speed-up thingy?
Nope, PAL60 does not have that, 'cause PAL60 is basically just
NTSC (60Hz, 30 frames a second) apart from the colour encoding or
carrier frequency or something. That wasn't quite a simple yes or
no, was it? Ah well...
> > [...] decided my surround sound amp, when I get round to
> > somehow convincing myself I can afford it, will be a Yamaha.
>
> Hehe...and you haven't even started to mention speakers
> yet...My 'dream' setup is a THX certified set (possibly Jamo
> speakers, dunno about the amp yet. Yamaha does make good stuff
> though..), inlcuding some rumbler untis you can build into your
> couch for that special 'Bass' feel...
Hehe, just saw some Jamo speakers on the elvic.nl site X
mentioned. Their top home cinema speaker kit goes for a mere NLG
64,000.00 !!! <http://www.elvic.nl/shop/media/digcinma.gif>
I was thinking maybe Tannoy for the speakers. I've heard good
things about them. Their Mercury range are supposed to be very
good for the money. Maybe a pair Mx3's for the front, Mx1's at
the rear and an MC in the centre. That's only about NLG 1600 at
list price, should be able to get a considerable discount buy
shopping around.
http://www.tannoy.com/tannoyhifi/hifi_ranges_page.cfm
> You can get amps that do both Dolby Digital and DTS with an
> upgrade kit (or built in..) right?
Oh yeah, you can get amps that do it all these days, Dolby
Surround, Dolby Digital and DTS. I'm thinking the Yamaha DSP-A5.
Check out this review, looks very attractive:
http://dvd-2000.highlandinternet.net/yamaha.htm
I haven't seen this baby for sale in NL yet, but in the UK it can
be had for under 300 pounds. Not bad at all :))
> But do you need different speakers?
No.
> My more realistic setup for the moment is getting myself a
> VideoLogic surround sound speaker set (complete with amp and
> decoder for about 250 pounds.), dolby digital gizmo. Gets
> great reviews everywhere (As do practically allof their other
> speakers.) and has amazing bang for the buck. Its not a high
> end system, but value for moeny is there (most amps cost more
> than this whole package..)
True. But you can always buy your system a bit a time. Like for
example, get a decent amp like that Yamaha A5, but do without
rear speakers initially, or even the centre as well, and just add
them later as funds allow.
This is completely and utterly off topic!
;-)
--
J o N a T H a N
Oz: "There's a couple of good ones. The Johnson Mill...
The number one is Red Bone."
Veruca: "Number one? No, I gotta go with Hound Dog."
Willow: "Me too. That's a great song. I mean, Elvis, what a guy."
Veruca: "You a big Elvis fan?"
Willow: "The biggest. Well, I mean, after Dingoes, of course."
Oz: "We're actually talking amps. But it's easy to get
confused, the names they give 'em."
--`Wild at Heart'
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Andrea
george asked:
> "Andrea" <en...@club.tip.nl> wrote:
>>
>> george said:
>>
>> >Ok, so three of the main posters in this group lack serious Buffy
>> >merchandising?
>>
>> Add me to the list. Oh <blush> guess I'm not what you'd call a main
>poster any more. Um. Sorry. Forget it.
>
>Yeah. What happened? Been so very disapointed with s4? You used to be
>one of the 3, posibly 4 main regs together with me, peter and possibly
>rob.
Yeah, well, you know, busy and everything...
Then mattia and p@trick came along and you sorta left. They scare
>you off ;-)?
<g> That must be it. I'm easily scared.
>
>Anyways you're still more than welcome to reastablish your reg status
>;-)
Well, thank you. I'll try to post at least a bit more often.
>
>> Anyway, I've never bought anything Buffy-ish. Yet. I *will* buy the
>DVD's,
>> since I *will* have a (PC-) DVD very, very soon. And it's not that I
>don't
>> want to buy Buffy merchandise, it's just that I've got way too much
>B7 and
>> Voy stuff already. I really can't afford another fandom, so I pretend
>I
>> don't need it. :)
>
>See, now thats just a lame exuse. You know you want it! Now just go out
>and buy some Buffy merchandise!
Nope. I'm gonna buy the DVD's. I'd say that's quite a start. :)
Andrea :)
Mattia Valente
> Mattia Valente wrote:
>
> > The agnostic is a wannabe intelletual, methinks, because he says that
> > you can't be sure there is a god or not. In other words, he can't make
> > up his mind, but then again, for all intents and purposes, he doesn't
> > really believe in a deity. He's uncertain, saying he'll believe if
> > there's proof, essentially.
>
> And that's so very stupid, saying that you'll believe when there's proof.
No, its not really. In this case, a little very strange, though. What is
absolute proof? Does it exist? Don't think so, since by deifnition,
everything you observe is tainted by your observation of it.
> When there's proof, there's no need to belief anymore. The whole thing about
> believing is that you're convinced that something is fact, when it has not
> been proven. When it has been proven, believing turns in to knowing.
I don't believe that there is such a thing as true 'knowledge' in that
sense. Belief is basically knowledge in your own eyes, but only a belief
to the unbeliever. See things like evoution for point in fact, or heck,
worse, young earth creationsit theories. Depsite scientifically
acknowledged PROOF that the earth is older than a few thousand years (I
think 6 or 7 thousand is what they think.) they hang on to their
beliefs, becaue their proof is in the bible. What's the more accurate of
the two, really? Objectively that is? I'm votig for science, but that's
because that fits my own personal belief system. OK, it has more
epirical evidence to support it (the purported word of a deity which I
don't really believe exists, as written by people after the stories were
handed down for generations doesn't really cut it as proof for me.
Doesn't make the Bible any less of a book for it, its just not meant to
be taken literaly. Kinda like most religious scriptures, come to that.)
> > Personally, I'm not sure what camp I fall into, which pretty much makes
> > me an agnostic, I guess. Bit too much of a constricting label for me, so
> > I alternately use one or the other. I don't believe in a 'God' in the
> > commonly religious sense of the word. I guess there's some sort of other
> > level, but I haven't made contact with it extensively myself. That there
> > is 'something' out there, maybe. SOmething controlling everything and
Note the maybe at the end.
> > judging, I'd say big fat no. The 'Clockmaker God' is the closest thing
> > to a deity that I can envision, and even then its a bit of a stretch.
>
> I always 'hate' it when people say "I don't believe in God, but I believe
> *something* is there". That's so shallow, you might as well believe nothing.
I didn't say that. Read it again. Too many maybe's. I just don't know.
There is no belief system that I adhere to as it were, and I live my
life as an atheist would, I guess. Secular to the core, religion and
spritiuality, at this stage in my life, mean naught to me. I'm keeping
my options open. I've thought about it too much to say I'm an atheist;
there's no proof God doesn't exist, but there's no proof he does. Its
just sometimes, when I'm looking up at a starlit sky in total darkness,
in quite (preferrably on the deck of a boat) I get this feeling that
there may be more than what meets the eye (and mind.) in the universe,
in out existence, but I'll be damned if I'll give it a name and worship
it. Not concrete enough for me there..
> I don't believe in anything, but I'm open to it. I.e. I'm not saying that
> those who believe are wasting their time. But it all seems a bit unlikely to
I think that people who are big into religion and salvation are wasting
their time in one sense; I don't believe in final judgement, blah blah
blah. OTOH, religion, or rather, spirituality, fills a need in a great
number of people. Faith is something from which support can be drawn,
can help through tough times, etc. etc. I doubt I'll ever become a
follower of any god (Too much of a sceptic for that.) though. Too much
of a big power play in place around religion, each procaliming
themselves to be the only true one (how can you be so certain?) and
evangelism just pisses me off in a major way. Moralistic pandering to
the lost and mislead masses. Spare me.
> me. If all the events mentioned in the bible for instance actually did
> occur, the reports about these events will be grossly deformed.
True. Most of it is based on an oral history, a good deal of it is
metaphoric, and a good deal is outdatedly moralistic for my tastes.
Times change, cultures evolve.
> I do however think that things like consciousness, being, feeling and
> thinking can't be explained completely by electric pulses, cells and
> molecules. And that leaves room for concepts like spirit, life energy
> etcetera. But in my view, it doesn't automatically follow that there is a
> Divine Being or even life after death.
We just don't know (yet?) We hardly know anything about the functioning
of the brain (not really, anyway), and I'm not sure we'll learn that
much more within my lifetime. That there is something more, some spark,
I think is possible (not divine though, definately not.) I'm not
arrogant enough to think that man is all-perfect being, better than all
other animals. Dolphins for example; there are those who argue that they
are more intelligent that people, posses a soul and are self aware. That
we can't communicate with them is as much our failing as it is there's
(we're trying to teach them out language, our tricks, out thought
patterns, our logic, and not trying to learn theirs, which would give a
more appropriate measure of intelligence, IMHO.
I'm not saying that any of these other 'fuzzy' concepts are per
definition not true, or invalid. I for one believe that out of body
experiences can be real, and not just some psychosis type occurence
(although I'm willing to consider that option as well.) The god thing is
external to them all (an attempt to create a humanlike structure in
which there is a man in charge, running the show, watching over
everything, and judging right and wrong, makes it easier for people to
deal with existential issues, I guess..) got nothing to do with any of
it, necessarily. We'll only know for sure when we die (or not, as the
case may be ;-))
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
I can ramble on coherently even better than I can ramble randomly :-))
And how the hell did we get here? Oh, right, I tried to be funny in a
sig, but I was too vague. First reply was even vaguer than this one.
COuld be fun though....
Mattia Valente
> Mattia Valente wrote:
> > Neighbours..another odd example, I must say. Who cares if
> > neighbours is in widescreen? I surely don't (OKm so I don't
> > watch Neighbours or Eastenders, but still..)
>
> to 16:9. UK is the furthest with this at the moment, eventually
> everything will be 16:9, though it may take some years yet. It's
> just like colour, stereo, whatever.
I know, I know..I'm just wondering how much of thei audience actully has
widescreen TVs..a precious few I would guess. Still, somebody has to
make the first move..
> > Multi System, but a little screwed up..BTW, PAL 60 playback
> > still has the sound problem, right? Or wrong? A simple yes or
> > no here is ok, btw ;-)
>
> No :) I take it you mean that pitch problem "we talked about"
> (understatement of the year, there), the 4.167% speed-up thingy?
Yeah. That Which Should Not Be Discussed Again[tm]
> Nope, PAL60 does not have that, 'cause PAL60 is basically just
> NTSC (60Hz, 30 frames a second) apart from the colour encoding or
> carrier frequency or something. That wasn't quite a simple yes or
> no, was it? Ah well...
Ahh..So NTSC Plaback on Pal 60 is Good. Right? (no, really, don't
answer. I know the answer is basically yes, although actual real NTSC is
always better.in some ways. Lets not get into a standards discussion on
top of it all ;-)))
> > Hehe...and you haven't even started to mention speakers
> > yet...My 'dream' setup is a THX certified set (possibly Jamo
> > speakers, dunno about the amp yet. Yamaha does make good stuff
> > though..), inlcuding some rumbler untis you can build into your
> > couch for that special 'Bass' feel...
>
> Hehe, just saw some Jamo speakers on the elvic.nl site X
> mentioned. Their top home cinema speaker kit goes for a mere NLG
> 64,000.00 !!! <http://www.elvic.nl/shop/media/digcinma.gif>
Scary, huh? I'd say so..that's why I said 'Dream.' I may get there in, a
coupla decades (by which time, who know's what'll be out?) but I'll see
that then.
> I was thinking maybe Tannoy for the speakers. I've heard good
> things about them. Their Mercury range are supposed to be very
Tannoy makes good stuff. Their studio monitors for one (the Reveal
range, similar to the M series I think..) get good reviews for bang for
the buck. Both the powered and unpowered ones, and I think they've
gotten several awards recently.
> good for the money. Maybe a pair Mx3's for the front, Mx1's at
> the rear and an MC in the centre. That's only about NLG 1600 at
> list price, should be able to get a considerable discount buy
> shopping around.
That's not too bad (well, I'f I had that money, first I'd get a DVD
player, then a WS TV, then a decoder, and then speakers...;-)
> > You can get amps that do both Dolby Digital and DTS with an
> > upgrade kit (or built in..) right?
>
> Oh yeah, you can get amps that do it all these days, Dolby
> Surround, Dolby Digital and DTS. I'm thinking the Yamaha DSP-A5.
> Check out this review, looks very attractive:
>
> http://dvd-2000.highlandinternet.net/yamaha.htm
Hmmm...I'm salivating again. Damn it! Another terrible case of GAS
coming (Gear Acquisition Syndrome in case you're wondering..) Yamaha
makes some great DSP products (their DSP factory computer card is
supposedly quite amazing in terms of processing power, but I'm getting
even more off-track now..), looks tasty.
> I haven't seen this baby for sale in NL yet, but in the UK it can
> be had for under 300 pounds. Not bad at all :))
:-)
> > But do you need different speakers?
>
> No.
Good.
> True. But you can always buy your system a bit a time. Like for
> example, get a decent amp like that Yamaha A5, but do without
> rear speakers initially, or even the centre as well, and just add
> them later as funds allow.
Again, true, but its not as much fun straight out of the box, of course
:-)
> This is completely and utterly off topic!
You think?
;-)
> Oz: "There's a couple of good ones. The Johnson Mill...
> The number one is Red Bone."
That's one word. Redone. I can provide a link if you want proof ;-))
Then again, I won't get into this again. Look it up, its how I got that
second title..
Mattia
ReplyMeiter[tm]
Amplifier God[tm]
P@rick
> Yorrit wrote:
http://www.gbposters.co.uk/images/products/large/FP0785.jpg
> > > Now, I'm a considerable Alyson Hannigan fan, but I just could not
> > > bring myself to buy this poster. That hair-do is *appalling*. It
> > > does nothing for her.
This link wasn't working this afternoon because the server was down. But I
remember visiting the site, and I wasn't too impressed with their choice of
picture. Of course, I have it on my computer and it isn't really bad and she
still looks lovely. But I would have chosen a different picture.
> > [...] but I think I'm still gonna buy it, since there isn't any
> > alterative (or is there? tell my there is!).
>
> There is: don't buy it :) If you mean is this the only Willow
> poster in existence, maybe, I don't really know. I'm not that
> much of a poster buff. Sad state of affairs if this is the only
> poster of Aly in the whole wide world, though... Where's P@rick?
> He's the finest, most loyal Aly fan of the lot of us I think,
> surely he can supply us with some decent posters of the girl.
<walks to the microphone>
Thank you Jonathan. Let me first tell you that Willow or AH posters are very
rare and hard to come by. Most sites carry one poster, and some more
photographs. I have searched for this material, but not extensively. Aside
from the link mentioned earlier, there's:
http://www.posternow.com/cgi-bin/poster_e/p_e.pl?f=NR&c=2813&t=te_artik
But I actually think it's the same poster. Again, nice dress but the hair...
Actually, I still like Willow very much with the short hair. As long as she
doesn't wear it in that 'round', I've-got-a new-blow-dryer-style like on the
poster in my link. I love it whenb the hair is a bit wild and messy. My
favorite Willow hairstyle is from season 3, shoulder length. That leaves her
with some nice styling possibilities (e.g. VampWillow), and it looks *very*
nice on her. I particularly love it the way she wears it on Movielounge:
http://www.accesscom.com/~nchinn/alyson/movlo03.jpg
http://www.accesscom.com/~nchinn/alyson/movlo09b.jpg
http://www.accesscom.com/~nchinn/alyson/movlo15.jpg
I *do* hope the hair doesn't get any shorter next season. That would be too
much, even for a number one admirer like me. What's the next step anyway,
bald?
Bye, Patrick
P@rick
> george van hal wrote:
> > I must say that I liked willows hair best in s3. I'm mostly not
> > *really* a long hair man. I mean, I like it on some people, but Alyson
> > is most definatly a short hair type of girl. I actually like her s1 do
> > the least....
>
> Oooh...thats a dangerous statment you've made there, bucko. Watch
> yourself! I can't really decide which Willow hair I like best atm.
> They're all so very nice. The short look is nice and spunky though
> (George! Clean those thoughts!)
Like George, I like her hair best in S3 style. But S2 and S1 are better than
S4 IMO. Although her S4 style fits her current personality. And as for
personality, I think Willow has made a great step since going to college. A
bit too great for my taste, compared with how she was at the end of S4.
College apparently has done a lot of good to her.
> Right..my thoughts exactly (although, do you thing AH is in need of
> plumping up? methinks she looks fine the way she is.)
How dare you suggest that the Perfect One might need some plumping up? Even
the mere thought is blasphemy!
Bye, Patrick
Yorrit
"P@rick" <P.J.Mee...@students.fss.uu.nl> wrote:
> I *do* hope the hair doesn't get any shorter next season. That would
be too
> much, even for a number one admirer like me. What's the next step
anyway,
> bald?
Let's not think about that, ok.
Yorrit
george van hal
Mattia Valente <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
[agnostic]
> > And that's so very stupid, saying that you'll believe when there's
proof.
>
> No, its not really. In this case, a little very strange, though. What
is
> absolute proof? Does it exist? Don't think so, since by deifnition,
> everything you observe is tainted by your observation of it.
>
> > When there's proof, there's no need to belief anymore. The whole
thing about
> > believing is that you're convinced that something is fact, when it
has not
> > been proven. When it has been proven, believing turns in to knowing.
>
> I don't believe that there is such a thing as true 'knowledge' in that
> sense. Belief is basically knowledge in your own eyes, but only a
belief
> to the unbeliever.
Yes, see that's where you make the mistake. There is such a thing as
absolute truth. When an opinion turns into fact. There *are* of course
allways people, who have held a different opinion and will not accept
the new found fact. These people are, however, at fault in their
beliefs and their mere existence does not make the new found fact any
less true. For instance: I could say that I'm typing on a keyboard at
this very moment, which is of course a fact. You could then go on to
deny that but that does not make it any less true...
Now its a different thing of deciding when a thing has actually turned
into fact. In science everything is based upon theories. These theories
can be expanded upon or even thrown overboard when contradicting
evidence is found. This is the way we, for instance, came to quantum
mechanics. A theory heavily debated over the years, but when *proof* of
its existence was given through experiments and even mathemtics it was
assumed to be as close to the truth as we could get at that point.
Still scientific theories (and *everything* is a scientific theory at
heart. I truly think that the scientific method is the only way to
reach and proof thruths) mostly cannot be proven to be 100% acurate
because the essence of science is that its allways questioning itself,
never taking things for 100% fact (Hell, people have even been ready to
throw energy and impuls conservation overboard in the past, and those
are the two things scientist are the most sure about.). What *is*
possible however, is proving which theories *aren't* fact. As long as
this hasn't been done science itself dictates that you have to take
such a theory as a serious posibility. For instance, the creation
theory (you bring this up below as an example) *has* been proven to be
wrong. All the facts point in another direction. It is, therefore
*fact* that the creation theory isn't right, because even if new
evidence arises that points away from evolution the existing evidence
will still point away from creation. Evolution as it stands today is
another thing. Yes, it has the most evidence for it and it has been
reached using the scientific method, but no one can claim to be a 100%
sure about the details. Here belief comes into play. I for one, on
basis of the evidence available today believe it to be true. It is
entirely possible however that science will find a better fitting
theory in the future. That is one of sciences main problems. As long as
unification hasn't been reached (for the people *not* doing anything
scientific: Unification is sort of the scientists holy grail. The
unification theory is the *one* theory that contains all previous
theories. Sort of like relativistic quantum mechanics (for which two
dutch physisicts received the nobel prize) joined two of the mayor
theories: quantum mechanics and relativity. The unification theory
links all main theories and as a result gives the best
mathematical/scientific evidence available today that those theories
are completly *fact* and not just the best models available) we simple
can't be a 100% sure about the theories. And thats just in physics.
Unification for Biology (don't even know if that has ever been
considered because the nature of these two sciences is so different) is
a completly different thing. So as far as that is concerned there
indeed is no absolute truth atainable, *atm*. That does not however
mean it does not exist.
See things like evoution for point in fact, or heck,
> worse, young earth creationsit theories. Depsite scientifically
> acknowledged PROOF that the earth is older than a few thousand years
(I
> think 6 or 7 thousand is what they think.) they hang on to their
> beliefs, becaue their proof is in the bible. What's the more accurate
of
> the two, really? Objectively that is?
Science. Without the shadow of a doubt. Expecially objectively. The
young creationalist cling to the bible as a truth, when it simply can't
be considered that. The only proof one needs to take into account are
those proofs that are given using the scientific method (Now I know
this sounds arrogant if you have no idea what the scientific method is
and that is one of the main reasons science doesn't reach enough
people. People see science as a new religion. Something you have to
believe in. When it *isn't*.)
I'm votig for science, but that's
> because that fits my own personal belief system. OK, it has more
> epirical evidence to support it (the purported word of a deity which I
> don't really believe exists, as written by people after the stories
were
> handed down for generations doesn't really cut it as proof for me.
> Doesn't make the Bible any less of a book for it, its just not meant
to
> be taken literaly. Kinda like most religious scriptures, come to
that.)
Now you make the same mistake. Science is *not* a belief, even though
it might sound that way. Escecially to the uninformed masses. There
have been surveys among the people about basic scientific knowledge,
and its at a woryingly low level. This is something I worry about as
well, as a scientist. People are turning against science because they
*believe* (see there's that nasty word again) its taking away the
misticism and nice things from society. People are afraid of the truths
science finds. And that mostly stems from lack of scientific knowledge.
I used to think that it was just an american problem, but recent polls
have proven its a european problem as well. Science has the reputation
of being for "science nerds" and as such people don't *want* to know
about it. Really a very worysome development.
> > > Personally, I'm not sure what camp I fall into, which pretty much
makes
> > > me an agnostic, I guess. Bit too much of a constricting label for
me, so
> > > I alternately use one or the other. I don't believe in a 'God' in
the
> > > commonly religious sense of the word. I guess there's some sort
of other
> > > level, but I haven't made contact with it extensively myself.
That there
> > > is 'something' out there, maybe. SOmething controlling everything
and
>
> Note the maybe at the end.
Noting ;-)
As far as my beliefs go, it thinks its fairly abovious from what I've
been typing so far that I'm a scientist at heart. And science clearly
dictates in this case that the existence of a god has to be taken as a
serious posibility untill it can be either proven or disproven. Now as
far as what prosibility *I* think is more likely, I'd have to go with
no god whatsoever. I mean, when grasping the enomity of the galaxy we
live in and of the universe itself, I'm really not going to think that
there was a God who created all that. Nope, the thing that created that
was nature itself. An intricate, yet fascinating, web of physical laws.
Perhaps the Big Bang (which I find extemely likely myself, given the
current evidence). What was 'before' or what comes 'after' I really
don't know, but I *believe* (yep there it is again) that science *will*
find an awnser to those questions in the future......
> > > judging, I'd say big fat no. The 'Clockmaker God' is the closest
thing
> > > to a deity that I can envision, and even then its a bit of a
stretch.
> >
> > I always 'hate' it when people say "I don't believe in God, but I
believe
> > *something* is there". That's so shallow, you might as well believe
nothing.
>
> I didn't say that. Read it again. Too many maybe's. I just don't know.
> There is no belief system that I adhere to as it were, and I live my
> life as an atheist would, I guess. Secular to the core, religion and
> spritiuality, at this stage in my life, mean naught to me. I'm keeping
> my options open. I've thought about it too much to say I'm an atheist;
> there's no proof God doesn't exist, but there's no proof he does. Its
> just sometimes, when I'm looking up at a starlit sky in total
darkness,
> in quite (preferrably on the deck of a boat) I get this feeling that
> there may be more than what meets the eye (and mind.) in the universe,
> in out existence, but I'll be damned if I'll give it a name and
worship
> it. Not concrete enough for me there..
Yep. Put some mentions of the word 'science' in there and thats sort of
how I feel ;-)
> > I don't believe in anything, but I'm open to it. I.e. I'm not
saying that
> > those who believe are wasting their time. But it all seems a bit
unlikely to
>
> I think that people who are big into religion and salvation are
wasting
> their time in one sense; I don't believe in final judgement, blah blah
> blah. OTOH, religion, or rather, spirituality, fills a need in a great
> number of people. Faith is something from which support can be drawn,
> can help through tough times, etc. etc. I doubt I'll ever become a
> follower of any god (Too much of a sceptic for that.) though. Too much
> of a big power play in place around religion, each procaliming
> themselves to be the only true one (how can you be so certain?) and
> evangelism just pisses me off in a major way. Moralistic pandering to
> the lost and mislead masses. Spare me.
Could not agree more there. Religion can be a good thing. As I see
(believe) it someone 'designed' that in the past to keep the masses
busy and give them some morals. That for me is the basis of religion.
It gives people strength in hard times and gives some good morals
(don't kill, don't steel etc.). That part is really good. But then
there's the bad side of religion. I mean, it leads to wars, leads to
extreme conservationalism (also not a good thing imho). Heck, the pope
himself is even giving the gay-haters some more ammo. In those cases
religion is really an extremly bad thing. Unfortunatly those things
seem to be ireversabily connected.
> > me. If all the events mentioned in the bible for instance actually
did
> > occur, the reports about these events will be grossly deformed.
>
> True. Most of it is based on an oral history, a good deal of it is
> metaphoric, and a good deal is outdatedly moralistic for my tastes.
> Times change, cultures evolve.
Indeed. But if they 'change' the religion to fit modern times, they
would be admitting it's not the truth. And no pope or other religious
leaders ever gonna do that....
Indeed. Definatly not saying man is the highest point of evolution.
We're just one of many species on this earth and possibly one of many
many more in this universe. As for devine "intervention" of some sort.
Like I said before, I just don't buy that.....
> I'm not saying that any of these other 'fuzzy' concepts are per
> definition not true, or invalid. I for one believe that out of body
> experiences can be real, and not just some psychosis type occurence
> (although I'm willing to consider that option as well.)
Perhaps. But as with religion (although somewhat more mildly) I'm going
with the "not true" category. Not untill there is some scientific
evidence to support it. I however find the excistence of such things a
lot more likely than the excitence of a god. But thats all subjective
again, of course....
The god thing is
> external to them all (an attempt to create a humanlike structure in
> which there is a man in charge, running the show, watching over
> everything, and judging right and wrong, makes it easier for people to
> deal with existential issues, I guess..)
Could not agree more there.....
got nothing to do with any of
> it, necessarily. We'll only know for sure when we die (or not, as the
> case may be ;-))
;-))
>
> Mattia
> ReplyMeister[tm]
> I can ramble on coherently even better than I can ramble randomly :-))
> And how the hell did we get here? Oh, right, I tried to be funny in a
> sig, but I was too vague. First reply was even vaguer than this one.
> COuld be fun though....
Yep. Rambling on about something that even tackles some interesting
points is also sort of on the fun side. As long as no one gets offended
that is....
See Ya,
George
george van hal
"Andrea" <en...@club.tip.nl> wrote:
> >> Add me to the list. Oh <blush> guess I'm not what you'd call a main
> >poster any more. Um. Sorry. Forget it.
> >
> >Yeah. What happened? Been so very disapointed with s4? You used to be
> >one of the 3, posibly 4 main regs together with me, peter and
possibly
> >rob.
>
> Yeah, well, you know, busy and everything...
Believe me, I *know* ;-)
> Then mattia and p@trick came along and you sorta left. They scare
> >you off ;-)?
>
> <g> That must be it. I'm easily scared.
See. Thought that was the problem al along. But they're not really that
scary, trust me ;-))
> >Anyways you're still more than welcome to reastablish your reg status
> >;-)
>
> Well, thank you. I'll try to post at least a bit more often.
Yay!
> >See, now thats just a lame exuse. You know you want it! Now just go
out
> >and buy some Buffy merchandise!
>
> Nope. I'm gonna buy the DVD's. I'd say that's quite a start. :)
Yep. You said it. Quite a *start*
;-))
P@rick
> Mattia Valente wrote:
> > > Who's now wondering if there are people in this newsgroup equally
> > > adicted to Buffy merchandise....
> >
> > So am I..who's left? Fuzzy, Yorrit, P@trick, Wheez, Miriam (pretty
> much
> > a reg by now ;-)...I doubt Saskia has anything (too new and all that)
> > but that may come. Main reason for me is people think I'm weird and
> > obsessed (which I may be) and I have no money. :-))
>
> Hmm. I'm placing my bets on Fuzzy, P@trick and Miriam here. Was I
> right??
<Anya> Nothing! </Anya> [1]
It was basically a money problem. That, and to my knowledge there aren't any
shops in Utrecht that sell Buffy stuff. So I'm not tempted on a regular
basis to buy stuff. But Buffy books would be very interesting. I always buy
books about things I'm really in to, and then read only halfway through
them. I *know* I will buy the DVD's. So by the time they are out, I will
have my first Buffy merchandise. Or doesn't that count as merchandise?
Oh yeah, I nearly bought some SciFi magazine because it had a mini poster of
Willow. But it's price (Dfl 18!!) stopped me from doing that.
Bye, Patrick
[1] This one might be a little far fetched, but it sprang to mind. Can
anyone guess the ep?
Jonathan Black
> <Anya> Nothing! </Anya> [1]
[...]
> [1] This one might be a little far fetched, but it sprang to
> mind. Can anyone guess the ep?
Duh, Doppelgängland, what else? (just before she smashes the
plate on the floor and we cut to VampWillow for the first time,
yes?)
;-)
--
J o N a T H a N
QuoteMeister [tm]
a little behind on replyage in this ng, working on it
"This is wierd..."
--VampWillow, `Doppelgängland'
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
P@rick
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, P@rick wrote:
>
> > <Anya> Nothing! </Anya> [1]
>
> [...]
>
> > [1] This one might be a little far fetched, but it sprang to
> > mind. Can anyone guess the ep?
>
> Duh, Doppelgängland, what else? (just before she smashes the
> plate on the floor and we cut to VampWillow for the first time,
> yes?)
Ok, so this wasn't a brainbreaker. But what is a challenge for the Almighty
QuoteMeister [tm]?
Bye, Patrick
--
"I cannot win!"
Jonathan Black
> Jonathan Black wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, P@rick wrote:
> >
> > > <Anya> Nothing! </Anya> [1]
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > [1] This one might be a little far fetched, but it sprang to
> > > mind. Can anyone guess the ep?
> >
> > Duh, Doppelgängland, what else? (just before she smashes the
> > plate on the floor and we cut to VampWillow for the first
> > time, yes?)
>
> Ok, so this wasn't a brainbreaker. But what is a challenge for
> the Almighty QuoteMeister [tm]?
>
> [...]
>
> "I cannot win!"
Cordelia, `The Wish'
P@rick
"Sigh"
Aha! You know there has been a lot of sighing in Buffy eps. But exactly
which sigh am I quoting here? Try looking that up in your Extensive Quote
File [tm]!
Bye, Patrick
Aha!
Jonathan Black
> Jonathan Black wrote:
>
> > > "I cannot win!"
> >
> > Cordelia, `The Wish'
>
>
> Aha! You know there has been a lot of sighing in Buffy eps. But
> exactly which sigh am I quoting here? Try looking that up in
> your Extensive Quote File [tm]!
OK, I give up, which sigh was it? :)
> Bye, Patrick
> Aha!
Willow, `Faith, Hope & Trick'
--
J o N a T H a N
QuoteMeister [tm]
Xander: "Okay, I got one: `It's a madhouse! A mad...'"
Willow: "Planet of the Apes."
Xander: "Can I finish, please?"
Willow: "Oh, sorry, go ahead."
Xander: "`...house!'"
Willow: "Planet of the Apes."
--`When She Was Bad'
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Jonathan Black
> Actually, I still like Willow very much with the short hair. As
> long as she doesn't wear it in that 'round', I've-got-a
> new-blow-dryer-style like on the poster in my link.
Yep, I think you've hit the nail on the head there, P. That's
exactly the aspect of it that I hate, not the lack of length
really at all.
> I love it whenb the hair is a bit wild and messy. My favorite
> Willow hairstyle is from season 3, shoulder length.
Yep. Although the longer hair from S1/2 is very, very nice. As
well.
> That leaves her with some nice styling possibilities (e.g.
> VampWillow), and it looks *very* nice on her. I particularly
> love it the way she wears it on Movielounge:
>
> http://www.accesscom.com/~nchinn/alyson/movlo03.jpg
> http://www.accesscom.com/~nchinn/alyson/movlo09b.jpg
> http://www.accesscom.com/~nchinn/alyson/movlo15.jpg
Oh yes, I have to say she looks absolutely fantastic here. What
is it about this girl? Just take a moment or two to look at that
sheer beauty and then look me in the eye and tell me there is no
God!
[sorry, got a bit carried away there]
;-)
--
J o N a T H a N
"Let's be in the moment. Behold the beauty that is now."
--Xander, `The Wish'
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
P@rick
> P@rick wrote:
> > "Sigh"
> >
> > Aha! You know there has been a lot of sighing in Buffy eps. But
> > exactly which sigh am I quoting here? Try looking that up in
> > your Extensive Quote File [tm]!
>
> OK, I give up, which sigh was it? :)
Becoming Pt.2. Buffy after she killed Angel. It's just before she shrugs,
turns around and leaves saying "All in a day's work".
> > Bye, Patrick
> > Aha!
>
> Willow, `Faith, Hope & Trick'
Dead giveaway.
> Xander: "Okay, I got one: `It's a madhouse! A mad...'"
> Willow: "Planet of the Apes."
> Xander: "Can I finish, please?"
> Willow: "Oh, sorry, go ahead."
> Xander: "`...house!'"
> Willow: "Planet of the Apes."
> --`When She Was Bad'
> Buffy the Vampire Slayer
And on the day the word QuoteMeister was redefined, we stood in awe and
watched.
Bye, Patrick
who doesn't know how long he can keep this up
P@rick
> P@rick wrote:
>
> > Actually, I still like Willow very much with the short hair. As
> > long as she doesn't wear it in that 'round', I've-got-a
> > new-blow-dryer-style like on the poster in my link.
>
> Yep, I think you've hit the nail on the head there, P. That's
> exactly the aspect of it that I hate, not the lack of length
> really at all.
But she does have a *really* cute smile. And those eyes.... real shame about
the hair!
> > That leaves her with some nice styling possibilities (e.g.
> > VampWillow), and it looks *very* nice on her. I particularly
> > love it the way she wears it on Movielounge:
> >
> > http://www.accesscom.com/~nchinn/alyson/movlo03.jpg
> > http://www.accesscom.com/~nchinn/alyson/movlo09b.jpg
> > http://www.accesscom.com/~nchinn/alyson/movlo15.jpg
>
> Oh yes, I have to say she looks absolutely fantastic here. What
> is it about this girl? Just take a moment or two to look at that
> sheer beauty and then look me in the eye and tell me there is no
> God!
You won't hear it from me ;o)
> [sorry, got a bit carried away there]
I-It's all my fault, really. I'm the one who posted those links. I should
have known this would happen. Actually, I kinda expected it to happen. That
was the whole point of posting those links, heh.
Bye, Patrick
quoting more than he's adding, ah well..
P@rick
[a lot, believe me]
Pet subject?
Bye, Patrick
who hopes to find time to read it and, dare I say it, reply to it
george van hal
"P@rick" <P.J.Mee...@students.fss.uu.nl> wrote:
> george van hal wrote:
>
> [a lot, believe me]
>
> Pet subject?
Sort off, yes. I've had this discussion with some of my friends in
those rare moments of seriousness and I feel really strong about some
of the points. Not sure why really. Anyways I've had this discussion
before, and trust me, I haven't even really gotten started yet ;-)
> Bye, Patrick
> who hopes to find time to read it and, dare I say it, reply to it
Looking forward to your comments. I'd say: Take your time. I'll be
away 'till next tuesday (or possibly wednesday). Gonna do some serious
partying :-)
Saskia
george van hal schreef:
> "P@rick" <P.J.Mee...@students.fss.uu.nl> wrote:
> > who hopes to find time to read it and, dare I say it, reply to it
>
> Looking forward to your comments. I'd say: Take your time. I'll be
> away 'till next tuesday (or possibly wednesday). Gonna do some serious
> partying :-)
Hey, come to nksf... plenty of folk with opinions about it there.
We've had this (very lengthy) discussion there several times, so we're
quite experienced <bg>
Oh and have fun with the partying :)
--
Saskia
Mattia Valente
> Mattia Valente wrote:
> > plumping up? methinks she looks fine the way she is.)
>
> How dare you suggest that the Perfect One might need some plumping up? Even
> the mere thought is blasphemy!
Settle down, Patrick take a deep, deep breath, and read it again: it was
a rhetorical question (with no as the answer..) and a retort to the
generalization that 'they' looked better in early seasons, less thin.
That methinks she looks fine bit is my thoughts. Get it?
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
Weekend sailing, and soooo mnay messages unanswered (especially the
unmentionable ones ;-))
Jonathan Black
> Weekend sailing, and soooo mnay messages unanswered (especially
> the unmentionable ones ;-))
What are you talking about?
P@rick
> "P@rick" wrote:
> > How dare you suggest that the Perfect One might need some plumping up?
Even
> > the mere thought is blasphemy!
>
> a rhetorical question (with no as the answer..) and a retort to the
> generalization that 'they' looked better in early seasons, less thin.
> That methinks she looks fine bit is my thoughts. Get it?
Got it the first time. But even hinting at a thing like that is blasphemy in
my AH-centered opinion. Hey, time to lighten up on your part ;o)
I can understand that people notice SMG getting more slim since S1. But
Aly's figure was always the way it is now, wasn't it? And it fits her. She
just isn't heavily built (but she is heavenly built).
Bye, Patrick
Mattia Valente
> > > believing is that you're convinced that something is fact, when it has not
> > > been proven. When it has been proven, believing turns in to knowing.
> >
> > I don't believe that there is such a thing as true 'knowledge' in that
> > sense. Belief is basically knowledge in your own eyes, but only a belief
> > to the unbeliever.
>
> Yes, see that's where you make the mistake. There is such a thing as
> absolute truth. When an opinion turns into fact. There *are* of course
George, where did I say there is no such thing as absolute truth? I
didn't.
Patrick said: "when something has been proven, believeing turns to
knowing."
I said there can be no true knowledge (of, as you call it, an absoulte
truth.) from a single person's perspective. Their knowledge of the facts
is limited, tainted by observation, prejudice, language, the limits of
their own perceptual framework. As such, absolute truth may, and I
believe does, exist, but we 'mere mortals' can never assume to 'know' it
completely. That's a deity's job (and one of the reasons I don't believe
there is one ;-)) We can come pretty damn colse, IMHO, and the degree to
which we succeed s by no means unnoteworthy; it serves its purpose, and
serves it well.
> allways people, who have held a different opinion and will not accept
> the new found fact. These people are, however, at fault in their
> beliefs and their mere existence does not make the new found fact any
> less true.
True. Their belief system does not conform to the paradigm of this age.
Who's right here? The intellectual majority? History is full of this
kind of stuff; we now view the condemnning of Gallieleo for saying the
earth orbited the sun as insane, because our current understanding
(interpretation of the facts, of the universe, made possible through
numerous advances in mathematics, a language construct, in a sense,
optic, and deductive reasoning, and a move away from blind faith in the
church for all matters..) tells us he was right. The 'fact' is open to
interpretation by each and every person.
I will grant you this: today is a different kind of age than the one
Galileo lived in. Scientists by definition (good ones, at least)
question their own findings, examine everything, and don't take anything
as absolute truth. Any that do are falling into the same closed minded
patterns that we so abhor in (for example) the religious leaders of
today and yesteryear. The new fact will or will not be accepted based on
a number of criteria,l unique to each situation. Science is the 'GOlden
Rule' in this day and age, religion, the bible, spiritual explanations
are worth diddly when it comes to proving facts. That's the world (most
of us) live in. Its the one I pretty much conform to and agree with. I'm
as much a product of these times as anyone, as you are. Scientific
Method is our new holy grail.
> For instance: I could say that I'm typing on a keyboard at
> this very moment, which is of course a fact. You could then go on to
> deny that but that does not make it any less true...
Off topic, in this case. There is not much of a discussion to that
effect; the fact in and of itself has no implications that differ for
different movements. Take people from different time periods, and you
could have it happening; someone from 1500 would have no clue what you
were doing, and could interpret it in many ways, ways conforming to
their comprehensional paradigm. Doesn't make it less true though..;-)
> Now its a different thing of deciding when a thing has actually turned
> into fact. In science everything is based upon theories. These theories
> can be expanded upon or even thrown overboard when contradicting
> evidence is found. This is the way we, for instance, came to quantum
Right. That's sort of what I was talking about (well, actually not at
all, but your misinterpretation of my statement made you start, so now
we are talking about it :-))
Our theories are our frame of reference, in a sense. We try to fit out
observations into out theories, and if they diverge from them, we first
tend to ignore them , and then, when they become to frequent, we adapt
our theory to accomodate them, update and change it. If we discover more
and more, because of, for example, the invention of a new diagnostic
tool (the telescope for Galileo, X-rays, etc. etc. etc.) or through the
breaking of old traditions (the discovery of the circulatory system, of
various anatomical and physiological systems by people like Da Vinci who
decided to work things out for themselves, not believe the ancient
greeks and their humoral medicine.) we may find our theory so full of
holes and leaks that it has to be thrown out. We create a new theory,
using our newfangled, brand spanking new, shiny ideals, we create a
brand new paradigm. Our new set of values, beliefs, and 'understanding'
of the world now determine our further course. Scientific Revolution,
here we are.
Prome example could be the whole evolution thing; Darwin's observations
and theories struck a nerve, people didn't want to believe, tried to
disprove him in every way possible, until, slowly, the evidence mounted,
and change occured. A samll scientific revolution indeed. In earliear
times, the switch to a heliocentric solar system comes to mind.
All this is, basically, Thomas Kuhn's stuff (wrote that nifty little
book about scientific revolutions, can't remember the name, keep
forgetting to buy it..), as I remember it. Its pretty close, anyway, and
as far as I'm concerned, quite fitting. Then again, the whole paradigm
thing is a paradigm, a concept created by man, a theory, and thus not
necessarily viable ;-)
>mechanics. A theory heavily debated over the years, but when *proof* of
> its existence was given through experiments and even mathemtics it was
> assumed to be as close to the truth as we could get at that point.
True. You'll get no disagreement from me.
> Still scientific theories (and *everything* is a scientific theory at
> heart. I truly think that the scientific method is the only way to
> reach and proof thruths) mostly cannot be proven to be 100% acurate
That's where you, my friend, are going off into the deep end. The
Scientific Method is our 'Holy Grail', but its by no means perfect, and
even less useable than many systems in far too many cases. In the
natural sciences, it's the way to go, the tool to use, something that
does give you the ability to prove (always to a degree..) your truths
(not *the* truths. That's arrogant to say so. Look at history for that.
Why are we any better? We've learned from our mistakes, or have we,
really?)
In Biology and human sciences (which in many ways are very different
from the 'natural' sciences.) ethics and morality (human constructs,
granted..) and the staggering complexity of life (scarier than quantum
mechanics, because its a step beyond it, in a sense. Its what a universe
with quantum mechanics can achieve..) form barriers. We can't always
isolate and control all variable, prove our theories through science.
What happens in a test tube isn't everything. Our technology doesn't
allow us that kind of detailed analysis. If we had (for example)
nanotechnological, non-invasive monitoring methods, we might be able to
better understand the complexities of, say, why cancer forms, what tells
a cell to start doing something, and millions of other things. These are
the simple bits and peices though, by comparison.
Psychology, a fuzzier science by far than the others, has now (rightly)
largely dispensed with using hard data, quantifiable data, etc. to prove
things. Qualitative research is legitimate in its own right, although
the results of it will never attain the mathematical, repeatable and
pretty much predictable manner. Its less useful in computer models and
the like (the computer; our ultimate paradigm, what we compare
everything to right now; the mind as a computer, blah blah blah. Too
simplistic, limited. Pointless.) because these things have far, far too
many known variable to control, let alone the myriad of possible
unknowns lurking in the figurative shadows.
Are you saying that all of psychology is a crock of complete shit? That
none of their theories have any merit? Have any truth? Because they
weren't proven using pure scientific method? I wouldn't although I will
say they're less definate, infinitely more complex than hard science
theories. That's probably why you see so many different schools of
thought in the field of psychology. None of them contain any truths?
Whether they contain "The Truth" or not, is a different story. Psych is
probably the science where we'll never really know the answer to the
level we 'know' the answer to, say gravity. (yes yes, I know, Grand Big
Ole Unified Theory thingy...you know what I mean, though ;-)
> because the essence of science is that its allways questioning itself,
> never taking things for 100% fact (Hell, people have even been ready to
> throw energy and impuls conservation overboard in the past, and those
> are the two things scientist are the most sure about.). What *is*
I agree completely. Which is what worries me about the assertion that
"scientific method is the only way to reach and prove thruths."
> possible however, is proving which theories *aren't* fact. As long as
> this hasn't been done science itself dictates that you have to take
> such a theory as a serious posibility. For instance, the creation
Exactly. Some things cannot be disporved, but neither can they, with
anything we can predict at this point in time (what the future holds,
who can tell..) be proved. Hence the myriad of possibilities, the
numerous truths.
> theory (you bring this up below as an example) *has* been proven to be
> wrong. All the facts point in another direction. It is, therefore
> *fact* that the creation theory isn't right, because even if new
> evidence arises that points away from evolution the existing evidence
> will still point away from creation. Evolution as it stands today is
True and I agree 110%. NOTHING I have ever seen points to creation as a
valid alternative to evolution. Don't see much else competeing with
evolution, and I do see some flaws (which you can say have been
explained away convincingly, or you can say that these are the few
observations that don't fit the theory, preceding the next paradigm
shift/scientific revolution. Your call.) but our good old creationists
are even more flawed than most (I tend to go with the occams razor
principle: whats simpler: an all knowing supreme being with ultimate
control who judges our each and every move, or no such being?)
> another thing. Yes, it has the most evidence for it and it has been
> reached using the scientific method, but no one can claim to be a 100%
> sure about the details. Here belief comes into play. I for one, on
No one ever can. With anything. Even with electricity, really, which we
think we understand quite well. Our grasp and understanding of how atoms
work isn't perfect enough, never will be. It all remains a theory,
albeit a very well developed and pretty much proved one.
> basis of the evidence available today believe it to be true. It is
> entirely possible however that science will find a better fitting
> theory in the future. That is one of sciences main problems. As long as
As do I. I'm a firm believer in evolution (one of my pet subjects, like
the rest of this post..our pet subject, I guess. One more thing we have
in common!) I'm a little dogmatic about it when it comes to creation, to
say the least. And militant, too! :-))
> unification hasn't been reached (for the people *not* doing anything
> scientific: Unification is sort of the scientists holy grail. The
> unification theory is the *one* theory that contains all previous
> theories. Sort of like relativistic quantum mechanics (for which two
> dutch physisicts received the nobel prize) joined two of the mayor
> theories: quantum mechanics and relativity. The unification theory
> links all main theories and as a result gives the best
> mathematical/scientific evidence available today that those theories
> are completly *fact* and not just the best models available) we simple
> can't be a 100% sure about the theories. And thats just in physics.
Unification is a nifty concept, but the question is how far we can go
whilst still holding on to our other basice beliefs about the uiniverse;
Does our reference frame allow for a Unified Theory? Does such a truth
exist, or is it just us trying to cram the complexity of truth into the
simplicity (relative) of a singular denomination?
Scientific/Mathematical evidence is well and good for the physical
sciences, but have we got enough of it to unify, and will we ever? OK,
enough with the obvious questions and doubts about Unified Theory ;-)
BTW, I agree, awesome concept, amazing potential for better
understanding, better science, etc. Although obvioulsy, it will always
be questioned, as it will always be a theory (ulness we all become gods
;-)
> Unification for Biology (don't even know if that has ever been
> considered because the nature of these two sciences is so different) is
> a completly different thing. So as far as that is concerned there
> indeed is no absolute truth atainable, *atm*. That does not however
> mean it does not exist.
I know. That's what I said above. Limited techniques and all that. There
may well be a "truth", we just can't find it yet.
> > See things like evoution for point in fact, or heck,
> > worse, young earth creationsit theories. Depsite scientifically
> > acknowledged PROOF that the earth is older than a few thousand years (I
> > think 6 or 7 thousand is what they think.) they hang on to their
> > beliefs, becaue their proof is in the bible. What's the more accurate of
> > the two, really? Objectively that is?
>
> Science. Without the shadow of a doubt. Expecially objectively. The
Trying to be smart, failing again (sad, really....) Asking stupid
questions about the reality of knowing, about our ability to do it.
Trying to step out of the human existential universe for a minute here
(or actually, deep into out, and out of the 'real' universe with its
truths. Looking at belief in an abstract sense. Won't do it again. Sorry
;-)
> young creationalist cling to the bible as a truth, when it simply can't
> be considered that. The only proof one needs to take into account are
They also find ways to turn the fossil record into evidence. That's my
point, really. They try to use science to prove what their holy book
says. Faith is a truth in its own right. Not a hard scientific truth,
but a truth nonetheless. I don't have, need or want any, but that's a
different story. I think creationists (especiaaly young earth ones) are,
frankly, thick headed, colsed minded brainwashed idiots, but a statment
like that doesn't refelct all to well on me, does it? So I took the
moral high road, and failed to make it clear.
> those proofs that are given using the scientific method (Now I know
> this sounds arrogant if you have no idea what the scientific method is
> and that is one of the main reasons science doesn't reach enough
> people. People see science as a new religion. Something you have to
> believe in. When it *isn't*.)
Oh, but it is (in a way.) I'm sorry, but it so very definately is as
much a belief system as any other. Many scientists are as dogmatic as
your reformed christian (which is a bad thing.) Scientific method itself
is something that logic and thought can make you understand, accept, and
believe in. You can't use it to prove things and say you don't believe
in it at the same time. Whilst religion is based on faith in
unmeasurable things, Science is based on 'faith' (don't like to use the
word, but its fitting here) in the measurable, preferrably quantifiable,
repeatble and explicable things. It makes it more 'real' and touchable,
but not more valid (in an abstract sense, not in a sceintific sense,
that's a pointless argument..) or less a beleif system than, say,
Christianity or Hinduism.
Scientific method has its failings, its not perfect, and its a belief
system as any other is. The main difference is, this belief system
encourages you to think about alternatives, to question the validity of
everything, to leave no stone uncovered, to boldly go where no one has
gone before (sorry bout the star trek reference ;-) and to FIND PROOF,
gain NEW KNOWLEDGE, UNCOVER 'FACTS' Document it and explain everything
as best as possible. Its not a 'religion' though, because a religion
has, essentially, nothing to do with faith, and everything to do with a
power system (at least the major ones do..dunno about, say buddhism.)
used to exert influence and extort money. OK, so I'm a cynical
unbeliever, an agnostic, which doesn't help any. Spirituality and
belief, faith, is something else. It is a Religion in the sense that its
a belief system (and you have some leaders, though none undisputed ;-)
You have to believe in, have faith in, the scientific method in order to
use it. You must not, not EVER, trust blindly though. THAT'S the real
difference here.
> > I'm votig for science, but that's
> > because that fits my own personal belief system. OK, it has more
> > epirical evidence to support it (the purported word of a deity which I
> > don't really believe exists, as written by people after the stories were
> > handed down for generations doesn't really cut it as proof for me.
> > Doesn't make the Bible any less of a book for it, its just not meant to
> > be taken literaly. Kinda like most religious scriptures, come to that.)
>
> Now you make the same mistake. Science is *not* a belief, even though
Oh? Please, do explain, because as I see it, everything is a belief,
since you can never have command of absolute knowledge. In practical
terms, its fact, but its still belief. Everything you 'believe', you
know, and everything you 'know' is a fact (think it through, otherwise
I'll explain. Thats a couple hundred more words of convoluted pointless
logic, the cornerstone of science :-)
> it might sound that way. Escecially to the uninformed masses. There
> have been surveys among the people about basic scientific knowledge,
> and its at a woryingly low level. This is something I worry about as
> well, as a scientist. People are turning against science because they
It scares the shit out of me sometimes. Mostly I'm amazed at the low
level, but then I get worried about it.
> *believe* (see there's that nasty word again) its taking away the
What, pray, is wrong with the word believe? You're taking it to mean
something different from what I mean it as, as far as (I can tell.
You're saying to believe something is somehow different and worse than
knowing something. You can't know anything, any truth, without believing
in it. Its essential to the knowledge, an integral part of it. See
creationists, for example: They know the same facts that evolution
supporters know, they just don't believe them.
> misticism and nice things from society. People are afraid of the truths
> science finds. And that mostly stems from lack of scientific knowledge.
This has nothing to do with the fact that science is or isn't a belief.
This has to do with people not understanding the basics of science, and
them clinging to their own belief system, imposed by upbringing,
misinformation and religion (in a number of cases..) which makes the
scientific system seem alien, strange and bizzare. We're basically
trying to preach our religion of science, just that science doesn't
require yo to abdicate your original faith and denounce it. It wants you
to think about it (faith), and evreything else critically,
questioningly, not blindly trustingly because 'that's what the Bible
says, and the Bible is the word of God' or the like. Change and the
unknown scares people, and it always will. That's what we need education
for ;-)
> I used to think that it was just an american problem, but recent polls
> have proven its a european problem as well. Science has the reputation
> of being for "science nerds" and as such people don't *want* to know
> about it. Really a very worysome development.
Indeed it is. Still doesn't change the fact its a belief, though :o) Bad
rep, needs a makeover, and will be able to take more in a secular
society than in a religious one (which is why I have more hope for
europe than america..) because of, IMO, lesser conflicts. There have
been major scientific breakthroughs made in a short time, and people
need to come to terms with it all.
> > > > is 'something' out there, maybe. SOmething controlling everything and
> >
> > Note the maybe at the end.
>
> Noting ;-)
YAY!!!!
> As far as my beliefs go, it thinks its fairly abovious from what I've
> been typing so far that I'm a scientist at heart. And science clearly
As am I, believe or not. I think the fact I don't take it all for
granted speaks in its favor ;-)
> dictates in this case that the existence of a god has to be taken as a
> serious posibility untill it can be either proven or disproven. Now as
Right. And neither can, given the definition of the concept of God, ever
happen.
> far as what prosibility *I* think is more likely, I'd have to go with
> no god whatsoever. I mean, when grasping the enomity of the galaxy we
Occam's Razor.
> live in and of the universe itself, I'm really not going to think that
> there was a God who created all that. Nope, the thing that created that
> was nature itself. An intricate, yet fascinating, web of physical laws.
Right. Doesn't make the gut feeling, the "Aha Erlebnis" any less real.
Maybe its integral to us, maybe its a defense mechanism, maybe its
delusional. Rationally, I believe Nature (whatever that means) did it
all, created everything, that, and random chance and entropy.
> Perhaps the Big Bang (which I find extemely likely myself, given the
Me too.
> current evidence). What was 'before' or what comes 'after' I really
> don't know, but I *believe* (yep there it is again) that science *will*
> find an awnser to those questions in the future......
But you don't know it yet. That comes later :-p
I think (more careful than you) that science will find answers, but
whether they will be the answers I don't know. Since its an event that
happened Billions of years ago, and cannot be recreated, it will have to
remain theorectical (unless we somehow witness the birth of a new
universe..it COULD happen...OK, too much SciFi, I know, I know..)
> > > > judging, I'd say big fat no. The 'Clockmaker God' is the closest thing
> > > > to a deity that I can envision, and even then its a bit of a stretch.
> > >
> > > I always 'hate' it when people say "I don't believe in God, but I believe
> > > *something* is there". That's so shallow, you might as well believe nothing.
> >
> > I didn't say that. Read it again. Too many maybe's. I just don't know.
> > There is no belief system that I adhere to as it were, and I live my
> > life as an atheist would, I guess. Secular to the core, religion and
> > spritiuality, at this stage in my life, mean naught to me. I'm keeping
> > my options open. I've thought about it too much to say I'm an atheist;
> > there's no proof God doesn't exist, but there's no proof he does. Its
> > just sometimes, when I'm looking up at a starlit sky in total darkness,
> > in quite (preferrably on the deck of a boat) I get this feeling that
> > there may be more than what meets the eye (and mind.) in the universe,
> > in out existence, but I'll be damned if I'll give it a name and worship
> > it. Not concrete enough for me there..
>
> Yep. Put some mentions of the word 'science' in there and thats sort of
> how I feel ;-)
I was shying away from the word, because I knew it would lead to a
monster thread like this from someone (I was guessing you, in fact ;-) I
would have to say the something is the Universe, Nature itself (Warning!
Abstraction Alert!!), something we haven't quite been able to explain,
and will never be able to explain fully, but we have to try. That's
whats fascinating with science: discovering more about the unkown,
always asking questions, scrutinizin the answers, taking things apart,
trying to work things out, with the knowledge that you probably will
never know the whole and unabridged truth; there will always something
else there. Call it magical if you want to, I'll stick to natural.
> Could not agree more there. Religion can be a good thing. As I see
> (believe) it someone 'designed' that in the past to keep the masses
> busy and give them some morals. That for me is the basis of religion.
That, and the lust for power and money. ;-))
> It gives people strength in hard times and gives some good morals
> (don't kill, don't steel etc.). That part is really good. But then
> there's the bad side of religion. I mean, it leads to wars, leads to
> extreme conservationalism (also not a good thing imho). Heck, the pope
You mean conservatism. Conservationalism is a good thing (like, you
know, save the whales and stuff ;-) Conservastism goes against science
in many, many ways (ethics are important though, I'll never say they
aren't. They do hinder 'pure' scinece, though.)
> himself is even giving the gay-haters some more ammo. In those cases
> religion is really an extremly bad thing. Unfortunatly those things
> seem to be ireversabily connected.
Exactly. Which is why I dislike religion as a concept. Spirituality and
belief is one thing (Which can still be bad for the same reasons..) but
organized religion another entirely.
> > True. Most of it is based on an oral history, a good deal of it is
> > metaphoric, and a good deal is outdatedly moralistic for my tastes.
> > Times change, cultures evolve.
>
> Indeed. But if they 'change' the religion to fit modern times, they
> would be admitting it's not the truth. And no pope or other religious
> leaders ever gonna do that....
That's the problem.
> > We just don't know (yet?) We hardly know anything about the functioning
> > of the brain (not really, anyway), and I'm not sure we'll learn that
> > much more within my lifetime. That there is something more, some spark,
> > I think is possible (not divine though, definately not.) I'm not
> > arrogant enough to think that man is all-perfect being, better than all
> > other animals. Dolphins for example; there are those who argue that they
> > are more intelligent that people, posses a soul and are self aware. That
> > we can't communicate with them is as much our failing as it is there's
> > (we're trying to teach them out language, our tricks, out thought
> > patterns, our logic, and not trying to learn theirs, which would give a
> > more appropriate measure of intelligence, IMHO.
>
> Indeed. Definatly not saying man is the highest point of evolution.
> We're just one of many species on this earth and possibly one of many
> many more in this universe. As for devine "intervention" of some sort.
> Like I said before, I just don't buy that.....
Good.. we agree :)
> > I'm not saying that any of these other 'fuzzy' concepts are per
> > definition not true, or invalid. I for one believe that out of body
> > experiences can be real, and not just some psychosis type occurence
> > (although I'm willing to consider that option as well.)
>
> Perhaps. But as with religion (although somewhat more mildly) I'm going
> with the "not true" category. Not untill there is some scientific
> evidence to support it. I however find the excistence of such things a
> lot more likely than the excitence of a god. But thats all subjective
> again, of course....
Thing with these things is they concern unmeasurable things (see
above..you know which bit ;-) which possibly can't be proven
scientifically. Empirical evidence in many cases is quite strong,
strangest things....Hypnotherapy, for example, reveals a lot. Trance
states are more than they seem, so many inexplicable yet real things
exist. Too many to ignore and dismiss completely. I too, though, won't
fully accept this kind of thing unless I see proof, or possibly live it
myself ;-))
> > The god thing is
> > external to them all (an attempt to create a humanlike structure in
> > which there is a man in charge, running the show, watching over
> > everything, and judging right and wrong, makes it easier for people to
> > deal with existential issues, I guess..)
>
> Could not agree more there.....
Joy!
:-p
> > got nothing to do with any of
> > it, necessarily. We'll only know for sure when we die (or not, as the
> > case may be ;-))
>
> ;-))
> > I can ramble on coherently even better than I can ramble randomly :-))
> > And how the hell did we get here? Oh, right, I tried to be funny in a
> > sig, but I was too vague. First reply was even vaguer than this one.
> > COuld be fun though....
>
> Yep. Rambling on about something that even tackles some interesting
> points is also sort of on the fun side. As long as no one gets offended
> that is....
Hope you don't get offended by my reply now...As I see it, we agree on
alomst all counts (except for that "Only way" thing and the science as a
'religion', or rather belief thing..I'm hoping to temper your statements
with this post ;-), just our definitions are different; most of this
post started because of a misinterpretation of a small paragraph, an odd
choice of words on my part, which led you to think I thought a bunch of
crap about, well, stuff. Hope I dissuaded you ;-) Lets see how much
further this goes..
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
Hmm...George Partying like crazy now, I wonder if anyone else dares
tackle this :-))
Mattia Valente
>
> Mattia Valente wrote:
> > "P@rick" wrote:
> Even
> > > the mere thought is blasphemy!
> >
> > a rhetorical question (with no as the answer..) and a retort to the
> > generalization that 'they' looked better in early seasons, less thin.
> > That methinks she looks fine bit is my thoughts. Get it?
>
> Got it the first time. But even hinting at a thing like that is blasphemy in
> my AH-centered opinion. Hey, time to lighten up on your part ;o)
Right...forgot the smiley again, didn't I?
:-ppp
> I can understand that people notice SMG getting more slim since S1. But
> Aly's figure was always the way it is now, wasn't it? And it fits her. She
> just isn't heavily built (but she is heavenly built).
<Rolls eyes>
Indeed, mister objective, I believe you are correct. On all counts, in
fact.
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
Mattia Valente
>
> In article <8oaqoo$ikv$4...@news.surfnet.nl>,
> "P@rick" <P.J.Mee...@students.fss.uu.nl> wrote:
> > george van hal wrote:
> >
> > [a lot, believe me]
> >
> > Pet subject?
>
> Sort off, yes. I've had this discussion with some of my friends in
> those rare moments of seriousness and I feel really strong about some
> of the points. Not sure why really. Anyways I've had this discussion
> before, and trust me, I haven't even really gotten started yet ;-)
Kewlness...this looks promising. It'll probably outdo LRT in length if
it continues at all...
> > Bye, Patrick
> > who hopes to find time to read it and, dare I say it, reply to it
>
> Looking forward to your comments. I'd say: Take your time. I'll be
> away 'till next tuesday (or possibly wednesday). Gonna do some serious
> partying :-)
Yess!!! More people with more comments is more fun!
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
Waiting for wednesday, among other things...
Mattia Valente
> Hey, come to nksf... plenty of folk with opinions about it there.
> We've had this (very lengthy) discussion there several times, so we're
> quite experienced <bg>
:-))
Problem for me is it takes too long to write dutch posts (I admire
George's ability to be coherent and relatievly concise, the latter of
which is not something I tend to dabble in, in english, which is not his
native tounge..) I'll probably join in next time (there will be a next
time, right? ;-)
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
Miriam Rocke
:
: > Who's now wondering if there are people in this newsgroup equally
: > adicted to Buffy merchandise....
:
: So am I..who's left? Fuzzy, Yorrit, P@trick, Wheez, Miriam (pretty much
: a reg by now ;-)
*Pretty much*? Hmph. I've been around for longtime. <G>
Uh, Buffy merchandise. I actually don't have all that much. I have
a Jenny doll[1]; and photos, mostly Giles; and Buffy magazines. Um,
and two Giles root beer cans.
Perhaps pathetically, I have way more Star Wars merchandise than
Buffy. (Um, lightsaber, Vader mask, pillows, blankets, dolls,
legos...)
The main reason I don't have Buffy merch is that they don't have what
I want. There's very little Willow stuff, and *no* Giles stuff. Sob.
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"
Mattia Valente
>
> Mattia Valente (mae.v...@std.vu.nl) wrote:
> :
> : > Who's now wondering if there are people in this newsgroup equally
> : > adicted to Buffy merchandise....
> :
> : So am I..who's left? Fuzzy, Yorrit, P@trick, Wheez, Miriam (pretty much
> : a reg by now ;-)
>
> *Pretty much*? Hmph. I've been around for longtime. <G>
:-))
OK. So you make more noise now (or I'm noticing more..could be ;-))
> Uh, Buffy merchandise. I actually don't have all that much. I have
> a Jenny doll[1]; and photos, mostly Giles; and Buffy magazines. Um,
> and two Giles root beer cans.
Welll...that's merchandise. Makes George feel better, I guess ;-)
> Perhaps pathetically, I have way more Star Wars merchandise than
> Buffy. (Um, lightsaber, Vader mask, pillows, blankets, dolls,
> legos...)
SW Rules too. Don't worry about it.
> The main reason I don't have Buffy merch is that they don't have what
> I want. There's very little Willow stuff, and *no* Giles stuff. Sob.
I feel your pain (well, on the Willow stuff, anyway ;-)
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
P@rick
> george van hal wrote:
> Psychology, a fuzzier science by far than the others, has now (rightly)
> largely dispensed with using hard data, quantifiable data, etc. to prove
> things. Qualitative research is legitimate in its own right, although
> the results of it will never attain the mathematical, repeatable and
> pretty much predictable manner. Its less useful in computer models and
> the like (the computer; our ultimate paradigm, what we compare
> everything to right now; the mind as a computer, blah blah blah. Too
> simplistic, limited. Pointless.) because these things have far, far too
> many known variable to control, let alone the myriad of possible
> unknowns lurking in the figurative shadows.
Psychology is, like sociology and economics, about human behaviour. And the
key aspect of behaviour is that it's variable and hard to predict. But
that's not to say that we can't describe, explain and to a certain point
predict behaviour. And repeatable experiments can often be used to prove a
theory. But the theory often says something about the 'mean' behavior. Like
"when confronted with the picture of that man, 56% of the respondents
attributed a criminal nature to him." Based on these figures, and using
other tests, an explanation of this behaviour can be given. But a lot of
variables will remain unknown. So behaviour always remains unpredictable to
a certain degree. The same thing goes for Economics.
> Oh, but it is (in a way.) I'm sorry, but it so very definately is as
> much a belief system as any other. Many scientists are as dogmatic as
> your reformed christian (which is a bad thing.)
That's the wrong approach used by the scientists. That's not a flaw of the
Scientific Method.
> Scientific method has its failings, its not perfect, and its a belief
> system as any other is. The main difference is, this belief system
> encourages you to think about alternatives, to question the validity of
> everything, to leave no stone uncovered, [...]
I science, there's room for doubt and question, although the basics are
pretty much a given. But the basics were formed by forming theories, testing
and maybe rejecting. Over and over again. Finding proof for a religion is
the other way around. Then you start with a paradigm which you accept as the
truth (say, the bible). And then you start collecting 'evidence' to prove
that the paradigm is indeed true.
> > Now you make the same mistake. Science is *not* a belief, even though
> Oh? Please, do explain, because as I see it, everything is a belief,
> since you can never have command of absolute knowledge. In practical
> terms, its fact, but its still belief
But you cannot compare belief in a religious way and belief in scientific
theories. Simply because the former is not based on testing and accepting /
rejecting and the latter is.
Bye, Patrick
snipping like crazy, mostly because he agrees
P@rick
> Mattia Valente wrote:
> As far as my beliefs go, it thinks its fairly abovious from what I've
> been typing so far that I'm a scientist at heart. And science clearly
> dictates in this case that the existence of a god has to be taken as a
> serious posibility untill it can be either proven or disproven. Now as
> far as what prosibility *I* think is more likely, I'd have to go with
> no god whatsoever. I mean, when grasping the enomity of the galaxy we
> live in and of the universe itself, I'm really not going to think that
> there was a God who created all that. Nope, the thing that created that
> was nature itself. An intricate, yet fascinating, web of physical laws.
> Perhaps the Big Bang (which I find extemely likely myself, given the
> current evidence). What was 'before' or what comes 'after' I really
> don't know, but I *believe* (yep there it is again) that science *will*
> find an awnser to those questions in the future......
Looking at the vast universe doesn't make me think "wow, and there's a God
that created all of this". Maybe we should stop looking for a meaning behind
reality and accept that the laws of nature are just there. This is the
frameset we live in and we can do nothing else than accept it. There's no
meaning behind it, no morale, no justification and sometimes maybe even no
(apparent) logic. It just *is*. And with scientific methods we can try to
find out what the laws of nature are and how they work.
It's when looking at the smaller wonders of nature that I start thinking
that there must be an other level or dimension. Look at how we can think
about and discuss subjects, like we are doing now. You can explain how a
brain works, how memory works and how thoughts work on the cellular and
molecular level. But I think there's another level, a consciousness, spirit,
soul, whatever you want to call it, that enables us to think, feel, sense,
talk. Like the organic mind is the hardware, and the soul or spirit is the
software. And it's the software that makes me think about different
realities than the one we live in.
> > > I don't believe in anything, but I'm open to it. I.e. I'm not
> saying that
> > > those who believe are wasting their time. But it all seems a bit
> unlikely to
> >
> > I think that people who are big into religion and salvation are
> wasting
> > their time in one sense; I don't believe in final judgement, blah blah
> > blah. OTOH, religion, or rather, spirituality, fills a need in a great
> > number of people./
It's just that I have to be certain that God does not exist in order to
judge that those people are waisting their time. If they are right, they are
definately not waisting there time. If they follow their beliefs the right
way, they end up in heaven. And as a non-believer (atm) I would end up in
hell (I think). So who was waisting his time then?
/ Faith is something from which support can be drawn,
> > can help through tough times, etc. etc. I doubt I'll ever become a
> > follower of any god (Too much of a sceptic for that.) though. Too much
> > of a big power play in place around religion, each procaliming
> > themselves to be the only true one (how can you be so certain?) and
> > evangelism just pisses me off in a major way. Moralistic pandering to
> > the lost and mislead masses. Spare me.
Yeah. But that's just what people make of it. And people, believers or not,
tend to screw things up.
> > True. Most of it is based on an oral history, a good deal of it is
> > metaphoric, and a good deal is outdatedly moralistic for my tastes.
> > Times change, cultures evolve.
>
> Indeed. But if they 'change' the religion to fit modern times, they
> would be admitting it's not the truth. And no pope or other religious
> leaders ever gonna do that....
Indeed. But sometimes it's a matter of interpretation of the bible. The
usage of condoms isn't mentioned in so many words in the bible. So they have
to interpret applicable pieces of text to form an opinion.
> The god thing is
> > external to them all (an attempt to create a humanlike structure in
> > which there is a man in charge, running the show, watching over
> > everything, and judging right and wrong, makes it easier for people to
> > deal with existential issues, I guess..)
Well, maybe there *is* a God who put man in 'charge'. But in charge still
means we have to respect all other forms of life, and not abuse or destroy
it.
Bye, Patrick
Mattia Valente
> Mattia Valente wrote:
>
> key aspect of behaviour is that it's variable and hard to predict. But
> that's not to say that we can't describe, explain and to a certain point
> predict behaviour. And repeatable experiments can often be used to prove a
I'm not saying that Psychology isn't a science, and cannot benefit from
the use of scientific method. Some branches of psychology, however (some
schools of thought, as it were) do not benefit from having all their
results quantified and forced into a 'scientific' (old fashioned
outdated definition of the word being used here) mathematical framework.
Describing behaviour isn't the same as understanding it completely,
which is what I was trying to get at.
> theory. But the theory often says something about the 'mean' behavior. Like
> "when confronted with the picture of that man, 56% of the respondents
> attributed a criminal nature to him." Based on these figures, and using
> other tests, an explanation of this behaviour can be given. But a lot of
> variables will remain unknown. So behaviour always remains unpredictable to
> a certain degree. The same thing goes for Economics.
Right. But its not always useful in the individual case to have
statistics for everything. Wuantifying data all over the place tells you
things about the mean, lets you predict some things, explain others, but
not explain everything, since each case is different. Its a whole
different oreder of magnitude where variables are concerned.
Economics is less fuzzy that human behaviour in many ways. Its less
predictable, because its a sum total of human actions, etc. but it can
easily be quantified, giving it numbers is useful. Not so with the
explanation of many a psychological disorder. Qualitative information,
information about how the problem exists, a schema to help explain and
treat it, not numbers to attribute to levels of disfunction and
psychosis, is more useful.
> > Oh, but it is (in a way.) I'm sorry, but it so very definately is as
> > much a belief system as any other. Many scientists are as dogmatic as
> > your reformed christian (which is a bad thing.)
>
> That's the wrong approach used by the scientists. That's not a flaw of the
> Scientific Method.
Didn't say it was a flaw in the system. I'm blaming the scientists for
being dogmatic, not the method for forcing them to be; at its core, used
well, it should do just the opposite. Again, that's a facte of human
nature, not of scientific method ;-)
> I science, there's room for doubt and question, although the basics are
> pretty much a given. But the basics were formed by forming theories, testing
> and maybe rejecting. Over and over again. Finding proof for a religion is
> the other way around. Then you start with a paradigm which you accept as the
> truth (say, the bible). And then you start collecting 'evidence' to prove
> that the paradigm is indeed true.
You're contradicting yourself. Both are in essence the same, as I see
it. Science is based on the premise of a Theory (in religion, lets say
the Bible) which is postulated. You then go about designing experiments
and collecting evidence, looking for proof, to prove your theory, your
paradigm. If you can't find it, or your evidence condradicts your
paradigm, you discard your theory and, based on what you've learned, try
again.
The Bible was written based on 'truths' that wise men over the
scenturies had passed down, and upon the gospels of Christ. Not out of
thin air at all. In Science, most theories come out of observation of
facts, and thoughts about how things might work, which then need to be
tested. Neither comes totally out of the blue, each is limited in scope
to the preexisting framework in which the theory or Holy Truth was
framed. For example, we theorized about the existence of black holes
before we could 'observe' them (indirect evidence, but still..the
observations fit our theories..)
> > Oh? Please, do explain, because as I see it, everything is a belief,
> > since you can never have command of absolute knowledge. In practical
> > terms, its fact, but its still belief
>
> But you cannot compare belief in a religious way and belief in scientific
> theories. Simply because the former is not based on testing and accepting /
> rejecting and the latter is.
I'm not talking about religious belief (as in Faith) as much as belief
as a general word. I'm using it to mean that. When I mean Faith, I'll
say Faith. In this, albeit abstract, sense, I can compare the two, and
will. The teting/accepting/rejecting nature of science is integral to
the belief in the results, as faith is integral to the belief in
religious teachings. Understand what my frame of reference is now?
(abviously, I'm not making it clear. First George, now you! ;-)
> Bye, Patrick
> snipping like crazy, mostly because he agrees
:-))
Fun huh? I don't think we actually disagree much, no radical religious
peoples butting in with their views yet. Just very differnt ways of
explaining agreement, sometimes making things a little less than crystal
clear..still fun. Wonder what George will do with these monster posts..
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
Giles: "There is a certain dramatic irony that's attached to all this. A
Synchronicity that borders on… on predestination, one might say."
Buffy: "Fire bad; tree pretty.'
--Grad Day pt 2.
Mattia Valente
> Looking at the vast universe doesn't make me think "wow, and there's a God
> that created all of this". Maybe we should stop looking for a meaning behind
Doesn't make me think it either. Makes me wonder if though..not very
seriously, but the nagging is there.
> reality and accept that the laws of nature are just there. This is the
> frameset we live in and we can do nothing else than accept it. There's no
> meaning behind it, no morale, no justification and sometimes maybe even no
> (apparent) logic. It just *is*. And with scientific methods we can try to
> find out what the laws of nature are and how they work.
Exactly. What is the meaning of life? Anything? Religion was 'invented'
for that purpose as much as any other. Doesn't stop me thinking 'Wow'
from time to time, it remains impressive. Its kind of a bond with nature
rather than a bond with a supernatural force though. I think, anyway.
> It's when looking at the smaller wonders of nature that I start thinking
> that there must be an other level or dimension. Look at how we can think
> about and discuss subjects, like we are doing now. You can explain how a
Right. And on so many different abstract, non tangible levels as well.
Not discussing the physical, but verging on the metaphysical. We haven't
even started on the subject of conciousness (yet...;-)
> brain works, how memory works and how thoughts work on the cellular and
> molecular level. But I think there's another level, a consciousness, spirit,
> soul, whatever you want to call it, that enables us to think, feel, sense,
> talk. Like the organic mind is the hardware, and the soul or spirit is the
> software. And it's the software that makes me think about different
> realities than the one we live in.
That's what I'm unsure about. I think there may be, don't know if there
is, though. Our framework doesn't allow for an explanation of the
complexity of the 'software' as you call it, so it reamins a mystery,
possibly forever, possibly not.
> > > I think that people who are big into religion and salvation are wasting
> > > their time in one sense; I don't believe in final judgement, blah blah
> > > blah. OTOH, religion, or rather, spirituality, fills a need in a great
> > > number of people./
>
> It's just that I have to be certain that God does not exist in order to
Which you can't do, by definition. Futile effort.
> judge that those people are waisting their time. If they are right, they are
> definately not waisting there time. If they follow their beliefs the right
> way, they end up in heaven. And as a non-believer (atm) I would end up in
> hell (I think). So who was waisting his time then?
That's the thing which the Chruch uses to snare in people (or used to,
more now than then.) Rule with fear of fire and brimstone, hell and
eternal damnation. The thing is, I've yet to see any (And I mean ANY)
evidence of a supreme being punishing the evil and rewarding the good
and pious. And the whole concept of Heaven and Hell is too much of a
platonic Ideal kind of situation for me; I don't buy it, since I believe
in a natural order of things. That there is something beyond death, I'm
willing to consider, though.
> > > Faith is something from which support can be drawn,
> > > can help through tough times, etc. etc. I doubt I'll ever become a
> > > follower of any god (Too much of a sceptic for that.) though. Too much
> > > of a big power play in place around religion, each procaliming
> > > themselves to be the only true one (how can you be so certain?) and
> > > evangelism just pisses me off in a major way. Moralistic pandering to
> > > the lost and mislead masses. Spare me.
>
> Yeah. But that's just what people make of it. And people, believers or not,
> tend to screw things up.
Indeed they do. Look at all these Jihads, Crusades and other assorted
Holy Wars that have been brought about. Lots and lots of dead people
because of a (to me) imaginary deity(s)....
> > Indeed. But if they 'change' the religion to fit modern times, they
> > would be admitting it's not the truth. And no pope or other religious
> > leaders ever gonna do that....
>
> Indeed. But sometimes it's a matter of interpretation of the bible. The
> usage of condoms isn't mentioned in so many words in the bible. So they have
> to interpret applicable pieces of text to form an opinion.
Right. Interpretation is the major stickling point; be very literal you
get one thing, heavily moralistic, take it on a methaphorical level, you
get somethng else. You can twist things every which way to please
yourself.
> > > The god thing is
> > > external to them all (an attempt to create a humanlike structure in
> > > which there is a man in charge, running the show, watching over
> > > everything, and judging right and wrong, makes it easier for people to
> > > deal with existential issues, I guess..)
>
> Well, maybe there *is* a God who put man in 'charge'. But in charge still
> means we have to respect all other forms of life, and not abuse or destroy
> it.
Err...right. I didn't say that, but I agree. Its possible, if pretty
damn unlikely. We're related to all the 'lower' mammals and reptiles and
every other life form in some way, sort of.. What I was saying was that
the conept of god is a human construct with a man (God) in charge of
everything, the great big father who art in heaven and all that.
We're not 'in charge' because someone put us in that position, but I
believe we are responsible for the welfare of our planet, at least to
the degree in which its possible. We screwed it up bad, lets try not to
make it worse, for life's sake and, more cynically and slefishly, for
our own and future generations' sake. Dead world doesn't help anyone.
Mattia
ReplyMeister[tm]
This is, like, fun, doood.
P@rick
> "P@rick" wrote:
> > Mattia Valente wrote:
> >
>
> Economics is less fuzzy that human behaviour in many ways. Its less
> predictable, because its a sum total of human actions, etc. but it can
> easily be quantified, giving it numbers is useful. Not so with the
> explanation of many a psychological disorder. Qualitative information,
> information about how the problem exists, a schema to help explain and
> treat it, not numbers to attribute to levels of disfunction and
> psychosis, is more useful.
Every psycholgical theory needs to be tested. Be it by experiments, or case
studies. This is where quantitative data is gathered. A researcher in
psychology uses a lot of (quantitative) statistics. In the field, when the
theories are used on individual cases, qualitative information gains more
importance. I noticed you speaking about psychology in terms of disorder and
treatment. That's part of psychology, but there's much more. Media
psychology, business psychology and social psychology are all different
kinds of psychology. They deal not so much with disorders as they do with
human behaviour (now there's a line to bury).
> > In science, there's room for doubt and question, although the basics are
> > pretty much a given. But the basics were formed by forming theories,
testing
> > and maybe rejecting. Over and over again. Finding proof for a religion
is
> > the other way around. Then you start with a paradigm which you accept as
the
> > truth (say, the bible). And then you start collecting 'evidence' to
prove
> > that the paradigm is indeed true.
>
> You're contradicting yourself. Both are in essence the same, as I see
> it. Science is based on the premise of a Theory (in religion, lets say
> the Bible) which is postulated. You then go about designing experiments
> and collecting evidence, looking for proof, to prove your theory, your
> paradigm. If you can't find it, or your evidence condradicts your
> paradigm, you discard your theory and, based on what you've learned, try
> again.
There's still a basic difference. In science, the theory you postulate is a
presumption. It is only accepted as a reasonable description of reality when
it stands scientific testing. The theory in religion is accepted as a given.
It's not actually that theory that is being tested. It's a question of how
reality can be explained from that theory, and finding evidence to support
that explanation.
> > But you cannot compare belief in a religious way and belief in
scientific
> > theories. Simply because the former is not based on testing and
accepting /
> > rejecting and the latter is.
>
> I'm not talking about religious belief (as in Faith) as much as belief
> as a general word. I'm using it to mean that. When I mean Faith, I'll
> say Faith. In this, albeit abstract, sense, I can compare the two, and
> will. The teting/accepting/rejecting nature of science is integral to
> the belief in the results, as faith is integral to the belief in
> religious teachings. Understand what my frame of reference is now?
> (abviously, I'm not making it clear. First George, now you! ;-)
I understand your distinction between belief and faith. But when you talk
about belief in religion, you talk about faith (Hey, we're talking about
faith! Where's Wheez? Double meaning here :o) You are right in a way. A
scientist beliefs a theory is a good description of reality because it has
been tested. A religious person beliefs its religion gives a good
description of reality. Not because anything has been proven, and probably
not because religious leaders tell them to, but because they feel it that
way.
> Fun huh?
Yeah, but now my head is spinning ;o)
Bye, Patrick