Angel 4x18
Gunnar Harboe
Bastards!
Andrew Cameron
news:mr999vcqevpgd9v71...@4ax.com...
> OK, now that was cool.
>
> Bastards!
My comments follow spoiler space...
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
Well, despite having seen it last night and "slept on it" (really didn't
feel like commenting last night), I still don't feel like commenting this
morning - I just don't feel any better about this episode. It was okay and
all, somewhat entertaining, but after about 10 minutes I was like "yes,
they're under a spell, I get it already, just give me the big reveal". Cool
ending, but a laaaaaaaaame Invasion of the Body Snatchers ripoff. In the
scene where Fred tells Wes what she saw and he betrays her, I half expected
him to turn around, point at her and make that throaty sound.
Gunnar, you're a fool :p
I can't believe you didn't like last week's ep but you thought this was
good. Nope. Wrong.
--
Andrew Cameron
"Got my hand on my heart, I know no better location..."
Mattia Valente
Well, you're half right, anyway. The bit where he thought last weeks
sucked. I'm a bit unsure of what to think of this week's offering,
though; we got a lot of the same sort of thing, a good bit of action, but..
It's a bit early. Stylistically, it was a great little episode. Eerie
Stepford Wives kinda feel, perfect shiny happy people everywhere, but
there's something else a-brewing. I'd like Jasmine's story to be largely
true; for the motivation, etc. to be what she says it is. That it's not
entirely the truth? I'm fine with that. But something wanting 'good' in
the simplistic, unquestioning, predetermined form we're getting? As
Niall said last week, it could make for an interesting dichotomy (re:
FE). And it resonates with 'Fray'.
In the end? I dunno. Great little exposition, Cordy's unfortunately
survived it all, Connor may be being groomed to replace Angel, in
whatever form (we know he's very..malleable), and this thing spreading
her influence further and further. And a few people are, for whatever
reason, immune to it all. Kinda gave me a 'S5' vibe, with the whole
'crazies' seeing the truth thang (although, yes, I know, not crazies
necessarily).
And there's the whole mutamorphic power thing Jaz seems to have up her
sleeve. Ooer.
I'm intruiged. It's an interesting twist, so far, enexpected, deeply
unsettling...they've got my attention. I'll stick with 'good', but it
ain't really got enough there to make it to 'great'. Not on first
watching, not right now.
Mattia
Tafka
Mattia Valente <mae.v...@std.vu.nl>. alt.buffy.europe. Thu, 10 Apr 2003
15:25:33 +0200:
I agree. Last week was great and it's been good for a while. This....
so-so.
Not bad, not great.
A comfortable mid-of-the-spectrum place though.
And better than "Double or Nothing" for the counter to Loyalty-Sleep
Tight-Forgiving, certainly.
>It's a bit early. Stylistically, it was a great little episode. Eerie
>Stepford Wives kinda feel, perfect shiny happy people everywhere, but
>there's something else a-brewing.
Well, yes. Because I'm going to be pretty surprised if what Fred saw isn't
the real "her" and when you dress yourself up and stop people seeing
through to the bad? Not a good thing are you.
>I'd like Jasmine's story to be largely
>true; for the motivation, etc. to be what she says it is. That it's not
>entirely the truth? I'm fine with that. But something wanting 'good' in
>the simplistic, unquestioning, predetermined form we're getting? As
>Niall said last week, it could make for an interesting dichotomy (re:
>FE). And it resonates with 'Fray'.
I think some bits of it are going to ring true.
Removing the demon from Angel? Sure, it's been sounded in places before
and with the prophecies (Shansu...) it'd work. Not sure about "ultimate
good" and all that.
>In the end? I dunno. Great little exposition, Cordy's unfortunately
>survived it all,
Gah. Damn Cordy.
>Connor may be being groomed to replace Angel, in
>whatever form (we know he's very..malleable),
And we know (or at least have been told by Jasmine) where Connor is from
and why he is! So *finally* we have an excuse for him *and* it shows us,
as per Skip last week, *why* the pieces kind of fit together.
Lorne had to escape Pylea in order to show the trials to Angel for Darla.
The completed trials offered Darla life, but she'd already had a second
chance and it reverted to a new life inside of her (although that means
Nov 28th 2000 for "The Trial" through to Nov 19th 2001 for "Lullaby" for
the pregnancy. It works, somehow....).
More retconning? Works for me :)
>and this thing spreading
>her influence further and further. And a few people are, for whatever
>reason, immune to it all. Kinda gave me a 'S5' vibe, with the whole
>'crazies' seeing the truth thang (although, yes, I know, not crazies
>necessarily).
I felt a Glory feel to it, certainly.
Would we say Jasmine has the essence of a "God" about her or not?
>And there's the whole mutamorphic power thing Jaz seems to have up her
>sleeve. Ooer.
I counted two people she touched - the guy who attacked her and she held
someones hand in the Hyperion as she came down the stairs at the end. Any
others - anyone from AI? - who we should watch out for?
>I'm intruiged. It's an interesting twist, so far, enexpected, deeply
>unsettling...they've got my attention. I'll stick with 'good', but it
>ain't really got enough there to make it to 'great'. Not on first
>watching, not right now.
I'd say it's going to settle somewhere around 3.7/8 in terms of 5 star.
But I will rewatch it because I'm just not sold on a few bits.
And - yes, I'm weak - and I've just watched the trailer for 4x19 and I
feel a bit better. It doesn't really give away, er, much but it looks
interesting....
http://saison8.free.fr/magic_bullet.qt
For the weak :)
-Tafka-
The Big Taf'izzle
Dan Milburn
<snip>
> Lorne had to escape Pylea in order to show the trials to Angel for Darla.
> The completed trials offered Darla life, but she'd already had a second
> chance and it reverted to a new life inside of her (although that means
> Nov 28th 2000 for "The Trial" through to Nov 19th 2001 for "Lullaby" for
> the pregnancy. It works, somehow....).
I didn't think they were suggesting that the events of 'The Trial'
actually caused Darla to get pregnant, just that it made it possible.
Dan
Mattia Valente
What he said.
Mattia
Tafka
Mattia Valente <mae.v...@std.vu.nl>. alt.buffy.europe. Thu, 10 Apr 2003
Yeah, I forgot the wording of it all.
-Tafka-
A black eye heals, but cowardice has an unlimited shelf life.
Mattia Valente
>>>good. Nope. Wrong.
>>
>>Well, you're half right, anyway. The bit where he thought last weeks
>>sucked. I'm a bit unsure of what to think of this week's offering,
>>though; we got a lot of the same sort of thing, a good bit of action, but..
>
> I agree. Last week was great and it's been good for a while. This....
> so-so. Not bad, not great.
A bit of a let-down, really, considering that technically, it was all
leading up to this :o)
Then again, it underlines the fact that the journey is just as important
as the destination, or maybe more important. Goal in itself, and all
that. Hey, I sense resonance with the 'the retcon is good' argument.
Would you look at that.
> A comfortable mid-of-the-spectrum place though.
>
> And better than "Double or Nothing" for the counter to Loyalty-Sleep
> Tight-Forgiving, certainly.
Agreed. The big difference being that this is a continuation of the same
storyline, whereas DoN was a clean breakaway.
> Well, yes. Because I'm going to be pretty surprised if what Fred saw isn't
> the real "her" and when you dress yourself up and stop people seeing
> through to the bad? Not a good thing are you.
Nope. But not necessarily a truly Evil thing.
> I think some bits of it are going to ring true.
Would be good, in any event.
> Removing the demon from Angel? Sure, it's been sounded in places before
> and with the prophecies (Shansu...) it'd work. Not sure about "ultimate
> good" and all that.
Perhaps not ultimate, no. But I don't know if I'd call it the ultimate
evil incarnate, either. I'm open, for now.
>>In the end? I dunno. Great little exposition, Cordy's unfortunately
>>survived it all,
>
> Gah. Damn Cordy.
Just DIE, dammit!
>>Connor may be being groomed to replace Angel, in
>>whatever form (we know he's very..malleable),
>
> And we know (or at least have been told by Jasmine) where Connor is from
> and why he is! So *finally* we have an excuse for him *and* it shows us,
> as per Skip last week, *why* the pieces kind of fit together.
\o/
> More retconning? Works for me :)
Indeedy. Because it still doesn't affect the journey in any negative sense.
>>and this thing spreading
>>her influence further and further. And a few people are, for whatever
>>reason, immune to it all. Kinda gave me a 'S5' vibe, with the whole
>>'crazies' seeing the truth thang (although, yes, I know, not crazies
>>necessarily).
>
> I felt a Glory feel to it, certainly.
> Would we say Jasmine has the essence of a "God" about her or not?
I would say yes. There's certainly enormous power there; just look at
the massive amounts of people involved, the manipulations that lead
here, etc.
>>And there's the whole mutamorphic power thing Jaz seems to have up her
>>sleeve. Ooer.
>
> I counted two people she touched - the guy who attacked her and she held
> someones hand in the Hyperion as she came down the stairs at the end. Any
> others - anyone from AI? - who we should watch out for?
I don't think so, but I wasn't really paying attention.
> I'd say it's going to settle somewhere around 3.7/8 in terms of 5 star.
> But I will rewatch it because I'm just not sold on a few bits.
I'm going 'hmmmm...' a bit too much.
> And - yes, I'm weak - and I've just watched the trailer for 4x19 and I
> feel a bit better. It doesn't really give away, er, much but it looks
> interesting....
>
> http://saison8.free.fr/magic_bullet.qt
> For the weak :)
tsk tsk...bad!
I'm wondering if the title is Kennedy-an in origins, or maintains the
original medical/pharmacological twist.
Speculation based on Title
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Something or other makes some people/AI/<fill in blank here> see
Jasmine's true face. A one-shot cure. Perhaps she's carrying flowers
around all the time 'cause she's rotting and a bit smelly.
Ahum.
I'm crap at speculating, aren't I?
Mattia
Tafka
Mattia Valente <mae.v...@std.vu.nl>. alt.buffy.europe. Thu, 10 Apr 2003
>> A comfortable mid-of-the-spectrum place though.
>>
>> And better than "Double or Nothing" for the counter to Loyalty-Sleep
>> Tight-Forgiving, certainly.
>
>Agreed. The big difference being that this is a continuation of the same
>storyline, whereas DoN was a clean breakaway.
But the fact that they had nowhere to go with the plot after "Forgiving"
shows how much better this season is? Even with what some call 'filler'
it's still arc-related.
>> More retconning? Works for me :)
>
>Indeedy. Because it still doesn't affect the journey in any negative sense.
Exactly. Except the confusion about Fred going to Pylea, like.
>> And - yes, I'm weak - and I've just watched the trailer for 4x19 and I
>> feel a bit better. It doesn't really give away, er, much but it looks
>> interesting....
>>
>> http://saison8.free.fr/magic_bullet.qt
>> For the weak :)
>
>tsk tsk...bad!
>
>I'm wondering if the title is Kennedy-an in origins, or maintains the
>original medical/pharmacological twist.
>
>Speculation based on Title
Now some of my own, based upon what people have posted in ata. So they've
probably read spoilers and are lying bitches, you see?
I take no responsibility if this is the likely outcome, but it IS NOT
mentioned in the trailer AT ALL and as such... I've no idea. It's still
speculation.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>.
>
>Something or other makes some people/AI/<fill in blank here> see
>Jasmine's true face. A one-shot cure. Perhaps she's carrying flowers
>around all the time 'cause she's rotting and a bit smelly.
>
>Ahum.
>
>I'm crap at speculating, aren't I?
"It's all about the blood" (Spike)
Vamp who cut Jasmine in the bowling alley got her blood on him. As he ran
out, he connected with the Crazy Man (i.e. touched - apparently) and he
saw through her 'face'.
Fred & the blood from her shirt = her blood, then Fred sees it.
Notice how she keeps everyone away from her after she's cut?
However... if she's truely not been human before then perhaps *she*
doesn't know that this is having the effect it is on people and that gives
Fred (and ?) an advantage. Ish.
-Tafka-
Why doesn't "phonetic" start with an F?
Mattia Valente
>>>Tight-Forgiving, certainly.
>>
>>Agreed. The big difference being that this is a continuation of the same
>>storyline, whereas DoN was a clean breakaway.
>
> But the fact that they had nowhere to go with the plot after "Forgiving"
> shows how much better this season is? Even with what some call 'filler'
> it's still arc-related.
Well, I dunno. I think it is, anyway, but I'm an arc-slut. It's an odd
episode, though, mainly because the point of it is that nobody's acting
in-character for the vast majority of it.
>>>More retconning? Works for me :)
>>
>>Indeedy. Because it still doesn't affect the journey in any negative sense.
>
> Exactly. Except the confusion about Fred going to Pylea, like.
I'm not really getting the confusion, so much. So Sydell sent here
there, for whatever reason. Whether or not he was manoevered into place
is more or less irellevant.
>>>http://saison8.free.fr/magic_bullet.qt
>>>For the weak :)
>>
>>tsk tsk...bad!
>>
>>I'm wondering if the title is Kennedy-an in origins, or maintains the
>>original medical/pharmacological twist.
>>
>>Speculation based on Title
>
> Now some of my own, based upon what people have posted in ata. So they've
> probably read spoilers and are lying bitches, you see?
Ah. Right.
> I take no responsibility if this is the likely outcome, but it IS NOT
> mentioned in the trailer AT ALL and as such... I've no idea. It's still
> speculation.
Righto.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>.
>>
>>Something or other makes some people/AI/<fill in blank here> see
>>Jasmine's true face. A one-shot cure. Perhaps she's carrying flowers
>>around all the time 'cause she's rotting and a bit smelly.
>>
>>Ahum.
>>
>>I'm crap at speculating, aren't I?
>
> "It's all about the blood" (Spike)
:o)
> Vamp who cut Jasmine in the bowling alley got her blood on him. As he ran
> out, he connected with the Crazy Man (i.e. touched - apparently) and he
> saw through her 'face'.
>
> Fred & the blood from her shirt = her blood, then Fred sees it.
Oooo....good point.
> Notice how she keeps everyone away from her after she's cut?
yeah, more or less. She's keeping people at a bit of a distance anyway.
For someone revelling in senses, she's not touching an awful lot of people.
> However... if she's truely not been human before then perhaps *she*
> doesn't know that this is having the effect it is on people and that gives
> Fred (and ?) an advantage. Ish.
Quite.
Mattia
Gunnar Harboe
>Gunnar, you're a fool :p
>
>I can't believe you didn't like last week's ep but you thought this was
>good. Nope. Wrong.
'Inside Out' was just awful. There's nothing more to be said about that.
This was pretty neat. It wasn't a "great" episode, perhaps, but it
certainly had a high coolness factor.
Hated the Lorne/Fred conversation at the start. Even the actor seemed
embarrassed and unconvinced by Lorne's stupidity. It. Was. Not. Funny.
I enjoyed the concept of the episode much more than I expected. I
thought it was cool to have a "bad guy" whose threatening the world
because she's so *nice*. Lots of potential there, I thought. Besides,
this fight against evil gig is getting old. Opposing the forces of good
run wild would make for an interesting twist.
Yeah, OK, so I knew it wasn't actually going to go down like that, what
with Beastmaster!Cordy and all. But for about ten minutes it almost
seemed like a possibility.
Disappointed when that guy attacked Jasmin. Ho hum. So I guess I should
dislike the Fred development. And I kinda do. But the visual shock of
that decayed face almost made it worth it. Great moment.
My big problem with the ending is that if LA is converted in the
morning, the images will spread across the US during the day, and by
evening the whole nation will be affected. Give it 24 hours, and that's
the rest of the world (or the parts with TV access, at least). But I
doubt that will happen on the show.
I guess what I liked about this episode is that it suggested all these
cool possibilities, and didn't completely rule any of them out by the
end. I'm sure that'll change by next week. (I think I already hate next
week's ep, just from the trailer.) For instance, the idea of a Big Bad
in a human body which can easily be killed, except anyone who gets near
her find themselves unable to hurt her. That just shows off how boring
and conventional the Beast was.
Gunnar Harboe
>I agree. Last week was great and it's been good for a while. This....
>so-so.
>Not bad, not great.
<snip>
>And - yes, I'm weak - and I've just watched the trailer for 4x19 and I
>feel a bit better. It doesn't really give away, er, much but it looks
>interesting....
You're wrong in so many ways...
Tafka
18:40:20 +0100:
I respect your opinion on _Angel_ as much as I do ODC for saying everyone
who likes _Angel_ S2 is crazy.
(Not really - I do find your arguments... unlogical and wrong, but I'll
still give them credit. Apart from you saying _Angel_ S4 peaked weeks ago
and all that....)
Tafka
Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk>. alt.buffy.europe. Thu, 10 Apr 2003
[snip]
>I guess what I liked about this episode is that it suggested all these
>cool possibilities, and didn't completely rule any of them out by the
>end. I'm sure that'll change by next week. (I think I already hate next
>week's ep, just from the trailer.) For instance, the idea of a Big Bad
>in a human body which can easily be killed, except anyone who gets near
>her find themselves unable to hurt her. That just shows off how boring
>and conventional the Beast was.
Oh, and despite what I said above (and apart from the line about the
trailer) I totally agree with the above. And apart from the beast.
I agree with the stuff about the BB is human & the possibilities etc.
-Tafka-
I wanna, li-li-li-lick you from yo' head to yo' toes
And I wanna, move from the bed down to the down to the to the flo'
Clueless
> OK, now that was cool.
>
> Bastards!
Anyone of you have the original rars for the ftv release ? I am short one
par and no fills seem forthcoming
S. Althaf
Dave Emberton
news:b73rab$al3o7$1...@ID-74630.news.dfncis.de...
> 'crazies' seeing the truth thang (although, yes, I know, not crazies
> necessarily).
Exactly what I was thinking. Very similar to Glory (ancient evil thing in
human form) vs Knights of Byantium (army of humans dedicated to fighting
her), plus as you say the few who can see through the reality morphing
spell.
I thought it lost a bit in the second half, but very enjoyable episode, and
I think Gina Torres is great. Who'd have thought there'd be an upside to
Firefly getting cancelled?
Dave
Niall Harrison
> Andrew Cameron wrote:
>> "Gunnar Harboe" <gh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> news:mr999vcqevpgd9v71...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
> I'm a bit unsure of what to think of this week's offering,
> though; we got a lot of the same sort of thing, a good bit of action, but..
I rather liked it. It had this 'prologue' feeling about it. Chapter one:
Establishing the story. Infodumps all over the place, and I'm frankly
amazed that Jasmine's stylised dialogue wasn't grating on me by act II.
> It's a bit early. Stylistically, it was a great little episode. Eerie
> Stepford Wives kinda feel, perfect shiny happy people everywhere, but
> there's something else a-brewing. I'd like Jasmine's story to be largely
> true; for the motivation, etc. to be what she says it is.
Yes, me too. As you say, it's a lovely inversion of the First, and dammit,
it just *makes sense*.
> I'm intruiged. It's an interesting twist, so far, enexpected, deeply
> unsettling...they've got my attention. I'll stick with 'good', but it
> ain't really got enough there to make it to 'great'. Not on first
> watching, not right now.
Well, no. I don't think it really needed to be, though. It was much like
'Players', in that if the show was like this every single week, I wouldn't
be disappointed. Not literally like this, you understand, but in terms of
quality.
A round 4, I think.
Niall
--
Verbing weirds language.
Mattia Valente
Agreed. For some reason it worked quite well. I mean, I know it's setup,
I know that ultimately not that much happens, but the whole sense of
unreality, the repetitive weridness was...functional.
>>It's a bit early. Stylistically, it was a great little episode. Eerie
>>Stepford Wives kinda feel, perfect shiny happy people everywhere, but
>>there's something else a-brewing. I'd like Jasmine's story to be largely
>>true; for the motivation, etc. to be what she says it is.
>
> Yes, me too. As you say, it's a lovely inversion of the First, and dammit,
> it just *makes sense*.
:o)
>>I'm intruiged. It's an interesting twist, so far, enexpected, deeply
>>unsettling...they've got my attention. I'll stick with 'good', but it
>>ain't really got enough there to make it to 'great'. Not on first
>>watching, not right now.
>
> Well, no. I don't think it really needed to be, though. It was much like
> 'Players', in that if the show was like this every single week, I wouldn't
> be disappointed. Not literally like this, you understand, but in terms of
> quality.
Well, sort of. It's quality, but mostly because it's setup and still
this good. I want more meat to my stories, if you catch my meaning.
> A round 4, I think.
For me, possibly a .1 below that.
Mattia
Shuggie
or
write a review
or
go to bed
or...
sod it!
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
This was a poor man's Invasion of the Bodysnatchers. It was so
predictable that it lost a lot of my interest almost straight away.
The fact that I guessed half the storyline after seeing the final
scene of last week's show doesn't bode well. Whenever ME have taken on
familiar ideas or cliched genre concepts in the past they've always
given them a fresh twist. That didn't happen here.
Going in we know that Jasmine is evil. Everything that we've seen up
to this point that has led to her arrival has been death and
destruction - you can't retcon that into good (thank God they didn't
try!). Which means that it was only a matter of time before we saw
through the disguise. By the time the guy attacked her - I was
thinking "at last!".
About the only thing left to play with for any kind of twist was who
the sole unbeliever was going to be. So credit for making it Fred.
Although arguably she was the only sensible choice. Wes, Gunn and
Angel have all had, to a greater or lesser degree, their time isolated
from/opposed to the rest of the group. Lorne's not a strong enough
part of the group yet. Plus Fred's got all that quirky nerdy
insecurity going on.
I found the smug niceness and vapid adoration of Jasmine's followers
to be far too much. Yes I get that we're supposed to realise it's a
'spell' they're under. But someone needed to get them to dial down
those performances a notch or three. Trust the audience you know? The
situation alone screams something's up, we don't need DB's goofy looks
to convince us of that.
The man's face was a nice touch, but even that felt dragged out. I
didn't suspect straight away, but by the time he turned I was ready
for it.
That whole scene felt clunky, with the "we've been called" thing. I
think maybe what they were trying for was a sense that Fred didn't
know whether to trust what she'd seen, whether her and that guy were
the crazy ones or whether there really was a problem with the others.
If that's what they were going for they undersold it.
Actually on that angle, there was a nice opportunity to explore an
ex-religious-cult member's mixed feelings. I have some personal
experience of this and it would have fit the episode's structure and
theme very well. Perhaps that insight could have given the fresh feel
to this tired formula that I'm missing. Unfortunately I think they
would have needed a greater knowledge of that particular subject than
was displayed here.
Gina Torres deserves special mention for managing to imbue Jasmine
with a sense of poise, grace and godliness despite some of the most
sacharine platitude-laden dialogue I've heard in a long time.
In a way I think this ep does surprisingly well given the built-in
predictability. I actually think that they'll have more scope to add
the freshness next week. Which together with what felt like a very
slow pace this week, makes me wonder if they wouldn't have been better
condensing this episode into the first 2 acts and have a bit more
forward movement.
Uninspired but not unwatchable. 2.25/5
--
Shug
"I provide the much-needed sarcasm"
Niall Harrison
> Go to bed
> or
> write a review
> or
> go to bed
> or...
> sod it!
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> :
> Going in we know that Jasmine is evil. Everything that we've seen up
> to this point that has led to her arrival has been death and
> destruction - you can't retcon that into good (thank God they didn't
> try!).
Except, she's not evil. If she was evil, there would be no reason for her
to tell AI to try to save Fred, rather than kill her. She's got the mind
control; she doesn't need to be nice and good all the time, and yet, she
is.
Niall
--
When memes collide.
Dan Milburn
Yeah, I mean, apart from raising the Beast, unleashing Angelus, getting
rid of the sun, causing the deaths of who knows how many thousand people,
mind-controlling everyone else, persuading Connor to sacrifice a virgin,
and disfiguring that guys face, what has Jasmine ever done that's not
good?
Dan
Christopher G Brannigan
"Dave Emberton" <notint...@notinterested.in.your.spam.com> wrote in
message news:3e95c9e0$0$59862$65c6...@mercury.nildram.net...
Gina was ok but it was obvious they were under a spell last week when Angel
said she was beautiful. I mean come on....she's obvioously making him see
whats not there.....
--
"Bubbly and sweet with a hunger for fun and a smile that lights up the
room"
- My Dawn
-
My Dvd Collection -
http://www.dvdprofiler.com/mycollection.asp?alias=cgbrannigan
My TV Caps - http://mediasite.de/chrisb
-
Christopher G Brannigan
"Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:b73rab$al3o7$1...@ID-74630.news.dfncis.de...
I didn't really like it either. I've just switched off solaris coz it was
so slow and I gave up after an hour to watch this.....I was nearly falling
asleep it was incredably slow too.
>
> In the end? I dunno. Great little exposition, Cordy's unfortunately
> survived it all, Connor may be being groomed to replace Angel, in
> whatever form (we know he's very..malleable), and this thing spreading
> her influence further and further. And a few people are, for whatever
> reason, immune to it all. Kinda gave me a 'S5' vibe, with the whole
> 'crazies' seeing the truth thang (although, yes, I know, not crazies
> necessarily).
I was so annoyed that they chicked out of killing Cordy. she could have
been a good thing for The First over on buffy.
I reallt don't like Conner and I hope that if they do cancel buff and angel
then he's not around to spin off...
The whole angel things just annoying me....I'm a buffy fan first and angel
secondand the whole angel thing just isn't mixing with the buffy story and
they're supposedly in the same universe but both about 100 miles from each
other, having their own wee appocalypses and they're not merging.....it's
just so....well, unrealistic shouldn't be the right word but it just seems
so far fetched that both these shows are happening at once. They shoud have
kept faith and willow out of angel and continued with the pretence that
they're both seperate shows instead of reminding us two weeks before the
storylines get so far appart that they no longer remotly connect
> And there's the whole mutamorphic power thing Jaz seems to have up her
> sleeve. Ooer.
>
> I'm intruiged. It's an interesting twist, so far, enexpected, deeply
> unsettling...they've got my attention. I'll stick with 'good', but it
> ain't really got enough there to make it to 'great'. Not on first
> watching, not right now.
not on first watching and I dont know if I can bring myself to watch it
again. the fighting montage was good but too short....
Niall Harrison
And Wesley kept Justine in a cage and tortured a junkie because he
thought the ends justified the means. And Connor let a virgin be murdered
because he hoped the end justified the means. You see the parallel I
think they might be setting up here?
Seriously. I think the 'her true face is horrible' line is a mislead,
purely because we're so used to associating ugliness with evil. I'm also
starting to think that maybe the mind control isn't something she's doing
on purpose, it's just a natural consequence of the incarnation of a Power
on the mortal plane.
Jasmine has come down to remake paradise - whether humans like it or not.
Dan Milburn
That wasn't really my point. She's done many things we would consider
evil, and the only evidence we have that she's good is the fact that she
spouts cheesy dialogue, and that she said so. Frankly, I think at this
point only someone who's been brainwashed would take anything she says or
does at face value..
> Seriously. I think the 'her true face is horrible' line is a mislead,
> purely because we're so used to associating ugliness with evil.
Basically, if you're right, this has been a season long equivalent of
Spikes adventures at the end of Buffy S6. It's evil.. it's still evil..
hey look everybody, evil happening. Ha! Fooled you, it was good all
along.
Dan
Niall Harrison
For what value of 'good', though? That's *my* point. There is nothing -
*nothing* - that she has done since being 'born' that indicates that
she's evil. She hasn't acted vindictive towards anyone that's tried to
hurt her; she hasn't tried to do any bad things. On the other hand, the
suggestion that she's come to remake paradise is *still* downright
terrifying because she's doing it by taking away people's choices. She's
decided that she knows best.
That's where I see the parallels with early-S4 Wesley.
>> Seriously. I think the 'her true face is horrible' line is a mislead,
>> purely because we're so used to associating ugliness with evil.
>
> Basically, if you're right, this has been a season long equivalent of
> Spikes adventures at the end of Buffy S6. It's evil.. it's still evil..
> hey look everybody, evil happening. Ha! Fooled you, it was good all
> along.
Hardly. I don't think there's any suggestion that we're supposed to
excuse the actions that preceeded Jasmine's arrival; in fact, I think
it's fairly clear that we're *not* supposed to do so. That's where I
think this is going - evil done in good's name is still evil.
Gunnar Harboe
wrote:
>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Dan Milburn wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:20:12 +0100, Niall Harrison wrote:
>>> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Shuggie wrote:
>>>> Go to bed
>>>
>>>> or
>>>
>>>> write a review
>>>
>>>> or
>>>
>>>> go to bed
>>>
>>>> or...
>>>
>>>> sod it!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>>>> :
>Seriously. I think the 'her true face is horrible' line is a mislead,
>purely because we're so used to associating ugliness with evil. I'm also
>starting to think that maybe the mind control isn't something she's doing
>on purpose, it's just a natural consequence of the incarnation of a Power
>on the mortal plane.
>
>Jasmine has come down to remake paradise - whether humans like it or not.
I certainly hope you're right. It's so much more interesting than the
alternative.
Dan Milburn
And many things done before that to indicate she was. I mean, really,
were the Beast and Evil!Cordy too subtle for you?
> She hasn't acted vindictive towards anyone that's tried to hurt her; she
> hasn't tried to do any bad things.
Yet. As I said, only someone who's been brainwashed would believe
anything she says or does at this point.
> On the other hand, the
> suggestion that she's come to remake paradise is *still* downright
> terrifying because she's doing it by taking away people's choices. She's
> decided that she knows best.
>
> That's where I see the parallels with early-S4 Wesley.
It's not that she's taking away peoples choices in order to create
paradise, though, it's that her paradise *depends* on people having no
choice. The removal of their free will is not just a means, it's also at
least part of the end.
So I don't really see the parallels with Wesley at all. His actions were
certainly questionable, but his goals - protecting Connor, rescuing Angel,
finding Angelus, weren't.
>>> Seriously. I think the 'her true face is horrible' line is a mislead,
>>> purely because we're so used to associating ugliness with evil.
>>
>> Basically, if you're right, this has been a season long equivalent of
>> Spikes adventures at the end of Buffy S6. It's evil.. it's still
>> evil.. hey look everybody, evil happening. Ha! Fooled you, it was
>> good all along.
>
> Hardly. I don't think there's any suggestion that we're supposed to
> excuse the actions that preceeded Jasmine's arrival;
Again, not my point. Forget about the means, it's now being revealed that
the *end* is the direct opposite of what we've been lead to believe all
season. Hence the parallel with Spike - it looks as though he wants the
chip out until the last moment, then suddenly, oh, he actually wanted his
soul back all along.
> That's where I
> think this is going - evil done in good's name is still evil.
Except that, as you said, it's for some value of 'good', which almost
certainly isn't one any of the characters or the audience will agree with.
So I really don't see how that can work.
Dan
Jonathan Dupont
news:pan.2003.04.11....@hotmail.com:
The Beast who destroyed all Wolfram & Hart? I mean, seriously, apart
from a few necessary (in her POV) sacrifices, he wasn't as nearly as bad
as he could have been. Cordy did what had to be done to get her child.
Also, as my (cruelly ignored...) Second Coming post pointed out, they
did hint at this a while back, apart from the obvious Buffy First
contrasts.
>> She hasn't acted vindictive towards anyone that's tried to hurt her;
>> she hasn't tried to do any bad things.
>
> Yet. As I said, only someone who's been brainwashed would believe
> anything she says or does at this point.
Well, maybe. Or someone with meta knowledge that big evil's getting a
bit tired at the moment. In any case, there was no point for such a long
speech if it wasn't true.
>> On the other hand, the
>> suggestion that she's come to remake paradise is *still* downright
>> terrifying because she's doing it by taking away people's choices.
>> She's decided that she knows best.
>>
>> That's where I see the parallels with early-S4 Wesley.
>
> It's not that she's taking away peoples choices in order to create
> paradise, though, it's that her paradise *depends* on people having no
> choice. The removal of their free will is not just a means, it's also
> at least part of the end.
>
> So I don't really see the parallels with Wesley at all. His actions
> were certainly questionable, but his goals - protecting Connor,
> rescuing Angel, finding Angelus, weren't.
He protected Connor by not telling any of the rest of AI. He hunted for
Angel, again without consulting Fred & Gunn. He's a loner, thinking that
only he can sort things out - thus parallels.
>>>> Seriously. I think the 'her true face is horrible' line is a
>>>> mislead, purely because we're so used to associating ugliness with
>>>> evil.
>>>
>>> Basically, if you're right, this has been a season long equivalent
>>> of Spikes adventures at the end of Buffy S6. It's evil.. it's still
>>> evil.. hey look everybody, evil happening. Ha! Fooled you, it was
>>> good all along.
>>
>> Hardly. I don't think there's any suggestion that we're supposed to
>> excuse the actions that preceeded Jasmine's arrival;
>
> Again, not my point. Forget about the means, it's now being revealed
> that the *end* is the direct opposite of what we've been lead to
> believe all season. Hence the parallel with Spike - it looks as
> though he wants the chip out until the last moment, then suddenly, oh,
> he actually wanted his soul back all along.
Maybe. But this was much better done, IMO. (and it's more than season
long, if the retcon's to be believed)
>> That's where I
>> think this is going - evil done in good's name is still evil.
>
> Except that, as you said, it's for some value of 'good', which almost
> certainly isn't one any of the characters or the audience will agree
> with.
> So I really don't see how that can work.
>
>
> Dan
What, no suffering and an end to evil people? An enormous amount of
Christains would disagree with you.
Jon
Dan Milburn
> "Dan Milburn" <daniel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:pan.2003.04.11....@hotmail.com:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:18:32 +0000, Niall Harrison wrote:
>>
>>> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Dan Milburn wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 14:01:34 +0100, Niall Harrison wrote:
>>>>> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Dan Milburn wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2003 08:20:12 +0100, Niall Harrison wrote:
>>>>>>> Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Shuggie wrote:
>>>>>>>> Go to bed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> write a review
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> go to bed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> or...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> sod it!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> :
>>> That's where I
>>> think this is going - evil done in good's name is still evil.
>>
>> Except that, as you said, it's for some value of 'good', which almost
>> certainly isn't one any of the characters or the audience will agree
>> with.
>> So I really don't see how that can work.
>>
>>
> What, no suffering and an end to evil people? An enormous amount of
> Christains would disagree with you.
So said Christians would believe that when God created man, he should
never have given him free will in the first place, and thus we would never
have been kicked out of the Garden of Eden.
Not that I'm an expert or anything, but I really don't think that's true.
Dan
Jonathan Dupont
I wasn't talking about Earth. :)
Heaven - where no more suffering blah blah blah and all evil people
nicely sent away to hell. Everyone worships without question one being.
Many people find that an attractive idea, even if maybe they haven't
thought it through and don't realise the lack of choice.
Jon
Tan Coul
wrote:
>OK, now that was cool.
>
>Bastards!
OK, you remember we never agree on anything Gunnar?
Scratch that this time round - that was possibly the coolest thing
since Lyons Maid stopped marketing icebergs on sticks.
--
www.oscartelos.co.uk
The best Chester Zoo photo website ever made by a cat (probably.)
Last updated March 13th 2003
Millan
Wesley made some choices that were a bit too harsh, but the end
justifies the means according to the Watcher's Counsil. I don't agree
with everything he does, but even when he crosses the line he does it
for a greater good (in his opinion).
Connor made some dumb choices because he's got no will of his own and
is easily manipulated. He's an idiot, but not evil.
"Birthpangs" is not a really good excuse in my mind...
> >>> That wasn't really my point. She's done many things we would
> >>> consider evil, and the only evidence we have that she's good is the
> >>> fact that she spouts cheesy dialogue, and that she said so.
> >>
> >> For what value of 'good', though? That's *my* point. There is nothing
> >> - *nothing* - that she has done since being 'born' that indicates
> >> that she's evil.
> >
> > And many things done before that to indicate she was. I mean, really,
> > were the Beast and Evil!Cordy too subtle for you?
>
> The Beast who destroyed all Wolfram & Hart? I mean, seriously, apart
> from a few necessary (in her POV) sacrifices, he wasn't as nearly as bad
> as he could have been. Cordy did what had to be done to get her child.
Blocking out the sun, making the environment a playground for
vampires...
> >> On the other hand, the
> >> suggestion that she's come to remake paradise is *still* downright
> >> terrifying because she's doing it by taking away people's choices.
> >> She's decided that she knows best.
> >>
> >> That's where I see the parallels with early-S4 Wesley.
> >
> > It's not that she's taking away peoples choices in order to create
> > paradise, though, it's that her paradise *depends* on people having no
> > choice. The removal of their free will is not just a means, it's also
> > at least part of the end.
> >
> > So I don't really see the parallels with Wesley at all. His actions
> > were certainly questionable, but his goals - protecting Connor,
> > rescuing Angel, finding Angelus, weren't.
>
> He protected Connor by not telling any of the rest of AI. He hunted for
> Angel, again without consulting Fred & Gunn. He's a loner, thinking that
> only he can sort things out - thus parallels.
He hunted for Angel without consulting Fred & Gunn.
Not simply because he's a loner, but because he had his throat cut and
all his friends abandon him.
I mean, he screwed up, sure! Yell at him, fight with him, be very
angry and upset with him, but listen to why he did it! Let him atone
for what he's done and don't abandon him!
> Jon
/Millan
"I was dying. I knew it laying in that dirty field, life pouring out
of my throat. Do you know why I fought to stay alive? I needed to live
to see my friends again. To explain to the people I trusted... and
loved... my side of what happened."
- Wesley, 'Double or Nothing'
Niall Harrison
> Jonathan Dupont <jonatha...@hotblahmail.com> wrote:
>> "Dan Milburn" <daniel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:pan.2003.04.11....@hotmail.com:
>>
>> >>>>>>> or
>>
>> >>>>>>> write a review
>>
>> >>>>>>> or
>>
>> >>>>>>> go to bed
>>
>> >>>>>>> or...
>>
>> >>>>>>> sod it!
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>> :
>> >>>>>>> :
> Wesley made some choices that were a bit too harsh, but the end
> justifies the means according to the Watcher's Counsil. I don't agree
> with everything he does, but even when he crosses the line he does it
> for a greater good (in his opinion).
*nods*
Yes, that's it, exactly. In his opinion. And I think Jasmine has the same
MO, but on a much, much larger scale.
<snip how Wesley went beige, 'cause I've no interest in rehashing that
debate again...>
> "I was dying. I knew it laying in that dirty field, life pouring out
> of my throat. Do you know why I fought to stay alive? I needed to live
> to see my friends again. To explain to the people I trusted... and
> loved... my side of what happened."
> - Wesley, 'Double or Nothing'
That comes from 'The Price', actually.
Millan
> Tafka wrote:
> > I want names, I want places, I want dates.
> > 15:25:33 +0200:
> >
> >
> >>Andrew Cameron wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Gunnar Harboe" <gh...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >>>news:mr999vcqevpgd9v71...@4ax.com...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Bastards!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>survived it all,
> >
>
> Just DIE, dammit!
Not sure if I dare voice my disagreement in the face of such massive
agreement, but I'm happy she's not dead (yet)! [Ducks]
No, I haven't liked her character this season, but I have loved her in
the past.
I would very much like it if she gets at least a teensy bit of screen
time as the "old" Cordy, just to show that she's there. After that,
she could die or live on, depending on the story-line and wether she
feels genuine or not.
It's just that I'd be sad to see the last of her as this season's
version.
> Mattia
/Millan
"I'm Cordelia, I don't think, I know. Okay?"
- Cordelia, 'Heartthrob'
Neil Hopkins
Since when was death ever a hindrance to a character appearing on
Buffy or Angel? You can have flashbacks, dream sequences, good or evil
constructs, alternate realities, vampires, robots ... have I missed
any? Bring on the CordyBot!
--
neil h.
Anya : "I provide much needed sarcasm"
Shuggie
>
>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Millan wrote:
>> Jonathan Dupont <jonatha...@hotblahmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Dan Milburn" <daniel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:pan.2003.04.11....@hotmail.com:
>
>>>
>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>
>>> >>>>>>> write a review
>>>
>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>
>>> >>>>>>> go to bed
>>>
>>> >>>>>>> or...
>>>
>>> >>>>>>> sod it!
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> :
>>> >>>>>>> :
>>> >>>>>>> :
>>> >>>>>>> :
>>> >>>>>>> :
>>> >>>>>>> :
>>> >>>>>>> :
>>> >>>>>>> :
>>> >>>>>>> :
>>> >>>>>>> :
>>> >>>>>>> :
>>> >>>>>>> :
>>> >>>>>>> :
>>> >>>>>>> :
>>> >>>>>>> :
>>> >>>>>>> :
>>> >>>>>>> :
>>> >>>>>>> :
>>> >>>>>>> :
>>> >>>>>>> :
>>> >>>>>>> :
>
>> Wesley made some choices that were a bit too harsh, but the end
>> justifies the means according to the Watcher's Counsil. I don't agree
>> with everything he does, but even when he crosses the line he does it
>> for a greater good (in his opinion).
>
>*nods*
>
>Yes, that's it, exactly. In his opinion. And I think Jasmine has the same
>MO, but on a much, much larger scale.
>
So what do you make of what Fred saw? Of the guy with the dodgy face?
I just can't see where you can go dramatically if she's not evil. We're about 4
episodes short of them being able to live happily ever after - so something's
got to go wrong with Jasmine's scheme either way. If she's good and her plan
fails then it's a bit of bummer - "we almost had world peace and a golden age -
but oops we didn't quite make it".
I think Jasmine is just biding her time. This purge the streets of vamps and
demons crusade she's leading is all very wholesome, but it's also clearing out
any evil competition - sorta like what the Beast did to W&H. My guess is that
Jasmine just wants to be the only show in town when it comes to Evil.
Millan
Grrr, I know! Realized my mistake just as I hit Send.
So sorry!
/Millan
"I hate failure when there's no one else to blame it on."
- Lindsey, 'Five by Five'
Niall Harrison
>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Millan wrote:
>>> Jonathan Dupont <jonatha...@hotblahmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Dan Milburn" <daniel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:pan.2003.04.11....@hotmail.com:
>>
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> write a review
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> go to bed
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> or...
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> sod it!
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>
>>> Wesley made some choices that were a bit too harsh, but the end
>>> justifies the means according to the Watcher's Counsil. I don't agree
>>> with everything he does, but even when he crosses the line he does it
>>> for a greater good (in his opinion).
>>
>>*nods*
>>
>>Yes, that's it, exactly. In his opinion. And I think Jasmine has the same
>>MO, but on a much, much larger scale.
>
> So what do you make of what Fred saw? Of the guy with the dodgy face?
What about him? Jasmine's touch caused his face to get messed up. Doesn't
mean she's not good.
Gwen's touch causes people to die. Doesn't mean she can't be good.
> I just can't see where you can go dramatically if she's not evil. We're about 4
> episodes short of them being able to live happily ever after - so something's
> got to go wrong with Jasmine's scheme either way. If she's good and her plan
> fails then it's a bit of bummer - "we almost had world peace and a golden age -
> but oops we didn't quite make it".
I think the problem with be the price: Jasmine can give the world peace
and a golden age - but the world doesn't have a choice in the matter.
Individuals no longer have a choice in the matter.
My guess is that after an age of watching the pain and suffering in the
world, Jasmine considers that a reasonable trade. My guess is that the
rest of the world (or at least, the parts that aren't dazzled by her
glory) won't be so impressed.
> My guess is that Jasmine just wants to be the only show in town when it
> comes to Evil.
That sounds awfully conventional to me. I hope you're wrong.
Niall
--
But is it art?
Gunnar Harboe
wrote:
>In article <10503156...@urchin.earth.li>, Niall says...
>>
>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Millan wrote:
>>> Jonathan Dupont <jonatha...@hotblahmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Dan Milburn" <daniel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:pan.2003.04.11....@hotmail.com:
>>
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> write a review
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> go to bed
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> or...
>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> sod it!
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>
>>> Wesley made some choices that were a bit too harsh, but the end
>>> justifies the means according to the Watcher's Counsil. I don't agree
>>> with everything he does, but even when he crosses the line he does it
>>> for a greater good (in his opinion).
>>
>>*nods*
>>
>>Yes, that's it, exactly. In his opinion. And I think Jasmine has the same
>>MO, but on a much, much larger scale.
>>
>
>So what do you make of what Fred saw? Of the guy with the dodgy face?
>
>I just can't see where you can go dramatically if she's not evil. We're about 4
>episodes short of them being able to live happily ever after - so something's
>got to go wrong with Jasmine's scheme either way. If she's good and her plan
>fails then it's a bit of bummer - "we almost had world peace and a golden age -
>but oops we didn't quite make it".
What wrong with that, dramatically? Why should we be hoping for an
unambiguous triumph of good over evil?
And don't you have a problem with what Jasmine's doing if she has no
ulterior motive?
>I think Jasmine is just biding her time. This purge the streets of vamps and
>demons crusade she's leading is all very wholesome, but it's also clearing out
>any evil competition - sorta like what the Beast did to W&H. My guess is that
>Jasmine just wants to be the only show in town when it comes to Evil.
That sounds so boring. I hope you're wrong.
Shuggie
>
>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Shuggie wrote:
>> In article <10503156...@urchin.earth.li>, Niall says...
>>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Millan wrote:
>>>> Jonathan Dupont <jonatha...@hotblahmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Dan Milburn" <daniel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:pan.2003.04.11....@hotmail.com:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> write a review
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> go to bed
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> or...
>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> sod it!
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>
>>>> Wesley made some choices that were a bit too harsh, but the end
>>>> justifies the means according to the Watcher's Counsil. I don't agree
>>>> with everything he does, but even when he crosses the line he does it
>>>> for a greater good (in his opinion).
>>>
>>>*nods*
>>>
>>>Yes, that's it, exactly. In his opinion. And I think Jasmine has the same
>>>MO, but on a much, much larger scale.
>>
>> So what do you make of what Fred saw? Of the guy with the dodgy face?
>
>What about him? Jasmine's touch caused his face to get messed up. Doesn't
>mean she's not good.
>
Why show it to us in the way they did otherwise?
>Gwen's touch causes people to die. Doesn't mean she can't be good.
>
True enough.
So the best we can say about Jasmine right now is that she's destructive and
doesn't know it. But if she is who she says she is, she would know it.
>>I just can't see where you can go dramatically if she's not evil. We're about 4
>> episodes short of them being able to live happily ever after - so something's
>> got to go wrong with Jasmine's scheme either way. If she's good and her plan
>>fails then it's a bit of bummer - "we almost had world peace and a golden age -
>> but oops we didn't quite make it".
>
>I think the problem with be the price: Jasmine can give the world peace
>and a golden age - but the world doesn't have a choice in the matter.
>Individuals no longer have a choice in the matter.
>
If Jasmine is going to make the world into anything without giving the world a
choice then I find it hard to call her good.
>My guess is that after an age of watching the pain and suffering in the
>world, Jasmine considers that a reasonable trade. My guess is that the
>rest of the world (or at least, the parts that aren't dazzled by her
>glory) won't be so impressed.
>
Oh dear god - you mean it's the Star Trek V ending! Please god Noooooooooooo!
>> My guess is that Jasmine just wants to be the only show in town when it
>> comes to Evil.
>
>That sounds awfully conventional to me. I hope you're wrong.
>
Doesn't have to be. Even if it is I prefer it to Jasmine is good for a number of
reasons.
Plus we haven't talked about the hundreds of people who've died horribly to get
us to this point. Jasmine was behind that and so far she's waved it away with a
line no-one would have bought for a second if they weren't feeling all
worshippy.
More importantly it's just bad storytelling. First we think Cordy's good but
then it turns out she's bad killing and sending the beast out killing. Then it
turns out she's still good it's the thing inside her making her bad. But then
the thing inside her comes out, Jasmine, and she's all good making them all
happy 'n' shiny. But then Fred sees worms and a guys face is messed up so
Jasmine's looking bad (which makes sense cos of all the killing). But then it
turns out she's good - she's killing us cos she knows what's best....
If that's what it takes to not be boring - give me boring.
--
Shug
Shuggie
Because it's too downbeat an ending.
>Why should we be hoping for an
>unambiguous triumph of good over evil?
>
Not unambiguous, but there should be some resolution. Good triumphing over evil
is better than the mundane triumphing over the spectacular.
>And don't you have a problem with what Jasmine's doing if she has no
>ulterior motive?
But I do think she has an ulterior motive. I think she's evil.
If she's got no ulterior motive. If she truly believes that she's ushering in a
new golden age - at the cost of hundreds of deaths and the freewill of the world
- then she's still evil. Not only is she evil but she's incredibly naive and
shortsighted and almost certainly therefore not a PTB as she claims.
>
>>I think Jasmine is just biding her time. This purge the streets of vamps and
>>demons crusade she's leading is all very wholesome, but it's also clearing out
>>any evil competition - sorta like what the Beast did to W&H. My guess is that
>>Jasmine just wants to be the only show in town when it comes to Evil.
>
>That sounds so boring. I hope you're wrong.
The alternative is too hideous to comtemplate - Star Trek V.
--
Shug
Tan Coul
wrote:
>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Shuggie wrote:
Bing-, and indeed -O. Or at least that was my take on it, as well - if
she's out and out evil she's got a very strange modus operandus,
considering she already has just about the entire world in thrall. If
we're wrong, and Shug's right, I will be rather disillusioned.
Tan Coul
wrote:
>In article <10503156...@urchin.earth.li>, Niall says...
Or possibly it's a follow-up to Cordy's 'what is good' speech in 4x17
- Jasmine is good, but defined in her own terms and brooking no other,
much like, say, certain fundamentalist religiuos sects (or world
leaders, for that matter) - if there is no option but to be good, then
how is good defined?
Iain Clark
wrote:
>In article <10503291...@urchin.earth.li>, Niall says...
>>
>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Shuggie wrote:
>>> In article <10503156...@urchin.earth.li>, Niall says...
>>>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Millan wrote:
>>>>> Jonathan Dupont <jonatha...@hotblahmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Dan Milburn" <daniel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:pan.2003.04.11....@hotmail.com:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> write a review
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> go to bed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> or...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> sod it!
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>
>>> So what do you make of what Fred saw? Of the guy with the dodgy face?
>>
>>What about him? Jasmine's touch caused his face to get messed up. Doesn't
>>mean she's not good.
>
>Why show it to us in the way they did otherwise?
>
Because they're playing on the Invasion of the Body Snatchers riff,
and because it's disturbing and cool. Doesn't mean Jasmine isn't good
- just that she's a threat.
>>>
>If Jasmine is going to make the world into anything without giving the world a
>choice then I find it hard to call her good.
>
This is the whole point of this theory. That she is a "good" being
who *believes* that she's doing good, but that she's essentially
fallen from grace - in losing perspective her "good" acts are
destructive and evil, but she can't see it.
>>My guess is that after an age of watching the pain and suffering in the
>>world, Jasmine considers that a reasonable trade. My guess is that the
>>rest of the world (or at least, the parts that aren't dazzled by her
>>glory) won't be so impressed.
>>
>
>Oh dear god - you mean it's the Star Trek V ending! Please god Noooooooooooo!
>
Hang on - *your* version of the ending is the Trek V one: apparently
godlike being turns out to be evil.
Having the being actually *be* good, but in such a fascistic way that
essentially its actions amount to an denial of freedom of choice, is a
much more interesting idea. Jasmine would remain a "good" being, but
by most standards her actions are received as "evil".
>Plus we haven't talked about the hundreds of people who've died horribly to get
>us to this point. Jasmine was behind that and so far she's waved it away with a
>line no-one would have bought for a second if they weren't feeling all
>worshippy.
>
I think the lead up to her "birth" is problematic. It can be
explained, though, as necessary minor evils creating the events
required for a greater good. My guess is that this is Jasmine's view
of it.
>More importantly it's just bad storytelling. First we think Cordy's good but
>then it turns out she's bad killing and sending the beast out killing. Then it
>turns out she's still good it's the thing inside her making her bad. But then
>the thing inside her comes out, Jasmine, and she's all good making them all
>happy 'n' shiny. But then Fred sees worms and a guys face is messed up so
>Jasmine's looking bad (which makes sense cos of all the killing). But then it
>turns out she's good - she's killing us cos she knows what's best....
>
>If that's what it takes to not be boring - give me boring.
You're implying that the journey has no value - it's the end result
that matters. But I see nothing contradictory or self-defeating in a
twisty turny plot full of genuine mystery and evil dangers, in which
it turns out there's a deeper good being intended. The evil was still
evil. And, ultimately, you can bet that Angel and co will end up
fighting against Jasmine even if she's nominally "good".
Iain
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet?
Gunnar Harboe
wrote:
>In article <sojl9v40ig14ehph2...@4ax.com>, Gunnar says...
>>
>>On 14 Apr 2003 06:04:31 -0700, Shuggie <Shuggie...@newsguy.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <10503156...@urchin.earth.li>, Niall says...
>>>>
>>>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Millan wrote:
>>>>> Jonathan Dupont <jonatha...@hotblahmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Dan Milburn" <daniel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:pan.2003.04.11....@hotmail.com:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> write a review
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> go to bed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> or...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> sod it!
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>I just can't see where you can go dramatically if she's not evil. We're about 4
>>>episodes short of them being able to live happily ever after - so something's
>>>got to go wrong with Jasmine's scheme either way. If she's good and her plan
>>>fails then it's a bit of bummer - "we almost had world peace and a golden age -
>>>but oops we didn't quite make it".
>>
>>What wrong with that, dramatically?
I'd like to point out that I wrote that post before Niall posted his.
Just had some difficulty with my connection which delayed my post. Any
similarity between them is completely coincidental.
>Because it's too downbeat an ending.
I don't think narrowly escaping "peace and a golden age" which would be
at the expense of free will is a very downbeat ending at all.
>>Why should we be hoping for an
>>unambiguous triumph of good over evil?
>
>Not unambiguous, but there should be some resolution. Good triumphing over evil
>is better than the mundane triumphing over the spectacular.
I don't agree.
>>And don't you have a problem with what Jasmine's doing if she has no
>>ulterior motive?
>
>But I do think she has an ulterior motive. I think she's evil.
>
>If she's got no ulterior motive. If she truly believes that she's ushering in a
>new golden age - at the cost of hundreds of deaths and the freewill of the world
Not "believes". "Is". If she *is* ushering in a new golden age.
>- then she's still evil. Not only is she evil but she's incredibly naive and
>shortsighted and almost certainly therefore not a PTB as she claims.
She may be evil in the sense that we don't approve of her actions. But
you must admit that she's not evil in the same way as she is if your
theory is right.
I think it would actually be really interesting to put the two slightly
different notions of Good up against each other. The Buffy&Angelverse
has some kind of higher law or authority that determines Good and Evil.
Up until now those ideas have agreed more or less with our commonsense
notions of good and evil.
But what if "Good" as defined by the PTB (or whoever) no longer
resembles "good" as we understand it? What if AI have to come to terms
with a universe where they *don't like* the Forces of Good?
(It'd be a bit like 'Hellblazer' or 'Preacher', where most angels are
real assholes, and God a really rather shady character.)
Among other things, it might make a nice metaphor for victorious
revolutionaries having to come to terms with the suffering inherent in
the logic of their ideology.
Shuggie
<iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote:
>On 14 Apr 2003 10:39:15 -0700, Shuggie <Shuggie...@newsguy.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <10503291...@urchin.earth.li>, Niall says...
>>>
>>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Shuggie wrote:
>>>> In article <10503156...@urchin.earth.li>, Niall says...
>>>>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Millan wrote:
>>>>>> Jonathan Dupont <jonatha...@hotblahmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "Dan Milburn" <daniel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:pan.2003.04.11....@hotmail.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> write a review
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> go to bed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> sod it!
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>
>
>>>> So what do you make of what Fred saw? Of the guy with the dodgy face?
>>>
>>>What about him? Jasmine's touch caused his face to get messed up. Doesn't
>>>mean she's not good.
>>
>>Why show it to us in the way they did otherwise?
>>
>
>Because they're playing on the Invasion of the Body Snatchers riff,
>and because it's disturbing and cool. Doesn't mean Jasmine isn't good
>- just that she's a threat.
>
If she's good she's not a threat. But she is therefore she is.
>>>>
>>If Jasmine is going to make the world into anything without giving the world a
>>choice then I find it hard to call her good.
>>
>
>This is the whole point of this theory. That she is a "good" being
>who *believes* that she's doing good, but that she's essentially
>fallen from grace - in losing perspective her "good" acts are
>destructive and evil, but she can't see it.
>
>>>My guess is that after an age of watching the pain and suffering in the
>>>world, Jasmine considers that a reasonable trade. My guess is that the
>>>rest of the world (or at least, the parts that aren't dazzled by her
>>>glory) won't be so impressed.
>>>
>>
>>Oh dear god - you mean it's the Star Trek V ending! Please god Noooooooooooo!
>>
>
>Hang on - *your* version of the ending is the Trek V one: apparently
>godlike being turns out to be evil.
>
>Having the being actually *be* good, but in such a fascistic way that
>essentially its actions amount to an denial of freedom of choice, is a
>much more interesting idea. Jasmine would remain a "good" being, but
>by most standards her actions are received as "evil".
>
That's just evil by another name. "good ... in .. a fascistic way" -
is an oxymoron.
>>Plus we haven't talked about the hundreds of people who've died horribly to get
>>us to this point. Jasmine was behind that and so far she's waved it away with a
>>line no-one would have bought for a second if they weren't feeling all
>>worshippy.
>>
>
>I think the lead up to her "birth" is problematic. It can be
>explained, though, as necessary minor evils creating the events
>required for a greater good. My guess is that this is Jasmine's view
>of it.
Which is complete BS. The death of hundreds of people on the basis
that she's going to make the world a better place eventually is way
beyond "end justifies the means". If there had been some definite
immediate danger that those deaths could prevent then maybe it would
be justifiable.
>
>>More importantly it's just bad storytelling. First we think Cordy's good but
>>then it turns out she's bad killing and sending the beast out killing. Then it
>>turns out she's still good it's the thing inside her making her bad. But then
>>the thing inside her comes out, Jasmine, and she's all good making them all
>>happy 'n' shiny. But then Fred sees worms and a guys face is messed up so
>>Jasmine's looking bad (which makes sense cos of all the killing). But then it
>>turns out she's good - she's killing us cos she knows what's best....
>>
>>If that's what it takes to not be boring - give me boring.
>
>You're implying that the journey has no value - it's the end result
>that matters.
No. I'm saying that if you keeping reversing the meaning of what we
see, eventually we stop caring.
> But I see nothing contradictory or self-defeating in a
>twisty turny plot full of genuine mystery and evil dangers, in which
>it turns out there's a deeper good being intended. The evil was still
>evil. And, ultimately, you can bet that Angel and co will end up
>fighting against Jasmine even if she's nominally "good".
>
I'm sure of it. And in order to fight her they'll be convinced that
her aims are not for the greater good.
--
Shug
Cordelia: I'm the Dip
Xander: Uhh, you gotta admire the purity of it.
Iain Clark
<shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Apr 2003 19:33:32 +0100, Iain Clark
><iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote:
>
>>On 14 Apr 2003 10:39:15 -0700, Shuggie <Shuggie...@newsguy.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In article <10503291...@urchin.earth.li>, Niall says...
>>>>
>>>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Shuggie wrote:
>>>>> In article <10503156...@urchin.earth.li>, Niall says...
>>>>>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Millan wrote:
>>>>>>> Jonathan Dupont <jonatha...@hotblahmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Dan Milburn" <daniel...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:pan.2003.04.11....@hotmail.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> write a review
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> go to bed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> sod it!
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
<Is Jasmine good or evil?>
>>Having the being actually *be* good, but in such a fascistic way that
>>essentially its actions amount to an denial of freedom of choice, is a
>>much more interesting idea. Jasmine would remain a "good" being, but
>>by most standards her actions are received as "evil".
>
>That's just evil by another name. "good ... in .. a fascistic way" -
>is an oxymoron.
>
We're talking semantics, really. You're defining anything that causes
death and harm, and which Angel and co fight against, as "evil". I
don't disagree, as such.
The difference here is that I don't believe Jasmine considers herself
"evil". In fact, I think she considers herself "good", maybe even the
ultimate "good". I think she's trying to save the world. Really.
Her goals are noble, pure, and sincere. It's just that she can't see
that the means of achieving them are evil (from a human perspective),
because she's operating on too grand a scale. Calling her "good" is a
way to distinguish her essential nature and motives from all of the
other creatures that have done evil in the Buffyverse.
Plus I think she may actually *be* an ex-higher power and ex-force for
good.. Just a misguided one.
So although you can apply the term "evil" to her, it's still accurate
to say that she's "good" on many levels. Unfortunately she's "good"
taken to such an extreme that it no longer fits human standards of
morality.
Iain
--
"Could you learn to read minds?
In the case of mine do you read in the dark?"
Gunnar Harboe
><iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote:
>>On 14 Apr 2003 10:39:15 -0700, Shuggie <Shuggie...@newsguy.com>
>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> write a review
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> go to bed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> sod it!
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>
>>Hang on - *your* version of the ending is the Trek V one: apparently
>>godlike being turns out to be evil.
>>
>>Having the being actually *be* good, but in such a fascistic way that
>>essentially its actions amount to an denial of freedom of choice, is a
>>much more interesting idea. Jasmine would remain a "good" being, but
>>by most standards her actions are received as "evil".
>
>That's just evil by another name. "good ... in .. a fascistic way" -
>is an oxymoron.
I suspect you are newly human and strangely literal-minded. :)
We're saying she may be "good" in the sense that her ultimate goals are
peace on earth, the destruction of all evil (demons, vampires and that
sort of thing, except the good ones like Lorne and Angel), and an
eternity of Stepford-like bliss.
I think we all agree that she is at best misguided and destructive, that
her actions are evil.
Shuggie
Evil people rarely do. Do you think Hitler considered himself evil? He too
thought he was ushering in a golden age and that the price was worth the reward.
Much more evil is done by people who believe they're making the world a better
place than by those that believe themselves to be evil.
Though I suppose this is not so true in the Buffyverse, where there are
creatures evil by nature whose motives are destruction.
I still think the jury's out on Jasmine's true motives. But if her aim is to
bring about peace on earth and goodwill to all men and these are her methods -
then she's not only evil but unbelievably stupid.
Shuggie
At best she's that, I agree. Although I'm still not sure her motives are as pure
as you think.
Also if it's obvious to a mere mortal like myself how destructive her methods
are then how can it not be to a PTB?
For example, how many people had to die in the rain of fire/blotting out the sun
episode? And the only way I can see that that served her plan was to get Cordy
to a point where she was ready to sleep with Connor. Surely there were other
ways to do that? Less costly in terms of human life?
Maybe that's the key to all this. Maybe she does want an end to all the death
and destruction, but maybe she just doesn't care about the cost. Think Buffy in
the Gift - no matter what she's not going to let anyone kill Dawn, even though
the cost was stupidly high. Suppose Jasmine has decided she's going to have her
brave new world no matter what. Suppose she doesn't care about who or how many
she has to kill, so long as those that are left are 'happy'. That's kinda
twisted and yet could be interesting.
Of course, then we're no longer dealing with a stupid or misguided, or even
evil, PTB. We're then dealing with an insane one.
Niall Harrison
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> write a review
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> go to bed
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> sod it!
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>
>>
>><Is Jasmine good or evil?>
>>
>>We're talking semantics, really. You're defining anything that causes
>>death and harm, and which Angel and co fight against, as "evil". I
>>don't disagree, as such.
>>
>>The difference here is that I don't believe Jasmine considers herself
>>"evil".
>
> Evil people rarely do.
[...]
> Though I suppose this is not so true in the Buffyverse, where there are
> creatures evil by nature whose motives are destruction.
Bingo. The Master? Evil. Angelus? Evil. The Mayor? Evil. Adam? Confused,
but badly written so he pretty much seemed evil. Glory? Evil. Warren? I
actually don't think he'd have trouble characterising himself as evil. The
First Evil? Well...
_Angel_'s antagonists have traditionally been more ambiguous, it's true.
That's one reason I (by and large) have preferred them. Darla was all over
the shop. Holtz was clearly a good man. One of the weaknesses of S4 so
far, IMO, is that the antagonists - The Beast, Angelus, Cordelia - have
been clearly bad. If they want to now turn around and try to explain
Jasmine's point of view, to show us why she thinks she's Good - well, I'm
all for it, frankly.
> I still think the jury's out on Jasmine's true motives. But if her aim is to
> bring about peace on earth and goodwill to all men and these are her methods -
> then she's not only evil but unbelievably stupid.
Explain to me the gaping flaw in her plan given that anyone who looks at
her is immediately entranced?
Even if AI (as is surely inevitable) break free, they're still going to
have a hell of a job on their hands. It will quite literally be AI against
the world.
Niall
--
Rockin' the suburbs.
Niall Harrison
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
> Of course, then we're no longer dealing with a stupid or misguided, or even
> evil, PTB. We're then dealing with an insane one.
I can get behind that. :)
Niall
--
Verbing weirds language.
Shuggie
wrote:
>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Shuggie wrote:
>> In article <7fdm9vkre20soccln...@4ax.com>, Iain says...
>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> write a review
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> go to bed
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> sod it!
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>
>>>
<snip>
>> I still think the jury's out on Jasmine's true motives. But if her aim is to
>> bring about peace on earth and goodwill to all men and these are her methods -
>> then she's not only evil but unbelievably stupid.
>
>Explain to me the gaping flaw in her plan given that anyone who looks at
>her is immediately entranced?
>
It's not her plan which shows her stupid, it's her ability to believe
herself good in spite of all the death she's brought. As I argued
elsewhere it's not just that she's killed and allowed to be killed,
it's that she seems to have taken little care to minimise those
deaths.
Maybe stupid is not quite the right word, but she's got one heck of a
moral blindspot. Which for a supposed PTB is stretching plausibility.
--
Shug
No bumpy foreheads, no living long, no prospering. It's really a way of saying that in the future people will be exactly the same as they are now... only you know, they'll have spaceships
- Joss on Firefly
Gunnar Harboe
Actually, I would argue that a higher being would necessarily have a
different perspective on things, and therefore not see morals in our
terms. IMO, what's stretching plausibility is a PTB who conforms to our
notions of good and evil.
Not to go all Nietschean, but it's a little bit like asserting that to
be an ethical person is exactly like being an ethical cat (you know, the
kind of cat other cats like and admire). So torturing small animals for
fun is perfectly all right, but forcing your kids to bathe is
despicable. Hmmm... that's possibly not quite how Nietsche would put it.
:)
OK, like how when you're a five year-old, it's wrong to tell a lie.
Doesn't matter what the circumstances are, it's just wrong. But as you
get older, you realise that some truths are hurtful and destructive, and
that it's sometimes better to tell a white lie.
I don't think Jasmine (assuming she's not demonic-evil) has a "moral
blind spot", like you put it. I think she's well aware of your
objections. It's only that to her, they sound like the reasoning of a
five year-old. Or a cat.
Shuggie
wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 20:22:13 +0100, Shuggie
><shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 15 Apr 2003 13:56:23 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Shuggie wrote:
>>>> In article <7fdm9vkre20soccln...@4ax.com>, Iain says...
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> write a review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> go to bed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> sod it!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>
>>It's not her plan which shows her stupid, it's her ability to believe
>>herself good in spite of all the death she's brought. As I argued
>>elsewhere it's not just that she's killed and allowed to be killed,
>>it's that she seems to have taken little care to minimise those
>>deaths.
>>
>>Maybe stupid is not quite the right word, but she's got one heck of a
>>moral blindspot. Which for a supposed PTB is stretching plausibility.
>
>Actually, I would argue that a higher being would necessarily have a
>different perspective on things, and therefore not see morals in our
>terms.
But the PTBs on _Angel_ have always had a recognisably similar
morality to our own. They've sent Angel to rescue and protect people,
to fight against EETs.
> IMO, what's stretching plausibility is a PTB who conforms to our
>notions of good and evil.
>
Well most religions pretty much define good and evil based on what
they believe to be their PTB's notion of those concepts.
>Not to go all Nietschean, but it's a little bit like asserting that to
>be an ethical person is exactly like being an ethical cat (you know, the
>kind of cat other cats like and admire). So torturing small animals for
>fun is perfectly all right, but forcing your kids to bathe is
>despicable. Hmmm... that's possibly not quite how Nietsche would put it.
>:)
>
>OK, like how when you're a five year-old, it's wrong to tell a lie.
>Doesn't matter what the circumstances are, it's just wrong. But as you
>get older, you realise that some truths are hurtful and destructive, and
>that it's sometimes better to tell a white lie.
>
>I don't think Jasmine (assuming she's not demonic-evil) has a "moral
>blind spot", like you put it. I think she's well aware of your
>objections. It's only that to her, they sound like the reasoning of a
>five year-old. Or a cat.
That's all well and good, but in a way I think we're back to
semantics. When I said she was evil, I was judging her based on my
human morality. She's 'evil' based on my human morality. I don't have
the benefit of her perspective. Due to lack of information I don't
have even the possibility of trying to understand it from her
perspective. All the information I have about PTBs in the Angelverse
makes me think their morality is similar to mine. It may well be that
it's very different, but I don't know how.
Which is a long winded way of saying that whilst it's possible that
she believes herself 'good' based on her own standards, to mine she's
still 'evil'. Which I think perhaps you might agree with.
--
Shug
"To look at her you'd never guess,
that she could hurt so bad in such a beautiful dress"
- Tonio K, Living Doll
Iain Clark
<shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 21:06:44 +0100, Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 20:22:13 +0100, Shuggie
>><shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On 15 Apr 2003 13:56:23 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Shuggie wrote:
>>>>> In article <7fdm9vkre20soccln...@4ax.com>, Iain says...
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> write a review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> go to bed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> sod it!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>I don't think Jasmine (assuming she's not demonic-evil) has a "moral
>>blind spot", like you put it. I think she's well aware of your
>>objections. It's only that to her, they sound like the reasoning of a
>>five year-old. Or a cat.
>
>That's all well and good, but in a way I think we're back to
>semantics. When I said she was evil, I was judging her based on my
>human morality. She's 'evil' based on my human morality. I don't have
>the benefit of her perspective. Due to lack of information I don't
>have even the possibility of trying to understand it from her
>perspective. All the information I have about PTBs in the Angelverse
>makes me think their morality is similar to mine. It may well be that
>it's very different, but I don't know how.
>
>Which is a long winded way of saying that whilst it's possible that
>she believes herself 'good' based on her own standards, to mine she's
>still 'evil'. Which I think perhaps you might agree with.
Fair enough, but this brings us right back to the start of the thread,
in which you found her predictable because of her evilness, where
others are finding her more nuanced, because we think she's really a
deluded good person, not an out-and-out evil person who is
deliberately feigning goodness for her own ends.
Iain
--
"I've this creeping suspicion
That things here are not as they seem."
Shuggie
<iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 22:18:38 +0100, Shuggie
><shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 21:06:44 +0100, Gunnar Harboe <gh...@cam.ac.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 20:22:13 +0100, Shuggie
>>><shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 15 Apr 2003 13:56:23 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Shuggie wrote:
>>>>>> In article <7fdm9vkre20soccln...@4ax.com>, Iain says...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> write a review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> go to bed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> or...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> sod it!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>><snip>
>
>>Which is a long winded way of saying that whilst it's possible that
>>she believes herself 'good' based on her own standards, to mine she's
>>still 'evil'. Which I think perhaps you might agree with.
>
>Fair enough, but this brings us right back to the start of the thread,
>in which you found her predictable because of her evilness,
I never said I thought her predictable because of evilness. If I said
anything that sounded like that then I expressed myself badly.
>where
>others are finding her more nuanced, because we think she's really a
>deluded good person,
Gunnar, if I've not misunderstood him, believes her 'good' but only by
the moral standard of a PTB, which is different to human moral
standards and possibly incomprehensible to us (see 'ethical cats' :).
I accept that it's possible for a higher being to have a different
perspective and different ethics. Since ME have given me no clue as to
what they are, and since I'm speaking from my own pov, :) , when I say
she's evil I'm using my own moral standards.
>not an out-and-out evil person who is
>deliberately feigning goodness for her own ends.
>
But if Gunnar's right then she's feigning 'human goodness' for her
real aims of 'PTB goodness'. If not, if human good = PTB good, then
she has a moral blindspot, or is stupid, misguided, or preferably,
insane.
--
Shug
"Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya, prepare to die."
Iain Clark
<shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
Sorry - just meaning that you seemed to feel that it was only a matter
of time before Jasmine was "revealed" as evil, whereas it remains a
little more interesting if you assume that she's good, but misguided.
>>where
>>others are finding her more nuanced, because we think she's really a
>>deluded good person,
>
>Gunnar, if I've not misunderstood him, believes her 'good' but only by
>the moral standard of a PTB, which is different to human moral
>standards and possibly incomprehensible to us (see 'ethical cats' :).
>I accept that it's possible for a higher being to have a different
>perspective and different ethics. Since ME have given me no clue as to
>what they are, and since I'm speaking from my own pov, :) , when I say
>she's evil I'm using my own moral standards.
>
>>not an out-and-out evil person who is
>>deliberately feigning goodness for her own ends.
>>
>
>But if Gunnar's right then she's feigning 'human goodness' for her
>real aims of 'PTB goodness'. If not, if human good = PTB good, then
>she has a moral blindspot, or is stupid, misguided, or preferably,
>insane.
Actually I think she has a huge moral blindspot, however you choose to
define that.
I also think that the other PTBs would come down on her like a ton of
bricks if they knew what she was doing and were able to do so. In
fact, I wonder if Fred hasn't been "called" by the PTB?
Iain
--
"Caught a bolt of lightning
Cursed the day he let it go"
Shuggie
<iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote:
Ah I see. And I can see why people might think that. But when I called
her evil I was basing it on what we'd already seen, not what's about
to be revealed.
>>>where
>>>others are finding her more nuanced, because we think she's really a
>>>deluded good person,
>>
>>Gunnar, if I've not misunderstood him, believes her 'good' but only by
>>the moral standard of a PTB, which is different to human moral
>>standards and possibly incomprehensible to us (see 'ethical cats' :).
>>I accept that it's possible for a higher being to have a different
>>perspective and different ethics. Since ME have given me no clue as to
>>what they are, and since I'm speaking from my own pov, :) , when I say
>>she's evil I'm using my own moral standards.
>>
>>>not an out-and-out evil person who is
>>>deliberately feigning goodness for her own ends.
>>>
>>
>>But if Gunnar's right then she's feigning 'human goodness' for her
>>real aims of 'PTB goodness'. If not, if human good = PTB good, then
>>she has a moral blindspot, or is stupid, misguided, or preferably,
>>insane.
>
>Actually I think she has a huge moral blindspot, however you choose to
>define that.
>
>I also think that the other PTBs would come down on her like a ton of
>bricks if they knew what she was doing and were able to do so. In
>fact, I wonder if Fred hasn't been "called" by the PTB?
>
Well I don't know about that, maybe, but I do think Fred was an
interesting choice for the one person to see through Jasmine.
That choice alone gives me hope that there's more interesting eps
ahead. :)
--
Shug
It's a big rock. I can't wait to tell my friends. They don't
have a
rock this big.
Mattia Valente
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 20:22:13 +0100, Shuggie
> <shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>On 15 Apr 2003 13:56:23 GMT, Niall Harrison <s...@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Previously, on alt.buffy.europe - Shuggie wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <7fdm9vkre20soccln...@4ax.com>, Iain says...
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>write a review
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>go to bed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>or...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sod it!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>moral blindspot. Which for a supposed PTB is stretching plausibility.
>
> Actually, I would argue that a higher being would necessarily have a
> different perspective on things, and therefore not see morals in our
> terms. IMO, what's stretching plausibility is a PTB who conforms to our
> notions of good and evil.
Exxxactly.
> Not to go all Nietschean, but it's a little bit like asserting that to
> be an ethical person is exactly like being an ethical cat (you know, the
> kind of cat other cats like and admire). So torturing small animals for
> fun is perfectly all right, but forcing your kids to bathe is
> despicable. Hmmm... that's possibly not quite how Nietsche would put it.
> :)
Riiight...we're sidestepping the whole issue of whether cats can be
moral animals, and are capable of understanding what we've termed ethics.
> OK, like how when you're a five year-old, it's wrong to tell a lie.
> Doesn't matter what the circumstances are, it's just wrong. But as you
> get older, you realise that some truths are hurtful and destructive, and
> that it's sometimes better to tell a white lie.
Unless, of course, you're Kantian, in which case telling a lie is never
justifiable.
> I don't think Jasmine (assuming she's not demonic-evil) has a "moral
> blind spot", like you put it. I think she's well aware of your
> objections. It's only that to her, they sound like the reasoning of a
> five year-old. Or a cat.
Sounds about right.
Mattia
Tan Coul
<shu...@SPAMMENOTaceypace.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
I'm seeing my Dubya parallel theory growing in stature day by day,
then ;-)
Neil Hopkins
You could argue that a god allowing humanity free will to kill,
torture and maim is "evil".
>
>>>Plus we haven't talked about the hundreds of people who've died horribly to get
>>>us to this point. Jasmine was behind that and so far she's waved it away with a
>>>line no-one would have bought for a second if they weren't feeling all
>>>worshippy.
It looks as if we could be getting into some very interesting moral
reasoning of "ends justifying the means" and all that, with parallels
to the recent war in Iraq. How many civilian casualties are acceptable
in the aim of preventing further deaths in the future? How do you
explain that to people in the firing line?
>>>
>>
>>I think the lead up to her "birth" is problematic. It can be
>>explained, though, as necessary minor evils creating the events
>>required for a greater good. My guess is that this is Jasmine's view
>>of it.
>
>Which is complete BS. The death of hundreds of people on the basis
>that she's going to make the world a better place eventually is way
>beyond "end justifies the means". If there had been some definite
>immediate danger that those deaths could prevent then maybe it would
>be justifiable.
Millions have died as a result of religous wars, and yet Christians
and Muslims will still claim that their particular god makes the world
a better place and is worthy of praise.
--
neil h.
Anya : "I provide much needed sarcasm"
Neil Hopkins
<iain...@dragonhaven.plus.com> wrote:
It's a matter of perspective. I don't think anybody, other than
psychopaths, comic book villains and Dungeons and Dragons characters
would think of themselves as evil.