Spike
Andrea!
don't get the whole 'redemptionist' movement. Spike is evil, Spike gets
chipped, Spike *seems* a whole lot less evil. That, I understand. I want him
back to more evil and more dangerous, because he was way cooler back then,
and hey, *that* I understand. But why would anybody want Spike to turn
completely good? I mean, what's the fun of having a tame Spike?
I really don't get it, and in atvbvs people seem to become all hot and
bothered about the whole thing <g>, so I'd rather ask in a more friendly
environment.
Andrea!
Saskia
> Okay, I've got a question. Sorry if this has been discussed already, but I
> don't get the whole 'redemptionist' movement. Spike is evil, Spike gets
> chipped, Spike *seems* a whole lot less evil. That, I understand. I want him
> back to more evil and more dangerous, because he was way cooler back then,
> and hey, *that* I understand. But why would anybody want Spike to turn
> completely good? I mean, what's the fun of having a tame Spike?
Dunno... I really really do not understand. Guess there are people who are
just pining for a good repeat of Buffy/Angel and since they can't get Angel
they now want Spike to become good in order for Buffy to be 'allowed' to
fall in love with him.
Must be something corny like that. What are they saying in that other group?
I'm not reading it anymore, tried it for a while but it's just way too busy.
You might want to ask Sonja, I think she's one of the redemption advocates.
Brrr. We'll probably meet some on Sunday as well, I'll try not to look too
horrified.
> I really don't get it, and in atvbvs people seem to become all hot and
> bothered about the whole thing <g>, so I'd rather ask in a more friendly
> environment.
:-)
--
Saskia
Andrea!
Saskia said:
> Andrea! said :
>
> > Okay, I've got a question. Sorry if this has been discussed already, but
I
> > don't get the whole 'redemptionist' movement. Spike is evil, Spike gets
> > chipped, Spike *seems* a whole lot less evil. That, I understand. I want
him
> > back to more evil and more dangerous, because he was way cooler back
then,
> > and hey, *that* I understand. But why would anybody want Spike to turn
> > completely good? I mean, what's the fun of having a tame Spike?
>
> Dunno... I really really do not understand.
Oh good, so I'm not alone.
Guess there are people who are
> just pining for a good repeat of Buffy/Angel and since they can't get
Angel
> they now want Spike to become good in order for Buffy to be 'allowed' to
> fall in love with him.
Hm. Yeah. Well. No, I don't get it.
>
> Must be something corny like that. What are they saying in that other
group?
Well, things like he doesn't *deserve* Buffy's love until he's redeemed, and
basically, all sorts of things that don't make sense. I mean, Angel got a
soul, and he *suffered*. And he suffered quite prettily, so the whole
suffering thing was okay. :)
But to see Spike suffer like that? Have him go all "Owmygod, what have I
done! How can I make it up to the world?" I mean, really! Spike *is* Spike
because he's evil. Without the evilness, there would be no Spike left.
> I'm not reading it anymore, tried it for a while but it's just way too
busy.
Yep. And not only that, but they keep feeding trolls as if, well, as if they
really don't recognise trolls.
>
> You might want to ask Sonja, I think she's one of the redemption
advocates.
SONJA!
> Brrr. We'll probably meet some on Sunday as well, I'll try not to look too
> horrified.
Well, good luck. :(
Andrea!
Mattia Valente
>
> Andrea! said :
>
> > Okay, I've got a question. Sorry if this has been discussed already, but I
> > don't get the whole 'redemptionist' movement. Spike is evil, Spike gets
> > chipped, Spike *seems* a whole lot less evil. That, I understand. I want him
> > back to more evil and more dangerous, because he was way cooler back then,
> > and hey, *that* I understand. But why would anybody want Spike to turn
> > completely good? I mean, what's the fun of having a tame Spike?
>
> Dunno... I really really do not understand. Guess there are people who are
> just pining for a good repeat of Buffy/Angel and since they can't get Angel
> they now want Spike to become good in order for Buffy to be 'allowed' to
> fall in love with him.
Something like that.
> Must be something corny like that. What are they saying in that other group?
> I'm not reading it anymore, tried it for a while but it's just way too busy.
Way, way too busy.
> You might want to ask Sonja, I think she's one of the redemption advocates.
Yeah, but I'm not sure she knows the 'official' standpoint very well.
SR? You lurk/post there, got the lowdown?
As I understand it, it's this. They believe Spike is capable of selfless
acts. They believe he's well and truly deeply in love with Buffy (which
they assume is completely possible), and that, even with his chip
removed, he would choose to do good, for Buffy's sake, because he's
truly changed, the chip gave him time to set things right. Something
like that, anyway.
'course, we ALL know he's evil, right?
> Brrr. We'll probably meet some on Sunday as well, I'll try not to look too
> horrified.
Hehehehehehe.......
I can help point them out. Bring your fish.
> > I really don't get it, and in atvbvs people seem to become all hot and
> > bothered about the whole thing <g>, so I'd rather ask in a more friendly
> > environment.
>
> :-)
Yes. Hot. Bothered. Sweaty. Possibly even kinky.
Mattia
--
"My beagle went swimming today and now he's typing on my keyboard with
his ample nose. Oh, and he's the bestest handsomeest beagle EVER."
--Tim Minear, Salon.com, May 2001
Andrea!
Mattia said:
And weird people.
>
> > You might want to ask Sonja, I think she's one of the redemption
advocates.
>
> Yeah, but I'm not sure she knows the 'official' standpoint very well.
> SR? You lurk/post there, got the lowdown?
>
> As I understand it, it's this. They believe Spike is capable of selfless
> acts.
Ah. So they're just not very intelligent. :)
They believe he's well and truly deeply in love with Buffy (which
> they assume is completely possible),
Ah. Like in 'It's not mere sexual attraction and a major power thing.' So,
redemptionists are not very intelligent?
<ducks in case redemptionists have adopted the fish procedure>
and that, even with his chip
> removed, he would choose to do good, for Buffy's sake, because he's
> truly changed, the chip gave him time to set things right. Something
> like that, anyway.
Ah.
>
> 'course, we ALL know he's evil, right?
Yep! And that's why we love him and want to chain him to the wall and strip
him naked and beat him up and... um.
Sorry Mattia. :)
>
> > Brrr. We'll probably meet some on Sunday as well, I'll try not to look
too
> > horrified.
>
> Hehehehehehe.......
>
> I can help point them out. Bring your fish.
Cool! I want a full report afterwards, please!
>
> > > I really don't get it, and in atvbvs people seem to become all hot and
> > > bothered about the whole thing <g>, so I'd rather ask in a more
friendly
> > > environment.
> >
> > :-)
>
> Yes. Hot. Bothered. Sweaty. Possibly even kinky.
I meant hot and bothered in a prudent sort of way! I think.
Andrea!
Mattia Valente
> Mattia said:
> > Saskia wrote:
> > > Andrea! said :
> > > group? I'm not reading it anymore, tried it for a while but it's just
> > > way too busy.
> >
> > Way, way too busy.
>
> And weird people.
Quite some weird people, yes.
> > As I understand it, it's this. They believe Spike is capable of selfless
> > acts.
>
> Ah. So they're just not very intelligent. :)
Hehehehe....
> > They believe he's well and truly deeply in love with Buffy (which
> > they assume is completely possible),
>
> Ah. Like in 'It's not mere sexual attraction and a major power thing.' So,
> redemptionists are not very intelligent?
No, and apparently yes..
> <ducks in case redemptionists have adopted the fish procedure>
Nah...
> > and that, even with his chip
> > removed, he would choose to do good, for Buffy's sake, because he's
> > truly changed, the chip gave him time to set things right. Something
> > like that, anyway.
>
> Ah.
That, like, would never happen. Ever.
> > 'course, we ALL know he's evil, right?
>
> Yep! And that's why we love him and want to chain him to the wall and strip
> him naked and beat him up and... um.
AAAARGGGGHHH!!!!!
> Sorry Mattia. :)
Don't DO that to me! Or at least include pleasant naked Amber
images...without the beating or the chains.
> > > Brrr. We'll probably meet some on Sunday as well, I'll try not to look
> > > too horrified.
> >
> > Hehehehehehe.......
> >
> > I can help point them out. Bring your fish.
>
> Cool! I want a full report afterwards, please!
Oh dear god, what have I done??
> > Yes. Hot. Bothered. Sweaty. Possibly even kinky.
>
> I meant hot and bothered in a prudent sort of way! I think.
Uhuh....SURE you do. We believe you. Really!
Sonja
"Saskia" <sas...@nksf.nl> schreef in bericht
news:MPG.1667927a1...@news.xs4all.nl...
> Andrea! said :
>
> > Okay, I've got a question. Sorry if this has been discussed already, but
I
> > don't get the whole 'redemptionist' movement. Spike is evil, Spike gets
> > chipped, Spike *seems* a whole lot less evil. That, I understand. I want
him
> > back to more evil and more dangerous, because he was way cooler back
then,
> > and hey, *that* I understand. But why would anybody want Spike to turn
> > completely good? I mean, what's the fun of having a tame Spike?
>
saw In the dark again and thought boy those were the days.
> You might want to ask Sonja, I think she's one of the redemption
advocates.
Come again?!
AAAAAARGH !!!!!!!!
Sorry for screaming here, but that remark just plainly hurts my feelings.
I am not and never will be a redemptionist ever.
I just like the whole Buffy/Spike idea. Especially when they would be more
challenged to oneanother e.g. Spike dechipped and Buffy just plain Buffy.
Okay it would be more lust than love. So what. I like kinky ;-)
Sonja
--
"Just knock 3 times and whisper low, that you and I were sent by Joe, then
strike a match and then you'll know you're in Hernando's Hideaway..."(The
Johnston Brothers, Snatch)
Sonja
"Andrea!" <andrea...@nksf.nl> schreef in bericht
news:9tjtd6$seh$1...@news.hccnet.nl...
>
> SONJA!
>
See my comments on this elsewhere :-)
Sonja
"Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> schreef in bericht
news:3BFD80D3...@std.vu.nl...
> Yeah, but I'm not sure she knows the 'official' standpoint very well.
> SR? You lurk/post there, got the lowdown?
Please elaborate, cause I don't understand what you mean by this.
Or is this about someone completely different.
> As I understand it, it's this. They believe Spike is capable of selfless
> acts. They believe he's well and truly deeply in love with Buffy (which
> they assume is completely possible), and that, even with his chip
> removed, he would choose to do good, for Buffy's sake, because he's
> truly changed, the chip gave him time to set things right. Something
> like that, anyway.
Okay so I said he could be in love with Buffy. He was also bad when he was
in love with Dru or do you use another term for this infatuation.
But I never said he would be less evil once he was dechipped.
Hence I'm not a redemptionist.
Mattia Valente
>
> "Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> schreef in bericht
> news:3BFD80D3...@std.vu.nl...
> > Yeah, but I'm not sure she knows the 'official' standpoint very well.
> > SR? You lurk/post there, got the lowdown?
>
> Please elaborate, cause I don't understand what you mean by this.
> Or is this about someone completely different.
No, you. But apparently you've come back on the being a redemptionist
thing. So ignore me. Andrea wanted to know the redemptionist standpoint,
thought you might be able to help, but basically, no such luck. You've,
apparently, got too much brain. Not that I agree with you all the way,
necessarily. But still.
> > As I understand it, it's this. They believe Spike is capable of selfless
> > acts. They believe he's well and truly deeply in love with Buffy (which
> > they assume is completely possible), and that, even with his chip
> > removed, he would choose to do good, for Buffy's sake, because he's
> > truly changed, the chip gave him time to set things right. Something
> > like that, anyway.
>
> Okay so I said he could be in love with Buffy. He was also bad when he was
> in love with Dru or do you use another term for this infatuation.
> But I never said he would be less evil once he was dechipped.
> Hence I'm not a redemptionist.
The point of redemptionism is that Spike can be 'redeemed', like Angel
is trying to do with his whole 'Road to Redemption' thing. The 'Love'
thing is secondary to all this.
Ninia
> The point of redemptionism is that Spike can be 'redeemed', like Angel
> is trying to do with his whole 'Road to Redemption' thing. The 'Love'
> thing is secondary to all this.
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
But what about the not speak to Glory about the Key when he was tortured
by her? That was a sacrifice. Wasn't it? The sacrifice of love, which is
unselfish.
--
Ninia
"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters
would be to limit the human spirit."
-- Stephen Hawking
Mattia Valente
That's kind of the question. Is it unselfish? Or is he doing this
because, well, he doesn't want to piss of Buffy. And wants her to like
him. So his motivations are selfish, though his acts may seem selfless.
At least, that's the way I see it.
Ninia
No, he did it for Buffy, but Buffy didn't know anything about it. He had
no intention to let her know. That was revealed at the end of
Intervention. He tells robot-Buffy:
SPIKE: 'Cause Buffy ... the other, not so pleasant Buffy ... anything
happened to Dawn, it'd destroy her. I couldn't live, her bein' in that
much pain. Let Glory kill me first. Nearly bloody did.
These are not words of selfishness.
Maybe you don't agree with what they made of Spike, but at this moment
there is no bad vampire in Spike.
Mattia Valente
Not at the time, no..
> He had
> no intention to let her know. That was revealed at the end of
> Intervention. He tells robot-Buffy:
>
> SPIKE: 'Cause Buffy ... the other, not so pleasant Buffy ... anything
> happened to Dawn, it'd destroy her. I couldn't live, her bein' in that
> much pain. Let Glory kill me first. Nearly bloody did.
>
> These are not words of selfishness.
Hmmmm...:-/
He can commit selfless acts for selfish reasons, though. Comes down to
incredibly nitpicky definitions. It's that whole 'I believe Spike is
Evil' thing.
> Maybe you don't agree with what they made of Spike, but at this moment
> there is no bad vampire in Spike.
Now, here I disagree. There's always bad vampire in Spike. There's also
deeply sappy Spike. The one who thinks he's really truly in love with
Buffy (can Vampires experience true love? Where does obsession stop and
love start? Who knows...they can emote, but true love?) The biggest
problem with Spike is that, at times, it seems the writers cannot quite
decide what the hell they want to do with him.
I'll just sit over here and chant 'Listen to Fury' for a while now...
Millan
I agree with Ninia on this one.
There are other 'good' things he has done that can be construed as
ultimately selfish, wanting to get on Buffy's good side. ('beneath'
her maybe...) :)
But I do not think that this particular one was something that was
intended as anything other that what he said.
He didn't want to cause her sorrow and grief.
> He can commit selfless acts for selfish reasons, though. Comes down to
> incredibly nitpicky definitions. It's that whole 'I believe Spike is
> Evil' thing.
:)
> > Maybe you don't agree with what they made of Spike, but at this moment
> > there is no bad vampire in Spike.
>
> Now, here I disagree. There's always bad vampire in Spike. There's also
> deeply sappy Spike. The one who thinks he's really truly in love with
> Buffy (can Vampires experience true love? Where does obsession stop and
> love start? Who knows...they can emote, but true love?) The biggest
> problem with Spike is that, at times, it seems the writers cannot quite
> decide what the hell they want to do with him.
Agreed. There is some inconsistency in the writing. They should all be
totally on agreement where they want each and every character so it
flows easier, but aside from that...
Yes, there is some bad (as in evil) vampire in Spike, but there is
also more to him than that. None of the characters in this series are
exactly one-dimensional!
Hasn't Joss said something about souls?
Let me paraphrase something I vaguely remember:
'Vampires (and most demons) have no souls. Beings with souls are more
drawn to (do/be) good and beings without souls are more drawn to
(do/be) evil.'
This isn't set in stone in any way.
We've seen humans (with souls) that are bad (evil) people.
Couldn't demons (without souls) be good if they choose to?
> I'll just sit over here and chant 'Listen to Fury' for a while now...
Bringing out your house-hold god now?
:)
> Mattia
/Millan
Buffy: "Someone with a soul did this?"
Giles: "Yes, I'm afraid so."
Buffy: "Okay, then while you're looking for the meaning of that symbol
thingy, could you also find a loophole in that 'Slayers don't kill
people' rule?"
- 'Gingerbread'
Mattia Valente
> >
> > Hmmmm...:-/
>
> I agree with Ninia on this one.
> There are other 'good' things he has done that can be construed as
> ultimately selfish, wanting to get on Buffy's good side. ('beneath'
> her maybe...) :)
Riiight...
> But I do not think that this particular one was something that was
> intended as anything other that what he said.
> He didn't want to cause her sorrow and grief.
Which is odd, for Spike.
> > He can commit selfless acts for selfish reasons, though. Comes down to
> > incredibly nitpicky definitions. It's that whole 'I believe Spike is
> > Evil' thing.
>
> :)
:-p
> > Now, here I disagree. There's always bad vampire in Spike. There's also
> > deeply sappy Spike. The one who thinks he's really truly in love with
> > Buffy (can Vampires experience true love? Where does obsession stop and
> > love start? Who knows...they can emote, but true love?) The biggest
> > problem with Spike is that, at times, it seems the writers cannot quite
> > decide what the hell they want to do with him.
>
> Agreed. There is some inconsistency in the writing. They should all be
> totally on agreement where they want each and every character so it
> flows easier, but aside from that...
It's something they (well, Joss) admitted to, not knowing exactly where
all this is headed. The Spike Thing, that is. And it's a tad
problematic.
> Yes, there is some bad (as in evil) vampire in Spike, but there is
> also more to him than that. None of the characters in this series are
> exactly one-dimensional!
No, but his base orientation, his 'alignment', if you will, is evil.
> Hasn't Joss said something about souls?
> Let me paraphrase something I vaguely remember:
>
> 'Vampires (and most demons) have no souls. Beings with souls are more
> drawn to (do/be) good and beings without souls are more drawn to
> (do/be) evil.'
Yes. Explains variations, yes.
> This isn't set in stone in any way.
> We've seen humans (with souls) that are bad (evil) people.
Bad. Not Evil in the Evil is deeply FUN and I LIKE it.
> Couldn't demons (without souls) be good if they choose to?
NO. Not truly good. In the 'not evil' sense. You see, THIS is
redemptionism. This is wrong. I cannot EVER see Spike going 100% good,
not feeding, deciding to give up his past, deviant ways in favor of
'being good' for Buffy's or anyone else's sake. It just doesn't work for
me.
> > I'll just sit over here and chant 'Listen to Fury' for a while now...
>
> Bringing out your house-hold god now?
> :)
No, David Fury: "I believe Spike is evil, and Buffy is good. Make their
relationship all out pure love and you sell out both characters." That's
a paraphrase. The BBC Buffy site has the relevant interview clip.
Saskia
I should know better than to get into this discussion again... but :
> > > > These are not words of selfishness.
> > >
> > > Hmmmm...:-/
Indeed. Big fat Hmmmm. That does not make sense.
> > But I do not think that this particular one was something that was
> > intended as anything other that what he said.
> > He didn't want to cause her sorrow and grief.
>
> Which is odd, for Spike.
Yes, very. So I'm blaming Jane. She messed up. Spike is an evil vampire
without a soul and is not capable of selfless acts. Unless they are
ultimately for a selfish reason, so that the act only *seems* selfless.
Well, I won't get into it any further, my views on the matter should be
known by now but I just had to get this off my chest.
--
Saskia
Ninia
I was absent from this group for a while so I don't know if I know your
opinion about this. But I have the feeling that you and Mattia know it
better than God (the writers) You have opinions about Spike, about
vampires, about evil that don't correspond with the actions in the
episode. When I look at Intervention then it is obvious there is a sort
of humanlike sacrifice going on. Maybe this will change in eps that I
have not seen yet, but I have this ep. very fresh in my mind. Maybe you
should review it?
> Well, I won't get into it any further, my views on the matter should be
> known by now but I just had to get this off my chest.
I think I missed some posts about this and maybe this is mustard after
the meal ;-) but I just had to react perhaps to the tail of the thread,
because I was very moved by the episode.
--
Ninia
BUFFY: What you did, for me, and Dawn ... that was real.
I won't forget it.
BTVS: Intervention
Saskia
> > Yes, very. So I'm blaming Jane. She messed up. Spike is an evil vampire
> > without a soul and is not capable of selfless acts. Unless they are
> > ultimately for a selfish reason, so that the act only *seems* selfless.
>
> I was absent from this group for a while so I don't know if I know your
> opinion about this. But I have the feeling that you and Mattia know it
> better than God (the writers) You have opinions about Spike, about
> vampires, about evil that don't correspond with the actions in the
> episode. When I look at Intervention then it is obvious there is a sort
> of humanlike sacrifice going on. Maybe this will change in eps that I
> have not seen yet, but I have this ep. very fresh in my mind. Maybe you
> should review it?
I was only half serious there, but the serious half of it is yes, I think
there are inconsistencies amongst the writings where Spike is concerned and
I think they have made him do and say stuff that just does not make sense
imo and I really didn't like those things.
Yes I have opinions, nothing wrong with that I hope? and no, I don't know it
better than God or the writers. By the way, the writers aren't god, only
Joss is...
Nope, no need review that episode or my opinions just yet... :)
--
Saskia
Mattia Valente
> > > > intended as anything other that what he said.
> > > > He didn't want to cause her sorrow and grief.
> > >
> > > Which is odd, for Spike.
> >
> > Yes, very. So I'm blaming Jane. She messed up. Spike is an evil vampire
> > without a soul and is not capable of selfless acts. Unless they are
> > ultimately for a selfish reason, so that the act only *seems* selfless.
>
> I was absent from this group for a while so I don't know if I know your
> opinion about this. But I have the feeling that you and Mattia know it
> better than God (the writers)
God being Joss Whedon. Not 'the writers'. And Tim Minear if we're
talking 'Angel' ;-)
And FWIW, Joss explicitly stated that they didn't know where Spike was
headed, and that the writers couldn't decide on what to do with him, how
to protray him. This was past June, at Nocturnal. And knowing this
(heck, even NOT knowing this) you see the different approaches different
writers have.
David Fury has been quite explicit about his 'Buffy is good, Spike is
Evil..blah blah you sell out both characters.' Others, less so. Writer
side indecisiveness doesn't help me trust in what I see on screen.
Certainly not accept it without trepidation.
> You have opinions about Spike, about
> vampires, about evil that don't correspond with the actions in the
> episode.
Sorta. I guess I've blocked that bit from my mind. Spike's a complex
case, though. I still believe there's plenty 'o' evil in him. Certain
events in other episodes you have not seen have helped cement (although
you could argue against a good lot of them..) my opinions, but I won't
get into that.
> When I look at Intervention then it is obvious there is a sort
> of humanlike sacrifice going on. Maybe this will change in eps that I
> have not seen yet, but I have this ep. very fresh in my mind. Maybe you
> should review it?
I should, yes, since I've only seen the majority of the S5 eps a mere
one time. That's the thing, for me. I'm prepared to admit Spike's done a
number of 'selfless' things. All in the name of his Love for Buffy. So
as not to discuss 'can Vampires really love?', I'll stick to saying that
Spike truly believes it, and that, because of the chip, it's easier for
him to make the choice not to do 'bad' things; he can't, even if he
wants to. Ergo, it's irrelevant. He believes he does, so he does.
This act of selflessness (because, yes, essentially that's what it is, I
have to grudgingly admit, however much I don't like it..) can be seen
as, ultimately, motivated by selfishness. Maybe that's not what they
meant to do, maybe that's not what it is, but it could be. That's the
'gray' area with S5 Spike, the writer's insecurity as far as 'Is Spike
Evil or Good' is concerned. Previous instances (Triangle, he went in to
help) are clearly selfish ('look! I'm helping!') but at this point,
there's more going on, there's Joyce's death (one of the only people
Spike got along with. THE only person, perhaps, besides Dawn.) and he's
feeling protective.
I like to imagine that on some level he's thinking 'well, she'll like me
more. I hope. Gotta do something with my unlife..', because, well, that
meshes with the Spike of old, with the Spike of previous episodes. I'm
wary to accept a change, especially one so radical (viewed from a
certain perspective) as this one at face value.
> > Well, I won't get into it any further, my views on the matter should be
> > known by now but I just had to get this off my chest.
>
> I think I missed some posts about this and maybe this is mustard after
> the meal ;-) but I just had to react perhaps to the tail of the thread,
> because I was very moved by the episode.
Some, yes. But very few episode specific posts. I for one have never
really *discussed* intervention, or the majority of late Buffy S5 eps.
Ninia
Spoilers t/m 5.20 now!!!!!!!!!!!
> And FWIW, Joss explicitly stated that they didn't know where Spike was
> headed, and that the writers couldn't decide on what to do with him, how
> to protray him. This was past June, at Nocturnal. And knowing this
> (heck, even NOT knowing this) you see the different approaches different
> writers have.
Well, I can't judge all the episodes with in my mind the thougths of: o
this is this writer and therefore Spike is like this now and that is that
writer so now Spike is like that. I want to judge is as it appears to me
in the story and what feelings it gives to me. So I take Spike for what I
see him doing and I have no problems with that at all, because the
dividing of the Good and the Evil so strictly is too fairytale like for
me. I can understand why Spike develops like this comparing it with a
wild animal that you tame (the chip) Tamed animals behave also quite
different from the wild ones (wolf>dog) If you feed your cat he will not
become very bloodthirsty, but sometimes he suddenly chases after a bird
or a mouse. That is how I see Spike. And I like him being a bit of a mate
in the whole end battle and I like him being like a brother for Dawn and
protective. I can recognize a lot of it in the real world (brothers on a
bad path and still protecting their little sister (maffiosi i.e.). So it
is all very okay for me.
> David Fury has been quite explicit about his 'Buffy is good, Spike is
> Evil..blah blah you sell out both characters.' Others, less so. Writer
> side indecisiveness doesn't help me trust in what I see on screen.
> Certainly not accept it without trepidation.
Well if I can't trust what is on the screen then I get so much distance
to the story that I better not look. Then it is no more fun.
> Sorta. I guess I've blocked that bit from my mind.
I could not live with that. I mean I could not look at it that way. It
spoils the fun. Don't want to block things I see. I want to completely
surrender to the story.
> Spike's a complex
> case, though.
Yes. And isn't that wonderful? ;-)
> I still believe there's plenty 'o' evil in him. Certain
> events in other episodes you have not seen have helped cement (although
> you could argue against a good lot of them..) my opinions, but I won't
> get into that.
He is a wolf in sheepsclothes (if that's an expression)
Well, you made me curious enough.
> I should, yes, since I've only seen the majority of the S5 eps a mere
> one time. That's the thing, for me. I'm prepared to admit Spike's done a
> number of 'selfless' things. All in the name of his Love for Buffy. So
> as not to discuss 'can Vampires really love?', I'll stick to saying that
> Spike truly believes it, and that, because of the chip, it's easier for
> him to make the choice not to do 'bad' things; he can't, even if he
> wants to. Ergo, it's irrelevant. He believes he does, so he does.
So it's the caged wild animal.
> This act of selflessness (because, yes, essentially that's what it is, I
> have to grudgingly admit, however much I don't like it..) can be seen
> as, ultimately, motivated by selfishness. Maybe that's not what they
> meant to do, maybe that's not what it is, but it could be. That's the
> 'gray' area with S5 Spike, the writer's insecurity as far as 'Is Spike
> Evil or Good' is concerned. Previous instances (Triangle, he went in to
> help) are clearly selfish ('look! I'm helping!') but at this point,
> there's more going on, there's Joyce's death (one of the only people
> Spike got along with. THE only person, perhaps, besides Dawn.) and he's
> feeling protective.
That was also very touching. How he brought a flower for Joyce.
> I like to imagine that on some level he's thinking 'well, she'll like me
> more. I hope. Gotta do something with my unlife..', because, well, that
> meshes with the Spike of old, with the Spike of previous episodes. I'm
> wary to accept a change, especially one so radical (viewed from a
> certain perspective) as this one at face value.
It is as if you don't want to lose the old evil Spike. Just like real
life. When a friend changes very much it is a challenge to friendship.
> Some, yes. But very few episode specific posts. I for one have never
> really *discussed* intervention, or the majority of late Buffy S5 eps.
Isn't that sad? I just saw 5.19 and 5.20 and nobody to speak with. I'll
have to wait till it is on tv, but then I am somewhere in the sixth
season as you are now.
I am a tragic in between person :-)
Mattia Valente
I don't, not completely conciously. But it is one of the more annoying
aspects of a Spike arc that, on the whole, works for me. I have less
'problems' with it that Sas or Sue do, I think, but it's not perfect. S4
Spike, now that was a sad pathetic travesty. Mostly illogical because of
the fact that, well, he survived the season due to chippness.
> I want to judge is as it appears to me
> in the story and what feelings it gives to me. So I take Spike for what I
> see him doing and I have no problems with that at all, because the
> dividing of the Good and the Evil so strictly is too fairytale like for
> me.
I'm not saying Spike is pure, out and out, only Evil. He's always been a
little more complex than that, but he relishes destruction, he enjoys
killing, it's part of his instinctual makeup, it's FUN, dammit!
;-)
I think part of the problem I have with the Spike thing is that I do
know that the writers are unsure of what they want to do. It makes me
insecure about the character, purely because they are. I try to put
together an image of him that integrates all of what he's done in the
past into a picture that more or less works.
> I can understand why Spike develops like this comparing it with a
> wild animal that you tame (the chip) Tamed animals behave also quite
> different from the wild ones (wolf>dog) If you feed your cat he will not
> become very bloodthirsty, but sometimes he suddenly chases after a bird
> or a mouse. That is how I see Spike.
Hmmm...I see him more like a muzzled dog with a shock collar. He's
allowed to beat up and bite the baddies, but he's conditioned, by force,
note because he wants to, not te harm people.
> And I like him being a bit of a mate in the whole end battle
That he quite definately is. A hero despite himself, in many ways. It's
what makes him all the more interesting. The problem I'm having here is,
I think, I'm dragging Spike of the future (for you) into Spike of the
past, and, since I'll say he develops a-plenty if nothing else, that
leads to confusion. I'll try to transport myself 'back to the past', as
it were.
> and I like him being like a brother for Dawn and protective.
This is an aspect I've never really had a problem with. Though he may be
evil, when he's commited, he's commited 'till the end. He showed this
with Dru way back in S2, doing everything for her, what he thought was
best for her (with the caveat that, in the end, it was his selfish 'I
Want Dru Back' that dictated his actions.) He's in love with Buffy now.
He's committed to her. And since Dawn is all Buffy has left, he's
commited to her as well.
> I can recognize a lot of it in the real world (brothers on a
> bad path and still protecting their little sister (maffiosi i.e.). So it
> is all very okay for me.
Agreed. Not a problem there. The issue I'm trying to raise is the base
nature of Spike; I don't believe he can be truly 'redeemed' and go
'Good'. Doesn't stop him from doing certain 'Good' things.
> > David Fury has been quite explicit about his 'Buffy is good, Spike is
> > Evil..blah blah you sell out both characters.' Others, less so. Writer
> > side indecisiveness doesn't help me trust in what I see on screen.
> > Certainly not accept it without trepidation.
>
> Well if I can't trust what is on the screen then I get so much distance
> to the story that I better not look. Then it is no more fun.
Bad wording there. Let's say there's more than one way to interpret
what's shown on screen. IMO, that is. Basically, the whole obsession
thing earlier on made me trust Spike LESS, because in a sense, due to
the obsession, he became MORE of a threat than he was for the entirety
of S4.
> > Sorta. I guess I've blocked that bit from my mind.
>
> I could not live with that. I mean I could not look at it that way. It
> spoils the fun. Don't want to block things I see. I want to completely
> surrender to the story.
I like analyzing it. Which you've probably noticed. So perhaps I spend
entirely too much time thinking about the implications of certain
things.
> > Spike's a complex case, though.
>
> Yes. And isn't that wonderful? ;-)
Oh, definately. I just wish that S4 didn't feel like 'any excuse to not
kill Spike is fine, because he's a cool character'. I've come up with a
more or less acceptable explanation for it, because I want to have an
internally consistent 'reality' for myself, but that doesn't mean I'm
happy with everything.
I like S5 Spike. Well, about 90% of the time.
> > I still believe there's plenty 'o' evil in him. Certain
> > events in other episodes you have not seen have helped cement (although
> > you could argue against a good lot of them..) my opinions, but I won't
> > get into that.
>
> He is a wolf in sheepsclothes (if that's an expression)
It is, and that's basically what I was trying to say <then why didn't
you?> becuase I'm a verbose buffoon.
> Well, you made me curious enough.
<eg>
Friday, friday...
> > I should, yes, since I've only seen the majority of the S5 eps a mere
> > one time. That's the thing, for me. I'm prepared to admit Spike's done a
> > number of 'selfless' things. All in the name of his Love for Buffy. So
> > as not to discuss 'can Vampires really love?', I'll stick to saying that
> > Spike truly believes it, and that, because of the chip, it's easier for
> > him to make the choice not to do 'bad' things; he can't, even if he
> > wants to. Ergo, it's irrelevant. He believes he does, so he does.
>
> So it's the caged wild animal.
In a sense, yes. There's DANGER there. Just because he's selfless one
moment, for me, given his history, doesn't guaratnee he'll remain so. He
turned on Dru, his sire, his love for 120 years, after a relatively
short-lived emotional bout with his feelings for Buffy. Not too stable.
> > This act of selflessness (because, yes, essentially that's what it is, I
> > have to grudgingly admit, however much I don't like it..) can be seen
> > as, ultimately, motivated by selfishness. Maybe that's not what they
> > meant to do, maybe that's not what it is, but it could be. That's the
> > 'gray' area with S5 Spike, the writer's insecurity as far as 'Is Spike
> > Evil or Good' is concerned. Previous instances (Triangle, he went in to
> > help) are clearly selfish ('look! I'm helping!') but at this point,
> > there's more going on, there's Joyce's death (one of the only people
> > Spike got along with. THE only person, perhaps, besides Dawn.) and he's
> > feeling protective.
>
> That was also very touching. How he brought a flower for Joyce.
Yes, very much so. Some people hate that scene, find it out of character
and annoying. I like it. Spike's not entirely EVIL EVIL ONLY EVIL.
Especially because of the chip. Sans chip, he'd be a very, very
different monster. It's enabled him, some might say forced him, to face
parts of himself long lost, buried or purposefully ignored.
> > I like to imagine that on some level he's thinking 'well, she'll like me
> > more. I hope. Gotta do something with my unlife..', because, well, that
> > meshes with the Spike of old, with the Spike of previous episodes. I'm
> > wary to accept a change, especially one so radical (viewed from a
> > certain perspective) as this one at face value.
>
> It is as if you don't want to lose the old evil Spike. Just like real
> life. When a friend changes very much it is a challenge to friendship.
True..I've accepted the 'S2' Spike is, in some ways, gone. But his
fickle nature is the key to my distrust of him. He's been evil, through
and through, for 125 years. Chipped for a little less than two. It'd be
stupid to trust him easily; as Buffy told Dawn, a Chip is not a Soul.
And even a Soul is no guarantee.
> > Some, yes. But very few episode specific posts. I for one have never
> > really *discussed* intervention, or the majority of late Buffy S5 eps.
>
> Isn't that sad?
Very..*snif*
> I just saw 5.19 and 5.20 and nobody to speak with. I'll
> have to wait till it is on tv, but then I am somewhere in the sixth
> season as you are now.
Yeah...or, alternately, post about it. I'm game to discuss it if you are
:-)
> I am a tragic in between person :-)
Awww...
Sieue
"Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:3C058482...@std.vu.nl...
> Ninia wrote:
> > Mattia Valente zei:
> > Spoilers t/m 5.20 now!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > Ninia wrote:
> > > > Saskia zei:
> > > > > Mattia Valente said :
> > > > > > Millan wrote:
> > > > > > > Mattia Valente <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Ninia wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Mattia Valente zei:
> > > > > > > > > > Ninia wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Mattia Valente zei:
> > > > > > > > > > > > The point of redemptionism is that Spike can be
'redeemed', like Angel
> > > > > > > > > > > > is trying to do with his whole 'Road to Redemption'
thing. The 'Love'
> > > > > > > > > > > > thing is secondary to all this.
<snipped>
Just jumping in here to say that I am not jumping into this thread. As
another hater of the neutering of Spike, I am just here to offer my support
to Sas.
Oooh and welcome Ninia. I have never discussed the later end of Season 5
either seeing as I watched it way way too late for any of the newsgroup
discussions. So keep going.
Sieue
--
mwah
Sieue
Saskia
On Thu, 29 Nov 2001, Sieue wrote:
> "Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote in message
> news:3C058482...@std.vu.nl...
> > Ninia wrote:
> > > Mattia Valente zei:
> > > Spoilers t/m 5.20 now!!!!!!!!!!!
> > > > Ninia wrote:
> > > > > Saskia zei:
> > > > > > Mattia Valente said :
> > > > > > > Millan wrote:
> > > > > > > > Mattia Valente <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Ninia wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Mattia Valente zei:
> > > > > > > > > > > Ninia wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mattia Valente zei:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The point of redemptionism is that Spike can be
> 'redeemed', like Angel
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is trying to do with his whole 'Road to Redemption'
> thing. The 'Love'
> > > > > > > > > > > > > thing is secondary to all this.
>
> <snipped>
>
> Just jumping in here to say that I am not jumping into this thread. As
> another hater of the neutering of Spike, I am just here to offer my support
> to Sas.
Cheers Sue. Oh and I heard on the grapevine that we have another major
dislike in common : Faith! Let's talk about how much we hate her, cos I've
been alone with it all this time... the guys never got it and I'm feeling
misunderstood :-(
> Oooh and welcome Ninia. I have never discussed the later end of Season 5
> either seeing as I watched it way way too late for any of the newsgroup
> discussions. So keep going.
I never really discussed them either. But we can discuss them as they're
being aired on the Beeb.
--
Saskia
Jonathan Black
<snipping torentje which was on the verge of collapsing under its
own weight and adding newly generated spoiler space for "t/m
5.20" (whatever the heck "t/m" means, must be some Dutch thing)>
M
I
C
H
E
L
L
E
T
R
A
C
H
T
E
N
B
E
R
G
I
S
A
C
U
T
I
E
> <snipped>
>
> Just jumping in here to say that I am not jumping into this
> thread. As another hater of the neutering of Spike, I am
> just here to offer my support to Sas.
>
> Oooh and welcome Ninia. I have never discussed the later
> end of Season 5 either seeing as I watched it way way too
> late for any of the newsgroup discussions. So keep going.
Hi, well if it is time for jumping in and offering support, I
shall have to jump in at this point and say that I am pretty much
with *Ninia* all the way. I haven't seen this thread from its
very beginning, but looking at this last series of exchanges I
find I have little to add because Ninia seems to have already
said all the stuff that I feel the same way about.
I mean really, take another look at Ninia's posts, guys. They
make perfect sense, and so I suppose it is no surprise that they
have only really been met with lame cop-out rebuttals like "yes
well let's just disregard that Spike quotage from Intervention
there, cause it doesn't quite fit in with our Spike=Vampire=
Selfish&Evil law, let me see, who wrote that ep?, ah, Espenson,
hmm, she must have made a small error, best not to worry about it
too much'.
Wake up!
Bye,
--
jonathaN
Jonathan Black
> I mean really, take another look at Ninia's posts, guys.
> They make perfect sense, and so I suppose it is no surprise
> that they have only really been met with lame cop-out
> rebuttals like "yes well let's just disregard that Spike
> quotage from Intervention there, cause it doesn't quite fit
> in with our Spike=Vampire= Selfish&Evil law, let me see, who
> wrote that ep?, ah, Espenson, hmm, she must have made a
> small error, best not to worry about it too much'.
>
> Wake up!
I hope this post doesn't offend anyone. It wasn't intended to,
anyway.
Bye,
--
jonathaN
Sieue
"Jonathan Black" <jona...@nksf.nl> wrote in message
news:Xns9168A8...@130.133.1.4...
Ooooooo.....
> I hope this post doesn't offend anyone. It wasn't intended to,
> anyway.
Ah! OK then. That's cool.
Sieue
Jonathan Black
> > > Wake up!
>
> Ooooooo.....
Yes, well.
> > I hope this post doesn't offend anyone. It wasn't intended
> > to, anyway.
>
> Ah! OK then. That's cool.
Pigs!
See what I mean? You lack any meaningful rebuttal to Ninia's
kick-ass pointage. Pathectic!
Bye ;-))
--
jonathaN
Saskia
What she said.
> > I hope this post doesn't offend anyone. It wasn't intended to,
> > anyway.
>
> Ah! OK then. That's cool.
Yes.
--
Saskia
Mattia Valente
Sheesh...
> > > I hope this post doesn't offend anyone. It wasn't intended
> > > to, anyway.
> >
> > Ah! OK then. That's cool.
>
> Pigs!
GOATS!!
> See what I mean? You lack any meaningful rebuttal to Ninia's
> kick-ass pointage. Pathectic!
You're totally ignoring my more complete (and rambly, and ranty) Spike
Character Dissection. I'm not with Sas and Sue on this one. We had that
whole Me vs S&S Spike discussion a while back. But it boils down to me
not trusting Spike. So even if he does do selfless things (OK, I was
wrong first time around: it has happened. A few times.) in the end,
there's the inner selfish bastard that I cannot trust. Not with his
history. Perhaps I should cut the guy some slack, but, dammit, he's got
a heck of a lot to make up for, no soul to ensure any conscience or
anything, so...
Those are my issues. Rebutt them if you can.
Sieue
*ahem*
> > > I hope this post doesn't offend anyone. It wasn't intended
> > > to, anyway.
> >
> > Ah! OK then. That's cool.
>
> Pigs!
>
> See what I mean? You lack any meaningful rebuttal to Ninia's
> kick-ass pointage. Pathectic!
Yup, we are a sorry lot of pathetic individuals unable to put together more
than one incoherent thought at a time. We are Usenet. And your point
is....
*wink*
Sieue
Ninia
Well, at least you have made *me* very happy Jonathan! Thank you so much
for your support!
((((Jonathan))))
--
Ninia
SPIKE: So. What's the story with these role-playing rejects?
BTVS:Spiral
Ninia
O and I forgot: I so agree with your spoiler space text in that post.
Michelle Trachtenberg is a cutie. I think how she plays Dawn is terrific.
I have this image in my mind all the time how she stood there in the
Magic Shop in Tough Love. So open and vulnerable. I can't explain but it
made me cry.
--
Ninia
BUFFY: Right. Well, you know what I think? I think maybe Dawn should do
her homework at home.
DAWN: B-but it was working. I was really learning.
BTVS: Tough Love
Mattia Valente
Heh...
BTW, did ya read el longass reply post?
You know, the one where I pretty much agree with you, but with caveats?
Heck, admitted I was wrong the first time around. Doesn't happen that
often.
Sonja
> > kick-ass pointage. Pathectic!
>
> You're totally ignoring my more complete (and rambly, and ranty) Spike
> Character Dissection. I'm not with Sas and Sue on this one. We had that
> whole Me vs S&S Spike discussion a while back.
Maybe I missed something but it is quite a surprise for me that your opinion
has changed somehow on the matter. In our earlier discussions you seemed to
think more in black and white terms. Spike is evil and that's it. This
change is a good thing though.
But it boils down to me
> not trusting Spike.
Why do you need to trust him anyway. He's just a complex vampire. And then
again can you really ever trust someone.
I think it's one of his traits not to be trusted, that's what makes him
interesting and fun to watch.
So even if he does do selfless things (OK, I was
> wrong first time around: it has happened. A few times.) in the end,
> there's the inner selfish bastard that I cannot trust.
I know saying Spike was capable of selfless acts but I've had a change of
mind on this subject. Maybe there's no such thing as a selfless act. You
always get something for it in return. This even applies to Angel who has a
soul.
> Those are my issues. Rebutt them if you can.
I tried by best.
Sonja
--
"Just knock 3 times and whisper low, that you and I were sent by Joe, then
strike a match and then you'll know you're in Hernando's Hideaway..."(The
Johnston Brothers, Snatch)
Sonja
"Ninia" <Va...@wanadodo.nl> schreef in bericht
news:MPG.166f92f6...@textnews.casema.net...
> have to wait till it is on tv, but then I am somewhere in the sixth
> season as you are now.
>
Thank you for stirring up the discussion on Spike again. How are your views
though on him having the hotties for Buffy throughout season 5 and should
she consider him as a potential lover?
You know where I stand in this matter ;-).
I do agree with you apart from the selfless act thing. I know I said those
things myself in the past but now I changed my views a bit. Sort of, can
there be such thing as a truely selfless act. Not only for vampires with
souls or chips but even for humans.
But I do believe Spike does things out of his love for Buffy, but that it
makes him feel good also.
And I still think that there's a bit of humanity in Spike which was said as
early as in season 2 with the Judge.
And that this humanity makes him able to fall madly in love with someone. Be
it Dru or Buffy. He after all is love's bitch and man enough to admit it.
Mattia Valente
Which means, more than anything else, that I failed to make my point
clear (I suck that way. Meaning shrouded in words, blah blah blah..)
Spike IS Evil. At his core, he remains Evil. It's part of who he is. The
chip, however, has managed to bring out other sides to him. All I'm
saying is that I don't buy for a second that he's all good and cured and
won't ever hurt anyone again, just because he's in love with Buffy. He
seems to more or less profess to this, and I don't trust him.
> > But it boils down to me
> > not trusting Spike.
>
> Why do you need to trust him anyway. He's just a complex vampire. And then
> again can you really ever trust someone.
You can trust any of the scoobs more than you can trust Spike.
> I think it's one of his traits not to be trusted, that's what makes him
> interesting and fun to watch.
Yes, but it doesn't mean I should cut him a lot of slack, 'just' because
he's commited some selfless acts. We've got a history to take into
account.
> > So even if he does do selfless things (OK, I was
> > wrong first time around: it has happened. A few times.) in the end,
> > there's the inner selfish bastard that I cannot trust.
>
> I know saying Spike was capable of selfless acts but I've had a change of
> mind on this subject. Maybe there's no such thing as a selfless act. You
> always get something for it in return. This even applies to Angel who has a
> soul.
See 'The Trial'. All he was going to get in return was death. That's as
selfless as it comes. Spike, here, could only look forward to being
killed. For me, that's rather selfless. The distinction can be very,
very vague, because yes, one does tend to get something out of it.
There's a difference between doing this very deliberately (early Spike
suck up attempts: he doesn't CARE about other people.) and not. I don't
see Spike saving people for the heck of it, when there's no connection
to Buffy and/or he doesn't see any 'brownie points' coming from it. He's
not a hero or a champion.
> > Those are my issues. Rebutt them if you can.
>
> I tried by best.
Hmm...dammit. Now we're all mostly agreeing. On these points, anyway.
More or less.
Ninia
Well, I can always appreciate people changing their opinion. It makes
discussion a lot more interesting isn't it.
> But it boils down to me
> > not trusting Spike.
>
> Why do you need to trust him anyway. He's just a complex vampire. And then
> again can you really ever trust someone.
> I think it's one of his traits not to be trusted, that's what makes him
> interesting and fun to watch.
I agree to that. I don't understand why Mattia all the time mentions this
'trust' thing. My point is only the selfishlessness (what a word) I don't
know about the future as I dont know about anybody's future, not even
Buffy's. People change and most of the vampires don't change. (I don't
know what happened to Anya, missed her change) But I saw a lot of change
in Spike. In s.4 I didn't like it, maybe because the emphasis was on him
being paralized, but now there is some nice struggle in him (when Dru
comes back) and relations between him and the others are changing because
of his different behaviour (Buffy, Dawn, and even Xander gives him a
light for his cigaret :-) and I do like it.
> So even if he does do selfless things (OK, I was
> > wrong first time around: it has happened. A few times.) in the end,
> > there's the inner selfish bastard that I cannot trust.
>
> I know saying Spike was capable of selfless acts but I've had a change of
> mind on this subject. Maybe there's no such thing as a selfless act. You
> always get something for it in return. This even applies to Angel who has a
> soul.
I do believe in selfishness. It is the most obvious in being tortured. I
saw some pleasure in Spike when he was able to stand up to Glory,
promised to speak and didn't speak after she unbound him, but in what he
said to Robot-Buffy (when he didn't know it was realBuffy) I believed him
and he really did something heroic, just like people can do sometimes, go
above their daily selfish selves.
--
Ninia
GLORY: The vampire ... is lying to me.
SPIKE: Yeah ... but it was fun. And guess what, bitch. I'm not telling
you jack. You're never gonna get your sodding key, 'cause you might be
strong, but in our world, you're an idiot.
Ninia
Spike as a potential lover for Buffy? Mmm, but for myself YES ;-)) I
don't think I am a redemptionist if I have understood it all correctly. I
am just curious how he develops and don't want to exlude anything on
forehand.
> I do agree with you apart from the selfless act thing. I know I said those
> things myself in the past but now I changed my views a bit. Sort of, can
> there be such thing as a truely selfless act. Not only for vampires with
> souls or chips but even for humans.
I answered to that in the other posting to you.
> But I do believe Spike does things out of his love for Buffy, but that it
> makes him feel good also.
Mm, he didn't feel very good after the torture though. But there were
some things he didn't want to happen. He rather died himself. Is that
selfish?
> And I still think that there's a bit of humanity in Spike which was said as
> early as in season 2 with the Judge.
I don't remember this. What do you mean?
> And that this humanity makes him able to fall madly in love with someone. Be
> it Dru or Buffy. He after all is love's bitch and man enough to admit it.
Spike is very very cool. I'd give my life for him ;-)))))
--
Ninia
Mattia Valente
Tja....
> > But it boils down to me
> > > not trusting Spike.
> >
> > Why do you need to trust him anyway. He's just a complex vampire. And then
> > again can you really ever trust someone.
> > I think it's one of his traits not to be trusted, that's what makes him
> > interesting and fun to watch.
>
> I agree to that. I don't understand why Mattia all the time mentions this
> 'trust' thing. My point is only the selfishlessness (what a word) I don't
> know about the future as I dont know about anybody's future, not even
> Buffy's.
I keep mentioning the 'trust' thing because I know Spike's history.
There's great potential for danger there, albeit not in the immediate,
physical sense (chip and all that.)
> People change and most of the vampires don't change. (I don't
> know what happened to Anya, missed her change) But I saw a lot of change
> in Spike. In s.4 I didn't like it, maybe because the emphasis was on him
> being paralized,
People change, but we're talking about a RADICAL rethinking here. That's
a whole lot of change in a very, very short time, after and established,
125 year pattern. Anya is changing veeerrrrryyyy sllllooowwwwllllly, too
slowly, perhaps, but Spike? He's up in there. That's part of what makes
him interesting, after all.
> but now there is some nice struggle in him (when Dru
> comes back) and relations between him and the others are changing because
> of his different behaviour (Buffy, Dawn, and even Xander gives him a
> light for his cigaret :-) and I do like it.
Yes. Change is good. But there's the whole internal struggle angle. In
'Crush' we've got that whole 'look, Buffy, I'm giving up Dru for you!
Love me back!' thing happening. Have plenty of conflicting emotions
where 'Crush' is concerned, must watch that again.
I'm not sure I like the scoobs trusting him too much, accepting him
completely (mind you, not that they're doing that..not by a long shot..)
but it could make for interesting situations when he gets dechipped.
It's that 'Evil Thing' thing.
> > > So even if he does do selfless things (OK, I was
> > > wrong first time around: it has happened. A few times.) in the end,
> > > there's the inner selfish bastard that I cannot trust.
> >
> > I know saying Spike was capable of selfless acts but I've had a change of
> > mind on this subject. Maybe there's no such thing as a selfless act. You
> > always get something for it in return. This even applies to Angel who has a
> > soul.
>
> I do believe in selfishness.
You mean selflessness?
> It is the most obvious in being tortured. I
> saw some pleasure in Spike when he was able to stand up to Glory,
> promised to speak and didn't speak after she unbound him, but in what he
> said to Robot-Buffy (when he didn't know it was realBuffy) I believed him
> and he really did something heroic, just like people can do sometimes, go
> above their daily selfish selves.
Yep, selflessness.
There was nothing to be gained here. In real life, it's harder to
quantify it, because we don't tend to have to face this kind of extreme
situation, but a fantasy setting tends to facilitate this sort of
thing..
Mattia Valente
AARGHHH!!!!!
<faints>
> don't think I am a redemptionist if I have understood it all correctly. I
> am just curious how he develops and don't want to exlude anything on
> forehand.
Hmm. Ok. Let's just ask why you would, at this point. We're not talking
future? How is Buffy getting with Spike right in any way shape or form?
Or do you just like the smoochies, but not care about the
right/wrongness of it all?
> > But I do believe Spike does things out of his love for Buffy, but that it
> > makes him feel good also.
>
> Mm, he didn't feel very good after the torture though. But there were
> some things he didn't want to happen. He rather died himself. Is that
> selfish?
Nope. Hardly. He got lucky and got saved.
> > And I still think that there's a bit of humanity in Spike which was said as
> > early as in season 2 with the Judge.
>
> I don't remember this. What do you mean?
The Judge tells Dru and Spike the 'stink of humanity' because they share
jealousy, emotion, something like that. Whilst Angelus doesn't have any
humanity within him at all.
> > And that this humanity makes him able to fall madly in love with someone. Be
> > it Dru or Buffy. He after all is love's bitch and man enough to admit it.
>
> Spike is very very cool. I'd give my life for him ;-)))))
Yikes..
I'm not getting into the 'can vampires truly love' discussion here and
now. Kinda moot. He believes he does, that's enough. That's all that
really matters. If it's delusional, well, so be it.
Sonja
It sure is :-)
>
> > So even if he does do selfless things (OK, I was
> > > wrong first time around: it has happened. A few times.) in the end,
> > > there's the inner selfish bastard that I cannot trust.
> >
> > I know saying Spike was capable of selfless acts but I've had a change
of
> > mind on this subject. Maybe there's no such thing as a selfless act. You
> > always get something for it in return. This even applies to Angel who
has a
> > soul.
>
> I do believe in selfishness. It is the most obvious in being tortured. I
> saw some pleasure in Spike when he was able to stand up to Glory,
> promised to speak and didn't speak after she unbound him, but in what he
> said to Robot-Buffy (when he didn't know it was realBuffy) I believed him
> and he really did something heroic, just like people can do sometimes, go
> above their daily selfish selves.
>
Maybe you're right. In our world you don't have to deal with supernatural
powers and the line between good and evil is more blurred. So maybe in the
Buffy verse you can speak of truely selfless acts as well.
> GLORY: The vampire ... is lying to me.
> SPIKE: Yeah ... but it was fun. And guess what, bitch. I'm not telling
> you jack. You're never gonna get your sodding key, 'cause you might be
> strong, but in our world, you're an idiot.
That's our man ;-)))
<think Angel also to be a real cutie though :-) >
Sonja
And we all keep on dreaming. <sighs>
>
> > But I do believe Spike does things out of his love for Buffy, but that
it
> > makes him feel good also.
>
> Mm, he didn't feel very good after the torture though. But there were
> some things he didn't want to happen. He rather died himself. Is that
> selfish?
>
I do not really believe that. It puzzles me also and we'll never find out
cause he was saved.
> > And I still think that there's a bit of humanity in Spike which was said
as
> > early as in season 2 with the Judge.
>
> I don't remember this. What do you mean?
>
Mattia will no doubt have explained this, for he is the reply meister. Oh he
already has :-)
> > And that this humanity makes him able to fall madly in love with
someone. Be
> > it Dru or Buffy. He after all is love's bitch and man enough to admit
it.
>
> Spike is very very cool. I'd give my life for him ;-)))))
Okaay
Sonja
<Sonja slaps you in the face, wake up damn it.>
> > don't think I am a redemptionist if I have understood it all correctly.
I
> > am just curious how he develops and don't want to exlude anything on
> > forehand.
>
> Hmm. Ok. Let's just ask why you would, at this point. We're not talking
> future? How is Buffy getting with Spike right in any way shape or form?
> Or do you just like the smoochies, but not care about the
> right/wrongness of it all?
>
Erhhmm,
well,
actually,
how can I put this,
what I mean to say is,
...Yes?
> > > But I do believe Spike does things out of his love for Buffy, but that
it
> > > makes him feel good also.
> >
> > Mm, he didn't feel very good after the torture though. But there were
> > some things he didn't want to happen. He rather died himself. Is that
> > selfish?
>
> Nope. Hardly. He got lucky and got saved.
>
That's what I remember about it too.
Mattia Valente
> >
> > <faints>
> >
>
> <Sonja slaps you in the face, wake up damn it.>
whaa....sorry.
> > Hmm. Ok. Let's just ask why you would, at this point. We're not talking
> > future? How is Buffy getting with Spike right in any way shape or form?
> > Or do you just like the smoochies, but not care about the
> > right/wrongness of it all?
> >
>
> Erhhmm,
> well,
> actually,
> how can I put this,
> what I mean to say is,
> ...Yes?
The second bit? Hmm, OK then. The implication is often that Buffy and
Spike are 'right' for each other. When they're, like, clearly not. IMO.
> > > > But I do believe Spike does things out of his love for Buffy, but that
> it
> > > > makes him feel good also.
> > >
> > > Mm, he didn't feel very good after the torture though. But there were
> > > some things he didn't want to happen. He rather died himself. Is that
> > > selfish?
> >
> > Nope. Hardly. He got lucky and got saved.
>
> That's what I remember about it too.
Hence, selfless.
Mattia
Must go find some matches...
Sonja
I hope your weren't planning on burning your house down.
Sonja
Mattia Valente
>
> I hope your weren't planning on burning your house down.
Well, no.
<veg>
Sonja
> Sonja wrote:
> > "Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> schreef in bericht
> > > Must go find some matches...
> >
> > I hope your weren't planning on burning your house down.
>
> Well, no.
>
It was a stupid joke and I forgot the whole :-) thing.
Sorry my mistake.
Sonja
Mattia Valente
>
> "Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> schreef in bericht
> news:3C0929EE...@std.vu.nl...
> > Sonja wrote:
> > > "Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> schreef in bericht
> > > > Must go find some matches...
> > >
> > > I hope your weren't planning on burning your house down.
> >
> > Well, no.
> >
>
> It was a stupid joke and I forgot the whole :-) thing.
> Sorry my mistake.
I know. I did grin evilly, but you cut and/or ignored that...now I'm
worried about you again.
<veg> <- very evil grin, FWIW
Sonja
> Sonja wrote:
> >
> > "Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> schreef in bericht
> > news:3C0929EE...@std.vu.nl...
> > > Sonja wrote:
> > > > "Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> schreef in bericht
> > > > > Must go find some matches...
> > > >
> > > > I hope your weren't planning on burning your house down.
> > >
> > > Well, no.
> > >
> >
> > It was a stupid joke and I forgot the whole :-) thing.
> > Sorry my mistake.
>
> I know. I did grin evilly, but you cut and/or ignored that...now I'm
> worried about you again.
>
> <veg> <- very evil grin, FWIW
>
Ah, that's what it meant, I thought you were a little annoyed. Don't worry
about me ;-)
Sonja
PS An abbreviation dictionary would be very helpful, I looked at the nksf
list but that list needs to be updated I guess. Or maybe one for abe?
Mattia Valente
>
> "Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> schreef in bericht
> news:3C0A0F0A...@std.vu.nl...
> > Sonja wrote:
> > >
> > > "Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> schreef in bericht
> > > news:3C0929EE...@std.vu.nl...
> > > > Sonja wrote:
> > > > > "Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> schreef in bericht
> > > > > > Must go find some matches...
> > > > >
> > > > > I hope your weren't planning on burning your house down.
> > > >
> > > > Well, no.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It was a stupid joke and I forgot the whole :-) thing.
> > > Sorry my mistake.
> >
> > I know. I did grin evilly, but you cut and/or ignored that...now I'm
> > worried about you again.
> >
> > <veg> <- very evil grin, FWIW
>
> Ah, that's what it meant, I thought you were a little annoyed. Don't worry
> about me ;-)
:-p
Well, I don't annoy very easily. If I seem annoyed, or if there's chance
I'm being sarcastic, I probably am. Apparently some people find me
'scary' at first (Weeiird..) and I've been killfiled for being verbose
(in part..) so...
> PS An abbreviation dictionary would be very helpful, I looked at the nksf
> list but that list needs to be updated I guess. Or maybe one for abe?
well, http://bite.to/abe has some of the more 'esoteric' abbreviations.
A lot of the other ones are rather 'standard', don't have a good link
offhand. Lets see...what do we use a lot..
The variations on LOL/ROTFL don't need much explanation, I guess.
<g>, <eg>, <veg>: Very Evil Grin, choose letter
Um, that's sort of it. I'm not going to list FWIW, IMHO, YMMV, that sort
of thing unless you want me to. Or just ask when you see one, eventually
it becomes second nature.
P@rick
> PS An abbreviation dictionary would be very helpful, I looked at the nksf
> list but that list needs to be updated I guess. Or maybe one for abe?
You can find most common usenet abbreviations there. If you still can't
find, just use your fantasy ;)
HTH, HAND
Bye, Patrick
Mattia Valente
*shudder*
Sorry, I've got other-grouply associations for that combo. Do me a
favor, don't use it, 'kay?
;-P
Sonja
> Sonja wrote:
> >
> > "Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> schreef in bericht
> > news:3C0A0F0A...@std.vu.nl...
> > > Sonja wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> schreef in bericht
> > > > news:3C0929EE...@std.vu.nl...
> > > > > Sonja wrote:
> > > > > > "Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> schreef in bericht
>
> I'm being sarcastic, I probably am. Apparently some people find me
> 'scary' at first (Weeiird..) and I've been killfiled for being verbose
> (in part..) so...
>
I find that hard to believe.
>
> The variations on LOL/ROTFL don't need much explanation, I guess.
>
> <g>, <eg>, <veg>: Very Evil Grin, choose letter
>
> Um, that's sort of it. I'm not going to list FWIW, IMHO, YMMV, that sort
> of thing unless you want me to. Or just ask when you see one, eventually
> it becomes second nature.
>
Okay what do you mean by YMMV? Your mileage may vary(official according to
acronym finder)?
You make me vomit :-)) ? Sorry just teasing.
Sonja
Mattia Valente
>
> "Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> schreef in bericht
> news:3C0A14F6...@std.vu.nl...
> > Sonja wrote:
> > >
> > > "Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> schreef in bericht
> > > news:3C0A0F0A...@std.vu.nl...
> > > > Sonja wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> schreef in bericht
> > > > > news:3C0929EE...@std.vu.nl...
> > > > > > Sonja wrote:
> > > > > > > "Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> schreef in bericht
> >
> > Well, I don't annoy very easily. If I seem annoyed, or if there's chance
> > I'm being sarcastic, I probably am. Apparently some people find me
> > 'scary' at first (Weeiird..) and I've been killfiled for being verbose
> > (in part..) so...
>
> I find that hard to believe.
It's true. Ask Saskia.
> > The variations on LOL/ROTFL don't need much explanation, I guess.
> >
> > <g>, <eg>, <veg>: Very Evil Grin, choose letter
> >
> > Um, that's sort of it. I'm not going to list FWIW, IMHO, YMMV, that sort
> > of thing unless you want me to. Or just ask when you see one, eventually
> > it becomes second nature.
> >
>
> Okay what do you mean by YMMV? Your mileage may vary(official according to
> acronym finder)?
Yes, Your Mileage May Vary, indeed.
> You make me vomit :-)) ? Sorry just teasing.
Mah hah hah..
Saskia
> > "Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> schreef in bericht
> > news:3C0A14F6...@std.vu.nl...
> > > Well, I don't annoy very easily. If I seem annoyed, or if there's chance
> > > I'm being sarcastic, I probably am. Apparently some people find me
> > > 'scary' at first (Weeiird..) and I've been killfiled for being verbose
> > > (in part..) so...
> >
> > I find that hard to believe.
>
> It's true. Ask Saskia.
Yes. Mattia has lived in my kill file often.
(what do you mean what do I mean?)
--
Saskia
Mattia Valente
:-p
SASKIA!!! NOOOOOOO!!!!!
*sob* *snivel* *sniff*
Say it ain't so!!
Oh, and *thwap*. You know what I'm talking about, oh most supportive one
(that's non-sarcastic, BTW..)
Saskia
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Mattia Valente wrote:
> Saskia wrote:
> > Mattia Valente shared the following thoughts with us:
> > > Sonja wrote:
> > > > "Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> schreef in bericht
> > > > news:3C0A14F6...@std.vu.nl...
> >
> > > > > Well, I don't annoy very easily. If I seem annoyed, or if there's chance
> > > > > I'm being sarcastic, I probably am. Apparently some people find me
> > > > > 'scary' at first (Weeiird..) and I've been killfiled for being verbose
> > > > > (in part..) so...
> > > >
> > > > I find that hard to believe.
> > >
> > > It's true. Ask Saskia.
> >
> > Yes. Mattia has lived in my kill file often.
> >
> > (what do you mean what do I mean?)
>
> :-p
>
> SASKIA!!! NOOOOOOO!!!!!
>
> *sob* *snivel* *sniff*
<pats Mattia gently on the head>
There there... it's okay... I was only kidding.
> Say it ain't so!!
Oh all right then... Argh, I cannot bare the sight of sobbing men. It
ain't so! How could I ever killfile you? You are the only one I can always
rely on to reply to all my posts ;-))
> Oh, and *thwap*.
Ouch! Hey!!
> You know what I'm talking about, oh most supportive one
> (that's non-sarcastic, BTW..)
Hmmm. Yes Sonja, you can check the history of abmbvs. Poor Mattia dared to
post there for the very first time and got flamed and killfiled for doing
so :)
--
Saskia
Mattia Valente
>
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Mattia Valente wrote:
> > Saskia wrote:
> > > Mattia Valente shared the following thoughts with us:
> > > > Sonja wrote:
> > > > > "Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> schreef in bericht
> > > > > news:3C0A14F6...@std.vu.nl...
> > >
> > > > > > Well, I don't annoy very easily. If I seem annoyed, or if there's chance
> > > > > > I'm being sarcastic, I probably am. Apparently some people find me
> > > > > > 'scary' at first (Weeiird..) and I've been killfiled for being verbose
> > > > > > (in part..) so...
> > > > >
> > > > > I find that hard to believe.
> > > >
> > > > It's true. Ask Saskia.
> > >
> > > Yes. Mattia has lived in my kill file often.
> > >
> > > (what do you mean what do I mean?)
> >
> > :-p
> >
> > SASKIA!!! NOOOOOOO!!!!!
> >
> > *sob* *snivel* *sniff*
>
> <pats Mattia gently on the head>
>
> There there... it's okay... I was only kidding.
*sigh*
Phew..
> > Say it ain't so!!
>
> Oh all right then... Argh, I cannot bare the sight of sobbing men. It
> ain't so!
Woo!
> How could I ever killfile you?
Awww...
> You are the only one I can always rely on to reply to all my posts ;-))
Hmmm.....:-/
> > Oh, and *thwap*.
>
> Ouch! Hey!!
Sorry..
> > You know what I'm talking about, oh most supportive one
> > (that's non-sarcastic, BTW..)
>
> Hmmm. Yes Sonja, you can check the history of abmbvs. Poor Mattia dared to
> post there for the very first time and got flamed and killfiled for doing
> so :)
But hey, it ended up getting some nice audio fixage done, in a small
way, so...
Sieue
"Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote in message
news:3C17A90F...@std.vu.nl...
And if people stopped replying to Mattia I wouldn't see his posts either....
jeez, whats the point in killfiling someone when everyone keeps... erm hang
on... i've just replied to Mattia's post haven't i?... ooops.
> > > Say it ain't so!!
> >
> > Oh all right then... Argh, I cannot bare the sight of sobbing men. It
> > ain't so!
>
> Woo!
*Thwap* blub some more you big baby.
> > How could I ever killfile you?
>
> Awww...
Easily look...
::plonk::
> > You are the only one I can always rely on to reply to all my posts ;-))
>
> Hmmm.....:-/
Actually this is true - i bet he even replies to this pointless one.
> > > Oh, and *thwap*.
> >
> > Ouch! Hey!!
>
> Sorry..
*gasp*
> > > You know what I'm talking about, oh most supportive one
> > > (that's non-sarcastic, BTW..)
> >
> > Hmmm. Yes Sonja, you can check the history of abmbvs. Poor Mattia dared
to
> > post there for the very first time and got flamed and killfiled for
doing
> > so :)
>
> But hey, it ended up getting some nice audio fixage done, in a small
> way, so...
Yes its true, he helped an encoder, he is our hero (and yes I am being
serious).... oh and guess why he was killfiled - being too verbose - can
you belive that? - our Mattia? Too verbose?
sieue
*snigger*
Mattia Valente
Long time no post. How's the BuffyQuizzing going?
> "Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote in message
> news:3C17A90F...@std.vu.nl...
> > Saskia wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Mattia Valente wrote:
> > > > SASKIA!!! NOOOOOOO!!!!!
> > > >
> > > > *sob* *snivel* *sniff*
> > >
> > > <pats Mattia gently on the head>
> > >
> > > There there... it's okay... I was only kidding.
> >
> > *sigh*
> >
> > Phew..
>
> And if people stopped replying to Mattia I wouldn't see his posts either....
:-o
> jeez, whats the point in killfiling someone when everyone keeps... erm hang
> on... i've just replied to Mattia's post haven't i?... ooops.
Pshaw.....*thwapotle*
> > > > Say it ain't so!!
> > >
> > > Oh all right then... Argh, I cannot bare the sight of sobbing men. It
> > > ain't so!
> >
> > Woo!
>
> *Thwap* blub some more you big baby.
God, woman, you're a glutton for punishment, aren't you? That, or
really, really sappy.
> > > How could I ever killfile you?
> >
> > Awww...
>
> Easily look...
Erm..
> ::plonk::
Hey!!
> > > You are the only one I can always rely on to reply to all my posts ;-))
> >
> > Hmmm.....:-/
>
> Actually this is true - i bet he even replies to this pointless one.
As if! Oh, wait...
> > > > Oh, and *thwap*.
> > >
> > > Ouch! Hey!!
> >
> > Sorry..
>
> *gasp*
What? YOU? Shocked and surprised? S'yeah, right.
> > > Hmmm. Yes Sonja, you can check the history of abmbvs. Poor Mattia dared
> > > to post there for the very first time and got flamed and killfiled for
> > > doing so :)
> >
> > But hey, it ended up getting some nice audio fixage done, in a small
> > way, so...
>
> Yes its true, he helped an encoder, he is our hero (and yes I am being
> serious)....
*blush*
Aww, shucks..
> oh and guess why he was killfiled - being too verbose - can
> you belive that? - our Mattia? Too verbose?
:-p
Sieue
> Sieue wrote:
>
> Long time no post. How's the BuffyQuizzing going?
Just. don't. talk. about. it.
> > "Mattia Valente" <mae.v...@std.vu.nl> wrote in message
> > news:3C17A90F...@std.vu.nl...
> > > Saskia wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Mattia Valente wrote:
> > > > > SASKIA!!! NOOOOOOO!!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > *sob* *snivel* *sniff*
> > > >
> > > > <pats Mattia gently on the head>
> > > >
> > > > There there... it's okay... I was only kidding.
> > >
> > > *sigh*
> > >
> > > Phew..
> >
> > And if people stopped replying to Mattia I wouldn't see his posts
either....
>
> :-o
What you are shocked? surprised? I'm evol...
> > jeez, whats the point in killfiling someone when everyone keeps... erm
hang
> > on... i've just replied to Mattia's post haven't i?... ooops.
>
> Pshaw.....*thwapotle*
Oi! hands off my thwapotles
> > > > > Say it ain't so!!
> > > >
> > > > Oh all right then... Argh, I cannot bare the sight of sobbing men.
It
> > > > ain't so!
> > >
> > > Woo!
> >
> > *Thwap* blub some more you big baby.
>
> God, woman, you're a glutton for punishment, aren't you? That, or
> really, really sappy.
I'll go with the sap... have i reminded you of my Mattia shrine recently?
> > > > How could I ever killfile you?
> > >
> > > Awww...
> >
> > Easily look...
>
> Erm..
>
> > ::plonk::
>
> Hey!!
mwahahahahahahaha
> > > > You are the only one I can always rely on to reply to all my posts
;-))
> > >
> > > Hmmm.....:-/
> >
> > Actually this is true - i bet he even replies to this pointless one.
>
> As if! Oh, wait...
mwahahahahahahahaha again
> > > > > Oh, and *thwap*.
> > > >
> > > > Ouch! Hey!!
> > >
> > > Sorry..
> >
> > *gasp*
>
> What? YOU? Shocked and surprised? S'yeah, right.
Well you thwapped oh marvellous Sas. How could you. *thwapotles*
> > > > Hmmm. Yes Sonja, you can check the history of abmbvs. Poor Mattia
dared
> > > > to post there for the very first time and got flamed and killfiled
for
> > > > doing so :)
> > >
> > > But hey, it ended up getting some nice audio fixage done, in a small
> > > way, so...
> >
> > Yes its true, he helped an encoder, he is our hero (and yes I am being
> > serious)....
>
> *blush*
>
> Aww, shucks..
Oh and i lo.... oops wrong place.
> > oh and guess why he was killfiled - being too verbose - can
> > you belive that? - our Mattia? Too verbose?
>
> :-p
And a very nice tongue it is too.
;-)
Sieue
--
mwa hah hah