AOQ Review 5-15: "I Was Made To Love You"
Arbitrar Of Quality
threads.
BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
Season Five, Episode 15: "I Was Made To Love You"
(or "Dave's not here, man")
Writer: Jane Espenson
Director: James A. Contner
Ah, great. Now _Buffy_ is building its episodes around intentionally
lame characters too. Isn't that what ATS is for? Anyway, Mrs.
Quality and I spent a little time after watching IWMTLY pondering why
this episode was made. I wouldn't have done it at all, but if I had,
it'd have been within the first few episodes after the Riley breakup.
But I guess we wouldn't want to do that so soon after those
oh-so-hilarious scenes from "Triangle" back when she was still in
the denial phase. Jane can be one of the Buffyverse's funnier
writers (although I didn't laugh very much at this one), but let's
not let her write any more stories about Buffy's love life
post-breakup, okay?
So we set up our exploration of the g/f lifestyle with Buffy blaming
herself for Spike's interest in the previous episode. I don't
really think I buy it as a triggering factor for Buffy to be thinking
about her boyfriend issues again, but there are enough other things
wrong with the episode that I'll let that slide. More to the point
is that I think the whole premise is just a very stupid idea. I tend
to have a problem, as has been discussed before, when the analogies get
too direct. Here, Buffy has to kill a representation of relationship
dependency in order to learn that she doesn't want to be a dependent
girlfriend. Ugh.
Yeah, yeah, anyway, she and Ben are continuing to flirt as the episode
begins. Have you noticed that just about every character on the show
has handled pre-dating awkwardness through self-referential lines like
"I was gonna try to subtly work [giving you my phone number] into the
conversation, but it didn't pan out?" It's an okay device, but I
think it's been beaten into the ground at this point. No strong
feelings about most of their scenes together, except that I don't
like the exaggerated laughing at jokes any more than I do when Cordelia
does it. So let's instead talk about the mechanisms from Ben's
perspective. Clearly he has to know that Glory is his other half,
given his preponderance towards finding himself wearing drag. He knows
that Dawn is the Key he's trying to protect. So why exactly is he
hanging around in Sunnydale ensuring that Glory's there too? And
then why is he putting himself consistently close to the Key's
immediate family - anything sinister there? And more to the point,
why is he worrying about dating at a time like this? Also, can he or
can't he control his changes? If not ("Blood Ties" gave that
impression, this episode makes it seem more controllable. Maybe Glory
can choose when to "leave" but Ben can't?), how does he work
twenty-four hour days as an intern, and know that he won't transform
when he's out socially either? I hold out hope that this'll all
make sense, which is quite possible, but it feels like sloppy writing a
this point.
Meanwhile, Joyce simultaneously annoys me and makes my skin crawl while
prattling on about her date. Her constantly asking what time it is is
painful, as Sutherland is beyond irritating playing "giddy
excitement." I really don't see ever having a conversation with a
parent like this, particularly one involving the phrase "randy sex
kitten." Mrs. Quality thinks it's a stupid dress, whereas I was
too worried about the stupid scene to care. Better is Joyce later
acknowledging and playing off the disturbingness factor upon returning
home.
Even if we're supposed to be caring the most about the regular cast,
the story of Warren and his fembot gets plenty of attention. The big
recurring image of IWMTLY is April wandering around town asking about
Warren with boundless enthusiasm and a chipper smile. She may get a
door slammed in her face, or occasionally stop to throw someone through
a window, but the next moment, she's on to whoever's next in line
- "have you seen Warren?" It's one of those things that one
might find amusing or really annoying as it's repeated over and over
and over, but I didn't have either reaction. It is what it is.
Namely, not much. Shonda Farr does a respectable job playing a
naïveté paired with super-strength. Warren himself is more of a
problem for me. He's sub-pathetic: the script knows it, and all the
characters (except April) know it. Yet we spend quite a lot of time on
him. He's too twisted to be an object of sympathy, treated as too
much of a joke to be disturbing, and too, well, not-that-funny to laugh
much at. Sadly, he seems likely to appear at least one more time to
give Spike his special order - my enthusiasm for this story is the
kind that is not.
Mrs. Q. was laughing a lot during the fight, with April casually
breaking the see-saw in half and such. I didn't have that sense of
whimsy in me. Oh, and no bonus points for the _Terminator_-esque
robot's-eye view bits. And what the hell's up with that
reverse-Heimlich thing she does to Katrina? My favorite scene with
April is her last one. Not much for the dialogue per se (except for
"crying is blackmail. Good girlfriends don't cry") as for the mood
as she gradually dies. Particularly the strangely striking moment in
which she first mentions it "getting dark."
So rather than facing his problems, Warren originally left April
behind, and says that her batteries should've run out. Do we ever
find out why they haven't, or why she eventually shorts out (simple
miscalculation? Slayer damage?)? It doesn't really matter for the
purposes of the show, but things always feel more cohesive if they're
fake-explained to some extent, limiting that "pulled out of the
writer's ass" flavor.
It's good to see Buffy and Xander spending time together. The Puffy
Xander opening is okay, but I think I actually liked the closing
conversation better. Again not much of note is said, but they just
seem comfortable with each other, hanging out and speaking their minds.
Plus, "shimmed? Is that even a real word? Do you have any idea
what you're talking about?" "Yeah, I do. Scary, isn't it?"
Two concepts that I think are nice touches beyond that: Anya getting
involved in online stock trading, Tara's attempts at humor still
regularly going over the others' heads. Want more compliments about
IWMTLY? Well, the description of Giles's time with Dawn is
smile-worthy, and it's worth mentioning that a fourteen-year-old
shouldn't have a baby sitter (normally completely true, but there are
circumstances...). Scenes in which Giles gets very angry are almost
always worth watching, so put Head's glare at Spike in the plus
column too. And finally, the second fade-to-commercial act break (the
shocking revelation about April's nature) is fun.
Odd mention of Oz this week. Actually, Xander's had another male
friend to bounce such comments off more recently, but maybe we're not
saying his name in mixed company.
Could April's unfinished last cliché reflect the relative weakness
of Season Four? Thank you, try the seitan.
I noticed that this, of all episodes in this part of the season, is the
one that gets a commentary track on the DVD. Of course, for all I
know, maybe the commentary consists of the writer apologizing to the
audience. Somehow, I doubt it.
Given that I had robots on the mind, Joyce's motionless position at
the end makes her look like a robot. Actually, my semi-serious theory
for why this episode was made is that the writers wanted the last scene
of "Crush" to be the revoked invitation, so they needed something
inconsequential to drop the Joyce cliffhanger into the end of.
So...
One-sentence summary: Pointless.
AOQ rating: Weak
[Season Five so far:
1) "Buffy Vs. Dracula" - Good
2) "Real Me" - Decent
3) "The Replacement" - Good
4) "Out Of My Mind" - Weak
5) "No Place Like Home" - Decent
6) "Family" - Excellent
7) "Fool For Love" - Excellent
8) "Shadow" - Good
9) "Listening To Fear" - Decent
10) "Into The Woods" - Good
11) "Triangle" - Decent
12) "Checkpoint" - Decent
13) "Blood Ties" - Good
14) "Crush" - Excellent
15) "I Was Made To Love You" - Weak]
EGK
wrote:
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>threads.
>
>
>BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
>Season Five, Episode 15: "I Was Made To Love You"
>(or "Dave's not here, man")
>Writer: Jane Espenson
>Director: James A. Contner
>
>Ah, great. Now _Buffy_ is building its episodes around intentionally
>lame characters too.
Uh oh. No Spoilers but all I can say is wait till next year, buddy. :)
>So...
>
>One-sentence summary: Pointless.
>AOQ rating: Weak
Can't really argue with that. Some liked it more than others and the robot
chick was hot but it was definitely filler. It would have been a crying
shame if they based a whole season around characters from this one. This
was more like a season 1 or early season 2 episode but as you've probably
noticed, they don't fit the direction the show has taken. I say that
because of your comments about the not-so-funny episode Triangle.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There would be a lot more civility in this world if people
didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you"
(Calvin and Hobbes)
jil...@hotmail.com
Well, you know how they say it's always darkest before the dawn...
(Dawn)
I will only tell you, it's not reached the darkest points yet.
Eric Hunter
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Five, Episode 15: "I Was Made To Love You"
>
>
> AOQ rating: Weak
In basic agreement as a first-time viewer. The two
codas obviously suggest huge spoiler potential, so
it is probably best to not say much more. The
overall concept of Buffy coming to realize that she
doesn't need to be someone's girlfriend to be
complete as she battles something that exists only
to be a girlfriend is a bit of a first season
approach but the Hellmouth does tend to make for
literal metaphors, so I accepted it.
TISBILA moments for me:
BUFFY: So, what do you guys think she is? I mean, this may sound nuts,
but I kinda got the impression that she was a-
TARA: Robot.
Everyone nods in complete agreement.
XANDER: Oh yeah, robot.
BUFFY: Yeah, I was gonna say robot.
and,
ANYA: She speaks with a strange evenness and selects her words a shade
too precisely.
XANDER: Well, some of us like that kind of thing in a girl.
Eric.
--
Rowan Hawthorn
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Five, Episode 15: "I Was Made To Love You"
> (or "Dave's not here, man")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: James A. Contner
>
>
> involved in online stock trading, Tara's attempts at humor still
> regularly going over the others' heads.
And the ultimate capsule review of usenet and the internet:
TARA: I go online sometimes but everyone’s spelling is really bad and
it’s... depressing
I also found Willow's little faux pas amusing (Willow has a wandering
eye and Tara gets jealous in a hurry! Who knew?)
>
> One-sentence summary: Pointless.
>
> AOQ rating: Weak
Weak!? What?
Hey, Spike gets thrown through a window. What's not to like?
Oh, well. Yeah, weak pretty much covers it. I *did* feel bad for the
Amberbot, though; funny how the machine was more sympathetic than lots
of *human* characters...
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> hanging around in Sunnydale ensuring that Glory's there too? And
> then why is he putting himself consistently close to the Key's
> immediate family - anything sinister there? And more to the point,
at the moment on both series youre expecting the plot to develop a certain way
it doesnt seem to
and rather than considering its not going to go the way you expect
you are disappointed your expectations are unfulfilled
> Meanwhile, Joyce simultaneously annoys me and makes my skin crawl while
> prattling on about her date. Her constantly asking what time it is is
if you watched the next episode already
you know what this scene is about
> Plus, "shimmed? Is that even a real word? Do you have any idea
its a real word and xander is really shimming the frame
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
ny dnrqn greebevfz ahpyrne obzo vena gnyvona ovt oebgure
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
cry...@panix.com
> Well, you know how they say it's always darkest before the dawn...
What! I liked Restless ;-)
--
-Crystal
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> Amberbot, though; funny how the machine was more sympathetic than lots
> of *human* characters...
i have problems with amber that are of more technical nature
- theres no real difference between amber
and any other batteries not included toy
and anybody using one of those doesnt get to say ewww
- all computers should have a clearly labeled off switch or power plug
that completely powers off the computer
- artificial intelligence doesnt produce human intelligence
and nobody knows if ever will
(writers seem to believe it already exists)
amber is nothing more than an ambulatory eliza
- if artificial intelligence ever does produce human intelligence
then for turings sake always always always program in
the three laws of robotics
- a robot may not harm a human or through inaction
allow a human to come to harm
- a robot must obey a human except in conflict with the first law
- a robot must protect itself except in conflict with the first two laws
- never forget we make these things for our benefit not their own
theres no need to script anything pretending to be free will or a soul
a robot is no more a slave than your toaster or dishwasher is a slave
this also applies to -the matrix- and -the terminator-
and colossus the forbin project and hal 9000s and data
and nearly every other fictional representation of robots
Rowan Hawthorn
>> Oh, well. Yeah, weak pretty much covers it. I *did* feel bad for the
>> Amberbot, though; funny how the machine was more sympathetic than lots
>> of *human* characters...
>
> i have problems with amber that are of more technical nature
There wasn't anything about the episode that related to technology as
such, or was even intended to represent real technology. If you're
looking at it going, "REAL robots aren't like that," you probably missed
the point...
>
> - theres no real difference between amber
> and any other batteries not included toy
> and anybody using one of those doesnt get to say ewww
>
Yes. Of course, humans in general have illogical reactions to lots of
things. About thirty seconds in this newsgroup ought to prove that...
> - all computers should have a clearly labeled off switch or power plug
> that completely powers off the computer
As with all technologies, "Should have" does not necessarily equate to
"Does have." Not a day passes that I don't come across a "Should have"
that someone overlooked.
>
> - artificial intelligence doesnt produce human intelligence
> and nobody knows if ever will
> (writers seem to believe it already exists)
> amber is nothing more than an ambulatory eliza
Yeah, but then adhering to reality would wipe out a good chunk of
speculative fiction.
>
> - if artificial intelligence ever does produce human intelligence
> then for turings sake always always always program in
> the three laws of robotics
> - a robot may not harm a human or through inaction
> allow a human to come to harm
> - a robot must obey a human except in conflict with the first law
> - a robot must protect itself except in conflict with the first two laws
>
Not a chance in hell that will be done. If and when a genuine AI is
ever developed, it will almost certainly more closely resemble (from a
programming standpoint) "Terminator" than "C3-PO." That's humankind for
you: *First*, let's figure out how we can use this new invention to kill
other people...
> - never forget we make these things for our benefit not their own
> theres no need to script anything pretending to be free will or a soul
But then, there's no *need* to script anything at all, is there? The
scripts are there simply to tell a story, not to make any pretense of
being a blueprint for real-world robotics.
> a robot is no more a slave than your toaster or dishwasher is a slave
>
> this also applies to -the matrix- and -the terminator-
> and colossus the forbin project and hal 9000s and data
> and nearly every other fictional representation of robots
You said the key word - *fictional*. Computers also don't explode in
massive pyrotechnics when you feed them invalid data (although,
considering some of my past clients, I sometimes wish to hell they
*did*. And have been tempted to make it so...)
Elisi
I'm waiting for OBS before saying anything (and also I'm rather rushed
right now), but can I just point out that the robot's name was 'April'?
BTR1701
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Five, Episode 15: "I Was Made To Love You"
> (or "Dave's not here, man")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: James A. Contner
>
> Ah, great. Now Buffy is building its episodes around intentionally
> lame characters too. Isn't that what ATS is for? Anyway, Mrs.
> Quality and I spent a little time after watching IWMTLY pondering why
> this episode was made.
It was made for Britney Spears (back when she was still hot, not the
post-baby chubby girl she's become).
And that's not a joke. The role of the robot was written for Spears but
some last minute schedule conflicts prevented her from doing it so the
role was recast with Shonda Farr.
> Sadly, he seems likely to appear at least one more time to
> give Spike his special order - my enthusiasm for this story is the
> kind that is not.
Fvtu... vs bayl ur whfg nccrnerq bar zber gvzr.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
> >> Oh, well. Yeah, weak pretty much covers it. I *did* feel bad for the
> >> Amberbot, though; funny how the machine was more sympathetic than lots
> >> of *human* characters...
> >
> > i have problems with amber that are of more technical nature
>
> There wasn't anything about the episode that related to technology as
> such, or was even intended to represent real technology. If you're
> looking at it going, "REAL robots aren't like that," you probably missed
> the point...
Buffy: It would drive you crazy if we were watching an army movie and they were
all saluting backwards and ... invading all willy-nilly.
John Briggs
>
> You said the key word - *fictional*. Computers also don't explode in
> massive pyrotechnics when you feed them invalid data (although,
> considering some of my past clients, I sometimes wish to hell they
> *did*. And have been tempted to make it so...)
Some do. I know someone who blew a monitor that way - it was the early PC
era, when monitor parameters were under software control...
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
>
>
> its a real word and xander is really shimming the frame
It's a real noun - I'm not convinced it's a real verb.
(Verbing weirds language.)
--
John Briggs
Rowan Hawthorn
> Rowan Hawthorn wrote:
>>
>> "Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
>> Vampire Slayer"
>
> I'm waiting for OBS before saying anything (and also I'm rather rushed
> right now), but can I just point out that the robot's name was 'April'?
>
Sure. Since I like Amber a whole lot better than the 'bot, let's just
call it a fraudian slip, shall we...?
Rowan Hawthorn
But then, that's *hardware* info, not application data. Try to withdraw
half a billion or so from your ATM and see if it does anything other
than sit there and look at you. (And if it *does* go apeshit and start
spitting out cash, remember I'm in for a cut...)
Rowan Hawthorn
> In article <w8WdnU6GnLh...@giganews.com>,
> Rowan Hawthorn <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
>>>> Oh, well. Yeah, weak pretty much covers it. I *did* feel bad for the
>>>> Amberbot, though; funny how the machine was more sympathetic than lots
>>>> of *human* characters...
>>> i have problems with amber that are of more technical nature
>> There wasn't anything about the episode that related to technology as
>> such, or was even intended to represent real technology. If you're
>> looking at it going, "REAL robots aren't like that," you probably missed
>> the point...
>
> Buffy: It would drive you crazy if we were watching an army movie and they were
> all saluting backwards and ... invading all willy-nilly.
>
1. Buffy (the character) pretty much defines the illogical response
2. There are *real* armies to model from. As of yet, there *are* no
*real* high-level androids to use as a model. If the entire class of
object is fictional or speculative, complaining that the fictional
object doesn't work like the real thing *as we know it* is kind of useless.
3. See #1
Rowan Hawthorn
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
>>> Plus, "shimmed? Is that even a real word? Do you have any idea
>> its a real word and xander is really shimming the frame
>
> It's a real noun - I'm not convinced it's a real verb.
Certainly it is. A shim is what you use when you shim something into
position. One *could* use a lengthy sentence to describe what one is
doing when one shims an object, but why bother when there's a perfectly
good term for it?
sienamystic
found it really entertaining. The actress who played April was very
effective in playing a robot with an innocent sweetness that made her
very endearing. And the whole "good girlfriends don't cry" bit got me
mad enough to throw Warren through a window myself. That with the
final moments of Buffy and April on the swingset, plus Buffy's return
home - I was definitely sniffling. It may just be a filler ep, but
it's got a lot of meat on it's bones.
Genevieve
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
> threads.
>
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Five, Episode 15: "I Was Made To Love You"
> (or "Dave's not here, man")
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: James A. Contner
One of my biggest problems with IWMTLY is one AOQ didn't mention: it
absolutely *crawls*, especially in the first act. None of the
conversations were worthless, but most, especially the Joyce-Buffy-Dawn
talk about Joyce's date, needed to be trimmed down. But the real problem
isn't any one conversation so much as the succession of them. There was no
rhythm, no variation, just one conversation after another. April's
appearance at the end of the teaser served notice that this episode will
be a metaphor for romance, but it didn't really add any excitement. This
is what really struck me as I rewatched IRMTLY over the weekend: I kept
wondering "when is something going to HAPPEN?" Even though I already
knew.
Which is not to say that I *hated* the first act. Whedonesque
conversations are usually their own reward, and I could happily spend 42
minutes watching Buffy, Willow and Xander picking a movie to rent, or the
Angel Investigations team hanging out playing Jenga, or the Serenity crew
arguing over whose turn it is to do the septic flush. I quite enjoyed the
Puffy Xander talk, and lots of little bits throughout all these
conversations, and the rest of the episode. But every episode has those;
some also have brilliant moments, and IWMTLY lacked any of those.
> Quality and I spent a little time after watching IWMTLY pondering why
> this episode was made. I wouldn't have done it at all, but if I had,
> it'd have been within the first few episodes after the Riley breakup.
> But I guess we wouldn't want to do that so soon after those
> oh-so-hilarious scenes from "Triangle" back when she was still in
> the denial phase.
But if it was right after the Riley breakup, it would have been seen as a
commentary on that specific relationship. IWMTLY is saying (or trying to
say) something something about how Buffy will approach her love life from
now on. It's not much concerned with Riley (or Angel or Parker).
> is that I think the whole premise is just a very stupid idea. I tend
> to have a problem, as has been discussed before, when the analogies get
> too direct. Here, Buffy has to kill a representation of relationship
> dependency in order to learn that she doesn't want to be a dependent
> girlfriend. Ugh.
The analogy is too direct, but I don't think the dependency angle is
exactly what they were going for here. The main Lesson is that instead of
trying to be everything a guy would want, Buffy should Be Herself and let
love happen naturally or not at all.
> Also, can he or
> can't he control his changes? If not ("Blood Ties" gave that
> impression, this episode makes it seem more controllable. Maybe Glory
> can choose when to "leave" but Ben can't?)
I think all the changes we see in IWMTLY are uncontrolled.
> Meanwhile, Joyce simultaneously annoys me and makes my skin crawl while
> prattling on about her date. Her constantly asking what time it is is
> painful, as Sutherland is beyond irritating playing "giddy
> excitement."
She wasn't playing "giddy excitement," more like "hopefulness marred by
massive nervousness that is egged on by her teenage daughters." Of course
you might not think she played *that* very well either.
> too worried about the stupid scene to care. Better is Joyce later
> acknowledging and playing off the disturbingness factor upon returning
> home.
And in doing so getting her revenge on Buffy for the teasing earlier, and
preempting the second round of teasing she was about to start. That bit
was quite amusing.
> Warren himself is more of a
> problem for me. He's sub-pathetic: the script knows it, and all the
> characters (except April) know it. Yet we spend quite a lot of time on
> him. He's too twisted to be an object of sympathy, treated as too
> much of a joke to be disturbing, and too, well, not-that-funny to laugh
> much at.
I found him very disturbing and didn't think he was treated as a joke at
all. (Except when he dramatically reveals the truth about April to
Buffy.) Potentially the most interesting thing about Warren is that at
first he just seemed like a guy who screwed up, rather than an actual
villain. He even shows some decency when talking about how he fell for
Katrina. His attempt to escape April by siccing her on Buffy was more
conventionally evil, of course, though he knew she was the Slayer and
could handle herself. But at the end Warren still seems more amoral than
actively evil. We haven't seen too many villains like that on Buffy.
> So rather than facing his problems, Warren originally left April
> behind, and says that her batteries should've run out. Do we ever
> find out why they haven't, or why she eventually shorts out (simple
> miscalculation? Slayer damage?)?
They never say anything definitive. I always assumed Warren just
miscalculated her battery life, and it took the fight with Buffy to drain
the last of her energy.
> circumstances...). Scenes in which Giles gets very angry are almost
> always worth watching, so put Head's glare at Spike in the plus
> column too.
I'm surprised you don't give this scene more attention. For me it was
certainly the best one in the entire episode. And between this scene and
the party, we get Spike's reaction to the end of Crush. First he taunts
Buffy (salve for his wounded ego), then he ostentatiously hits on another
girl (trying to prove he's moved on, or even hoping he can somehow make
Buffy jealous?), then he tries to reestablish himself with Buffy's sister
and friends (so that he can still be a part of the team and hang out near
her). It's clear he hasn't gotten over his obsession yet, and just as
clear that he still has no idea what effect his efforts actually have on
Buffy and her gang.
> Odd mention of Oz this week. Actually, Xander's had another male
> friend to bounce such comments off more recently, but maybe we're not
> saying his name in mixed company.
Maybe? Sensitive Xander knows better than to poke at Buffy's wound like
that. He's probably still embarrassed from his slip of the tongue at the
end of Pangs.
Some other good bits: Both of the Buffy-Xander counseling sessions.
Giles the babysitter. Anya being impressed by the Chex Mix. Anya and
Tara's stroll -- I always enjoy seeing the major characters interacting
outside of their usual pairings. Tara's line about going online is great,
and I'm also amused by Anya thinking she'll enter the world of conspicuous
consumption by buying an antelope of all things. Giles teasing Xander,
and his reaction: "Funny. Funny and charming." Joyce's bra joke.
Ben's exasperation at finding himself in a tight red dress. "I've had it
with super-strong little women who aren't me." And Willow still has a
super-cute hairstyle.
> I noticed that this, of all episodes in this part of the season, is the
> one that gets a commentary track on the DVD.
Bar bqq guvat nobhg gur pbzzragnel vf gung Rfcrafba serryl tvirf nyy fbegf
bs fcbvyref, ohg urfvgngrf gb zragvba jung unccraf gb Wblpr ng gur raq bs
guvf irel rcvfbqr.
> AOQ rating: Weak
Not a great episode, but I liked the actress playing April, the
Buffy-Xander and Giles-Spike bits, and a lot of the jokes. I'd give it a
Decent.
--Chris
______________________________________________________________________
chrisg [at] gwu.edu On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
Eric Hunter
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
>>> Plus, "shimmed? Is that even a real word? Do you have any idea
>> its a real word and xander is really shimming the frame
>
> It's a real noun - I'm not convinced it's a real verb.
It is a real verb. The carpenter's act of using a
shim to level something is "to shim". That was the
point of Xander's speech, (which AoQ understood btw,
AoQ was appreciating Xander's appreciation of his
new-found competence.
Eric
--
Stephen Tempest
>i have problems with amber that are of more technical nature
>
>- theres no real difference between amber
> and any other batteries not included toy
> and anybody using one of those doesnt get to say ewww
I'm fairly sure that Amber Benson doesn't run on batteries.
Did you mean April?
Stephen
vague disclaimer
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
> Bar bqq guvat nobhg gur pbzzragnel vf gung Rfcrafba serryl tvirf nyy fbegf
> bs fcbvyref, ohg urfvgngrf gb zragvba jung unccraf gb Wblpr ng gur raq bs
> guvf irel rcvfbqr.
V oryvrir vg jnfa'g bevtvanyyl fpevcgrq (pregnvayl vfa'g va zl pbcl), fb
znlor fur sryg vg jnfa'g cneg bs 'ure' rcvfbqr.
Pretty much agree with your comments - except I always see Warren as an
amoral misogynist (rather than just amoral), mainly due to his
contemptuous treatment of Katrina (his equal in most ways and his
superior in some).
Basically a workable spacer episode. I don't mind it.
--
Wikipedia: like Usenet, moderated by trolls
Rowan Hawthorn
Yes, and to give credit (or blame) where it's due, it was my slip of the
tong- er, keyboard...
Eric Hunter
Well, no, but when Willow is out of town, she may have
somthin' twixt her nethers that's run on batteries! ;-)
Eric.
--
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:
> In article <12ala61...@corp.supernews.com>,
> chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
>
> > Bar bqq guvat nobhg gur pbzzragnel vf gung Rfcrafba serryl tvirf nyy fbegf
> > bs fcbvyref, ohg urfvgngrf gb zragvba jung unccraf gb Wblpr ng gur raq bs
> > guvf irel rcvfbqr.
>
> V oryvrir vg jnfa'g bevtvanyyl fpevcgrq (pregnvayl vfa'g va zl pbcl), fb
> znlor fur sryg vg jnfa'g cneg bs 'ure' rcvfbqr.
>
> Pretty much agree with your comments - except I always see Warren as an
> amoral misogynist (rather than just amoral), mainly due to his
> contemptuous treatment of Katrina (his equal in most ways and his
> superior in some).
assuming katrina never used battery operated toys
otherwise shes being hypocritical about the robot
One Bit Shy
news:1152022833.9...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER
> Season Five, Episode 15: "I Was Made To Love You"
> Ah, great. Now _Buffy_ is building its episodes around intentionally
> lame characters too. Isn't that what ATS is for?
Oh, no. Wrong side of the bed day at the AOQ homestead. Buffy's in for it
now.
> Anyway, Mrs.
> Quality and I spent a little time after watching IWMTLY pondering why
> this episode was made. I wouldn't have done it at all, but if I had,
> it'd have been within the first few episodes after the Riley breakup.
IMO it's very much constructed to fit exactly where it is, feeding off the
prior episode and leading into the next - two episodes that aren't connected
at all. It's not an eviable place for any episode to be put in, and is I
think a big part of why this episode suffers in estimation by many.
> So we set up our exploration of the g/f lifestyle with Buffy blaming
> herself for Spike's interest in the previous episode. I don't
> really think I buy it as a triggering factor for Buffy to be thinking
> about her boyfriend issues again, but there are enough other things
> wrong with the episode that I'll let that slide.
I don't understand why you think that. Short story - Buffy chases Riley
away while somehow attracting Spike to her. They're paired events in her
mind and would, I think, get most anyone wondering what's wrong with
themself when it comes to men.
> More to the point
> is that I think the whole premise is just a very stupid idea. I tend
> to have a problem, as has been discussed before, when the analogies get
> too direct. Here, Buffy has to kill a representation of relationship
> dependency in order to learn that she doesn't want to be a dependent
> girlfriend. Ugh.
Well, she doesn't kill April. April runs down. But either way - huh? I
know the series hasn't been turning so frequently to the direct metaphor
monsters any more. Not like S1 and S2. But it's still a fundamental
concept of the series for life on the hellmouth to mean that people's issues
get transformed into literal representations. Is this any more direct than
making two Xanders to represent his two sides in the Replacement? Don't get
me wrong. This particular idea doesn't have to turn you on. But the way
the criticism reads to me is complaining that BtVS is BtVS.
> Yeah, yeah, anyway, she and Ben are continuing to flirt as the episode
> begins. Have you noticed that just about every character on the show
> has handled pre-dating awkwardness through self-referential lines like
> "I was gonna try to subtly work [giving you my phone number] into the
> conversation, but it didn't pan out?" It's an okay device, but I
> think it's been beaten into the ground at this point.
The repeated device that stands out to me is the whole getting together for
coffee thing. I never knew that coffee shops were that romantically
charged.
The Ben scenes don't particularly interest me either. I suspect it's
because, all along, he exists in this episode solely because Buffy needs an
object to go after to "fix" her boy problems and then to reject when she
realizes she can't just go out and make her or her boyfriend be some kind of
abstract relationship ideal. So Buffy/Ben is never real. And it shows.
> So let's instead talk about the mechanisms from Ben's
> perspective. Clearly he has to know that Glory is his other half,
> given his preponderance towards finding himself wearing drag. He knows
> that Dawn is the Key he's trying to protect. So why exactly is he
> hanging around in Sunnydale ensuring that Glory's there too? And
> then why is he putting himself consistently close to the Key's
> immediate family - anything sinister there? And more to the point,
> why is he worrying about dating at a time like this? Also, can he or
> can't he control his changes? If not ("Blood Ties" gave that
> impression, this episode makes it seem more controllable. Maybe Glory
> can choose when to "leave" but Ben can't?), how does he work
> twenty-four hour days as an intern, and know that he won't transform
> when he's out socially either? I hold out hope that this'll all
> make sense, which is quite possible, but it feels like sloppy writing a
> this point.
Sloppy, hmmm. Since I know what happens, it's essentially impossible to put
myself into your vantage point for something like that. It's interesting
that it comes across to you that way for those questions - and that those
are the questions. Well, I can't comment further. You're just going to
have to see what happens and what does or doesn't get explained.
> Meanwhile, Joyce simultaneously annoys me and makes my skin crawl while
> prattling on about her date. Her constantly asking what time it is is
> painful, as Sutherland is beyond irritating playing "giddy
> excitement." I really don't see ever having a conversation with a
> parent like this, particularly one involving the phrase "randy sex
> kitten." Mrs. Quality thinks it's a stupid dress, whereas I was
> too worried about the stupid scene to care. Better is Joyce later
> acknowledging and playing off the disturbingness factor upon returning
> home.
I like the dress. Seems just right to me for a date for a woman Joyce's age
and appearance. Unfortuantely it does kind of mess up the bra jokes since
it doesn't appear to be made for wearing bras.
Anyway, it appears that you've missed something about Joyce since she got
sick. To a significant extent, she's been letting go of the parent role.
Not entirely of course, but significantly. I don't know if that's
personality change residue from her illness, or just a consequence of nearly
dying and spending extended time totally dependent on others - particularly
Buffy. Whatever the cause, you've got her seriously letting go here,
reverting to a youthful giddiness over dating, and actually asking Buffy for
dating advice. In previous episodes we've seen her consulting with Buffy
about Dawn's behavior - almost treating Buffy as the one in charge. Joyce
gets her feelings known, but still defers to Buffy a lot, and definitely
does not act like the decision maker. And then there's the scene where she
tells Buffy how much safer she feels when Buffy's home. Nice role reversal
that. But then, Buffy *has* been taking care of her. And, perhaps, she
mentally transferred a lot of responsibility to Buffy in that hospital scene
when she made Buffy promise to take care of Dawn. You can even see a seed
of this all the way back in No Place Like Home when Joyce remarks at how
grown up Buffy has become. Net effect is that this is not the same Joyce,
nor the same Joyce/Buffy relationship you've come to know.
> Even if we're supposed to be caring the most about the regular cast,
> the story of Warren and his fembot gets plenty of attention. The big
> recurring image of IWMTLY is April wandering around town asking about
> Warren with boundless enthusiasm and a chipper smile. She may get a
> door slammed in her face, or occasionally stop to throw someone through
> a window, but the next moment, she's on to whoever's next in line
> - "have you seen Warren?" It's one of those things that one
> might find amusing or really annoying as it's repeated over and over
> and over, but I didn't have either reaction. It is what it is.
> Namely, not much.
The intent is for the repetition (and the loneliness of her effort) to move
from humor to poignance. It's sad to see her utterly dedicated devotion
applied so fruitlessly.
> Shonda Farr does a respectable job playing a
> naļveté paired with super-strength.
I once had a girlfriend who was built almost like her (different head and
hair) and walked like her too. It's always a little jarring to me when I
see this episode. Her legs seem just a little off for her body - like they
belong with a different torso. And it makes her walk just a little funny,
but somehow quite fitting for the robot idea.
Anyway, I like her performance a great deal myself. Her tone and rhythm and
precision of speaking seems dead on to what is being sought with the
character. That's also responsible for one of my favorite moments in the
episode:
Anya: She speaks with a strange evenness and selects her words a shade too
precisely.
Xander: Well, some of us like that kind of thing in a girl.
I think it's a stitch to have Anya, of all people, make that observation.
Back to April, the commentary makes special note of her final words on the
swing as she runs down and her voice slows. It's kind of interesting
watching her mouth slow with the words and then freeze. One might almost
think it's the film slowed and stopped - except that you can see her hair
blowing in the wind. It's just nicely done. The final frozen look I think
is wonderful.
> Warren himself is more of a
> problem for me. He's sub-pathetic: the script knows it, and all the
> characters (except April) know it. Yet we spend quite a lot of time on
> him. He's too twisted to be an object of sympathy, treated as too
> much of a joke to be disturbing, and too, well, not-that-funny to laugh
> much at. Sadly, he seems likely to appear at least one more time to
> give Spike his special order - my enthusiasm for this story is the
> kind that is not.
The Parker of the robot world? Being unlikable, even kind of disgusting, is
I think the point. Perhaps you recall earlier that Buffy actually briefly
identified with him.
Anya: Why would anyone do that if they could have a real live person?
Willow: Maybe he couldn't. Find a real person.
Buffy: Oh, come on. The guy's just a big wedge of sleaze, don't make excuses
for him.
Willow: I'm not, I'm just saying, people get lonely, and maybe having
someone around, even someone you made up ... maybe it's easier.
Tara: But it's so weird. I mean, everyone wants a nice normal person to
share with, but this guy, if he couldn't find that, I guess it's ... kinda
sad.
Buffy gets all pensive with Willow and Tara's last lines. Probably being
reminded some of her own feelings, though those lines might also be applied
to Spike and explain something to her about him.
However, the truth of what Warren is like pulls her right out of any
possible sympathy for him, and also clearly gets across the idea that simply
loving someone more and harder isn't a sufficient solution by itself.
> And what the hell's up with that
> reverse-Heimlich thing she does to Katrina?
Jane Espenson says in the commentary that she didn't know how April should
be physically held to crack her rib. So she wrote it vaguely in the script,
hoping the director would figure it out. She seemed satisfied with the
result though.
> My favorite scene with
> April is her last one. Not much for the dialogue per se (except for
> "crying is blackmail. Good girlfriends don't cry")
Good line.
> as for the mood
> as she gradually dies. Particularly the strangely striking moment in
> which she first mentions it "getting dark."
Another good line. And Buffy being sympathetic enough at the end to lie
about staying around to show Warren where April was.
I like the scene, but find it very sad. This is, I think, the second time
this season that Buffy has had to sit with someone as they died. (The monk
was the first.) When has she had to do that before? Sort of in the Puppet
Show I suppose. And with Alan in Bad Girls - though that went fast and he
didn't say anything. Not a lot anyway. And then there are April's final
platitudes for Buffy to sit through, with their strange mix of genuine hope
to the end and sad uselessness at the same time. I've often wondered what
significance there might be to chopping off the last platitude where it is -
unable to utter the final words. "Things are always darkest before..."
> So rather than facing his problems, Warren originally left April
> behind, and says that her batteries should've run out. Do we ever
> find out why they haven't, or why she eventually shorts out (simple
> miscalculation? Slayer damage?)? It doesn't really matter for the
> purposes of the show, but things always feel more cohesive if they're
> fake-explained to some extent, limiting that "pulled out of the
> writer's ass" flavor.
Well, she ran down. If the short had anything to do with it, it was only to
use up the batteries faster. The short was caused by slayer strength
kicking in the side. Warren speculated that April somehow managed to
recharge her batteries at some point, but then, he may have just
mis-estimated how long they could stay charged. No further explanation is
provided so far as I know.
> It's good to see Buffy and Xander spending time together. The Puffy
> Xander opening is okay, but I think I actually liked the closing
> conversation better. Again not much of note is said, but they just
> seem comfortable with each other, hanging out and speaking their minds.
> Plus, "shimmed? Is that even a real word? Do you have any idea
> what you're talking about?" "Yeah, I do. Scary, isn't it?"
Puffy Xander was a decent visual joke, but doesn't make sense. Buffy
already has a punching bag. Still, there's some sweet and funny lines
there. As there are with the two throughout. (The dance moment was nice
too.) The commentary refers to these as the opportunity for people to wish
for a Buffy/Xander pairing again like they did back in S1. But that doesn't
appear to really be what it's about. We're at a kind of high point for
Xander I think. When has he ever been so comfortable with himself, his
friends, his whole life?
> Scenes in which Giles gets very angry are almost
> always worth watching, so put Head's glare at Spike in the plus
> column too.
Oooh. Giles breaks out his evil eye. Great moment. And Spike tests the
water with Buffy's friends and finds it scalding. Add in his earlier stab
at talking to Buffy and we see most of the doors shut to him. One little
thing that I don't know if you noticed, but when Spike talks to April, he
first looks to make sure Buffy sees them.
Speaking of jealous acts, Tara and Willow get into a teeny jealous bit
regarding April themselves. I love watching Willow's eyes dart about as she
tries to back pedal and see if Tara is buying it.
> I noticed that this, of all episodes in this part of the season, is the
> one that gets a commentary track on the DVD. Of course, for all I
> know, maybe the commentary consists of the writer apologizing to the
> audience. Somehow, I doubt it.
The commentary is ok - not one of the really awful dull ones. But, alas,
very spoilery. Even if it doesn't save the episode for you, it remains
interesting to hear how a lot of things work in the making of it.
> Given that I had robots on the mind, Joyce's motionless position at
> the end makes her look like a robot.
Mommy
> Actually, my semi-serious theory
> for why this episode was made is that the writers wanted the last scene
> of "Crush" to be the revoked invitation, so they needed something
> inconsequential to drop the Joyce cliffhanger into the end of.
The original ending in the script was Spike going to Warren with the box of
Buffy.
So...
One-sentence summary: Pointless.
AOQ rating: Weak
Well, we had far too many episodes in a row there with the same rating. I
knew it couldn't last.
This is kind of a guilty pleasure of mine that keeps improving with time.
Maybe it's just the old girlfriend reminder doing it, but it seems to me to
have a lot more in it than commonly given credit for. I don't mind at all
the device of April as a means for exploring Buffy's state of mind regarding
relationships. I think it does a decent job of settling that in her head
for the time being. (No promises on it lasting.) And I find the episode
rather packed with a wide variety of personal moments with all sorts of
characters that are both amusing and poignant. The only parts I can think
of off hand that I didn't much care for were the Buffy/Ben scenes. And even
there, I rather liked the final payoff of Glory being vaguely hurt that
Buffy would turn "them" down.
It gets a Good rating from me.
OBS
Don Sample
<mair_fheal-CB4A3...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > Oh, well. Yeah, weak pretty much covers it. I *did* feel bad for the
> > Amberbot, though; funny how the machine was more sympathetic than lots
> > of *human* characters...
>
> i have problems with amber that are of more technical nature
>
> - theres no real difference between amber
> and any other batteries not included toy
> and anybody using one of those doesnt get to say ewww
Amber was demonstrating a level of intelligence and freedom of action
that would make her arguably a sentient being, and therefor should be
treated as such.
> - all computers should have a clearly labeled off switch or power plug
> that completely powers off the computer
Why? And when the computer is just as intelligent as the people running
it, doesn't turning it off constitute murder? If you're going to make
them all have off switches, then so should the people.
> - artificial intelligence doesnt produce human intelligence
> and nobody knows if ever will
> (writers seem to believe it already exists)
> amber is nothing more than an ambulatory eliza
In the Buffyverse, it already has. eg. Ted. Whether or not it will or
won't be achieved in the real world is subject to debate, but the people
who say that it can't only do so after invoking magic on their side of
the argument.
> - if artificial intelligence ever does produce human intelligence
> then for turings sake always always always program in
> the three laws of robotics
> - a robot may not harm a human or through inaction
> allow a human to come to harm
> - a robot must obey a human except in conflict with the first law
> - a robot must protect itself except in conflict with the first two laws
So you're saying that artificial intelligences have to be created as
slaves, because that's what the three laws of robotics create.
> - never forget we make these things for our benefit not their own
> theres no need to script anything pretending to be free will or a soul
> a robot is no more a slave than your toaster or dishwasher is a slave
But when you make something capable of autonomous action. Something
that can evaluate its surroundings, and make decisions about what
actions to take as well as or better than a human being, you have
created something that you have to give more consideration to than a
dishwasher.
--
Quando omni flunkus moritati
Visit the Buffy Body Count at <http://homepage.mac.com/dsample/>
One Bit Shy
news:w8WdnU6GnLh...@giganews.com...
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
>>> Oh, well. Yeah, weak pretty much covers it. I *did* feel bad for the
>>> Amberbot, though; funny how the machine was more sympathetic than lots
>>> of *human* characters...
>>
>> i have problems with amber that are of more technical nature
>
> There wasn't anything about the episode that related to technology as
> such, or was even intended to represent real technology. If you're
> looking at it going, "REAL robots aren't like that," you probably missed
> the point...
Short answer. It's not a real robot - or even a "real" fictional robot.
It's a hellmouth robot. It is exactly what the metaphor calls for. All
other rules are subordinate to that.
OBS
(Harmony) Watcher
"grezvangbe-obg". Bar qnl, vg znl rira orpbzr snfuvbanoyr gb gel gb zvzvp
bar: uggc://oqo.ieln.arg/oqo/pyvc.cuc?pyvc=1997 :)
<rest snipped>
--
==Harmony Watcher==
One Bit Shy
news:12ala61...@corp.supernews.com...
> Arbitrar Of Quality <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>> Warren himself is more of a
>> problem for me. He's sub-pathetic: the script knows it, and all the
>> characters (except April) know it. Yet we spend quite a lot of time on
>> him. He's too twisted to be an object of sympathy, treated as too
>> much of a joke to be disturbing, and too, well, not-that-funny to laugh
>> much at.
>
> I found him very disturbing and didn't think he was treated as a joke at
> all. (Except when he dramatically reveals the truth about April to
> Buffy.) Potentially the most interesting thing about Warren is that at
> first he just seemed like a guy who screwed up, rather than an actual
> villain. He even shows some decency when talking about how he fell for
> Katrina. His attempt to escape April by siccing her on Buffy was more
> conventionally evil, of course, though he knew she was the Slayer and
> could handle herself. But at the end Warren still seems more amoral than
> actively evil. We haven't seen too many villains like that on Buffy.
Amoral. Yes, that's an excellent description. Well describes what sets him
apart.
OBS
Arbitrar Of Quality
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
> > hanging around in Sunnydale ensuring that Glory's there too? And
> > then why is he putting himself consistently close to the Key's
> > immediate family - anything sinister there? And more to the point,
>
> it doesnt seem to
> and rather than considering its not going to go the way you expect
> you are disappointed your expectations are unfulfilled
??? I think the only real expectations I'm harboring are that BTVs
make some kind of sense and that ATS get really good again. I don't
think those are such outlandish desires. (I try to acknowledge it when
expectation-reality mismatch is a potential confounding factor, as I
did after "Blood Money").
> > Plus, "shimmed? Is that even a real word? Do you have any idea
>
> its a real word and xander is really shimming the frame
Which would be the point of the quote (and the scene).
-AOQ
Arbitrar Of Quality
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
> vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:
> > Pretty much agree with your comments - except I always see Warren as an
> > amoral misogynist (rather than just amoral), mainly due to his
> > contemptuous treatment of Katrina (his equal in most ways and his
> > superior in some).
>
> assuming katrina never used battery operated toys
> otherwise shes being hypocritical about the robot
Do you really see a vibrator as the equivalent of a complete human
facsimile programmed to suffer when it doesn't service one's every
need?
-AOQ
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > > Amberbot, though; funny how the machine was more sympathetic than lots
> > > of *human* characters...
> >
> > i have problems with amber that are of more technical nature
> >
> > - theres no real difference between amber
> > and any other batteries not included toy
> > and anybody using one of those doesnt get to say ewww
>
> Amber was demonstrating a level of intelligence and freedom of action
> that would make her arguably a sentient being, and therefor should be
> treated as such.
theres a program called eliza that people have mistaken for a real person
but its actually just a simple program
http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza/eliza.html
> > - all computers should have a clearly labeled off switch or power plug
> > that completely powers off the computer
>
> Why? And when the computer is just as intelligent as the people running
> it, doesn't turning it off constitute murder? If you're going to make
> them all have off switches, then so should the people.
the devils dp dictionary defines artificial intelligence as something like an
an ill advised attempt to create artificial workers
to displace existing human workers
we already know how to create new intelligent entities
and some people argue the process (at least initially) is more fun
than sitting at a computer
anyway the answer is never make a program were this becomes an issue
> So you're saying that artificial intelligences have to be created as
> slaves, because that's what the three laws of robotics create.
dont program robots to have free will and they cant be slaves
> But when you make something capable of autonomous action. Something
> that can evaluate its surroundings, and make decisions about what
> actions to take as well as or better than a human being, you have
> created something that you have to give more consideration to than a
> dishwasher.
the darpa autonomous vehicle challenge finally had finishers
i dont think anybody regards those vehicles as having free will
this to me is like willow muttering while watching salem witch trials
or buffy watching kung fu movies
i already know this isnt reality but its irritating to see mundane concepts
treated like magical transcendent spells
because writers cant understand the reality
frankly if you need a clearer warning just read the notes of the late vaughn bode
about his ill fated work updating the punkerpan series or developing ramdoves
(as published in the junkwaffel papers)
i suspect his death was not the sordid allusion we usually hear
but due to a punkerpan malfunction that has been covered up by the dod
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
suffering is programed illusion
Rowan Hawthorn
Yup. The metaphor being the point that I think was being missed...
Arbitrar Of Quality
>
> > So we set up our exploration of the g/f lifestyle with Buffy blaming
> > herself for Spike's interest in the previous episode. I don't
> > really think I buy it as a triggering factor for Buffy to be thinking
> > about her boyfriend issues again, but there are enough other things
> > wrong with the episode that I'll let that slide.
>
> I don't understand why you think that. Short story - Buffy chases Riley
> away while somehow attracting Spike to her. They're paired events in her
> mind and would, I think, get most anyone wondering what's wrong with
> themself when it comes to men.
Starting to blame herself over the Spike thing doesn't seem right to me
after how she pretty clearly seemed to be holding him responsible for
"Curch." And Riley was attracted to her too. I know worries aren't
always rational...
> > More to the point
> > is that I think the whole premise is just a very stupid idea. I tend
> > to have a problem, as has been discussed before, when the analogies get
> > too direct. Here, Buffy has to kill a representation of relationship
> > dependency in order to learn that she doesn't want to be a dependent
> > girlfriend. Ugh.
>
> Well, she doesn't kill April. April runs down. But either way - huh? I
> know the series hasn't been turning so frequently to the direct metaphor
> monsters any more. Not like S1 and S2. But it's still a fundamental
> concept of the series for life on the hellmouth to mean that people's issues
> get transformed into literal representations.
Indeed. Basically, and this ties into a very long-standing discussion
that I don't feel like getting into again, my issue isn't with the
literal representations per se, but with a specific subset that we've
seen from time to time. The episodes in which Buffy has to beat up an
overt metaphor in order to put together a truth about herself that
apparently wouldn't have occurred to her otherwise tend to leave me
colder than the others.
> The repeated device that stands out to me is the whole getting together for
> coffee thing. I never knew that coffee shops were that romantically
> charged.
They're not necessarily, although they are to some. I think their
significance to Buffy is mostly because of Angel.
> > Shonda Farr does a respectable job playing a
> > naïveté paired with super-strength.
>
> I once had a girlfriend who was built almost like her (different head and
> hair) and walked like her too. It's always a little jarring to me when I
> see this episode.
There're probably some obvious jokes to be had here. Hopefully (well,
it'd be easiest that way) that relationship was over by the time you
got into BTVS and saw this.
> And then there are April's final
> platitudes for Buffy to sit through, with their strange mix of genuine hope
> to the end and sad uselessness at the same time. I've often wondered what
> significance there might be to chopping off the last platitude where it is -
> unable to utter the final words. "Things are always darkest before..."
In the straightforward sense, it fits in with the rest of the situation
and the mood the show's trying to evoke: as April has throughout her
brief life, she's only going to know the darkness, all the while
waiting for a dawn that never comes. Can't think of anything "deeper"
than that. It seems weird to call attention to a word that's also the
name of a character, no idea if they meant anything by that.
> The commentary refers to these as the opportunity for people to wish
> for a Buffy/Xander pairing again like they did back in S1. But that doesn't
> appear to really be what it's about. We're at a kind of high point for
> Xander I think. When has he ever been so comfortable with himself, his
> friends, his whole life?
Yeah, that's a strange comment, deson't make sense to me either. The
way the show has been written up until now suggests that these two are
far beyond shipper-ism - Xander's crush seems long dead and buried,
replaced by something more worthwhile in the long run. And yes, it's
been a good year for him, partcularly in Espenson episodes.
> One little
> thing that I don't know if you noticed, but when Spike talks to April, he
> first looks to make sure Buffy sees them.
Well, yeah, the scene wouldn't make sense if it weren't for Buffy's
benefit.
> Well, we had far too many episodes in a row there with the same rating. I
> knew it couldn't last.
if we don't disagree at least once in awhile, the others get
suspicious.
-AOQ
Don Sample
<mair_fheal-52D38...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > > > Oh, well. Yeah, weak pretty much covers it. I *did* feel bad for the
> > > > Amberbot, though; funny how the machine was more sympathetic than lots
> > > > of *human* characters...
> > >
> > > i have problems with amber that are of more technical nature
> > >
> > > - theres no real difference between amber
> > > and any other batteries not included toy
> > > and anybody using one of those doesnt get to say ewww
> >
> > Amber was demonstrating a level of intelligence and freedom of action
> > that would make her arguably a sentient being, and therefor should be
> > treated as such.
>
> theres a program called eliza that people have mistaken for a real person
> but its actually just a simple program
>
> http://www-ai.ijs.si/eliza/eliza.html
I've "talked" with Eliza, and it isn't very convincing.
> > > - all computers should have a clearly labeled off switch or power plug
> > > that completely powers off the computer
> >
> > Why? And when the computer is just as intelligent as the people running
> > it, doesn't turning it off constitute murder? If you're going to make
> > them all have off switches, then so should the people.
>
> the devils dp dictionary defines artificial intelligence as something like an
> an ill advised attempt to create artificial workers
> to displace existing human workers
>
> we already know how to create new intelligent entities
> and some people argue the process (at least initially) is more fun
> than sitting at a computer
>
> anyway the answer is never make a program were this becomes an issue
That answer is just burying your head in the sand. Sooner or later,
someone is going to do it. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.
>
> > So you're saying that artificial intelligences have to be created as
> > slaves, because that's what the three laws of robotics create.
>
> dont program robots to have free will and they cant be slaves
But for a lot of applications, you *want* the robot to have free will.
> > But when you make something capable of autonomous action. Something
> > that can evaluate its surroundings, and make decisions about what
> > actions to take as well as or better than a human being, you have
> > created something that you have to give more consideration to than a
> > dishwasher.
>
> the darpa autonomous vehicle challenge finally had finishers
> i dont think anybody regards those vehicles as having free will
But they're still following very simple rules, with less intelligence
than an ant.
> this to me is like willow muttering while watching salem witch trials
> or buffy watching kung fu movies
>
> i already know this isnt reality but its irritating to see mundane concepts
> treated like magical transcendent spells
> because writers cant understand the reality
They seem to have a clearer understanding of the difference between
fantasy and reality than you do.
Rowan Hawthorn
Jungpubb zrna, "bar qnl," Xrzb Fnor? V'q org qbyynef gb qvncuentzf gung
gurer ner nyernql fbzr ragrecevfvat lbhat ynqvrf qbvat n obbzvat
ohfvarff ng vg fbzrjurer...
Arbitrar Of Quality
> In article <1152040636.3...@l70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
>
> > mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
> > > assuming katrina never used battery operated toys
> > > otherwise shes being hypocritical about the robot
> >
> > Do you really see a vibrator as the equivalent of a complete human
> > facsimile programmed to suffer when it doesn't service one's every
> > need?
>
> suffering is programed illusion
Is this going to be like that Dawn thread? In this show, feelings tend
to be treated as real, regardless of who or what the person is, and
IWMTLY plays (marginally) better if we assume the same here.
Unless Katrina creates toys that serve her as slaves and can
convincingly appear to be tortured, you're not going to sell me on
moral equivalence here.
-AOQ
vague disclaimer
<mair_fheal-569BE...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> In article <l64o-1rj5-4B605...@mercury.nildram.net>,
> vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
> > In article <12ala61...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
> >
> > > Bar bqq guvat nobhg gur pbzzragnel vf gung Rfcrafba serryl tvirf nyy
> > > fbegf
> > > bs fcbvyref, ohg urfvgngrf gb zragvba jung unccraf gb Wblpr ng gur raq bs
> > > guvf irel rcvfbqr.
> >
> > V oryvrir vg jnfa'g bevtvanyyl fpevcgrq (pregnvayl vfa'g va zl pbcl), fb
> > znlor fur sryg vg jnfa'g cneg bs 'ure' rcvfbqr.
> >
> > Pretty much agree with your comments - except I always see Warren as an
> > amoral misogynist (rather than just amoral), mainly due to his
> > contemptuous treatment of Katrina (his equal in most ways and his
> > superior in some).
>
> assuming katrina never used battery operated toys
> otherwise shes being hypocritical about the robot
Why? I was talking about his treatment of Katrina, not how either got
their sexual kicks.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:
> In article
> <mair_fheal-569BE...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <l64o-1rj5-4B605...@mercury.nildram.net>,
> > vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <12ala61...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bar bqq guvat nobhg gur pbzzragnel vf gung Rfcrafba serryl tvirf nyy
> > > > fbegf
> > > > bs fcbvyref, ohg urfvgngrf gb zragvba jung unccraf gb Wblpr ng gur raq
> > > > bs
> > > > guvf irel rcvfbqr.
> > >
> > > V oryvrir vg jnfa'g bevtvanyyl fpevcgrq (pregnvayl vfa'g va zl pbcl), fb
> > > znlor fur sryg vg jnfa'g cneg bs 'ure' rcvfbqr.
> > >
> > > Pretty much agree with your comments - except I always see Warren as an
> > > amoral misogynist (rather than just amoral), mainly due to his
> > > contemptuous treatment of Katrina (his equal in most ways and his
> > > superior in some).
> >
> > assuming katrina never used battery operated toys
> > otherwise shes being hypocritical about the robot
>
> Why? I was talking about his treatment of Katrina, not how either got
> their sexual kicks.
look again
warren is under a great deal of stress
and all katrina is doing is whining about
all the women suddenly showing up in his life (only two)
and the fact that warren is keeping secrets
(how many couples have absolutely no secrets)
katrina biggest the complaint is warren made himself a toy
(thats being going before the invention of writing)
if katrina ever used toys herself shes being hypocritical
the only uniquely sleazy thing warren did is sic april on buffy
other than warren is isolated nerd struggling through his first real girlfriend
who is somewhat a bitch
hasbeghangryl jneera trgf svkngrq ba ure vafgrnq bs zbivat ba
(nabgure flzcgbz bs uvf rzbgvbany vzznghevgl)
naq gungf jura sberire gur qnex fvqr qbzvangrf uvf qnlf
Elisi
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
> threads.
>
>
> Season Five, Episode 15: "I Was Made To Love You"
> Writer: Jane Espenson
> Director: James A. Contner
>
> Quality and I spent a little time after watching IWMTLY pondering why
> this episode was made. I wouldn't have done it at all, but if I had,
> it'd have been within the first few episodes after the Riley breakup.
> oh-so-hilarious scenes from "Triangle" back when she was still in
> writers (although I didn't laugh very much at this one), but let's
> not let her write any more stories about Buffy's love life
> post-breakup, okay?
>
> So we set up our exploration of the g/f lifestyle with Buffy blaming
> herself for Spike's interest in the previous episode. I don't
> really think I buy it as a triggering factor for Buffy to be thinking
> about her boyfriend issues again, but there are enough other things
> is that I think the whole premise is just a very stupid idea. I tend
> to have a problem, as has been discussed before, when the analogies get
> too direct. Here, Buffy has to kill a representation of relationship
> dependency in order to learn that she doesn't want to be a dependent
> girlfriend. Ugh.
>
> begins. Have you noticed that just about every character on the show
> has handled pre-dating awkwardness through self-referential lines like
> "I was gonna try to subtly work [giving you my phone number] into the
> conversation, but it didn't pan out?" It's an okay device, but I
> feelings about most of their scenes together, except that I don't
> like the exaggerated laughing at jokes any more than I do when Cordelia
> does it. So let's instead talk about the mechanisms from Ben's
> perspective. Clearly he has to know that Glory is his other half,
> given his preponderance towards finding himself wearing drag. He knows
> hanging around in Sunnydale ensuring that Glory's there too? And
> then why is he putting himself consistently close to the Key's
> immediate family - anything sinister there? And more to the point,
> can't he control his changes? If not ("Blood Ties" gave that
> impression, this episode makes it seem more controllable. Maybe Glory
> can choose when to "leave" but Ben can't?), how does he work
> twenty-four hour days as an intern, and know that he won't transform
> when he's out socially either? I hold out hope that this'll all
> make sense, which is quite possible, but it feels like sloppy writing a
> this point.
>
> prattling on about her date. Her constantly asking what time it is is
> painful, as Sutherland is beyond irritating playing "giddy
> excitement." I really don't see ever having a conversation with a
> parent like this, particularly one involving the phrase "randy sex
> kitten." Mrs. Quality thinks it's a stupid dress, whereas I was
> too worried about the stupid scene to care. Better is Joyce later
> acknowledging and playing off the disturbingness factor upon returning
> home.
>
> the story of Warren and his fembot gets plenty of attention. The big
> recurring image of IWMTLY is April wandering around town asking about
> Warren with boundless enthusiasm and a chipper smile. She may get a
> door slammed in her face, or occasionally stop to throw someone through
> a window, but the next moment, she's on to whoever's next in line
> - "have you seen Warren?" It's one of those things that one
> might find amusing or really annoying as it's repeated over and over
> and over, but I didn't have either reaction. It is what it is.
> naïveté paired with super-strength. Warren himself is more of a
> problem for me. He's sub-pathetic: the script knows it, and all the
> characters (except April) know it. Yet we spend quite a lot of time on
> him. He's too twisted to be an object of sympathy, treated as too
> much of a joke to be disturbing, and too, well, not-that-funny to laugh
> give Spike his special order - my enthusiasm for this story is the
> kind that is not.
>
> breaking the see-saw in half and such. I didn't have that sense of
> whimsy in me. Oh, and no bonus points for the _Terminator_-esque
> robot's-eye view bits. And what the hell's up with that
> reverse-Heimlich thing she does to Katrina? My favorite scene with
> April is her last one. Not much for the dialogue per se (except for
> as she gradually dies. Particularly the strangely striking moment in
> which she first mentions it "getting dark."
>
> behind, and says that her batteries should've run out. Do we ever
> find out why they haven't, or why she eventually shorts out (simple
> miscalculation? Slayer damage?)? It doesn't really matter for the
> purposes of the show, but things always feel more cohesive if they're
> fake-explained to some extent, limiting that "pulled out of the
> writer's ass" flavor.
>
> Xander opening is okay, but I think I actually liked the closing
> conversation better. Again not much of note is said, but they just
> seem comfortable with each other, hanging out and speaking their minds.
>
> involved in online stock trading, Tara's attempts at humor still
> regularly going over the others' heads. Want more compliments about
> IWMTLY? Well, the description of Giles's time with Dawn is
> smile-worthy, and it's worth mentioning that a fourteen-year-old
> shouldn't have a baby sitter (normally completely true, but there are
> circumstances...). Scenes in which Giles gets very angry are almost
> always worth watching, so put Head's glare at Spike in the plus
> shocking revelation about April's nature) is fun.
>
> Odd mention of Oz this week. Actually, Xander's had another male
> friend to bounce such comments off more recently, but maybe we're not
> saying his name in mixed company.
>
> of Season Four? Thank you, try the seitan.
>
> I noticed that this, of all episodes in this part of the season, is the
> one that gets a commentary track on the DVD. Of course, for all I
> know, maybe the commentary consists of the writer apologizing to the
> audience. Somehow, I doubt it.
>
> for why this episode was made is that the writers wanted the last scene
> of "Crush" to be the revoked invitation, so they needed something
> inconsequential to drop the Joyce cliffhanger into the end of.
>
>
>
> One-sentence summary: Pointless.
>
> AOQ rating: Weak
>
> 1) "Buffy Vs. Dracula" - Good
> 2) "Real Me" - Decent
> 3) "The Replacement" - Good
> 4) "Out Of My Mind" - Weak
> 5) "No Place Like Home" - Decent
> 6) "Family" - Excellent
> 7) "Fool For Love" - Excellent
> 8) "Shadow" - Good
> 9) "Listening To Fear" - Decent
> 10) "Into The Woods" - Good
> 11) "Triangle" - Decent
> 12) "Checkpoint" - Decent
> 13) "Blood Ties" - Good
> 14) "Crush" - Excellent
> 15) "I Was Made To Love You" - Weak]
See now I really want to re-watch this! Personally I think it's a very
logical follow-up to last weeks ep. Because IWMTLY is all about love -
what exactly is it? People are already discussing whether April was
capable of real feelings, and how much emotion a robot can posses (why
*did* her batteries last that long?)... remind you of anything?
Superficially it's about Buffy coming to terms with single life (or
rather not settling for just anything), but I think there's more to it
than that. Buffy, Spike, Warren, Joyce and April are all searching for
love. But love can't be manufactured - Warren made April 'to be
perfect' and yet he grew bored with her and fell for Katrina instead.
Because she surprised him. Buffy is looking for love, but realises that
a relationship is not the same as love. Joyce seems the most sensible
one - she's nervous of course, but she wants to find out who Brian is,
see if they click, see what might be if they're both open to it.
And Spike... well I guess we'll see what happens when he gets his
BuffyBot. Is it Buffy he's in love with or just the idea of Buffy? Will
he be happy with a toy?
If I get round to re-watching tonight I might be back with more
thoughts, it's all kinda hazy I'm afraid.
(Finally compare and contrast S5 Buffy with S2 Buffy in how she deals
with Joyce's potential boyfriend. True he isn't a robot (at least as
far as we know), but S2 Buffy was the epitome of sulky teen. I like the
grown up version better.)
One Bit Shy
One Bit Shy wrote:
> > > More to the point
> > > is that I think the whole premise is just a very stupid idea. I tend
> > > to have a problem, as has been discussed before, when the analogies
> > > get
> > > too direct. Here, Buffy has to kill a representation of relationship
> > > dependency in order to learn that she doesn't want to be a dependent
> > > girlfriend. Ugh.
> >
> > Well, she doesn't kill April. April runs down. But either way - huh?
> > I
> > know the series hasn't been turning so frequently to the direct metaphor
> > monsters any more. Not like S1 and S2. But it's still a fundamental
> > concept of the series for life on the hellmouth to mean that people's
> > issues
> > get transformed into literal representations.
>
> Indeed. Basically, and this ties into a very long-standing discussion
> that I don't feel like getting into again, my issue isn't with the
> literal representations per se, but with a specific subset that we've
> seen from time to time. The episodes in which Buffy has to beat up an
> overt metaphor in order to put together a truth about herself that
> apparently wouldn't have occurred to her otherwise tend to leave me
> colder than the others.
Well, ok. Obviously it doesn't work the same for me. In any case, you can
probably see that an episode of this type has become a bit of an anomaly in
the series - no longer the staple it once was. So, hopefully you won't have
to put up with the type so often in the future.
> > I once had a girlfriend who was built almost like her (different head
> > and
> > hair) and walked like her too. It's always a little jarring to me when
> > I
> > see this episode.
> There're probably some obvious jokes to be had here. Hopefully (well,
> it'd be easiest that way) that relationship was over by the time you
> got into BTVS and saw this.
Oh, God yes. It's a pretty funny notion though. I don't know if she likes
BtVS at all, but she might. I don't think she would have appreciated being
told who April reminds me of... but, then, so what? She's not here. I'm
free to imagine all of the possible reactions. :-) (Oz would understand.)
OBS
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
> > In article <1152040636.3...@l70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
>
> > > > assuming katrina never used battery operated toys
> > > > otherwise shes being hypocritical about the robot
> > >
> > > Do you really see a vibrator as the equivalent of a complete human
> > > facsimile programmed to suffer when it doesn't service one's every
> > > need?
> >
> > suffering is programed illusion
>
> Is this going to be like that Dawn thread? In this show, feelings tend
we dont know where dawn fits in the metaphysical tree of life
if youre not sure if something is human treat it as a human
i dont see april as even possibly human
> to be treated as real, regardless of who or what the person is, and
> IWMTLY plays (marginally) better if we assume the same here.
i dont
i just see moderately clever programing with very clever hardware
once you see the man behind the curtain
you can never ignore his presence
the whole point of why warren tires of april
is that its just an ambulatory eliza
with no personality or will of its own
any appearance of personality is other people projecting their own issues
on the blank canvas
if you never played with eliza or its variations like parry or the psychologist
you can try some over the web or download the programs
people can really get sucked into what are very simple programs
not sure what this says about the intellectual level of most conservations
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu
>
> Pretty much agree with your comments - except I always see Warren as an
> amoral misogynist (rather than just amoral), mainly due to his
> contemptuous treatment of Katrina (his equal in most ways and his
> superior in some).
V nterr jvgu lbh nobhg gur zvfbtlal, ohg gung'f cebonoyl orpnhfr jr'ir
obgu frra frnfba fvk. Va VJZGYL vgfrys vg'f abg fb pyrne. Gurer pbhyq or
bgure rkcynangvbaf sbe uvf orunivbe gbjneq Xngevan: ur'f cnavpxrq nobhg
gur ebobg, ur'f whfg fbpvnyyl varcg va trareny, rgp. Va guvf rcvfbqr, nyy
jr frr sbe pregnva vf gung ur'f n perrc naq qvfgheovatyl nzbeny.
--Chris
______________________________________________________________________
chrisg [at] gwu.edu On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog.
Mike Zeares
BTR1701 wrote:
> It was made for Britney Spears (back when she was still hot, not the
> post-baby chubby girl she's become).
Am I the only one who likes her better as a post-baby chubby girl?
> And that's not a joke. The role of the robot was written for Spears but
> some last minute schedule conflicts prevented her from doing it so the
> role was recast with Shonda Farr.
Wasn't the story supposedly that Britney's people thought the role
would make her look stupid?
-- Mike Zeares
Eric Hunter
7/4/2006 4:29 PM:
> katrina biggest the complaint is warren made himself a toy
> (thats being going before the invention of writing)
> if katrina ever used toys herself shes being hypocritical
Katrina is a female engineering student, and an attractive
one at that. If she wants a toy, all she has to do is
go down to the local engineering student hangout, and
let her choice of toys buy her a drink. ;-)
Eric.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
>
> That answer is just burying your head in the sand. Sooner or later,
> someone is going to do it. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.
actually thats a deep question whose answer is much argued but unknown
this runs into the church-turing hypothesis
which in its strongest form says no notion of computation in the universe
is more powerful than a digital computer
which means human intelligence and all physical processes
can be completely modeled by a sufficient large computer
in this case there is no real distinction
between human and artificial intelligence
its turing machines all the way down
this also comes up against religion
because it claims if a soul exists
it just another computable subsystem of the universe program
the weakest form is that no formal theory of computation will be found
that is more powerful than ones we have
and this does not comment whether human intelligence can be captured
within a digital computer
this version leaves open the possibility that human intelligence
transcends our notion of computation
and that full ai will be impossible
the question remains open
> > dont program robots to have free will and they cant be slaves
>
> But for a lot of applications, you *want* the robot to have free will.
what you mean by -free will- has to be better defined
-operate conditioning- is a modern psychology attempt
to define free will out of existence by reducing behavior
to mere learned stimulus-response couplings
perhaps human free will is an illusion of our neural software
or maybe calvinists are right and we follow a path fixed by god
if youre aware of how robots are currently programed
you would have no illusions they have anything like free will or conscience
its all a elaborate collection of tricks and search mechanisms
a system can sometimes act in surprising ways
because the programer did not anticipate a particular conjunction of inputs
but the programer does not think in terms of free will
or that the program is somehow breaking out of its programming
> They seem to have a clearer understanding of the difference between
> fantasy and reality than you do.
perhaps you should ask what i understand instead of assuming
burt...@hotmail.com
> Puffy Xander was a decent visual joke, but doesn't make sense. Buffy
> already has a punching bag. Still, there's some sweet and funny lines
> there. As there are with the two throughout. (The dance moment was nice
> too.) The commentary refers to these as the opportunity for people to wish
> for a Buffy/Xander pairing again like they did back in S1.
Did Jane Espenson really say that? Because I didn't get that kind of
vibe from those scenes at all. They just seemed to me to be nice
moments of friendship. But then, I've never been much of a "shipper"
and I was always a lot more interested in the friendships than the
romantic relationships, so maybe that's it....
Mike Zeares
Arbitrar Of Quality wrote:
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
> > In article <1152040636.3...@l70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Arbitrar Of Quality" <tsm...@wildmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
>
> > > > assuming katrina never used battery operated toys
> > > > otherwise shes being hypocritical about the robot
> > >
> > > Do you really see a vibrator as the equivalent of a complete human
> > > facsimile programmed to suffer when it doesn't service one's every
> > > need?
> >
> > suffering is programed illusion
>
> Is this going to be like that Dawn thread? In this show, feelings tend
> to be treated as real, regardless of who or what the person is, and
> IWMTLY plays (marginally) better if we assume the same here.
>
> Unless Katrina creates toys that serve her as slaves and can
> convincingly appear to be tortured, you're not going to sell me on
> moral equivalence here.
This is actually a rather important debate, as we approach the time of
real Aprilbots (the Japanese are putting a lot of effort into
convincingly-human androids). Can you abuse, in the human sense, a
machine? Even if we decide that you can't, what does abusing a
human-like machine do to the abuser? If it looks, acts, and appears to
feel like a human, and you abuse it, are you actually an abuser? Would
it make you more likely to abuse a "real" human?
There are stories of people bonding with their robotic vacuum cleaners.
We're going to have to figure out how to deal with lifelike humanoid
robots. Before they inevitably turn on us ('cause I've seen the movies
-- they always turn on us).
My gut feeling is that anyone who would abuse an Aprilbot is a
sociopath. Contrast Warren's treatment of her with Buffy's. Buffy
knew she was "just a machine." She stayed with her as she "died"
anyway.
-- Mike Zeares
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> overt metaphor in order to put together a truth about herself that
> apparently wouldn't have occurred to her otherwise tend to leave me
> colder than the others.
buffy may be intelligent
but shes not always too bright
> > The repeated device that stands out to me is the whole getting together for
> > coffee thing. I never knew that coffee shops were that romantically
> > charged.
>
> They're not necessarily, although they are to some. I think their
> significance to Buffy is mostly because of Angel.
at this point i believe most of the characters are still 19 or 20
(virtual age for anya)
and so they cannot go out for alcoholic drinks
> Yeah, that's a strange comment, deson't make sense to me either. The
> way the show has been written up until now suggests that these two are
> far beyond shipper-ism - Xander's crush seems long dead and buried,
fiction doesnt usually let a man and woman just be friends
unless the man is the raging queen or the old impotent mentor
(a few times even then)
it will be nice if the show lets two humans interact as just humans
Espen Schjønberg
> My gut feeling is that anyone who would abuse an Aprilbot is a
> sociopath. Contrast Warren's treatment of her with Buffy's. Buffy
> knew she was "just a machine." She stayed with her as she "died"
> anyway.
The problem here, is whether this machine in this Buffyverse actually
_do_ feel.
I got the impression it did. Just like the robot on AI: I was so
convinced he hole movie the robot just _acted_ as it felt, I didn't
expect it to feel, but it seems as it it did. Also, as if I should have
understood that from the first moment (hence the no spoiler warning here.)
And then this is a totally different question.
If the April-bot do feel, it is more like a human-made human. (or a
human-made cyborg.) Did Buff behave as she did because she did not risk
treating a soul as a machine, or did her abilities make her see a soul,
like The Judge would have seen one?
--
Espen
Daniel Damouth
news:1152047720.2...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
> There are stories of people bonding with their robotic vacuum
> cleaners.
> We're going to have to figure out how to deal with lifelike
> humanoid
> robots. Before they inevitably turn on us ('cause I've seen the
> movies -- they always turn on us).
Back when I worked in the AI lab at the U of Michigan, we had "evil AI
movie of the week" showings.
-Dan Damouth
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> with Joyce's potential boyfriend. True he isn't a robot (at least as
> far as we know), but S2 Buffy was the epitome of sulky teen. I like the
> grown up version better.)
the difference could be slayer intuition
buffy knew ted was wrong even if she didnt know why
if the current date is fully human nothing is setting off her slaydar
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> We're going to have to figure out how to deal with lifelike humanoid
> robots. Before they inevitably turn on us ('cause I've seen the movies
> -- they always turn on us).
also one of the reasons asimov did his robot stories
is to counter what he called the frankenstein theme
that knowledge-technology-science leads to forbidden inventions
which invariably turn on their creators and harm humanity
one version of cain and abel is that cain was a smith
and that in some societies smiths are held akin to sorcerors and witches
with their dangerous knowledge of transforming rocks in metal
and so cains sacrafice was rejected because it was tainted with technology
> My gut feeling is that anyone who would abuse an Aprilbot is a
> sociopath. Contrast Warren's treatment of her with Buffy's. Buffy
> knew she was "just a machine." She stayed with her as she "died"
> anyway.
i think a similar argument is made about animal abuse
that theres a signficant risk they will graduate to killing and hurting humans
One Bit Shy
news:1152047625.9...@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
I don't think she meant it was written for that purpose. Just an
observation of effect. She refers to the last scene with the two of them as
being the kind of scene that gets fans to go for that - gives them a flicker
of hope.
OBS
Elisi
I actually *did* re-watch! :) And personally I found it pretty close to
Excellent. A solid Good at any rate. Seriously. As I said before, the
ideas it throws out are fascinating.
See there are incredibly strong parallels between Spike and April. Both
were 'made to love someone' - to be the perfect partner. As we saw in
FFL Dru chose William specifically as a companion because she was
lonely. She wanted someone focussed only on her, because 'Daddy' was
too wrapped up in Darla. But love isn't predictable, it's a very
dangerous thing.
And what _is_ love? Both April and Spike think that what they feel is
love - does that make it so? (Think of it in the light of 'Blade
Runner'.) Notice how Buffy tells Warren to 'break up properly' with
April. To shut her down completely. Just like she did herself with
Spike in 'Crush'. And yet, she sits with April as she slowly fades away
- talking to her like she was real. (That whole conversation is
brilliant - like Buffy talking with her own sub conscious. Maybe if she
waits long enough *her* boyfriend will come back and say he's sorry...)
Warren... hmmm. I noticed that he used the word 'deserve'. He felt that
he 'deserved' a relationship. Do we all deserve true love? And the way
he told April that Buffy was the target... not nice. Understandable,
but not nice. Generally he does a lot of walking away - doesn't want to
deal with the consequences of his actions. Which sounds rather like
Spike actually...
It's very late here, but I suggest you come back to this one later. It
has layers!
vague disclaimer
chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
> V nterr jvgu lbh nobhg gur zvfbtlal, ohg gung'f cebonoyl orpnhfr jr'ir
> obgu frra frnfba fvk.
Npghnyyl jura Qrnq Guvatf nverq va gur HX V nethrq gung vg unq orra
boivbhf fvapr guvf rc Abg rirelbar nterrq, gb or fher, ohg ng yrnfg V
pna pynvz yrtvgvzngryl gung vg vfa'g cbfg ubp engvbanyvfngvba (fb, lnl
zr!).
> Va VJZGYL vgfrys vg'f abg fb pyrne.
Ohg vg pregnvayl qbrfa'g unir gur ovt ubaxvat fvta bire vg gung nccrnef
yngre.
> Gurer pbhyq or
> bgure rkcynangvbaf sbe uvf orunivbe gbjneq Xngevan: ur'f cnavpxrq nobhg
> gur ebobg, ur'f whfg fbpvnyyl varcg va trareny, rgp. Va guvf rcvfbqr, nyy
> jr frr sbe pregnva vf gung ur'f n perrc naq qvfgheovatyl nzbeny.
Nyy gehr, ohg zl vavgvny ernq jnf nf zvfbtlal. V'ir ab ceboyrz jvgu
bguref abg ernqvat vg gung jnl. Ng yrnfg vg vf fbzrguvat jbegu nethvat
bire.
vague disclaimer
<mair_fheal-3751B...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Yeah. Right. Poor lamb.
> and all katrina is doing is whining about
More steaming-fucking-furious and legitimately so,
> all the women suddenly showing up in his life (only two)
> and the fact that warren is keeping secrets
> (how many couples have absolutely no secrets)
He's busted. Instead of trying to explain himself he treats this highly
educated, intelligent woman (what was it he claimed he found attractive
in her again?) with complete contempt.
That April fails the Turing Test has no bearing in this whatsoever...
> katrina biggest the complaint is warren made himself a toy
> (thats being going before the invention of writing)
> if katrina ever used toys herself shes being hypocritical
...which makes this pool of arse gravy moot.
>
> the only uniquely sleazy thing warren did is sic april on buffy
> other than warren is isolated nerd struggling through his first real
> girlfriend
> who is somewhat a bitch
>
> hasbeghangryl jneera trgf svkngrq ba ure vafgrnq bs zbivat ba
> (nabgure flzcgbz bs uvf rzbgvbany vzznghevgl)
> naq gungf jura sberire gur qnex fvqr qbzvangrf uvf qnlf
Jura qvq ur trg svkngrq? Ur jnf bhg pehvfvat sbe n gnetrg naq fghzoyrq
hcba ure.
John Briggs
It certainly would if her acting wasn't up to it.
--
John Briggs
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> bguref abg ernqvat vg gung jnl. Ng yrnfg vg vf fbzrguvat jbegu nethvat
> bire.
youre expanding the term to the point of meaninglessness
vague disclaimer
<mair_fheal-B91AC...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > Nyy gehr, ohg zl vavgvny ernq jnf nf zvfbtlal. V'ir ab ceboyrz jvgu
> > bguref abg ernqvat vg gung jnl. Ng yrnfg vg vf fbzrguvat jbegu nethvat
> > bire.
>
> youre expanding the term to the point of meaninglessness
If that's what you wish to believe, don't let me stop you.
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:
> In article
> <mair_fheal-B91AC...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Nyy gehr, ohg zl vavgvny ernq jnf nf zvfbtlal. V'ir ab ceboyrz jvgu
> > > bguref abg ernqvat vg gung jnl. Ng yrnfg vg vf fbzrguvat jbegu nethvat
> > > bire.
> >
> > youre expanding the term to the point of meaninglessness
>
> If that's what you wish to believe, don't let me stop you.
glad to know youre including ben and anya and buffy and giles in the category
George W Harris
<rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:
:Not a chance in hell that will be done. If and when a genuine AI is
:ever developed, it will almost certainly more closely resemble (from a
:programming standpoint) "Terminator" than "C3-PO." That's humankind for
:you: *First*, let's figure out how we can use this new invention to kill
:other people...
Well, either that or sex. Since the early '70s,
advances in media technology have been driven in
large part by the pornography industry.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
George W Harris
:> Is this going to be like that Dawn thread? In this show, feelings tend
:> to be treated as real, regardless of who or what the person is, and
:> IWMTLY plays (marginally) better if we assume the same here.
:>
:> Unless Katrina creates toys that serve her as slaves and can
:> convincingly appear to be tortured, you're not going to sell me on
:> moral equivalence here.
:
:This is actually a rather important debate, as we approach the time of
:real Aprilbots (the Japanese are putting a lot of effort into
:convincingly-human androids). Can you abuse, in the human sense, a
:machine? Even if we decide that you can't, what does abusing a
:human-like machine do to the abuser? If it looks, acts, and appears to
:feel like a human, and you abuse it, are you actually an abuser? Would
:it make you more likely to abuse a "real" human?
And here I'd like to recommend that people watch
the DVDs of "Battlestart Galactica". The new, interesting
one, not the old, cheesy one.
:
:-- Mike Zeares
--
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV!
George W Harris
wrote:
:
:
:Amoral. Yes, that's an excellent description. Well describes what sets him
:apart.
Naq vg'f n fubeg yrnc (zber bs n ubc, ernyyl) sebz
nzbeny gb fbpvbcnguvp.
:
:OBS
--
Real men don't need macho posturing to bolster their egos.
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'.
Apteryx
> >news:1152022833.9...@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>A reminder: Please avoid spoilers for later episodes in these review
>threads.
>this episode was made. I wouldn't have done it at all, but if I had,
>it'd have been within the first few episodes after the Riley breakup.
A lot of mid season BtVS and AtS episodes might easily have been slotted in
somewhere else than when they were. But this isn't one of them.
>So we set up our exploration of the g/f lifestyle with Buffy blaming
>herself for Spike's interest in the previous episode. I don't
>really think I buy it as a triggering factor for Buffy to be thinking
>about her boyfriend issues again, but there are enough other things
>wrong with the episode that I'll let that slide. More to the point
>is that I think the whole premise is just a very stupid idea. I tend
>to have a problem, as has been discussed before, when the analogies get
>too direct. Here, Buffy has to kill a representation of relationship
>dependency in order to learn that she doesn't want to be a dependent
>girlfriend. Ugh.
That's only the trivial level of the metaphor. Behind that, the first of the
serious levels, April is presented as a comparison for Dawn. Created, for
someone else's purposes. Once they realise she's a robot, no one treats her
quite like Buffy does. From a rational perspective, she seems to be
overstating the human component of April (she's the one, remember, who says
that Warren has made April to feel pain if she doesn't respond to his
summons - most people wouldn't think of a machine feeling pain as a result
of mechanism's to control it). But after probably having had some early
doubts about Dawn, and now feeling guilty about that, Buffy is taking the
compassionate approach that if it looks human, acts human, better treat it
as human until the contrary is proved. Even to the point of sitting with
April as she "dies".
But there's more. Nobody (except Spike) is in Warren's corner on the issue
of creating robot slave girlfriends (even if Xander can see the point). But
no one (apart obviously from Katrina) goes off the deep end quite like
Buffy. April has objectives set for her that she has to strive to meet. Like
Angel in Happy Anniversary, Buffy can relate.
>feelings about most of their scenes together, except that I don't
>like the exaggerated laughing at jokes any more than I do when Cordelia
>does it.
But don't you think it's significant when Buffy does it? She didn't like
Cordelia doing it any more than you did.
>So let's instead talk about the mechanisms from Ben's
>perspective. Clearly he has to know that Glory is his other half,
>given his preponderance towards finding himself wearing drag. He knows
>that Dawn is the Key he's trying to protect. So why exactly is he
>hanging around in Sunnydale ensuring that Glory's there too? And
>then why is he putting himself consistently close to the Key's
>immediate family - anything sinister there?
He might leave, but Glory's only going to come back when it's her turn for
their shared body. That would get boring. There is potential for other
reasons as well.
>And more to the point,
>why is he worrying about dating at a time like this?
He's a guy, unattached, in his early 20s apparently. Putting Mrs Q to one
side for the moment (discreetly), when would you think was a bad time to be
dating someone like SMG?
>Mrs. Q. was laughing a lot during the fight, with April casually
>breaking the see-saw in half and such. I didn't have that sense of
>whimsy in me. Oh, and no bonus points for the _Terminator_-esque
>robot's-eye view bits.
But I don't remember the Terminator having descriptions of anyone like
April's of Warren:
really smart
handsome
best lover
snappy dresser
good dancer
Or the list of things required to "mk warren hpy"
>April is her last one. Not much for the dialogue per se (except for
>"crying is blackmail. Good girlfriends don't cry") as for the mood
>as she gradually dies. Particularly the strangely striking moment in
>which she first mentions it "getting dark."
A great scene.
>It's good to see Buffy and Xander spending time together. The Puffy
>Xander opening is okay, but I think I actually liked the closing
>conversation better. Again not much of note is said, but they just
>seem comfortable with each other, hanging out and speaking their minds.
>Plus, "shimmed? Is that even a real word? Do you have any idea
>what you're talking about?" "Yeah, I do. Scary, isn't it?"
Yep, good to see Xander getting it together.
>Two concepts that I think are nice touches beyond that: Anya getting
>involved in online stock trading, Tara's attempts at humor still
>regularly going over the others' heads. Want more compliments about
>IWMTLY? Well, the description of Giles's time with Dawn is
>smile-worthy, and it's worth mentioning that a fourteen-year-old
>shouldn't have a baby sitter (normally completely true, but there are
>circumstances...).
I think the episodes best humour all comes from Anya. Obviously her classic
description of April: "She speaks with a strange evenness and selects her
words a shade too precisely", Xander's response to that, and Anya
squirreling it away to bring out when Willow also comments on April's odd
speech. But I also liked the nervousness barely under control in:
ANYA: I let them do that. Dance together. That was me.
TARA: Very nice of you.
WILLOW: A good deed.
ANYA: Yes. I'm expecting a big karmic reward any second now.
& "Xander got hypnotized by the strange girl. I am remaining calm, however."
>Odd mention of Oz this week. Actually, Xander's had another male
>friend to bounce such comments off more recently, but maybe we're not
>saying his name in mixed company.
I think Oz seemed closer to Xander than Riley did. Plus I'd pick OZ as more
understanding of the foibles human nature is prey to than Riley.
>One-sentence summary: Pointless.
Definitely not.
>AOQ rating: Weak
You are probably in the majority on this one, judging by most of the other
responses. But I would never have called it Weak, and it has made big gains
on repeat viewings. To me it is Good, the 29th best BtVS episode, 3rd best
in season 5. A part of that high ranking is due to the fact that it
independently sets up both of the episodes in season 5 that I rate higher.
And there are a couple of totally spoilery reasons that also only apply when
you have seen the whole season - Gur gvzvat bs gur rcvfbqr vf fperjrq hc ol
gur fprar jvgu Fcvxr naq Jneera, juvpu frrzf gb or ng avtug, ohg trarenyyl
vg ybbxf yvxr nyy gur frpbaq unys (sebz Ohssl tbvat gb frr Jneera gb gur
pyvssunatre) gnxr cynpr va n fubeg crevbq bs gvzr va n fvatyr zbeavat. Fb
gurer vf gur nqqrq cbvtanapl ba erjngpuvat gung Ohssl vf fvggvat jvgu gur
qlvat ebobg jura fur pbhyq or jvgu ure qlvat zbgure. Fur cnlf n cevpr sbe
ure pbzcnffvba. Cyhf, gur uhzbhe va OgIF jnf nyjnlf n ovt snpgbe va zl
yvxvat vg. Gur uhzbhe va VJZGYL znl abg or gur orfg va OgIF, ohg lbh'q
orggre znxr gur zbfg bs vg, orpnhfr uhzbhe jvyy or va zhpu fubegre fhccyl
sbe n juvyr.
--
Apteryx
Arbitrar Of Quality
> :
> :This is actually a rather important debate, as we approach the time of
> :real Aprilbots (the Japanese are putting a lot of effort into
> :convincingly-human androids). Can you abuse, in the human sense, a
> :machine? Even if we decide that you can't, what does abusing a
> :human-like machine do to the abuser? If it looks, acts, and appears to
> :feel like a human, and you abuse it, are you actually an abuser? Would
> :it make you more likely to abuse a "real" human?
>
> And here I'd like to recommend that people watch
> the DVDs of "Battlestart Galactica". The new, interesting
> one, not the old, cheesy one.
I was thinking of nuBSG too when that question was raised, particularly
the "The Pegasus"/"Resurrection Ship" arc.
-AOQ
Mel
George W Harris wrote:
Hmm, I was thinking the same thing, even if the second half of season 2
was a bit of a disappointment.
Mel, who doesn't have the DVDs yet anyway
BTR1701
"Mike Zeares" <mze...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
>
> > It was made for Britney Spears (back when she was still hot, not the
> > post-baby chubby girl she's become).
>
> Am I the only one who likes her better as a post-baby chubby girl?
Not me. She can't sing for crap but she was smokin' once upon a time.
And I don't even much care for blondes as a general rule.
> > And that's not a joke. The role of the robot was written for Spears but
> > some last minute schedule conflicts prevented her from doing it so the
> > role was recast with Shonda Farr.
>
> Wasn't the story supposedly that Britney's people thought the role
> would make her look stupid?
That's much funnier in an ironic sort of way but no, it had to do with
Spears's touring schedule at the time.
BTR1701
"Elisi" <eli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm waiting for OBS before saying anything (and also I'm rather rushed
> right now), but can I just point out that the robot's name was 'April'?
>
Sure. Not sure why it's necessary, but it's noted.
BTR1701
<nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote:
> "Rowan Hawthorn" <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:w8WdnU6GnLh...@giganews.com...
> > Not a chance in hell that will be done. If and when a genuine AI is
> > ever developed, it will almost certainly more closely resemble (from a
> > programming standpoint) "Terminator" than "C3-PO." That's humankind
> > for you: *First*, let's figure out how we can use this new invention to
> > kill other people...
> >
> I think "sex-bot" will likely be the "killer-app" more so than a
> "terminator-bot". One day, it may even become fashionable to try to mimic
> one: http://bdb.vrya.net/bdb/clip.php?clip=1997 :)
How is that a spoiler?
BTR1701
Sample <dsa...@synapse.net> wrote:
> In article
> <mair_fheal-CB4A3...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > - all computers should have a clearly labeled off switch or power plug
> > that completely powers off the computer
>
> Why? And when the computer is just as intelligent as the people running
> it, doesn't turning it off constitute murder?
Nope. Murder is specific legal term with a specific legal definition:
the unlawful killing of a human being. If something isn't human, it
can't be murdered. Which is also why it's impossible to murder a vampire.
> But when you make something capable of autonomous action. Something
> that can evaluate its surroundings, and make decisions about what
> actions to take as well as or better than a human being, you have
> created something that you have to give more consideration to than a
> dishwasher.
Why?
BTR1701
gha...@mundsprung.com wrote:
> On 4 Jul 2006 14:15:20 -0700, "Mike Zeares" <mze...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> :> Is this going to be like that Dawn thread? In this show, feelings tend
> :> to be treated as real, regardless of who or what the person is, and
> :> IWMTLY plays (marginally) better if we assume the same here.
> :>
> :> Unless Katrina creates toys that serve her as slaves and can
> :> convincingly appear to be tortured, you're not going to sell me on
> :> moral equivalence here.
> :
> :This is actually a rather important debate, as we approach the time of
> :real Aprilbots (the Japanese are putting a lot of effort into
> :convincingly-human androids). Can you abuse, in the human sense, a
> :machine? Even if we decide that you can't, what does abusing a
> :human-like machine do to the abuser? If it looks, acts, and appears to
> :feel like a human, and you abuse it, are you actually an abuser? Would
> :it make you more likely to abuse a "real" human?
>
> And here I'd like to recommend that people watch
> the DVDs of "Battlestart Galactica".
So say we all...
BTR1701
<melb...@uci.net> wrote:
The second half wasn't disappointing so much as the final episode. V
ernyyl qvqa'g yvxr gur synfu-sbejneq va gvzr ovg.
Horace LaBadie
Daniel Damouth <dam...@san.rr.com> wrote:
"How to Survive a Robot Uprising."
<http://www.robotuprising.com>
HWL
MBangel10 (Melissa)
I told AOQ not to click on the link, as you have no warning for him in
your post.
MBangel10 (Melissa)
Oops, I think RH posted the link. Sorry BTR.
burt...@hotmail.com
Huh. Well, I don't see it, but then, I've never really understood the
shipper mindset.
Daniel Damouth
explaining to Anya how the Chex crackers aren't "hand woven". He's
saying "Well, it's a machine, and it's... it sorta... impresses... and,
there may be a mold of some sort..." (sees April the robot for the
first time) "Who's that?"
-Dan Damouth
Ian Galbraith
[snip]
> So...
> One-sentence summary: Pointless.
> AOQ rating: Weak
Hmm I thought this episode was better liked, personally I rank it as
excellent, perhaps a low excellent but an excellent nonetheless.
[snip]
--
You can't stop the signal
Elisi
>
> assuming katrina never used battery operated toys
> otherwise shes being hypocritical about the robot
You seem to miss the greater implications. Warren explicitly states
that he _didn't_ make a toy - he made a girlfriend who's programmed to
_love_ him. That in itself is rather disturbing, but it gets more so
when you look at why: Because he thought that he _deserved_ it! Call it
a symptom of the society we live in, where instant gratification is
encouraged, and we're all 'worth it'. But it's twisted nonetheless.
Also Warren refuses to deal with the mess he created. He 'left' April,
but never faced up to the situation until Buffy forced him to. And even
then he left Buffy to deal with the consequences.
vague disclaimer
BTR1701 <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
That would be because posters were calling her Amber.
rrh...@acme.com
Rowan Hawthorn wrote:
> John Briggs wrote:
> > mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
> >
> > It's a real noun - I'm not convinced it's a real verb.
>
> Certainly it is. A shim is what you use when you shim something into
> position. One *could* use a lengthy sentence to describe what one is
> doing when one shims an object, but why bother when there's a perfectly
> good term for it?
Ditto. From Merriam Webster Online:
"Main Entry: 2shim
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): shimmed; shim·ming
: to fill out or level up by the use of a shim"
Even if it weren't in the dictionary, it would still be perfectly good
English. One characteristic of English is that it uses words freely in
various parts of speech. This is not a bug. It is a feature, Calvin
and/or Hobbes notwithstanding.
For anyone unconvinced, open up any standard English dictionary to a
random page. (You will need a dead tree dictionary for this.) Go down
the page and see how many words are more than one part of speech.
Sometimes you can guess which came first, but often you cannot, unless
the dictionary you chose was the Oxford English Dictionary, in which
case you need not guess.
Richard R. Hershberger
peachy ashie passion
>
> The Ben scenes don't particularly interest me either. I suspect it's
> because, all along, he exists in this episode solely because Buffy needs an
> object to go after to "fix" her boy problems and then to reject when she
> realizes she can't just go out and make her or her boyfriend be some kind of
> abstract relationship ideal. So Buffy/Ben is never real. And it shows.
>
Interesting. My view on these was a little different. Not that it
wasn't really real, but that there was potential. And even when there
was potential, and sparkage, it can't be forced. You can't MAKE things
happen.
One Bit Shy
news:D5Vqg.1881$nG2.983@trnddc05...
Oh, I think they might have had potential (absent his little problem), but
not on the basis of time together in this episode. Here they're burdened
with a setup to make the episode's relationship point. Even Ben's part was
almost entirely disarming devices. Seems to me they had made more of a
connection back in the hospital than anything that happened here even if he
did giver her his phone number.
OBS
James Craine
John Briggs wrote:
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
>
>>> Plus, "shimmed? Is that even a real word? Do you have any idea
>>
>>its a real word and xander is really shimming the frame
>
>
> It's a real noun - I'm not convinced it's a real verb.
>
> (Verbing weirds language.)
It's a verb. The guys on 'This Old House' use the verb 'to
shim' frequently.
vague disclaimer
<mair_fheal-C4083...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> In article <l64o-1rj5-2F351...@mercury.nildram.net>,
> vague disclaimer <l64o...@dea.spamcon.org> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <mair_fheal-B91AC...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> > <mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Nyy gehr, ohg zl vavgvny ernq jnf nf zvfbtlal. V'ir ab ceboyrz jvgu
> > > > bguref abg ernqvat vg gung jnl. Ng yrnfg vg vf fbzrguvat jbegu nethvat
> > > > bire.
> > >
> > > youre expanding the term to the point of meaninglessness
> >
> > If that's what you wish to believe, don't let me stop you.
>
> glad to know youre including ben and anya and buffy and giles in the category
I'm sure there is a place your logic belongs. Earth is not that place.
peachy ashie passion
> One Bit Shy wrote:
>
>>Puffy Xander was a decent visual joke, but doesn't make sense. Buffy
>>already has a punching bag. Still, there's some sweet and funny lines
>>there. As there are with the two throughout. (The dance moment was nice
>>too.) The commentary refers to these as the opportunity for people to wish
>>for a Buffy/Xander pairing again like they did back in S1.
>
>
> Did Jane Espenson really say that? Because I didn't get that kind of
> vibe from those scenes at all. They just seemed to me to be nice
> moments of friendship. But then, I've never been much of a "shipper"
> and I was always a lot more interested in the friendships than the
> romantic relationships, so maybe that's it....
>
It always played to me as just being friends as well
peachy ashie passion
> In article <12alkmf...@corp.supernews.com>,
> chr...@removethistoreply.gwu.edu wrote:
>
>
>>V nterr jvgu lbh nobhg gur zvfbtlal, ohg gung'f cebonoyl orpnhfr jr'ir
>>obgu frra frnfba fvk.
>
>
> Npghnyyl jura Qrnq Guvatf nverq va gur HX V nethrq gung vg unq orra
> boivbhf fvapr guvf rc Abg rirelbar nterrq, gb or fher, ohg ng yrnfg V
> pna pynvz yrtvgvzngryl gung vg vfa'g cbfg ubp engvbanyvfngvba (fb, lnl
> zr!).
>
V gubhtug vg jnf pyrne gbb, abg orpnhfr bs gur obg, ohg orpnhfr bs uvf
gerngzrag bs Xngevan.
peachy ashie passion
Okay I give, I'll watch.
Yeesh!
Ian Galbraith
> In article <2rGdnVlra4XZtzbZ...@uci.net>, Mel
> <melb...@uci.net> wrote:
[snip re BSG]
>> Hmm, I was thinking the same thing, even if the second half of season 2
>> was a bit of a disappointment.
> The second half wasn't disappointing so much as the final episode. V
> ernyyl qvqa'g yvxr gur synfu-sbejneq va gvzr ovg.
There were some disappointing standalones in the lead up to the finale.
(Harmony) Watcher
"BTR1701" <BTR...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-E611C2...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <VVyqg.117396$iF6.60946@pd7tw2no>, "\(Harmony\) Watcher"
> <nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote:
>
> > "Rowan Hawthorn" <rowan_h...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:w8WdnU6GnLh...@giganews.com...
>
> > > Not a chance in hell that will be done. If and when a genuine AI is
> > > ever developed, it will almost certainly more closely resemble (from a
> > > programming standpoint) "Terminator" than "C3-PO." That's humankind
> > > for you: *First*, let's figure out how we can use this new invention
to
> > > kill other people...
> > >
> > >
> V guvax "frk-obg" jvyy yvxryl or gur "xvyyre-ncc" zber fb guna n
> "grezvangbe-obg". Bar qnl, vg znl rira orpbzr snfuvbanoyr gb gel gb zvzvp
> bar: uggc://oqo.ieln.arg/oqo/pyvc.cuc?pyvc=1997 :)
</re-rot13 again>
> > >
>
> Ubj vf gung n fcbvyre?
>
V cbfgrq n yvax gb n OGIF genafpevcg fvgr gb fhccbeg zl fhttrfgvba gung
"frk-obg" jvyy yvxryl or gur "xvyyre-ncc" sbe ebobg nqbcgvba. Gung'f pyrneyl
fcbyvrevfu gb NbD gb fnl gur yrnfg: gung gurer jvyy or n frkobg nccrnevat va
OgIF. Ol abj rirelbar xabjf gung gung'f n OgIF qvnybt genafpevcg fvgr.
--
==Harmony Watcher==
(Harmony) Watcher
news:dsample-70D4EC...@news.giganews.com...
> In article
> <mair_fheal-CB4A3...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,> > > Oh, well. Yeah, weak pretty much covers it. I *did* feel bad for the
> > > Amberbot, though; funny how the machine was more sympathetic than lots
> > > of *human* characters...
> >
> > i have problems with amber that are of more technical nature
> >
> > - theres no real difference between amber
> > and any other batteries not included toy
> > and anybody using one of those doesnt get to say ewww
>
> Amber was demonstrating a level of intelligence and freedom of action
> that would make her arguably a sentient being, and therefor should be
> treated as such.
>
>
> > - all computers should have a clearly labeled off switch or power plug
> > that completely powers off the computer
>
> Why? And when the computer is just as intelligent as the people running
> them all have off switches, then so should the people.
>
>
Personally I suspect that all humans IRL (or maybe even in Buffyverse)
already have "off" switches which are usually hidden and not easily
accessible by us lower beings. The switch may even reside at a meta-level
beyond the reach of humans. When none of the Sims is doing what we want them
to do, what do most of our friends do with nary a thought?
<rest snipped>
--
==Harmony Watcher==
(Harmony) Watcher
--
==Harmony Watcher==
(Harmony) Watcher
"John Briggs" <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Jqxqg.35044$Z61....@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
> mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
> >
> >> Plus, "shimmed? Is that even a real word? Do you have any idea
> >
> > its a real word and xander is really shimming the frame
>
> It's a real noun - I'm not convinced it's a real verb.
>
> (Verbing weirds language.)
> John Briggs
>
>
"Yellow taxi" much? :)
--
==Harmony Watcher==
mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
"\(Harmony\) Watcher" <nob...@nonesuch.com> wrote:
apparently ted is relegated to toaster ovens
but since april appears more sympathetic she is not
i wonder how people will feel about the robot spike has on order
arf meow arf - nsa fodder
ny dnrqn greebevfz ahpyrne obzo vena gnyvona ovt oebgure
if you meet buddha on the usenet killfile him
Rowan Hawthorn
Ted was programmed to be a sociopath and a serial killer. I have a hard
time considering the elimination of those to be murder even when they're
human, let alone when they're a machine.
--
Rowan Hawthorn
"Occasionally, I'm callous and strange." - Willow Rosenberg, "Buffy the
Vampire Slayer"
(Harmony) Watcher
"mariposas rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
news:mair_fheal-900F9...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> > There are stories of people bonding with their robotic vacuum cleaners.
> > We're going to have to figure out how to deal with lifelike humanoid
> > robots. Before they inevitably turn on us ('cause I've seen the movies
> > -- they always turn on us).
>
> is to counter what he called the frankenstein theme
> that knowledge-technology-science leads to forbidden inventions
> which invariably turn on their creators and harm humanity
>
> one version of cain and abel is that cain was a smith
> and that in some societies smiths are held akin to sorcerors and witches
> with their dangerous knowledge of transforming rocks in metal
>
> and so cains sacrafice was rejected because it was tainted with technology
>
> > My gut feeling is that anyone who would abuse an Aprilbot is a
> > sociopath. Contrast Warren's treatment of her with Buffy's. Buffy
> > knew she was "just a machine." She stayed with her as she "died"
> > anyway.
>
> i think a similar argument is made about animal abuse
> that theres a signficant risk they will graduate to killing and hurting
humans
>
>
In a way, the question is: when is a being a "lower" being? Is a dog a lower
being? Is a chipmunk a lower being? An ant? A sea urchin? An amoeba? Are we
all lower beings to some higher beings? Labeling a "lower being" as
incapable of feeling has always been used as an excuse for abuse. It is
"lower beings" all the way down (with apologies to turtles). What does it
suggest about the other direction?
--
==Harmony Watcher==