PUSHER was a 'Shipper!! *gak*!

428 views
Skip to first unread message

Mary Lynn

unread,
May 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/28/96
to

...and that's all i have to say about that.


-mar, USTB

****************************************
"Personally, I like my sexual tension resolved."
"Yea... but if you resolve it, it's no longer tense is it?!?"
****************************************

Eric Johns

unread,
May 29, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/29/96
to

In article <31ABB0...@mail.multiverse.com>, tha...@mail.multiverse.com
says...

>
>...and that's all i have to say about that.
>
Okay, I gotta say that I don't get this one...you claim to love the UST,
and here is this wonderful episode just LOADED with it, and you HATED the
ep? That's how I am reading what you are saying here...I have to wonder
what exactly DO you consider an episode that could/would fulfill your
expectations as far as a balance between UST and plot goes...it doesn't get
any better than PUSHER, IMVHO...

Kristel

Mary Lynn

unread,
May 30, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/30/96
to

Eric Johns wrote:
>
> In article <31ABB0...@mail.multiverse.com>, tha...@mail.multiverse.com
> says...
> >
> >...and that's all i have to say about that.
> >
> Okay, I gotta say that I don't get this one...you claim to love the UST,
> and here is this wonderful episode just LOADED with it, and you HATED the
> ep? That's how I am reading what you are saying here...


i *do* love the UST, and what would ruin it??? BY DEFINITION ALONE, M&S
"GETTING TOGETHER" WOULD RUIN THE UST!!!!!

*BY DEFINITION*!!!!!!!!!!

all i'm doing here is saying that the Pusher HIMSELF, the man, *not* the
episode, was a shipper - *by definition*. it sickened me the way M&S's actions
were interpreted by the shippers as "the closest they have come...." and "M&S
are gonna 'do it', i just know it!!" yadda yadda yadda - *gak*. so, IMVHO, that
made the man himself a "shipper". they ruined it for me, i *did not* hate the ep,
but now i can't watch the episode without thinking about how warm and fuzzy it
made certain people.

> ...I have to wonder
> what exactly DO you consider an episode that could/would fulfill your
> expectations as far as a balance between UST and plot goes...it doesn't get
> any better than PUSHER, IMVHO...

FYI, the ep"Pusher" was *not* my idea of perfect UST. i found that in earlier
ep's, like the Jersey Devil and Fire. Subtle, easy to miss, professional, and the
plot was nowhere near dependent upon it. *that* is what i love about my UST,
but it is not the only thing i love about the X-Files.

Nancy Lemieux

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

In article <31AE41...@mail.multiverse.com>,
tha...@mail.multiverse.com wrote:

: all i'm doing here is saying that the Pusher HIMSELF, the man, *not* the

: episode, was a shipper - *by definition*. it sickened me the way M&S's
actions
: were interpreted by the shippers as "the closest they have come...." and "M&S

Why? What is so sickening about how close Mulder and Scully were?
How else would you interpret the handholding, the saddened looks, the fear
in her eyes, the way he fights to stop himself from shooting her?

: are gonna 'do it', i just know it!!" yadda yadda yadda - *gak*. so,


IMVHO, that
: made the man himself a "shipper". they ruined it for me, i *did not*
hate the ep,

paraphrasing: Pusher noticed how close Mulder and his partner were, and
asked how well they work together. Now, if that isn't double entendre,
then I don't know what is. Face it, Pusher, the episode, was the epitome
of shippyness. It's the Mecca of relationshippers far and wide. It's the
template we hope may be used for other episodes... to show how the actual
relationship between the leads did not in any way destroy the plot.
Coming a in second would be One Breath, with a very distant third as
Wetwired.

: but now i can't watch the episode without thinking about how warm and


fuzzy it
: made certain people.

I don't know. How can you? I guess if the clues are there, you just
can't run away from it.
I can't reproach you for having your own opinions of the characters, but
I'm not about to have any remorse for the way I feel, and I'm not going to
feel guilty that you can't accept our point of view and it disturbs you.
Next time, why don't you skip over anything that has the words 'shipper','
shippy',' relationshipper',' non-relationshipper', etc. in the subject
line?

:
: > ...I have to wonder


: > what exactly DO you consider an episode that could/would fulfill your
: > expectations as far as a balance between UST and plot goes...it doesn't get
: > any better than PUSHER, IMVHO...
:
: FYI, the ep"Pusher" was *not* my idea of perfect UST. i found that in
earlier
: ep's, like the Jersey Devil and Fire. Subtle, easy to miss,
professional, and the
: plot was nowhere near dependent upon it. *that* is what i love about my UST,
: but it is not the only thing i love about the X-Files.

Okay. I have question for you. What did you think of the UST in
Irresistible, Firewalker or Our Town? Would you consider that low key?
If you think so, consider this... there was as much contact and implied
feeling in those episodes as in Pusher... Heck, even the pilot had as
much contact. (and I don't mean 'contact' in the Due South meaning <vbg>)

What do you think is more indicative of feeling? a couple of quick shots
of handholding, or risking getting shot to save your partner, and a slow
caress of the cheek (firewalker)? How about slowly brushing the hair away
from the face while looking directly in the eyes, then pressing against
the cheek for a short instant, with yet a lingering look in the eyes...
even while there's a stampede going on all around you (Our Town)? So, you
have no problems with these episodes, but yet Pusher now disgusts you?
I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense to me.

If you want, I can indicate all the shippy moments in every episode, so
that I disturb your viewing pleasure forever. <g> ;)

: "Personally, I like my sexual tension resolved."

: "Yea... but if you resolve it, it's no longer tense is it?!?"

I also have a few problems with your sig. My first one is the constantly
repeated and very false claim that relationshippers want to see sexual
resolution. If I wanted meaningless sex, a la Melrose Place, I'd watch
that. As a matter of fact, this is the type of shows I stay away from.
Why does relationship automatically equate with sex? What is wrong with
more episodes like Pusher, Our Town, etc?

Secondly, if you think that sex automatically eliminates sexual tension,
then you are also mistaken. The essence is in the subtlety that you so
greatly prize. Show us a skinfest, and you'll turn off most viewers.
Show us a stolen kiss, a squeeze of the hand before the agents face an
adversary, show us great worry when one partner is in
danger/kidnapped/injured, show us handholding when one partner is in the
hospital, show us the two together, sleeping, when the phone rings
(assuming the sexual issue is breached), show us longing looks, show us
vows of support and faith, stop having Mulder ditch Scully at every other
turn, show us just a teensie bit more emotion rather than having them
break down behind closed doors.

All the above could very easily be incorporated, and seems to be done more
and more so in parts of third season, without ruining the main plot in any
way. I don't want any "Agent Mulder, we need your help!" "Not now, I'm
busy.. <starts necking with Scully in the car>" It's illogical,
unrealistic, and quite damaging to the plotline.

Make no mistake about it... I think the characters of Mulder and Scully as
they are written belong together, and the logical conclusion is that
someday they will have sex/get married/whatever... but it doesn't mean
that until such a time they have to repress all emotions and feelings for
each other. It's counterproductive, gives people ulcers, and doesn't
work, because let's face it... even Pusher saw right through their little
game. :)

Nancy

******
FoLC, X-Phile Relationshipper and DueSer

Mary Lynn

unread,
May 31, 1996, 3:00:00 AM5/31/96
to

My server is acting up again, i can't seem to find my response to this response,
so i am re-responding again (*whew*!):

Eric Johns wrote:
>
> In article <31ABB0...@mail.multiverse.com>, tha...@mail.multiverse.com
> says...
> >
> >...and that's all i have to say about that.
> >
> Okay, I gotta say that I don't get this one...you claim to love the UST,

yes, i *do* love the UST - and what would RUIN UST? M&S getting "together",
that's what. it would rip the "UN" right out of unresolved and i would be left with
nothing but shiny happy people that would make me sick when i watched them.
and just because i love the UST does not mean i am a "closet 'shipper", as i have
been accused of being. 5 sides to every coin, right?

> and here is this wonderful episode just LOADED with it, and you HATED the
> ep? That's how I am reading what you are saying here...

you *are* reading it wrong. i *did not* hate the ep - i rather liked it... until
the 'shippers got ahold of it and re-interpreted it in all sorts of ways that made
me SICK. on that level, in the sense that the Pusher (the character himself, not
the ep) made them oh-so-close, he reminded me of a shipper with too much
influence over the series. and that's how *i* am reading it.....

> I have to wonder
> what exactly DO you consider an episode that could/would fulfill your
> expectations as far as a balance between UST and plot goes...it doesn't get
> any better than PUSHER, IMVHO...
>

> Kristel

well, it was not Pusher, i can tell you that. i prefer the kind of UST displayed in
earlier ep's like Fire, Genderbender or Jersey Devil. ooh, and the ones with the
rift in full blown mode. *very* entertaining.
this part is for everyone else who may be confused by where i am standing on
this. as i have stated in earlier posts, i am *not* a 'shipper, it would ruin the
show. i am not an "anti-", as M&S already have a relationship. i belong neither
to the DDEB or the GATB. i do not worship Scully as a saint, but i do think that a
statue could be erected in her honor.... i started the USTB (for Unresolved
Sexual Tension Brigade) as a *lark*, a joke, and to have something to refer to
make a sig for the ends of my posts. it has gotten a bit out of hand.... but my
whole point was to state that it is the UST of their relationship that i enjoy. and
as i have also already stated: give in to it, eliminate it, or depend on it for story
lines, and i will probably stop watching the X-Files... because: i never watched it
for anything but the X-Files themselves in the first place; great acting,
attractive stars, *totally cool* bit parts, faboo subtle effects and interesting
stories kept me tuned in. and the UST? well... that's a great little side show.
albeit a freakish side show.... i hope it doesn't go away, either through use of the
rift or whatever else.... but if it becomes the focal point? god forbid.
there. hope i cleared it up.

-mar, USTB

****************************************


"Personally, I like my sexual tension resolved."
"Yea... but if you resolve it, it's no longer tense is it?!?"

****************************************

Eric Johns

unread,
Jun 1, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/1/96
to

>
>> Okay, I gotta say that I don't get this one...you claim to love the UST,
>
> yes, i *do* love the UST - and what would RUIN UST? M&S getting
"together",
>that's what. it would rip the "UN" right out of unresolved and i would be
left with
>nothing but shiny happy people that would make me sick when i watched
them.
>and just because i love the UST does not mean i am a "closet 'shipper", as
i have
>been accused of being. 5 sides to every coin, right?
>
But the point we are trying to make is that getting them involved
romantically does not HAVE to make them shiny happy people...we don't want
that either! We have said this OVER AND OVER and everybody is still
accusing us of wanting that very thing! If you are going to damn us, at
least damn us for what we are actually saying. Don't put words in our
mouths and then condemn US for speaking them...

Okay, you didn't like the PUSHER analogy...let's go to something a little
more distant...let's try ICE. Now, if you do enjoy the UST, or let's just,
for the moment, leave it at ST, as the resolution status is irrelevent for
this argument...

The scene in the closet where Mulder and Scully examine each other's
necks...let's say that this scene happens with the established knowledge
that they are lovers. They touch each other, the sexual tension fairly
crackled in the air, all of us who recognize that tension get tingles down
our spines...how would that scene be any less electrifying if it had
happened in the context that they were not just partners, but lovers...that
they had been forced to pull guns on one another now knowing if one or the
other is infected by the worms? How would it be any less exciting, the
EXACT same scene, with that knowledge established? THAT is what we are
asking for, that electricity, in slightly larger quantities than we already
get, coupled with the knowledge that they are together romantically. We
want to know that when a situation comes that forces them to argue or to
question one another, the they have a personal stake in this as well as a
professional, that there is a deeper underlying issue that will have to
eventually be addressed, even if we don't happen to see it addressed in the
course of the show.

HOW would this change, or, as people insist on saying, ruin the show?

>whole point was to state that it is the UST of their relationship that i
enjoy. and
>as i have also already stated: give in to it, eliminate it, or depend on
it for story
>lines, and i will probably stop watching the X-Files... because: i never
watched it
>for anything but the X-Files themselves in the first place; great acting,
>attractive stars, *totally cool* bit parts, faboo subtle effects and
interesting
>stories kept me tuned in. and the UST? well... that's a great little side
show.
>albeit a freakish side show.... i hope it doesn't go away, either through
use of the
>rift or whatever else.... but if it becomes the focal point? god forbid.
> there. hope i cleared it up.
>

Okay...I have just presented you with a scenario that proves that the show
can continue WITH Mulder and Scully in love and in a romantic relationship
without falling into any of the traps that you have mentioned...they do not
become angsty, the tension is there, but not the focus, there is still
plenty of action, the plot is intact...WHY would such a situation not work?

It COULD work, WOULD work, if given a chance, in the context that we
'shippers have described. The relationship would not become the focus of
the show or the story lines...and THAT is what we want...Now, having
established this, I want to know WHY this would be a bad thing for you.

Kristel

Mary Lynn

unread,
Jun 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/2/96
to

Eric Johns wrote:
> Okay...I have just presented you with a scenario that proves that the show
> can continue WITH Mulder and Scully in love and in a romantic relationship
> without falling into any of the traps that you have mentioned...they do not
> become angsty, the tension is there, but not the focus, there is still
> plenty of action, the plot is intact...WHY would such a situation not work?

uh, sorry, but your little scenario proved NOTHING to me. you 'shippers keep
saying this crap over and over again - "just a little confirmation" or "a tiny
little indication that they are in love" or "perhaps seeing them receive a call to
arms whilst sleeping in the same bed" - *gak*... THEN WHY DO IT AT ALL?????
god, Parateam, save me here! no matter what anyone says, if the relationship
were to suddenly become romantic "in-love" stuff, the focal point would
automatically *become* the M&S relationship, and excuse me, but CC
*himself* has already stated this! why bother calling it the X-Files after
that?!?! why not just call it the "SEX-Files".... sure. fine. WHATEVER. call it
anything - just as long as you call it "Something That Mary Lynn Will No Longer
Watch" - and i know quite a few will be joining me in that department.

OKAY, ONE LAST TIME FOR ANYONE TOO SLOW TO HAVE GOTTEN IT BY NOW
(AND I WILL SURELY USE SOME REAL SMALL WORDS):

1. i do not want M&S to "get together".

2. i like the UST, a lot. it is neat. it is sick. and i like the "UN" part *most
especially*. have i made that clear? the "UN" part. the "UN" part. the "UN" part.
the "UN" part. the "UN" part. the "UN" part. the "UN" part.

3. as i have said before to others, the UST is *not* the only, and certainly not
the first or the foremost reason i continue to watch the X-Files.

4. and lastly, as i have also said before to others, i dwell in the comfort of
knowing that the show's creator already feels the *same way* about an M/S
'romance' and the attraction to a *small* level of UST, and attention to the
things that has already made the show a hit, things that have very little to do
with UST or romance or M/S sexual situations.

-mar, no siggie - as it is obviously not being read anyway.


a Morrison

unread,
Jun 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/2/96
to

Mary Lynn <tha...@mail.multiverse.com> wrote:

>Eric Johns wrote:
>> Okay...I have just presented you with a scenario that proves that the show
>> can continue WITH Mulder and Scully in love and in a romantic relationship

>> without falling into any of the traps that you have mentioned.<snip.>
>>..why would such a situation not work?

> you 'shippers keep saying this crap over and over again - "just a little confirmation" or "a tiny
>little indication that they are in love" or "perhaps seeing them receive a call to
>arms whilst sleeping in the same bed" - *gak*...

I have to put my .02 in. I can resist no longer.

What is it that people can't believe that two professionals, of
opposite gender, can work together without falling in love. It happens
in movies (Jurassic Park, Twister) and now people want to wreck the
X-Files! Why don't you 'shippers pretend that off-screen Scully and
Mulder kisses, thought hmm no sparks but great friendship and go from
there?

Scully and Mulder are a great *professional* team. 'Shippers provide
terrific fodder for people who think that single women and men can't
work together because they would be too distracted by the sex thing.

I think the X-files could still be mythic without them falling in
love. I could be unclear about the mythic thing though because I have
just been following posts.
Cass and her companions Rufus the Cairn and Teak the Toller

Kristel S. Oxley-Johns

unread,
Jun 2, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/2/96
to

In article <31B13B...@mail.multiverse.com>, Mary says...

> uh, sorry, but your little scenario proved NOTHING to me. you 'shippers keep

>saying this crap over and over again - "just a little confirmation" or "a tiny
>little indication that they are in love" or "perhaps seeing them receive a call to

>arms whilst sleeping in the same bed" - *gak*... THEN WHY DO IT AT ALL?????

Um, because we believe that these two are in love and want to see them find
completion in each other in a world in which they have no one else?

>god, Parateam, save me here! no matter what anyone says, if the relationship
>were to suddenly become romantic "in-love" stuff, the focal point would
>automatically *become* the M&S relationship, and excuse me, but CC
>*himself* has already stated this!

What we are trying to prove here is that the romance becoming the focal point
of the show DOES NOT have to be the case, if the romnce is handled correctly.
A television show does not write itself, and if the writers do not want to
make it about the romance, they have that control...If CC insists that there
is no other way a relationship can be written, he and everyone else who
believes him is giving him FAR TOO LITTLE CREDIT! Come on, this show
is about the impossible being possible...they buck the odds and the
standards and the predictibility that usually plague television shows on
a weekly basis, but suddenly they feel that to present a romance, they can
only do it one way? Puh-lease...that is the weakest arguement of all.
CC and Co have the greatest creative talent in the television industry, they
could a way to prevent that from happening...

>why bother calling it the X-Files after
>that?!?! why not just call it the "SEX-Files".... sure. fine. WHATEVER.

You brought up sex, not me...I have told you before that is NOT what I want
to see, nor is it what anyone else wants to see, so why don't we leave that
argument alone now...

>1. i do not want M&S to "get together".
>

I understand your stand on the matter...what I want to know is why, if the
romance is presented in such a way that it does not take over the show,
that it does not have plots revolving around it, and it does not ruin
the atmosphere od the show, would this all of a sudden make this show
you love something you couldn't stand?

>2. i like the UST, a lot. it is neat. it is sick. and i like the "UN" part *most
>especially*. have i made that clear? the "UN" part. the "UN" part. the "UN" part.
>the "UN" part. the "UN" part. the "UN" part. the "UN" part.
>

Again, I understand hat quite clearly...what I am asking is why? If all
the excitement and chemistry between the characters is still there, what
does the resolution status matter?

>3. as i have said before to others, the UST is *not* the only, and certainly not
>the first or the foremost reason i continue to watch the X-Files.
>

Well, I don't watch it for the relationship either, but I do admit that the
chemistry between the characters is one of the things that first caught my
eye. I don't remember which episode it was, but the first time I was
flipping through channels and the X-Files caught my eye, I was drawn in
by the situations being presented, but at the same time, I saw the characters
interact and thought, "These two are in love." Right off the bat, it was
that apparent to me. And I have a mailing list full of people who will
say the same thing. One person even said once that a friend sat down to
watch the show with her and after thirty seconds said "I didn't know these
two were a couple!" or something like that...

>4. and lastly, as i have also said before to others, i dwell in the comfort of
>knowing that the show's creator already feels the *same way* about an M/S
>'romance' and the attraction to a *small* level of UST, and attention to the
>things that has already made the show a hit, things that have very little to do
>with UST or romance or M/S sexual situations.

What we have been trying to illustrate is that the romance could happen
without taking over the show, without being the focus of the plots, without
doing away with the nafarious government conspiracies or the monster of the
week. And I ask you, again, since you have not yet answered me on this
point, if that were the case, why would it be a bad thing?

Kristel


Stef Davies

unread,
Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96
to

>>
What is it that people can't believe that two professionals, of
opposite gender, can work together without falling in love.<<

If only people would take the trouble to read the posts, and follow the
discussion before making sweeping generalisations about a position other
than their own.

These quotations are *exactly* why we have been having this discussion,
and for the $&%!! time, I'll say.....no-one is saying that two people
can't work together without falling in love. I CHALLENGE you to find ANY
post where we have said that 'two people who work together will always
fall in love.'

But the way the relationship bewteen *these* two CHARACTERS has been
presented is not platonic, in my opinion. It does however, piss me off
mightily when it is stated that because I hold that view I am incapable
of appreciating that platonic relationships exist. How many more times
do we have to say this??


>>Scully and Mulder are a great *professional* team. 'Shippers provide
terrific fodder for people who think that single women and men can't
work together because they would be too distracted by the sex thing. <<

Call me naive if you must, but I didn't realise that 'the sex thing'
only applied to single people! The most torrid affairs that I have ever
known in the workplace have taken place bewteen those who were married.
'The sex thing' applies to human beings no matter what their sexual
orientation or marital status.....

Please, those of you who hold a different view about their relationship
- that's fine, surely....variety makes for an interesting word, but
please don't proffer ludicrous arguments and pretend they are ours.

Stef

!^NavFont02F05540004HL55524A


Serotonin Pete

unread,
Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96
to

Pusher wasn't a 'shipper. He merely was aware of Mulder and Scully's
emotional insecurities and was messing with their heads.

<<< Serotonin Pete >>>

Kristel S. Oxley-Johns

unread,
Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96
to

In article <4os9gm$8...@kryten.awinc.com>, cnfm...@awinc.com says...

>I have to put my .02 in. I can resist no longer.
>

>What is it that people can't believe that two professionals, of

>opposite gender, can work together without falling in love. It happens
>in movies (Jurassic Park, Twister) and now people want to wreck the
>X-Files! Why don't you 'shippers pretend that off-screen Scully and
>Mulder kisses, thought hmm no sparks but great friendship and go from
>there?
>

It is obvious you haven't been following this discussion TOO closely or
you would know that we have already been over this.

We do not feel that all male/female profession associations must
evolve into romance, but we do feel that THESE two characters have those
things which would consitute a great love affair. I do not believe that
every such relationship must include romance, but I do see romantic
undertones in this relationship, and as these two have SO much chemistry
and are SO alone in the world, it seems right to me that they should
turn to one another. Is that the case in all situations? No. But I
do feel that it is the case here. And if you had been paying any
attention to what we have been saying here, you would see that we
have illustrated quite clearly that including a romantic relationship
between the two characters does NOT have to "wreck" the show.

>Scully and Mulder are a great *professional* team. 'Shippers provide
>terrific fodder for people who think that single women and men can't
>work together because they would be too distracted by the sex thing.
>

Where did you see us say that? You are accusing us of saying things
that we have never said. If you are going to participate in this
discussion, at least stick with the issues that are truly being dealt
with.

>I think the X-files could still be mythic without them falling in
>love. I could be unclear about the mythic thing though because I have
>just been following posts.

We are not saying that it couldn't, but we are saying that Mulder and
Scully have all the markings of an epic love affair, and we would
like to see them together.

Kristel


J. H. Madigan

unread,
Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96
to

On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Serotonin Pete wrote:

> Pusher wasn't a 'shipper. He merely was aware of Mulder and Scully's
> emotional insecurities and was messing with their heads.

Yep, and if that insecurity doesn't exist then the episode basically
disappears. So much for "proof" of an M&S romance not changing
the show.

The same could be said for Wetwired. I know someone out there has other
examples.

JM


J. H. Madigan

unread,
Jun 3, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/3/96
to

On 1 Jun 1996, Eric Johns wrote:

> The scene in the closet where Mulder and Scully examine each other's
> necks...let's say that this scene happens with the established knowledge
> that they are lovers. They touch each other, the sexual tension fairly
> crackled in the air, all of us who recognize that tension get tingles down
> our spines...how would that scene be any less electrifying if it had
> happened in the context that they were not just partners, but lovers...that
> they had been forced to pull guns on one another now knowing if one or the
> other is infected by the worms? How would it be any less exciting, the
> EXACT same scene, with that knowledge established? THAT is what we are
> asking for, that electricity, in slightly larger quantities than we already
> get, coupled with the knowledge that they are together romantically. We
> want to know that when a situation comes that forces them to argue or to
> question one another, the they have a personal stake in this as well as a
> professional, that there is a deeper underlying issue that will have to
> eventually be addressed, even if we don't happen to see it addressed in the
> course of the show.
>
> HOW would this change, or, as people insist on saying, ruin the show?

The problem with this example IMO is that you are taking a single scene
from a single episode out of context. I don't beleive "the EXACT same
scene" could be developed in the context of an M&S romance. If it is
true that the M&S relationship (the one which currently exists) is
central to the show - and you will certainly get no argument from me that
it is ONE of the central elements of the X-Files - then how can changing
their relationship not alter the show? _Any_ episode would have to be
handled differently in its entirety if such a large change were to be
made in M&S's relationship, and I certainly think the change would be
significant. I remain completely unconvinced that M&S are "in love" or
"made for each other". In fact, based on the traits of the characters
and of the Files, I'd say they are quite ill-suited to one another, and I
would find a romance quite lacking in credebility.

> Okay...I have just presented you with a scenario that proves that the show
> can continue WITH Mulder and Scully in love and in a romantic relationship

> without falling into any of the traps that you have mentioned...they do not
> become angsty, the tension is there, but not the focus, there is still

> plenty of action, the plot is intact...WHY would such a situation not work?

How can you say "the plot is intact" without examining the entire episode?

> It COULD work, WOULD work, if given a chance, in the context that we
> 'shippers have described. The relationship would not become the focus of
> the show or the story lines...and THAT is what we want...Now, having
> established this, I want to know WHY this would be a bad thing for you.

You haven't established anything IMO.

JM

Nancy Lemieux

unread,
Jun 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/4/96
to

In article <Pine.PMDF.3.91.96060...@axe.humboldt.edu>,

"J. H. Madigan" <jh...@axe.humboldt.edu> wrote:

> On Mon, 3 Jun 1996, Serotonin Pete wrote:
>
> > Pusher wasn't a 'shipper. He merely was aware of Mulder and Scully's
> > emotional insecurities and was messing with their heads.
>
> Yep, and if that insecurity doesn't exist then the episode basically
> disappears. So much for "proof" of an M&S romance not changing
> the show.

Ah, but you miss the point entirely. This is not 'proof' that a romance
would change the show... this is exploiting the relationship that already
exists within the show. Many other episodes have included
'relationshippy' moments, yet you don't label them as changing the show.
I'm thinking Firewalker, where Mulder is willing to take a bullet to go
back and check on Scully. This is just as intense, and I would rate it as
close to a relationship as Pusher, yet no one cries wolf on that one.

In case I haven't made myself clear, Pusher was specifically written to
show the closeness of Mulder and Scully. Same goes for Wetwired.

Do I, as an avid relationshipper, want all episodes to be like this?
Goodness, no!

Am I glad they showed an episode like Pusher?
Yes!!!!! I think whoever came up with this idea is a god and should be
revered as such! <g>

What most people seem unable to grasp about our point of view is the fact
that we don't want all the episodes to be like Pusher. We like the
monster of the week, the mythology, and the 'just plain wierd or comical'
episodes as much as the next person. The plots don't have to change.
What we want to see is a little more acknowledgement of the relationship
(hence our name) developing between these two main characters. In Avatar,
when Scully got knocked out in the batroom (that happens a lot to her,
doesn't it? <g>), Mulder barely glances her way to ask her if she's
alright. Compare that to Firewalker, or Our Town, where he takes the time
to make sure she's okay, even touches her cheek tenderly or pushes the
hair out of her eyes, and you'll come to understand how we despise the
fact that:
a) Their relationship is not portrayed evenly
b) This hasn't created a public outcry, yet is the exact treatment we wish for.


What has become really annoying is the fact that many people who don't
agree with the relationshipper point of view think that all we want to see
is sex, and Mulder and Scully giving each other soft looks and ignoring
criminals. Not only is this greatly exaggerated, but it makes me wonder
if those who reply to posts take the time to read what we are saying,
because the same arguments cycle back, despite our constantly defining our
position. (then again, since ever week there's requests for GIFs of naked
DD or GA, that shouldn't surprise me)

Okay, so even though I've already read about 5 posts saying this today,
I'll say it again, with the hopes that the sixth time's the charm.

-We are perfectly aware that men and women can work together without
having any feelings for each other.
-We do state, however, that many successful relationships have started in
situations where men and women work together.
-We also state that given the way Mulder and Scully are portrayed, and the
way they have interacted in the past and up to now, very strongly hints
that their partnership is far from platonic, and that they are both
harbouring deep feelings for each other.
-We believe that with the talent that has been shown so far by the writers
for the X-Files, that a low-key romance could easily be included in the
show without 'ruining it'. Since I'm at work, I don't presently have
proof for this, but there is opinion even from the media that this could
be successfully done (i.e. X-Files *isn't* Moonlighting or Northern
Exposure, or Cheers). I will be posting this article tonight. To assume
that adding a hint of romance would ruin the show is to insult the
intelligence of all those involved with the X-Files.
-To show Mulder and Scully hopping in the sack would greatly cheapen the
show. The success of the X-Files has been their low-key approach...
implying rather than showing graphically. Keeping in this spirit, we ask
that any romance be shown through small things... handholding, more
contact (hugging, leaning against each other on a stakeout), maybe even an
occasional kiss, having Scully walk out of the shower in the same room,
while Mulder, still in bed, answers the phone...

Notice how none of these are skinfests, and in no way reflect such shows
as Melrose Place (which others accuse us of wanting, even though I've
never seen this show in my life, and have no desire to do so).

Lastly, I must say that while some suggest that Mulder and Scully could
'get together' at or near the end of the series, I would be particularily
repulsed by this, not only for its cheap ploy at trying to satisfy, but
also for its lack of finesse and subtlety that I have come to love and
accept as an X-Files standard.

This post is already long, and I don't know how many people will have had
the patience to read this far, so I'll stop now. :)

Nancy

Nancy Lemieux

unread,
Jun 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/4/96
to

> On 1 Jun 1996, Eric Johns wrote:

<snip>


> > HOW would this change, or, as people insist on saying, ruin the show?
>
> The problem with this example IMO is that you are taking a single scene
> from a single episode out of context. I don't beleive "the EXACT same
> scene" could be developed in the context of an M&S romance. If it is
> true that the M&S relationship (the one which currently exists) is
> central to the show - and you will certainly get no argument from me that
> it is ONE of the central elements of the X-Files - then how can changing
> their relationship not alter the show? _Any_ episode would have to be
> handled differently in its entirety if such a large change were to be
> made in M&S's relationship, and I certainly think the change would be

What do you mean? They would still be investigating, they would still be
interviewing victims and interrogating criminals, they would still get
stonewalled, they would still be searching for the truth, they would still
have lost family members, they would still have differences of opinion and
arguments over procedure, they would still get shot at, they would still
find monsters of the week, they would still call each other up on their
cellular phones... do you get my point? You haven't explained how this
would have to be modified, and I would like specific examples.

> significant. I remain completely unconvinced that M&S are "in love" or
> "made for each other". In fact, based on the traits of the characters
> and of the Files, I'd say they are quite ill-suited to one another, and I
> would find a romance quite lacking in credebility.

The fact that you find their characters unsuitable for romance is
subjective, and therefore I'm afraid I won't try and convince you
otherwise, because I just don't have the energy to go into a long,
drawn-out debate over personalities and compatibility. Besides, chances
are you don't want to think otherwise, so I won't impose that on you.
Suffice it to say that I think they are well matched.

> > Okay...I have just presented you with a scenario that proves that the show
> > can continue WITH Mulder and Scully in love and in a romantic relationship
> > without falling into any of the traps that you have mentioned...they do not
> > become angsty, the tension is there, but not the focus, there is still
> > plenty of action, the plot is intact...WHY would such a situation not work?
>
> How can you say "the plot is intact" without examining the entire episode?

Okaaayyyy... Then please state examples where the rest of the episode
would be affected because I myself find no problem with what was written
above.

>
> > It COULD work, WOULD work, if given a chance, in the context that we
> > 'shippers have described. The relationship would not become the focus of
> > the show or the story lines...and THAT is what we want...Now, having
> > established this, I want to know WHY this would be a bad thing for you.
>
> You haven't established anything IMO.

And you haven't refuted anything. Unless you give a more precise outline
of the places/reasons why this wouldn't work, I'm afraid you won't
convince anybody of your point of view.

Kristel has worked with examples of episodes that have aired, and has
given what I find to be convincing arguments as to why a romance could be
worked into this scenario, which is a nice compromise, since the case
still gets solved, and those who want romance see it. You, on the other
hand, have not provided examples of how this would be unacceptable. At
this time, the burden of proof rests on you.

I look foreward to seeing your examples.

Nancy

Stef Davies

unread,
Jun 4, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/4/96
to

>> you 'shippers keep
saying this crap over and over again <<

What a shame that you have to resort to foul language...obviously your
position is so weak that you can't express yourself any other way.

I try to respect the position of people who hold views other than my own
except when they become personally insulting. Clearly you are unable to
do so.


Stef Davies

--
Stef Davies 10057...@compuserve.com
06/04/96 17:36
---------
Using: OUI 1.5 Beta 2 from http://www.dvorak.com

Parateam

unread,
Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96
to

Nancy bitterly writes:

<<Kristel has worked with examples of episodes that have aired, and has
given what I find to be convincing arguments as to why a romance could be
worked into this scenario, which is a nice compromise, since the case
still gets solved, and those who want romance see it.>>

I'd be interested in seeing the examples of the "changed" episodes.
Perhaps this was something that was discussed and posted quite a while
ago, so don't get back on that bitter horse and flame me for being a
doofus. OBVIOUSLY, those of us who are attempting to discuss these points
haven't seen these examples. We're not blockheads, you know.

If the postings by the relationshippers are going to continue to be
patronizing and mollifying SIMPLY because SOME of us haven't been here for
the whole ride and would just like to know where you stand and why you
stand there, then perhaps we should stop this right now. Nancy, really,
if you don't want to discuss it, PLEASE leave it to those of us who do.
You guys are all sounding a bit too snappish for a simple discussion.

Nancy Lemieux

unread,
Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96
to

Since I was born in an asbestos mining town, I'm naturally flame
resistant, so this didn't bother me in the least. However, it did amuse
me, and I feel compelled to reply.

In article <4p36qk$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, para...@aol.com (Parateam)
wrote:

> Nancy bitterly writes:

ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!

> <<Kristel has worked with examples of episodes that have aired, and has
> given what I find to be convincing arguments as to why a romance could be
> worked into this scenario, which is a nice compromise, since the case
> still gets solved, and those who want romance see it.>>

I'm still trying to find a single bitter note in the above paragraph....

>
> I'd be interested in seeing the examples of the "changed" episodes.

See, the problem I have with that statement is the fact that Kristel did
give examples of changed episodes in the original post which you responded
to. You then went on to say that this would change other parts of the
episode, without mentioning which segments you thought would be
affected... I'm still waiting to read about those specific unworkable
scenes...

> Perhaps this was something that was discussed and posted quite a while
> ago, so don't get back on that bitter horse and flame me for being a
> doofus. OBVIOUSLY, those of us who are attempting to discuss these points
> haven't seen these examples. We're not blockheads, you know.

But there was an example in the very post you replied to originally, the
one which I challenged you to come up with examples.

> If the postings by the relationshippers are going to continue to be
> patronizing and mollifying SIMPLY because SOME of us haven't been here for

I just can't understand that statement. Does that mean that if a person
doesn't answer by flaming, then you're being patronizing and mollifying,
because believe me, some of the posts here (and I'm not referring to
yours) are quite offensive or blatantly flammatory. I'd consider your
post here as the beginnings of a personal attack, but I'd rather not get
into a flame war, so I'll let it pass. Please, give me examples of how
I've been patronizing. I'd hate to come off as something I'm not
generally. I have tried to convincingly put forth my point of view,
without resorting to such low tactics as personal attacks or flaming.

This is my usual tone. If it is unacceptable for you, then I apologize,
but I won't change it (unless you come up with proof that I was
condescending).

> the whole ride and would just like to know where you stand and why you
> stand there, then perhaps we should stop this right now. Nancy, really,
> if you don't want to discuss it, PLEASE leave it to those of us who do.
> You guys are all sounding a bit too snappish for a simple discussion.

Snappish, no. Defending our position, and putting forth our low opinion
of flames, yes.

Nancy

Ken Simons

unread,
Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96
to

Oh God, here I am intervening in this wretched debate ...

I am doing this solely in order to address the scene in "Ice"
that's been discussed, because I think it's a great scene and I
don't like to see it read out of context. Remember, this is a
very early episode. The scene is about a developing relationship
of trust between two people who don't know each other
particularly well and have no strong reasons to trust each other.
Trust being the main theme of the show.

It seems to me there are three sources of tension:
1) They are required to turn their backs on each other, which
under the circumstances requires a huge leap of faith
2) they are violating the boundaries of socially permitted touch
between two people at their level of acquaintance
3) the sexual tension between them (which is not only unresolved
but unacknowledged) makes them uncomfortable about touching each
other.

If they were lovers, _none_ of these sources of tension would
exist.

Also -- to keep things in context -- if such a scene occurred
now, the first two reasons wouldn't really apply. It would be a
much weaker scene. It belongs where it is, and as it is.

That's _all_ I'm going to say about it.

maggie h


Parateam

unread,
Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96
to

Nancy breezily writes:

<<Since I was born in an asbestos mining town, I'm naturally flame
resistant, so this didn't bother me in the least. However, it did amuse
me, and I feel compelled to reply.>>

Hey, LOL backatcha!! Um, where *is* that town, anyhow?

<<See, the problem I have with that statement is the fact that Kristel did
give examples of changed episodes in the original post which you responded
to. You then went on to say that this would change other parts of the
episode, without mentioning which segments you thought would be
affected... I'm still waiting to read about those specific unworkable
scenes...>>

Actually, Nancy, we're tag-teaming you here. That wasn't me. However, if
you're referring to the changed episode being Ice, and Ice alone, I'm not
quite getting there. Are you saying that if they had acknowledged any
attraction during the examination scene, that nothing else in the episode
would have changed? I'm just wondering if the burden of proof here is on
us or on you, that's all. It seems to me (TO ME!! TO NOBODY ELSE!! I'M
SPEAKING FOR ME!!) that the changed episodes (I'm sorry, but I haven't
seen any examples of this) are simply proving your point to others who
also believe that they should have a romance and already have a sexual
attraction.

<<But there was an example in the very post you replied to originally, the
one which I challenged you to come up with examples.>>

Again, tweren't me.

<<Please, give me examples of how I've been patronizing. I'd hate to
come off as something I'm not generally. I have tried to convincingly put
forth my point of view,
without resorting to such low tactics as personal attacks or flaming.>>

Well, it's the attitude of "Okay, even though we've discussed this
THOUSANDS of times before, I SUPPOSE we'll deign to mention it yet again."
I get that attitude from a lot of you who have been around the boards for
awhile and my point is that if you really feel that the subject is growing
tiresome, don't get involved again. To be sniped at (and that's how it
comes across) because we haven't seen posts from months ago seems quite
unfair. You seem to be coming to this discussion with baggage (probably
from nasty, inflammatory discussions of the past) and you seem unwilling
to discard that and treat us like relatively sane people who just want to
discuss this.

That's all. I, also, come from Flame-Retardent Central!!


Mary Lynn

unread,
Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96
to

Stef Davies wrote:
>
> >> you 'shippers keep
> saying this crap over and over again <<
>
> What a shame that you have to resort to foul language...obviously your
> position is so weak that you can't express yourself any other way.

oh yea, right.... crap is "foul" language... like when Mulder HIMSELF said it near
the end of the War of the Coprophages. since you are so taken aback by that
word, i'll assume that you are completely uninterested in seeing saint Scully
kiss him on the mouth now, right....?
i express myself just dandy, thank you! i think it is "crap", i call it "crap"! i
usually call "crap" as i see it.

> I try to respect the position of people who hold views other than my own
> except when they become personally insulting. Clearly you are unable to
> do so.
>
> Stef Davies

the only thing i respect when it comes to internet arguments is the Freedom of
Speech Act. i can express myself any way i see fit. and, HELLO, so can you. if
my choice of specific words are not delicate enough for you, that's tough. how do
i feel about the words *you* chose to express yourself? since you have chosen
to critique mine, i'll do the same for you: i don't find them *animated* enough.
what a shame that you have to resort to boring language.
but thanks to the miricle of F. of S., you *too* are free to express yourself
any way *you* see fit. so, Please, Respond.

-mar, USTB

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"There are these "relationshipers" who kind of dominate
the online chats. I'm a little dismayed because I don't want
to do a show about fuzzy warm Mulder and Scully. Never."

- Chris Carter interview
Rolling Stone, May 16, 1996; page 42
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mary Lynn

unread,
Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96
to

Nancy Lemieux wrote:
> And you haven't refuted anything. Unless you give a more precise outline
> of the places/reasons why this wouldn't work, I'm afraid you won't
> convince anybody of your point of view.

*huh*??? he has convinced me.



> Kristel has worked with examples of episodes that have aired, and has
> given what I find to be convincing arguments as to why a romance could be
> worked into this scenario, which is a nice compromise, since the case
> still gets solved, and those who want romance see it.

wrong. a "comprimise" would be for the romance dreamers to go on digging the UST and
pretending that is is already underway as a romance.... that way the rest of us can (yawn, i'll
say it again...) continue to enjoy what we already like about the X-Files, which is what we
*already* *have*. however, if romance becomes part of the plot, only the 'shippers will be
much happier, and what we like will be good and gone.

> You, on the other
> hand, have not provided examples of how this would be unacceptable. At
> this time, the burden of proof rests on you.

YOU WANT AN EXAMPLE? well, go watch a great little show called The X-Files. WITHOUT
ANY MODIFICATIONS.
there's your example.

Mary Lynn

unread,
Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96
to

Kristel S. Oxley-Johns wrote:
> Um, because we believe that these two are in love and want to see them find
> completion in each other in a world in which they have no one else?

for lack of a nicer way of putting it, and i don't want to upset Stef so again, i
find that sappy. *you* believe that they are "in love" and *you* want them to
complete each other. so the show should change.... just because *you* want it?
NOT. :-p

> What we are trying to prove here is that the romance becoming the focal point
> of the show DOES NOT have to be the case

(snip! server can't handle the large quoted text!)


> they could a way to prevent that from happening...

this show is about The X-Files. not about Mulder and Scully magically
completeing each other. what
"plagues" television is true love dramas. i don't wanna watch that......

> >why bother calling it the X-Files after
> >that?!?! why not just call it the "SEX-Files".... sure. fine. WHATEVER.
>
> You brought up sex, not me...I have told you before that is NOT what I want
> to see, nor is it what anyone else wants to see, so why don't we leave that
> argument alone now...

oh, yes, in understand your argument now. you are right. they are "in love".
and they will stay so
very chaste. they adore one another. and if they *ever* reveal that to each
other, they *will NOT*
have sex. they will remain strong and pure, because.... just admitting it to each
other,
*confirming* that it exists, will be enough for them......... Sure. Fine.
WHATEVER.


> >1. i do not want M&S to "get together".
> I understand your stand on the matter...what I want to know is why,

(snip!)


> would this all of a sudden make this show
> you love something you couldn't stand?

as i have already stated, i like the UST, but i do not watch the show for it. if
they suddenly become
an item, it *will* be a different show.
and, HELLO: because i do not want M&S to get together, it will be a show that i
will no longer like. how many times do i have to explain that correlation............


> >2. i like the UST, a lot. it is neat. it is sick. and i like the "UN" part *most
> >especially*. have i made that clear? the "UN" part. the "UN" part. the "UN" part.
> >the "UN" part. the "UN" part. the "UN" part. the "UN" part.
> Again, I understand hat quite clearly...what I am asking is why? If all
> the excitement and chemistry between the characters is still there, what
> does the resolution status matter?

gods above.... why the "UN" part? WHY THE HELL NOT??? i like it. as i have
said before, it is a
sick little side show. HERE------>> Resolve it, and it is gone. 'nuff said.



> I saw the characters
> interact and thought, "These two are in love." Right off the bat, it was
> that apparent to me.

and right off the bat, it was apparent to me that a unique, platonic, working
relationship between
two people of the opposite sex was being presented. it was new. it was different.
it still *IS*.



> What we have been trying to illustrate is that the romance could happen
> without taking over the show, without being the focus of the plots, without
> doing away with the nafarious government conspiracies or the monster of the
> week. And I ask you, again, since you have not yet answered me on this
> point, if that were the case, why would it be a bad thing?
>
> Kristel

well, i guess what we are trying to illustrate is that the romance is simply not
wanted. and as i
have said in another post, *you* go ahead and pretend you have what you need.
*i'm* already
happy with what i see. that way, we *both* get what we want, yes?

Mary Lynn

unread,
Jun 5, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/5/96
to

Kristel S. Oxley-Johns wrote:
> We are not saying that it couldn't, but we are saying that Mulder and
> Scully have all the markings of an epic love affair,

if you want an epic love affair, go read Dr. Zhivago. or Gone With The Wind. or
Jane Eyre. or a Fabio novel.
oh, and keep in mind that nearly all "epic love affairs" do NOT work out, do NOT
have happy endings, and more often than not, one of the main characters
involved in the "epic love affair" ends up really, really dead. this is just a tv
show, it ain't no "epic".

> and we would
> like to see them together.
>
> Kristel

well, *we* don't. so there, nyaaaah.

bostongirl

unread,
Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96
to

On Jun 05, 1996 21:05:52 in article <Re: PUSHER was a 'Shipper!! *gak*!>,

'Mary Lynn <tha...@mail.multiverse.com>' wrote:


>> and we would
>> like to see them together.
>>
>> Kristel
>
>well, *we* don't. so there, nyaaaah.<

You go, girl. I agee with Mary Lynn 100%
--

Jackie

Kristel S. Oxley-Johns

unread,
Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96
to

In article <4p59at$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, para...@aol.com says...

>
>Actually, Nancy, we're tag-teaming you here. That wasn't me. However, if
>you're referring to the changed episode being Ice, and Ice alone, I'm not
>quite getting there. Are you saying that if they had acknowledged any
>attraction during the examination scene, that nothing else in the episode
>would have changed? I'm just wondering if the burden of proof here is on
>us or on you, that's all. It seems to me (TO ME!! TO NOBODY ELSE!! I'M
>SPEAKING FOR ME!!) that the changed episodes (I'm sorry, but I haven't
>seen any examples of this) are simply proving your point to others who
>also believe that they should have a romance and already have a sexual
>attraction.
>
Just to clarify, I did not say that anything had to be acknowledged in that
scene. I was saying what if the EXACT SAME SCENE were to happen with the
knowledge that they were lovers pre-established. Not a single word of that
scene, or action, would be changed. All the chemistry and electricity
would still be there, perhaps for slightly different reasons, but it would
still be there.

Let me attempt to clarify. First, there is this man, Scully's lover, who
is suddenly acting as though any of them might attack him at any
second. He has his gun drawn, he is shouting, afraid, and for the
general safety of everyone present, she is forced to pull a gun on him,
which she abhors doing. She pleads with him to cooperate, knowing it
is killing her inside to have to do this to the man she loves, but
forced by necessity to do it.

And in the face of the urgency of her pleas, the anguish in her voice
when she says "but you may not be who you are." he acquiesces. He allows
himself to be locked up with the fear filled knowledge that "In here, I
will be safe than you."

Scully is near-frantic to either prove that this man she loves is either
not infected, or to find a way to cure him (all this with the scenes
happening EXACTLY as we have seen them) and when it seems she has found
a way, she goes to him again. He is hurt and angry and feeling betrayed,
not sure who he can trust anymore. He loves her, but she pulled a gun on
him, for crying out loud, so how is he supposed to react to that. So
she draws upon the trust and love inherent between them to convince him
to allow her to examine him, and when she does so, we get a multitude
of emotions, from fear of what she might find touching his neck to relief
when she finds nothing, to pleasure at even this minor contact with her
lover, and then, when he reciprocates the exam, we see her fear when he
grabs her, and then the electricity when he touches her, touches a person
he has touched countless times before, but needs to reassure himself, and
her. All the pleasure and the passion that they feel for each other
comes out in these touches, lurking beneath the surface because they are,
above and beyond all else, professionals, and they are in danger. But
between them there is also the understanding that, if circumstances were
different...or perhaps when they get home...

Now, again, this is how I feel that scene could be interpreted, the EXACT,
word for word, action for action scene, if they were established beforehand
as lovers, or at least, as being in love. Like I said, this is to
support my argument that an established romance need not detract from the
excitement that we all feel when they touch or make subtle innuendo, those
elements which make the UST so appealing to us all. Now, it doesn't have
to be overt or overwhelming, but there is an entire wealth of meaning
which would be added into those moments like in ICE and PUSHER and episodes
yet to come, with such a knowledge established.

And again, THAT is what I want to see.

>Well, it's the attitude of "Okay, even though we've discussed this
>THOUSANDS of times before, I SUPPOSE we'll deign to mention it yet again."
> I get that attitude from a lot of you who have been around the boards for
>awhile and my point is that if you really feel that the subject is growing
>tiresome, don't get involved again. To be sniped at (and that's how it
>comes across) because we haven't seen posts from months ago seems quite
>unfair. You seem to be coming to this discussion with baggage (probably
>from nasty, inflammatory discussions of the past) and you seem unwilling
>to discard that and treat us like relatively sane people who just want to
>discuss this.
>

Okay, I must admit, I have been snippy lately. For a while, it seemed that
we were going around in circles, and then people started posting saying
we were wanting things that I stated quite clearly when this all began
that we didn't want, which in turn, made me impatient, because what are
they doing joining this debate when they don't understand half of what
has already been going on?

I'm better now. I have had a chance to back off a couple of days and get
some perspective. This newsgroup is not a terribly pleasant place to
be, esp with all the ridiculous GA bashing going on which I have to wade
through to get to this point. I was starting to get frustrated.

Kristel


JohnBear

unread,
Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96
to Parateam

Parateam wrote:
>
> Nancy bitterly writes:

There is not one *bitter* word in Nancy's post. I suggest that you examine
your own choice of phrasing if you wish to see *bitter*.

>
> <<Kristel has worked with examples of episodes that have aired, and has
> given what I find to be convincing arguments as to why a romance could be
> worked into this scenario, which is a nice compromise, since the case
> still gets solved, and those who want romance see it.>>
>

> I'd be interested in seeing the examples of the "changed" episodes.

> Perhaps this was something that was discussed and posted quite a while
> ago, so don't get back on that bitter horse and flame me for being a
> doofus. OBVIOUSLY, those of us who are attempting to discuss these points
> haven't seen these examples. We're not blockheads, you know.

While Kristel's post was indeed some weeks ago, a polite request to atx would
probably get them re-posted. (Kristel, if you read this and still have copies
of your old posts, would you please send them to Parateam, who OBVIOUSLY feels
left out of the discussion???)

> If the postings by the relationshippers are going to continue to be
> patronizing and mollifying SIMPLY because SOME of us haven't been here for

> the whole ride and would just like to know where you stand and why you
> stand there, then perhaps we should stop this right now. Nancy, really,
> if you don't want to discuss it, PLEASE leave it to those of us who do.
> You guys are all sounding a bit too snappish for a simple discussion.

My dear Parateam, We only get patronizing as a defense against people who feel
they have to lash out at us. However, considering the tone that the
discourse on this topic has seems to have taken, maybe a "cease fire" for
a week would be a good idea? Of course I'm going to speak my peace first. <eg>

As for your own feelings upon the subject, if you staunchly believe that the
show would be ruined by M&S pursuing a romantic relationship then that is your opinion.
Those of use who believe differently feel that by acknowleging the romantic feelings
between Mulder and Scully the show will be enhanced. The fights, looks, touches, and
even the inevitable hostage situations that they will get themselves into would take
on a deeper meaning. And btw, in case you haven't been checking the group for more than
the last few weeks, you should know that we *don't* want The X-Files to turn into
The XXX-Files; that's a subject for atxc.

That's all for now.

JohnBear

unread,
Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96
to Parateam

JohnBear

unread,
Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96
to

JohnBear

unread,
Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96
to

Sorry about the extra posts, but things got wacked on my end for a minute
there.

JohnBear

Nancy Lemieux

unread,
Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96
to

In article <31B62C...@mail.multiverse.com>,
tha...@mail.multiverse.com wrote:

: Kristel S. Oxley-Johns wrote:
: > Um, because we believe that these two are in love and want to see them find


: > completion in each other in a world in which they have no one else?

:
: for lack of a nicer way of putting it, and i don't want to upset Stef
so again, i
: find that sappy. *you* believe that they are "in love" and *you* want them to

: complete each other. so the show should change.... just because *you*
want it?
: NOT. :-p

And the show shouldn't change just because you don't want it to? That
argument can be used both ways...

: this show is about The X-Files. not about Mulder and Scully magically

: completeing each other. what
: "plagues" television is true love dramas. i don't wanna watch that......

Like it or not, it is the very fact that they compliment each other that
makes the show work at all as is... the skeptic and the believer, evening
each other's views out. So your argument doesn't hold together.

: > You brought up sex, not me...I have told you before that is NOT what I want


: > to see, nor is it what anyone else wants to see, so why don't we leave that
: > argument alone now...

:
: oh, yes, in understand your argument now. you are right. they are "in


love".
: and they will stay so
: very chaste. they adore one another. and if they *ever* reveal that to each
: other, they *will NOT*
: have sex. they will remain strong and pure, because.... just admitting
it to each
: other,
: *confirming* that it exists, will be enough for them......... Sure. Fine.
: WHATEVER.

As so many are quick to point out, active romance between partners is
frowned upon... therefore, they might admit their feelings, but not act on
them in the near future because of Bureau policy... thereby making each
touch, look, implied meaning so much more charged and powerful.

: as i have already stated, i like the UST, but i do not watch the show


for it. if
: they suddenly become
: an item, it *will* be a different show.

: and, HELLO: because i do not want M&S to get together, it will be a


show that i
: will no longer like. how many times do i have to explain that
correlation............

What if it were later on said that they were an item all along... would
you burn all your X-File tapes?

: gods above.... why the "UN" part? WHY THE HELL NOT??? i like it. as i have

: said before, it is a
: sick little side show. HERE------>> Resolve it, and it is gone. 'nuff said.

What I find bizarre is that people think sexual encounter makes all sexual
tension disappear. It mutates into something different, andmany times
even more charged, but unless it's a meaningless fling between
silicone-enhanced drones (think Baywatch, Melrose Place) who care nothing
for each other, it doesn't disappear.

: well, i guess what we are trying to illustrate is that the romance is


simply not
: wanted. and as i
: have said in another post, *you* go ahead and pretend you have what you need.
: *i'm* already
: happy with what i see. that way, we *both* get what we want, yes?

:
To quote practically directly from your first paragraph... *you* don't
want romance, therefore it's alright to generalize that romance is simply
not wanted? I think not! Just the fact that this thread is not dying is
proof enough that there is more than one camp on this subject, and you'll
just have to live with that. There will always be a group that wants
romance, and thus, it is incorrect to say that romance is simply not
wanted.

******
FoLC, X-Phile Relationshipper and DueSer

Coleen Sullivan-Baier

unread,
Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96
to

In <4p6nom$p...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>


If you girls don't STOP THIS and play nice, you will all
get sent to alt.tv.olsentwins, then you will REALLY have something to
fight about (...MaryKate is best...NO, ASHLEY is best)

XXXXXXXXgizzieXXXXXXXX (what's a mother to do??)


Nancy Lemieux

unread,
Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96
to

In article <31B627...@mail.multiverse.com>,
tha...@mail.multiverse.com wrote:

: Nancy Lemieux wrote:
: > And you haven't refuted anything. Unless you give a more precise outline
: > of the places/reasons why this wouldn't work, I'm afraid you won't
: > convince anybody of your point of view.
:
: *huh*??? he has convinced me.

So, you mean by that you were all for a Mulder/Scully romance before
thalion wrote something, and that the arguments he brought forth have made
you change camps? Otherwise, you weren't 'convinced', you were just
reading material that backs up your beliefs.

:
: > Kristel has worked with examples of episodes that have aired, and has


: > given what I find to be convincing arguments as to why a romance could be
: > worked into this scenario, which is a nice compromise, since the case
: > still gets solved, and those who want romance see it.

:
: wrong. a "comprimise" would be for the romance dreamers to go on


digging the UST and
: pretending that is is already underway as a romance.... that way the
rest of us can (yawn, i'll
: say it again...) continue to enjoy what we already like about the
X-Files, which is what we
: *already* *have*. however, if romance becomes part of the plot, only
the 'shippers will be
: much happier, and what we like will be good and gone.

That sound a lot more like a status quo. For there to be a compromise,
both parties have to give something... I don't see any of that in what you
wrote above.

:
: > You, on the other


: > hand, have not provided examples of how this would be unacceptable. At
: > this time, the burden of proof rests on you.
:
: YOU WANT AN EXAMPLE? well, go watch a great little show called The
X-Files. WITHOUT
: ANY MODIFICATIONS.
: there's your example.

Well, that is off topic. I asked for specific scenes that would be
'spoiled forever' if there were to be a romance. I field all
suggestions...

Nancy

Nancy Lemieux

unread,
Jun 6, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/6/96
to

In article <31B62E...@mail.multiverse.com>,
tha...@mail.multiverse.com wrote:

: Kristel S. Oxley-Johns wrote:
: > We are not saying that it couldn't, but we are saying that Mulder and


: > Scully have all the markings of an epic love affair,
:
: if you want an epic love affair, go read Dr. Zhivago. or Gone With The
Wind. or
: Jane Eyre. or a Fabio novel.
: oh, and keep in mind that nearly all "epic love affairs" do NOT work
out, do NOT
: have happy endings, and more often than not, one of the main characters
: involved in the "epic love affair" ends up really, really dead. this is

just a tv
: show, it ain't no "epic".

Where does it say that epic is restricted to the written media? I've read
many great classics, and I've seen them on screen too. If people didn't
want to see things done again, why would they read more than one 'epic'
story? There is more than one way to write things, otherwise nothing
would be written anymore.

:

: > and we would
: > like to see them together.
: >
: > Kristel
:
: well, *we* don't. so there, nyaaaah.

Oh yes, really mature....

: the online chats. I'm a little dismayed because I don't want


: to do a show about fuzzy warm Mulder and Scully. Never."

I don't want fuzzy warm Mulder and Scully.. I want passionate and closely
linked Mulder and Scully, bonded from the knowledge that not only are they
friends, but they are soulmates and know it. Sex can come later.

:
: - Chris Carter interview


: Rolling Stone, May 16, 1996; page 42
: ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

******

John Madigan

unread,
Jun 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/7/96
to

In article <lemieux-0406...@132.206.101.175> lem...@medcor.mcgill.ca
(Nancy Lemieux) writes:

I've been gone for a while. Sorry everyone, my newsreader choked (I'm sure
you're all terribly dissapointed). And oh yeah ... this is going to be the
short version since my original attempt at a reply got screwed up.

What do you mean? They would still be investigating, they would still be
interviewing victims and interrogating criminals, they would still get
stonewalled, they would still be searching for the truth, they would still
have lost family members, they would still have differences of opinion and
arguments over procedure, they would still get shot at, they would still
find monsters of the week, they would still call each other up on their
cellular phones... do you get my point? You haven't explained how this
would have to be modified, and I would like specific examples.

How would those basic elements of communication and running-around-doing-
something have to be altered. Well, they wouldn't have to be altered in and
of themselves. After all, you can't have any sort of story without
communication and running-around-doing-something, can you? The problem is
they'd be running around doing something as Romantically Involved Leads, which
is the second-oldest cliche in storytelling next to the Happy Ending (don't
tell me you want one of _those_ too, please). The level of trust implied and
the unambiguous nature of the bond would pretty much kill a lot of what they
do. For instance, in Wetwired we have an episode where people are induced to
act violently due to paranoia created from pre-existing fears. Scully's worst
fear is that Mulder will betray her. If they have a relationship where she
knows beyond any pre-existing doubt that she can trust Mulder implicitly, then
her fear is induced only by the evil signal from the tube without any personal
element. Either the episode can't happen, her paranoia has to be directed
towards, say, Skinner, or (and?) we're in serious cliche and unbelieveabiliy
territory. Any show can have romantic leads turned against one another by
some outside force. The X-Files plays in this case and in others on the
unresolved nature of M&S's current relationship. So I guess you can take this
as a specific example of The X-Files turned into cliche-ville, or at best made
average. After all, it's not so strange to be paranoid about your boss.


The fact that you find their characters unsuitable for romance is
subjective, and therefore I'm afraid I won't try and convince you
otherwise, because I just don't have the energy to go into a long,
drawn-out debate over personalities and compatibility. Besides, chances
are you don't want to think otherwise, so I won't impose that on you.
Suffice it to say that I think they are well matched.

And I don't have the energy to write out whole episodes or scenes worth of
altered X-Files. It just ain't what I do. My main objection to an M&S
romance (or one of the important ones anyway) in terms of how it would
negatively effect the show rests on the misplaced nature of a healty romance
in this show about corruption, lies, uncertainty, disturbed people, etc. The
show would suffer from synergistic effects. There is interaction between the
various elements of the show, a major one of which is the M&S relationship.
Alter that relationship in a fundamental manner, and look out. Things won't
be the same, that's for sure. As I tried to express above, if a critical
element of credible doubt is removed you don't get an improvement. Either the
episodes need to be changed to salvage some believability, or we're in cliche
territory.

Someone already got to Ice, and I cannot improve upon that post. For my own
part, I'll just say that the examples you cite cross the line from drama into
melodrama. They are better examples of what would have to change due to an
M&S romance than anything I could write.



given what I find to be convincing arguments as to why a romance could be
worked into this scenario, which is a nice compromise, since the case

still gets solved, and those who want romance see it. You, on the other


hand, have not provided examples of how this would be unacceptable. At
this time, the burden of proof rests on you.


First of all, you find them convincing. Fine. I find them to be the opposite.
Secondly, I stated somewhere else that I think proving anything in
this forum is impossible except in the most limited sense; but to the extent
that it is, the burden of proof seems to me to be on those who wish to make a
change. Then again, it's not as though CC is going to change anything based
on what you, I or anybody says. This is not a democracy. This is Chris
Carter's Benevolent Dictatorship, and if you don't like it you can leave. It
will still be that way if he *does* do the M&S romance thing, and at that time
I guess you can laugh your head off, but don't hold your breath. Third, your
"compormise" has nothing to do with why I watch the X-Files. If I were
interested in seeing the case get solved, I'd watch Dragnet reruns.

Any spelling or formatting errors are the fault of this retarded backup
newsreader.

Sorry if none of this is specific enough for you, but actually my objections
are a tad bit more fundamental then "oh no, M&S would have to do XYZ in the
second scene".

JM

J. H. Madigan

unread,
Jun 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/7/96
to

On Thu, 6 Jun 1996, Nancy Lemieux wrote:

> So, you mean by that you were all for a Mulder/Scully romance before
> thalion wrote something, and that the arguments he brought forth have made
> you change camps? Otherwise, you weren't 'convinced', you were just
> reading material that backs up your beliefs.

_That_ could be said about a number of people. For example ...

> : > Kristel has worked with examples of episodes that have aired, and has

> : > given what I find to be convincing arguments as to why a romance could be
> : > worked into this scenario,

Now do you think we can stay away from these pot/kettle situations from
now on? We all seem to be pretty set in our opinions. Naturally we're
going to tend to like reading stuff that supports our own, although I've
read stuf that I didn't agree with 100% (or even very much) that I
greatly enjoyed. None of it fell into the "prove it/already did/so
there" category though.

> That sound a lot more like a status quo. For there to be a compromise,
> both parties have to give something... I don't see any of that in what you
> wrote above.

Once again, if you want compromise, you'll have to talk to Mr. Carter.
It's not like what we argue about here is going to mean a pile of rats
asses to how the shows are actually written. What you are asking for is
not Mary Lynn's, mine, or anybody's to give up besides him.

JM

Nancy Lemieux

unread,
Jun 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/7/96
to

In article <JHM2.96J...@fuller.cnrs.humboldt.edu>,
jh...@fuller.cnrs.humboldt.edu (John Madigan) wrote:

: In article <lemieux-0406...@132.206.101.175> lem...@medcor.mcgill.ca
: (Nancy Lemieux) writes:
: What do you mean? They would still be investigating, they would


still be
: interviewing victims and interrogating criminals, they would still get
: stonewalled, they would still be searching for the truth, they would still
: have lost family members, they would still have differences of opinion and
: arguments over procedure, they would still get shot at, they would still
: find monsters of the week, they would still call each other up on their
: cellular phones... do you get my point? You haven't explained how this
: would have to be modified, and I would like specific examples.
:
: How would those basic elements of communication and running-around-doing-
: something have to be altered. Well, they wouldn't have to be altered in and
: of themselves. After all, you can't have any sort of story without
: communication and running-around-doing-something, can you? The problem is
: they'd be running around doing something as Romantically Involved Leads,
which

I'm not denying that romantically involved leads exist... every story out
there has been done before. What I'm saying is that the X-files doesn't
have to take the pressure to get them hopping into the sack every chance
they get like in a bad Arnold movie (eeewww!). Most 'romantic' leads are
all over each other and mushy and whatnot... what I'm saying is that CC et
al. has a chance to make this a new, fresh approach. After all, if you
think about it, TV shows about monsters of the week and UFOs and
government conspiracies have been done to death too, yet XF manages to
give it a fresh twist.

: is the second-oldest cliche in storytelling next to the Happy Ending (don't


: tell me you want one of _those_ too, please). The level of trust implied and

Goodness, no! Just because we know that Mulder and Scully are in love
doesn't mean that the road would be any easier for them.

: the unambiguous nature of the bond would pretty much kill a lot of what they


: do. For instance, in Wetwired we have an episode where people are induced to
: act violently due to paranoia created from pre-existing fears. Scully's worst
: fear is that Mulder will betray her. If they have a relationship where she
: knows beyond any pre-existing doubt that she can trust Mulder implicitly, then
: her fear is induced only by the evil signal from the tube without any personal
: element. Either the episode can't happen, her paranoia has to be directed

I have a problem with what you wrote above. You're assuming that if they
know they love each other, then it cements the relationship forever. Not
true. I don't know of a single relationship where things are rosy all the
time. People still have fears and doubts. Even with the relationships as
it supposedly is right now (platonic), Scully trusts Mulder implicitly.
Heck, back in season 1 she was already ready to put her life on the line
only for him.
In other words, even if they were admitting their feelings, it doesn't
mean that the same exact effect might not have happened, but it would have
brought even more tension between them, and would have destroyed Scully
even more to think that Mulder, the man she loves and whom she *thought*
loved her, had betrayed her by going to the other side.

: towards, say, Skinner, or (and?) we're in serious cliche and unbelieveabiliy


: territory. Any show can have romantic leads turned against one another by
: some outside force. The X-Files plays in this case and in others on the
: unresolved nature of M&S's current relationship. So I guess you can take this
: as a specific example of The X-Files turned into cliche-ville, or at best made
: average. After all, it's not so strange to be paranoid about your boss.

As you've seen in my above argument, I still think she would be in fear of
Mulder's actions. Therefore, I see no validity in this supposed changing
of fears towards that of her boss.
As for cliches, a man/woman investigative team is a cliche in itself - so
is a show about government conspiracies, or about UFO's and other
unexplained phenomenon - as I mentioned previously.

: And I don't have the energy to write out whole episodes or scenes worth of

: altered X-Files. It just ain't what I do. My main objection to an M&S
: romance (or one of the important ones anyway) in terms of how it would
: negatively effect the show rests on the misplaced nature of a healty romance
: in this show about corruption, lies, uncertainty, disturbed people, etc. The
: show would suffer from synergistic effects. There is interaction between the
: various elements of the show, a major one of which is the M&S relationship.
: Alter that relationship in a fundamental manner, and look out. Things won't
: be the same, that's for sure. As I tried to express above, if a critical
: element of credible doubt is removed you don't get an improvement.
Either the
: episodes need to be changed to salvage some believability, or we're in cliche
: territory.

To assume that the writers of the show would delve into a cliche
relationship is, IMNSHO, to greatly underestimate them. They've managed
to take stories used before (UFO abductions and government conspiracies)
and present them in a different manner. Why do you then contend that any
attempt at romance would be treated any differently? As I see it, the
characters are already in love, so I predict no great alterations in the
overall dynamics of the show. They're already using one to get to the
other (Erlenmeyer Flask, End Game, Pusher), whether by kidnapping or
whatnot, so that method wouldn't change. What would change is the depth
of the viewer involvement, since you know they mean so much *more* to each
other than if it were just a platonic work relationship. The tensions
increases that extra notch... the suspense is that much more gripping....

: First of all, you find them convincing. Fine. I find them to be the


opposite.
: Secondly, I stated somewhere else that I think proving anything in
: this forum is impossible except in the most limited sense; but to the extent
: that it is, the burden of proof seems to me to be on those who wish to make a
: change. Then again, it's not as though CC is going to change anything based

Which is why we are constantly keeping up with the debate and continuing
to give examples of situations where romance would enhance the show, and
how it would not change the overall storyline, and how it could actually
be beneficial in some cases. Just the fact the the X-Files is being moved
to Sunday night, with a different viewing public (Sunday is a family
night) means that the X-Files as we know it may have some pressure to
change its style (but let's not get into *that* debate, please!).

As for the burden of proof, I guess it's relative... I see myself as
proving my point, not to specifically to convert anyone here (although
that would be nice :), but as a means to show that other points of view
may also be valid. As I feel I present a solid case, I think it is the
non-relationshipper's job to try and give specific examples to counter my
arguments, and that is why I state the burden of proof is on them.

: on what you, I or anybody says. This is not a democracy. This is Chris


: Carter's Benevolent Dictatorship, and if you don't like it you can leave. It
: will still be that way if he *does* do the M&S romance thing, and at that time
: I guess you can laugh your head off, but don't hold your breath. Third, your
: "compormise" has nothing to do with why I watch the X-Files. If I were
: interested in seeing the case get solved, I'd watch Dragnet reruns.

Hey they actually solve *some* of the cases! Okay, not *that* many <g>,
but some... Go ahead and watch Dragnet reruns if you want. As for what I
said on the compromise, I haven't kept my posts, so it's impossible for me
to go back and check if I misphrased it or if you misinterpreted it, but
as I believed I mentioned before, the compromise would involve some giving
on both sides... I don't see what this has to do with case solving per
se...

: Any spelling or formatting errors are the fault of this retarded backup
: newsreader.

Duly noted, although I don't think I really noticed anything wrong with
your post (other than the actual arguments you put forth). <g> :)

: Sorry if none of this is specific enough for you, but actually my objections


: are a tad bit more fundamental then "oh no, M&S would have to do XYZ in the
: second scene".

I understand your technique, but it still doesn't satisfy me (not that I
suppose any argument against romance would). You see, my original
challenge was and still is to find me specific scenes where romance
wouldn't work. You complied and gave me the Wetwired example. I then
went about counter-arguing how this would not be affected by romance.
Feel free to re-examine my arguments, or supply another example.
Otherwise, anyone else who's been watching this debate closely and has an
example in mind can jump in...

I'll be reading those arguments when I get back from my weekend vacation.

Nancy

Nancy Lemieux

unread,
Jun 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/7/96
to

: Now do you think we can stay away from these pot/kettle situations from

: now on? We all seem to be pretty set in our opinions. Naturally we're

Agreed.

: going to tend to like reading stuff that supports our own, although I've

: read stuf that I didn't agree with 100% (or even very much) that I
: greatly enjoyed. None of it fell into the "prove it/already did/so
: there" category though.

I've been having fun with this debate in general. It gets my 'juices'
flowing. My only problem is that some people (not you...) feel that their
only form of arguing is to flame, or give insulting comments, or stoop to
childish comebacks. I don't like those very much, and it's very hard for
me to hold back from flaming. However, I feel it wouldn't do anything to
advance the relationshipper cause, and I therefore usually choose to
ignore such comments.

: > That sound a lot more like a status quo. For there to be a compromise,


: > both parties have to give something... I don't see any of that in what you
: > wrote above.
:
: Once again, if you want compromise, you'll have to talk to Mr. Carter.
: It's not like what we argue about here is going to mean a pile of rats
: asses to how the shows are actually written. What you are asking for is
: not Mary Lynn's, mine, or anybody's to give up besides him.

Oh, I'm perfectly aware of that... but it was not me who suggested the
compromise. I don't keep copies of the relevant posts, so there's no way
for me to say who did, but the person said that a compromise would be for
the show to stay as it is and for relationshippers to keep on reading more
into a situation than there supposedly is. This is what I was arguing
over. It wasn't the possibility that there might actually be a change,
but rather on the concept of what a compromise is.

As for talking to Mr. Carter... I doubt my opinion or those of all other
shippers who debate here would make a great dent on his plan, but I am
under the impression that he surfs the net quite a bit, including this
BBS, so for all we know, he may be more aware of this debate than we
think. I would be rather happy if he were, because this would be a
perfect chance to set him straight on what he thinks relationshippers
want. I am, of course, referring to his quote where he stated that he
thought relationshippers wanted a 'warm and fuzzy Mulder and Scully'. (I
apologize if I misquoted, but I know it's in someone's sig)

I know Kristel had written him a letter outlining the exact nature of our
thoughts and beliefs, signed by dozens of relationshippers including
myself, but I don't know if she has sent it. (Krisel, care to elighten us
on that?)

I would like to outline that while I am aware of his possible presence, it
is not the only reason why I continue this debate. I like arguing my
point of view and debating over finer points of episodes as I see them. I
have also been able to contact and recruit new relationshippers, who
weren't aware of our organization, so that in itself is reward enough for
me. :) Oh, and if I convert someone along the way, well it will make all
this that much sweeter. :)

KIMBERLY A PIFER

unread,
Jun 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/7/96
to

Nancy Lemieux (lem...@medcor.mcgill.ca) wrote:
: In article <Pine.PMDF.3.91.96060...@axe.humboldt.edu>,

: Nancy

I think I'm a middle of the road 'shipper. I've come to the conclusion that
Mulder and Scully have feelings for each other which are definitely deeper
than friendship. However, I'm not sure I want to see this portrayed in the
show any more than it already has been. Given the established personalities
of these characters, I think it is reasonable to suppose that they might
continue on for some time w/o revealing their feelings to each other, Scully
because of her reserved nature and recent experiences of loss and Mulder
because his work is his passion. I respect your position, particularly about
acknowledging a relationship late in the series (that would be really lame),
but I'm really reticient about furthering M & S's relationship. It's sort of
that fear of ruining a great friendship with sex. I know all good things
must end but I'd hate to see it happen prematurely b/c of poor handling plot/
script wise. It would be difficult to watch the show and not notice that
the undercurrent of emotion between M & S is often sexual/romantic but I
think that it is just that, the fact that it is an undercurrent, that is
a major strength/subtlety of the show. I admit that the inconsistency in
the depiction of their relationship (and I'm not necessarily talking
romantic here) is sometimes annoying but I think that, too, is in keeping
with their respective characters, especially Mulder who is often too
wrapped up in his own problems to be concerned with anyone/thing else.
Kim :-)

Parateam

unread,
Jun 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/7/96
to

John bitterly writes:

<<There is not one *bitter* word in Nancy's post. I suggest that you
examine your own choice of phrasing if you wish to see *bitter*.>>

Oooh, someone's knickers are in a twist!

-- Gigantic <G>, just so nobody gets the wrong idea.

Parateam

unread,
Jun 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/7/96
to

Nancy unbitterly writes:

<<I asked for specific scenes that would be
'spoiled forever' if there were to be a romance. I field all
suggestions...>>

You can start with the pilot and end with Talitha Cumi. That's all the
evidence I need. ;-)

-- Kay, trying to figure out how using the word "bitterly" *isn't* funny.

Parateam

unread,
Jun 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/7/96
to

Nancy cheerfully, never bitterly, John, writes:

<<I have also been able to contact and recruit new relationshippers, who
weren't aware of our organization, so that in itself is reward enough for
me. :)>>

Hey, nobody told me you guys were recruiting!! Grrr...something must be
done about this...

<yet another enormous <G> for those who aren't into the subtleties of the
humor in here>

Mary Lynn

unread,
Jun 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/7/96
to Nancy Lemieux

Nancy Lemieux wrote:
> Just the fact that this thread is not dying is
> proof enough that there is more than one camp on this subject, and you'll
> just have to live with that. There will always be a group that wants
> romance, and thus, it is incorrect to say that romance is simply not
> wanted.
>
> ******
> FoLC, X-Phile Relationshipper and DueSer

yes. but. one more time and then i am done with this silly thread i started.
i *already* have what i want. CC made the statement below to back it up.
THEREFORE, by definition of the fact that i am *already* getting what i want, it
is *you* who has somethng to "live" with...er.... "without" that is: Romantic
Resolution and Confirmation. It ain't there. If it don't change, I will never be left
wanting.
and as far as burning my X-Files tapes, again, it is a moot point. Romance has
not been confirmed, again read CC's own quote below. I won't read more into the
UST that is already present (birthday present!), I will never need to pretend that
they have been "in love" all this time and.....

I'M FINISHED WITH THIS ARGUMENT...... i have to finish the disgusting fanfic
with Parateam. It's really *much* more important, and i guess i have grown
tired of this discussion.

-mar, USTB

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"There are these "relationshipers" who kind of dominate

the online chats. I'm a little dismayed because I don't want
to do a show about fuzzy warm Mulder and Scully. Never."

- Chris Carter interview

Mary Lynn

unread,
Jun 7, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/7/96
to

Nancy Lemieux wrote:
> : Kristel S. Oxley-Johns wrote:
> : > and we would
> : > like to see them together.
> : >
> : > Kristel
> :
> : well, *we* don't. so there, nyaaaah.
>
> Oh yes, really mature....


hrumph. have you shippers NO sense of caustic, nasty, dark humor???? don't
you laugh at all when you read those Fabio novels?

J. H. Madigan

unread,
Jun 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/8/96
to


Aye Caramba, there are just too many little bits and pieces to reply to!
I can't keep up with the volume (#'s that is, not decibels), at some
point I must deal with the rest of my life (or it will disappear!). To
Nancy in particular, I am going to try to reply to as many of your messages
at once as I possibly can.

I am already failing miserably to be brief. Oh well ...

Anyhow, believe it or not, I actually agree with major parts of _this_
post, in particular ...

>
(i.e. X-Files *isn't* Moonlighting or Northern
> Exposure, or Cheers).

and the criticism of the flammage which sometimes passes for discussion,
and the "you only want M&S to screw" stuff. A couple of other things
which are annoying are

* "We've proven with specific examples etc." ... I don't think
those examples have been successful at "proof" on the whole. In fact
they really don't cut it to me. Obviously there is agreement and
disagreement about this, so that's something I think we should - oops <g>
- I would like to agree to disagree about and drop.

* "We" in general. It is obvious that even R's and non-R's do
not, in fact, say or think the same things. They define R-hood and
non-R-hood differently. I think this pro and anti generalization is a
red herring. Besides, I *really* wish people would speak for themselves.
I try to. I mean, I don't care what "we" think, I'd rather hear from
individuals not speaking in the name of some group or other. It's much
more interesting that way.

I detected a major difference in personal taste (not to say that's _bad_,
just that it's there) in the following...

> What we want to see is a little more acknowledgement of the relationship
> (hence our name) developing between these two main characters. In Avatar,
> when Scully got knocked out in the batroom (that happens a lot to her,
> doesn't it? <g>), Mulder barely glances her way to ask her if she's
> alright. Compare that to Firewalker, or Our Town, where he takes the time
> to make sure she's okay, even touches her cheek tenderly or pushes the
> hair out of her eyes, and you'll come to understand how we despise the
> fact that:
> a) Their relationship is not portrayed evenly
> b) This hasn't created a public outcry, yet is the exact treatment we wish
> for.

I _like_ the fact that their relationship is not portrayed evenly, and in
fact I'd say that a large part of the reason why it isn't portrayed evenly
is because Mulder's character isn't exactly even. I've said it before and
I'll probably say it again ... this Mulder guy is nuts. His behavior is
basically dictated by his obsession. He's intelligent, he's a nut with a
_point_, but he's still nuts. He's mercurial, sensitive one moment and
utterly unconcerned with anyone but himself the next. Consistency is a
bit much to ask from him outside of consistently obsessed.

That's one more thing we can agree to disagree about and drop. ;-) I'll bet
your taste in music and food is different from mine too (blasphemy)! <VBG>

On to some other stuff .. from different messages. This is going to get
confusing, bear with me, and I apologize ahead of time for the extreme
snipping I'g going to do.

> That, as I
> have mentioned before, is preposterous, and speaks very little of your
> faith in the writers and crew and cast of the X-Files.

I'll only speak about the faith issue. My faith in the Files
creators is sizeable, but not absolute. There are limits to what
you can do in TV. I think a romance between the leads is
implausible due to the characters and situations. It would be hard
for CC to explain those problems away or deal with them in a
believable fashion IMO.

>> [As one example, Mulder's
>> driven ideology, so overwhelming it excludes all else from his life, makes
>> him an interesting character-- if he were to be involved with Scully (or
>> anybody else) he just wouldn't be the same Ahab.]

>Care to explain that statement? How would he not be the same? What sides
>of his personality would change?

I'll take a crack at that one. IMO, the previous poster got the cause/effect
relationship muddled, which may have been an accident. Mulder is driven,
obsessive, Ahab-like, and emotionally disturbed. He's not really into
women which aren't on film or on paper, unless they're disturbed folks
like Kirsten in 3 or manipulators like Phoebe. He's not good
relationship material in the romantic sense at all. _That_ has to be
different _before_ an involvement with Scully is credible (IMO, natch).

> Last time I checked, freedom of speech was still allowed.

So now I'm against FoS? Now people _are_ taking this too seriously. <G>

> The fact that we can support our argument with facts is already a good
> sign that this is a logical, reasonable approach.

Ah ah - I said _may_ have supported your arguments with facts. You don't
think I'm going to concede _that_ on a blanket basis do you? <G> Sure,
there are some facts out there. Some of "we" (and "they" too) support
their arguments well, and some of "we" and "they" don't. And then a lot
of "we" and "they" think the same facts support different positions.
Ah, what a tangled web!

> The sad thing is that no one in TV industry has had the guts to go out on a
> limb and try a normal relationship between investigators since, oh, Hart
> to Hart....

If Northern Exposure and Moonlighting are out of the picture, then why is
H to H (which I thought was schlock BTW, but that's another story) a
valid comparison?

Also, I don't think a "normal" anything will work in the X-Files. I like
the Files in part 'cos it isn't normal in any way shape or form. I mean,
here we have _good television_, a phrase which is very nearly oxymoronic.

> The ubiquitous we actually represents hundreds of people... If you want,
> I could get them all to send you an email or two to prove that.

Ah ... no. That won't be necessary. All I'm saying is I'm tired of
hearing "we" when it is individuals I'd prefer to hear from.

>> Not just the UST (If ain't U, even behind the scenes, it ain't tense), but
>> a hell of a lot of the other dramatic possibilities opened up by things
>> such as the feared, dreaded and packed with UST "Rift". In fact,

> Give me two examples of UST in Hell Money...

Bad example. I haven't watched HM in some time (since it aired), but I
recall it being drab in many respects. Actually, I'd prefer to find you
UST in Syzyzgy, or other dramatic possibilities in Ouiblette, where the
Rift is essential to the story. Mulder had to go that one alone due in
part to his inner demons, and in part because of the fact that no one
trusted him to be the least bit objective about the case, including (and
most notable) Scully. No rift, no drama. Of course that isn't
_necessarily_ the case, such as in Pusher, but you can't do Pusher over
and over again and have a good series (I know Nancy, that's not what you
want).

> So we do agree on something. Fanfiction is good for what it is, but in no
> way represents a dogma of what relationshippers want for the show.

Good!

> if you would realize that you are not arguing against the proper points
> (i.e. relationshippers aren't using fanfic as examples), then we can get
> down to the debating what creates and keeps tension.

There's another thread about what does that by one Maggie Helwig. Check
it out.

> Could you send me a copy of those arguments, because I haven't seen any so
> far.

I'll try to dig up what I've got and send them to you privately. I'm not
real hot on the idea of reposting them for various reasons.

And with that, I'm gonna take a break for a while. It's not that I'm not
enjoying the discussion. It's just that my wife is threatening to kill me
if this keeps up <g>. Gotta listen to the boss.

Until later,

JM


Stef Davies

unread,
Jun 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/8/96
to

>> I'd be interested in seeing the examples of the "changed" episodes.
Perhaps this was something that was discussed and posted quite a while
ago, <<

No, actually. It was the post before the one Nancy was replying to - not
really very far to look back, or much trouble to take.

We just get so fed-up with being accused of being too
stupid/naive/unsophisticated to appreciate that platonic relationships
exist, and irritated with providing specific, concrete examples - as
Nancy and Kristel have done - only to have the same accusation that it
would change the show without any attempt by the accuser to refute the
actual points made, to deconstruct the actual examples cited.

Stef

--
Stef Davies 10057...@compuserve.com
06/08/96 21:55
---------
Using: OUI 1.5 Beta 2 from http://www.dvorak.com

Stef Davies

unread,
Jun 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/8/96
to

In article <4p4p64$i...@news.interlog.com>, From
ksi...@gold.interlog.com (Ken Simons), the following was written:
> It seems to me there are three sources of tension:
> 1) They are required to turn their backs on each other, which
> under the circumstances requires a huge leap of faith
> 2) they are violating the boundaries of socially permitted touch
> between two people at their level of acquaintance
> 3) the sexual tension between them (which is not only unresolved
> but unacknowledged) makes them uncomfortable about touching each
> other.
>
> If they were lovers, _none_ of these sources of tension would
> exist.
>
> Also -- to keep things in context -- if such a scene occurred
> now, the first two reasons wouldn't really apply. It would be a
> much weaker scene. It belongs where it is, and as it is.
>

1) and 2) do not work for me at all. Just didn't occur. I too analyse
text, but neither of those elements were apparent in my viewing of the
scene. Nohing at all was made of the back-turning in that room.

3) - now we really get to it. What you analyse *is* one of the sources
of tension .... along with the fact that a) each one of them
desperately wants to beleive that the other is free of infection, wants
to trust, and yet b) has good reason to fear that the other MAY be
infected. Of course, written as Kristel suggests, some of the lines of
this scene would be different, but the a) and b) tension would be even
greater.

You say that the scene would be weaker - that is your subjective
opinion. Mine is different, and your opinion is neither more significant
nor carries more weight than mine so that you can suggest that yours is
the *only and true* way of viewing.

Stef Davies

unread,
Jun 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/8/96
to

In article <31B62E...@mail.multiverse.com>, From Mary Lynn
<tha...@mail.multiverse.com>, the following was written:

: and we would
: like to see them together.
:
: Kristel
>
> well, *we* don't. so there, nyaaaah.

My, my, Mary Lynn. *What* an adult contribution to the debate.
Take yourself up the wooden stairs to bedforshire now, dear - I'll be up
with your medication in a minute.

Stef

--
Stef Davies 10057...@compuserve.com
06/09/96 00:36

Stef Davies

unread,
Jun 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/8/96
to

>> for lack of a nicer way of putting it, and i don't want to upset
Stef <<

I have no idea who you are, nor do I give a toss what you think of me,
so please don't cite my name in your little sarcastic snide comments.

Stef Davies

unread,
Jun 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/8/96
to

>> It ain't there. If it don't change, I will never be left
wanting. <<

No, you can just carry on as blind as you clearly are now. If you want
to argue that red is blue, that's your privilege. Without the UST - and
the potential for more - CC would lose HALF his audience. He's playing a
very clever game.

But YOU are being played along with the rest of us.

Stef

--
Stef Davies 10057...@compuserve.com
06/09/96 00:35

Stef Davies

unread,
Jun 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/8/96
to

>> oh yea, right.... crap is "foul" language...

Actually, in England, where I come from...(maybe you are unaware that
the internet isn't the sole preserve of continental America)..to use the
word 'crap' in the way that you used it *is* foul language. Not as bad
as 'fuck' - but coarse, crude and vulgar nevertheless - the resort of
someone who has a very poor command of the language. Hmmm ...now maybe I
understand. 'Bugger' is foul language here too - not a word to be used
in front of children, and *that* was in WoC too.

Regardless of your ignorance, you can hardly deny that you intended to
be denigratory and insulting, rather than actually debate the point.


> the only thing i respect when it comes to internet arguments is >the
Freedom of >Speech Act.

Ah...I see that you *do* think the internet is the sole preserve of the
United States of America, and that the whole world should be subject to
your laws. Bad luck....the internet is too amorphous for xenophobes to
control, thankfully.

Stef
England.

--
Stef Davies 10057...@compuserve.com
06/09/96 00:36

Stef Davies

unread,
Jun 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/8/96
to

>> hrumph. have you shippers NO sense of caustic, nasty, dark
humor???? don't you laugh at all when you read those Fabio novels? <<

I'm sure we do, Mary Lynn - shame your post didn't qualify as any of the
above.

Pardon my English ignorance, but exactly *who* is Fabio, and why do you
feel it is so important to use him/her/it as an example??

Stef

Stef Davies

unread,
Jun 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/8/96
to

>> I'M FINISHED WITH THIS ARGUMENT...... i have to finish the
disgusting fanfic with Parateam. It's really *much* more important, and
i guess i have grown tired of this discussion. <<

Well, either you can't take the heat....or you don't like losing.
Don't fret - you're no great loss to the debate.

There's nothing inherently 'disgusting' about fanfic - unless the author
chooses to make it so. Don't be surprised, then, if nobody cares to read
it.

Stef

--
Stef Davies 10057...@compuserve.com
06/09/96 00:35

Kristel S. Oxley-Johns

unread,
Jun 8, 1996, 3:00:00 AM6/8/96
to

In article <31B8AC...@mail.multiverse.com>, Mary says...

>> Oh yes, really mature....
>
Okay: That's it...I apologize for any incendiary comments held herein,
but this post sends my attemtps at keeping this discussion genteel
RIGHT out the window, at least, for the moment.


>
> hrumph. have you shippers NO sense of caustic, nasty, dark humor????

No, we do have a sense of humor, but we ARE trying to have an intelligent
conversation here, a point which has obviously passed you by.

don't
>you laugh at all when you read those Fabio novels?
>

Excuse me, but on what grounds do you base that comment? Have you met any
of us, conversed with any of us, much less seen those works which decorate
our bookshelves. Why the hell is it that you feel, just because we have
made several valid points which you obviously cannot refute, you decide
that you need to slam us personally? You know absolutely NOTHING about
our lives, and to imply that you do is the most arrogant, rude, and
insulting form of presumption whatsoever. I am glad you have stated that
you are leaving this discussion, because though I attemtped to give your
posts the benefit of the doubt, you obviously have nothing of merit to
add.

Kristel