Kim 729's comments about Ted Raimi
JJBashir
This was snipped from Kim729's response to the 'Re: Greg Gruschow: Still
Worthy to be Second In Command of the Joxer Shields?' thread.
>
> God - or TPTB - knows that Joxer isn't worthy of such stuff - or
theywould write him better. Neither - for that
>matter is Ted. I've worked on the same set with Mr. Raimi on four
occasions over the last 5 years. It's true - I
> don't like him - I have reason not to. I find him to be a truly obnoxious
individual and a less than talented hack >comedian. And - if it weren't
for the fact that his BROTHER has some measure of clout (most especially at
>Ren.Pic.) - he wouldn't have been hired as Joxer in the first place. That
you are
> clue-less to such industry tactics - while understandable - is no (pardon
the expression) Shield - for your >criticisms of my views.
>
> Work with Ted - even once - and you'll change your opinion of both he and
his - so-callled - talent. That you >have no opperating knowledge of the
macinations of television or film production aside - ( you have bought Ted
>as Joxer and Joxer as Ted - that's his job) - you seem to be oblivious to
the bill of goods you've been sold. That >he is "presented" to his adoring
fans (of which it is obvious that you belong) as a "nice guy" is the job
of the >convention co-ordinators at Creation and the PR people from Ren.
Pic. That you unquestioningly buy the PR >line is proof that you are as
gullible as you are strident.
Ahem--Miss Kim729? Raising hand---I HAVE worked with Ted--I work for his
FAN CLUB and have had the opportunity to work with him a few times over the
last seven months or so, co-ordinating projects with Lana Andrews, the
President of the Ted Raimi Internation Fan Club, and him. I take EXTREME
umbrage at you characterization of Ted. He's not perfect--none of us are.
But, being a musician, both in training and having various jobs in the New
York City area over the last ten years, and having SEEN some of the best in
the world, both in acting and in music, I know Ted is NO slouch. And to
impress a hard nosed New Yorker like ME, raised in the shadow of Juilliard,
Manhattan School of Music, with Carniege Hall looming over me with every
note I ever played or sung from the time I was SIX, is a neat trick.
Ted IS a nice guy---he doesn't need the PR spinners at Ren or at Creation
to prortray him as such. I've spoken to some of his co-workers (Adam
Armus, Nora Kay Foster, Maggie Hickerson, to name three) who have nothing
but the utmost respect for Ted and his work. I talk to a very good friend
of his--we are very good friends, independent of Ted--and I don't think she
would be as close to him as she is if he weren't a decent human being.
She's NOT the kind of person that just sucks up to people because they're
big 'stars'. She works in the business herself. She 's NOT easily
impressed by that kind of stuff.
I've been told I'm a good judge of character--and never ONCE have I gotten
that SICK feeling in the bottom of my gut when I've been around Ted, like
I've gotten around other 'celebraties'. Yes, I know what everyone says
about his brother getting him a gig. So the heck WHAT? If MY older
brother had a gig as conductor for the Robert Shaw Choir, and at LEAST
couldn't get me an audition, what good IS he? The business has ALWAYS run
on the 'it's not WHAT you know, it's WHO you know, and when you know them'
premise--and has run that was since Ugh banged on some rocks and Zug got
him a gig.
YOU don't like him--FINE it's a free country. But before you attack ' the
Joxer Shields, devoted to mindless, insipid, drivel'--realize this about at
least ONE of the Joxer Shields:
In my 28 years of life I have
-worked with: Rosemary Clooney, Andy Williams, Garth Brooks and Kenny
Rogers
-sung Mozart's Requiem TWICE
-had solos in pieces by Franz Schubert, Gabriel Faure and J.S. Bach
-won several musc awards on cello, an instrument I did not begin to play
until I was 13 years old
-places in several ametuer photography contests in the state of NY
-taught myself HTML code
-edited 3 college newpapers and created 2 newletters
-can listen to music on the radi and tell you the basic chord progression
of the song
-can do a on sight translation of most books put in front of me written in
either Latin or Spanish (I'm not as good as I USED to be, but who is)
All this while being DYSLEXIC, a conditon that was not diagonised until I
was 19 years old.
In short--I don't DO insipid.
I HAVE done eighteen hour days on a film shoot (I was a script supervisior
in HS for a friend's film company--just a bunch of high school kids,
nothing major) and in rehearsal. I know how cranky one gets with deadlines
breathing down your neck--and the thing is is that I agreed with you at one
point about Joxer. I found Joxer a one dimensional charcter...and if I had
never seen any of Ted's OTHER work, namely seaQuest, I would have written
off the actor. I had completely written the show off WAY before
that--right after 'The Quest', and had never given the show another
look--until Comdey of Eros replayed last summer, when I was so Ted curious
that I sat down and watched it---then watched the replay the next day.
But the portrayal is only as good as the WRITING given, as well as how the
actor deals with how it's given to him. Ted's not a GREAT actor--he's
never said he is. He's working on it though. I had a problem with the
WRITING of the character of Joxer...at times I have problems with the
writing in GENERAL (Ulysses, Fish Femmes and Gems,
Warrior...Priestess...Tramp, to name a few.) where the writing didn't work
for ANYBODY--not Renee, not Lucy, not ANYONE.
Please note that I'm posting this to the LIST--and NOT as a continuation of
the thread---and NOT behind your 'back' so to speak. I don't think that
was Greg's intention...I think he was trying to apolgize to US, the Joxer
Shields, for 'breaking' one of the paramount rules of Tedite-ism: Be Nice.
Which I didn't think he did.
I can oly apologize for ME--I had heard about you and Doug's dicussion on
the Tedites list that we have--and thought nothing of it--I had not seen it
on ATX, Doug handled it, so I didn't see a need to go looking for it.
However, I don't take kindly to being called insipid and imbecelic as a
braod based desicion on YOUR part, because I happen like something and
someONE you don't. I will toot my own horn...I am EXCEPTIONAL, but I'm not
the only one of the Joxer Shields who IS.
Yours Truly,
Jeane R. Noriega
AKA
JJ
Artisitic Designer, TRIFC (Ted Raimi International Fan Club)
PROUD Member of the Joxer Shields
====================================
quack, QUACK!!
"I don't think you unworthy....I need a moment to deliberate."
Alanis Morissette-'Uninvited' CITY OF ANGELS soundtrack
Chez JJ- http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/Set/5715/index.html
Home of the Chez JJ Fan Fic Library
and
the Ted Raimi International Fan Club homepage
http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/Set/5715/quixotic.html
Dan Sullivan
Well said, JJ! If people want to bash Joxer then that's their problem, but
when people bash the actor who portrays him, that's when *I* have a problem
with this. People can think what they want of Ted and any other actor for
that matter, but when they outrageously and blatantly insult the actual
person and their abilities, and additionally insult me, that is going too
far.
Kimber is entitled to her own opinion of course, but I find it inexcusable
when she attempts to flesh out Ted as an evil manipulator, and then
indirectly tells Ted-supporters that they're stupid or ignorant for
believing otherwise.
Yes, I admit, I have never met Ted, but who here has never met Lucy Lawless
or Reneé O'Connor but have reserved judgement until they meet them? Not
many.
Bruce Campbell is an excellent example to use. He is a very sarcastic
person, but it doesn't mean he is a jerk or a manipulator. It's just how
Bruce acts. If people take his sarcasm as a personal attack on them, then
it's their fault for taking him too seriously when in fact he's just being
the same old opinionated and fun guy he's always been. I have conversed with
Bruce via email and I have never gotten the impression, either personally or
publicly, that he considers Ted to be a bad person. Okay Kimber, you worked
with Ted four times and your relationship with him didn't work out. Bruce
Campbell on the other hand has been friends with Ted his whole life and he
hasn't broken up that friendship yet. And JJ and TRIFC speak for themselves.
As for Ted being on X:WP only because of Sam, well, the truth of the matter
is most actors get their foot in the door through inside contacts, and only
then do they get their opportunity to move in deeper and become better
recognized. Ted has stood on his own two feet well before X:WP. And like I
said in a previous post, it was 10,000 fans who wrote in wanting to see more
Joxer after seeing him in "Callisto", which was supposed to be a one-time
deal. So it was Ted's own talented performance that got him the permanent
extension.
And your personal attack on how us Shields are devoted to mindless, insipid
drivel? Do you think we all just sit around all day with nothing else to do?
Instead of revealing my entire personal life, I thought I'd do a little
variation on what JJ did, whom I greatly respect well before JJ wrote this.
Here's the Wednesday of a 23-year old, fifth-year senior in graphic design:
I had to turn in two Ray Dream 3D model projects, take a computer
applications final exam, turn in three redone professionally crafted ads,
create and record an audio file for a radio spot, and give a formal
presentation on my piece to a client concerning a competitive group
advertising campaign. Oh yeah, and Wednesday night was the first time I got
sleep since Sunday night. So I guess mindless and insipid is a good
generalization of me as well.
-Dan, the Joxer Shields man
"Its golden finishes but a dim glimmer after the shimmering radiance of your
cream-like skin.
Stacey Capps
I thought I would speak from the point of view of someone who isn't, and
doesn't want to be, a Joxer Shield.
I really don't care whether Kimber is "right" about Ted Raimi, or whether
Jeane Noreiga is "right." I am not very interested in Ted Raimi as a
person. If we were simply discussing opinions, I wouldn't bother to
reply. I have no interested in the topic at hand.
However, I really don't appreciate it when someone swaggers into this
newsgroup and insults a long-standing member who has garnered a good deal
of respect from the rest of us. I don't know Kimber, but I am predisposed
to dislike her at this point. I am generally not impressed that she is a
"script supervisor" -- whatever that means, and has experience with the
actual creation of the show plus 18 years experience total in the field.
If she had this trait and were also able to deal politely with members on
this group, I WOULD be impressed. Possibly very impressed. But as it is,
I get the impression that she feels her experience is such that we should
respect her regardless of her behavior towards others. I guess my respect
hinged on the idea that I may actually get to know her as a person, as
opposed to knowing her job title level or importance in the field of TV.
I'm a step away from putting someone into my kill file for the first time
on alt.tv.xena. I'd rather not start. Can we move on now?
Stacey Capps
Sheri
I think that the most bottom line to this whole thing is ...
** personal opinion**
I have met some people that everyone else said were great and I just didn't
get along with them. I have also met some people that I became fast friends
with that just weren't the most popular people in the world. While it is
true that I have never met Ted, I can only base my opinion on his work, as
I'm sure is the case with many of his fans. I see an actor than can portray
a role so well, that many people have grown to equate that role as the
personality of the actor. IMO .. that is pretty good character acting.
I certainly don't mean to sound like I am saying that anyone is right or
wrong. Far from it. I only say that I think that everyone is entitled to
their opinion and to try to force that opinion down the throats of others is
just plain wrong.
State your opinions, but don't attack someone else for not having the same
ones as you.
I won't post my credentials here, but, like the other Joxer Shields, I am
far from uneducated. Please only respect us for our ability to formulate
our own opinions and have the guts to express them when they are not always
the accepted.
My two cents worth.
Sheri
Member of Joxer Shields
Berlinwall
My opinion of the character of Joxer is that he is irritating at best......I
find his appearance in Xena's shows annoying........however.....that is not a
judgement of Ted Raimi as a person or as an actor. It is only a judgement
of the character he portrays. I find Kim 729's comment on ted Raimi to be
very cruel.
CC
Teresita Mercado
I was willing to overlook whatsherface's anti-Joxer spew, that's her
opinion. And I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on her
anti-Ted Raimi spew, who knows, maybe she does know him. But to spew on
my funny pal Greg is totally inappropriate, especially just now when
a.t.x is humming along in an era of relative peace. It really stands
out. There's madness in her method. I don't think anyone feels inspired
to rally around her, if that's what she was trying to do. As Area69
once said to another vocal anti-Joxerite, "Troll on, you've missed our
hearts once again!"
Teresita
JJBashir
Dan Sullivan <dasu...@nospam.vt.edu> wrote in article
<6ie5gk$i6j$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>...
> Here's the Wednesday of a 23-year old, fifth-year senior in graphic
design:
> I had to turn in two Ray Dream 3D model projects, take a computer
> applications final exam, turn in three redone professionally crafted ads,
> create and record an audio file for a radio spot, and give a formal
> presentation on my piece to a client concerning a competitive group
> advertising campaign. Oh yeah, and Wednesday night was the first time I
got
> sleep since Sunday night. So I guess mindless and insipid is a good
> generalization of me as well.
>
>
> -Dan, the Joxer Shields man
DAMN, Dan! Now THAT is impressive...I formally curtsey to YOU, my Joxer
Shield Brother!
--
JJ
Proud Memeber of the Joxer Shields
====================================
quack, QUACK!!
"I don't think you unworthy....I need a moment to deliberate."
Alanis Morissette-'Uninvited' CITY OF ANGELS soundtrack
"In all the earth there is no place dedicated to solitude. At night when
the streets of your cities and villages are silent and you think deserted,
they will throng with the returning hosts that once filled them and still
love this beautiful land.
....There is no death, only a change of worlds."
Chief Seattle-Suquamish Tribe
Erin
On 1 May 1998 16:18:30 GMT, "JJBashir" <JJBa...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>Ahem--Miss Kim729? Raising hand---I HAVE worked with Ted--I work for his
>FAN CLUB and have had the opportunity to work with him a few times over the
>last seven months or so, co-ordinating projects with Lana Andrews, the
>President of the Ted Raimi Internation Fan Club, and him.
You know that this proves nothing, right? If Kim were right, and Ted
Raimi is much different than his public persona, then you know that an
actor would not show anything *except* his public persona to a fan
club, right? It's all a big PR boost for him. He's got everything to
gain and nothing to lose if he makes himself look perfect.
Erin
--
"But my keyboard doesn't have a backslash
key!" - Actual Tech Support caller
*web: http://www.heckman.net/erin
*email: er...@heckman.net
Katilist
Stacey Capps wrote:>>I thought I would speak from the point of view of someone
who isn't, and
><BR>
>doesn't want to be, a Joxer Shield.<BR>
><BR>
<snipped, for space, well-written post about annoying troll Kimber>
-------------------------------------------
Well-put, Stacey! This is the only person who starts each post with a
lengthy reenactment of her fabulous career. Me thinks if she had some actual
depth in her own character, and really did respect herself, she wouldn't be
wasting our time with the aren't-I-important-and-by-the-way-you-suck routine.
At this point, though I love to take an opportunity to rail against Joxer (not
Ted) I would prefer the company of that annoying character to her excruciating
one. ------------------------------------
Kat >^^<
"If your God is not in your heart, then you haven't found God."
Kim 729
In reply to Mr. J.J. Bashir's post of 5/1/98
Mr. Bashir,
>I HAVE worked with Ted--I work for his FAN CLUB and have >had the opportunity
to work with him a few times over the last >seven months or so,
You've worked for seven months for Ted's FAN CLUB, that's what I call real
world experience. When you've spent several months with him on a production
set let me know. Until then, you haven't *worked* with him, you've been party
to feeding his ego.
>I take EXTREME umbrage at you characterization of Ted. He's >not
perfect--none of us are.
I like that you used a word like *umbrage* in a complete sentence. While -
believe me - I understand that Ted's not perfect, I also understand that what
you know of him is less that what I know of him. Ted has a lifetime of work
ahead of him before he's even in perfect's neighborhood.
>But, being a musician, both in training and having various jobs in >the New
York City area over the last ten years, and having SEEN >some of the best in
the world, both in acting and in music, I know >Ted is NO slouch.
No - Ted is no *slouch* just a third rate character actor. Not the only one to
gain some measure of success.
>And to impress a hard nosed New Yorker like ME, raised in the >shadow of
Juilliard, Manhattan School of Music, with Carniege >Hall looming over me with
every note I ever played or sung from >the time I was SIX, is a neat trick.
Come out way out west and spend a few years in the shadow of the Hollywood
hills and we'll see how *hard-nosed* you truly are.
>Ted IS a nice guy---he doesn't need the PR spinners at Ren or at >Creation to
prortray him as such. I've spoken to some of his >co-workers (Adam Armus, Nora
Kay Foster, Maggie Hickerson, >to name three) who have nothing but the utmost
respect for Ted >and his work. I talk to a very good friend of his--we are
very >good friends, independent of Ted--and I don't think she would >be as
close to him as she is if he weren't a decent human being. >She's NOT the kind
of person that just sucks up to people >because they're big 'stars'. She works
in the business herself. >She 's NOT easily impressed by that kind of stuff.
Ted does need the PR people at Ren. Pic., and Creation, that's business. Speak
to some of the technical crew, the grips and gaffers, sound guys, costumers and
make-up people who have worked with him, the portrait that they paint is very
different. EVERYONE is *impressed* by fame to one degree or another. That your
*friend* works in the *business* and is not *impressed* by Ted is comforting.
>I've been told I'm a good judge of character--and never ONCE >have I gotten
that SICK feeling in the bottom of my gut when I've >been around Ted, like I've
gotten around other 'celebraties'.
I don't doubt that, under normal circumstances, that you are a good judge of
character. But, dealing with an actor trained to portray a certain *role* is
not a *normal* circumstance. I know that *SICK* feeling well, Ted gives it to
me each time I see him on screen.
>Yes, I know what everyone says about his brother getting him a >gig. So the
heck WHAT? If MY older brother had a gig as >conductor for the Robert Shaw
Choir, and at LEAST couldn't get >me an audition, what good IS he? The
business has ALWAYS >run on the 'it's not WHAT you know, it's WHO you know, and
>when you know them' premise--and has run that was since Ugh >banged on some
rocks and Zug got him a gig.
So WHAT? You really don't get it do you? That there are other, more talented,
actors out there not working because Sam gets little Teddy work is an affront
to the creative community in which I work. If your brother got you an audition
and you got hired, not because of your talent and ability, but because someone
owed him - means that the guy with the talent and ability is still a waiter or
a taxi driver. There is also another *saying* in the entertainment business
"Talent Will Out". Take a good look at what Ted has accomplished sans Sam -
not much of a career there. I do like the Ugh and Zug line - cute.
>YOU don't like him--FINE it's a free country.
I'm very happy that you'll allow me my OPINIONS regarding both Joxer and Ted.
>But before you attack ' the Joxer Shields, devoted to mindless, >insipid,
drivel'--realize this about at least ONE of the Joxer >Shields:
>In my 28 years of life I have worked with: Rosemary Clooney, >Andy Williams,
Garth Brooks and Kenny Rogers -sung Mozart's >Requiem TWICE -had solos in
pieces by Franz Schubert, Gabriel >Faure and J.S. Bach -won several musc awards
on cello, an >instrument I did not begin to play until I was 13 years old
>-places in several ametuer photography contests in the state of NY
>-taught myself HTML code -edited 3 college newpapers and >created 2 newletters
-can listen to music on the radi and tell you >the basic chord progression of
the song -can do a on sight >translation of most books put in front of me
written in either Latin >or Spanish (I'm not as good as I USED to be, but who
is)
>All this while being DYSLEXIC, a conditon that was not >diagonised until I was
19 years old.
Fairly impressive resume you have there. I graduated from UCLA with a
Masater's Degree in Comparative Literature and minors in Theater Arts and
Journalism. When you can add 19 Academy Award certificates (and a voting
membership in the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences) and 11 Emmy
Award certificates, 8 Award of Merits from the Screenwriters Guild, and a
thank-you note from George Lucas (for the "Laugh it up fuzz-ball" line), and
many other incidentals too numerous to name, to that list let me know.
I had the great honour to work with Rosemary Clooney on an ER episode - I fell
in love with the woman - she sang "Someone to Watch Over Me" for me during a
concert at the Hollywood Bowl. As for Andy Williams, Garth Brooks and Kenny
Rogers - I found each to be rude and ego-centric boars. I worked with them
during my stint as a staff writer for the Grammy awards show. But then, I've
got 12 years on you. You added the bit about being Dyslexic to prove your
point I hope - I'm not good at pity.
>I HAVE done eighteen hour days on a film shoot (I was a script >supervisior in
HS for a friend's film company--just a bunch of high >school kids, nothing
major) and in rehearsal. I know how cranky >one gets with deadlines breathing
down your neck--
Try it in Morocco for 4 months, or in Singapore for 3, or in Alaska for 5 or
any other Gods-forsaken location in every possible condition in almost every
counrty on the globe. How many 0's were in the budget for your HS flick? Two
maybe three, my last live-action project had a shooting budget of nearly $125
million. Real world jobs require real world skills.
>the thing is is that I agreed with you at one point about Joxer. I >found
Joxer a one dimensional charcter...and if I had
>never seen any of Ted's OTHER work, namely seaQuest, I >would have written off
the actor. I had completely written the >show off WAY before that--right
after 'The Quest', and had never >given the show another look--until Comdey of
Eros replayed last >summer, when I was so Ted curious that I sat down and
watched >it---then watched the replay the next day.
You mean we agreed on something? I'll be damned. As a function of my job at
the time I spent many hours on the SeaQuest DSV and SeaQuest 2032 set during
the '94 and '95 seasons. I was not happy, the cast was not happy and the
studio wasa not happy - doesn't make for much fun.
>But the portrayal is only as good as the WRITING given, as well >as how the
actor deals with how it's given to him. Ted's not a >GREAT actor--he's never
said he is. He's working on it though. I >had a problem with the WRITING of
the character of Joxer...at >times I have problems with the writing in GENERAL
(Ulysses, >Fish Femmes and Gems, Warrior...Priestess...Tramp, to name a >few.)
where the writing didn't work for ANYBODY--not Renee, >not Lucy, not ANYONE.
WOW I'm about to agree - the portrayal is only as good as the writing. But an
actor of any skill learns to work with what he's given, Ted hasn't mastered
that one and continues to use the same old bag of worn tricks. I personally
loved the episode Warrior...Priestess....Tramp, there is a line that Gabby
gives Priestess Leah about *knowing herself* that still makes me laugh. It's
not that the writing doesn't work for Lucy or Renee' it's just that they have
the talent to work with it - and usually make it work for themselves and their
characters. Ted doesn't posess this gift of talent in the same measures that
Lucy and Renee' do and works Joxer doing the same old stuff over and over
trying to make him a caracter and not a human prop.
>Please note that I'm posting this to the LIST--and NOT as a >continuation
ofthe thread---and NOT behind your 'back' so to >speak. I don't think that was
Greg's intention...I think he was >trying to apolgize to US, the Joxer Shields,
for 'breaking' one of >the paramount rules of Tedite-ism: Be Nice. Which I
didn't think >he did.
I think that Greg was trying to garner support for himself and the JS's by
posting a response that I could not respond to in return. There is nothing like
attacking a lame-duck enemy to bring out one's more spineless of intentions. I
can't believe that there are actually *things* called Tedite-isms - although I
could add a few that you JS's wouldn't like.
>I can oly apologize for ME--I had heard about you and Doug's >dicussion on the
Tedites list that we have--and thought nothing of >it--I had not seen it on
ATX, Doug handled it, so I didn't see a >need to go looking for it. However, I
don't take kindly to
>being called insipid and imbecelic as a braod based desicion on >YOUR part,
because I happen like something and someONE you >don't. I will toot my own
horn...I am EXCEPTIONAL, but I'm not
>the only one of the Joxer Shields who IS.
You still don't get it. I did not call YOU *stupid* or *imbecilic* - I used
those words in relation to Joxer. that you internalized it and took it into
your own heart as a reflection of yourself is not my intent. You may very well
be EXCEPTIONAL. As I mentioned to Doug - I admired him for his convictions to
a character who, I only wished, was worthy of them.
If I missed something, let me know.
Kimber
"Look, your future is less in your palm than in your own two hands. It's what
you make of it." - Xena - Tsunami
Kim 729
In relpy to Erin's post of 16:38 on 5/3/98
Thanks Erin - I knew that I liked you.
Kim 729
In reply to Mr. Sullivan's post of 23:53 on 5/1/98
Here we go again ...
>If people want to bash Joxer then that's their problem, but
>when people bash the actor who portrays him, that's when *I* >have a problem
with this. People can think what they want of Ted >and any other actor for that
matter, but when they outrageously >and blatantly insult the actual person and
their abilities, and >additionally insult me, that is going too far.
I know where I insulted Ted's abilities - as I intended to do so. But, where
did I *insult* you? If you've become so engrosed with Joxer that comments I
made about him were taken to your heart then I suggest a good Jungian shrink to
dis-entangle this psychic connection. If *people* can *think* whatever they
*like* about Ted - and by extention Joxer - why do you have such problems with
my OPINIONS of him?
>Kimber is entitled to her own opinion of course, but I find it
>inexcusablewhen she attempts to flesh out Ted as an evil >manipulator, and
then indirectly tells Ted-supporters that they're >stupid or ignorant for
believing otherwise.
Thank you for this most gracious of allowances. I don't recall calling Ted
"evil" that is an extrapilation that you made, not me. Again, if your devotion
to Joxer has made it difficult for you to distinguish a remark made about *him*
and a remark aimed at *you* then there's little that I can do about that.
>Yes, I admit, I have never met Ted, but who here has never met >Lucy Lawless
or Reneé O'Connor but have reserved judgement >until they meet them? Not many.
There is a protection provided by open and honest talent, such a warmth
surrounds both Lucy and Renee'. As I have yet to work with Lucy and wasn't on
the Disney lot much when Renee's was there I have yet to form opinions of them
personally.
>Bruce Campbell is an excellent example to use. He is a very >sarcastic person,
but it doesn't mean he is a jerk or a manipulator. >It's just how Bruce acts.
If people take his sarcasm as a personal >attack on them, then it's their fault
for taking him too seriously >when in fact he's just being he same old
opinionated and fun guy >he's always been.
The difference between Bruce and Ted is one of talent. Bruce can create a
finly crafted character of subtlty and nuance - he's a fine character actor.
Ted is a hack by comparison.
>Okay Kimber, you worked with Ted four times and your >relationship with him
didn't work out. Bruce Campbell on the >other hand has been friends with Ted
his whole life and he
>hasn't broken up that friendship yet. And JJ and TRIFC speak >for themselves.
Bruce has been friends with Sam, his relationship (babysitter) with Ted is a
by-product of that friendship. Without Sam in the mix, I doubt that Bruce and
Ted would have formed any kind of relationship. How many friends or relations
of your friends don't you like? That they get along and can work together
proves that Bruce is a professional.
>As for Ted being on X:WP only because of Sam, well, the truth of >the matter
is most actors get their foot in the door through inside >contacts, and only
then do they get their opportunity to move in >deeper and become better
recognized. Ted has stood on his own >two feet well before X:WP. And like I
said in a previous post, it >was 10,000 fans who wrote in wanting to see more
Joxer after >seeing him in "Callisto", which was supposed to be a one-time
>deal. So it was Ted's own talented performance that got him the
>permanentextension.
No - *most* actors get their foot in the door after years of hard work honing
their craft, or by using their talent. Read my posted reply to the Joxer
Shields regarding Ted's so-called career, as to re-post would be redundant. If
you extrapolate that 10,000 letters by the estimated world-wide audience for
X:WP you would find it to be so minuscule as to be statically insignificant.
Now if those of us who didn't like Joxer were to begin such a campaign there
would be enough responce to make even Ren. Pic. take notice.
>And your personal attack on how us Shields are devoted to >mindless, insipid
drivel? Do you think we all just sit around all day >with nothing else to do?
I can't say that I gave it much tought. Only in wondering which you liked
better Bevis or Butthead.
> Instead of revealing my entire personal life, I thought I'd do a >little
variation on what JJ did, whom I greatly respect well before >JJ wrote this.
>Here's the Wednesday of a 23-year old, fifth-year senior in >graphic design: I
had to turn in two Ray Dream 3D model projects, >take a computer applications
final exam, turn in three redone >professionally crafted ads, create and record
an audio file for a >radio spot, and give a formal presentation on my piece to
a client >concerning a competitive group advertising campaign. Oh yeah, >and
Wednesday night was the first time I got sleep since Sunday >night.
> So I guess mindless and insipid is a good generalization of me as >well.
Again read my reply to the Joxer Shields. I don't want to be accused of
bragging. But, you were still learning to count on your fingers and toes while
I was working for my master's degree.
We will, I'm afraid, never agree on the worth of Joxer, and you'll have to get
to know Ted before you'd agree on him. So - let's agree to dis-agree once
again and leave it at that. Although when you've finished with your education
send an application to Pixar, they are looking for computeranimators with
production backgrounds.
Kim 729
In reply to Stacy Capps' post of 03:04 on 5/2/98
>I really don't care whether Kimber is "right" about Ted Raimi, or >whether
Jeane Noreiga is "right." I am not very interested in Ted >Raimi as a person.
If we were simply discussing opinions, I >wouldn't bother to reply. I have no
interested in the topic at hand.
Then let's get to it.
>However, I really don't appreciate it when someone swaggers >into this
newsgroup and insults a long-standing member who has >garnered a good deal of
respect from the rest of us. I don't know >Kimber, but I am predisposed to
dislike her at this point. I am >generally not impressed that she is a "script
supervisor" -- >whatever that means, and has experience with the
>actual creation of the show plus 18 years experience total in the >field.
WOW I haven't *swaggered* since my 20's - I think that my swaggerer is one of
the things that broke during my 30's and now that I'm into my 40's - well...
But, that Greg is a long-standing member of this board isn't my responsibility,
he just screwed with the wrong person and got called on it. I'm sure that he
didn't expect to. That you don't know me is a given - believe me with Joxer
stumbling through nearly half of next season's episodes - you will. It isn't
entirely necessary to my opinions to know what I do - just as I don't care what
it is that you do.
>If she had this trait and were also able to deal politely with >members on
this group, I WOULD be impressed. Possibly very >impressed. But as it is, I get
the impression that she feels her >experience is such that we should respect
her regardless of her >behavior towards others. I guess my respect hinged on
the idea >that I may actually get to know her as a person, as opposed to
>knowing her job title level or importance in the field of TV.
I have been polite, except when sorely tested. I can only hope that you'll
give me the opportunity to prove myself worthy of your respect. Don't jump to
any conclusions about me or my views until you get to know me a bit better. I
speak from experience and feel that I can add some depth to this group. If
such were not the case I would "sing to the choir" over at alt.tv.xena.subtext.
I'm going over there after I'm finished here. They are a great deal of fun.
>I'm a step away from putting someone into my kill file for the first >time on
alt.tv.xena. I'd rather not start. Can we move on now?
Let's hope so.
Kim 729
In reply to Sheri's post of 09:54 on 5/2/98
>I think that the most bottom line to this whole thing is ...
>** personal opinion**
Thanks - you're right.
>I have met some people that everyone else said were great and I >just didn't
get along with them. I have also met some people that I >became fast friends
with that just weren't the most popular people >in the world. While it is true
that I have never met Ted, I can only >base my opinion on his work, as I'm sure
is the case with many of >his fans. I see an actor than can portray a role so
well, that many >people have grown to equate that role as the personality of
the >actor. IMO .. that is pretty good character acting.
That Ted has *become* Joxer to his "fans" is a testiment not to Ted's
abilities but to the devotion of his fans. There is a fine line between fandom
and intellect - it has been crossed where Ted and his portrayal of Joxer is
concerned. Much more exists in the internalization of the character than
exists in the crafting of that character.
>I certainly don't mean to sound like I am saying that anyone is right >or
wrong. Far from it. I only say that I think that everyone is >entitled to
their opinion and to try to force that opinion down the >throats of others is
just plain wrong.
I don't have the ability to *force* anything down your throats. You are
perfectly capable of not reading my posts as are those who do. You have a
wonderful gift called *free will*, use it, make up your own mind.
>State your opinions, but don't attack someone else for not having >the same
ones as you.
As I have done - well - for the most part.
>I won't post my credentials here, but, like the other Joxer Shields, >I am far
from uneducated. Please only respect us for our ability to >formulate our own
opinions and have the guts to express them >when they are not always the
accepted.
Why not, what you have come to *know* over the course of your lifetime is so
much a part of *who* you are that it's more important to making your opinions
known than is almost anything else that you possess. I have respect for your
opinions , I'm just trying to understand them the best that I can.
Thanks for the change -
Kim 729
In reply to Berlinwall's post of 11:04 on 5/2/98
>CC
That you find him annoying I can completely understand. And that you need to
reserve your judgements of him as a person - I also respect. But, that you
interpreted my OPINIONS as being *cruel* I don't understand. That my opinions
of Ted and of Joxer resonate to you as *cruel* - I can't see it. Ihave a
perspective and you ave a perspective - let me know where I have been *cruel*
and I'll do my best to reply.
Kim 729
In reply to Teresita Mercado's post of 15:30 on 5/2/98
Hi - allow me to introduce myself - the name's Kimber - not *whatsherface* I
would prefer that my name be used once it is known. It's only common courtesy.
I was rolling when I read this reply. This from a woman who includes Joxer on a
list of dick-nics. TOO FUNNY. But, you've gotten it a bit backwards - it was
Greg's post that was the ploy to garner support for his cause, not mine. He
screwed-up and got called for it - simple. That he chose someone that he
didn't know and from whom I'm sure he didn't expect to get a reply - is his
mistake. Maybe he has learned his lesson and will not write and post such
stuff (I had another word in mind - but, I chose to edit myself - it can be
done) in the future. I'm still waiting for my e-mail Greg!
Where, exactly, is the *madness* in my metod? I can't see it.
Wait a bit - get to know me better - use my name - who knows maybe we might
have some common ground afterall.
Kim 729
In reply to Katilist's post of 17:00 5/3/98
>This is the only person who starts each post with a
>lengthy reenactment of her fabulous career. Me thinks if she had >some actual
depth in her own character, and really did respect >herself, she wouldn't be
wasting our time with the >aren't-I-important-and-by-the-way-you-suck routine.
>At this point, though I love to take an opportunity to rail against >Joxer(not
that annoying character to her excruciating one.
Just as a matter of courtesy to let you know that I'm not ignoring you. I'll
delete it the next time.
You haven't the vaguest idea who I am or what I do. To attack my *depth* and
my *self-respect* only makes me question yours. I've been lurking around here
for some time and I have a fairly good opinion of who you are, who your
supporters are and what you think drawn from your posts. You didnt know thing
one about what I thought or who I was until a week or so ago. Look very
carefully at yourself before you begin to question my motives.
You can rail against Joxer all you want. But, get to know me a bit better
before jumping into the fraw without sufficient knowledge to hold on to and
terming my character *excruciating*.
Marty Pfeiffer
In article <199805032336...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
kim...@aol.com (Kim 729) wrote:
> You haven't the vaguest idea who I am or what I do. To attack my *depth* and
> my *self-respect* only makes me question yours. I've been lurking around here
> for some time and I have a fairly good opinion of who you are, who your
> supporters are and what you think drawn from your posts. You didnt know thing
I checked out Kim729 on Dejanews. It's very interesting that you were so
nice, polite and positive at alt.disney.disneyland, but the moment you got
over to ATX, you turned a bit nasty. What happened between Dec. 9, 1997
(your last post to that forum) and now?
> one about what I thought or who I was until a week or so ago. Look very
> carefully at yourself before you begin to question my motives.
>
> You can rail against Joxer all you want. But, get to know me a bit better
> before jumping into the fraw without sufficient knowledge to hold on to and
> terming my character *excruciating*.
We all form first impressions of people. Most people are aware of this and
attempt to make a good one. You, frankly, haven't made a good impression
here. This is gathered from posts in response to your posts from Joxer
Shields and non-Joxer Shields. Maybe you don't care what impression you've
made? I find that some people truly don't care what other people think of
them. My roommate in Vancouver was like that. I just didn't get it. He
thought that it was a sign of strength that he didn't care what anyone
else thought of him.
So what's the story here?
--
_/ _/ _/_/_/ Marty Pfeiffer, a.k.a Scooter Boy
_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/ Font Designer
_/ _/_/ _/ _/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ <http://www.scootergraphics.com/>
Golightly
I really have no opinion one way or the other about Joxer or Ted. I do get tired (at
times) of the amount of screen time Joxer gets, but if the writers fleshed his
character out more; like at the end of Comedy of Eros, and at the end of For Him the
Bell Tolls; I wouldn't mind seeing the Joxer character more. However, I don't find
Kim's comments to be nasty or mean spirited. I think she has a right to voice her
opinion, and I don't find her behavior to be trollish in the least. She doesn't like
Ted or Joxer: no biggy!!
I don't like a few of the episodes this season: no biggy!! We all have our own
opinions about the characters and the show as it should be. To each their own!!
:-) Golightly
Teresita Mercado
Kim729 wrote:
> I was rolling when I read this reply. This from
> a woman who includes Joxer on a list of dick-nics.
> TOO FUNNY.
Well, thanks, I consider it my hobby to try and make Xenites smile. I
was going to reply to your reply, but I've got a terrible memory and you
didn't include your show-business credentials. I'm very busy, you see,
and I can't reply to just _anybody_.
;-)
Teresita
Marty Pfeiffer
In article <199805040411...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
kim...@aol.com (Kim 729) wrote:
>
> BTW I don't need you to get *ammo* to use against the Joxer Zealots, I
have the
> other members to keep me supplied. You're wrong - AGAIN - I did mean to *narf
> you off*. I can't wait for you to post something (anything) about Joxer,
> something I can *play* with. As Xena would say "Come On - It'll Be Fun."
Gosh, I didn't know that this was professional wrestling!
GGruschow
In article <6ifs88$kk1$1...@newsd-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net>, Chat...@webtv.net
(Teresita Mercado) writes:
>
>I was willing to overlook whatsherface's anti-Joxer spew, that's her
>opinion. And I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt on her
>anti-Ted Raimi spew, who knows, maybe she does know him. But to spew on
>my funny pal Greg is totally inappropriate, especially just now when
>a.t.x is humming along in an era of relative peace. It really stands
>out. There's madness in her method. I don't think anyone feels inspired
>to rally around her, if that's what she was trying to do. As Area69
>once said to another vocal anti-Joxerite, "Troll on, you've missed our
>hearts once again!"
>
>Teresita
Hey T, I think Kim's spew upon me was done more out of anger that I refused to
flame her after all, thus not giving her ammo to use against the Shields,than
any attempt to be nasty to me. OTOH, she might just have been really trying to
narf me off so much that I just *had* to flame her. Which begs the question: if
I'm not going to flame you that first time because it would make me look bad,
why in the name of Hades would I do it the second time?
Greg( everybody's funny friend)
" Joxer and Gabby,share a love thats not too shabby. She is the apple of his
eye,for her there is no other guy.They right some wrongs,and sing some
songs,and then get kinky all night long.Joxer...Joxer and Gabby!"
Kim 729
In reply to Teresita's post of 20:41 on 5/3/98
>Well, thanks, I consider it my hobby to try and make Xenites >smile. I was
going to reply to your reply, but I've got a terrible >memory and you didn't
include your show-business credentials. >I'm very busy, you see, and I can't
reply to just _anybody_.
>;-)
My Mama always told me not to get into a war of wits with an unarmed man
(woman). But this is just too tempting. I must say that in my lurking days I
found your lists to be quite quick - I'm still giggling at the idea of the "my
first saddlehorn", but too often you resort to trite, cheap, hackneyed humor
(much like whatshisname - you know the Mightily Insipid One) You can do much
better. I appreciate your trying to get me though, better luck next time.
Kim 729
In reply to Greg's post of 21:20 on 5/3/98 - the one that he had the balls to
post -
>I think Kim's spew upon me was done more out of anger that I >refused to flame
her after all, thus not giving her ammo to use >against the Shields,than any
attempt to be nasty to me. OTOH, she >might just have been really trying to
narf me off so much that I just >*had* to flame her. Which begs the question:
if I'm not going to >flame you that first time because it would make me look
bad,
>why in the name of Hades would I do it the second time?
Well Greg - you're wrong - yet again. What angered me was your posting an
attack on me that I had no way to respond to. That you *royally flamed* me
with nothing to back it up and no way for me to respond was the act of a
chicken-S-H-I-T ( I want to say more, but what haven't I said alredy) If you
had the courage to *flame* me in PUBLIC and let me respond you'd see who was
left standing when the smoke cleared.
BTW I don't need you to get *ammo* to use against the Joxer Zealots, I have the
other members to keep me supplied. You're wrong - AGAIN - I did mean to *narf
you off*. I can't wait for you to post something (anything) about Joxer,
something I can *play* with. As Xena would say "Come On - It'll Be Fun."
The answer to your question - because not *flamimg* me makes you look worse.
Come on - whatever I said to make you post such crap in the first place must
still be there - let me see what you consider a *royal* flame. I'm nothing if
not curious.
>Greg( everybody's funny friend)
Not quite EVERYBODY.
Erin
On 03 May 1998 23:27:19 GMT, kim...@aol.com (Kim 729) wrote:
<snip>
>Where, exactly, is the *madness* in my metod? I can't see it.
>
>Wait a bit - get to know me better - use my name - who knows maybe we might
>have some common ground afterall.
<grin> Pure style. I haven't seen such style - nor such capacity for
stepping on toes - since .deeva used to post here. :)
Battle on, Kimber!
Kim 729
Reply to Marty's post of 01:34 on 5/4/98
>Gosh, I didn't know that this was professional wrestling!
It sure feels like it. Ive been roundly pummeled today. I've been accused of
being "evil"," manipulative"and "cruel". I've been called a liar, a braggard
and I've been accused of of being a "racist" (that one hurts me to the bone) If
I had even considered your use of the word "spade" to have translated out to be
an ethnic slur about blacks - I would not have answered your question at all -
or I would have answered you very, very differently.
The Cherokee/Choctaw part of my family tree does trace to four run away slaves
from plantations in both Kentucky and Tennessee. As a matter of necessity and
in order to strengthen tribal blood lines many run-away slaves were taken in to
both tribes and protected as full members and even warriors (now I'm teaching
American History and Cultural Anthropology).
While I most definately mis-chose my words and responded more flippantly than
I had intended - my "intent" did not include even a hint of racism. That is
not who I am nor is it what I believe. If I chose words that offended - I
apologize (at least about this). More about me than I had intended to share -
especially with those who have already quite sure that they *Know* me (you
don't - but, you will. I don't scare off quite that easily) Can we drop this
"racist" attack now? Or - if you need any further explaination - let me know.
I'll not be falling on Xena's sword though - I'm a bit squeemish - I faint at
the sight of blood.
I got into my family history while (those who don't want to know what I do for
a living can stop reading now) I worked with Alice Walker on the second and
third drafts of the screenplay for "The Color Purple", an amazing woman and a
very gifted and spiritual human being. She taught be a great deal about words
and about heritage. Lessons that I'm learning even now.
So this is how the Joxer Zealots treat their enemies - WOW. I'll have to rest
before jumping in somemore - two or three hours at least.
Dan Sullivan
Kim 729 wrote
>
>Here we go again ...
Indeed, Kimber.
>I know where I insulted Ted's abilities - as I intended to do so. But,
where
>did I *insult* you?
Okay, here's what you said: "Why it should surprise me then, that a Member
of an 'organization' such as the Joxer Shields, devoted to mindless,
insipid, drivel should take such pains to spout such stuff is beyond me."
I am a member. According to you, members are devoted to mindless, insipid
drivel.
>Thank you for this most gracious of allowances. I don't recall calling Ted
>"evil" that is an extrapilation that you made, not me. Again, if your
devotion
>to Joxer has made it difficult for you to distinguish a remark made about
*him*
>and a remark aimed at *you* then there's little that I can do about that.
See above.
>There is a protection provided by open and honest talent, such a warmth
>surrounds both Lucy and Renee'. As I have yet to work with Lucy and wasn't
on
>the Disney lot much when Renee's was there I have yet to form opinions of
them
>personally.
If you have yet to form opinions of them personally, then how do you know
such a warmth surrounds Lucy and Reneé? By your criteria, this is simple PR,
nothing more.
>The difference between Bruce and Ted is one of talent. Bruce can create a
>finly crafted character of subtlty and nuance - he's a fine character
actor.
>Ted is a hack by comparison.
I like both Bruce and Ted, and I completely disagree regarding Ted's talent.
But we aren't really shedding any more light concerning our opinions, so
let's move on, shall we?
>Bruce has been friends with Sam, his relationship (babysitter) with Ted is
a
>by-product of that friendship. Without Sam in the mix, I doubt that Bruce
and
>Ted would have formed any kind of relationship. How many friends or
relations
>of your friends don't you like? That they get along and can work together
>proves that Bruce is a professional.
No it doesn't. Bruce and Ted always try to be in the same movies/TV series
the other is in. If it was a simple business relationship because of Sam,
then they wouldn't go to such lengths, and Sam wouldn't know the difference.
As for your question, if you don't like friends, why do call them friends? I
don't know any friends I don't like because I cut off my relationship with
those I dislike.
>If you extrapolate that 10,000 letters by the estimated world-wide audience
for
>X:WP you would find it to be so minuscule as to be statically
insignificant.
>Now if those of us who didn't like Joxer were to begin such a campaign
there
>would be enough responce to make even Ren. Pic. take notice.
I'm not saying that 10,000 is a vast majority. Far from it. But apparently
these fans did enough to bring him back for more episodes, and the "vast
majority" didn't do enough. If they did then I have no doubt that Joxer
would be on one and only one episode.
>I can't say that I gave it much tought. Only in wondering which you liked
>better Bevis or Butthead.
In fact I hate that show. Try to find something else.
>Again read my reply to the Joxer Shields. I don't want to be accused of
>bragging. But, you were still learning to count on your fingers and toes
while
>I was working for my master's degree.
Okay, so you showed that you're older than me. Does that make my opinion
less justified? Rather than explaining plenty of other contacts and
involvement with the PC industry, government, and the media, I'd like to
stop here concerning the personal résumé. Like I said, let's move on, shall
we?
>We will, I'm afraid, never agree on the worth of Joxer, and you'll have to
get
>to know Ted before you'd agree on him. So - let's agree to dis-agree once
>again and leave it at that.
Agreed. I'd also like to point out that I'm not trying to personally attack
you, just explaining my views of Ted and the rest of the industry, despite
how much I *may* or *may not* know. My intention is not to diss your
opinion, although I am hoping we can discuss this in a civilized matter, or
better yet, move on.
-Dan, the Joxer Shields man
"Its golden finishes but a dim glimmer after the shimmering radiance of your
cream-like skin."
Dan Sullivan
This is the very first time the number of new posts are exceeding the number
I can read in time. For every message I read, 10 more pop on. Amazing! I
must admit though, having two or three intensely dynamic threads is
interesting, to say the least! {]-)
Dan Sullivan
*DISCLAIMER* NOTHING HERE IS INTENDED TO OFFEND ANYBODY, IT'S JUST FOR FUN
Sung to the tune from "Warrior...Priestess...Tramp":
Joxer the Mighty
Master of controversy
Lotsa people think he's fine
'Cept for Kim 729
If you need an argument
Here's the perfect place to vent
But the Joxer Shields defend their pride
Joxer: "Just check out the message size."
Just check out the message siiiize...
Joxer: "Ha-ha!"
He's Joxer,
Joxer the Mighty
Joxer the Mighty
Kimber doesn't take him lightly
And never seems to get enough
Of the controversy stuff!
And if you need some company
ATX has a guarantee
Joxer: "Of the highest post-and-read"
Girl: "Heck, I'd even post for free!"
"Take that filthy flame from me!"
Heee's Joxer,
Joxer the Mighty!
Kim 729
In reply to Dan's post of 01:18 on 5/4/98
>This is the very first time the number of new posts are exceeding >the number
I can read in time. For every message I read, 10 more >pop on. Amazing! I must
admit though, having two or three >intensely dynamic threads is interesting, to
say the least! {]-)
It's this damned Starbucks Gold Coast coffee I've been drinking since noon, I
can't seem to stop typing. Anything I can do to make your Sunday/Monday more
entertaining - piece of cake. ;-)
Xorys
On 03 May 1998 22:39:28 GMT, kim...@aol.com (Kim 729) wrote:
>Again read my reply to the Joxer Shields. I don't want to be accused of
>bragging. But, you were still learning to count on your fingers and toes while
>I was working for my master's degree.
What a *silly* comment! I finished a Master's degree many (many)
years ago too (and from a good school), but I wouldn't for a moment
assume that somehow makes me automatically superior to someone who is
younger and currently studying or working... It reminds me a bit of
an argument I had with a Prof. many years ago: I can't remember what
the discussion started about, but it wasn't an academic issue... I
said something to the effect "Can't we just deal with this between us
like two reasonable people?" and she replied "But *I* have a Ph. D.!"
At which point I pretty much concluded I was wasting my time trying to
establish anything resembling a dialogue with her.
Xorys
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://webhome.idirect.com/~toot/
Xena Wallpapers, Win95 Startup Screens etc.
Alleigh
On 03 May 1998 22:39:28 GMT, kim...@aol.com (Kim 729) wrote:
>Again read my reply to the Joxer Shields. I don't want to be accused of
>bragging. But, you were still learning to count on your fingers and toes while
>I was working for my master's degree.
Interestingly enough - you didn't mention the year or the school you
got this "Master" degree from and in what field. Because for me a
Master degree in Sciene, Math, Computer Science is harder than on in
History, Psychology.... But since you are in the industry and met
people and did stuff you must be smarter than the rest of the world.
>We will, I'm afraid, never agree on the worth of Joxer, and you'll have to get
>to know Ted before you'd agree on him. So - let's agree to dis-agree once
I think I figured it out. I hate people on Usenet who think they have
to drop names of who they know. There is a women on the comic
newsgroups who does this and she seems to have the same kinda
"superior" attitude. Maybe your writing style just doesn't suit Usenet
- or maybe you are just thinking to much.
Alleigh
On 03 May 1998 23:27:19 GMT, kim...@aol.com (Kim 729) wrote:
>In reply to Teresita Mercado's post of 15:30 on 5/2/98
>
>>I was willing to overlook whatsherface's anti-Joxer spew, that's >her opinion.
> And I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt >on her anti-Ted Raimi
>spew, who knows, maybe she does know >him. But to spew on my funny pal Greg is
>totally inappropriate, >especially just now when a.t.x is humming along in an
>era of >relative peace. It really stands out. There's madness in her >method.
>I don't think anyone feels inspired to rally around her, if >that's what she
>was trying to do. As Area69 once said to another >vocal anti-Joxerite, "Troll
>on, you've missed our hearts once >again!"
>
>Hi - allow me to introduce myself - the name's Kimber - not *whatsherface* I
>would prefer that my name be used once it is known. It's only common courtesy.
But you have to show courtesy to get it - and so far you have just
pissed people off - with your resume.
Alleigh
On 03 May 1998 23:36:47 GMT, kim...@aol.com (Kim 729) wrote:
>In reply to Katilist's post of 17:00 5/3/98
>
>>This is the only person who starts each post with a
>>lengthy reenactment of her fabulous career. Me thinks if she had >some actual
>depth in her own character, and really did respect >herself, she wouldn't be
>wasting our time with the >aren't-I-important-and-by-the-way-you-suck routine.
>>At this point, though I love to take an opportunity to rail against >Joxer(not
>that annoying character to her excruciating one.
>
>Just as a matter of courtesy to let you know that I'm not ignoring you. I'll
>delete it the next time.
>
>You haven't the vaguest idea who I am or what I do. To attack my *depth* and
>my *self-respect* only makes me question yours.
And you don't have a clue about anyoneyour attacked. But since you are
in the industry yadda yadda yadda - you are above the rest of us.
>I've been lurking around here
>for some time and I have a fairly good opinion of who you are, who your
>supporters are and what you think drawn from your posts. You didnt know thing
>one about what I thought or who I was until a week or so ago. Look very
>carefully at yourself before you begin to question my motives.
So you lurked and didn't notice that people "claiming" (1) to be in
the industry are usually not trusted and do get jumped on. And instead
of just letting it go you "replied" to a person and group you should
have known to reply back vehemently. It seems that you knew what you
wer doing
(1) not saying your not in the industry - just saying that other who
claimed may or not have been
>You can rail against Joxer all you want. But, get to know me a bit better
>before jumping into the fraw without sufficient knowledge to hold on to and
>terming my character *excruciating*.
Well anyone that starts posts with their resume is "excruciating"
KathyGGGHD
I haven't finished reading this thread, but what can I say
!!! WOW !!!
I just love a person who jumps into the fray with a bang. :)
Welcome Kimber. You have made atx less boring lately. I have been finding
myself pulled away from atx because the content here has not been entertaining
me lately. But what a relief to see you. It is always good to have new blood.
(Sorta like your Indian/Slave anscestors. (couldn't think of a better way to
put it. apologies ))
Kathy
"She's magnificent"
PS. Check out the Palace. Talk to LUVJOX. (That's me!)
XenaArtMkr
>KathyGGGHD wote:
Some snipping here||||
>what can I say<BR>
><BR>
>!!! WOW !!!<BR>
>I just love a person who jumps into the fray with a bang. :)
I have been finding<BR>
>myself pulled away from atx because the content here has not been
>entertaining<BR>
>me lately. But what a relief to see you. It is always good to have new
>blood.<BR>
><BR>
Welcome from me too Kimber. Consider this high praise from Kathy. She is
well respected on this NG.
XAM
(Who hopes this post doesn't end up in it's usual garbled fashion)
Chat...@webtv.net
In article <199805040120...@ladder03.news.aol.com>#1/1,
ggru...@aol.com (GGruschow) wrote:
> Which begs the question: if
> I'm not going to flame you that first time because it would make me look bad,
> why in the name of Hades would I do it the second time?
>
> Greg( everybody's funny friend)
I admire your strength of will, Greg. By the hairs on the chin of Ares, God
of War, I want to do the "honorable thing" too. If you catch me flaming
Kim729 or anyone else thump me upside the haid, or grab me by my nose, or
something like that. Sometimes I'm a brat with a terrible urge to get in the
last word.
Teresita
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Face
Kim 729 wrote:
>
> So this is how the Joxer Zealots treat their enemies - WOW. I'll
> have to rest before jumping in somemore - two or three hours at
> least.
The vast majority of the Shields have not been attacking you. Greg, Dan and I
have been polite. Many other memebers have just ignored you. We do not act
as a group. We as a group don't have enemies. We don't even have a common
viewpoint beyond liking Joxer.
--
Face (Dan Rudolph) <rudolph...@mcleod.net>
The Dark Avenger of Netiquette
President, Watcher Comics <ftp://ftp.eyrie.org/pub/racc/watcher/>
Overzealous Member of the Joxer Shields
Face
Kim 729 wrote:
>
> Well Greg - you're wrong - yet again. What angered me was your
> posting an attack on me that I had no way to respond to. That you *
> royally flamed* me with nothing to back it up and no way for me to
> respond was the act of a chicken-S-H-I-T ( I want to say more, but
> what haven't I said alredy) If you had the courage to *flame* me in
> PUBLIC and let me respond you'd see who was left standing when the
> smoke cleared.
What are you talking about? He has said he didn't flame you by mail (merely
almost did) and even if he did, you could have responded. If he flamed you on
the group (not sure if he did, it never got to my server), you also could have
responded. Besides, he already apologized. There is no way he could flame
you and leave you helpless short of a moderated group, which this ain't. As
for your last comment, flaming people isn't an act of courage in public or
elsewhere. Apologizing, especially in public is what takes courage. He did that.
>
> BTW I don't need you to get *ammo* to use against the Joxer Zealots,
> I have the other members to keep me supplied. You're wrong - AGAIN -
> I did mean to *narf you off*. I can't wait for you to post something
> (anything) about Joxer, something I can *play* with. As Xena would
> say "Come On - It'll Be Fun."
For someone who hates Joxer-related discussion, you seem to be looking forward
to it.
>
> The answer to your question - because not *flamimg* me makes you look
> worse. Come on - whatever I said to make you post such crap in the
> first place must still be there - let me see what you consider a *
> royal* flame. I'm nothing if not curious.
This is blatant flame-baiting. It might make him look better in your eyes
(though I doubt it), but it wouldn't in anyone else's. As has been said
before, the basic rule is be nice. Not being nice doesn't make people look
any better. Try to remember this.
Dan Sullivan
GGruschow wrote
>
> Hang on Dan, I think its going to get even bumpier!!
You mean I'm going to have to wear a seat belt when I sit in front of my
computer? Seat belts are good safety precautions but this is ridiculous! <g>
Then again, maybe it'll add something to the mix when playing those flight
sims. {]-)
Stacey Capps
On 04 May 1998 04:11:09 GMT, kim...@aol.com did assert that...
> Well Greg - you're wrong - yet again. What angered me was your posting an
> with nothing to back it up and no way for me to respond was the act of a
> chicken-S-H-I-T ( I want to say more, but what haven't I said alredy)
What a shame. I was all ready to give Kimber a big gold star for going
one whole day on the group without flaming Greg or anyone else. :-(
Beware. Bad ASCII art below:
\
\ +
\- -
-\ -
+ - - - \ - - - +
- \ -
- - \ - -
- -- \-
- - -\ -
+ \ +
\
Stacey
Stacey Capps
I know, I know. Bad form replying to my own post.
But I wanted to offer more bad ASCII art if Kimber can make it until 9
p.m. mountain time. I'm not sure what I'll do, but I'll think of
something. I think she proved today that she can do it. There was some
bait laying around that she chose not to take, and I for one am glad.
Also, it was nice reading about her unusual heritage and what we can
expect from her posts. If it weren't for that one flame...
Stacey
GGruschow
In article <6ijndh$foc$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, "Dan Sullivan"
<dasu...@nospam.vt.edu> writes:
>
>Joxer the Mighty
>Master of controversy
>Lotsa people think he's fine
>'Cept for Kim 729
>If you need an argument
>Here's the perfect place to vent
>But the Joxer Shields defend their pride
>
>Joxer: "Just check out the message size."
>
>Just check out the message siiiize...
>
>Joxer: "Ha-ha!"
>
>He's Joxer,
>Joxer the Mighty
>
>Joxer the Mighty
>Kimber doesn't take him lightly
>And never seems to get enough
>Of the controversy stuff!
>And if you need some company
>ATX has a guarantee
>
>Joxer: "Of the highest post-and-read"
>
>Girl: "Heck, I'd even post for free!"
>
>"Take that filthy flame from me!"
>
>Heee's Joxer,
>Joxer the Mighty!
>
>
>-Dan, the Joxer Shields man
Thanks Dan, for adding yet another version of Jox's song to the list.
Greg
GGruschow
>Well Greg - you're wrong - yet again. What angered me was your posting an
>attack on me that I had no way to respond to. That you *royally flamed* me
>with nothing to back it up and no way for me to respond was the act of a
>chicken-S-H-I-T ( I want to say more, but what haven't I said alredy) If you
>had the courage to *flame* me in PUBLIC and let me respond you'd see who was
>left standing when the smoke cleared.
Im sorry, but it is *you* who are mistaken here. For there WAS no posted
flame,nor e-mailed flame either. Written Flame, yes. Deleted flame, true.
Also an apology to my fellow Shields for breaking rule #3. Perhaps you are
under the impression that I wrote a flame about you and mailed it off to all
the other Shields so we could all laugh at you and *that* was why I had
regrets.Well, I have no proof other than my word that this is not the case, but
then as Im a Shield, and therefore supposedly stuffed with drivel( or would
that be chickenshit?), my word probably doesnt count for much with you.
>
>BTW I don't need you to get *ammo* to use against the Joxer Zealots, I have
>the
>other members to keep me supplied. You're wrong - AGAIN - I did mean to
>*narf
>you off*. I can't wait for you to post something (anything) about Joxer,
>something I can *play* with. As Xena would say "Come On - It'll Be Fun."
>
>The answer to your question - because not *flamimg* me makes you look worse.
>Come on - whatever I said to make you post such crap in the first place must
>still be there - let me see what you consider a *royal* flame. I'm nothing
>if
>not curious.
Ah, I see. So by not doing something stupid and nasty to you I somehow demean
myself more than if I did? Geeze I thought that kind of thinking went out 20
years ago.
>>Greg( everybody's funny friend)
>
>Not quite EVERYBODY.
Oh yes, EVERYBODY'S.
GGruschow
In article <6ijk5e$e78$1...@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, "Dan Sullivan"
<dasu...@nospam.vt.edu> writes:
>
>This is the very first time the number of new posts are exceeding the number
>I can read in time. For every message I read, 10 more pop on. Amazing! I
>must admit though, having two or three intensely dynamic threads is
>interesting, to say the least! {]-)
>
>
>-Dan, the Joxer Shields man
>
>
Hang on Dan, I think its going to get even bumpier!!
Greg
GGruschow
In article <354D768C...@mcleod.net>, Face <rudolph...@mcleod.net>
writes:
>> Well Greg - you're wrong - yet again. What angered me was your
>> posting an attack on me that I had no way to respond to. That you *
>> royally flamed* me with nothing to back it up and no way for me to
>> respond was the act of a chicken-S-H-I-T ( I want to say more, but
>> what haven't I said alredy) If you had the courage to *flame* me in
>> PUBLIC and let me respond you'd see who was left standing when the
>> smoke cleared.
>
>What are you talking about? He has said he didn't flame you by mail (merely
>almost did) and even if he did, you could have responded. If he flamed you
>on
>the group (not sure if he did, it never got to my server), you also could
>have
>responded. Besides, he already apologized. There is no way he could flame
>you and leave you helpless short of a moderated group, which this ain't. As
>for your last comment, flaming people isn't an act of courage in public or
>elsewhere. Apologizing, especially in public is what takes courage. He did
>that.
>>
Errr, Face. I think she means that by writing a flame that I thought better of
later, I didnt give her a chance to reply to whatever it was I flamed her
about. OTOH, if I was really such a chickenshit, wouldnt have been FAR more
easy just to pretend it never happened? Of course my ethics wouldnt allow me to
do that.
Katilist
>You can rail against Joxer all you want. But, get to know me a bit
>before jumping into the fraw without sufficient knowledge to hold on to
>terming my character *excruciating*.<BR>
><BR> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is exactly what I have been doing. Reading your posts and realizing
that you are an excruciating bore. You do make a point about Teresita fighting
with you, though. With your incredible lack of wit and charm, you would make
her look like a bully, attacking someone so defenseless, if her posts weren't
so clever (while yours are just hateful.)
If Ted Raimi came off as arrogant and self-aggrandizing as you, people
would hate him. Surprise, surprise. You want me to think of you differently?
Impress me with your good manners. We are all waiting. I am not surprised
that you didn't like Ted. I doubt that you like anyone.
-----------------------------
Kat >^^<
(It's understandable that Kimber is paranoid, when everyone is out to get her.)
Xorys
>*DISCLAIMER* NOTHING HERE IS INTENDED TO OFFEND ANYBODY, IT'S JUST FOR FUN
>
>Sung to the tune from "Warrior...Priestess...Tramp":
>
>
>Joxer the Mighty
>Master of controversy
>Lotsa people think he's fine
>'Cept for Kim 729...
Thankyou for making me laugh Dan :-)
The more set's of words I see to that silly little tune, the more it
sticks in my brain, and the funnier they seem...
LOL
Xorys
>Beware. Bad ASCII art below:
>
>
> \
> \ +
> \- -
> -\ -
> + - - - \ - - - +
> - \ -
> - - \ - -
> - -- \-
> - - -\ -
> + \ +
> \
>
What's it meant to be, Stacey?
A star?
A xmas tree?
Could it be... a *very* stylized Gab with her staff??
broa...@tvi.cc.nm.us
Dear asbestos-covered posters of the alt.tv.xena newsgroup:
Well, I'm back in again. As one of the few people who have managed to avoid
being flamed (until now, I suspect), perhaps I can pour a bit of cold water on
this discussion. Alas, napalm isn't much affected by water.
In article <199805032239...@ladder01.news.aol.com>#1/2,
kim...@aol.com (Kim 729) wrote:
> The difference between Bruce and Ted is one of talent. Bruce can create a
> finly crafted character of subtlty and nuance - he's a fine character actor.
> Ted is a hack by comparison.
Maybe I like hack actors...frankly, I have some small experience in the field,
and it seems that, within the limitations of the writing, Ted is creating a
character that is not one-dimensional but rather recognizable. Given what
little background TPTB have provided, it would seem Joxer is a person who has
been repeatedly hurt. In response, he created the "Joxer the Mighty"
character, who can ignore the insults and pretend he is admired. He is in
love with Gabrielle but is clueless as to how to handle this because he
doesn't want to get hurt again and he also doesn't want to hurt her by
pressing himself on her as a lover. Maybe he recognizes she isn't ready for
that from any man (ye gods, she was recently raped!). There's a lot more, but
I don't feel like recapping my posts to the Tedite and the Gabrielle & Joxer
Romantics society lists. In summary, he's not merely a clumsy oaf.
Now folks like Kimber and Erin can discount this all they like, but I see a
more complex character than they do.
Many people dislike the use of humor in the series. The only response I got
to my previous post was from Jennifer Bales, who objected to slapstick. I
salute you, Jennifer! Your point of view is quite valid. In my review of
"The Bitter Suite" in Whoosh! I thought the comedy was taken a bit too far in
most cases, though curiously enough not with Joxer, perhaps because physical
comedy was expected of him. Disliking Joxer because he represents an
undesirable element of comedy in the series is a reasonable point of view.
Is Joxer stupid? No, he is not. He is quite capable of learning, thank you;
contrast his difficulty reading Gabrielle's scroll in "The Quill Is Mightier"
with his ease in "King Con." Sure, you could put it down to a lack of
continuity, or as Kimber would put it, a "plot-driven device," or you could
say that between episodes he had someone help him. Given that he's with X and
G a lot, that someone could easily be Gabrielle.
I speculate that the main reason Joxer inspires such distaste in many people
is that they indeed recognize him as a type of person they have seen in their
lives and that they despise in real life as a loser. Having been picked on
like that, all I can say is: people who express such contempt are the real
losers.
That's not directed at Kimber. She has other reasons for hating Joxer, as we
all know. As to anyone who does feel I aimed the above at him/her, if the
shoe fits...no apologies.
> Bruce has been friends with Sam, his relationship (babysitter) with Ted is
a
> by-product of that friendship. Without Sam in the mix, I doubt that Bruce
and
> Ted would have formed any kind of relationship.
Proof, please.
And it was Rob Tapert who hired Ted. Yes, that was more friendship, inside
contacts and working together.
> How many friends or
relations
> of your friends don't you like? That they get along and can work together
> proves that Bruce is a professional.
And if Ted weren't wanted, he wouldn't have been hired. If he was as bad as
you say, his contracts wouldn't be extended. Or do you think something is
wrong with Rob Tapert? Do you think he would risk the quality of his show
over friendship, given that he has had plenty of time to discover the things
you say about Ted and Joxer?
> If
> you extrapolate that 10,000 letters by the estimated world-wide audience for
> X:WP you would find it to be so minuscule as to be statically insignificant.
> Now if those of us who didn't like Joxer were to begin such a campaign there
> would be enough responce to make even Ren. Pic. take notice.
I'm calling your bluff. I don't think there are that many of you. You seem
to be outnumbered (after I delete the multiple posts) even on this newsgroup.
> Again read my reply to the Joxer Shields. I don't want to be accused of
> bragging. But, you were still learning to count on your fingers and toes
while
> I was working for my master's degree.
That's nice. But I'm not as young as Greg, et. al., and I happen to choose to
defend Joxer. I like what I see on the screen, and while you can accuse me of
bad taste (no problem; people have said worse), I don't think your little
attacks on the Joxer Shields, especially your questioning their intelligence,
are having any effect. Calling a person stupid does not make it so.
You may call *me* stupid, and I will laugh in the face of anyone who does, but
I am formally requesting membership in the Joxer Shields. As the author of
the essay "Support Your Local Joxer" on my website, The Subtlety of Pickett's
Charge, it seems to be the logical thing to do. And it's posts like yours,
Kimber and Erin (and a few others I've seen), that have caused the membership
of the Joxer Shields to grow. You are more effective than any recruiting
drive.
> We will, I'm afraid, never agree on the worth of Joxer, and you'll have to
get
> to know Ted before you'd agree on him. So - let's agree to dis-agree once
> again and leave it at that.
I accept that in the friendly spirit in which it seems to have been given
(even if it wasn't, it *sounds* friendly enough). There will always be those
who hate the character. On the other hand, there will always be those who
like him, too. I choose not to impugn the motives, taste or intelligence of
either side. Since the fourth-season contract is a fact, I repeat my call
from another post: let Joxerphiles and Joxerphobes get together behind better
writing in all the episodes!
I think it's time for a truce on that basis.
Break a leg,
Phil D. Hernández
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/6102/
(The Subtlety of Pickett's Charge, featuring Xena Does NASCAR, Spotlight on
Joxer, KJXR love songs, WJXR filk songs and fan fiction)
proud to be a member of The Europa Association, the IAXS, TRIFC, the Gabrielle
and Joxer Romantics Society, the Joxerites, the Reneé O'Connor Fan Club, the
Patty Moise/Elton Sawyer Fan Club and (soon) the Joxer Shields
GGruschow
>
>That's nice. But I'm not as young as Greg, et. al.
Ermmm young? I'll be 32 in July. Maybe its my singing voice that has decieved
you. Yeah, thats the ticket...Singing voice.
GGruschow
> And it's posts like yours,
>Kimber and Erin (and a few others I've seen), that have caused the membership
>of the Joxer Shields to grow. You are more effective than any recruiting
>drive.
Oops, here I am quoting you again twice in a row.
Point of clarification: The majority of the JS like Erin. We find her posts
interesting, thought provoking, sometimes irritating, but always, ALWAYS civil.
It is unfair to lump her into the same catagory as Kimber. If just 3 things
about The Mighty One were to change, Erin probably would like him as much as
any other character on the show.
Stacey Capps
On Tue, 05 May 1998 04:39:28 GMT, nos...@hair.net did assert that...
> >Beware. Bad ASCII art below:
> >
> >
> > \
> > \ +
> > \- -
> > -\ -
> > + - - - \ - - - +
> > - \ -
> > - - \ - -
> > - -- \-
> > - - -\ -
> > + \ +
> > \
> >
>
> What's it meant to be, Stacey?
A star with an ex through it. :-( My first attempt at ASCII art. Sorry.
Stacey
Erin
On Tue, 05 May 1998 13:52:54 -0600, broa...@tvi.cc.nm.us wrote:
>Dear asbestos-covered posters of the alt.tv.xena newsgroup:
>
>Well, I'm back in again. As one of the few people who have managed to avoid
>being flamed (until now, I suspect), perhaps I can pour a bit of cold water on
>this discussion. Alas, napalm isn't much affected by water.
<snip>
>Maybe I like hack actors...frankly, I have some small experience in the field,
Better watch that. Kim brought that up, and she was royally flamed
for it. But I suspect that the Joxer Status-Quo contingent won't
care, as long as your opinions lie well within the boundaries of
theirs.
>Maybe he recognizes she isn't ready for
>that from any man (ye gods, she was recently raped!).
She didn't even realize she was raped. If she knew, the following
events would not have proved so much of a shock. Gab's not completely
naive...she knows where babies come from, after all.
> There's a lot more, but
>I don't feel like recapping my posts to the Tedite and the Gabrielle & Joxer
>Romantics society lists.
Oh, yeah, you know how much I read those lists. If you're not going
to present evidence, then might I suggest you don't waste your time
mentioning it? It gets you nowhere.
> In summary, he's not merely a clumsy oaf.
In *your* humble opinion. IMHO, he is.
>Now folks like Kimber and Erin can discount this all they like, but I see a
>more complex character than they do.
That's nice.
>Many people dislike the use of humor in the series. The only response I got
>to my previous post was from Jennifer Bales, who objected to slapstick. I
>salute you, Jennifer! Your point of view is quite valid.
You must not read a whole lot of posts in this newsgroup. Both Kim and
myself outlined exactly what we believed was wrong with the "humor"
that Joxer is supposed to convey. I feel quite comfortable referring
you to those posts of the past couple days, as they exist in the forum
in which we are discussing this.
>Disliking Joxer because he represents an
>undesirable element of comedy in the series is a reasonable point of view.
Quite. Thank you.
>Is Joxer stupid? No, he is not. He is quite capable of learning, thank you;
>contrast his difficulty reading Gabrielle's scroll in "The Quill Is Mightier"
>with his ease in "King Con." Sure, you could put it down to a lack of
>continuity, or as Kimber would put it, a "plot-driven device," or you could
>say that between episodes he had someone help him. Given that he's with X and
>G a lot, that someone could easily be Gabrielle.
Complete assumption, with no basis in the show. It has never been
mentioned, nor referred to in any manner. I could just as easily say
that a pink unicorn came around and cast a spell on Joxer so that he
was literate. You could, if you were generous (as you are) assume the
above; you could also, if you were less generous (as I am) call it a
plot-driven device. It was convenient for him to read, and so he
reads.
>I speculate that the main reason Joxer inspires such distaste in many people
>is that they indeed recognize him as a type of person they have seen in their
>lives and that they despise in real life as a loser. Having been picked on
>like that, all I can say is: people who express such contempt are the real
>losers.
Interesting speculation, and speculation nonetheless. I have never
known anyone so pathetic as Jerkster; indeed, I have a warm fuzzy
feeling in my heart for humanity that I have not. But again, it is
easy for you to make such groundless assumptions, as long as it
villifies your opponents.
So, wait a minute, why exactly was your post supposed to *stop* the
flamewars?
Erin
--
"But my keyboard doesn't have a backslash
key!" - Actual Tech Support caller
*web: http://www.heckman.net/erin
*email: er...@heckman.net
Erin
On 06 May 1998 00:54:10 GMT, ggru...@aol.com (GGruschow) wrote:
> Point of clarification: The majority of the JS like Erin. We find her posts
>interesting, thought provoking, sometimes irritating, but always, ALWAYS civil.
>It is unfair to lump her into the same catagory as Kimber. If just 3 things
>about The Mighty One were to change, Erin probably would like him as much as
>any other character on the show.
Thank you, Greg. You're probably right about that. Unfortunately,
those three things are so intrinsic to the character that I fear not
one of them will ever come about.
GGruschow
In article <MPG.fb96bab3...@news.dimensional.com>, j...@dim.com
(Stacey Capps) writes:
>> >Beware. Bad ASCII art below:
>> >
>> >
>> > \
>> > \ +
>> > \- -
>> > -\ -
>> > + - - - \ - - - +
>> > - \ -
>> > - - \ - -
>> > - -- \-
>> > - - -\ -
>> > + \ +
>> > \
>> >
>>
>> What's it meant to be, Stacey?
>
>A star with an ex through it. :-( My first attempt at ASCII art. Sorry.
>
>Stacey
>
>
Actually Stacey, it is remarkably good. Best Star with a spear through its
head Ive ever seen.
Greg( you mean thats not what it was *supposed* to be? Oh-Oh)
GGruschow
In article <354ff46a....@news.ocnsd1.sdca.home.com>, er...@heckman.net
(Erin) writes:
>
>Complete assumption, with no basis in the show.
Yet.
It has never been
>mentioned, nor referred to in any manner.
Again- yet. Give them time and they may. OTH we are still waiting to find
out where,when,and how Xena got her round killing thingee.
I could just as easily say
>that a pink unicorn came around and cast a spell on Joxer so that he
>was literate.
Plausible, given that fact we see Gabby supernaturally raped and impregnated
by an evil demon entity from ...well, wherever Dahok calls home. If *that* can
happen, why couldnt a pink unicorn teach Joxer to be more literate via magic?
You could, if you were generous (as you are) assume the
>above; you could also, if you were less generous (as I am) call it a
>plot-driven device. It was convenient for him to read, and so he
>reads.
Greg(do you suppose drunk people see pink unicorns in the Xenaverse?)
broa...@tvi.cc.nm.us
In article <354ff46a....@news.ocnsd1.sdca.home.com>,
er...@heckman.net (Erin) wrote:
> <snip>
> >Maybe I like hack actors...frankly, I have some small experience in the
field,
>
> Better watch that. Kim brought that up, and she was royally flamed
> for it.
There is, of course a difference between mentioning one's background and
bragging about it. Actually, I found Kim's credentials worth reading.
> She didn't even realize she was raped. If she knew, the following
> events would not have proved so much of a shock. Gab's not completely
> naive...she knows where babies come from, after all.
Contradictory arguments here. Since she knows about babies, and acquired one
after encountering Dahak, then she either is naive or must come to the
conclusion that she was raped. It is reasonable to assume she didn't realize
she'd been raped until she discovered she was pregnant, but her behavior at
the end of "The Deliverer" belies this. I think the shock was not due to her
not realizing she was raped but from not realizing she was pregnant (and what
the consequences of being impregnated by an evil god would be).
> Oh, yeah, you know how much I read those lists.
That's your decision. I do not question it.
> If you're not going
> to present evidence, then might I suggest you don't waste your time
> mentioning it? It gets you nowhere.
So you ignore the evidence presented just before that...nice try. Besides, as
you should
know, it is a violation of netiquette to post some 20-30 pages of recaps,
especially since I'd have to recreate it all from hard copies. I firmly
believe you would either ignore it all, as you have already demonstrated, or
dismiss it with jibes about "speculation" or "plot-driven" devices, as you do
below. I would rather spend the time putting more of my stories on disc and
posting them. If you really care about what I have to say, go visit my
website and bring along your Pepto-Bismol.
> > In summary, he's not merely a clumsy oaf.
>
> In *your* humble opinion. IMHO, he is.
Yes, my opinion, and not so humble, either. You hate the character so much
it is clear you don't take the time to see what's behind him. And once again,
you ignore the evidence, so you have justified my decision not to recap my
posts.
> You must not read a whole lot of posts in this newsgroup.
You'd be surprised. But most are a waste of time to me (no insult intended;
they are not a waste of time to others). Besides, I was referring to *direct*
replies.
> Both Kim and
> myself outlined exactly what we believed was wrong with the "humor"
> that Joxer is supposed to convey. I feel quite comfortable referring
> you to those posts of the past couple days, as they exist in the forum
> in which we are discussing this.
I read them. You are utterly wrong. I am reminded of Falstaff in the Henry V
series, and before you belabor the obvious by saying Joxer is not Falstaff,
let me remind you that neither is "Xena:Warrior Princess" Shakespeare, and the
differences are of the same order of magnitude. Here is a character designed
to lampoon the entire notion of bravery and chivalry, and the contrast
enhances the title character and other principals.
To give another example, Shakespeare begins "Julius Caesar" with a throwaway
comic scene full of puns, a "plot device" if you will, to illustrate how
different parts of Roman society regard the ex-triumvir. Yet I've never seen
a production of the play that cuts the scene.
But I've noticed an inconsistency where comedy is involved. When Xena or
Gabrielle are involved in physical comedy it seems to be more acceptable. The
eel scene in "A Day in the Life" is a good example of slapstick, and yet this
episode is regarded by most Xenites as the best ever done. It's full of
comedy from the frying pan business to the toilet parchment jokes, and frankly
most Joxer comedy is on the same level. (I know, I know, you don't think so,
but I doubt you can think otherwise. Perhaps you *can't* allow yourself to
think otherwise, because then you have to allow for the possibility that I
might be right.) Xena even gets bashed in the nose at the end, just as Joxer
has gotten the business end of Gabrielle's staff, though for different
reasons, of course. So you tell me why it is funny when Gabrielle bashes Xena
but not funny when she bashes Joxer.
A lot of what I read in those posts was blind, unreasoning hatred. I am not
surprised TPTB have largely ignored Joxerphobes, under the circumstances.
> Complete assumption, with no basis in the show. It has never been
> mentioned, nor referred to in any manner. I could just as easily say
> that a pink unicorn came around and cast a spell on Joxer so that he
> was literate. You could, if you were generous (as you are) assume the
> above; you could also, if you were less generous (as I am) call it a
> plot-driven device. It was convenient for him to read, and so he
> reads.
Congratulations, you took the bait, and you are well-hooked. Of course it was
a plot device. But it
is on such things that creativity thrives. You see Joxer reading in "Forget
Me Not" and dismiss it as a plot device. I see it and ask the question "why?"
An entire body of excellent alt-fiction was born out of a few throwaway lines
and gestures by Lucy Lawless and Reneé O'Connor, and that's not my opinion;
that's how the actors themselves describe it. There is, in fact, no basis for
"subtext" in the show, either. Your lower generosity implies lower
creativity, confirmed by what I read in your own posts. I'm sure you'll say
I'm mistaken, but you'll have to do better than that.
> >I speculate that the main reason Joxer inspires such distaste in many
people
> >is that they indeed recognize him as a type of person they have seen in
their
> >lives and that they despise in real life as a loser. Having been picked on
> >like that, all I can say is: people who express such contempt are the real
> >losers.
>
> Interesting speculation, and speculation nonetheless. I have never
> known anyone so pathetic as Jerkster; indeed, I have a warm fuzzy
> feeling in my heart for humanity that I have not. But again, it is
> easy for you to make such groundless assumptions, as long as it
> villifies your opponents.
Groundless? No, I've seen that type of bullying person before, and it is
that sort of person, not my opponents, that I choose to vilify. That was
another baited hook, and you took it as readily as the first. Thank you for
confirming my speculation as reality. As I said, no apologies.
Even Xena and Gabrielle do not consider Joxer as pathetic as you do, because
they let him hang around, and I don't envision you doing that. You would have
let him wander off forever at the end of "For Him the Bell Tolls," whereas
Xena actually encouraged him. I'll bet that was your least favorite episode
of the series, or close to it.
You dismiss pro-Joxer arguments all too readily.
Here's your moment of truth, Erin. No bait, no hook. I consider the
Joxerphobe position to be valid, even though I disagree with it. Do you
consider the Joxerphile position to be valid, even though you disagree with
it?
> So, wait a minute, why exactly was your post supposed to *stop* the
> flamewars?
Kimber is at least willing to agree to disagree. That gives me a great deal
of respect for her, and I choose to listen to her. She gave me cause to
rethink my opinion of Joxer and take a close look at how my fan fiction should
fit in with the continuity of the series.
I am not going to try to convince you to like Joxer or even tolerate him, and
don't bother thanking
me for saying that. I'll settle for agreeing to disagree, as your position is
largely the same as Kim's.
My real point is that since Joxer is here to stay through at least the fourth
season, wouldn't it be better to push for good-quality
writing to offset or reduce the problems many people have with the character?
It's all too easy to say that it can't or won't be done. I assume you are
smarter than that. Or is this assumption "groundless," too?
Going fishing with Xena,
Phil D. Hernández
http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/6102/
(The Subtlety of Pickett's Charge, featuring Xena Does NASCAR, Spotlight on
Joxer, KJXR-FM love songs, WJXR-AM filk songs and fan fiction)
proud to be a member of The Europa Association, the IAXS, the Gabrielle and
Joxer Romantics Society, the Joxerites, TRIFC, the Reneé O'Connor Fan Club,
the Patty Moise/Elton Sawyer Fan Club and (soon, I hope) the Joxer Shields
broa...@tvi.cc.nm.us
In article <199805060054...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
ggru...@aol.com (GGruschow) wrote:
> Point of clarification: The majority of the JS like Erin. We find her
posts
> interesting, thought provoking, sometimes irritating, but always, ALWAYS
civil.
> It is unfair to lump her into the same catagory as Kimber.
I did not find Erin to be civil, judging by her reply to my post. Actually, I
respect Kimber's position, and so putting Erin in the same category was a
compliment. In retrospect, putting them together was probably unfair to
Kimber, IMO.
Maybe I'm not as sensitive as some. I'm not as disturbed by some of the posts
in this discussion as others are. Maybe that's because I've learned to accept
there are people whose opinions I can never change. (I'm sure the JS also
accept that.) TPTB must be of the same opinion given that they have ignored
the Joxerphobes to date.
Anyway, I've done my duty for now, and I'm back to my fan fiction.
Break a leg,
Phil
"All experience gained elsewhere fails in New Mexico." - Lew Wallace
Kim 729
In reply to Phil's post of15:27 on 5/7/98
::: snipping :::
::: lots more snipping :::
Thanks Erin.
::: yet another snip :::
To the point.
>Yes, my opinion, and not so humble, either. You hate the >character so much
it is clear you don't take the time to see what's >behind him. And once again,
you ignore the evidence, so you >have justified my decision not to recap my
posts.
There's the WHOLE crux of the arguement. That neither Erin nor I see any
redeaming value to the use of the Joxer-prop and that you do. It's VERY
difficult to *see what's behind him* when there's NOTHING behind HIM. He's a
prop, as is Xena's horse or her armor, as is Gabby's staff or the BGSB, as are
any of the multitude of other objects with which they interact on a weekly
basis. (Sorry Erin - didn't mean to get you into all of this)
::: some snipping of "A Day in the Life" stuff :::
> It's full of comedy from the frying pan business to the toilet >parchment
jokes, and frankly most Joxer comedy is on the same >level. (I know, I know,
you don't think so, but I doubt you can >think otherwise. Perhaps you *can't*
allow yourself to
>think otherwise, because then you have to allow for the possibility >that I
might be right.)
No *most* of the comedy that TPTB leave for the Joxer-prop to stumble through
is most certainly NOT at the same level as that which exists between Lucy and
Renee'. There is a certain nuance and physicality to the comedy timing of
both Lucy and Renee' - especially in scenes where the actions are between the
two of them - that is COMPLETELY lacking in Ted's performance of the
Joxer-prop. But I think that I can *allow* for the possibility that you *might
be right* - possible but most defintely not probable.
>Xena even gets bashed in the nose at the end, just as Joxer
>has gotten the business end of Gabrielle's staff, though for >different
reasons, of course. So you tell me why it is funny when >Gabrielle bashes Xena
but not funny when she bashes Joxer.
When Gabrielle *bashes* Xena at the end of ADITL it is as much a right of
passage for her - a growth spurt for her character's development - and it got a
laugh. When Gabrielle *bashes* the Joxer-prop it has more to do with a lame
Joxer-prop intensive sub-plot (that whole unrequited love storyline) and as
such detracts from the story itself and the shows overall concept - but, it is
funny and it gets a laugh.
>A lot of what I read in those posts was blind, unreasoning hatred. >I am not
surprised TPTB have largely ignored Joxerphobes, >under the circumstances.
I thought that my *hatred* was perfectly cogent and rather well stated, nothing
*blind* or *unreasoning* about it. That TPTB have *largely ignored* the
*Joxerphobes* has more to do with the internat politics of the power structure
at Ren. Pic. and less to do with the power structure at X:WP. There is a
difference. If pushed to tell, I would imagine that a good 80% of the X:WP
audience would just as soon dump Joxer - but, that won't happen.
> You see Joxer reading in "Forget Me Not" and dismiss it as a plot >device. I
see it and ask the question "why?"
The answer is that the Joxer-prop needed to be able to read so that he could
advance the plot. The shell Gabby needed to be able to use some sort of prop to
have something to hang the action on so that the clips would be set-up and that
the episode could be paced. Nothing more. The pay-off came in the last four
minutes - the action leading up to that was, more or less, unimportant to the
episode's concept. Something about, what - forgiveness - IIRC.
> There is, in fact, no basis for "subtext" in the show, either. Your >lower
generosity implies lower creativity, confirmed by what I >read in your own
posts. I'm sure you'll say I'm mistaken, but you'll >have to do better than
that.
Yep, you're mistaken. There is a wealth of both screen time and script time
devoted to a "deeper" relationship (however you want to see it) To argue
against this is rather futile. That you need proof to substantiate an
arguement against the existance of *sub-text* is likewise futile. Watch
ADITL, or OAAA, or ITADITH, or TQ, or D, or TDI or II, or FF&G, or of the other
"relationship" based episodes. That the "relationship" is open to
interpretation is as undisputed (and masterfully created when the writing staff
pays attention) as is it's existance. There is no other single facet of the
continued character development of Xena, over the last two seasons, that has
had more screen or script time devoted to it than the continued ability of her
character to be able to love and to have that love returned. That is the
single most viable sign of her journey toward redemption. The controlling
central theme between Xena and Gabby is love. (sorry if this is off-topic to
this NG - I'll have to read the FAQ again)
>Even Xena and Gabrielle do not consider Joxer as pathetic as >you do, because
they let him hang around, and I don't envision >you doing that. You would have
let him wander off forever at the >end of "For Him the Bell Tolls," whereas
Xena actually >encouraged him. I'll bet that was your least favorite episode
>of the series, or close to it.
Wrong - yet again. Xena and gabrielle do *consider* the Joxer-prop to be
*pathetic*. Look at the way they treat him, listen to what they call him,
watch the body language and the nuance of Xena and Gabrielle when the
Joxer-prop is around. On TWO (maybe three) occasions they've refered to him as
*friend* or *family*, in vastly more episodes they haven't been so kind. They
keep him around to protect him as they don't want to him killed by his own
stumbling - Xena does this to many of the minor characters who inhabit the
Xenaverse. Without her protection the Joxer-prop would have been dead long
ago. Look at how well he was able to take care of himself when they came upon
hin in KC. Pretty pathetic. That the lead characters need props in order to
work their way through a story is the Joxer-prop's main function. He's a story
device - simple as that. Kind of like Superman's cape or the Bat-mobile.
>You dismiss pro-Joxer arguments all too readily.
No, I don't. Only the lame ones.
>Here's your moment of truth, Erin. No bait, no hook. I consider >the
Joxerphobe position to be valid, even though I disagree with >it. Do you
consider the Joxerphile position to be valid, even >though you disagree with
it?
Hope you don't mind me jumping in here Erin <BEG>, but, I can't help myself.
Yes, I consider the Joxerphile position to be a valid one (I may not understand
it) - up to the point at which it becomes clearly reactionary. As soon as
their points have been proved vacant, they should concede the point and move on
rather than belay the arguement by running it into the ground. Everyone has
the absolute right to their own opinions on this NG - except for the
sub-texters and a few others it seems - I've no problem with that. That there
are "organizations" running rampant on this NG that do not allow for the smooth
give and take of such opinions - I do have a problem with.
>Kimber is at least willing to agree to disagree. That gives me a >great deal
of respect for her, and I choose to listen to her. She >gave me cause to
rethink my opinion of Joxer and take a close >look at how my fan fiction should
fit in with the continuity of the >series.
Thanks, I was hoping to get beyond all of this so that I could talk about the
MANY things that I like about X:WP - rather than the one prop that I don't.
I've never read any of your fan fiction (or much of anyone elses). I do like
the work of Melissa Good though, a friend gave me her stories to read on a 13
hour-long plane trip that I had to take (I don't fly well, can't sleep). I'll
have to give you a read - what's your favorite or your best story - you choose?
I'll be happy to read it.
>I am not going to try to convince you to like Joxer or even >tolerate him, and
don't bother thanking me for saying that. I'll >settle for agreeing to
disagree, as your position is largely the same >as Kim's.
Sorry again Erin. That you seem to have been lumped in with me - when in fact
it should be the other way round as you've been posting here longer than I
have. Maybe we can all agree to dis-agree and get on with it.
>My real point is that since Joxer is here to stay through at least the >fourth
season, wouldn't it be better to push for good-quality
>writing to offset or reduce the problems many people have with >the character?
It's all too easy to say that it can't or won't be done. > I assume you are
smarter than that. Or is this assumption >"groundless," too?
It would be a good idea to *push* for anything that would *improve* the uses
and abuses of the Joxer-prop. But, after three complete seasons of the
same-old crap - I don't see much hope for it. TPTB are satisfied with what
they have done with this worn prop, I don't see them changing soon. If they
weren't satisfied with him, they surely would have begun some sort of character
development for him long before now, they've had ample opportunity to try.
As with any production decision from changing Gabby's BGSB (can it get any
smaller?) from season to season or what laws of physics Xena's Chackram can
break or what time-lines can be crossed over - the Joxer-prop is the least of
their worries. We get to see 13 episodes of the same old, worn out, cliche'
ridden, eye-rolling, sound effect enhanced, stumbling, and bumbling hackneyed
attempts at humor by way of the Joxer-prop. That is season four? We'll just
have to wait and see.
As always,
Kimber
"Look, your future is less in your palm than in your own two hands. It's what
you make of it." - Xena - Tsunami
Marty Pfeiffer
In article <199805072117...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
kim...@aol.com (Kim 729) wrote:
<SNIP>
> work their way through a story is the Joxer-prop's main function. He's
a story
> device - simple as that. Kind of like Superman's cape or the Bat-mobile.
Joxer the Bat-Mobile? Hmm, actually, I kind of like that :-)
"Hurry up, Gabrielle--to the Joxer-Mobile"
And then we could have some of that goofy fighting and wacky special
effects (you know, those multicolored letters spelling out "WHAM"
accompanied by a musical sting). Heck, X:WP has played homage to a bunch
of other things, why not Batman? I say, "Go for it!" They could even get
Adam West to guest star. I'm pretty sure he's not busy this time of
year...
--
_/ _/ _/_/_/ Marty Pfeiffer, a.k.a Scooter Boy
_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/ Font Designer
_/ _/_/ _/ _/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/ <http://www.scootergraphics.com/>
GGruschow
>
>> Point of clarification: The majority of the JS like Erin. We find her
>posts
>> interesting, thought provoking, sometimes irritating, but always, ALWAYS
>civil.
>> It is unfair to lump her into the same catagory as Kimber.
>
>I did not find Erin to be civil, judging by her reply to my post. Actually,
>I
>respect Kimber's position, and so putting Erin in the same category was a
>compliment. In retrospect, putting them together was probably unfair to
>Kimber, IMO.
Well, even civility can have it's limits. Erin is only human after all.
>
>Maybe I'm not as sensitive as some. I'm not as disturbed by some of the
>posts
>in this discussion as others are. Maybe that's because I've learned to
>accept
>there are people whose opinions I can never change. (I'm sure the JS also
>accept that.)
Ah, but the grand thing is, opinons can change..in either direction!
TPTB must be of the same opinion given that they have ignored
>the Joxerphobes to date.
Sure. Like they have payed a whole HELL of a lot of attention to we
JoxerPhiles either.They dont really care wether we like him or hate him,as long
as the sponsers pay the money.
>
>Anyway, I've done my duty for now, and I'm back to my fan fiction.
>
>Break a leg,
<CRUNCH!!!> OWWWW!!
Greg
broa...@tvi.cc.nm.us
Good to hear from you, Kim.
In article <199805072117...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
kim...@aol.com (Kim 729) wrote:
>
> In reply to Phil's post of15:27 on 5/7/98
>
> ::: snipping :::
>
> There's the WHOLE crux of the arguement. That neither Erin nor I see any
> redeaming value to the use of the Joxer-prop and that you do. It's VERY
> difficult to *see what's behind him* when there's NOTHING behind HIM. He's
a
> prop, as is Xena's horse or her armor, as is Gabby's staff or the BGSB, as
are
> any of the multitude of other objects with which they interact on a weekly
> basis.
Sorry, but if there were nothing behind him I wouldn't like the character
either. Like you, I have seen a lot of bad acting and bad parts in my day.
Joxer is capable of loving, being hurt, considering others, and learning from
his mistakes. You do not see these things, and I cannot make you do so. I
can, and I write fan fiction about it. So do others.
> No *most* of the comedy that TPTB leave for the Joxer-prop to stumble
through
> is most certainly NOT at the same level as that which exists between Lucy
and
> Renee'.
My tolerance for toilet jokes is even lower than your tolerance for Joxer. If
you think what Joxer does is even worse, well, neither of us has time to argue
over comedy.
> There is a certain nuance and physicality to the comedy timing of
> both Lucy and Renee' - especially in scenes where the actions are between
the
> two of them - that is COMPLETELY lacking in Ted's performance of the
> Joxer-prop.
I honestly believe Ted has it, too. I said as much in my review of "The
Bitter Suite" in Whoosh. But I understand where you're coming from, so since
you believe otherwise and you have your reasons, I respect that.
> But I think that I can *allow* for the possibility that you
*might
> be right* - possible but most defintely not probable.
Thank you. That is *very* generous. Given your known position, I did not
expect you to make such an allowance, and I would not have been upset had you
not done so. You have given me cause to look at the matter from your
perspective, and while I did not change my conclusions, I will continue to
allow for the possibility that you might be right, also (though, again,
definitely not probable).
> When Gabrielle *bashes* Xena at the end of ADITL it is as much a right of
> passage for her - a growth spurt for her character's development - and it
got a
> laugh. When Gabrielle *bashes* the Joxer-prop it has more to do with a lame
> Joxer-prop intensive sub-plot (that whole unrequited love storyline) and as
> such detracts from the story itself and the shows overall concept - but, it
is
> funny and it gets a laugh.
Well, of course as a Gabrielle & Joxer romantic I don't agree that the
unrequited love storyline is lame, but again we're only disagreeing here.
That's a good comment about Gabrielle's rite of passage.
> I thought that my *hatred* was perfectly cogent and rather well stated,
nothing
> *blind* or *unreasoning* about it.
I willingly concede the point. But I respectfully suggest that sometimes you
do let your distaste for Ted blind you. At the same time I will accept that
sometimes my desire for a Gabrielle/Joxer relationship blinds me. I have been
looking for the points you bring up when I watch the series, however. Fair is
fair.
> That TPTB have *largely ignored* the
> *Joxerphobes* has more to do with the internal politics of the power
structure
> at Ren. Pic. and less to do with the power structure at X:WP. There is a
> difference. If pushed to tell, I would imagine that a good 80% of the X:WP
> audience would just as soon dump Joxer - but, that won't happen.
It looks like neither of us has inside knowledge on that one.
> > You see Joxer reading in "Forget Me Not" and dismiss it as a plot >device.
I
> see it and ask the question "why?"
>
> The answer is that the Joxer-prop needed to be able to read so that he could
> advance the plot. The shell Gabby needed to be able to use some sort of prop
to
> have something to hang the action on so that the clips would be set-up and
that
> the episode could be paced. Nothing more. The pay-off came in the last
four
> minutes - the action leading up to that was, more or less, unimportant to
the
> episode's concept. Something about, what - forgiveness - IIRC.
You missed the entire point here. So what if it was a plot device, which of
course it was! The question is not "why did the writers give Joxer this
ability," but "why is Joxer now able to do this? What happened between the
two stories?" This is not a question of series continuity but of speculation.
I can see a Joxerphile writing a story about it; perhaps Joxer paid a Sophist
to teach him, or perhaps Gabrielle taught him while they were on the road
together. These are two examples (there are many other possibilities), and
they don't have to be supported by the series. This is the same thing as
answering a question such as "What if Xena and Gabrielle were caught up in the
struggle between Athens and Sparta;" that story has been written, I
understand. Just getting the creative juices flowing, that's all.
> Yep, you're mistaken. There is a wealth of both screen time and script time
> devoted to a "deeper" relationship (however you want to see it) To argue
> against this is rather futile. That you need proof to substantiate an
> arguement against the existance of *sub-text* is likewise futile. Watch
> ADITL, or OAAA, or ITADITH, or TQ, or D, or TDI or II, or FF&G, or of the
other
> "relationship" based episodes. That the "relationship" is open to
> interpretation is as undisputed (and masterfully created when the writing
staff
> pays attention) as is it's existance. There is no other single facet of the
> continued character development of Xena, over the last two seasons, that has
> had more screen or script time devoted to it than the continued ability of
her
> character to be able to love and to have that love returned. That is the
> single most viable sign of her journey toward redemption. The controlling
> central theme between Xena and Gabby is love. (sorry if this is off-topic to
> this NG - I'll have to read the FAQ again)
The relationship between Xena and Gabrielle is a fact, and one of the things
that I like most about the series. That it may not be a heterosexual
relationship is not supported by the series (I have seen all the episodes you
cited), and that is what I mean by "subtext." The love Xena and Gabrielle
have for each other is a fact, too, and I like it as well. It's just that I
interpret it as platonic, as I have seen between other straight women.
However, if throwaway lines (and Reneé O' Connor has expressly stated that her
famous line from ADITL was a throwaway) are open to interpretation, then
surely plot-driven devices are, too.
Incidentally, I have nothing against the "subtext" as I define it. I don't
agree with it, but I have read some alt-fiction and it's on a par with the
rest of the fan fiction I've seen: some excellent, most very good, some
atrocious. That's creativity in action. I direct mine toward Joxer material.
I don't know if you write any (I would be interested), but if you do I'm sure
you have your own direction.
I wasn't looking for proof of the "subtext." I simply wanted to hear
something better than "your're mistaken." You did a good job there, but I am
not mistaken. Neither are you, actually. For the most part we seem to be in
agreement here.
> Wrong - yet again. Xena and gabrielle do *consider* the Joxer-prop to be
> *pathetic*. Look at the way they treat him, listen to what they call him,
> watch the body language and the nuance of Xena and Gabrielle when the
> Joxer-prop is around. On TWO (maybe three) occasions they've refered to him
as
> *friend* or *family*, in vastly more episodes they haven't been so kind.
They
> keep him around to protect him as they don't want to him killed by his own
> stumbling - Xena does this to many of the minor characters who inhabit the
> Xenaverse. Without her protection the Joxer-prop would have been dead long
> ago. Look at how well he was able to take care of himself when they came
upon
> hin in KC. Pretty pathetic. That the lead characters need props in order to
> work their way through a story is the Joxer-prop's main function. He's a
story
> device - simple as that. Kind of like Superman's cape or the Bat-mobile.
Let's see: Joxer was outnumbered three-to-one in KC? Any ordinary person
(let alone Joxer) would have failed to take care of himself, so that argument
crashes of its own weight (I believe you call it "lame").
Again, we have a plot-driven device that inspires a question: how does Joxer
survive between appearances when he's not with Xena? Saying "because the
writers need him to be still alive so they can stick him in here" is only
begging the issue and answers nothing.
Your annoying references to "the Joxer-prop" also beg the issue. Many minor
characters are written into stories as plot devices, if you please. Since you
are in the business I consider this practice of yours to be unprofessional.
Your opinion of Ted Raimi, no matter how justified, does not excuse you. I'm
sorry, but I had to get that off my chest.
Again, there are plenty of ways Xena and Gabrielle could rid themselves of
Joxer and even manage not to hurt his feelings in the process. I consider
their relationship with him to be evolving, and it's only been inconsistent
writing that has obscured this. However pathetic they consider him, they do
*not* consider him hopeless; Xena would not have been able to say what she did
at the end of FHTBT otherwise. *And that cannot by any stretch of the
imagination be dismissed as a "plot-driven device."* That was a
character-development scene for both Xena and Joxer.
> Yes, I consider the Joxerphile position to be a valid one (I may not
understand
> it) - up to the point at which it becomes clearly reactionary. As soon as
> their points have been proved vacant, they should concede the point and move
on
> rather than belay the arguement by running it into the ground. Everyone has
> the absolute right to their own opinions on this NG - except for the
> sub-texters and a few others it seems - I've no problem with that. That
there
> are "organizations" running rampant on this NG that do not allow for the
smooth
> give and take of such opinions - I do have a problem with.
Well said. I knew I was justified in respecting you.
> Thanks, I was hoping to get beyond all of this so that I could talk about
the
> MANY things that I like about X:WP - rather than the one prop that I don't.
> I've never read any of your fan fiction (or much of anyone elses). I do
like
> the work of Melissa Good though, a friend gave me her stories to read on a
13
> hour-long plane trip that I had to take (I don't fly well, can't sleep).
I'll
> have to give you a read - what's your favorite or your best story - you
choose?
> I'll be happy to read it.
I'm honored. Since most of my stuff is Joxer-romantic in nature, try "The
Amazon Queen's New Clothes," one of my parodies. I think you will like it,
and the character you would rather not see does not appear, though he is the
butt of a few jokes. I'll follow up on Melissa Good, too. I like good
stories.
The story is at http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/6102/Clothes.html .
I'm looking forward to reading what you like about the series, too.
> Maybe we can all agree to dis-agree and get on with it.
This is where things appear to be heading from my perspective.
> But, after three complete seasons of the
> same-old crap - I don't see much hope for it. TPTB are satisfied with what
> they have done with this worn prop, I don't see them changing soon. If they
> weren't satisfied with him, they surely would have begun some sort of
character
> development for him long before now, they've had ample opportunity to try.
I wonder if they weren't too preoccupied with the "rift." Many of the
problems I perceive with the third season seem to be related to it.
Thanks, Kimber, and
Break a leg,
Phil
Going fishing with Xena
er...@heckman.net
I didn't get the original post, so I'm going to do a bit of
piggy-backing until it gets to my system...
On 07 May 1998 21:17:50 GMT, kim...@aol.com (Kim 729) wrote:
>Thanks Erin.
<grin> You're welcome.
Phil wrote:
>>Yes, my opinion, and not so humble, either. You hate the >character so much
>it is clear you don't take the time to see what's >behind him. And once again,
>you ignore the evidence, so you >have justified my decision not to recap my
>posts.
Has it ever occurred to you that the fact that there is nothing
redeemable about his character is what makes us hate him so much? That
the cardboard cut-out that he is is taking time away from developing
characters?
Kim wrote:
>Sorry Erin - didn't mean to get you into all of this)
<grin> That's ok. You summed up my feelings quite well.
Phil wrote:
>>Xena even gets bashed in the nose at the end, just as Joxer
>>has gotten the business end of Gabrielle's staff, though for >different
>reasons, of course. So you tell me why it is funny when >Gabrielle bashes Xena
>but not funny when she bashes Joxer.
Kim wrote:
>When Gabrielle *bashes* Xena at the end of ADITL it is as much a right of
>passage for her - a growth spurt for her character's development - and it got a
>laugh. When Gabrielle *bashes* the Joxer-prop it has more to do with a lame
>Joxer-prop intensive sub-plot (that whole unrequited love storyline) and as
>such detracts from the story itself and the shows overall concept - but, it is
>funny and it gets a laugh.
Sometimes, anyway. The big difference between the two is, IMHO, when
Gabrielle whacks Xena with her staff, it is more of a triumph (well,
sorta for her, anyway). At no time do we look at Xena and think,
"Wow, how pathetic." But that is exactly what we think when we see
Gabrielle whack Joxer. The other big difference is that Gabrielle has
whacked Xena *once*. Not over and over again to milk a joke.
Phil wrote:
>> There is, in fact, no basis for "subtext" in the show, either.
I think someone needs to be sent the "Evidence and Interviews" section
of the Subtext FAQ... Which is also on the web at
http://www.heckman.net/xena/subtext.htm (or .html, I can never
remember). Until you've actually read those interviews, which confirm
the purposeful adding of subtext to episodes, you have no informed
opinion.
Kim wrote:
>The controlling
>central theme between Xena and Gabby is love. (sorry if this is off-topic to
>this NG - I'll have to read the FAQ again)
Actually, subtext discussions are very much on topic in this
newsgroup... Some people get upset, but screw 'em. ;)
Phil wrote:
>You would have
>let him wander off forever at the >end of "For Him the Bell Tolls," whereas
>Xena actually >encouraged him. I'll bet that was your least favorite episode
>>of the series, or close to it.
Uh, wrong. "The Giant Killer" was my least favorite episode... "For
Him the Bell Tolls" I actually *liked*, because for a good amount of
time we got to see a *competent* Joxer, what Joxer could be if the
writers cared enough to make him interesting.
Kim wrote:
>He's a story
>device - simple as that. Kind of like Superman's cape or the Bat-mobile.
He actually reminds me of one of those inflatable clown dolls that you
hit, and it falls down and bounces back up again.
Phil wrote:
>>Here's your moment of truth, Erin. No bait, no hook. I consider >the
>Joxerphobe position to be valid, even though I disagree with >it. Do you
>consider the Joxerphile position to be valid, even >though you disagree with
>it?
Of course I do! Just ask Marty, or Dan, or Doug, or any number of
Joxerphiles with whom I've been able to forge understandings. I may
argue against certain points, and present my own point of view, but
that's not the same as invalidating someone's opinion (how *is* that
accomplished, exactly?).
Kim wrote:
>Sorry again Erin. That you seem to have been lumped in with me - when in fact
>it should be the other way round as you've been posting here longer than I
>have. Maybe we can all agree to dis-agree and get on with it.
<grin> Believe me, it is *my* honor. I certainly hope we can all do
that... not that I'm going to stop posting my opinions on Joxer, mind
you, but perhaps everyone involved could take criticisms and
counter-criticisms less personally.
Kim wrote:
> As with any production decision from changing Gabby's BGSB (can it get any
>smaller?)
I'd love to find out! :)
Erin
--
*email: er...@heckman.net
er...@heckman.net
On Thu, 07 May 1998 19:43:06 GMT, broa...@tvi.cc.nm.us wrote:
>I did not find Erin to be civil, judging by her reply to my post. Actually, I
>respect Kimber's position, and so putting Erin in the same category was a
>compliment. In retrospect, putting them together was probably unfair to
>Kimber, IMO.
Wow, makes me wonder what I've done to earn *these* laurels. Gee, and
to think I haven't even called anyone an "idiot" in months... Hey,
this is the nicest I've ever been. :)
Erin
--
*email: er...@heckman.net
Paul Hilling
I was going to leave this one alone. Until I got about 1/4 of the way down
::sigh::
>broa...@tvi.cc.nm.us wrote...
>Is Joxer stupid? No, he is not. He is quite capable of learning, thank
>you; contrast his difficulty reading Gabrielle's scroll in "The Quill Is
>Mightier" with his ease in "King Con."
Oh Wow. Ok then contrast this. Go and watch "Callisto" and "GJWTHF" and tell
me how many times J**** falls over or gets hit by something whilst he's not
fighting. Now go and watch a couple of S2-S3 episodes in which he's been. In
KOA, he got hit by almost everyone and everything going. In QIM very similar
situations occurred. In BTDT, he got hit several times by the horseshoe. This
to me does not indicate a person with adequate skills, and he's been getting
worse not better.
>I speculate that the main reason Joxer inspires such distaste in many >people
is that they indeed recognize him as a type of person they have >seen in their
lives and that they despise in real life as a loser. >Having been picked on
like that, all I can say is: people who express >such contempt are the real
losers.
Well that got us somewhere didn't it. They dislike him cos they think he's a
loser and you think that they must be losers.
>I'm calling your bluff. I don't think there are that many of you. You >seem
to be outnumbered (after I delete the multiple posts) even on this >newsgroup.
After being brow beaten by the rest of the JS's is it any wonder.
I would be more active in this mess but my access is a little hap hazard at
the moment, hence this 3 day late post (It'll be even later when I get around
to actually posting it).
Paul Hilling
--
(E-mail)p.hi...@bigfoot.com (WWW)http://freespace.virgin.net/p.hilling/
(IRC) Roc-A-Roo (ICQ) 3712941
[ Alt.Tv.Xena FAQ http://freespace.virgin.net/p.hilling/atx-faq.htm ]
[ Alt.Tv.Xena Central http://www.lavhouse.com/atxcentral_ontheweb/ ]
Despite the fact that Paul's computer recently broke down. No computers
were harmed during the creation of this post, however several billion
electrons were abused to ensure its safe delivery.
Paul Hilling
THIS IS NOT A FLAME POST <g>
>GGruschow wrote...
>>And it's posts like yours, Kimber and Erin (and a few others I've seen),
>>that have caused the membership of the Joxer Shields to grow. You are
>>more effective than any recruiting drive.
>Point of clarification: The majority of the JS like Erin. We find her >posts
interesting, thought provoking, sometimes irritating, but always, >ALWAYS
civil. It is unfair to lump her into the same category as Kimber. >If just 3
things about The Mighty One were to change, Erin probably >would like him as
much as any other character on the show.
Well I'm not sure about Erin, but for me the 3 things are.
1. That J**** be used more sparingly, and properly (i.e. not thrown into
the episode for the hell of it like in FMN.)
2. That he stops being a klutz.
3. That he gets over this thing for Gabrielle, whose heart is with Xena,
or at least recognises that Xena is the love in her life not him.
4. That he actually grows as a character doesn't go backwards. [1]
Paul Hilling
--
(E-mail)p.hi...@bigfoot.com (WWW)http://freespace.virgin.net/p.hilling/
(IRC) Roc-A-Roo (ICQ) 3712941
[ Alt.Tv.Xena FAQ http://freespace.virgin.net/p.hilling/atx-faq.htm ]
[ Alt.Tv.Xena Central http://www.lavhouse.com/atxcentral_ontheweb/ ]
Despite the fact that Paul's computer recently broke down. No computers
were harmed during the creation of this post, however several billion
electrons were abused to ensure its safe delivery.
[1] So I can't count, shoot me. <g>
Paul Hilling
>broa...@tvi.cc.nm.us wrote...
>>er...@heckman.net (Erin) wrote:
[snip]
>>If you're not going to present evidence, then might I suggest you don't
>>waste your time mentioning it? It gets you nowhere.
>
>So you ignore the evidence presented just before that...nice try.
And how precisely are Erin and the rest of us here on ATX supposed to read
e-mails on a closed e-mail list? Neither Erin nor me, are on the Teddites
list or the J/G Romantics list.
Erin's point is valid.
>>>In summary, he's not merely a clumsy oaf.
>>In *your* humble opinion. IMHO, he is.
>Yes, my opinion, and not so humble, either.
And in *MY* opinion HE IS A HUGE GREAT OAF. and that's not humble either.
>You hate the character so much it is clear you don't take the time to see
>what's behind him.
I see all to well what's behind him. And I dislike what TPTB have done to
him. He's now an overused stooge. And *I* am sick of him.
>And once again, you ignore the evidence,
What evidence? The episodes in which he's appeared on Xena. For *every* good
thing you can point out I can point out a bad point.
>so you have justified my decision not to recap my posts.
Made to a private e-mail list to which the vast majority of posters do not
have access.
>But I've noticed an inconsistency where comedy is involved. When Xena or
>Gabrielle are involved in physical comedy it seems to be more >acceptable.
The eel scene in "A Day in the Life" is a good example of >slapstick, and yet
this episode is regarded by most Xenites as the best >ever done. It's full of
comedy from the frying pan business to the >toilet parchment jokes, and
frankly most Joxer comedy is on the same >level.
But Xena and Gabrielle, don't go around, falling down, getting hit by objusts.
And the 'toilet humour' is on a much higher level than J****'s being hit by a
vase or tripping over a rock.
>Xena even gets bashed in the nose at the end, just as Joxer has gotten >the
business end of Gabrielle's staff, though for different reasons, of >course.
So you tell me why it is funny when Gabrielle bashes Xena
>but not funny when she bashes Joxer.
You obviously didn't understand the premise behind the episode. The episode
was the story of 1 day in Xena's life. During which there was a Competition
for Gabrielle to attempt to hit Xena. Which she managed at the end when Xena
wasn't expecting it.
DATA 1001
Erin wrote:
>not that I'm going to stop posting my opinions on Joxer, mind
>you, but perhaps everyone involved could take criticisms
>and counter-criticisms less personally.
I agree that that is a step in the right direction, but I think that everyone
who is passionate about X:WP (in whatever way) takes criticism of their
viewpoint personally, to some degree. [1]
It's the duty of a responsible poster, IMHO, to keep that tiny tidbit of
information in the corner of their mind at all times, so that it may temper
some of the more heated discussions.
Data
[1] For example, it's not just Joxer-philes that take criticism of their hero
personally -- do you recall the responses I was getting when I mentioned a
little something about how I didn't feel that Gabrielle was of *crucial*
importance to the show? I do. <g> It was only through concerted efforts on my
part (and those of the people involved, of course) that we were able to keep
the whole thing from mushrooming into armageddon. One needs to see that we are
perhaps more alike, despite our differing views, than we sometimes think we
are. ;~)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-=Member, Joxer Shields!=-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"My sword is always ready to pleasure you, my lady."
- Joxer the Mighty, 'For Him the Bell Tolls'
Dan Sullivan
Erin wrote
>
>Uh, wrong. "The Giant Killer" was my least favorite episode... "For
>Him the Bell Tolls" I actually *liked*, because for a good amount of
>time we got to see a *competent* Joxer, what Joxer could be if the
>writers cared enough to make him interesting.
Wow, Erin, this surprises me. As you might have guessed, this is probably my
favorite episode, not because Joxer took up so much screen time, but because
it was the best-written episode about my favorite character. I liked it not
necessarily because Joxer was a hero, but because it showed his heart; his
inner self; what he is capable of. We got to see that beneath that squeaky
dull armor was bright vivid clothes. It's just of matter of breaking free of
that armor; that is one of his quests.
My least favorite episode was "The Titans". Notice something?
-Dan, the Joxer Shields man
"Its golden finishes but a dim glimmer after the shimmering radiance of your
cream-like skin."
Teresita Mercado
Giant Killer is one of my favorite episodes. My favorite line was when
David said, "The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want..."
I also liked the line in Altared States when we heard a deep voice say,
"Hold, Anteus! Your faith is enough."
Finally, the way they made that baby glow at the end of Solstice Carol
was pretty trippy.
Teresita
Bob & Gail Futoran
Ahh, Data, some of us (well, me) disagreed with you respectfully! I don't
recall attacking you personally, and if I had I would want you to point it
out. Actually your "Xena without Gabby" post(s) made me think about their
relationship more than I would have otherwise, which is what I like about
the _civilized_ discussions[2] on this ng. <g>
Gail
Xena Rules with Gabby
Rule #1: Run
[2] I'm on a mission to change subject lines - if any atxer doesn't like
it, feel free to change them back!
DATA 1001 <data...@aol.com> wrote
[snippsies]
Golightly
Oh man, when that baby glowed I covered my face...thought it was
going to spit up green and turn its head around right there!!
Scaaaaaary!! Couldn't sleep for a whole week after I saw
that--kept thinking my bed was going to float in the air. Hades,
you never know!! I even hid all the crucifixes just in case!!
:-0 Golightly
XenaArtMkr
>Paul Hilling wrote:
Some snipping here\\\\\\\\\\\
>You obviously didn't understand the premise behind the episode. The
>episode<BR>
>was the story of 1 day in Xena's life. During which there was a
>Competition<BR>
>for Gabrielle to attempt to hit Xena. Which she managed at the end when
>Xena<BR>
>wasn't expecting it.<BR>
><BR>
>Paul Hilling<BR>
To me that whole thing of Gabrielle trying to take Xena by surprise was right
out of "The Pink Panther"..... Remember Clousou's house boy Kato?
XAM
Marty Pfeiffer
In article <199805092228...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
xenaa...@aol.com (XenaArtMkr) wrote:
>
> To me that whole thing of Gabrielle trying to take Xena by surprise was right
> out of "The Pink Panther"..... Remember Clousou's house boy Kato?
Hey! That's a good connection! I can't wait to see this ep. (That's right,
the best Xena ep. of *all* time--and Mr. Pfeiffer hasn't seen it :-( )
Face
Lately, you've been a bit defensive on Kimber, apparently more because of her
positions than her overwhelming likability. But you've been as nice as ever.
How Broadway ended up with such deep respect from Kimber, I don't know.
--
Face (Dan Rudolph) <rudolph...@mcleod.net>
The Dark Avenger of Netiquette
President, Watcher Comics <ftp://ftp.eyrie.org/pub/racc/watcher/>
Overzealous Member of the Joxer Shields
Teresita Mercado
Gee, Paul, you expressed your disapproval of the Joxer character without
resorting to calling Joxer Shields stupid or zealots or chickens**t or
gonadally challenged. Rational discourse! This is the way ATX is
supposed to be.
Teresita
Katilist
XenaArtmkr wrote:
> To me that whole thing of Gabrielle trying to take Xena by surprise was right
> out of "The Pink Panther"..... Remember Clousou's house boy Kato?
Marty's reply:
>Hey! That's a good connection! I can't wait to see this ep. >(That's right,
>the best Xena ep. of *all* time--and Mr. Pfeiffer hasn't seen it >:-( )
I too noticed the connection, but I figured this was old news to everyone
here. BTW, don't feel bad, Marty, I haven't seen it either. The only reason I
know what happened is because I got a copy of the script.
Kat >^^<
"If your God is not in your heart, then you haven't found God."
Cerberus
Paul Hilling wrote in message
<6j2gii$lr9$2...@nclient5-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>
>Well I'm not sure about Erin, but for me the 3 things are.
>
[snip]
>4. That he actually grows as a character doesn't go backwards.
Four! the *four* things are...
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. :-)
---
Your Friendly Neighborhood Hellhound
Remove the "bloody.vikings." yadda, yadda, yadda...
GGruschow
In article <6j2gif$lr9$2...@nclient5-gui.server.virgin.net>, "Paul Hilling"
<p.hi...@bigfoot.com> writes:
>In BTDT, he got hit several times by the horseshoe. This
>to me does not indicate a person with adequate skills, and he's been getting
>worse not better.
Well, you cant exactly count BTDT. After all its a replay of that day, so
Joxer is *always* going to get beaned by those horseshoes, untill the end when
he bonked by a mallet. I guess you cant screw Fate after all. I do agree about
Joxer getting accidently bashed by everybody in the big fight during KOA. They
should have just kept him knocked out after he got hit with that urn.
Paul Hilling
>Marty Pfeiffer wrote...
>>xenaa...@aol.com (XenaArtMkr) wrote:
>>To me that whole thing of Gabrielle trying to take Xena by surprise was
>>right out of "The Pink Panther"..... Remember Clousou's house boy Kato?
>Hey! That's a good connection! I can't wait to see this ep. (That's >right,
the best Xena ep. of *all* time--and Mr. Pfeiffer hasn't seen it >:-( )
It's worth the wait, for the bathtub scene alone. ::smirk::
Paul Hilling
**Please watch the attribution, this is a combo post.**
>er...@heckman.net wrote...
>>Phil wrote:
>>There is, in fact, no basis for "subtext" in the show, either.
>I think someone needs to be sent the "Evidence and Interviews" section
>of the Subtext FAQ... Which is also on the web at
>http://www.heckman.net/xena/subtext.htm (or .html, I can never
>remember). Until you've actually read those interviews, which confirm
>the purposeful adding of subtext to episodes, you have no informed
>opinion.
>>Kim wrote:
>>The controlling central theme between Xena and Gabby is love. (sorry if
>>this is off-topic to this NG - I'll have to read the FAQ again)
>Actually, subtext discussions are very much on topic in this
>newsgroup... Some people get upset, but screw 'em. ;)
LOL @ Erin <g>
These days I think it comes down to no spams and definitely no binaries.
Practically anything else goes <g> And often does ::Brewhahahahah::
>>Kim wrote:
>>As with any production decision from changing Gabby's BGSB (can it get >>any
smaller?)
>I'd love to find out! :)
I'd love to help Reneé put it on <g>
Paul Hilling
>broa...@tvi.cc.nm.us wrote...
>>kim...@aol.com (Kim 729) wrote...
>>>In reply to Phil's post of 15:27 on 5/7/98
>Joxer is capable of loving, being hurt, considering others, and learning
>from his mistakes.
This is the one I have a problem with. Whilst I admit he's caring, and loves
Gabrielle. From what I've seen he's not learnt from his mistakes. One of his
many faults is that he's a awful warrior. But does he learn? Does he fight
better? Nope. Even though surely either Xena or Gabrielle would teach him at
least some skills.
>>Yep, you're mistaken. There is a wealth of both screen time and script
>>time devoted to a "deeper" relationship (however you want to see it) To
>>argue against this is rather futile. That you need proof to substantiate
>>an argument against the existence of *sub-text* is likewise futile.
>>Watch ADITL, or OAAA, or ITADITH, or TQ, or D, or TDI or II, or FF&G, or
>>of the other "relationship" based episodes. That the "relationship" is
>>open to interpretation is as undisputed (and masterfully created when >>the
writing staff pays attention) as is it's existence. There is no >>other
single facet of the continued character development of Xena, over >>the last
two seasons, that has had more screen or script time devoted to >>it than the
continued ability of her character to be able to love and to >>have that love
returned. That is the single most viable sign of her >>journey toward
redemption. The controlling central theme between Xena >>and Gabby is love.
(sorry if this is off-topic to this NG - I'll have to >>read the FAQ again)
>The relationship between Xena and Gabrielle is a fact, and one of the >things
that I like most about the series. That it may not be a >heterosexual
relationship is not supported by the series (I have seen all >the episodes you
cited), and that is what I mean by "subtext." The love >Xena and Gabrielle
have for each other is a fact, too, and I like it as >well. It's just that I
interpret it as platonic, as I have seen between >other straight women.
This comes down to swings and roundabouts again. You see a platonic
relationship. I see something greater.
>However, if throwaway lines (and Reneé O' Connor has expressly stated >that
her famous line from ADITL was a throwaway) are open to >interpretation, then
surely plot-driven devices are, too.
There is more in ADITL than just the 'throwaway line'. There's the "Can we
cook with your juices?" there's also the added sound effect when Gabrielle
hauls herself to her feet using Xena's breast. Whilst all this is open to
interpretation. When you add it all up you do come up with a well rounded
theory.
>>Wrong - yet again. Xena and gabrielle do *consider* the Joxer-prop to >>be
*pathetic*. Look at the way they treat him, listen to what they >>call him,
watch the body language and the nuance of Xena and Gabrielle >>when the
Joxer-prop is around. On TWO (maybe three) occasions they've >>refereed to
him as *friend* or *family*, in vastly more episodes they >>haven't been so
kind. They keep him around to protect him as they don't >>want to him killed
by his own stumbling - Xena does this to many of the >>minor characters who
inhabit the Xenaverse. Without her protection the >>Joxer-prop would have
been dead long ago. Look at how well he was able >>to take care of himself
when they came upon him in KC. Pretty pathetic. >>That the lead characters
need props in order to work their way through a >>story is the Joxer-prop's
main function. He's a story device - simple >>as that. Kind of like
Superman's cape or the Bat-mobile.
>Let's see: Joxer was outnumbered three-to-one in KC? Any ordinary person
>(let alone Joxer) would have failed to take care of himself, so that
>argument crashes of its own weight (I believe you call it "lame").
But the point is, that it could have been anyone in that episode. Even
Gabrielle or a person in the street, and it wouldn't have made much difference
to the episode.
>Again, there are plenty of ways Xena and Gabrielle could rid themselves >of
Joxer and even manage not to hurt his feelings in the process. I >consider
their relationship with him to be evolving, and it's only been >inconsistent
writing that has obscured this. However pathetic they >consider him, they do
*not* consider him hopeless; Xena would not have >been able to say what she
did at the end of FHTBT otherwise. *And that >cannot by any stretch of the
imagination be dismissed as a "plot-driven >device."* That was a
character-development scene for both Xena and >Joxer.
As is so often the case, it was one step forward and two steps back. The next
time we see him in CoE. He's back to his "I'm a warrior" delusion. BTDT, was
better. But immediately afterwards we have the awful KOA. So far, I have yet
to see this 'character' development take place.
>I'm honored. Since most of my stuff is Joxer-romantic in nature, try >"The
Amazon Queen's New Clothes," one of my parodies. I think you will >like it,
and the character you would rather not see does not appear, >though he is the
butt of a few jokes. I'll follow up on Melissa Good, >too. I like good
stories.
>The story is at http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Alley/6102/Clothes.html
I'll look at this when I next log on.
>>But, after three complete seasons of the same-old crap - I don't see >>much
hope for it. TPTB are satisfied with what they have done with this >>worn
prop, I don't see them changing soon. If they weren't satisfied >>with him,
they surely would have begun some sort of character >>development for him long
before now, they've had ample opportunity to >>try.
>I wonder if they weren't too preoccupied with the "rift." Many of the
>problems I perceive with the third season seem to be related to it.
Whilst most of the problems are related to the "Rift Argh", (I think the only
bit I really didn't like was the start of Bitter Suite). That shouldn't mean
the J**** (if he's a character) should be left out in the cold. Whilst he was
used well in a couple of episodes (BS, and BTDT to a certain extent) he was
badly used in more of them. KOA, TQIM, FMN...
The main problem that I have is that left to it's own devices, with no growth
in his character next season, those 13 episodes are going to seem awfully
long. If he *has* to be in 13 episode I wish they do *something* with him,
other than have him fall over.
There is only so much slapstick that you can do with him.
Sally Moffat
Paul Hilling wrote:
> >>Kim wrote:
> >>As with any production decision from changing Gabby's BGSB (can it get >>any
> smaller?)
>
> >I'd love to find out! :)
>
> I'd love to help Reneé put it on <g>
>
> Paul Hilling
> --
I'd love to help Renee take it off! <eg>
er...@heckman.net
>Well I'm not sure about Erin, but for me the 3 things are.
>
>1. That J**** be used more sparingly, and properly (i.e. not thrown into
> the episode for the hell of it like in FMN.)
>2. That he stops being a klutz.
>3. That he gets over this thing for Gabrielle, whose heart is with Xena,
> or at least recognises that Xena is the love in her life not him.
>4. That he actually grows as a character doesn't go backwards. [1]
At the risk of sending a "me too" post, that's exactly right, Paul!
Unfortunately, TPTB seem to think that those are the most important
parts of the character.
Erin[2]
[1] NMF
[2] No offense to Data; I started using footnotes when I started
posting in alt.tech-support.recovery
--
*email: er...@heckman.net
er...@heckman.net
On Thu, 07 May 1998 19:27:35 GMT, broa...@tvi.cc.nm.us wrote:
>It is reasonable to assume she didn't realize
>she'd been raped until she discovered she was pregnant, but her behavior at
>the end of "The Deliverer" belies this.
What behavior was this? Her actions and words at the end of TD were
because she had killed, and lost her blood innocence. Not because she
knew that she was raped by Dahak. The news about the pregnancy came
as a complete surprise to her.
>Besides, as
>you should
>know, it is a violation of netiquette to post some 20-30 pages of recaps,
>especially since I'd have to recreate it all from hard copies.
If you truly have 20-30 pages of "Joxer evidence", then perhaps the
best way to present it would be in ZIP format in
alt.binaries.multimedia.xena-herc or recapped on a web page that
everyone has access to. That way, your evidence can be evaluated
freely, without resorting to saying, "I have great evidence...I won't
post it here, but trust me, it's really great!"
>I firmly
>believe you would either ignore it all, as you have already demonstrated,
Ah, you're missing the difference between ignoring something, and
dismissing it as groundless and/or not solid (objective) evidence. I
do the latter, not the former.
>Yes, my opinion, and not so humble, either. You hate the character so much
>it is clear you don't take the time to see what's behind him. And once again,
>you ignore the evidence, so you have justified my decision not to recap my
>posts.
Uh huh. If that's representative of the "evidence" you have, then
perhaps you are justified in not wasting your time. All you have
presented thus far is subjective "evidence", which pretty much only
people who have on those "Joxer goggles" see as character development.
Also, I do not hate the character; I think the character has a lot of
potential. I just think he is ill-used.
>But I've noticed an inconsistency where comedy is involved. When Xena or
>Gabrielle are involved in physical comedy it seems to be more acceptable. The
>eel scene in "A Day in the Life" is a good example of slapstick, and yet this
>episode is regarded by most Xenites as the best ever done.
Different people have different tastes in comedy. I find the comedy
in ADITL, from the eel jokes to Gabrielle getting hit by the flying
parchment to be hilarious, particularly compared to the eye-poking,
3-stooges Joxer comedy. Why? Because it's non-representative, and
it's fresh. Gabrielle does not, in every episode, get hit by a flying
parchment (just in two, ADITL, and FFG). That makes it fresh comedy.
Joxer, OTOH, in practically *every* episode, gets hit in the head (or
some part of his body). That makes it tiresome.
Gabrielle is not a character that is *mainly* slapstick. Joxer is.
>So you tell me why it is funny when Gabrielle bashes Xena
>but not funny when she bashes Joxer.
See above. That Xena (or Gabrielle) get "bashed" in that manner is
the abberation, rather than the rule.
>There is, in fact, no basis for
>"subtext" in the show, either. Your lower generosity implies lower
>creativity, confirmed by what I read in your own posts. I'm sure you'll say
>I'm mistaken, but you'll have to do better than that.
I don't quite understand your point. Are you saying that there is no
PTB driven subtext?
>I'll bet that was your least favorite episode
>of the series, or close to it.
As I said elsewhere, it was not.
>You dismiss pro-Joxer arguments all too readily.
And you would have me say, "Amen, I have seen the light!" I suppose?
Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I haven't weighed your
arguments and examples; it just means they don't prove a darn thing to
me.
<snip redundant arguments>
Erin
--
*email: er...@heckman.net
er...@heckman.net
>It's worth the wait, for the bathtub scene alone. ::smirk::
Xena: Are you sitting on the soap?
Gabrielle: I wondered what that was.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! That was such a great episode!
Erin
--
*email: er...@heckman.net
S L Green
On Tue, 12 May 1998 22:38:37 GMT, er...@heckman.net posted this
Message-ID <3558ab6...@nntp.cts.com> in alt.tv.xena:
>On Thu, 07 May 1998 19:27:35 GMT, broa...@tvi.cc.nm.us wrote:
>
>>Besides, as you should know, it is a violation of netiquette to post some 20-30 pages of recaps,
>>especially since I'd have to recreate it all from hard copies.
>
>If you truly have 20-30 pages of "Joxer evidence", then perhaps the
>best way to present it would be in ZIP format in
>alt.binaries.multimedia.xena-herc or recapped on a web page that
>everyone has access to. That way, your evidence can be evaluated
>freely, without resorting to saying, "I have great evidence...I won't
>post it here, but trust me, it's really great!"
And if they do it on a web site, they can add a link to it by going to
the ATX Central "Links Directory" web site at:
http://www.lavhouse.com/atxcentral_ontheweb/
There is a link to whole page full of a list of links just for Joxerites
there. And a whole page dedicated just to the sole purpose of entering
your URL via an online form. The info is then updated at regular
intervals and added to the main pages. We are soon to do another
update, too.<g> You are most welcome to place the link there as well as
placing it here in the ng.
--
Sylvia,
ATX Central SysOp - S.M./Layout Editor
Check it out at http://www.lavhouse.com/atxcentral_ontheweb/
Teresita Mercado
I can't speak for the others here on ATX, Data, but I happen to find the
use of footnotes to be obnoxious [1].
That's why I am starting a new sub-group here on ATX. It's called the
"FAQ Fanatics Favoring Formally Forbidding Footnotes", or FFFFFF.
Through our efforts, sir, we shall endeavor to relegate your ridiculous
activities to a mere footnote [2] in the annals of alt.tv.xena.
Teresita
FFFFFF Founder and Fundraiser.
[1] We also despise hypocrites.
[2] Ha ha. Get it?
DATA 1001
Erin writes:
>Erin[2]
>
>[2] No offense to Data; I started using footnotes
>when I started posting in alt.tech-support.recovery
::big smile::
Heh heh... none taken, I assure you! <g>
I've never claimed to be the first one to use them, or even the first in this
newsgroup - it was BeanSong and a few other scholars who post here (I don't
recall which ones, exactly - there are so many! <g>), who started bringing them
back just a few months ago, and I then discovered how handy they were for
providing explanations or more in-depth clarification of a specific point,
without making the sentence or paragraph any longer than it already was. [1]
Now, of course, I shall not rest until I have exposed the entire 'Net community
to the wonders and magnificence of their simple beauty and austere logic!! <eg>
Data
[1] Which, as you can see, is often a concern in my posts. ;~)
Paul Hilling
>Teresita Mercado wrote...
I'm trying. Very trying <g>
Hi again Teresita. Nice to see you on IRC the other night.
Paul Hilling
>Sally Moffat wrote...
>>Paul Hilling wrote...
>>>Kim wrote:
>>>As with any production decision from changing Gabby's BGSB (can it get
>>>any smaller?) I'd love to find out! :)
>>I'd love to help Reneé put it on <g>
>I'd love to help Renee take it off! <eg>
Photo's!! I want photo's <eg>
Just kidding the thought alone is enough to make me go ::Drool, drool <thud>::
Heck I'd help her do that as well. I had hopes in FF&G for a minute there.
Paul Hilling
>GGruschow wrote...
>>"Paul Hilling" <p.hi...@bigfoot.com> writes:
>>In BTDT, he got hit several times by the horseshoe. This to me does not
>>indicate a person with adequate skills, and he's been getting worse not
>>better.
>Well, you cant exactly count BTDT. After all its a replay of that day, so
>Joxer is *always* going to get beaned by those horseshoes, until the end
>when he bonked by a mallet. I guess you cant screw Fate after all.
Well there was also the 'trip' on the way into the town square. And the
numerous times he got egg on his face. I'm actually surprised that he didn't
fall off the top of the stairs in BTDT.
>I do agree about Joxer getting accidentally bashed by everybody in the big
>fight during KOA. They should have just kept him knocked out after he got
>hit with that urn.
Greg? Are you agreeing with me? <g>
One thing I have to bring up. I got hold of the current issue of Sci-Fi
Entertainment Magazine (Jun 98). It's got a 6 page article on Xena and a
smallish interview with Ted, and on page 72 it says
<quote>
"But the heart and soul of the character was created by R J Stewart, who
decided that Xena needed a character who was a great fighter in his own mind
but who really couldn't fight, which is a very funny concept, and something
that is able to be sustainable through many episodes.
*******The important part*******
If he were just to be a goofball, first there'd be no reason for him to be
there and then it'd be sort of one long Jim Carey gag, which would be funny
for about 5 minutes then I think you wouldn't really care about him any more."
********************************
</quote>
Note the highlighted paragraph. Doesn't this seem to anyone to be very
prophetic? Guess they didn't listen to RJ huh? Or even to Ted who said the
above.
I have no problem with the first paragraph, hell that's the J**** we see in
"Callisto" and "GJWTHF". But the second part seems to say it all. I stopped
caring about him, when he did turn into a goofball.
Erin
>We got to see that beneath that squeaky
>dull armor was bright vivid clothes. It's just of matter of breaking free of
>that armor; that is one of his quests.
He doesn't seem to be doing very well... In both FHTBT and KoA he
managed to get loose of the armor, just to be back in it again next
ep. It seems to be a metaphor for his general character development,
I think.
>My least favorite episode was "The Titans". Notice something?
<grin> Uh, tall guys? :)
Erin
--
*web: http://www.heckman.net/erin
*email: er...@heckman.net
Erin
On Sat, 09 May 1998 19:32:44 -0600, Face <rudolph...@mcleod.net>
wrote:
>Lately, you've been a bit defensive on Kimber, apparently more because of her
>positions than her overwhelming likability. But you've been as nice as ever.
Yeah, people are going to be disappointed to find out that this is as
nice as I ever get. :)
Dan Sullivan
Erin wrote
>
>He doesn't seem to be doing very well... In both FHTBT and KoA he
>managed to get loose of the armor, just to be back in it again next
>ep. It seems to be a metaphor for his general character development,
>I think.
Well, I don't really consider KoA to count. To me, his black leather outfit
was simply a plot device so that Jox and Jett would look identical for WPT
kind of fun (Kimber's going to love me for that statement {]-)). There was
really no practical reason for him to change outfits. If they used another
actor for Jett, Joxer would have kept his same old armor.
>>My least favorite episode was "The Titans". Notice something?
>
><grin> Uh, tall guys? :)
The bigger they are, the suckier the episode. <g>
-Dan
"Its golden finishes but a dim glimmer after the shimmering radiance of your
cream-like skin."
Erin
>Well, I don't really consider KoA to count. To me, his black leather outfit
>was simply a plot device so that Jox and Jett would look identical for WPT
>kind of fun (Kimber's going to love me for that statement {]-)).
Joxer used as a plot device?!? No way! :)
Kim 729
In reply to Dan's post of 09:06 on 5/14/98
>Well, I don't really consider KoA to count. To me, his black >leather outfit
was simply a plot device so that Jox and Jett would >look identical for WPT
kind of fun (Kimber's going to love me for >that statement {]-)).
Oh yeah Dan, you're learning. ;-) That's pretty much the way a plot device
works.
>There was really no practical reason for him to change outfits. If >they used
another actor for Jett, Joxer would have kept his same >old armor.
Now, if you look very carefully, you'll notice that there is *really no
practical reason* to use the Joxer-prop in 7 out of 10 scenes in which he
appears. He's used as a prop - a simple plot device - and not a character.
:-) (see I can so use these little emoticon thingys) And, if they'd used
another actor to play Jett - the concept goes out the window (so to speak).
As always,
Kimber
"Look, your future is less in your palm than in your own two hands. It's what
you make of it." - Xena - Tsunami
(I learned to write all right, just didn't learn to spell very well)
GGruschow
>
>>>My least favorite episode was "The Titans". Notice something?
>>
>><grin> Uh, tall guys? :)
>
>The bigger they are, the suckier the episode. <g>
>
>
>-Dan
>
>
So next seasons all midget episode should be a blockbuster then.
Paul Hilling
>er...@heckman.net wrote...
>>"Paul Hilling" <p.hi...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>Well I'm not sure about Erin, but for me the 3 things are.
>>
>>1. That J**** be used more sparingly, and properly (i.e. not thrown into
>> the episode for the hell of it like in FMN.)
>>2. That he stops being a klutz.
>>3. That he gets over this thing for Gabrielle, whose heart is with Xena,
>> or at least recognises that Xena is the love in her life not him.
>>4. That he actually grows as a character doesn't go backwards. [1]
>
>At the risk of sending a "me too" post, that's exactly right, Paul!
<g>
>Unfortunately, TPTB seem to think that those are the most important
>parts of the character.
::sigh::
>Erin[2]
>[1] NMF
NMF?