HIGHLA-L Digest - 2 Jul 2003 to 3 Jul 2003 - Special issue (#2003-131)
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Thu, 3 Jul 2003 16:47:18 -0400
There are 14 messages totalling 1156 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. Immies and finances
2. I would love Stan/Richie
3. Highlander in the news (6)
4. Swords was Re: HL In The News
5. finances
6. Immortal finances (2)
7. Ways dying can make you money
8. Disability
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 00:18:06 -0400
From: Loreal <llavigna@nycap.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Immies and finances
Hey guys, I accidentally blocked someone by mistake, not sure whom =
though! Reason I did was only cause I saw the single word "finances" in =
a subject line and never gave it a thought! If someone gets an error =
message that my email address has blocked them, please email me offlist =
at the following addy!
deedee_McCall@yahoo.com
Sincerely,
Loreal
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 00:47:16 EDT
From: Highlandmg@aol.com
Subject: I would love Stan/Richie
Hi
I have always loved the character Richie Ryan in the Highlander series. I
don't believe there is a script yet. I am looking forward to seeing Highlander 5.
I would love to see Richie (Played by Stan) in flashback. We all saw some
wonderful episodes in Highlander with flashbacks I would really loved to see him
in some kind of role in the new movie. We all never believed we would see
Methos or Jim in Endgame but we did. I not sure if writing TPTB will work but
maybe we can take a chance and have Richie/Stan in the movie. I am looking forward
to it. With the rumors of Adrian might be in it. I would really love to see
his beloved sidekick show up. All it takes is a stamp and note asking for
Richie to be put in the script. thanks here are addys below. Help me get my
favorite character in the new movie.
Mary
Miramax Film Corp
7966 Beverly Blvd
Los Angeles Ca 90048-4511
Miramax Film Corp
8439 W Sunset Blvd
West Hollywood, Ca
90069-1921
Davis/Panzer Productions
8500 Melrose Ave
West Hollywood, Ca 90069
Mary
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 09:11:59 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
Nina said:
>If you are a professional writer, then no--it's a rejected spec script. If
>you are, well, you--a fan--then it always WAS fanfic. You just crossed the
>line & brought it to TPTB's attention. Bad fan!
I totally get what you're saying, but there *are* fans who are also
professional writers (and hey, I have two plays to my name, although
writing is not my day job, but never mind that). In fact, I think
that, with all the references Joss puts into Buffy, he's a bit of a
fanboy himself. So if a fan who was also a pro writer wrote a script,
does that count as fanfic or not? Are you saying it only counts as
fanfic if the person puts it on the Net or in a zine? (Actually,
that makes sense, as you said: >Sure, if only due to the venue.) But
then why would Joss call a pro script "fanfic"?
Actually, this brings up some interesting points. While we, as fans,
want TPTB to do things with our show and characters that we'd like,
it's probably better that they don't, or if they do, only in the
broadest sense (like putting Fitz in more eps/flashbacks when it became
evident the audience liked him). They have to follow their creative
vision, not what the fans want. Sometimes the two are the same (they
liked Methos, the audience liked Methos) but when they're not, it's
better that they do what they think best. (I'm not talking just about
HL, here.) And obviously, sometimes what they think best isn't
actually best, but I'm not sure that listening to the fans would be
better.
- Marina.
\\ "I'm like every other kid in America. We all ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// wanna be astronauts... 'to boldly go where || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ no man has gone before'." - Matt Sikes to ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// Cathy Frankel; Green Eyes (Alien Nation) || \\
\\==============tmar@sifl.iid.co.za=============|| //
//=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie=============\\
"Just because a guy's in his underwear, you think the worst."
- Trip to T'Pol; Acquisition (Enterprise)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 09:12:01 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Swords was Re: HL In The News
Pat wrote:
>Wendy wrote:
>>He could have gone back to breaking into antique stores)
>Plus after working for Duncan he'd have a better idea of what to take.
Hee. Good one!!
- Marina.
\\ "I'm like every other kid in America. We all ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// wanna be astronauts... 'to boldly go where || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ no man has gone before'." - Matt Sikes to ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// Cathy Frankel; Green Eyes (Alien Nation) || \\
\\==============tmar@sifl.iid.co.za=============|| //
//=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie=============\\
"Just because a guy's in his underwear, you think the worst."
- Trip to T'Pol; Acquisition (Enterprise)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 09:12:02 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
Lisa wrote:
>I have no idea of the title, at this point, but there was an episode
>of Xena that was written by a person who started out in
>fandom--writing fic--and wound up working for the show. I believe it
>(the episode) was a season premiere late in the game.
And that's really cool. AC Crispin is a pro writer who got her start
with a Star Trek novel. And later she admitted that it was very
"fannish" (I don't know if she ever wrote fanfic), and that if she
were to submit it to Paramount today, it would never get published
(it violated something like three of the "rules" they later set
down for Star Trek novels).
I like that it can happen. Fans care more about continuity, for
example, than pro writers who just come in to do one script. Gillian
Horvath, I remember, always tried to make Forever Knight more
"continuous" in the episodes she wrote. (Explaining why some vampires
didn't bite humans, for example.) And she spent years trying to get
Geraint Wyn Davies out of his shirt, but it never worked. :) So
there we have an example of a pro writer who was also a fan. (And
IMNSHO, her eps of FK were some of the best.)
- Marina.
\\ "I'm like every other kid in America. We all ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// wanna be astronauts... 'to boldly go where || R I C H I E >> \\
\\ no man has gone before'." - Matt Sikes to ||>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> //
// Cathy Frankel; Green Eyes (Alien Nation) || \\
\\==============tmar@sifl.iid.co.za=============|| //
//=============Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie=============\\
"Just because a guy's in his underwear, you think the worst."
- Trip to T'Pol; Acquisition (Enterprise)
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 08:00:38 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
In a message dated 7/2/2003 9:07:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,
cgliser@earthlink.net writes:
> I have no idea of the title, at this point, but there was an episode
> of Xena that was written by a person who started out in
> fandom--writing fic--and wound up working for the show. I believe it
> (the episode) was a season premiere late in the game.
>
During a Q&A at the HL Celebration con, Jennifer Roberson pointed out that
she, Gillian Horvath and Donna Letto all got their start in writing with fanfic.
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:53:10 -0400
From: KLZ3 <KZIMMERMAN3@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
>
> Unless Joss has been whispering that sort of thing in your ear recently,
::::: paging frantically through schedule :::::
Who the heck got this thing so out of order? Looks like ferrets
and wombats have been playing in it.
I thought that, this week being the Big National Holiday in the
USA, and since Duncan spent a great deal of time in the USA, that
this was the week for "Duncan MacLeod and American History",
"Duncan MacLeod - did he become a pacifist, and if so, where,
when, how, and why?"
Did anyone catch Endgame on USA last night? I didn't watch it
but kept flipping over to it (I confess I watched the final
fight). It seemed to play much better than it did when I saw it;
there may have been more or different editing that made parts of
it actually make sense. I don't remember the part with Faith at
the end in the - um - gallery? Museum? Shopping mall?; I
remember it ending with DMOTCM standing at Connor's tombstone in
front of an enlarged postcard of the Highlands of Scotland.
Further discussion: Does an Immie's knowledge and wisdom
decrease in direct proportion to his age?
ZK :::: strenuously avoiding discussion of "Was Duncan ever
married?" ::::
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:33:30 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: finances
Me:
>>You can get a second job. A third job. Give up cigarettes. Give up
>>booze.Give up your car. Have lots of room mates. Give up cable TV and >cell
>phones.Eat in, not out. Never pay full price.
beccaelizabeth wrote:
>This actually wound me up rather.
Didn't mean to. Wasn't speaking of you in particular.
>Sorry but speaking from the experience
>of my little corner of the world... never smoked, never drank, never had a car,
>never had even the remote possibility of cable, never had a cell phone. Never
>ate out.
My point was that *most* people have something that they spend money on that is not, strictly speaking, necessary to live. That "thing", whatever it is, *can* be eliminated if saving money is truly a concern.
> Until I got my DLA, I was still spending more than I had and in a bad
>bind. Non disabled friends have trouble finding one job, let alone two or
>three. And I dont know how you can manage to not pay full price.
Being disabled is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. And, speaking for Immortals and *not* mortals, being disabled would be a death sentence making the issue of saving money for the future moot. (unless said disabled Immortal chose to live on HG forever)
>Not having a car only works in urban areas btw- rural areas have to travel
>just to find a food shop so lack of car doesnt work.
Agreed. It wouldn't work for every Immortal trying to save money. It was but one of a list of possibilities.
> In previous centuries... severe lack of welfare. The vast majority of
>people, for the vast majority of history, have lived hand to mouth. Unless my
>understanding of history is all wrong.
Yes, the vast majority lived hand to mouth. But being Immortal *does* give one options that the mortals didn't have.
>> Immortals also have several advantages over mortals. They can walk >away
>from debt and not look back.
>actually there you get into the issue of what an Immortal could do versus
>what a moral and upstanding citizen who happened to be Immortal could do. People
>might have moral issues with walking away from debts.
They might indeed. But the fact that they are Immortal is *still* going to catch up to them. Joe the Immortal might owe Jack the Butcher 20 pounds one year and still owe Jack that same 20 fifty years later (plus interest!). But now Jack is old and Joe is still a strapping youth. Joe *has* to move on to another town. Does Joe keep sending money to Jack ? How does he explain that? Or is he forced to walk out on the debt regardless of his moral qualms?
>>If Nefertiri left a lot of bills owing in ancient Egypt, no one was
>>going to collect in modern Paris. You change your identity, you lose the old debts
>-while, if you're clever, you hang on to the assets.
>very clever but still leaving a paper trail connecting all your old you?
Paper trails were rather less solid a few centuries back. And, even if some times one couldn't hang on to everything, you'd still have the advantage of having multiple tries over the years. You might lose the estate in Tuscany but hang onto the dacha outside Moscow.
>Or just keeping all your assets in portable shiny things? Guess it do work.
>Even with inheritance tax.
Gold. Jewels. Silver sets. Easily moved....easily traded for centuries.
>> Immortals have the advantage of time - a small amount earning a bit of
>>interest *will* add up - assuming you can claim it later.
>and assuming that that small amount isnt the only thing between you and
>starving/freezing to death again at any point between investing and
>picking up the payoff.
Freezing/starving to death not such a problem for an Immortal. You come back. Sooner or later you'll get warm and find something to eat.
>is antique value a relatively new concept? Collectible used to happen,
>with big fashion things, but did old stuff used to be just old?
There have been times and places (and not that long ago) where furniture was scarce. *Any* furniture. Jewelry is always useful in trade situations. Art is collectible - sooner or later someone will want it. As Pat said, save everything you can and figure out what's valuable later.
>> Immortals who aren't smart enough to find some way of keeping a few
>> bucks in their pockets as the years go by
>(hang on, implying people with moral qualms about doing stuff would be not
>smart people? Probly not meaning that.)
Or then again maybe I was :-)
We aren't talking about mere mortals. We're talking about Immortals. People who *must* accept the fact that they might live for many lifetimes and will be required to kill others to do so. They *have* to learn to look ahead and plan for more than a few years. Part of their survival is undoubtedly luck - but how well they survive is also a function of brains. Given the infinite possibilities of *time*, ending up perpetually broke is pretty stupid.
>and there were some very lean times in ye olde days. The depression was
>it? Big american no money time.
True. But some people *made* money during the Depression. And a lot of people survived more or less intact. Few disasters strike everyone equally.
>And in europe have been whole centuries full of
>plague, war, famine and general lack of banking facilities.
And all of those things could temporarily affect an Immortal's cash flow. Or- they could offer opportunities. Money can be made during wars. Identities can be more easily changed during the general chaos of plague or revolution. Accounts can be moved to different names in the confusion. Plague victims leave behind wealth and no one to inherit it.
>> If all you do is take the sword off your dead opponent and hock it-
>>you've done something<eg>
>yes- linked yourself to the murder
Not very likely in past times and even today you clean it up and sell it privately in a different town or country and no one is going to ask too many questions
>> Every dead Immortal leaves behind "stuff" -
>>a clever victorious Immortal would find that "stuff" (quickly) and take
>>the best bits.
>
>and get picked up by the police / recognised by friends of the deceased
I said *quickly* <G>
>further you are again ignoring the honesty factor. Some people have actual
>moral qualms about looting corpses that go beyond any qualms they might
>have about self defense.
And I suggest that they "get over it". I'm not suggesting striping the corpse while the dead man's mortal widow cries nearby. I'm saying...there would be cases where the dead Immortal leaves behind no family and no friends and a few good pieces worth taking. Waste not, want not.
>> One *can* live cheaply - one could live *very* cheaply in past ages.
>well it looks cheap from here, but cost of living is cost of living and
>poverty happens all times all places. not enough to cover cost of living, not
>enough to save up.
And an Immortal could start walking and be over the horizon to, perhaps, a better place in a month's time. If that place doesn't work out, walk on. Hunker down and wait for better times.
>> Move to a cheaper place to live..find a job..save money...
>>invest money..be richer than before. Repeat as often as necessary.
>I think one thing thats bugging me is that theres an assumption that
>economic mobility was as easy then as now. Big not. You start a slave, you die a
>slave, you run away and get caught and get to be a slave again. Its a whole slave
>theme, for long and long. Same with serfs, tend to stay serfs. Nobility
>means being someones family, or being willing to lie about it, and you had to be
>noble to have any power in many places and times. Cities were muchly smaller.
>Most people worked the land. It was an entirely different situation.
But you are discounting that these people are Immortal. Start a slave, run away, get caught, get hung, come back to life, climb off the garbage heap, walk away, try again in the next village over. They *can't* live forever in one place. They *have* to move on. Sure...many of them probably lost their heads the first time another Immortal showed up ..but some would have found teachers and learned the Rules and done what had to be done. If Europe was backward, walk to China. If China was repressive, walk to India. If India was too hot, walk back to Europe. There have always been travelers who wandered- selling wares, singing for their supper, sharpening knives. Join a caravan. Find a better slave master. Live in a cave for 100 years. A lone Immortal person (and especially a lone Immortal man) can be very mobile, regardless of what society dictates. Every situation is temporary, especially if you are willing to "die" to escape it.
>You could have an Immortal who was a poor farmhand for their entire life.
>Not because they were stupid, just because vast numbers of people were poor
>farmhands. It was a job that got you food and shelter, not money to put
>by. I dont think being one for longer would make you richer or poorer. you just
>got by.
But an Immortal *can't* be a poor farmhand in the same place forever. People will begin to talk. Sooner or later, they will have to move on. Now, sure, they might end up a simple farmhand in their next incarnation too. But, the more they move around, the longer the years go on, the more likely that they will fall into some other line of work eventually. Or, one day he's working as a farmhand and the next day, everyone is dead of the plague. Or everyone is killed in a raid. He is, of course, still alive. Now..he can, perhaps, become the farm *owner*..and advance his status.
> I think a lot of jobs are like that. And I think if I understand history
>of economics right, the number of people who would have access to banks and
>interest and that complicated stuff would be absolutely miniscule compared
>with the population. I could be wrong of course, my study of history is patchy at best and
>mostly european.
It's true that the idea of banks and interest is relatively new. (Although the idea of lending money with interest paid in return isn't new) The idea of accumulating wealth isn't new at all. For most of history, one kept one's wealth in goods, not as accounts in a bank. It's likely that even today, a majority of people's wealth is material and not sitting in a bank. But, even material wealth can be stockpiled. Bury the gold, drop the silver down the well., sew the jewels into the lining of your coat. Raise the sheep and sell the wool for more than the sheep cost to raise. Plant the crop and sell the crop for more than the cost of the seed and labor to grow and reap it. In all ages in all location *some* people have always found ways to better their fortunes. Immortals have a better chance of being those people simply because they can live longer and move further and take bigger risks.
>> Or..marry someone. Inherit their wealth.
>get killed to go on their bonfire... Marry, inherit wealth, get married
>off to their brother/uncle/cousin so the wealth stays in the family. okay,
>geographically limited and time limited, but not always working.
Nothing works every time. And, yes, females would have a harder time of it. Definitely. Probably fewer female Immortals survive long term than male Immortals. Probably fewer female Immortals accumulate wealth than male Immortals. So it goes.
>> Or ...join the army.
>
>I'm wondering, cos I've only ever watched Sharpe to learn about armies of
>the past- was it really a way to make money if you were just a regular
>soldier? I mean make a living, yes, but get rich? I kinda thought the officers
>nicked most of the good loot and the regular soldiers got like boots and things.
You might not get rich but you'd probably get paid. If you could save a bit of what you were paid..there's that whole time issue again<g> And with a bit of ingenuity you might be able to pass yourself off as an officer in your next life.
>>(If you made cheese for centuries, you'd probably get really good at
>it.)(Being really good at it would eventually prove profitable.)(Profits
>would grow.)(Eventually you'd be a rich cheese maker.)
>Theres a baker in my town who wins national awards. He's a really good
>baker.Has been for probly quarter of a century, maybe more. He's also right on
>the edge of going out of business, all the time. Because, while his shop sells
>better things, it doesn't sell them as cheap as the mass produced stuff that
>passes for bread in supermarkets. You can't and break even. And while he
>has a core of loyal customers, a whole lot more like the convenience of
>supermarkets and probably don't even know he exists.
Didn't say it would be easy to be rich cheese maker<g> It would take ingenuity. It would take hard work. It might take 200 years of effort.
>Being really good at things doesnt inevitably lead to profit. Especially
>these days.
True. But having 1000 years to work on it helps.
>Steady work- Immortals wouldnt just have to worry about getting laid off,
>they'd have to worry about changing ID and starting over. They'd have to either
>requalify every lifetime (takes much time) or fake their qualifications
>(which might be difficult and some would find dubious morally)(fake MDs for
>example are not something many people would approve of even if they'd been an
>apothecary for centuries)
I'm sorry but if you are going to insist that no Immortal do anything morally dubious to get by, they aren't going to get by. Every time they change identities they are "faking it". Is it morally wrong for Grace to take a name off a gravestone and get a passport? Should she refuse to use a fake name? Having spent centuries learning more about medicine than most doctors will learn in a lifetime, should she spend 20 years out of every 60 requalifying? Can she fake her high school records in order to gain acceptance to medical school or must she redo high school too? What about elementary school? Must she sit through reading, writing and arithmetic again? Won't she look kind of silly amongst the 5 year olds? Does David Keogh have to apprentice to the carpenter's union every lifetime or can we trust him to just make decent chairs all on his own? *All* Immortals who survive past their first lifetime are living on fake histories. I don't see that as morally dubious.
>had another thought too- how about if you grew up with some tribal people
>who weren't into the whole material goods, big buildings and banks scene anyway?
> You might not see the point of money.
Very few cultures have *no* sense of wealth. The wealth may not be money but it will be something. Cattle. Goats. Coffee trees. Wives. Beaver pelts. Sea shells. Cloth. Land. Buffalo hides. So, it's true that a tribal Immortal might not grow up accumulating money, he might accumulate cattle. And if he never leaves his tribe , he may never ever learn about money. But..how many tribal people are there left who have no contact with more cash-oriented cultures? How long can this Immortal stay with his tribe before they wonder about the 400 year old goat herder? If he has learned the value of accumulating cattle and goats, he can surely transfer that concept to the accumulation of whatever is valuable in his new surroundings.
>I mean yes when things go manky having
>lots of money to sort it out with is useful, but you can get by day to day
>without it so maybe a lot of Immortals do. Maybe theres a bunch of them living like
>mountain men and nobody notices. money certainly not inevitable if you
>plain don't want it.
I'm sure there are poor Immortals. Benny certainly wasn't rich. Sully wasn't rich. Of those that we saw working at jobs, there is no way to know how many worked because they enjoyed it and it filled time and how many needed to work to pay the bills. And I'm sure there are non-materialistic Immortals. Ursa and Mickey weren't big on stuff (Well, Mickey liked his toy train) But it seems to me that in most cases the style of life Immortals have is based on choice, not necessity.I simply see no excuse - beyond choice - for living hundreds of years and being poor all the time.
>Okay, so I'm in a pessimist groove maybe,
Ya think?
>but my experience, my friends
>experience, is that money is not easy to come by at all. If you have
>none, you tend to keep on having none. Its the boots theory of socioeconomics
>really I know us all interacting by computer kinda biases the sample so theres
>unlikely to be really really poor people on mailing lists, but there are quite a
>lot of really really poor people. more than there are rich people, I'm pretty
>sure.
Of course there are really really poor people. And no one said money was always easy to come by. But Immortals are not regular people. They have (duh<g>) the great advantage of being able to die and come back to life as many times as necessary (so long as they keep their heads) Born the poorest of the poor untouchables - you still have the opportunity to die and come back and move and die and come back and move and die and come back and move. If you only moved 6 feet to the left every life time, sooner or later you'd have to end up in a better situation<g>. Floods, famines. revolutions, plagues, wars, earthquakes, tidal waves, enlightenment, the shifting of the bloody tectonic plates . . . every change brings new possibilities because *you* can survive while everyone else dies. Carl was born a slave and 150 years later, he's a famous baseball player. Duncan was born an ignorant savage<eg> and 400 years later he's a sophisticated antique dealer. Grace was stoned as a witch, 8!
00 years later she's a respected researcher. There is just no excuse for an Immortal remaining poor (if they don't want to be) over the long haul.
> So why wouldn't the majority of Immortals be poor? Because they've got
>longer to make money? They also have longer to loose it.
I think the majority wouldn't be poor because they have time to change their circumstances even if it is slowly and because their very survival depends on being adaptive and smart. Adaptive smart people are going to find ways to better themselves give time to do it. If a 1000 year old Immortal *wants* to be a subsistence pig farmer, that's a choice. If a 1000 year old Immortal hasn't figured out a way to stop being a subsistence pig farmer, that's stupidity. And stupid Immortals are usually dead Immortals.
Wendy(How many warehouses of cool stuff does Methos have?)(Or is he more the cash-in-Switzerland kind of guy?)(Both?)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 18:34:21 +0000
From: beccaelizabeth <r.day@netcom.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Immortal finances
> beccaelizabeth wrote:
>>Some people have actual
>>moral qualms about looting corpses that go beyond any
>>qualms they might have about self defense.
Pat Lawson wrote:
>Grayson was a very old immortal. Likely he'd made most of his money
>conquering, killing and looting.
>He had no family. His ill-gotten wealth would go to who, the state?
to whoever had a legal right for it, which if he wrote a will might be a whole
bunch of people, who you assume he didnt care about because he was a Bad Guy.
> Would it be wrong for Duncan to acquire some
> of those things against future need? Perhaps as a grubstake for new
> immortals?
>
> Pat
soooo... Grayson made his money by killing and looting. Therefore that makes it
morally correct to kill him and loot him?
interesting argument in the eye for an eye vein, but not one I personally
subscribe to. I like more a do as you would be done to theory. With rules that
apply whatever the other person has done. I know a lot of people dont agree
with me so I know this fundamental difference affects my perception of many
moral issues.
Or is it an argument about utility- Grayson used it to look after only Grayson,
but Duncan would use it to look after helpless widdle children so how he got it
is all okay? Ends justify the means is not an argument I like much either.
actually I dont remember as we had proof Grayson didnt look after his people
well. We know he sold weapons (like Duncan sold swords? Or does quantity make
it a fundamentally different gig?) And we know he really really wanted to hurt
Darius for being a wuss. Which wasnt entirely sane I'll grant but doesnt
necessarily say much about how he treated people on his side.
beccaelizabeth
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4212/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 21:05:58 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Home)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
Let me clarify. Any more clearer and I'll be transparent.
> So, spill! He's OK w/ fanfic writers distributing their work? What about
> actual publishing? Would he sue? Because if so, then he isn't really OK
w/
> fanfic, is he? Maybe he's OK w/ closet fanfic. Would that be an accurate
> assessment? Saying that he's OK w/ fanfic glosses over way too much
> _unless_ he really doesn't care about any aspect of it. I'd be _very_
> surprised if that is true.
>
Joss did not go into great *detail* about his feelings about fanfic - doing
so would kinda negate the very logic I mentioned previously about NOT making
*official* legally-binding comment. My comments are based on what he did and
did not say when the subject was touched upon when we talked.. The subject
came up when we discussed leaks; and how frustrating they could be. He
simply made it clear that it was confusing to many when fanfic got mistaken
for real storylines, but they could very creative. But he also pointed out
it could be quite useful as it usually meant that there were lots of
different ideas out there, so viewers could never be sure what was accurate
and what was guessing. At best, though he can't come out praising it, this
is hardly someone who's coming out against the concept. In fact, read many
of the interviews he's done in the past and he's praised the fans for
keeping Buffy alive and finding creative ways of showing their love for the
show. I'd agree that the profit/selling of fanfic is another matter
entirely. Granted, this is my interpretation of his feelings, but...as Jette
gently pointed out...it was *me* who spoke to him (the latest of many
interviews), so I think that carries some weight.
)And also - again - as potential series writers essentially create 'fanfic'
for shows in treatments, it would be silly and nonsensical for him to find
the very nature of fanfic writers as universally bad.)
> Excuse me, but the pesky fact is that YOU said earlier here that his
comment
> about fanfic being utter rubbish was ABOUT this leak. And in pesky fact
he
> said in a recent published interview that the rumored Spike premise was
> fanfic. So, NOW you say the leak wasn't fanfic at all.... Did you not
> discuss this w/ him? Give him a ring. Maybe HIS knowledge about this
> matter is more accurate than yours.
And again. He didn't say ALL fanfic was rubbish. He was asked if the news
item was real and he said 'No, it's rubbish'. I don't see that as a comment
on fanfic in general, given that's not what he was asked. Yes, Joss may
have said it was fanfic, but shortly after the comment from Mutant Enemy,
the author appeared on-line and explained that it had been a spec treatment
that someone else had mistaken for the real thing and posted and made it
clear that HE had not claimed otherwise at any point and was embarassed it
had been taken out of context.
Hope that clarifies.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "MacWestie" <mac.westie@verizon.net>
To: <HIGHLA-L@LISTS.PSU.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2003 8:32 PM
Subject: Re: [HL] Highlander in the news
> John--
> > Well, er, yes, actually. In fact I spoke to Joss about ten days ago. So,
I
> > think my summation of where he stands on the subject of fan-fiction is
> > pretty accurate.
>
>
> > And, again, - with the pesky checking of facts - to clarify how the
> > Spike/Angel rumour started. The premise was actually a 'pitch script' by
a
> > professional script writer that was never meant to be circulated but
> > 'leaked' by someone who thought it was the real thing. It wasn't
'leaked'
> by
> > the author.
>
>
>
> Nina
> mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 21:24:21 +0100
From: "John Mosby (Home)" <a.j.mosby@btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Highlander in the news
Let me clarify what usually happens in the buisness.
You can't submit a Buffy/Angel/Mutant Enemy show treatment to Joss, even if
you managed to get an agent (and I know some very talented writers who have
worked in the business who still found it difficult to get an agent).
Equally you can't submit an Alias script to J J Abrams and his production
company. This is because of the danger of (claims of) plagurising work. No
series will ever look at a spec script for their own show. (I believe the
Trek franchise allowed amateur pitches at one point, but this has now been
nixed by a wary Paramount).
The best way for serious professional writers (who have either
representation) is to write spec scripts for a *different* show and use that
as proof you have a talent for the format. Just because you've written a
review, doesn't make you a script-writer, just because you can write a
script, doesn't mean you can create a novel etc etc etc. If you have
representation then your agent can submit the spec script to another
production company and - if you are lucky - that production company might
*ask* you to come up with a handful ideas for their show and come in and
pitch them. Doesn't mean they'll take them, but they'll listen, consider and
may offer advice. A mere handful may get asked to develop that into a
script. Even less will have that script used.
But yes, as I indicated to Nina - it would be fair to say that someone
creating/pitching an idea is dabbling in fanfic to a degree.
I think the only real legal problem with fanfic (that has been demonstrated
in the courts) is either when profit is made from circulating it - which is
pretty much publishing in every sense of the word. (As some publishers pay a
lot of money for rights, it can be seen as costing them money even if the
amateur isn't making that much out of it.) or when the copyright/trademark
holder can prove that their product is being exploited in an unsuitable way
which might affect the image of the original (In UK law, this allows J K
Rowling to pursue those who 'slashed' Harry Potter).
Like any writers who migth wish to pitch to a show, it's a matter of knwoing
the business strategy and the law that applies to it.
John
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 20:26:42 +0000
From: beccaelizabeth <r.day@netcom.co.uk>
Subject: Ways dying can make you money
other message got way long so I snip these bits out-
> Yes, the vast majority lived hand to mouth.
>But being Immortal *does* give one
>options that the mortals didn't have.
as in dying. only thing they can do that we cannot in the short term.
> Freezing/starving to death not such a problem for an Immortal.
> You come back. Sooner or later you'll get warm and find
>something to eat.
and obviously pain doesnt count if it goes away again
you know you'd have to have seriously odd priorities to literally starve now in
order to be rich in a future that may well not arrive.
Also a starving and/or frozen Immortal is presumably not at the top of their
game. Though me and mum were talking the other day and I realised that if they
come out of a sarcophagus with good muscle tone then maybe the usual rules for
starvation=muscle wastage dont apply. Or maybe they do apply only if you are
active in between deaths, like you have to actually use up the calories and the
healing doesnt heal them but if you lie very still in a box you dont get skinny.
>>money is not easy to come by at all.
>>If you have none, you tend to keep on having none.
>>Its the boots theory of socioeconomics really
>And no one said money was always easy to come by.
>But Immortals are not regular people. They have (duh<g>) the great
> advantage of being able to die and come back to life as many times as
>necessary (so long as they keep their heads)
Thinking of ways that fact on its own can lead to money...
Hmmm, insurance scams? Collect your own life insurance a lot?
Was there a season sux episode where they used something like that for
blackmail? I've only read the summary things.
Theres that Immortal circus guy in another episode I havent seen. Kind of
ignores the whole secrecy requirement but Immortals make interesting freakshows.
I think thats all really. No more ideas have I anyways.
Being able to take much greater risks can lead to much higher paying jobs yes,
but there are a surprising number of ways to be decapitated whilst going about
your everyday business, let alone doing risky jobs, and losing a limb or other
important bits is bad for Immortals too. So the greater risks are still pretty
risky for them.
beccaelizabeth
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4212/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 20:28:08 +0000
From: beccaelizabeth <r.day@netcom.co.uk>
Subject: Disability
>And, speaking for Immortals and *not* mortals, being disabled would be
> a death sentence making the issue of saving money for the future
>moot. (unless said disabled Immortal chose to live on HG forever)
That entirely depends on the disability. I mean Byron was disabled (I think he
was the one with the odd foot) and he managed okay. And being a raving
psychotic loony could be called disabled, yet large numbers of psycho K'Immies
seem to survive in the community quite well.
I think being hard of hearing would be surviveable. Even maybe only having one
arm, if you were really really good with the one you had left.
Personally part of my disability (diagnosed as autistic spectrum disorder,
aspergers syndrome) is being really, really clumsy, so thats never going to work
for an Immortal. But if just the social or mental stuff applied and they werent
clumsy, would be surviveable. Lonely and difficult, but surviveable.
Mind you typically aspies have an automatic, unthinking adherence to The Rules,
once they understand them. People breaking rules bugs me. This of itself is
probably really unhelpful to an Immortal. But flipside, you might just get
someone who was really hung up about honour and chivalry or the rules of war or
something. Doing things that Immortals do would be the relevant rules and
they'd only get really annoyed if people broke those rules. (me, I get wound up
if people stand on the wrong side of a line when theres a rule about it, but I'm
not the worlds most functional aspie)
beccaelizabeth
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4212/
Everybody is somebody else's weirdo
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 20:46:40 +0000
From: beccaelizabeth <r.day@netcom.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Immortal finances
>beccaelizabeth wrote:
>>This actually wound me up rather.
>Didn't mean to. Wasn't speaking of you in particular.
I realise that. I was just saying.
jjswbt@EARTHLINK.NET wrote:
> My point was that *most* people have something that they spend
>money on that is not, strictly speaking, necessary to live.
>That "thing", whatever it is, *can* be eliminated if saving
>money is truly a concern.
And my point was that its entirely possible to give up all and still be
poverty poor with no savings.
There arent always jobs to find.
>>> Immortals also have several advantages over mortals. They can walk >>>away
from debt and not look back.
>>People might have moral issues with walking
>>away from debts.
>They might indeed. But the fact that they are Immortal is *still*
>going to catch up to them.
>But now Jack is old and Joe is still a strapping youth. Joe *has* to
>move on to another town. Does Joe keep sending money to Jack ? How
>does he explain that? Or is he forced to walk out on the debt
>regardless of his moral qualms?
interesting true point.
There are ways he could set it up so the debt kept getting paid off even if he
was 'dead'. They would be tricky, but you can set up payments that keep paying
themselves. If he thought the moral weight of the debt outweighed the moral
responsibility to his race to keep the secret so they could all live in peace,
he could just keep paying directly. I think it would have to be a pretty huge
debt to be that important, and probably not a money debt. But if he thought the
moral weight of the debt was just important enough to do lots of tricky
paperwork and arrange to pipe money through lawyers or something, so it was
weighing against the risk to the secret rather than just breaking the secret...
much smaller debts would then be worth it.
its all priorities and definitions and relative value.
>>>Immortals who aren't smart enough to find some way of keeping a few
>>>bucks in their pockets as the years go by
>>(hang on, implying people with moral qualms about doing stuff
>>would be not smart people? Probly not meaning that.)
> Or then again maybe I was :-)
>We aren't talking about mere mortals.
>We're talking about Immortals.
>People who *must* accept the fact that they might live for many
>lifetimes and will be required to kill others to do so.
Yes but I dont actually see how any of that leads to thinking they
should like abandon morals. I mean they have to kill (or stay on holy
ground) in self defense as part of the game. Killing in self defense is pretty
much mostly considered moral. If you have to. So why does the fact of their
Immortality lead to smart people acting immoral?
(aside from the spelling confusion that keeps me mixing them up as I
type)
>They *have* to learn to look ahead and plan for more than a few years.
well technically so do mortals, if they want to survive past retirement
age. The only difference is scale.
>Part of their survival is undoubtedly luck - but how well they survive >is also
a function of brains. Given the infinite possibilities of >*time*, ending up
perpetually broke is pretty stupid.
That last if then I dont follow or agree with. There are infinite
possibilities- many of them leading to staying poor.
sometimes you do everything right and it just doesnt work
>>and there were some very lean times in ye olde days.
>And all of those things could temporarily affect an Immortal's cash
> flow. Or- they could offer opportunities.
sort of unfun list of possibilities. Making money in the middle of
misery? Surely more moral to use what you have to improve the fortunes
of those around you, instead of taking advantage.
>>further you are again ignoring the honesty factor.
>>Some people have actual moral qualms about looting corpses that
>>go beyond any qualms they might have about self defense.
> And I suggest that they "get over it". I'm not suggesting striping
>the corpse while the dead man's mortal widow cries nearby. I'm
>saying...there would be cases where the dead Immortal leaves behind no
>family and no friends and a few good pieces worth taking. Waste not,
>want not.
But it would either be taking things as do not belong to you- theft- or
assuming that because you killed them they do belong to you. Might
makes right. Which many people do ascribe to, but nowadays we call them
muggers.
Or you could say that the law of the land regarding property of dead
people with no relatives was the overriding factor. If the law of the
land says killing someone does in fact give you the right to nick their
stuff then that would be all okay.
I know common useage tended that way in several eras but I suspect
actual law did not. governments tend to like to keep hold of the money
themselves and use it for all the services they provide. Which even
Immortals get to use, like the convenience of being in countries that
arent currently being invaded.
Or you could be in the middle of a war when rule of law has broken down
and then stuff really does belong to whoever takes it, which is
unpleasant but probably not immoral I guess.
>A lone Immortal person (and especially a lone Immortal man)
>can be very mobile, regardless of what society dictates.
>Every situation is temporary, especially if you are willing to
>"die" to escape it.
okay, yes, if they were good with languages and very stubborn they could end up
pretty much anywhere. but would that put them on the way to saving money?
which was the point here. They could wander around the world being poor but not
technically a slave, I'll grant you that, but would the wandering lead to having
money? I say not necessarily.
The possibilities are endless but the thing I said to start with this
was about was how people seem to perceive old=rich as an inevitability.
Which is the part I think is wrong. It isnt inevitable, just possible.
old can = lost everything in the great war, or something similar.
You can live a very long time and change beyond all recognition.
Or you can live a very long time and still be basically the same person. With
the same kind of life. Lack of money and all.
And neither state necessarily implies either brains or lack thereof.
Nor does it mean you can or cannot play the Game well. I mean you do
not have to be rich to win fights. Even lots of fights in a row. Even
lots and lots of fights and get away with it.
Thats what I'm basically saying.
>>You could have an Immortal who was a poor farmhand for their entire
>>life. Not because they were stupid, just because vast numbers of
>>people were poor farmhands. It was a job that got you food and
>>shelter, not money to put by. I dont think being one for longer
>>would make you richer or poorer. you just got by.
> But an Immortal *can't* be a poor farmhand in the same place forever.
no but thats part of what makes being a farmhand a solid career- for
most of history people were growing things all over the place and often
needed a hand with the lifting.
>But, the more they move around, the longer the years go on, the
>more likely that they will fall into some other line of work
>eventually.
the more opportunities for. dont know if it gets more likely if they're
happy with what they're doing.
> Or, one day he's working as a farmhand and the next day, everyone is
> dead of the plague. Or everyone is killed in a raid. He is, of course,
>still alive. Now..he can, perhaps, become the farm *owner*..and
>advance his status.
true. sad, but one way being Immortal can land you with land.
Also not a scenario where whether or not the farmhand is stupid has much
to do with it.
Except trying to own land would mean understanding if its legal and
stuff like that. And paying the right taxes and stuff. I guess being
stupid could lose you the land. But it wasnt being smart as got you it
in the first place.
> Immortals have a better chance of being those people simply because
> they can live longer and move further and take bigger risks.
whats the thing they have to put in finance ads by law? The value of
your investments can go down as well as up? big risks, potential big
payoffs, long odds. Lots of losing.
> Didn't say it would be easy to be rich cheese maker<g>
>It would take ingenuity. It would take hard work.
>It might take 200 years of effort.
I think I failed to convey the point of the story
People like to think that getting rich is about effort and ability and
merit.
But you can have all of those things (and ingenuity, time, loyal
clients, good customer relations, write ups in the local paper, the
works) AND Still not be rich because that business just doesnt work that
way.
>>Being really good at things doesnt inevitably lead to profit.
>> Especially these days.
>
> True. But having 1000 years to work on it helps.
Why? Just breaking even remains just breaking even no matter how long
you do it.
> I'm sorry but if you are going to insist that no Immortal do anything
> morally dubious to get by, they aren't going to get by.
So it is impossible to live morally?
Interesting and depressing worldview there.
I'm not *insisting*. I'm pointing out the possibilities. This, to me,
is fun. Most recent book I read was 'Buffy and Philosophy', description of
Highlander I like is the one about talmudic discussion with swords. Bringing up
the moral issues is large part of the fun about talking Highlander. I also like
to imagine what people from different eras and philosophical backgrounds would
think about these moral conundrums. I mean there will be people who wont change
their name or fake IDs because they find it immoral, or religiously wrong, or
something. Because Immortals are all kinds of people so all opinions they could
have someone will have. What you seem to be saying is that some moral positions
are inherently impossible for an Immortal to survive. Maybe. Maybe not. And
how much is Immortality the issue, or Immortality interacting with local custom
and law and records? These the fun things to talk about for me.
>>they'd have to worry about changing ID and starting over.
>>They'd have to either requalify every lifetime (takes much time) or
>>fake their qualifications (which might be difficult and some would
>>find dubious morally)(fake MDs for example are not something many
>>people would approve of even if they'd been an apothecary for
>>centuries)
>Every time they change identities they are "faking it".
>Is it morally wrong for Grace to take a name off a
>gravestone and get a passport? Should she refuse to use a fake name?
The fake ID thing I do agree is difficult. Is probably impractical to
be absolutely honest about Immortality (and the premise of the show
seems to be that no one, anywhere, has actually tried) so with this one
secret then more secrets have to happen to keep it hidden. Not moral by some
definitions of moral. Maybe why Duncan always seems to use his
given name? Getting as close to honest as he can. Just lying about his
birthday.
Moral and practical not always the same for certain definitions of each.
>Having spent centuries learning more about medicine than most doctors
>will learn in a lifetime, should she spend 20 years out of every 60
>requalifying?
snip a fair argue
with the quibble that time does not necessarily add up to good effective
learning.
Example- American doctors do not think traditional chinese medicine
counts as proper medicine. Even though its the result of many many
generations of healers knowledge. Many chinese doctors think it does
but the underlying assumptions are different in the two healing
traditions. Would an ancient Immortal trained in chinese medicine, with
centuries of healing experience, be qualified to call themselves a
doctor in America?
Okay, so it seems silly to make Grace resit her kindergarten exams, but
try this thought- what if your GP had changed their name, printed out
fake certificates for all the levels you mention, and used them to gain
the position he holds, where he wields power of life and death over your local
community. Including you.
Would that be something you would want to know?
Or if changing his name is ok in your book, when exactly *does* it get morally
dubious?
Even if he did legitimately hold all those qualifications, what if he
printed certificates for different schools, to cover his tracks? If
they were American schools instead of, say, Indian? Or if they were
better schools than he went to? What if he tweaked his grades a bit?
Bad? Well old Immortals dont have grades. No asessment. Mum always
worries because old (mortal) doctors qualified back when the state of
medicine was so different. Immortals might have been practicing since
the fundamental assumptions were different. Maybe they've kept up.
Maybe they havent. Tests and qualifications and so forth are a way of
keeping track of that. If you dont legitimately hold the degrees you
are claiming, even if you've been doing the job a long time, do people
have a right to know?
Or from a different craft- people that work with gas appliances. Maybe
an Immortal has years of experience but no valid trade certification.
as I understand it that would mean if his work went boom your insurance
would call it your bad. Recertifying takes time and money but
safeguards the people you do work for.
>Does David Keogh have to apprentice to the carpenter's union every
>lifetime or can we trust him to just make decent chairs all on
>his own?
non guild chairs might work. They might not. Its a risk, you have to
decide if you'll take it or not. Unions are about complicated stuff
like workers rights and practices and things that I dont know enough to
talk about. Maybe he can make decent chairs, with decent safety in
working practices, and not be part of a union. Maybe he cant. Nobody
checks if he doesnt join. So customers have to figure it out without
the handy trade guild standards approved things to guide them.
>*All* Immortals who survive past their first lifetime are living on
> fake histories. I don't see that as morally dubious.
I do. Just necessary given what they've decided their priorities are.
Informed choice is, to me, the basis of all moral actions. Giving wrong
information therefore becomes very bad because it skews everyones
choices.
If things arent right for mortals to do, why are they right for
Immortals? They arent, they're just what they do anyways. Doesnt make
it any more moral just because they have a Really Good Reason. Does it?
>I'm sure there are poor Immortals.
>And I'm sure there are non-materialistic Immortals.
and some of them are old Immortals.
And that was pretty much all I was saying to start with.
>But it seems to me that in most cases the style of life Immortals
>have is based on choice, not necessity.I simply see no excuse -
>beyond choice - for living hundreds of years and being
>poor all the time.
See this is the bit of logic I cant follow. I mean people dont
generally get up in the morning and think 'hey, I want to be poor! Isnt
poverty great?' although theres always exceptions. So given that a
whole lot of people want to be rich, choose what they think will make
them rich, and still arent rich, leads to the conclusion that it takes a lot
more than just choosing to be rich. And I think being stupid isnt what stops a
lot of people. And you dont seem to agree with me, so I trying to explain. Not
seeming to work though.
>>Okay, so I'm in a pessimist groove maybe,
>Ya think?
often too much
>There is just no excuse for an Immortal remaining poor
>(if they don't want to be) over the long haul.
Because the excuse 'money not easy' isnt a good one?
>>So why wouldn't the majority of Immortals be poor?
>>Because they've got longer to make money?
>>They also have longer to loose it.
>I think the majority wouldn't be poor because they have time to
>change their circumstances even if it is slowly and because their
>very survival depends on being adaptive and smart. Adaptive smart
>people are going to find ways to better themselves give time to do
>it. If a 1000 year old Immortal *wants* to be a subsistence pig
>farmer, that's a choice. If a 1000 year old Immortal hasn't
>figured out a way to stop being a subsistence pig farmer,
>that's stupidity. And stupid Immortals are usually dead Immortals.
I try rephrasing the problem again- if it is only stupidity keeps
people, given much much time, from no longer being subsistence farmers,
then how come any family stays subsistence farmers? They have as much
time. They have almost as many opportunities- the ability to up and
leave is not unique to Immortals. Individuals die and other individuals come
back so taken as a whole the family could be seen as immortal (and I could be
stretching the point for comparison purposes, yes). So, is it just stupidity
that keeps a mortal family over many generations keeping on being subsistence
farmers? Or is it factors that do not apply to Immortals, like health worries
and non productive mouths to feed?
Subsistence = just getting by = not having spare to save up even over
the very long term. Because the spare gets spent on things that are
also necessary.
Yes, entire continents now have a lot more middle class doing well
people than subsistence farmers, but other places have still the
farmers. I dont think they're stupid, I think their circumstances dont
allow even smart people to get rich.
> Wendy(How many warehouses of cool stuff does Methos have?)(Or is he >more the
cash-in-Switzerland kind of guy?)(Both?)
Both I think
Plus museums. They keep hold of the stuff on permanent loan, they
protect, restore and maintain it for him, and he gets to show it off to
people...
beccaelizabeth
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4212/
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 2 Jul 2003 to 3 Jul 2003 - Special issue (#2003-131)
*****************************************************************************