HIGHLA-L Digest - 10 Jul 2003 to 11 Jul 2003 - Special issue
Automatic digest processor (LISTSERV@lists.psu.edu)
Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:31:22 -0400
There are 19 messages totalling 807 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
1. HL Season 1, 2 and Best Of DVDs?
2. Philosophy! (And square dancing!) (3)
3. Philosophy! (No square dancing!) (2)
4. Fanfic & Morals (3)
5. Fanfic & Morals--UNNAMED FACTION! (5)
6. Take Back The Night/Methos
7. Immies, Kimmies and Attornies (2)
8. Mortal Sins
9. Creative urge (Was: Re: Fanfic & Morals)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:10:20 -0400
From: Becky Doland <becky@beckyjo.com>
Subject: Re: HL Season 1, 2 and Best Of DVDs?
My season 1 DVD set came from deepdiscountdvd.com, and it has these
features.
~ Becky
> I was looking at the official web site a few days ago and in the extra
> features for the Season 1 DVD set they list-
> Flashback Buttons: activate each episode's flashback scenes.
> Q Button: takes you straight to the Quickening.
>
> I've been told by people who bought the set from them that those don't
> actually exist. I'm curious if maybe some sets didn't have them but
> they were added later on. So does anyone have those features on a set
> they got from The Store? On a side note it's interesting to see that
> the picture they now have on the site is the artwork from the Anchor
> Bay set, not the set they were originally selling.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:39:12 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Philosophy! (And square dancing!)
In a message dated 7/10/2003 8:15:10 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
mac.westie@verizon.net writes:
> >My philosophy has always leaned toward the one that says each person has
> the
> >right to act however he wishes provided his actions do not interfere with
> >anyone else, and that each person be held accountable and responsible for
> his own
> >actions: a person's freedom ends at the end of another's nose.
>
> Personally, I'd rather be punched in the nose than have my copyright
> violated
Well [continuing from another thread :)] if your moral standard and my moral
standard and Leah's moral standard are all different then by what right do you
persist in this discussion? Without a common basis for morality there is no
moral high ground. I'm not talking legality but the moralizing I hear.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:45:01 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Philosophy! (No square dancing!)
In a message dated 7/10/2003 8:34:05 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
jjswbt@earthlink.net writes:
> But can you offer any support for your position beyond your own personal
> belief? That, after all, has been the question all along.
>
You know, I didn't invent the universe or the laws that govern it and so it
is irrelevant what my own personal "beliefs" are. We could debate forever, but
the elephant will still be in the room even if I only see the head and you
only hold onto its tail. If you are one of those who denies the existence of the
elephant because you cannot see the whole, then I can't help you.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:09:19 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
Carmel-
>.this is me at my calmest and most rational.....
I'm glad you are feeling better & can continue.
>>>1. DPP substantially own the intellectual property in the HL characters
and environment.>>>
"Substantially"? Substance & a fictional universe are an odd mix, so I'm
not sure what you mean. If you are trying to quibble, as in "they own HL,
largely but not wholly," then give it up. DPP OWNS the HL universe. It's
often tragically stupid what they do w/ those ownership rights, but that's
life.
>>>2. They own the copyright in the scripts and screen portrayal of the
movies and the series.>>>
Among other things, yes, they own that stuff.
>3. I do not have their permission to write or distribute my HL fanfic.
Which is unfortunate for you.
> 4. I make no profit from my fanfic.
Really? I haven't been to your website in ages, but I believe you if you
say you aren't _selling_ HL-related stuff there. However, you can profit by
something w/o money changing hands. People get a lot of things from
creative endeavors aside from cash. They get pride of ownership, a sense of
accomplishment, public recognition, etc. You, for instance, get things like
people who read your fanfic telling each other-"Guess who Carmel's got
forcing Duncan on all fours _this_ week!" So, you get something for your
fanfic, even if it isn't cash. You profit from the activity, or you wouldn'
t continue doing it.
>>>5. If told to cease and desist I would - but ceasing and desisting does
not necessarily imply that I am breaching copyright or "moral rights" or
necessarily any other form of intellectual property. >>>
But, Carmel, you recently admitted w/ gleeful abandon that you do in fact
breach DPP's copyrights w/ your fanfic. To quote just a couple times that
you said so right here this very week---
"I certainly acknowledge that and that fanfiction is unauthorised use of
someone else's property."
and
"but haven't I already admitted that I breach DPP's copyright?"
Have you changed your mind? Did you suffer a head injury? Or are you
trying to back out of a dark & scary corner?
>>>6. Until told to cease and desist by the copyright owners I shall keep
on writing and posting to my HL web page.>>>
Remind me again why the standard copyright declarations & warnings that are
at the end of the HL:TS eps, movies, etc. aren't enough for fanfic? Why
fanfic is a special form of infringement, requiring an individual statement
that it's a no-no, the absence of which entitles people to do as they please
w/ other people's property? Or, is it that the standard warnings &
declarations don't apply to _you_?
And, let me interrupt your inevitable banging on the "sign," as you call it,
the supposed indication that DPP smilingly approves of all fanfic,
_wherever_ distributed. That's the one of several bulletin boards on DPP's
HL website, the one w/ the label that you pin so much on & make so many
assumptions about--"The place for fans to collaborate on Highlander-themed
stories." That's a relatively new website for DPP, isn't it? Appeared in
the past couple years, I think. DPP's old website was pretty limited & had
no boards, etc; it certainly lacked this particular feature, & it didn't
mention fanfic at all as I recall. So, this sacred "sign" is recent.
Carmel, how long have you been posting HL fanfic on your website? Correct
me if I am wrong, but I believe you have been doing so since LONG before DPP
gave you the "sign." So, I guess this "sign" is really irrelevant to you &
your fanfic. How did you rationalize distributing HL fanfic _before_?
> You, Nina, are not my Confessor :-)
Just as well-I don't have that kind of free time.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:45:03 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Philosophy! (And square dancing!)
me before (about Leah/Annie's calendars)--
> > Personally, I'd rather be punched in the nose than have my copyright
> > violated
Rottie--
> Well [continuing from another thread :)] if your moral standard and my
moral
> standard and Leah's moral standard are all different then by what right do
you
> persist in this discussion? Without a common basis for morality there is
no
> moral high ground. I'm not talking legality but the moralizing I hear.
Your post seems...incomplete. Was something cut off? (Maybe you were
distracted by the elephant.)
I think what they do is both morally & legally wrong. Legally, it violates
copyright laws. Morally, they are making money selling stuff that belongs
to the people responsible for Highlander, a TV show we--all of us here on
this list, today--all love. That's immoral--here, today.
Further, it is immoral according to Leah's own sanctimonious utterance
here--
>>>My philosophy has always leaned toward the one that says each person has
the
right to act however he wishes provided his actions do not interfere with
anyone else, and that each person be held accountable and responsible for
his own
actions: a person's freedom ends at the end of another's nose.>>>
Judging by _that_ alone, regardless of my views, what they do is morally
wrong. It interferes w/ the rights of others. Which is what I
said--violating someone's copyright is nastier than punching her in the
nose.
Nina (# of HL:TS eps w/ elephants on-screen--1) (bears--2; tigers--3;
llamas--1)
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:45:33 -1000
From: MacWestie <mac.westie@verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals--UNNAMED FACTION!
TCBO2--
>>> ObHLR: Methos and LaCroix (in the time immediately prior to the
eruption of Vesuvius KNEW EACH OTHER! Methos was at Herculaneum
and the great Roman General Lucius (LaCroix) was his next door
neighbor in Pompey. Two wealthy villa owners certainly socialized
and interacted as "fellow Romans.">>>
This reminds me--surely one huge draw that slash & the more graphic hetero
fanfic has for certain people, is that it's the only porn they allow
themselves to read. Pity, really.
Nina
mac.westie@verizon.net
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:11:58 EDT
From: Dotiran@aol.com
Subject: Re: Philosophy! (And square dancing!)
In a message dated 7/10/2003 10:45:59 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
mac.westie@verizon.net writes:
> Morally, they are making money selling stuff that belongs
> to the people responsible for Highlander, a TV show we--all of us here on
> this list, today--all love. That's immoral--here, today.
>
By what standard, since you have rejected any common moral principles?
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 23:27:12 -0500
From: Candyce Byrne <footlite@intertex.net>
Subject: Re: Take Back The Night/Methos
> > I'm dredging the back recesses of my memory here,
> > but I seem to
> > recall that the women of the Indo-European tribes
> > of...um, Europe,
> > which we have come to call Celts although that's not
> > a very good name
> > for them, <snip>
>
>Why isn't it a good name? I don't know a whole lot
>about these things.
>
>Mel
Keltoi was the name of a single tribe. We often use it to describe a
rather vaguely defined culture, which is like calling all Americans
Texans, or all Native Americans Comanches.
Candy
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 21:39:11 -0700
From: FKMel <sgt_buck_frobisher@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals--UNNAMED FACTION!
Since this is the HL list not the FK list, I won't go
on arguing, but are you on Forkni-L? I'd be glad to
take it over there. That list needs something to liven
it up anyway. If you're not on that one, there
probably won't be much more debate unless you're on
one of the other Yahoo lists....
Mel
=====
The trouble with immortality is that it tends to go on forever-Herb Cain
FK:NickNatPacker, Knight of the Cross,Knightie, Natpacker/Highlander:Duncan Flag-Waver/Due South Fan/Tracker Fan/Angel Fan/Port Charles Fan
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 01:00:12 -0700
From: Gregory Mate <gmate@rogers.com>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
Nina:
>"Substantially"? Substance & a fictional universe are an odd mix, so I'm
>not sure what you mean. If you are trying to quibble, as in "they own HL,
>largely but not wholly," then give it up. DPP OWNS the HL universe. It's
>often tragically stupid what they do w/ those ownership rights, but that's
>life.
I've been following along here, but I'm not sure what you meant by the
comment, "It's often tragically stupid what they do w/ those ownership
rights." Do you mean that DPP should be doing a better job of writing more
for the Highlander universe, or that they should be aggressively attacking
anyone who violates their copyright?
....Greg....
gmate@rogers.com
He Who Can't Think Of A Tagline Today
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:33:55 +1000
From: Carmel Macpherson <tunnack@webone.com.au>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals
Hi all
Nina disagrees with my statement that DPP "substantially own the
intellectual property in the HL characters and environment" and she said in
response: ""Substantially"? Substance & a fictional universe are an odd
mix, so I'm
not sure what you mean. If you are trying to quibble, as in "they own HL,
largely but not wholly," then give it up. DPP OWNS the HL universe...>
<Carmel>: There is no law anywhere in the world that says "DPP OWNS the HL
universe." There are laws that, in various places, including the US,
provide for the ownership of intellectual property. On the face of it,
these laws would probably give DPP substantial ownership of intellectual
property relating to the Highlander universe. But, whether or not 'all' of
the Highlander universe/characters and its 'canon' are owned by DPP is a
matter of fact which can only be determined by a court examining the
evidence relating to those facts.
<Nina> Carmel, you recently admitted w/ gleeful abandon that you do in fact
breach DPP's copyrights w/ your fanfic. Have you changed your mind? Did
you suffer a head injury? Or are you trying to back out of a dark & scary
corner?
<Carmel> No - unlike some, I have no trouble admitting that I might have
been wrong. Intellectual property and copyright are not synonymous terms.
IP is 'much' wider than copyright. I have certainly used DPP's intellectual
property. However, after doing some further research, and discussing this
with some IP lawyers, I realised that my statement "I already admitted that
I breach DPP's copyright?" was in fact too bald and that this entire area is
far less black and white than I had thought.
<Nina> "Remind me again why the standard copyright declarations & warnings
that are at the end of the HL:TS eps, movies, etc. aren't enough for fanfic?
.."
<Carmel> Because the copyright declaration is about the 'work' on which the
declaration appears - i.e. a movie. It is warning people that they cannot
illegally copy that movie/TV show/or show it without the proper licence and
has nothing to do with intellectual property in characters in the movie.
The mere fact of a character appearing in a movie does not in itself give
any right to IP in that character.
Regarding the sign on DPP's website. I used that to make the point that DPP
do not appear to have a problem with fanfic. I stand by that contention.
Carmel
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 07:45:43 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Philosophy! (No square dancing!)
Me:
>> But can you offer any support for your position beyond your own personal
>> belief? That, after all, has been the question all along.
Rottie:
>You know, I didn't invent the universe or the laws that govern it and so it
>is irrelevant what my own personal "beliefs" are.
As Church Lady used to say "How convenient!" (And by the way, the question was *who* or *what* invented the universe and these "universal" (moral) laws that *you* say govern it. You never did answer that one.(Why?)(It was, after all, the central issue.)
> We could debate forever,
No. Because *we* haven't been debating. I've been debating, you've been avoiding saying anything at all.
>but the elephant will still be in the room even if I only see the head and you
>only hold onto its tail. If you are one of those who denies the existence
>of the elephant because you cannot see the whole, then I can't help you.
Again, very pithy response that answers nothing.
I'm willing to accept that the elephant is present if you could give me some *evidence* that what I am holding *is* an elephant's tail and not the pull-rope to summon the pool boys. Show me a photograph of the entire elephant that illustrates the "fact" that we have both been holding different pieces of the whole. Cite me a third party who has seen the elephant and can describe it in sufficient detail that I can see that my piece *is* a piece of that creature. Explain to me how the elephant came to be in the room and how I came to be holding a piece of it. Illuminate the elephant so that I can see the whole. Give me *something* besides just taking your word for its existence. You can't or won't - so I will stop asking. Your side of this discussion comes down to you saying "because I say so", a technique that losses its power and efficacy by the time most listeners reach the age of 5. Seeing as how I am well past the age of 5......
Wendy(Je suis fini)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 07:56:13 EDT
From: Robin Tidwell <Robinchristine79@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals--UNNAMED FACTION!
In a message dated 7/10/2003 8:22:28 PM Eastern Standard Time,
TCBO2@comcast.net writes:
> ObHLR: Methos and LaCroix (in the time immediately prior to the
> eruption of Vesuvius KNEW EACH OTHER! Methos was at Herculaneum
> and the great Roman General Lucius (LaCroix) was his next door
> neighbor in Pompey. Two wealthy villa owners certainly socialized
> and interacted as "fellow Romans."
>
> TCBO2
>
You make an interesting point there! And I just got my computer in February,
so I've mostly just read at JADFE and the UF site. Are there any others?
Robin
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:03:17 EDT
From: Robin Tidwell <Robinchristine79@aol.com>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals--UNNAMED FACTION!
In a message dated 7/10/2003 11:46:25 PM Eastern Standard Time,
mac.westie@verizon.net writes:
> This reminds me--surely one huge draw that slash &the more graphic hetero
> fanfic has for certain people, is that it's the only porn they allow
> themselves to read. Pity, really.
>
> Nina
> mac.westie@verizon.net
>
Trust me, hon. It ain't the only "porn" I allow myself to read. I read for
the sake of the story. I take it you skip over sex scenes in books and movies?
Some of my favorite authors happen to write graphic sex in there novels. Anne
Rice, Alice Borchardt, even Stephen King has been known to write doozies. So
what's the difference in reading a novel and reading a fan fic with a sex scene
? I'll admit, there are some PWP stories out there. But what people do in the
privacy of there own homes has nothing to do with you. If you don't like it,
by all means, don't do it. But I don't see why you lash out at people who do.
Robin
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:26:09 EDT
From: Bizarro7@aol.com
Subject: Immies, Kimmies and Attornies
Speaking of the Immortal universe and legalities, one would presume that in
the practicality of today's world, most Immies would need a lawyer at some
point or another. My questions of debate are:
a) Would it be more expedient for an Immortal to reveal his nature to his
attorney, to help smooth over any 'special problems' that might arise from that
Immie/Kimmie lifestyle?
b) Are there any Immie attorneys (or would that render them automatically
Kimmies, by nature)? Would they function to serve the needs of a generally
Immortal practice?
c) What's the best Lawyer joke you've ever heard?
Leah
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 08:37:42 -0400
From: jjswbt@earthlink.net
Subject: Re: Mortal Sins
Mel wrote:
>I didn't think about this point much until I saw
>somebody bring it up somewhere else. But it's a good
>one. I know that children and immies don't mix well
>and that loving an immie isn't for everyone...but did
>Anne have to be so cruel?
Ya see, I don't think she was cruel.
> She should have waited to
>commit until she'd seen everything
But how would she have done that? When would she have "seen everything"? Duncan wasn't going to invite her along on a beheading just so she could see what a real sword fight was like. She wasn't going to know what it was like to be hunted by a vicious Immortal until it happened and Duncan wasn't going to set up such an occurrence just so she could feel it first hand.
*He* left her alone in Seacouver. *He* let her think he was dead. The *he* called her and asked her back into his life. What was she suppose to do? Not go to Paris when he called? Show me a woman who discovered that her dead lover is still alive that could resist seeing him when he called. She certainly didn't go expecting to find out he was Immortal (and all that might mean).
Should she have *not* told him she was pregnant? So....she goes to Paris, he tells her what he is. She (somehow) realizes what this will mean for her and her baby. She leaves Paris without telling him why? And then she thinks about it a while and then...what? Now she is 6 months pregnant and calls to say "hi"? Never calls because she can never "be sure"? How could she be "sure"? She didn't know what life with an Immortal would be like. Did Tessa know what her life would be like when she found out that Duncan was Immortal? No. She loved him and she stayed with him. Why should Anne have any more precognition of what will happen than Tessa did? .
And Duncan isn't blameless here. He wanted her to stay..he wanted to play father. He let her think he could protect them because he wanted to think he could. He didn't say "Go away for a year and think about this". He didn't say " BTW, staying with me will probably get you and the baby killed." In "Line of Fire" Duncan is emphatic that Immortals can't protect the mortals that they love. He practically orders Richie to send Donna and the kid away. He *knows* that women and children are the first ones hurt when Immortals start playing games. And yet he doesn't send Anne away. He says "stay close to me" - as if that will make everything safe.
>rather than get Mac's hopes of maybe raising a child up and then yank
>it all away.
But again, that's asking Anne to have knowledge that she just doesn't have. The premise of the show was that Anne loved Duncan and Duncan loved Anne . That has to be taken as a given (regardless of how well it played out on screen) Was *she* suppose to give up the possibility of a life with the man she loved - a man she would never have left if he hadn't "died" - because of his immortality when she had no way of knowing what that immortality would mean? (Tessa knew Duncan 12 years before she knew what it really meant) She thought it would be OK because she *couldn't* know otherwise. He hoped it would be OK even though he knew that it might not be. As it was, she ended up in the middle of a truly vicious fight and saw a horrendous Quickening in the first week of their new life together. She was chased, she was hurt (and the baby threatened) and she saw the man she loved *kill* another man (even if it was justified). And she realized - now that she had first hand knowledge- !
that this was the way it was going to be. Forever. And she couldn't risk her baby's life in that way. It was sad but it didn't seem "cruel" to me except in the way that life can be cruel (which isn't anyone's fault).
> I think it's official: I don't like her.
Oddly enough, though, Duncan didn't hate her. He understood her reasons. He accepted them. He remained friends with Anne and was there for her and Mary when they needed him. While it undoubtedly hurt to lose his dream of "real" fatherhood, he was old enough and experienced enough to realize it was just a dream. Nice while it lasted but not permanent. He wouldn't have wanted to see Anne or the baby hurt because of him - as was likely if they stayed together. How would he have felt if Anne had lost the baby after Damlier knocked her down? Why is Anne wrong for protecting her baby and Duncan not wrong for endangering it? Only because Duncan is "hero".
It was a no-win situation.
Wendy(Having Anne get pregnant was just one more step in the writers' quest to make her character the most unliked and unlikable non-Immortal in HL history.)
Fairy Killer
jjswbt@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~jjswbt/index.html
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:05:12 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Creative urge (Was: Re: Fanfic & Morals)
Nina wrote:
>But, fanfic that's kept private is by definition a non-issue
>in these discussions. It's almost always fanfic that's "out there" that we
>are talking about here.
Okay, then. I honestly (no, I'm not trying to be funny) thought you
were disputing the idea of the "creative urge"/"muse"/whatever you
want to call it.
If you're not, then we're actually discussing something we both agree
about.
>Still, that's how people usually use the concept, when they plaster some
>loooooong story over an otherwise interesting & newsy email list, for
>instance--"Here's my latest! My muse is working me overtime!! I didn't
>sleep for a week over this one!!! Hope you all like it!!!! Send me oodles
>of lovely feedback!!!!!" So, if you are confused about the creative urge
>business, you might look at how it is frequently misused by (public)
>fanficers.
You totally have a point there. I think that's less about the "muse"
than it is people (and multiple use of exclamation marks always seems
to say 'immature' to me) wanting feedback - nay, adulation. Not that
there's anything wrong with wanting people to like what you wrote or
painted, but some people take it too far. It's these same people who,
when they *don't* get feedback, will preface their next story with
"My last story didn't get feedback, so I'm not going to write
anymore, since you people obviously don't like my work!!" This will
then elicit many gushing responses from people such as, "I'm so
sorry!! I was very busy that day and didn't have time!! But I
*loved* your story! Please write more!!" And if that's barf-inducing
for *me*, I can imagine how you look at it, Nina.
>Speaking of paper tigers, who, exactly, ever said here (or anyplace) that
>ALL actors or TPTB detest slash?
I think it was Greg who made a comment very like that. I was just
attempting to disabuse him of that notion, really.
>then do you think fanficers
>should ONLY slash them (people OK w/ it), while leaving the others (those
>who detest being slashed) alone? Interesting. And I doubt very much that
>you feel that way. So, if that is NOT the case--if you think fanficers
>should slash any & all they please--then what relevance is it if this actor
>or that TPTB says something like "whatever floats one's boat"?
Well, you're right. I don't feel that way. It's nice when an actor
is fine with it, but in the end it makes no difference to me. They're
never going to see my stuff, and I wouldn't want them to - not
because I'm ashamed of it or anything, but because I don't see what
my personal perceptions of the character have to do with the actor.
(Which is also why I tend to like mostly actors who are completely
different in each role - makes it much easier to differentiate
between the actor and the character.)
>then how can it be relevent that some are OK w/ it?
I don't feel it's relevant, but Greg had said something about the
general perception of it, and how actors and TPTB hate the idea,
and I just wanted to show him that it's not universally true. It
doesn't even have to relate to fanfic. Some actors have had reporters
ask if they intended their characters to be viewed in a slashy way
(not in those exact words, of course), and they've responded about how
the audience views it. There's a transcript (I think on
www.michaelrosenbaum.com) of an interview about "Sorority Boys" in
which the presenter asked MR if it was true that there was a
"love triangle" between Lana, Clark and Lex, and that Lex wanted
Clark for himself. The reporter didn't mention slash or fanfic, just
that he was wondering if Lex liked Clark. And MR said it wasn't the
case - he wasn't playing it that way.
- Marina.
\\"You can spend precious time marching in your prefect lines,//
// but I don't hear that drum; I'm looking for something else.\\
\\ And if you don't like what you see, you don't have to look //
// at me." - Melissa Etheridge ||=====tmar@sifl.iid.co.za=====\\
\\==========Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie===========//
"What about the fact they thought we were gay?"
"Adds mystery." - Wesley and Angel; "Expecting" (Angel)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:05:14 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Fanfic & Morals--UNNAMED FACTION!
Nina wrote:
>This reminds me--surely one huge draw that slash & the more graphic hetero
>fanfic has for certain people, is that it's the only porn they allow
>themselves to read. Pity, really.
A pity that it's the only porn they let themselves read? Don't know
if it's true. I'll happily admit I read all kinds of stuff, including
non-fanfic porn. And what of it?
- Marina.
\\"You can spend precious time marching in your prefect lines,//
// but I don't hear that drum; I'm looking for something else.\\
\\ And if you don't like what you see, you don't have to look //
// at me." - Melissa Etheridge ||=====tmar@sifl.iid.co.za=====\\
\\==========Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie===========//
"What about the fact they thought we were gay?"
"Adds mystery." - Wesley and Angel; "Expecting" (Angel)
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:30:30 +0200
From: T'Mar <tmar@sifl.iid.co.za>
Subject: Re: Immies, Kimmies and Attornies
Leah asks:
>a) Would it be more expedient for an Immortal to reveal his nature to his
>attorney, to help smooth over any 'special problems' that might arise from
>that Immie/Kimmie lifestyle?
The question is, would the attorney believe him? I have no experience
with American attorneys (does watching LA Law, Family Law, Judging Amy
and The Practice count?) but an attorney wouldn't be able to tell
anybody what the Immie had said, right? Unless the Immie threatened
somebody's life in front of them. I can imagine a conversation with
someone from Donnell and co. going something like this:
Bobby: So you did kill that man, but you're not going to call the
police?
Duncan: Yes.
Bobby: As your attorney, I strongly advise you to call the police.
Duncan: And as your client I'm telling you not to say anything.
Unless it was Eugene, then it would go:
Eugene: So you did kill that man, but you're not going to call the
police?
Duncan: Yes.
Eugene: Okay.
:)
Or Jimmy:
Jimmy: So you did kill that man, but you're not going to call the
police?
Duncan: Yes.
Jimmy: (Calls the police behind Duncan's back.)
Sorry, I've been watching The Practice WAY too much!
>b) Are there any Immie attorneys (or would that render them automatically
>Kimmies, by nature)? Would they function to serve the needs of a generally
>Immortal practice?
I'm sure some Immies would be - why not? But maybe some of them are
like Methos - they have paperwork to cover it all. And I'm sure
they'd help out other Immies when necessary. If they were to be
legal attorneys and make a living at it, though, they'd probably
have to take on mortal clients as well. Unless they were in the
employ of Wolfram and Hart (too much Angel as well).
>c) What's the best Lawyer joke you've ever heard?
Q: If you see a blotch in the road, how do you know whether the
driver of the car ran over a lawyer, or a dog?
A: There are skid marks in front of the dog.
(My SIL is a lawyer and collects lawyer jokes.)
- Marina.
\\"You can spend precious time marching in your prefect lines,//
// but I don't hear that drum; I'm looking for something else.\\
\\ And if you don't like what you see, you don't have to look //
// at me." - Melissa Etheridge ||=====tmar@sifl.iid.co.za=====\\
\\==========Chief Flag Waver and Defender of Richie===========//
"What about the fact they thought we were gay?"
"Adds mystery." - Wesley and Angel; "Expecting" (Angel)
------------------------------
End of HIGHLA-L Digest - 10 Jul 2003 to 11 Jul 2003 - Special issue (#2003-149)
*******************************************************************************