File: "FORKNI-L LOG9606D" Part 14 TOPICS: FK Charity Totals (4) Picnic I'm leaving (2) Nick and Nat and Janette, oh my! (LONG) SPOILER: HF -- Janette, sipping (3) various Good, evil, apology, & clarification (2) DRAGON CON '96 (2) FORKNI-L Digest - 22 Jun 1996 - Special issue SPOILER: LK, AtA, Fran -- Good & Evil (long) Good and Evil Discussion Need FKFIC-L Info ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:08:11 -0400 From: Lisa Prince <Moonlight@g.......> Subject: FK Charity Totals The new FORKNI-L charity totals are as follows: Pediatric AIDS Foundation -- $10,326.00 Casey House -- $458.00 Children's Hospital Foundation -- $105.00 Last Knight blooper scripts are still available, if you would like one and don't have the information, e-mail me privately, if you already know the information and need the addie, it's in the sig. Lisa Prince (Moonlight@g.......) Official Charity Drive Organizer Send to: Lisa Prince, "Forever Knight" Group Charity, 000 Xxxxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxx 000, Xxxxxxx, XX 00000-0000 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:22:34 -0500 From: Stephanie Babbitt <stephanie.babbitt@g.......> Subject: Re: Picnic Amy R. wrote: >Susan Garrett said that there is a first season episode (Canadian version) >which not only has Nick kissing Nat, he does it while they're on a PICNIC. >Why on earth have I never heard of this scene before? Why haven't I seen >it? Please, someone tell me what episode it's in... It's in the tag of Dead Issue, the one where Stonetree's good friend shoots a guy, supposedly in self-defense, but Nick thinks there's "more to it than that." (Note: every time GWD says that phrase, even in Airwolf, his accent comes through. It's beautifully lyrical and devastatingly sexy.) The picnic scene (a Metro PD picnic) is one of my favorites anywhere in FK--Nick, looking happy and relaxed, interacting with humans in an entirely human fashion. Note how he responds to Schanke's announcement that his team won the softball game. The N&N-er in me loved the oh-so-comfortable way he interacts with Nat--the good-to-see-you kiss, the hand on her knee--it's very affectionate. Now that Amy's frothing at the mouth... <g> Stephanie Babbitt, Vaquera with major N&N leanings ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 07:21:44 -0700 From: LC Fenster <lucienlc@i.......> Subject: I'm leaving Because I can't take it anymore. Between the "good vs. evil" debate, which until this round had always been an interesting philosophical discussion, but has now turned vitriolic and nasty in the extreme.... and the N&Npack equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition, which holds that if you are not a Nick and Natpacker, you must obviously be out of your mind, and, by the way, Nick never cared for Janette, and Nat is *obviously* his lady love and everything he does to the contrary is *really* his way of showing affection for Nat and merely lust for Janette, and you're obviously weird if you don't see this ... I like Nat. I like Nick. I do not like Nick & Nat. There are N&Npackers, and there are Immortal Beloveds, and ne'er the twain shall meet. Neither side is ever going to convince the other that they are right. All that happens is a lot of people get very upset being told that their personal opinion is wrong, misguided, or just plain nuts. It has become acutely painful and difficult for someone who likes Janette from before third season to be on this list. We have to constantly listen to people calling her "evil"; a "whore"; Nick's "lust object", the *evil temptress who coldly seduced Nick for LC and then stepped aside* (never mind that we have TWO episodes in which Nick admits that LC gave him a choice, and Nick CHOSE to become a vampire); etc. etc. -- mostly coming from people who've never seen the *real Janette* or only saw her in the context of having first seen HF, which imo gives a skewed view of the character, to say the least. And I have had it. I have reached my limit. Because the Nick and Nat *relationship* is not on screen. (I'm not talking about their friendship. I'm talking about this *love of each other's life* stuff) It's in people's minds, in people's perceptions. I watch the same kind of discussions every day on the UF loop: people straining to find meaning in the smallest gesture, the slightest smile, in the *things unsaid*, etc. The difference is that those discussions take place on a private loop, where people who subscribe to a different view of the characters are not forced to read them over and over and over and over and over and over and over and .... And I know this is an unpopular opinion, but imo, when things get *this* nitpicky, when half my digest every day deals with *proving how Nick and Nat really love each other*, then imo that's where those N&N discussions belong: on a private loop. Or maybe I do. Because I know that I don't want to read them. They're only making me feel sick. Yes. I'm upset. When opening my mail to read the latest forkni digest has become a traumatic exercise, it's obviously time to take a mental health break. Laurie, going no mail after this post COUSIN *** IB *** MBDTK ANTI-N&NPACKER ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 07:30:30 PDT From: "Leslie I.Plummer" <lplummer@i.......> Subject: Re: FK Charity Totals Lisa Prince wrote: >The new FORKNI-L charity totals are as follows: > Pediatric AIDS Foundation -- $10,326.00 > Casey House -- $458.00 > Children's Hospital Foundation -- $105.00 Thx! for the update Lisa! Anyone cooking up a charity event interested in focusing on the Children's Hospital Foundation as it's primary charity? $105 is good, but it would be nice to see 4 or 5 digits for EACH of these fine charities! Any ideas? * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * | Leslie (lplummer@i.......) ***FOREVER MEANS...FOREVER!!!*** | * N&NPacker: "In Love and Faith There is Forever" Knightie, too! * | Sent in FK surveys? Not too late! GoTo SOS-FK or MrHappy Webpages!| * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 09:20:12 -0500 From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......> Subject: Re: Nick and Nat and Janette, oh my! (LONG) At 08:43 AM 6/24/96 -0400, Felicia Bollin wrote: > Janette seems to be okay, if not _utterly_ satisfied, with what she gets >from <Nick>. It's not her ideal, but it seems to be enough for the moment. > Janette has never said that she is unhappy with that kind of treatment. > Perhaps she *does* feel happy enough with the mutual "sipping". OTOH, she left him after 97 years. Perhaps that's because she really wasn't satisfied with what she was getting from him. Perhaps she didn't even really know the source of her dissatisfaction. I'm not saying this to say there's anything wrong with either Nick or Janette. I just don't think these are two people whose personalities fit together in a way that can create romantic love. If it didn't happen after 97 years of living together, and 750 years of knowing each other, then the potential is probably not there. Margie (treeleaf@i.......) N&NPacker Cousin of the Knight Save FK - http://members.aol.com/CuznJamiMR ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:51:15 -0400 From: Allison Percy <percy91@w.......> Subject: Re: FK Charity Totals Lisa Prince wrote: > >The new FORKNI-L charity totals are as follows: > > Pediatric AIDS Foundation -- $10,326.00 > > Casey House -- $458.00 > > Children's Hospital Foundation -- $105.00 I'm sure everyone will join me in saying {{{clappity clappity clappity}}}! Way to go, FORKNI-L listmembers and other charity drive donors!!! Then Leslie I.Plummer <lplummer@i.......> wrote: > Anyone cooking up a charity event interested in > focusing on the Children's Hospital Foundation as it's primary charity? > $105 is good, but it would be nice to see 4 or 5 digits for EACH of these > fine charities! Any ideas? The funds raised by the FK charity bike tour will go 100% to Children's Hospital Foundation. BTW, I've not only received several pledges, I've already received some of the pledge money! Thanks, Melissa Taylor and Lynn Messing, for being so quick with your checkbooks! The "Pedal for Forever Knight Supporter" pins are under construction now. :^) And in case Leslie and others on the list don't know, Casey House and Children's Hospital Foundation are charities supported by Nigel's and Ger's fan clubs, so a fair amount of money has been raised off-list for these causes. But I really hope we can add a hefty chunk on our own to these charity drives!! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Allison Percy, Knightie percy91@w....... __o Pedal for Forever Knight! Support the charity bike tour! _`\<,_ E-mail me to find out how to donate and/or join the ride. (*)/ (*) http://assets.wharton.upenn.edu/~percy91/FKtour.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:53:58 -0400 From: "Margaret L. Carter" <MLCVamp@a.......> Subject: SPOILER: HF -- Janette, sipping I thought sure this was out of protection, oh, well -- * * * * * * * * If Janette can "take just a little bit at a time" in HF, why can't Nick exercise moderation? His personal lack of self-control? HF seems to establish decisively that FK vampires can indeed sip, sufficiently motivated. So does the Dungeon of Blonde Bimbos, as someone else remarked. Margaret Carter ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 08:08:11 PDT From: "Leslie I.Plummer" <lplummer@i.......> Subject: Re: FK Charity Totals Allison wrote: >The funds raised by the FK charity bike tour will go 100% to Children's >Hospital Foundation. and... >And in case Leslie and others don't know, Casey House & Children's Hospital >Foundation are charities supported by Nigel's & Ger's fan clubs, so a fair >amount of money has been raised off-list for these causes. Thanks for the news, Allison. No, I didn't know. Glad to hear so very much is being done in the name of FK for all these charities! Glad to get the news! BTW, any idea on amts raised by the fan clubs? (inquiring minds want to know... via private email, if recommended) YAY! * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * | Leslie (lplummer@i.......) ***FOREVER MEANS...FOREVER!!!*** | * N&NPacker: "In Love and Faith There is Forever" Knightie, too! * | Sent in FK surveys? Not too late! GoTo SOS-FK or MrHappy Webpages!| * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * -- * ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 08:22:33 -0700 From: Cynthia Hoffman <choff@v.......> Subject: various Lisa Wolters asked (and I'm paraphrasing ... correct me if I get this wrong, okay?): If people don't believe in Nick and Nat and don't believe in Nick's quest to regain his mortality and be with her, why do they watch the show/care about Nick at all? Whenever I see questions like this, it takes me a bit of time to calm down enough to answer them rationally. And this question has been increasingly the subject, in one form or another, of this list and like Laurie, I'm finding it frustrating, to say the least. I've been in FK fandom since Dark Knight, and on these lists in one fashion or another for just around two years, and I've *never* been a Nick and Nat Packer and I've never understood Nick's quest to be about either gaining mortality in a literal sense, or gaining it specifically so he can be with Natalie. Nick's quest for *redemption* has been ongoing in his life for at least 100 or so years prior to meeting with Natalie and the focus of the show has for the most part been on Nick's struggles with the idea of repaying society for his sins and self-acceptance. That is why I got hooked on the show; not because I'm a romantic, not because I think a "cure" is Nick's answer to his problems. Nick will be shocked and dismayed to note that becoming human again -- if he ever does -- is only the *beginning* of his road, not the end. In that sense, Nick is like all of us: the journey to self-acceptance is a long one and it's hard fought and it's *not* concluded because we've found the perfect mate. That's an illusion they've been feeding women for years and even we've finally come to understand the falsity of it. My dislike of cultural relativism notwithstanding, what's compelling about Forever Knight is its willingness to tackle tough issues and except for some basics -- rape is wrong, murder (not necessarily killing) is wrong, incest is wrong -- its *unwillingness* to feed us easy answers to the ethical questions of life. And it's FUN too. Let's all try to remember that, shall we? Raven Cynthia Cynthia Hoffman/choff@v....... feminism is the radical notion that women are people ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:30:21 -0400 From: Luz Funtowicz <funtowic@p.......> Subject: Re: I'm leaving Laurie said: >Between the "good vs. evil" debate, which until this round had always >been an interesting philosophical discussion, but has now turned >vitriolic and nasty in the extreme.... > >and the N&Npack equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition, which holds that >if you are not a Nick and Natpacker, you must obviously be out of your >mind, and, by the way, Nick never cared for Janette, and Nat is >*obviously* his lady love and everything he does to the contrary is >*really* his way of showing affection for Nat and merely lust for >Janette, and you're obviously weird if you don't see this ... > >I like Nat. I like Nick. I do not like Nick & Nat. > I wholeheartedly agree. I just signed on to the group, and I was pretty suprised by the things I started getting in the mail. To tell the truth, I was expecting things more like the Top Five chest scenes :) I don't mind serious stuff, in fact, I enjoy having my brain excercised during the summer, but I do feel that on this group, it has gone beyond serious and on to borderline vitriolic. I like Nick and Nat, but not together, I also really like Janette, and I wouldn't mind seeing her and Nick together. However, right now I am on a Cousin kick (don't know how long it will last), and I'd like to hear more about LaCroix, than about people's view of their religion's take on vampirism (especially since I'm Jewish, and feel slightly left out), or about how sex and love aren't the same thing and etc. I guess this is kind of a strong message from a newbie, but I have to say that as a newbie, these threads did surprise and shock me, and that you have to consider how other newbies feel who might be shopping around for a friendly fk list. Sorry, off my soapbox for now, Luciana (yes it is my real name, and let's hope LaCroix doesn't mind) PS: I hope someone who knows Laurie will send her some supportive private email. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 08:47:38 -0700 From: "Nina A. Smith" <snsa@i.......> Subject: Good, evil, apology, & clarification Oh dear. Well, I guess I'm only getting what I deserve for hauling out the heavy artillery for a short burst. _Mea culpa_, and I had no intention of offending anyone, especially Lisa. (Very sorry to set you off like that!) Begging your indulgence, I'll try to clarify my position: First, the issue that counts: In the fictional context of FK, is vampirism evil by definition? IMO, of course not; the issue is not what vampires ARE, but what they DO. And living by what amounts to serial murder is evil. The issue that vampires are no longer human and therefore not bound by "human" morality isn't so simple; the changes that seem to be involved are matters of physiology, like acquiring a syndrome. (A neat fictional parallel might be the Vidiians [sp?] of Star Trek: Voyager; the fact that they're sick and desperate to survive doesn't justify their treating everyone else they run into as raw materials.) As for the argument that vampires kill to live, well, so do contract murderers. A vampire, we have seen, can repent and live on animal blood, as a hit man can go straight. I find Gehirn's analogy of dairy farming elegant and on target. If vampires in a modern context can obtain human blood steadily through means other than force and fraud (i.e., by purchase or even voluntary donation), it certainly fulfills the letter of the moral law as many see it. If, like Nick, a vampire opts to forgo the pleasure of the good stuff and subsist on animal blood, that's highly admirable, rather like a commitment to vegetarianism. What adds a level of attraction for me (and surely others) is his decision to repent and atone for the years he lived by murder. His attempt to become mortal again on top of that reflects a level of moral commitment above and hich relativism arises is in the safety zone -- among people living in a society where general standards of decency and justice are maintained, and who take such conditions for granted. We Americans, history's luckiest and most comfortable nation, have a hard time imagining the human condition otherwise. From our soft seats here and now, we look back on, say, the Aztec Empire and pronounce, "They were a different culture and had their own standards -- who are we to judge and condemn them?" How openminded. Now imagine yourself as a member of one of the many neighboring, weaker nations the Aztecs ruthlessly conquered to provide a source of meat for their gods and their own ruling class, in keeping with their culture and its values ... it's a little harder, isn't it? Especially since it can be factually established that the world WON'T actually be destroyed if the gods "Feathered Serpent" and "Left-Handed Hummingbird" aren't offered enough still-beating human hearts. Or let's take this from the historical to the small-scale. Moral relativists: If you were assaulted, raped and robbed on the street, and the perpetrator -- unrepentant, maintaining his right to do as he did in the light of his values -- were arrested, would you refuse to press charges on the grounds that you have no right to judge him? QED. nina **** "Hillel said: Be of the students of Aaron; love peace and pursue peace..." Pirke Avot 1:12 ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 10:54:32 PST From: "P. L. Montgomery" <plcm@j.......> Subject: Re: SPOILER: HF -- Janette, sipping Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... Spoiler... >If Janette can "take just a little bit at a time" in HF, why can't >Nick exercise moderation? His personal lack of self-control? HF >seems to establish decisively that FK vampires can indeed sip, >sufficiently motivated. >So does the Dungeon of Blonde Bimbos, as someone else remarked. >Margaret Carter I think maybe Nick's regular diet is at fault (at least partly) in his lack of control. If he were sipping regularly at humans it would probably be easier for him to take "just a little". I daresay that cow's blood just isn't as good as the "real" thing. To coin a phrase... "But that's just my opinion; I could be wrong." P.L. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 12:03:51 EST From: Ronni Katz <ronnik@c.......> Subject: DRAGON CON '96 Hello! I'm not sure if anyone here was in Atlanta for DragonCon this past weekend but I was and I have some interesting news! FK merchandise was at the Con! They had a lot of stills (photos) from all 3 seasons and some merchants had T shirts (bought one!) and BUMPER STICKERS! Scott from Pegasus publishing had the BEST fandom bumper stickers and he had the best selection of FK related stuff. Spend serious $ at his booth. Someone on thr List was talking about swords and, yes, there were really NICE blades available at the Con. Got a Crusader sword that looks almost EXACTLY like one worn by a certain Knight in QoH and Duncan's Dragon head katana. However, the money I saved getting them at the Con instead of via mailorder wen out the window because the anal retentive folks at Delta airlines insisted I ship the swords as opposed to take them on as luggage. Needless to say there were housed in special padded containers to protect them and you wouldn't KNOW a sword was in there unless you ripped open the box... So $51 later I had my 2 swords in my grubby little paws... <Grr!> The real reason I was at the Con was for Robot Battles. Yeah, your friendly neighborhood geek engineer had a robot entered in the feather weigh class. Poor little guy burned out his speed controller in the first match and he also had prbolems with traction on the track so... he lost. "Spike" (what the robot was named because hehad a nice LONG spike for a nose!!) will be back after a major rebuild of his drive train and after we get the $90 for another speed controller... Took photos of the competitopn. You would NOT believe what won! It was a robot that shot women's lingerie at opponents to trap them by jamming up their wheels and gears.... It was nicknamed "The Pantybot" and was also the winning entry at last year's competition. The designer of the robot was a pro female impersonator.... Atlanta is amazing. If anyone is going down for the Olympics, the city has really be designed around getting visitors to where they want to be as easily and hassle free as possible. The MARTA ran well (which says alot because I was on it at off-peak hours on a weekend!) and the roadways were really nice too... Must go - have to finish some FK fic that is LONG overdue <vbg> and get back to redesigning the robot for the next competiton in August! Ron the Enforcer CERK guru and Robot Warrior at large! RonniK@e....... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 12:34:49 -0400 From: Eileen Duffy <watson@t.......> Subject: Re: FORKNI-L Digest - 22 Jun 1996 - Special issue >Then Margie wrote: > >>So if murder appears to "work" for a society it's okay? The only criterion >>is whether it "works"? > >The words "murder" and "okay" don't appear anywhere in my above statement. >Such words are not value neutral and the only one in which one can have a >meaningful debate is to remain *value neutral*. Anything else is, by >literary standards, rhetoric, which accomplishes little and inflames much. We all have to keep in mind that almost anything we accept as "right" or "wrong" is a function of the society in which we were raised. I'm not condemning our society, but we especially, as the decendents of Western European cultures, have a tendency to think that we are RIGHT, and that anyone who disagrees with us is WRONG. We have a history of intolerance behind us, and many of us still carry it with us today. Why do you think that so many indigenous peoples have been wiped out? They were "savages", "uncivilized", they "can't see the truth". We still do this today. We Westernize other cultures, and think they should thank us for it. Now to get this back onto OBFK: As has been pointed out, the ideas of Right and Wrong are largely cultural. There are very few mores that are common to every people. Just because we personally don't happen to agree with someone's action doesn't mean that we have the right to condemn it without first considering the action's basis. (No, I don't belong to the ACLU.) Now, murder may be a "moral absolute" in most cultures, but the TYPE of murder is not. There have been several posts pointing out such items as religious sacrifice (and for any Christians out there, keep in mind that that is what your religion is based on--one man dying for the good of all--not so different from other religions when you look at it that way), and culturally accepted murders such as the death of an unfaithful wife (and to really get people angry at me, let me point out that again, Western culture had its own parallel of condoned murder-- the duel, and still does--self-defense). Just because we disagree with them doesn't mean that these mores are invalid. Nick, coming from a Western culture, sees things our way. LaCroix, coming from the Roman culture where taking lives was not such a terrible thing, sees things a totally different way. We can't blame Nick for feeling guilty about the murders he's comitted, nor can we blame LaCroix for NOT feeling guilty. LaCroix is just more pragmatic about it--people die all the time, it is the nature of humans to die, I'm just speeding up the natural process of things. I'm rambling, aren't I? Thanks for putting up with these rantings. Well, I guess I'll stop now. Maybe some sleep will let my next post be more coherent. ***Eileen Duffy*** Beam Me Up watson@t....... Montclair, NJ Defender of the Brain -- WAR!!!! In Love and Faith There is Forever ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 11:33:00 -0600 From: "Elena Villafuerte H." <evilla@u.......> Subject: Re: SPOILER: LK, AtA, Fran -- Good & Evil (long) On Sat, 22 Jun 1996, Margie Hammet wrote: > At 09:50 AM 6/22/96 -0500, TippiNB wrote: > >Amy wrote: > > >>.... yes, we can say that someone is wrong, and even evil. .... > >>ripping the living hearts out of unwilling victims? That would be wrong, > >>and evil, and it would be just fine to say so. > > >So the Aztecs were wrong and evil, too? Whatever they were doing socially > >allowed them to become one of the most advanced and largest civilizations in > >history. Their religion worked for *them*. > > So if murder appears to "work" for a society it's okay? The only criterion > is whether it "works"? > > Margie (treeleaf@i.......) > N&NPacker > Cousin of the Knight > Save FK - http://members.aol.com/CuznJamiMR > Just a minute, please. At least in the Aztec religion, it was NOT NOT NOT murder, it was ceremonial sacrifice which is, IMO, an entirely different thing... Elena evilla@u....... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 12:06:51 +0500 From: "J.S.Levin/Stormsinger" <wabbit@e.......> Subject: Re: *Good and Evil Discussion* Since Sandra Gray asked -- The New American Webster Dictionary defines "murder" as: (n)"homicide with malice aforethought"; (v) "kill with premeditated malice" The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines "murder" as: "the unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with malice aforethought... to kill a (human being) unlawfully...to kill (one or more human beings) brutally or inhumanly..." (I have in both definitions skipped over things relating to the colloquial use of the word "murder the competition", "this heat is murder", and so forth). Please note that in both cases, this is considered a *legal* term <g>. A killing of one human being by another, even in our own culture, is not automatically "murder". Key words are "aforethought", "malice", "brutally", etc. A vampire killing solely for sustanance is -- as Nick is himself aware, in his actions in protecting the Community -- somewhat *outside* the legal definition of murder, both because of the argument that that vampire is *not* a human being (in the clinical and psychological sense) and that the killing itself doesn't strictly fit the legal definition of "murder". Other killings by vampires are a separate issues. The conclusion I come to? No easy answers. Nothing is black and white, cut and dried. But... when is it ever?? Bright Blessings to all, as Midsummer comes full. Storm -- wabbit@e....... (J.S.Levin/Stormsinger) Vaquera, Dark Knightie, UF, SKL; Gangrel, Scrapper Their canon met my imagination and was outgunned. If you practice being fictional, you discover that "characters" are as real as people with bodies and heartbeats... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 13:15:01 EST From: Ronni Katz <ronnik@c.......> Subject: Need FKFIC-L Info Hi again! The server here at ECCS hiccuped and I lost ALL my Email from Thursday June 20 - Sat June 22. I am mostly interested in knowing what FK fiction got posted on those dates so I can either get them from the author or from PSUVM. If anyone knows what got posted on those days and can let me know so I can find what I'm missing, I'd REALLY appreciate it! Thanks! Ron the Enforcer RonniK@e....... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 12:36:32 +0500 From: "J.S.Levin/Stormsinger" <wabbit@e.......> Subject: Re: DRAGON CON '96 Hey Ron! > Took photos of the competitopn. You would NOT believe what won! It > was a robot that shot women's lingerie at opponents to trap them by > jamming up their wheels and gears.... It was nicknamed "The Pantybot" > and was also the winning entry at last year's competition. The > designer of the robot was a pro female impersonator.... Would that have been Phil by any chance? Good luck next year. Glad to hear that DragonCon seems to have somewhat recovered from the V:tM debacle of a few years ago. Oh, yeah -- envy, envy on the sword purchases! OBFK: you might want to let Anne at TV Show Stuff know about what was for sale at the con, and what (in your opinion) the market looked like there. Gee, Sony -- we'll even do the market research for you....<G> Storm -- wabbit@e....... (J.S.Levin/Stormsinger) Vaquera, Dark Knightie, UF, SKL; Gangrel, Scrapper Their canon met my imagination and was outgunned. If you practice being fictional, you discover that "characters" are as real as people with bodies and heartbeats... ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 13:45:20 -0400 From: Mary Davis <Spirit3679@a.......> Subject: Re: Good, evil, apology, & clarification In a message dated 96-06-24 12:18:29 EDT, you write: Nina wrote: > let's take this from the historical to the small-scale. Moral >relativists: If you were assaulted, raped and robbed on the street, and the >perpetrator -- unrepentant, maintaining his right to do as he did in the >light of his values -- were arrested, would you refuse to press charges on >the grounds that you have no right to judge him? Okay, now you seem to be confusing private morality with social order. In this case the individual issue of forgiveness is distinct from the societal issue of law and order. Society has determined that the court has the right to judge. In the New Testament, Christ says "render to Caesar the things which are Caesar's, render to God the things which are God's. Society creates rules which are meant to allow for orderly progression of the society. The Universe exists in laws of order like gravity. It is neither right nor wrong for things to fall down instead of up, it is just the order of things. Mary Davis Can we go back to having fun now? ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 14:00:22 -0400 From: Tammy Stephanie Davis <tsd@u.......> Subject: Re: SPOILER: HF -- Janette, sipping On Mon, 24 Jun 1996, Margaret L. Carter wrote: > I thought sure this was out of protection, oh, well -- > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > * > > If Janette can "take just a little bit at a time" in HF, why can't Nick > exercise moderation? His personal lack of self-control? HF seems to > establish decisively that FK vampires can indeed sip, sufficiently motivated. > So does the Dungeon of Blonde Bimbos, as someone else remarked. > > Margaret Carter > I think the key difference between Jeanette's taking a little at a time and Nick's Dungeon of Bimbos scene is that Jeanette was trying to perserve someone's life. She *didn't* want to kill her lover. Whereas Nick had every intention of killing the two women eventually. As such I don't really count Dungeon scene as "sipping". Nick was killing them, just more slowly. As for his control, well consider the result of his first attempt to bring someone across (he killed her), plus having Lacroix as his master (Nick: "I couldn't stop." Lacroix: "You weren't suppose to."), combined with his guilt/angst toward feeding and/or sex in general and you have one emotionally suppressed vampire who doesn't understand the meaning of the word "stop". =========================================================================
Previous |
This month's list |
Next |