FKSPOILR
Logfile LOG9605 Part 1
April 30-May 1, 1996
File: "FKSPOILR LOG9605" Part 1
TOPICS:
Spoiler: Jane Doe
Spoiler: Jane Doe, Flowers (2)
Ashes to Ashes spoiler
If not at Syndicon W, Ignore (Long)
SPOILER: Jane Doe (11)
Jane Doe (2)
SPOILERS: Jane Doe (ep 19) Take 2 (2)
Spoiler: JD, Nick-ping/LC-pong
SPOILER: Jane Doe & LC's Buddy
SPOILERS: Jane Doe; Companionship (2)
Jane Doe--and the new off topic
Jane Doe Spoilers
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 00:04:51 -0400
From: Sharon Scott <Sss44@a.......>
Subject: Spoiler: Jane Doe
Ho hum. I sat through it, but that's about it. I'm bored by Tracy and her
problems. I want Nick & Nat & LaCroix stories, not Tracy. Especially this
close to the end of the season.
I was thinking that the flashbacks might have been more effective if they'd
used the civil rights movement in the American South as the setting, rather
than the European setting.
Only one thought on LaCroix's eyebrows--he's the *arch*villain, so maybe that
explains them. :-)
Scottie
scotts@b....... or sss44@a.......
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 21:21:35 -0700
From: AKR <r@w.......>
Subject: Spoiler: Jane Doe, Flowers
On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, D Echelbarger wrote:
> No, I noticed that immediately.
> They were gladiolas.
Oh, my. Continuity obsession demands that I interpret this.
Continuity-obsession demands that I hypothesize that this is a sign of
Reese's extreme, possibly even irrational, emotional involvement in the case,
that he was jumping to ill-informed conclusions based on his opinions about
the racist psychopath, before he really had any proof that he *was* a
"psychopath" ("racist" was pretty clear, though).
Of course, in Real Life, florists just don't sell cotton flowers... :)
*** Amy, Lady of the Knight (AKR) r@w....... ***
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 04:52:48 GMT
From: Karen Parker <horcgal@u.......>
Subject: Ashes to Ashes spoiler
this is a spoiler for ashes to ashes
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
Ok, I hope I did that right so I dont get hollered at. Now, I read a
spoiler post before that said in Ashes to Ashes Vachon dies and Tracey is
the one who buries him near Screed.
Well, IMHO a totally perfect and pretty sad song for that moment would be
"I am stretched on your grave" by Sinead O'connor.
I'm sure any Sinead fans out there will be hollering at me about what their
interpretation of the song is, but I personally think it would be a great
"vachon/tracy" song for that ep.
Pounce if you must.
Karen
horcgal@u.......
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 23:53:07 -0500
From: Jewels <jbaldwin@f.......>
Subject: If not at Syndicon W, Ignore (Long)
Please allow me to preface with this: I painfully regret sending a
message out to more than one list. However, as I was not at Syndicon
West, I do not know to whom I should directly address this, or to which
list(s) they might subscribe. I willingly accept whatever consequences
are appropriate. Rest assured, I will not do it again.
This message is for all listmembers who were present at the con and met
my baby twin, Christian. Feel free to hit delete at any time, I will
probably be a bit emotional.
Hello gorgeous.
I wanted to apologize as necessary for my sister's coarse behavior and
to thank you for your kindness. She told me that she was a complete
a**hole to almost everyone, almost all of the time. She said that if the
family were present, we would never live down the shame. Immediately, I
knew what she meant, and hoped to offer an explanation.
She probably seemed aloof. In truth, she was painfully shy. She said
that while in the presence of Mr. B., she could hardly stand to look at
him. That his presence devoured the room more fully than any
Valiere or Moore (Baton Rouge old society). Which astonished me,
actually, as she was not unused to the company of local performing
artists. In any case, she said that she dragged a con photographer from
the party to escape unscathed.
Everyone, save the President of Mr. B's fan club, was in her perception,
an angel. She quickly chimed in with Mama's old saying, "only the
fragile among us are cruel. It takes great strength to be beautiful to
everyone." (Mama equates beauty with warmth and generosity of spirit,
not the physical.) I asked her if perhaps "cruel" was too strong a word
to describe the woman she encountered. She said, "yes, distracted
perhaps."
She said that she was unable to spend much time getting to know any of
you, as the hotel only allowed her to smoke outdoors, in the bar, and in
her room.
She was afraid that she was perceived as an alcoholic, because she was
the only woman at the party drinking. I asked her how much she had. I
was stiffly informed that she had a beer, and some champagne from the
bottle at the party. I laughed and told her that unless she was tripping
over feet, not to worry. (In the Coonass tradition, we were sipping J.D.
and cokes before the training wheels were off.)
She also admitted that she was accused of being an Australian, as her
accent ebbed and flowed. I said, "Darling, (pron. Darlin'), unless they
were from this part of the world, they probably don't hear many
Louisiana-altered-by-many-years-in-Metro Houston accents."
She said that when Tara asked, before the party, for suggestions on what
to write on Mr. B's card, she replied, "I'd like to thank your mother
for a butt like that. Love, Tara." I reminded her that she had never
seen Mr. B or his butt in her entire. Nevertheless, at the time she felt
it was appropriate.
I am sorry that this thank you note is late in coming, but, you see, on
the night of her return, my baby twin took her own life. The
conversation I've recounted was our last. In light of this, and her
just-completed time with you, I wanted you to understand her. I never
want her to be remembered, not even vaguely, as less than she was. She
was my twin, and I loved her. She is the third sister that I have lost
since November. (There were six of us.) She was the gentlest, the
softest of us. She mourned the loss of the South of her birth to the
present one. She loved peonies and the sea. She was an afficionado,
no, an artist of snail mail. She liked you all very much.
Amicalement,
Jewels
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 00:38:22 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe
I wrote:
>I'm a bit mystified as to why you think it was good for LC to take
>revenge on Calvin
Dianne De Sha writes:
>"Good?" Who said "good"?
Do you see quote marks around the good in my quote above? *I* used
good as my own comment since Laura had expressed favorability (and
no, that's not her "quote") for LC's actions with Calvin. She seemed
to think it was a good idea (again, not a "quote").
>And LC does many, many things Nick detests in order to keep Nick
>_alive_
Does he really? In the present time he doesn't seem to be doing too
much to try to keep Nick alive. He doesn't seem to be "popping up"
that much when Nick has tried various cures that might "kill" him.
I wrote:
>>But that line wasn't aired, so why discuss it?
Dianne writes:
>Umm... 'Pot calling the kettle black'? <g>
I didn't bring up the topic. I just don't think that a big deal
should be made out of something that wasn't aired (as it seems this
cut quote has been). Particularly when there was something Nick
said in the flashback that *was* aired that could be similarly
twisted if one desired.
>"He killed them." Ally, traitor; broken neck or drained-- ...Nick
>makes exceptions to his "no kill" rule when he feels justified in it.
Well, the leader of the allied group Nick was involved with also felt
like killing the man. Resistance fighters probably tried all
suspected spies? If this had been a standard war movie, would you
be so quick to condemn a human allied member who killed a suspected
spy?
>Nick's code's a _bit_ more strict than that.
Well, yeah, Nick said in Dark Knight "I caught a killer tonight. I'm
paying my debt." But that doesn't mean Nick had any similar idea
at the time of the flashback. In the 1950s, he taught archeology
instead of chasing criminals.
>("I will do good, but I will only kill people I'm angry with." is
>certainly what he seems to be *living* ...
With the exception of LC in Dark Knight, who is Nick killing in the
present day out of anger? He thought that the guy in "Last Act"
didn't deserve to live, but he didn't kill him (although he was
pretty angry at him).
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 00:50:44 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe
Dianne De Sha writes:
>Laura's point was that Nick makes exception to his "no kill" rule
>when he feels justified in it. And that, often, makes him a hypocrite.
In rereading Dianne's post, these two lines jumped out at me. Does
anyone besides me see how ludricous this sounds? On the one hand,
Nick is supposed to be a "hypocrite" if he makes an exception to
his "no kill" rule when he feels justified in it. But on the other
hand, Nick is being criticized in this thread for *not* making an
exception to his "no kill" rule and killing Hitler. Apparently the
guy can't be cut a break no matter *what* he does.
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 02:01:11 -0400
From: Apache <lf@c.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe
On Wed, 1 May 1996, Sandra Gray wrote:
> Dianne De Sha writes:
> >Laura's point was that Nick makes exception to his "no kill" rule
> >when he feels justified in it. And that, often, makes him a hypocrite.
>
> In rereading Dianne's post, these two lines jumped out at me. Does
> anyone besides me see how ludicrous this sounds?
Well... no.
> Nick is supposed to be a "hypocrite" if he makes an exception to
> his "no kill" rule when he feels justified in it. But on the other
> hand, Nick is being criticized in this thread for *not* making an
> exception to his "no kill" rule and killing Hitler.
No, Nick is being criticized in this thread for asking/wanting
Lacroix to do it for him.
> Apparently the guy can't be cut a break no matter *what* he does.
Hey, he loves it that way. No other character on TV loves to
suffer like Nick does. Those of us who pick on him are merely helping
his penance along. You know -- ten Hail Marys and six decades of angst,
then come back for more.
It's a blinkin' joke, OK? It was a *joke* the first time, and
it's still a joke!
Ap.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 02:33:51 -0400
From: Gehirn Karies <SoulDebris@a.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe
Merc Cousin Lisa:
>Here's a guy who kept women locked up in his dungeon while
>he slowly killed them one sip at a time. Yeah, real nice guy that Nick.
<very evil snickering>
Would you like a can opener with that paragraph?
Brutal Cousin Karies
SoulDebris@a.......
"Pain looks great on other people, that's what they're for." Andrew Eldritch
Sisters of Mercy
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 23:47:12 -0700
From: Dianne Therese De Sha <maeve@g.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe
Dianne De Sha writes:
> >Laura's point was that Nick makes exception to his "no kill" rule
> >when he feels justified in it. And that, often, makes him a hypocrite.
Sandra responds:
> In rereading Dianne's post, these two lines jumped out at me. Does
> anyone besides me see how ludricous this sounds? On the one hand,
Um... excuse me?
> Nick is supposed to be a "hypocrite" if he makes an exception to
> his "no kill" rule when he feels justified in it. But on the other
> hand, Nick is being criticized in this thread for *not* making an
> exception to his "no kill" rule and killing Hitler. Apparently the
No, Sandra... you're confusing your posters again.
I neither feel, nor have ever suggested Nick _should_ have killed
anyone. Hitler included.
Dianne
Dianne la Mercenaire... -*- <cat.goddess@p.......>
-*-"We must be powerful, beautiful, and without regret."-*-
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 02:49:52 -0400
From: Ray Heuer <RayHeuer@a.......>
Subject: Re: Jane Doe
As to this "Schicklegruber" nonsense:
Adolph Hitler was born Adolph Hitler. His birth certificate reads
"Adolph Hitler". Adolph's father Aloys Hitler was illegitimate and bore the
name Schicklegruber until his father acknowledged him long before Adolph was
born.
Certain historians have theorized that Aloys Hitler may not have been
Adolph's biological father, due to his marrying well below his station, in
fact marrying a household servant. However, legally and historically, Adolph
Hitler, conceieved out of wedlock, was the child of Aloys Hitler and bore his
name from birth to death.
Hitler was also a poor sketch artist, and I find it odd that he would
choose to do a sketch of a stranger "for practice". He was a
fair-to-middlin' landscape artist, preferring to draw large structures such
as churches and monuments. And no virtual chocolate to anyone who says he
had an "edifice complex"!
Nevertheless, I winced when LaCroix set the sketch aflame (why save
something so carefully for 50 years and then destroy it on a whim?)
I'm not sure that any of this qualifies as "on-topic", so -
ObFK: Maybe Nat has a point about Tracy and the oxygen mask. Do you
think her problem all along has been lack of oxygen to her brain?
-- Ray
Nat Vamp Camp
Rage! Rage! Against the dying of the Knight!
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 02:50:05 -0400
From: Ray Heuer <RayHeuer@a.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Jane Doe (ep 19) Take 2
Replying to my comment that Capt. Reese obtained the hairs illegally, Sandra
Gray asks:
> Then why is testimony obtained by a "wire" admissable?
Usually (but not always), a court order and the consent of the person
wearing the "wire" is required. In this case, however, Reese was in
violation of a court order by being close enough to Manning to obtain hair
samples.
-- Ray
Nat Vamp Camp
New episodes have begun!
Rage! Rage! Against the dying of the Knight!
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 02:00:28 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe
Dianne De Sha writes:
>No, Sandra... you're confusing your posters again.
No, I'm not. Reread the quote I quoted:
>Laura's point was that Nick makes exception to his "no kill" rule
>when he feels justified in it. And that, often, makes him a hypocrite.
It clearly states you're talking about *Laura's* point.
>I neither feel, nor have every suggested Nick _should_ have killed
>anyone. Hitler included.
Glad to hear it. But I did not say you said that. Reread my post.
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 00:06:19 -0700
From: Dianne Therese De Sha <maeve@g.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe
And again...
> Dianne De Sha writes:
> >"Good?" Who said "good"?
> Do you see quote marks around the good in my quote above? *I* used
> good as my own comment since Laura had expressed favorability (and
Well so we disagree on what she was expressing. This is the point I was
trying to make. Of such things are discussions made, no?
> no, that's not her "quote") for LC's actions with Calvin. She seemed
> to think it was a good idea (again, not a "quote").
Any reason you're not quoting what she actually said?
> >And LC does many, many things Nick detests in order to keep Nick _alive_
> Does he really? In the present time he doesn't seem to be doing too
> much to try to keep Nick alive. He doesn't seem to be "popping up"
> that much when Nick has tried various cures that might "kill" him.
<blinks>
<blinks again>
Now he's not interfering in Nick's life *enough*?
(Apparently showing up for a little talk with a tag-in-the-sunbeam
chaser in The Fix doesn't count... or a series of framed murders
in KI? [to get him to leave town and give up on the mortality
attempt, which is suicidal to his POV]...)
<sigh> I give up...
> >>But that line wasn't aired, so why discuss it?
> >Umm... 'Pot calling the kettle black'? <g>
> I didn't bring up the topic. I just don't think that a big deal
> should be made out of something that wasn't aired (as it seems this
Just noting that you don't seem adverse to making a big
deal out of this line-that-was-not either. (Want to add
up your line count on the subject today? ;-)
> cut quote has been). Particularly when there was something Nick
> said in the flashback that *was* aired that could be similarly
> twisted if one desired.
"Twisted"? Let's try to give all the participants in this debate
the benefit of the doubt, o.k.?
> >"He killed them." Ally, traitor; broken neck or drained-- ...Nick
> >makes exceptions to his "no kill" rule when he feels justified in it.
> Well, the leader of the allied group Nick was involved with also felt
> like killing the man. Resistance fighters probably tried all
Trans: "Someone else wanted to also." Are you suggesting that makes
it o.k.? (And, if not, why bring it up?)
> suspected spies? If this had been a standard war movie, would you
> be so quick to condemn a human allied member who killed a suspected
> spy?
<sigh> Did this start with "How dare Nick kill anyone?" No. The thread,
at last recall, was Nick's "I have not/will not kill... only, well, I
thought _he_ deserved it." (Since I've never seen one of your
hypothetical human movie characters claim such a thing, what they do
or do not do isn't exactly relevant to the discussion.)
Dianne
Signing off the ping-pong match... been there, done that ...and going
in circles like this is making me dizzy... agree to disagree, o.k?
Dianne la Mercenaire... -*- <cat.goddess@p.......>
-*-"We must be powerful, beautiful, and without regret."-*-
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 03:10:12 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe
Dianne De Sha writes:
>Any reason why you're not quoting what she actually said?
Two reasons:
1) I don't remember if I kept the post.
2) I was too lazy to go look and see. :)
Why did you make a big deal about my using the word "good"?
>Now he's not interfering in Nick's life *enough*?
>[snip comments about LC in The Fix and Killer Instinct]
That's only two times in two years. Where was he when Nick was trying
to be "cured" by Marian Blackwing? Where was he when Nick hooked
himself up to the machine that flatlined him in Near Death? He hasn't
always been johnny-on-the-spot for all Nick's cure attempts, but if
he cares about Nick staying _alive_, shouldn't he be?
>"Twisted"?
Well, imo, it's twisted to try to put all the deaths of WWII at
Nick's feet. That is how this whole debate got started (and yes, I
saw Apache post it was a joke, but I'm not the only one who took
what she said as a serious comment).
>The thread, at last recall, was Nick's "I have not/will not kill...
>only, well, I thought _he_ deserved it."
Yes, but it was originally why should Nick ask LC to kill Hitler
instead of doing it himself. There have to have been mortals in
any war who have killed based on suspicion. Other than Outside the
Lines, how often has Nick killed someone since deciding he would
not kill humans because he thought the person _deserved_ it. Damn
few. Heck, Nick hypnotized a confession out of the murderer of
Nat's godchild in Undue Process and *destroyed the tape* because it
wasn't obtained ethically (even if it *was* true). When it came down
to lying under oath in court about seeing a murder committed that
Nick didn't see committed in False Witness, Nick didn't lie.
If Nick hadn't broken the suspected male spy's neck in Outside the
Lines, do you think his human allies would have let him live. The
woman Nick later bit in that episode hit Nick with a bottle so that
she could kill the man for the death of her brother (had Nick been
mortal, he would probably have been knocked out and she would have
accomplished her aim). War's a messy business, ethics fall by the
wayside. Would you have condemned the woman for killing the man she
thought responsible for getting her brother killed? Do you think
her fellow resistance fighters would have condemned her?
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 06:33:49 +0000
From: Karen Tobin <ktobin@t.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILERS: Jane Doe (ep 19) Take 2
On 1 May 96 at 2:50, Ray Heuer wrote:
> Usually (but not always), a court order and the consent of the person
> wearing the "wire" is required. In this case, however, Reese was in
> violation of a court order by being close enough to Manning to obtain hair
> samples.
Actually, maybe not. I'mnot sure how it works in Canada, but in the
US, the fact that Manning contacted Reese and asked him to meet him
woiuld render the restraining order void.
Karen, Knightie/Heartbreaker (ktobin@t.......,
http://www.tiac.net/users/ktobin)
Reference Librarian, Save Forever Knight Campaign/Almighty Address Goddess
Forever Knight has been cancelled. To help, email me
and/or visit: http://members.aol.com/CuznJamiMR/SaveForeverKnight.html
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 06:34:40 -0400
From: Jamie Melody Randell <immajer@p.......>
Subject: Re: Spoiler: JD, Nick-ping/LC-pong
On Apr 30, 1996 19:53:19, 'AKR <r@w.......>' wrote:
>Therefore, when Nick suggests that LC simply kill the rat, he
>is in fact offering what he thinks of as a kinder fate.
Nah. Nick was just jealous. "I don't WANT a new baby brother, Daddy..."
That's what I think was going on at the time. Any and all discussions of
Hitler and his evil are/were merely 20/20 hindsight.
--
- Jamie M.R. <immajer@p.......> -
- Assistant Listowner, FORKNI-L -
- NatPack, ConvCos, Ace-ist in RoadMode -
- Illustrated Webgoddess & Keeper of Warm Fuzzies -
List Rules - http://cac.psu.edu/~jap8/FK/FKRules.html
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 05:04:24 -0700
From: Roxanne Piccen <CHIRMP@a.......>
Subject: SPOILER: Jane Doe & LC's Buddy
My thoughts on the whole "Nick asked LaCroix to kill Hitler
because he felt how evil he was but didn't want to do it
himself" thread (I'm on digest, so indulge me):
First, neither LC or Nick knew who Hitler was at that point
in time. They both felt "bad vibes" and hatred emanating
from him, but beyond that, they had no knowledge of the
Corporal's future actions.
As I recall the scene, LaCroix commented on the Corporal's
potential as a vampire candidate and contemplated bringing
him across. Nick got a disgusted look on his face, said he
didn't need that kind of energy and told LaCroix to kill the
Corporal and be done with it. I interpret this to mean Nick
didn't want this person joining their vampire entourage. If
LC must feed on the Corporal, then Nick would prefer that he
finish the man off rather than bring him across. Nick didn't
want or insist that the Corporal be killed; he actually
appeared rather ambivalent about whether the man lives or
dies. It seemed to me that Nick just didn't want to have the
Corporal as a companion for eternity.
BTW, I like Gehirn Karies' idea of having Schanke as LaCroix's
buddy. I always did like that scene with the two of them in
Close Call. I can just see them in Raven now: Schanke with a
beer and LaCroix with his "usual". Schanke: "That must be a
pretty good drink. What is it? It's the only thing I ever
see you drink. Maybe I'll have one." LaCroix (lips curling
up in an ever so slight smile): "Hmm. I don't think that
would be a very good idea. A certain refined palate is
required to fully enjoy the flavor and you, my friend, have
not reached that point yet."
Hey, didn't Jamie come up with LaCroissants as the LC/Schanke
faction name?
Roxanne (who has now moved from lurker to semi-lurker status)
RoxanneP@a....... (Home) // CHIRMP@a....... (Work)
*********************************************************
Save Forever Knight! // Save American Gothic! Check out:
http://members.aol.com/CuznJamiMR/SaveForeverKnight.html
http://www.best.com/~owls for The Trinity Guardian
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 05:25:56 -0700
From: LC Fenster <lucienlc@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe
Sandra wrote:
>>And LC does many, many things Nick detests in order to keep Nick
>>_alive_
>
>Does he really? In the present time he doesn't seem to be doing too
>much to try to keep Nick alive. He doesn't seem to be "popping up"
>that much when Nick has tried various cures that might "kill" him.
Question for you, Sandra:
What, apart from dying, could LaCroix ever do that you would consider
favorably? Think about it. Is there _ANYTHING_?
Here you're criticising him for NOT interfering in Nick's life. Last
season, and at other points this season you have criticised him for
being a control freak who insisted on controlling Nick's life.
MAKE UP YOUR MIND!
But then, as I said yesterday, you do love to have it both ways. :-)
Cousin LaurieCF
M+B+D+T+K
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 09:04:44 -0400
From: Kathryn Lintner <kat@S.......>
Subject: Re: Jane Doe
OK. I've been staying out of the debate as to whether or not Nick should
have killed Hitler himself rather than asking Lacroix to do it. I can't
take it anymore; I just *have* to defend Nick. I'm a Knightie; I can't
help myself.
From what I saw, Nick did *not* ask Lacroix to kill Hitler. Rather, he
told him not to bring Hitler across, to drink from him if he wanted to
but kill him and be done with it. That is *not* the same thing as asking
Lacroix to kill Hitler so he wouldn't have to do so himself.
Now, I will admit that I kinda dozed off once or twice during "Jane Doe"
(I couldn't help it, I was tired. I taped it and will rewatch it later,
so don't send the Enforcers after me!), so maybe I missed something. If
I did, I'm sure someone will fill me in, but until I get new evidence,
Nick is innocent of wussiness--at least in this instance.
Kathryn
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 09:03:16 -0500
From: Sandra Gray <TMP_HARKINS@d.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe
Laurie Fenster writes:
>Here you're criticising him for NOT interfering in Nick's life.
No, I was just taking issue with the statement "And LC does many, many
things Nick detests in order to keep Nick _alive_". I haven't seen
LC doing that much stuff that fits into such a description in the
present day. Of course that doesn't mean he'd sit idly by if Nick
*did* happen to regain his mortality. :)
--Sandra Gray, forever Knightie
--tmp_harkins@d.......
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 07:26:46 -0700
From: LC Fenster <lucienlc@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER: Jane Doe
You wrote:
Sandra writes:
>I was just taking issue with the statement "And LC does many, many
>things Nick detests in order to keep Nick _alive_". I haven't seen
>LC doing that much stuff that fits into such a description
>Of course that doesn't mean he'd sit idly by if Nick *did* happen to
>regain his mortality. :)
Oh, and do you think he would sit idly by if Nick were in real danger
of dying?
And you nicely avoided my question: what could LaCroix do, other than
die, that would make you speak favorably of him? Inquiring minds want
to know! :-)
Laurie
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 07:44:13 -0700
From: LC Fenster <lucienlc@i.......>
Subject: SPOILERS: Jane Doe; Companionship
In an effort to provoke a more meaningful discussion than who is to
blame for WWII, Nick or LC, when the answer is neither <g>, I propound
the following:
What it was in Nick that attracted LaCroix and made him decide to bring
Nick across as an eternity-long companion?
Cousin LaurieCF
M+B+D+T+K
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 11:07:42 EDT
From: Tanya Smith <bodybldr@v.......>
[Subject: Jane Doe--and the new off topic]
========================================================================
Date: 1 May 1996, 10:57:55 EDT
From: BODYBLDR at RALVM29
To: fkpoilr at psuvm.psu.edu
Subject: Jane Doe--and the new off topic
I think LC's question is valid but belongs on the forkni list. IMHO,
though, Lacroix is bisexual and is also attracted to a complementary
personality. Nick fits this description. I also think that Lacroix
*REALLY* doesn't want Nick to do his bidding, for then he would cease
to be a challenge.
I think Lacroix has the guy mentality of "I want what I can't have, and
if I can have it, I really don't want it anymore". If Nick were to
succumb to Lacroix' temptations, he wouldn't amuse Lacroix anymore.
Lacroix loves Nicholas' goodness, generosity and angst. It's the fuel
that stokes the fire, so to speak.
Just my controversial opinion though.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 09:47:04 -0700
From: LC Fenster <lucienlc@i.......>
Subject: Re: SPOILER; Jane Doe; Companionship
Tanya wrote:
>I think LC's question is valid but belongs on the forkni list.
The reason the question is posed here on spoiler it was precipitated by
LC's musing in Jane Doe about why he would consider bringing someone
across, and any answers might also refer to that episode -- which
obviously makes it a spoiler question.
Laurie
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 11:42:28 -0500
From: Margie Hammet <treeleaf@i.......>
Subject: Re: Spoiler: Jane Doe, Flowers
AKR wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Apr 1996, D Echelbarger wrote:
>> They were gladiolas.
>I hypothesize that this is a sign of Reese's extreme, emotional
>involvement in the case, that he was jumping to ill-informed conclusions
>Of course, in Real Life, florists just don't sell cotton flowers... :)
I assumed the flowers were artificial flowers, made of cotton. I don't
know if in real life artificial flowers are ever made of cotton, but I
don't worry much about FK's lapses from real life. I'm perfectly willing
to assume that if Manning wanted to get hold of cotton flowers for the
sake of his nasty, racist joke, then he did manage to get hold of them.
Margie (treeleaf@i.......)
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 1 May 1996 13:14:44 -0400
From: Celeste Hotaling-Lyons <celeste_hotaling-lyons@i.......>
Subject: Jane Doe Spoilers
Subject: Time:12:22 PM
OFFICE MEMO Jane Doe Spoilers Date:5/1/96
Was it Sandra who said:
>Predators in the natural world do not engage in
>killing more than they need
Oh, yeah, they do--that's a total misconception people have about The Wild
Kingdom caused by watching too many phony Disney wildlife films as children
(Disney also started the myth about lemmings jumping off of cliffs--it was two
Disney cameramen who hired a farmer to push/terrify them off the cliff with a
steam shovel while they filmed it...but I digress.) Gozer the Gammy-legged
Cat & Mad Max have brought home several dead/almost dead/not very enthusiastic
birds a piece already this spring. They do not eat them, but they have a
great time playing with them. They really, really ENJOY it. I'm their
mother, and a mother knows these things.
Not sure what this has to do with vampires, though, unless, like a lot of
predators, whether human or animal, they really, really enjoy the hunt &
chase!
Jane Doe--I'd probably been more enthused about it if it had either been shown
earlier in the year (seems such a waste for it to be one of the Final Four!)
or if it had been tailored to a character I'd liked, instead of to Reese,
about whom I have no opinion whatsoever. I'll say one thing, though--golly,
but Toronto sure seems to have a lot of Serial Killers in it! And I don't
mean the vamps!
I was entirely ready to toss off the little exchange between LC & Nick ("I'm
going to bring him across!" "Oh, just kill him and be done with it."), as the
sort of throwaway conversations people have on a train, not take it seriously
at all, until it was confirmed later on by Nick saying "If you'd done as I'd
asked..." This exchange does not make Nick look good. He seemed to actually
want LC to kill the corporal, but was not ready to do it himself. He looks
bad either way: if he sensed an Evil large enough to suggest to LC that he
should kill the corporal, he looks bad because he didn't take that Evil in
hand & destroy it himself. If he didn't really sense an Evil that was so
strong, it simply *had* to be destroyed, then what the heck is he doing
suggesting that LC kill the guy?! There are lots of things to say to LC to
dissuade him from bringing someone across--"Hey, why doncha just *kill* him"
should not be one of them, not if you are Nicky the Good Guy. Must have been
having a bad hair day--he did look a bit dyspeptic, don't you think? Maybe
the blood in the flask was old and was giving him a tummyache.
JD Likes:
When Mr. Serial Killer Author (Mr. S.K.A.) says to Captain Reese, "Well,
they've teamed you up with an Aryan this time!" and Nick sort of looks around
to see who the heck the guy's talking about. "Who? Moi? Aryan?"
Nicky's little cat & mouse game (see above, about predators) with Mr. S.K.A.
in the hotel. He enjoyed that waaay too much.
Nat finally acting like, well, *Nat* this season. No hysteria. No
hystrionics. Just a damn good job of detection, even if saddled with someone
who wouldn't even take nausea pill to keep her focused. I mean, what's more
important, proving yourself or getting the job done correctly? Take the
stupid pill, you pill.
The fact that someone in props aged the paper the drawing Hitler did was on to
a lovely brown. Someone was *thinking*!
JD Dislikes:
As I said before... why did it have to be a Reese episode?
After Reese has been told to avoid Mr. S.K.A., ORDERED to stay away from him
with dire threats, he goes to meet with Mr. S.K.A. in the warehouse. I turned
to my husband and said, "Ah! This must be the episode where Reese gets to act
as an idiot plot device to keep the plot going. And I thought he was so
sensible." If anything, given Reese's character, I'd say he'd stick even
closer to The Book (as in 'by the book') after being warned, so as not to
allow the guy to get off on a technicality after the inevitable arrest. Also
got tired of hearing Reese lecture Nick *yet again* on "Why I don't like Mr.
S.K.A." The audience got it the first time he told us, guys!
Direction, lighting, whatever seemed OK--but the music was great! Since I got
the CD, I've been appreciating the drama Fred brings to the show even more
than before. Fred is the best--hope they continue using his talents when they
Bring The Show Back (as they must do!!!)
Cousine Celeste
M+B+D+T+K
=========================================================================
Knight graphics and parchment background created by Melissa Snell and may be found at http://historymedren.about.com/
