A Station Eight Fan Web Site

Gargoyles

The Phoenix Gate

Ask Greg Archives

Lexington

Archive Index


: « First : « 25 : Displaying #101 - #125 of 147 records. : 25 » : Last » :


Posts Per Page: 1 : 10 : 25 : 50 : 100 : All :


Bookmark Link

Psycho girl writes...

THREE POSTS IN ONE DAY!!!! Im on a role (hopefully a cinnamon 'role' ;) ...haha a play on words!

Why am I posting soooooooo many...well, posts? Well, you said that you would close the question asking thingy for a while (probably a long while) after January and I just want to hurry and talk to you. (I LIKE YOU!!!).......(Not in THAT way....sickos.) When February comes around, you wont have to deal with my farce anymore, at least for a while.......(snickering).......I typed farce...(snickering)

I have some questions about Lexington.

1. Why dose Lexington walk on his heals sometimes? (He has VERY flexible hips to sit the way he sits)

2. Why did you (they) end his wing membranes at his knees instead at his ankles?

3. Who was Lex's favorite Pack member?

I don't know why, but I just thought about Fang and his voice actor......I really like Jim's performance as Fang! Also, I wonder how Fangs old co-workers thought of him?

I wonder why the animators couldn't get his height right, some times he's right other times, he's the size of a 10 year old....oh well, he still looks good.

Farce.......(hearty laugh)

well, thanks!

P.S. my next one will be rambles about episodes so.....it will be BIG....pre-warning you.....but not today!

Greg responds...

1. I'm not sure what you mean.

2. It looked right anatomically, I think.

3. Uh... to slaughter?

I don't remember Fang ever looking like a ten-year-old, but I agree that Jim was great in the role.

Response recorded on January 11, 2007

Bookmark Link

Anonymous writes...

[Mr. Jensen, could you please just pass along this version if you deem my question worthy of being passed along at all? I just realized the way I'd worded the stuff I mentioned in the ending in the first version it might sound impolite.]

Hello. I was just reading the Lexington section last night in the hopes you had clarified something about Lexington's motives, and some stuff I read made me wonder about something. As the question I was looking for hasn't been answered, however, I'll ask this first.

I recall a long time ago that you mentioned that, in Future Tense, Puck chose Lexington as the mastermind because he was going for shock value. What were this dream-Lexington's reasons for carrying on Xanatos' legacy after the "real Xanatos" died in the fight with Hudson, though?

Secondly, and here I get to the main reasoning behind writing this: I very much applaud your intentions to, if the societal climate ever provides for it, portray Lexington as attracted to other guys. Although I'm not attracted to my own gender myself (I am a young man), I do believe in tolerance for people who are attracted to their own genders, so I approve of this very much.

However, some of the reasoning mentioned in the discussion as to why Lexington is attracted to other men concern me that you may be unintentionally indulging another kind of intolerance without knowing it. That of the intolerance directed towards a person, often ostracized by their peers simply because they prefer books and the so-called more "thoughtful, intellectual" pursuits as opposed to what the majority of the society prefers; simply because they're "smarter." This is a group I belong to.

In the discussion some of the people asking the questions theorized Lexington was attracted to other guys because he was scrawny, wasn't as interested in Angela as the others, was friends with Alex, and some other reasons I don't recall. You confirmed their questions in such a way I'm unable to tell if you're also confirming their reasoning behind which gender Lexington finds attractive.

This is a concern to me because there are plenty of ostracized "smarter" people. (By the way, I can't think of a better term right now, but I apologize to anyone who reads this if it sounds arrogant. My personal belief is anyone can become as smart as anyone else, some just choose not to enhance their thinking capacity as much as others.) Plenty of people in this minority who don't care about their appearances because they believe appearances are on-the-surface traits which don't matter. Plenty of people who find the opposite gender attractive but choose not to pursue attractive people because they're either uninterested in a relationship, or believe whether a person is or isn't attractive is not important in life and not worth concerning oneself with in any way. (Or, to use a less extreme example, plenty of people who do pursue the opposite gender a little, but even if they are interested in relationship or paying attention to attractiveness, are much less interested in a relationship or a person's appearance because they would rather engage in other "intellectual" activities.) And plenty of people who do not believe in the stereotype that a male of any age should only associate them with "tough" aspects of life and befriend children outside of their own family, show affection to them. So on and so forth.

And from what I've heard and inexperienced, one of the harshest insults levelled against people such as this, who simply would rather be different than the majority, is to accuse them of being different not because every person is unique and because people could be interested in things outside of what the majority is interested in, but because they are attracted to their own gender. Which is insulting not only because these people mistakenly think it is wrong to be attracted to one's own gender, but also because they are claiming that the only reason they could still be a human being and not be interested in sports, cars, appearances, popularity, et cetera, is to be part of a minority they see as horrible. In other words, that no one could ever not be interested in what the majority is interested in and still be a human being of any kind.

So what I want to know is; why did you characterize Lexington in these ways? I know you would never intentionally portray anything intolerant, but I feel the minority I'm a part of is often misrepresented in many ways: for instance, as "wanting to be popular despite being different" when many of us simply don't want anything to do with the majority of a society we strongly disagreed with and just want people to recognize its okay to be different. And because of this, when studying how to best portray Lexington right, some of your ideas came from this misinformation. Hence, I'm asking now to allay my worries you were misled by this misinformation - which I doubt you were - and the minority I belong to is being represented accurately as well, since aspects of tolerance are a recurring motif in Gargoyles and has become a major topic involving discussion about Lexington.

Thank you for your time.

Greg responds...

See my previous response.

Response recorded on December 15, 2006

Bookmark Link

Anonymous writes...

Hello. I was just reading the Lexington section last night in the hopes you had clarified something about Lexington's motives, and some stuff I read made me wonder about something. As the question I was looking for hasn't been answered, however, I'll ask this first.

I recall a long time ago that you mentioned that, in Future Tense, Puck chose Lexington as the mastermind because he was going for shock value. What were this dream-Lexington's reasons for carrying on Xanatos' legacy after the "real Xanatos" died in the fight with Hudson, though?

Secondly, and here I get to the main reasoning behind writing this: I very much applaud your intentions to, if the societal climate ever provides for it, portray Lexington as attracted to other guys. Although I'm not attracted to my own gender myself (I am a young man), I do believe in tolerance for people who are attracted to their own genders, so I approve of this very much.

However, some of the reasoning mentioned in the discussion as to why Lexington is attracted to other men concern me that you may be unintentionally indulging another kind of intolerance without knowing it. That of the intolerance directed towards a person, often ostracized by their peers simply because they prefer books and the so-called more "thoughtful, intellectual" pursuits as opposed to what the majority of the society prefers; simply because they're "smarter." This is a group I belong to.

In the discussion some of the people asking the questions theorized Lexington was attracted to other guys because he was scrawny, wasn't as interested in Angela as the others, was friends with Alex, and some other reasons I don't recall. You confirmed their questions in such a way I'm unable to tell if you're also confirming their reasoning behind which gender Lexington finds attractive.

This is a concern to me because there are plenty of ostracized "smarter" people. (By the way, I can't think of a better term right now, but I apologize to anyone who reads this if it sounds arrogant. My personal belief is anyone can become as smart as anyone else, some just choose not to enhance their thinking capacity as much as others.) Plenty of people in this minority who don't care about their appearances because they believe appearances are on-the-surface traits which don't matter. Plenty of people who find the opposite gender attractive but choose not to pursue attractive people because they're either uninterested in a relationship, or believe whether a person is or isn't attractive is not important in life and not worth concerning oneself with in any way. (Or, to use a less extreme example, plenty of people who do pursue the opposite gender a little, but even if they are interested in relationship or paying attention to attractiveness, are much less interested in a relationship or a person's appearance because they would rather engage in other "intellectual" activities.) And plenty of people who do not believe in the stereotype that a male of any age should only associate them with "tough" aspects of life and befriend children outside of their own family, show affection to them. So on and so forth.

And from what I've heard and inexperienced, one of the harshest insults levelled against people such as this, who simply would rather be different than the majority, is to accuse them of being different not because every person is unique and because people could be interested in things outside of what the majority is interested in, but because they are attracted to their own gender. Which is insulting not only because these people mistakenly think it is wrong to be attracted to one's own gender, but also because they are claiming that the only reason they could still be a human being and not be interested in sports, cars, appearances, popularity, et cetera, is to be part of a minority they see as horrible. In other words, that no one could ever not be interested in what the majority is interested in and still be a human being of any kind.

So what I want to know is; why did you characterize Lexington in these ways? I know you would never intentionally portray anything intolerant, but I feel the minority I'm a part of is often misrepresented in many ways: for instance, as "wanting to be popular despite being different" when many of us simply don't want anything to do with the majority of a society we strongly disagreed with and just want people to recognize its okay to be different. And because of this, when studying how to best portray Lexington right, some of your ideas came from this misinformation. Hence, I'm speaking now to make sure you were not misled by this misinformation and the minority I belong to is being represented accurately as well.

Greg responds...

It's a little, well, silly, to go into a lot of depth defining the motivation of a character that was a fiction of Puck's designed for shock value. But... we don't know the circumstances of Lexington's cyborgization... and how that might have effected him. Nor do we know how he truly felt about Goliath's forty year absense.

Now as for the real Lexington, you're not quoting whatever gave you these ideas, so it's hard to respond.

*But I can't imagine that I EVER said anything to imply that Lex was gay because he was scrawny or tech-oriented. Size and smarts have nothing to do with sexual orientation, and I don't think I've ever stated or even implied that they do.

*I certainly don't feel that his relationship with Alex has any baring whatsoever on his orientation. Lex's relationship with Alex evolved, I think naturally, from being possessed by Alex in "Possessions". He feels a kinship to the kid.

*And Lex isn't gay because he was less interested in Angela. He was less interested in Angela because he's gay -- although he hasn't fully realized that he's gay yet.

So I reject the notion that I'm uninformed or that I'm "misled by misinformation". You are mischaracterizing my intent and my work.

I myself was a scrawny, brainy teen. And I came of age in an environment (an all-boy school) where nothing was more terrifying then being accused of being gay. It wasn't until college that I learned to overcome my homophobia. So trust me, I'm not making the assumptions you seem to think I'm making.

Response recorded on December 15, 2006

Bookmark Link

Tanji writes...

If you could continue the show who would you pair Lexington with? (Yes I know that if you could continue the show you make him Gay. I meant that question in that sense)

Greg responds...

Because of the on-going comic, I'm not revealing this at this time...

Response recorded on December 06, 2006

Bookmark Link

LexRocks!!!!!! writes...

I was looking at the Lexington page, and noticed that you're very cagey on the subject of Lexington's mate.When Camcuru asked all those questions on how old she was,what's her name, yadda yadda yadda,you said she's ageless and speciesless.Does that mean she's one of Oberon's Childeren?Or because technically that would mean she does have a species, is she an alien? Or, seeing how you put the "she" in quotes, does that mean it's a guy?I would really like to know!!!!!!!

Greg responds...

Check the archives then. By this time, it's all been revealed. Well, not all. But the answer to your question.

Response recorded on November 10, 2006

Bookmark Link

Mike writes...

Greg, I hope you can read this. I am a homosexual, and Lexington is my favorite gargoyle. It really hit me hard, and it's still hitting me, that i found out, that in the gathering, it was said that Lexington is gay. I sadly understand why the show was cancelled. The world doesn't accept gay people any more than gargoyles were being accepted in the show before "Angels of the Night". It's very hard for me to cry, but this made me well some tears, that to a sad extent, i have found this connection, between one of your characters, that has now grown so greatly. Lexington is no longer my favorite, he is a kindred soul, he is gay and in hiding like i am, and this makes me love the show more. I know you are busy Greg, but, if we can ever talk, I would very much like to. If not, I leave you with a thanks, for giving me a kindred soul, even. if he does not exist.

LPdawgMike@hotmail.com.

Thank you Greg Weisman, thank you Thom Adcox-Hernandez. Thank you.

Greg responds...

Okay just to clear up a few things...

1. The show was ABSOLUTELY NOT cancelled because of Lexington's sexual orientation. That "fact" was not revealed in any real way until YEARS after the show went off the air.

2. Lex is NOT in the closet. He's not yet -- as of issue #5 of the comic book (the issue I'm currently writing) -- fully aware of his orientation. He's young. Give him time.

3. I don't mean it as any kind of personal slight, but I don't make direct contact with the fans through ASK GREG. If I did it for one person, I'd have to do it for everyone, so I cannot open those floodgates.

Having said all that, I'm gratified that the series and the character of Lexington mean something to you. I'm sure Thom feels the same way. Thank you for your kind words.

Response recorded on October 31, 2006

Bookmark Link

tyler writes...

I just want to say I Love gargoyles u r great at writeing i have a thing i was wondering
1. i read that at the gathering that lexington is to be gay is this true?
2

An Ask Greg Helper responds...

Greg Weisman says:

What I said, I believe, is that in my opinion Lex is gay -- though he may not yet realize it.

Response recorded on October 11, 2006

Bookmark Link

hellcat writes...

if the series was not canceled would lex and brooklyn have been able to find mates

Greg responds...

Yes. And the series is now of course UNcancelled as a comic book. So if you're still wondering, check it out. Be patient. We'll get to all of this eventually.

Response recorded on September 07, 2006

Bookmark Link

Ashley writes...

Hey. ive been reading all of this stuff about making lexington gay. i think that would be okay but what if little kids that watch this show would think its al right to be gay? i like that fact by making him gay but if little kids watch it and start to like the fact of being gay thier parents might get mad. anyway i like the idea im just wondering about little kids. GARGOYLES FOREVER!

Greg responds...

Well, you are in essence raising THREE issues.

One involves how Lexington will be portrayed in the future.

One involves what I personally think is and isn't appropriate for little kids.

And one involves how SOME parents might react.

So let's take them one at a time.

1. Gargoyles is owned by Disney, and I'd be kidding you and myself if I didn't recognize that there are certain limits to what Disney will allow. My goal with Lex is to be honest and consistent in HIS portrayal. Not to be titillating (let alone pornographic). Frankly, I wish I had the freedom to be more forthright. Perhaps there's an element of cowardice in my middle ground position. I'll cop to that. But I'm just trying to tell stories honestly. I face restrictions. I live with those restrictions. What that means practically, is that few people beyond the hardcore fandom will see Lex's orientation as any kind of issue at all.

2. Personally, I think little kids should (a) know that there are homosexuals out there and (b) know that they are just as human (or gargoylian) as anybody else. They aren't "sinners" or whatever other fill-in-the-blank name anyone feels like throwing around irresponsibly. That's just my opinion, but it is one that I feel strongly about.

3. Certainly some parents would disagree with me. Others wouldn't. But this brings our circular discussion back to the beginning. There isn't going to be anything in Gargoyles for parents to object to. We're not going to be depicting homosexual sex anymore than we're going to be depicting heterosexual sex. And unless the climate in our country changes considerably, we won't even be discussing the issue. I'll simply try to be honest in the depiction of my characters, whether or not I feel those characters are gay or straight.

Response recorded on February 03, 2006

Bookmark Link

Secret_Agent_Gerbil writes...

Sorry for two different questions, but as I was browsing through the unanswered questions at the time, I noticed that one mentioned that they supported your move to make Lexington homosexual.

1) Is this true

1b.) If so, why?

2.) Is this referenced in the series? It probably isn't, but I've only started rewatching the show so I may have missed something about it.

As a fan of the show who is homosexual, this strikes me as strange, since this is technically a children's show. If you did do this, I commend you. If you didn't, you still rock.

Greg responds...

1. Is it true they support it? I don't know.

1b. Not sure.

2. It's not. Although I don't think we're inconsistent with the interpretation.

I'm not exactly trying to be commendable. The characters often tell us their truths. But I'm not unhappy that you like the idea.

Response recorded on January 10, 2006

Bookmark Link

Justin writes...

Greg,
To add a little more to what I was sort of rambling about the other day I would like to say a few more things.
First I think it is really cool that you continue to push the boundaries of the show. I am well aware that the target audience was boys ages 6-11, but I think the mark you hit was seriously more for adults.

I know there certainly were elements that made it a kids show, but there was always that sub element of adult themes, thank you.

I think, once again the choice to make Lexington gay was a bold and good move. I think he represents the homosexual community in a good way, not the stereotypical, blatantly affeminant sort of way. Not that that isn't a norm in the segment of the population but not all homosexuals are like that.

Thanks again.
Sincerely,
Justin

Greg responds...

I don't have much to add to my response to your last post.

Our central target was boys 6-11, but that was never the sum total of our aim. We tried, and I believe succeeded, in writing the show on multiple levels so that there was something for boys and girls and men and women. Kids of all ages and species.

Response recorded on December 16, 2005

Bookmark Link

Justin writes...

I assume a lot of us know your decision to make Lexington gay. I believe this to an incredibly bold move on your part for a television show geared at kids. I do support the decision however. I think it takes Gargoyles "one step further" from being a children's oriented show.

Not the homosexuality isn't a subject children can understand but rather, it moves away from the story book ending of "Boy meets girl, boy and girl get married" sort of thing. I applaud this move.

I also think in terms of in series story lines it creates yet another reproduction issue for the Manhattan clan, as Lexington will never have children. I don't have any specific questions as to his mate for two reasons.

1) I enjoyed the series because I watched it unfold before me, not because I KNEW what was coming next. Every turn was a new suprise. I remember such great moments as the Avalon clan not being eggs, and the mutates first being introduced. I loved the edge my seat experience each show had.

2) I have guessed by now that you feel the same way. I think you desperately want to hold this good stuff in because you ( and I) want the show back on the air. Not that every fan doesn't want it back, but I am willing to sit on my questions for as long as it takes until the show is back. I want to see it unfold on screen.

I will buy multiple copies of the DVD later this year

Greg responds...

Let me start with this... I don't really consider it a "decision" to make Lex gay... anymore than I considered it a decision to make Macbeth immortal or Xanatos machiavellian. It's just who he is.

Beyond that, I tend to agree with your two points. The show may not be returning to the air anytime soon, but with the new comic book series coming out, I am less and less inclined to give away ANYTHING. As it is, I know I've already given away WAY too much. Certain things that would, I believe, have been amazing surprises, are now only going to be interesting to the hardcore fan from the standpoint of execution. "Did he pull it off or not?"

The thought has crossed my mind to change things so that I can surprise you all. But I made a conscious decision not to change things for that reason. Some things may change, as nothing but the canon 65 are etched in stone. So if I come up with a better idea, I may go with that better idea. But otherwise...

So thanks for buying the DVDs and please keep an eye out for the comics...

Response recorded on December 15, 2005

Bookmark Link

Vicious writes...

On the latest Avalon Mists, i found this little blurb:
"- *Revealed at the 2003 Gathering, it would have been implied in future Gargoyles episodes that Lexington was gay."

Is that true? It brings up a lot of questions besides that too, like how you would go about addressing homosexuality on such a show, and whithin what kind of story framework?

Though it never came to fruition, I hope it is true. I'm bisexual (leaning to gay, women are scary) and the thought of an important character being gay in official canon, on a widely seen show is a big positive to me. I know there are other shows where's a big issue, but I can't stand Queer as Folk or Will and Grace, they just suck.

And hell, Lex is sexy.

Greg responds...

I think the blurb you quoted MIS-represented what I said at that Gathering.

What I said, I believe, is that in my opinion Lex is gay -- though he may not yet realize it. And that we would be consistent with that knowledge... as I believe we have been up to this point.

But that in the current world climate we would not be addressing it on the show at all. Not explicitly or implicitly. It's a damn shame, and since we're talking about episodes that don't exist it would be easy for me to be brave now and pretend that we'd be open about it, but that would be a lie of expectation, and I try to be more honest than that with the fans.

All I promised was consistency. It may sound like a subtle distinction, but believe me it is not.

It may also sound like a cop-out, and believe me, IT IS. But it's a cop-out that comes out of the fact that if I even attempted an implicit portrayal, it flat out would not get on the air. And I could stand my ground. And I would get fired. And then there'd be no consistency either.

Someday, I hope to live in a braver more understanding world... but we ain't there yet. And I think what we're doing is at least a step in the right direction.

Response recorded on May 05, 2005

Bookmark Link

Question writes...

1) Is Lexington really gay? Why then did he pursue Angela or did he just pursue her like the rest of the trio because his rookery brothers were pursuing her?

2) When did you realize that Lexington was gay? Was it during the writing and production of the show or years after the show got cancelled because I really didn't see any hints about his homosexuality in the animated series.

Greg responds...

1. Yes, in my mind at least, if not necessarily quite yet in his (as of 1996). He pursued Angela because that seemed like the thing to do. And because I don't think he's completely come to terms with his sexuality yet.

2. I wasn't trying to hint at anything. Some things just are. As for when I knew... it was definitely back when I was at Disney, so sometime in '95 or '96.

Response recorded on April 14, 2005

Bookmark Link

Audra writes...

I had a question about Lexington's wings that I use to think about. When Lexington glides, it looks like he has to always hold out his arms. I would think his arms would get tired after a while. The other Gargoyles can move their arms while they glide, but it looks like Lexington can't. Also, not many Gargoyles have wings like that huh? The only other Gargoyle I saw with wings like that is in the first Awakening episode, and there were only a couple of scenes with him in it. (Maybe he's Lexington's biological father?) I was just wondering how come there weren't any more Gargoyles in the series with wings like Lexington's. Maybe some of the Gargoyles Goliath met in the Avalon World Tour could of had wings like that. I mean those kind of wings aren't my favorite, but I think having lots of different looking Gargoyles is cool. And there aren't many Gargoyles with wings like Lexington's. But the other kind of wings, like the kind the rest of the clan has, and my favorite. I just think it looks cooler, and they can cap their wings over their shoulders, which I also think is really cool looking. Thanks for reading this Greg, and I would like to hear what you think about this.

Greg responds...

I don't have much to add. We wanted a diverse-looking group. I originally wanted Lex to have four hands -- you can see that in the original development artwork on the original pitch if you buy the DVD -- but I was told by Japan & Frank that it would be too difficult to animate day in and day out.

I think of Lex's wing-type as a minority wing-type. But as you pointed out, a type that we've shown at least on one other garg.

As for whether his arms get tired? Well, maybe they do occasionally. Take a look at "Awakening" again.

Response recorded on February 24, 2005

Bookmark Link

Anonymous writes...

If Lex is a homosexual gargoyle, why would he bother with Angela in the first place? Well yes, he gave up easily but why even try

Greg responds...

It is, as I understand it, not unusual for homosexuals to attempt to fit into the societal norm. (Note, I say "societal norm". I'm not making a value judgment or a biological judgment.)

Response recorded on January 31, 2005

Bookmark Link

Azriel Fox writes...

Can Lexington fold his wings? i saw it on an episode......?
Was that a goof or what?

Greg responds...

Lex's wings fold naturally depending on the position of his arms.

Response recorded on December 01, 2004

Bookmark Link

stephanie writes...

Does Lexington have a mate?

Greg responds...

As of when?

Response recorded on July 01, 2004

Bookmark Link

kayla writes...

does lex ever find a mate?

Greg responds...

Yes.

Response recorded on June 30, 2004

Bookmark Link

Babs writes...

To answer Anons question, I know some (plz do corrected me if I'm wrong so I can correct myself)
1)Brooklyn - is 19 years young, 6ft tall and wingspan 6 ft, day he weighs about 210 lbs. , night alot more
2)Broadway - 19 years of age, 6 ft tall, wingspan about 16ft, day time weighing in at a even 2 tons, night I don't even wanna think about it.
3)Lex - 19 years old
(I'm a tad bt out of thier age range)
4)Golaith - I think 29 years old
(Within better age range for me, he's just a few older than I)
5)Hudson - Hatced in 878 A.D., you do the math and get back to me on that one.
6)Bronx - not that old at all
7)Demona - If you know that would also help me, because I have no clue and if I'm wrong I don't want her hunting me down.
Gargoyles Forever !

Greg responds...

Anonymous asked for the ages at the time they were cursed. So my numbers are more accurate.

And I don't stand by those weights at all. Frankly, I'm not even sure about the wingspans.

As for Demona, she hatched at the same time as Goliath.

Response recorded on June 15, 2004

Bookmark Link

Anonymous writes...

I know that the Clan was frozen in stone for 1,000 years, and I am also aware that Gargoyles age at half the rate of humans, but approximately how old was each of the Gargoyles prior to being cursed.

Greg responds...

I've answered this before, but...

The first number is the character's actual calendar age. (The second is their approximate human biological equivalent.)

Hudson 116 (58)
Goliath 56 (28)
Trio 36 (18)
Bronx 16 (8)

Response recorded on June 15, 2004

Bookmark Link

Brad676 writes...

Who was Lexingtons mate

Greg responds...

Not saying at this time.

Response recorded on June 04, 2004

Bookmark Link

Axem Gold writes...

Lexington and Alex question.

1. What started the friendship between them?

2. Will Lex be helping Alex out with any other magic lessons?

THANKS

Greg responds...

1. Possession. Then Proximity & Temperament.
2. Probably already has.

Response recorded on May 24, 2004

Bookmark Link

Camcuru writes...

Greg-
If you are in the mood to talk about Lex's mate, I have a few questions;
a. What is her name(or does she have one)?
b.What clan is she from?
c.How old is she(chronologically and biologically)?
d.Is she a gargoyle(this might sound stupid)?
Thank you for your time.

Greg responds...

a. "She" doesn't have a name.

b. "She" doesn't have a clan.

c. "She" is ageless.

d. "She" is speciesless.

That was fun.

Response recorded on May 14, 2004

Bookmark Link

Jimmy writes...

Who are Lexington's and Brooklyn's biological parents and what did THEY looke like?

Greg responds...

Don't know.

Response recorded on February 26, 2004


: « First : « 25 : Displaying #101 - #125 of 147 records. : 25 » : Last » :