Comments for the week ending January 31, 2005

Index : Hide Images

Yeah really. A lot of those should be kicked out, especially all those overly ridiciulous questions as well as all those that have already been answered.

I'm laughing my ass off on the sex moves question. If I was Greg I'd give some kind of Weisguy remark on that one. Really, if ppl want Gargoyles Porn, they should try looking for it on Google or something.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USASunday, January 30, 2005 11:58:07 PM
IP: 216.37.226.86

I am impressed that Greg has the patience to deal with all the questions - some of them are ridiculous!
Anonymous
Sunday, January 30, 2005 11:38:20 PM
IP: 129.234.4.76

um, toasted jelly? That's really bad....
dan
Sunday, January 30, 2005 11:32:27 PM
IP: 68.42.18.157

Was just browsing through the unanswered questions, when this question caught my eye:

'Tyler writes...

I was justwondering what are some of gargoyles sex moves?'

I wonder if Greg would even bother to write a smart-ass reply to this one.
BrooksBabe - [belfour20_mccabe24@hotmail.com]
T.O., Canada
Sunday, January 30, 2005 10:01:23 PM
IP: 64.228.119.166

Was just browsing through the unanswered questions, when this question caught my eye:

'Tyler writes...

I was justwondering what are some of gargoyles sex moves?'

I wonder if Greg would even bother to write a smart-ass reply to this one.
BrooksBabe
Sunday, January 30, 2005 10:00:19 PM
IP: 64.228.119.166

Voice actor Alert.

YTV had the network premiere of Balto 3 today as part of it's 2 hairy thumbs up movie campaign.

Bill Fagerbakke (Broadway) provided not just one but 2 voices in it.
Matt Fews
Sunday, January 30, 2005 09:03:39 PM
IP: 67.71.157.116

Again, I think that the reason why Xanatos wasn't making an all-out effort at hunting down the gargoyles was that he simply didn't need to. What practical use would it have done him? Xanatos does things for the sake of the concrete benefit that they would have brought him. Capturing the gargoyles or destroying their home would not serve a useful purpose, from his perspective.
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Sunday, January 30, 2005 07:37:11 PM
IP: 4.244.18.238

anaymous(sp): I'm assuming he didn't, xanatos is intelligent, but he can't act calmly all the time if he knew the wereabouts, he would have tried something to destory there home if they did.
dan
Sunday, January 30, 2005 07:24:35 PM
IP: 68.42.18.157

i assume he did...
matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Sunday, January 30, 2005 07:02:34 PM
IP: 67.65.130.252

I can't remember eye of the Beholder too well... so it is inferred that Xanatos guessed the gargoyles whereabouts then?
Anonymous
Sunday, January 30, 2005 06:52:54 PM
IP: 129.234.4.1

since Goliath and Brooklyn had not gone back in time yet at them point when Xanatos could've killed them with the Steel Clan in Awakenings, they could not have died. of course, no one knew that, but both Goliath's travel back in timeand Brooklyn's time travels in Timedancer heavily influenced Xanatos to become rich and wake up the Gargoyles. if he killed Brook or Goliath before they could go back in time he'd cause a time paradox. though no one knew it at the time (presumably) Goliath and Brooklyn at least were immune to death until after they did all their time travels.
matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Sunday, January 30, 2005 12:11:34 PM
IP: 67.65.130.252

Yummy... Time Loops for breakfast! As long as we're discussing Demona in "Vows", we might as well think about the Archmage saving his own life in the flashbacks of "Avalon."

There's less than six months left now until The Gathering. Have you pre-registered? Booked a hotel room? Made your travel plans? No? Well what are you waiting for? ;)

179 days left until The Gathering 2005 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Patrick
Sunday, January 30, 2005 09:11:46 AM
IP: 68.170.199.45

But Xanatos sent the steel clan to attack them in Awakening.
Anonymous
Sunday, January 30, 2005 04:25:44 AM
IP: 129.234.4.10

BRIAN> "Well, that's true to. That must be why he never kills Goliath after Vows also. Although he very well could have, he didn't kill Goliath off because he doesn't."

YOu're confusing Xanatos with your typical villain. He never killed Goliath cause Goliath might always turn out to be useful. Xanatos hates waste. He's never been a wasteful man. Eventually anything can be put to use.

"All this time I wondered why I let you creatures live, and now I know. You come in handy now and then."
- Xanatos
Greg Bishansky
Sunday, January 30, 2005 01:50:51 AM
IP: 162.84.130.8

Demona found that out the hard way too when she tried to get her younger self to write Goliath off as a jerk and change the events that happened the day the castle was sacked. Or did she have to play along with it too? I'm taking this is a fill-in-the-blank area. Did she try to manipulate her younger self into doing her bidding because history said she did, or was she trying to redirect the course of history on her own accord?
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USASunday, January 30, 2005 12:50:20 AM
IP: 216.37.154.57

"Brian> in the Gargoyles Universe history can not b changed, time is a river, therefore, Xanatos didn't let Goliath live because Goliath was important to him becoming a multi-billionaire, in fact, at that point xanatos didn't even know who gave him that coin. the point is, Xanatos wouldn't kill Goliath before "Vows" because he didn't, "time travels funny that way". since Goliath was alive at the point when he and Xanatos go back in time, theres no way he could have been killed before then. of course, no one knew this until Xanatos received instructions from himselfa week before his wedding."
Well, that's true to. That must be why he never kills Goliath after Vows also. Although he very well could have, he didn't kill Goliath off because he doesn't.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USASunday, January 30, 2005 12:36:39 AM
IP: 216.37.154.57

:Peeks in cautiously:

"Future Tense">> After all of the references to TRON, I find it interesting to see Greg use that movie in a summary document. Even used "digitize" in the TRON sense. Didn't use "de-rezz," however...

* * *

Anyway, while all of this brouhaha has been going on, did anyone realize that my city has been invaded by pirates?

(Anyone outside of West Central Florida, of course ;-) )
JJ Gregarius
Tampa, FL
Saturday, January 29, 2005 11:41:59 PM
IP: 4.247.182.129

Brian> in the Gargoyles Universe history can not b changed, time is a river, therefore, Xanatos didn't let Goliath live because Goliath was important to him becoming a multi-billionaire, in fact, at that point xanatos didn't even know who gave him that coin. the point is, Xanatos wouldn't kill Goliath before "Vows" because he didn't, "time travels funny that way". since Goliath was alive at the point when he and Xanatos go back in time, theres no way he could have been killed before then. of course, no one knew this until Xanatos received instructions from himselfa week before his wedding.
matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Saturday, January 29, 2005 10:57:42 PM
IP: 67.65.130.252

"3) i think he didn't cause trouble for the gargs after discovering their home due to Goliaths help in saving Fox. this really mirrors his reinstatement of the gargs to Wyvern due to Goliath saving Alex. in fact, immediatly following Eye of the Beholder he certaintly makes large steps in calling truce with Goliath. he was very benevolent to Goliath in Vows and allied with him in City of Stone. i think Xanatos was silently granting Goliath and the clan a break for their help."

I think I can give my two cents on this. Goliath was a very important part to all events of David Xanatos' life. This is why he didn't destroy them or allow anyone else to, including Demona. Notice how in Reawakening that Xanatos on several occasions tells Demona he wants them alive, and just pauses there in The Edge where he has their fate right in the palm of his hand as they are caught in a pile of rubble. Surely if he has allowed anything to happen to them, Goliath and Demona would have not been able to use the Phoenix Gate to travel back to medieval Scotland, and the coin and instructions would not have been made nor delivered to the young David Xanatos, giving him the fortune he needs to have completed the circle and put him right back where he was when he left the present. While after this point he very well could have had them slaughtered like pigs, if he did Goliath would not have been able to save Alex in The Gathering. While it is possible Xanatos had his sources it would be hard to determine what they would be. And going by Greg's response I would have to say that it's just one of those areas where we are left to fill in the blanks. But then again, I could be wrong.

I didn't really think that TGC was really that bad. *prepares to be pelted with rotten cabbages* But I have heard back through the past several years that somewhere down the line it went to the crapper. Perhaps someone would be able to explain their views instead of just saying it is crap? Goliath held a very firm belief in Genesis Undone that after waking from the millenium-long nap he had, that there would someday be a time they would awaken as well. So I don't really think they would be dead since, technically, they were still gargoyles, I think it was stated somewhere that when a gargoyle dies it does not revert to any other state but remain in the state they were in the moment they die, whether it be stone or flesh, and remain that way regardless of what time of day it is. And since they turned to stone, I think that the virus they were infected with was very much like the spell the Magus cast on Goliath and Co. back in 994 AD. This is just my two cents though.
I know somewhere down the line is when Greg quit working on Gargoyles, though I don't remember exactly when. Could this be the reason that the third season was cruddy to most?
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USASaturday, January 29, 2005 10:47:49 PM
IP: 216.37.154.57

Greg: lol, i needed that:P. It would be disapointing if he and the clones did die, imo they still have a nice point in the story, there characters are two valuable to just die off. Although that episode was funny, wasn't sevaruis's creation named anton jr? Wow, great name huh?
Dan
Saturday, January 29, 2005 09:06:36 PM
IP: 68.42.18.157

a reprint of a question i posted to Greg once:

matt writes...
i think i figured out when and how Xanatos found out the gargoyles lived in the Clocktower

i don't think Xanatos found out the gargs lived in the Clocktower in Hunters Moon for several reasons.
1) i can't see either Owen or Puck just slipping up like that.
2) Fox and Xanatos just took it way too casually as if they had known for some time.

after viewing some episodes, i'm convinced that Xanatos found out nearly a year before Hunters Moon, possibly before Owen/Puck knew. i think he found out in Eye of the Beholder. heres my reasons.
1) Xanatos places another tracking device on Goliath and then does not remove it for probably at LEAST an hour.
2) when Goliath leaves the castle he takes Elisa with him and in that time Elisa changes into her costume. her costume is probably at one of three places, at her apartment, in her car, or at the police station. if it was at the police station where she put on the costume then Xanatos only has to track them that far and he can figure out the rest (remember that Xanatos was probably tailing them for as much as he could, he may have even snuck into the Clocktower and seen the gargs furnishings). Elisa's car was at the police station and her costume was likely to be there since it is most probable she was planning to go with Goliath directly from the station to the Halloween party. and if her costume was at her apartment it is still very possible that they returned to the Clocktower for Elisa's car at least.
3) the show seemed to suggest that while tracking them, Xanatos was following Goliath and Elisa around and listening to their conversations. its possible that they mentioned the Clocktower and Xanatos could've overheard it.
4) if Elisa could come up with this great home for the gargs, i think that a year later Xanatos has probably had time to think about it and possibly figure it out just by guessing. hes a bright guy, you know...

i also have a couple reasons why Xanatos did not make a big deal or mention that he knew where the gargs were living.
1) this IS Xanatos, why would he reveal his hand, if anything he could save this information for use when he wasn't so busy with other matt ers.
2) i think that Xanatos is hardly going to make a big deal or even really think about the gargs home being revealed when in this episode (maybe more than any other save The Gathering) he is very emotionally stressed. the woman he loves may die soon, i hardly think he cares at the moment.
3) i think he didn't cause trouble for the gargs after discovering their home due to Goliaths help in saving Fox. this really mirrors his reinstatement of the gargs to Wyvern due to Goliath saving Alex. in fact, immediatly following Eye of the Beholder he certaintly makes large steps in calling truce with Goliath. he was very benevolent to Goliath in Vows and allied with him in City of Stone. i think Xanatos was silently granting Goliath and the clan a break for their help.

so, there is my theory, what do you think? mystery solved?

Greg responds...
If it makes you happy.

matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Saturday, January 29, 2005 08:17:18 PM
IP: 67.65.130.252

I think that there was more to Xanatos not taking advantage of his new-found information about the clock tower (if he did find out about it in "Eye of the Beholder" - which, I should point out, is only a hypothesis) than just Fox's situation. More significantly, there was the matter of: what would he do with the gargoyles if he caught them?

Xanatos's initial purpose for the gargoyles was to use them as his minions for covert operations (such as stealing those discs from Cyberbiotics). However, after "Awakening", the gargoyles had discovered his true nature, and so Xanatos could no longer dupe them into working for him as he had for the Cyberbiotics raid. Also, they were far too stubborn to be forced into serving him. Clearly he had recognized that, since a lot of his plans were focused around creating his own gargoyles (the Steel Clan, the Mutates, Talon); in fact, the bulk of his efforts at capturing the gargoyles were really done for the purpose of testing out his latest devices. (The significant exception was in "The Price", where Xanatos had plans for a captive gargoyle that didn't require that gargoyle to do any fighting for him.)

So capturing the gargoyles would be pointless given how unwilling they were to be his servants. And Xanatos was too practical to go after them simply for the sake of revenge. If the gargoyles had become a serious thorn in his side, he might have decided to capture them as a means of preventing them from interfering in his plans; it's possible (in light of the ending of "Cloud Fathers") that he would have taken that stance except for the fact that the gargoyles helped him against Oberon in "The Gathering". But other than that, he had nothing to gain by capturing them. So it makes sense that he didn't take advantage of knowing where they were sleeping in the daytime.
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Saturday, January 29, 2005 07:41:00 PM
IP: 4.244.12.9

i think Xanatos and owen/Puck found out the Clan was living in the Clocktower all the way back in "Eye of the Beholder" when Xanatos put a tracking device on Goliath. Goliath must've returned to the Clocktower after the tracking device was placed, and since Xanatos was tracking him he had to find out. obviously he didn't take advantage of that information because Goliath was helping him out at the time and then helped save Fox's life... i think that was the first step in his truce with Goliath, and so continued to keep the Clocktower secret...
matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Saturday, January 29, 2005 07:28:29 PM
IP: 67.65.130.252

I don't know when I realized that the whole thing was an illusion myself (it was probably only when Goliath finally saw through Puck's illusion), but I did wonder throughout it how they were going to patch it up, beginning when the skiff actually got destroyed. (Bronx and Angela's deaths would have only added to that, though I don't recall my specific initial response to them now.) Especially since the Phoenix Gate wouldn't work because of the "history is immutable" law.

When I first saw the episode, I thought that the lightning bolt that struck Goliath at the beginning was some sort of bizarre time warp that they'd drifted into (though now we know that it was Puck's magical deception grabbing hold of him instead).

Of course, there are a few other clues in the episode that the whole thing is a deception:

1. Xanatos isn't behaving in his usual Xanatosian fashion. Becoming an open dictator over Manhattan (with plans to extend his rule over the entire world) is more the sort of thing that the Archmage would do; Xanatos isn't out to conquer the city or the world because he doesn't need to. He can get almost everything he wants under the current system, so he has no reason to change things. (And the one thing that he wants that money can't buy - immortality - is something that taking over the world isn't likely to help him achieve.)

2. If Xanatos had been doing that much damage in Manhattan, Avalon would have surely sent Goliath back in time to stop him (though the apparent "time warp" that I mentioned above would explain that).

3. Everybody knows about Angela, and about Goliath having recovered the Phoenix Gate.

Incidentally, I can't help but suspect that Goliath's mention of the clock tower (just before he's shown its ruins) must have been how Puck found out about the gargoyles living there (we know from later on that he's aware in the last few episodes of the series that they'd moved there; he knows where to find them in "Possession", and as Owen, mentions in "Hunter's Moon Part Three" that obviously the clan wouldn't blow up its own home).
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Saturday, January 29, 2005 07:03:45 PM
IP: 4.244.12.9

Oh, and as for 2198

Mostly new characters. Demona is still around, so is Owen and Alexander Xanatos... Coyote also. But everyone else is a descendent.
Greg Bishansky
Saturday, January 29, 2005 06:38:45 PM
IP: 162.84.130.8

DAN> Thailog never died... pay no attention to those silly Goliath Chronicles episodes.

He survived, the Thailogs of this world always survive ;)
Greg Bishansky
Saturday, January 29, 2005 06:37:49 PM
IP: 162.84.130.8

i see your point greg, makes more sense to me. Thanks for the explanation, oddly enough thailog did die though. But that was in the goliath chronicles, and the writers at the time, added fuel to the fire. Question on 2198, are all the main characters still alive, minus elisa and xanatos. Are the main clan still alive and kicking? Or is it there children who are the main characters?
dan
Saturday, January 29, 2005 06:32:56 PM
IP: 68.42.18.157

DAN> About Macbeth and "Future Tense". Keep in mind, all that was based on stuff Puck knew. Obviously Puck did not know of the link between Demona and Macbeth (as Owen, he bought into her lie in City of Stone). So, he didn't have Macbeth in there, and the Xanatos Program could kill Demona.

Kind of like how he was not aware that Demona and Thailog were an item, and when Goliath brought it up, Puck came up with that quick "Thailog was killed in the Clone Wars" lie.
Greg Bishansky
Saturday, January 29, 2005 06:09:29 PM
IP: 162.84.130.8

Kristen: Congrats, i was dually surprised that best buy had one near me. I asked the man if they had gargoyles, and surprise they knew what it was. Another thing that made me feel odd, then they led to me the children's dvd section. I was elated to no end, i got into my dad's truck and held it close. When we finally got home, i forgot about the groceries my dad and i bought, ran into the back room, popped it in the my dvd, and screamed. I thought, dreams can come true, and if you love something as much, if you want it to happen, it will. I have some newfound faith for disney. Anyway, i screamed so loud i think everyone in my apartment complex was confused. Anyway on the future tense, this would be a great foreshadowing of what's to come, what puck can accomplish. Expecially in that episode were he teaches baby alex (don't remember the name, sorry). One thing that confused me was, were was macbeth? In the carribean? I thought demona and macbeth was supposed to die, so i'm guessing macbeth magically died as well. Oh well, i've been watching this for years, and i'm just as confused in some places.
Dan
Saturday, January 29, 2005 05:57:53 PM
IP: 68.42.18.157

I have vaguely recall "future Tense" The episode. I do however remembersitting there watching it and wondering how heavily the Marvel Comics Xmen Age of Apocalypse influenced the creator of the show. The parallels are uncanny. pun was unintended.
For example: VR Xanatos/Lex=Apocalypse, Broadway=Ozdimayas
the Clone Army=the Madri
The Xmen=The Gargoyles.
Even New York City looks like something right outta AOA. Just thought that I would point out this little comparison.
Phoenyx - [Laurenw_38@hotmail.com]
Memphis
Saturday, January 29, 2005 02:59:28 PM
IP: 135.214.150.125

...
Anonymous
Saturday, January 29, 2005 02:36:04 PM
IP: 135.214.150.125

Future tense> i remember that when they showed up in "New York" i thought it was real, and even when they saw the Statue of Liberty all busted up i decided to see what was up, i began to think things were weird when the alarms went off and the new Xana-steel Clan showed up. when Matt and Claw showed up i knew it was fake. theres no way they (meaning the writing staff) was going to make this much happen while they were gone, plus it didn't make sense that we just saw Broadway and Lex in The Green and everything looked peachy at home. of course i didn't know it was Puck doing it until he made his appearence at the end.
i do remember going to school the next day and talking with my friend who also watched Gargoyles about the episode and i said "i'll bet they get home in the next episode" turns out i won that bet... i guess "Ill Met" and "Future Tense" gave me the sense that the World Tour was winding down... and i had a strong feeling that they would arrive home at the same time that this "Gathering" that everyone was mentioning would happen...
matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Saturday, January 29, 2005 02:34:03 PM
IP: 67.65.130.252

HAPPINESS!

Not only is it snowing, but I FINALLY found the Gargoyles DVD!

I don't go shopping that much since A) poor college students and B) no car, but every time I check out Best Buy or FYE or places with DVDs, I see if the DVD is there. Sadly, it's never there.

Today my parents came and we went shopping. We went to Best Buy and I checked around for the DVD. I first looked in Disney: nope. Then I saw that TV shows were divided into categories, and it was there in TV Scifi/Horror. And there were three copies (now only 2, LoL). I was so happy.

I also bought Aladdin Special Edition, because it's one of my top fave movies by Disney (up there with Lion King, Little Mermaid, and Beauty and the Beast).

So now I'm 44 bucks poorer, but a whole lot more giddy.

I'll ramble my thoughts about the DVD when I watch it later :)

Today's a great day.
Kristen - [zzilly14@yahoo.com]
Virginia, USA
Saturday, January 29, 2005 01:26:18 PM
IP: 199.249.157.129

Vinnie, I agree with Patrick. Let's keep it beneath the rubble and pave over top of it, ok? It's done. That's all that matters.

I didn't realize Goliath was dreaming until Goliath realized Elisa was not Elisa. Talk about a wolf in sheep's clothing, Puck only put the whole thing together in an attempt to make Goliath give him the Phoenix Gate. I'd say it was put together pretty well if it even had me fooled.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USASaturday, January 29, 2005 12:24:50 PM
IP: 205.238.242.222

Considering the next episode Greg will ramble on is Future Tense I have a question for all of you.

When did you realize that it wasnt real and Goliath was dreaming?

For me it was when Demona died. I was watching it for the first time and I was thinking "Wait a minute...didn't the Wyrd sisters say that she and Macbeth can only die by each other's hands?"
Spacebabie - [spacebabie@hotmail.com]
Saturday, January 29, 2005 11:43:17 AM
IP: 69.161.157.101

Vinnie > When the two parties involved annouce they want to put it behind them, that's the cue for the rest of us to drop it.

I really haven't studied up much on panda classification, but I'm really glad the racoons that raid my garbage cans at night aren't as big as the Giant Panda.

180 days left until The Gathering 2005 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Patrick
Saturday, January 29, 2005 10:57:25 AM
IP: 66.93.14.153

OK everyone, was that fight between Matt and Brian schizophrenic or what?
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Marquette, Michigan, USA
Saturday, January 29, 2005 04:01:45 AM
IP: 64.112.202.211

Oops, I didn't realize Siren tried the food topic already. Oh well, I tried.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USASaturday, January 29, 2005 03:30:30 AM
IP: 216.37.226.178

That's all I was looking for, dude. Yes, you did say there wasn't anything you could do if I was being serious, and I can back you up on that. But you also said that if I wasn't going to be serious if I e-mailed you again, that I would regret it. Not saying exactly what but you said that I would regret something. But when I did you said that I was only trying to play some kind of game and you were taking action. Dude, the whole thing about the threat and the misunderstanding is the mess that I got pissed at you about in the first place. Right now I would like to put this afternoon behind us and start with a brand new day tomorrow. And if you ever want to just talk, I'll always have my email open. Actually, why don't you drop me one when you get a chance? This time, I have something I think you'll be happy to hear. And dude, you have my word that I am not going to play any kind of sick prank on you. I wanted to say this before but I never really had the chance to get it out. And it's that I don't do anything like that to other people because I know it isn't a nice thing to do. And you can hold me up to that.;)

I know the best thing to start off a new day, and a new mess in the CR as well. Let's all talk about food. I haven't eaten anything since noon and could sure go for some waffles.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USASaturday, January 29, 2005 03:25:36 AM
IP: 216.37.226.178

Kellie> "And Giant Panda's are bears. After all the arguments based on anatomy their DNA proves they are more closely realted to bears. But the RED panda is a racoon."

thats not entirely accurate. the classification of Giant and Red Pandas is still much debated. some put them both with bears, some put them both with racoons, some put Giant's with bear and Red's with racoons and some make them their own family closely related to both bears and racoons.
who knows where they'll end up. in my mind they are in their own subfamily of both the bear and the racoon families.
it reminds me of the monotremes, the egg laying mammals. really they have a ton of features more closely in sync with reptiles, but they are considered mammals. they are just surviving descendents of the earliest mammals, which were all egg-laying. i think the two panda species are surviving descendents of the animals that would become the bear and racoon families, thus they are related to both and neither...

i apologize for bringing the Brian situation into this room. i figured it was an immature and silly thing to do, and then went and did it anyway. my bad, sorry.
matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Saturday, January 29, 2005 12:16:27 AM
IP: 67.65.130.252

*an unfamiliar image to the s8 cr walks, obviously wearing a holographic fire protection suit.*

Question: 768 questions and growing.
Answer: What is the size of the backload at Ask Greg?

Question: huge waste of money and fake emotional committment
Answer: What is the International Star Registry?

Question: At least 1 in 5
Answer: How many questions we hope can be answered by volunteers at Ask Greg just by quoting existing answers?

Question: that stupid idiot asking about "Other" votes on the dvd ratings site.
Answer: Who is dph?

Question: the last one
Answer: What is the last question posted in this session by dph's hologram?
dph's hologram
temporary insanity/sanity
Friday, January 28, 2005 09:22:47 PM
IP: 67.14.195.32

Dan>> "Future Tense" was *dominantly* Puck's illusion created to get the Phoenix Gate from Goliath.

Little of it was prophetic, as far as we saw by season's end, other than introducing Xanatos' son (but Fox was well into the pregnancy by that point) and the destruction of the Clock Tower - though whether or not that was prophesy or shock-value-come-true on Puck's part is kind of ambiguous.

If you look into what Greg's told us about Gargoyles 2198, there's a the prophetic-like sidebar in "Future Tense" of Demona being a part of the resistance movement with Brooklyn; but whether or not that's to say she becomes good is up to Greg, and it's certainly up in the air as to whether or not Puck knew about that.
Alex Garg - [<-- Best Gargoyles 2198 information]
VA, USA
Friday, January 28, 2005 09:02:37 PM
IP: 216.145.68.246

alex: I did like demona in that episode, it was nice for a change. We actually got see her good again. It's strange her not trying to blow the rest of the clan up. Good episode, was it a dream or a premonition?
dan
Friday, January 28, 2005 07:57:53 PM
IP: 68.42.18.157

*Not even touching the argument, not even bothering to read the argument*

For the record all dolphins are whales by definition. They are in the same order cetacians. So thus the Orca which is a dolphin is a whale.

And Giant Panda's are bears. After all the arguments based on anatomy their DNA proves they are more closely realted to bears. But the RED panda is a racoon.
Kellie
City of Gargoyles NYC
Friday, January 28, 2005 07:49:47 PM
IP: 152.163.100.137

Re> this whole stupid issue. Brian and Matt. Ya got private business to handle betweent he two of you. I know a great therapist. In my opinion a public forum isn't the best place to air your greivences. YOu got a private issue, keep it just that, private. stop clogging up the comment room with all this nonsense. It makes no one happy and proves that you both have zero regard for others. It also proves that neither one of you have any respect for yourselves. Takes it ourside boys, this bar is closed.
Phoenyx
Friday, January 28, 2005 07:48:09 PM
IP: 135.214.150.125

"Future Tense" notes>> I missed this in all the excitement.

Some good stuff about how the original ep was planned; the ones that caught my eye: the mention of a VR helmet in the Eyrie Pyramid rather than the eventual Tron-esque adaptation; a Thailog Stormtrooper attack on Brooklyn's headquarters providing the incentive for the final attack; the bit about Lexington's death preventing redemption - never looked at it like that, though it seems pretty obvious now.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the full episode rant.

And look! Greg processed another G2003 journal. That's progress, people...
Alex Garg
VA, USA
Friday, January 28, 2005 06:25:52 PM
IP: 216.145.68.246

LMAO! Ever watch a court show? That's not a legal and binding document. It wasn't a contract. That was a promise. And there is NO law that says promises can't be broken. If people could take others to court for every promise made that didn't involve property or money, the courts would be full of them. Kids suing other kids for not keeping their promises. Women and men sueing their signifigant other for not keeping promises. "He promised to marry me and he didn't! Force him to judge! Force him to!", do you see what I mean. A contract involves property or money. You didn't have a contract with him for either. You had a promise that he wouldn't tell anyone. He did. Get over it. Your only embarrasing yourself more here.

Also, there are not laws in Montana against people being gay! There are laws against sodomy. Sorry, but not the same thing. Go and give a lawyer a $1000 retainer and he'll laugh all the way to the bank!

Matt>In case the poor soul finds a REAL leech of a lawyer that cares more about money then his client's wellbeing, I'd copy the logs too. Just to make sure they are accurate :)
Siren
Friday, January 28, 2005 06:25:27 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

Brian > A contract only exists when both parties are of an understanding that they are entering into one. And for a contract to be legally enforceable, in most cases it must be fixed in writing (i.e., on paper) and signed. Nevertheless, contracts fall under the rule of civil law, and as such any action for breach of contract would not be a criminal complaint, it would be a tort.

Mmm... tort. And suddenly, I'm reminded that I haven't eaten since lunch. So I'm off... but feel free to try again. My shovel is always at the ready for dealing with foolish attempts to pile the B.S.
Patrick
Friday, January 28, 2005 06:24:54 PM
IP: 68.170.199.45

telling someone something via email is FAR from a legitimate legal agreement. and for the record, I DID GIVE YOU THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. i said if you are being serious, go get help and leave me alone, and i said if you email me with this stuff again then tahts that. you could say that YOU broke our agreement by not complying with my wishes.

why am i even argueing this? its ridiculous! Brian, no one is buying it, it seems your short list of allies in this room is fed up with you, and you are only looking more silly with every post, just shut up, change the subject, or go away...
matt
Friday, January 28, 2005 06:23:04 PM
IP: 67.65.130.252

ok, Brian, i have to ask, if for nothing else but to bring some more laughter into this Comment Room. what are you going to charge me for doing?
matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Friday, January 28, 2005 06:19:11 PM
IP: 67.65.130.252

"I personally think it's sad that things in his life had made him come to the conclusion that gay = wrong/abnormal."

If I ever have made that conclusion, how come is it you are the only one saying it? Try speaking for yourself instead of allowing him to manipulate you. Just because he is being a hurtful person doesn't mean everyone else should let him turn them into hurtful people as well.

He is only doing this because of a preconceived notion that I was pulling some kind of a prank, and instead of doing his homework and even make an attempt to get the facts, he takes a guess at it and sticks with it not even giving me the benefit of a doubt.

And yes it is illegal. My asking you to "keep this under your hat", and your agreement that you "won't mention it in the Comment Room, don't worry.", is a legally binding agreement which was broken by you the moment you posted that e-mail here.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAFriday, January 28, 2005 06:17:55 PM
IP: 209.74.24.104

The Attorney General's Office? LOL! Tell me another one. That's the best laugh I've had all day.
Patrick
Friday, January 28, 2005 06:15:36 PM
IP: 68.170.199.45

Totally missed that other statment from you Matt. Though I don't 100% agree with you posting something here that Brian thought to be private, I do see why you did. It's too bad he is a hypocrit. Saying a gay man stalked him and he is pretty much doing the same to you with harassment. I personally think it's sad that things in his life had made him come to the conclusion that gay = wrong/abnormal. And thus he does not admit to certain things. I personally don't care what anyone does in their life, public or private. When I go to the mall or anywhere in a large public place, I notice no one. I don't see the gays and lesbians. I don't even notice the punks with bright green mohawks. If they have purple mohawks, I say "Cool, my favorite color.", but unless someone points out to me these things, I don't notice because I don't care. I do feel a little guilt for what I said before. But would I take it back? No. It's how I felt. I feel a twinge of guilt because I might have made him mad or sad, but if I had to do it all over again, I'd say the same things. I have a lot of gay friends. Some who came out easily and some who are still private about it. And then there are those who have a hard time, but once they get it out and all the yelling is over, they felt a lot better. They moved on. They also found out who their REAL friends are.
Siren
Friday, January 28, 2005 06:00:46 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

"Fuck you all I am not trusting anyone ever again!!!!!!"

Oh good. If he doesn't trust us, why stick around?

Party!! I'll go get the nachos and dip!
Siren
Friday, January 28, 2005 05:42:08 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

You know what? Good luck. You just may be in for a big fat reality check. I just stopped at the AGO. We'll just see how much of a laughing matter this really is. I'm pressing charges and they may begin looking at this no later than tomorrow morning. Good day, Sir.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAFriday, January 28, 2005 05:31:15 PM
IP: 209.74.24.104

Brian, my boyfriend is a cop and we are both laughing our asses off at you right now. illegal, LOL. face it, you've lost. my suggestion would to stop this silly game and retain whatever shreds of respect people still give you, if not you will probably be ignored. up to you, i'm done with this.
matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Friday, January 28, 2005 04:58:36 PM
IP: 67.65.130.252

Alright, now I'm ticked off.

Whether this is all just a joke or not, I really don't care. But seriously, this kind of arguing has got to stop. It's just starting to become a real pain to have to come by this board, and see that another argument like this has started. Differences of opinion, I'm completely fine with that. But no more bashing each other. It's just not nice.

That's all I hafta say.
BrooksBabe - [belfour20_mccabe24@hotmail.com]
T.O., Canada
Friday, January 28, 2005 04:48:59 PM
IP: 64.228.109.25

Just for the record I also have a backlog to put up here. How would you like it if I did the same exact thing to you? Actually, forget it. What you have just done, it is illegal and I can have the Missouri state police at your front door for it. I don't know what is so hard for someone to understand that when I say I am not joking then I am not joking. Guess what? The joke's on you. I'm not doing this because you are gay. I am doing this because you are a dceiver, and a betrayer. And anyone who trusts you is a fool. Enjoy. My gift should be arriving at your door within a reasonable amount of time.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAFriday, January 28, 2005 04:45:52 PM
IP: 209.74.24.104

Brian, i also said that if you were serious about this then i'm not the person you should be talking to cuz i don't really understand your problem. i said if you are serious, go get help and don't ask me about what you should do, and if you were not serious, then give up cuz i'm not falling for it. you emailed me back trying to play this game, so made my move.

and save the melodrama. i'm not falling for it...
matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Friday, January 28, 2005 04:39:06 PM
IP: 67.65.130.252

You didn't threaten to do this. You never even said what you were going to do except I would regret it later. You know, I had more faith in you than this, matt. Yes you backed me up back there and i am grateful for that. Now you say i'm pulling some kind of joke just because i came to you with it. No, you didn't want to hear me out. You just wanted to lure me out. You know what they call that? A wolf in sheep's clothing. I just hope you can live with yourself after what you have done, Mr. Parker.

Fuck you all I am not trusting anyone ever again!!!!!!
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAFriday, January 28, 2005 04:30:26 PM
IP: 209.74.24.104

brian: Here have one of mine *hands brian a good old usa brand ciggerett* *puff puff*
Dan
Friday, January 28, 2005 04:26:34 PM
IP: 68.42.18.157

Siren> so it says the shouldn't be able to breed healthy offspring but they do, but the offspring are sterile. whoever wrote this program made an odd error. to me, "healthy offspring" should mean they are fertile. the show shoul've explained this all out better, as it is, it leaves the definitions of the words "breed", and "healthy" rather ambiguous...

Siren, you have been 100% correct about something lately though, and thats your instincts about Brian. even though i dissagreed with his posiion in the Comment Room, i still tried to defend his freedom of speech then he emails me saying he thinks he might be gay and wants help to know for sure. i tell him i don't really know him and to maybe do some reading, talking to close friends and thinking about himself. i was gullible to be pulled into this dumb joke, and i discovered that when he emailed me this statement:

"Well, let's see what I can bring to light. I'm sure you saw my post in the CR about fantasizing Demona with breasts and whatnot. Well, that won't prove anything, so I think I should get straight to the point. *Any pun not intended of course*

For the past nine years, I've been finding myself attracted to Goliath and Co. (yes, Demona too) and I have been getting rather, oh how should i put this, intimate with them, long before the whole sexualism thing made itself manifest to me in the past couple days. I mean, I didn't even know that it was Greg's idea to have them sexualized and just because it has a loincloth on it doesn't mean it has, I believe my exact words at one time were, human compatibility. Hell, I could put a loincloth on my iguana and it still wouldn't determine if there is anything there. It then moved to other gargoyles I have, without a loincloth, and also to certain furries as well. It's safe to say i'm more into this kind of stuff than i am attracted to other members of the human race.

Tonight will be the first night in a long time that I am not sleeping with any figures from Greg's Gargoyles but i'll have my other three instead. It has left me that uncertain. For how much of a disappointment it has been there's a good chance I'll be turning Gargoyles off completely and forget about even attempting this year's Gathering. Actually I wish I had never found s8 and Ask Greg so that I could keep my innocence."

i'm only printing this here cuz i threatened that i would if he didn't leave me alone and he continues to email me and is still attempting to play his joke...
i defended him in the first place because i felt he should be able to have his own opinions, but obviously he doesn't care who his allies are or are not. hes rather like Galvatron in that respect, frtunatly we've been blessed to not have him post here in a long time...

anyway, Brian, i told you to leave me alone, please do, ok?
matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Friday, January 28, 2005 04:24:30 PM
IP: 67.65.130.252

I'd like to know just for kicks how Dobson even got the license to use the character in the first place.
The Mosaic Law does state that it is a severe violation to be a homosexual. But if you look later on, the new teaching says this:
You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
The coming and death, burial, and resurrection of the son of the almighty has thrown out a good chunk of the law because that was all people would adhere to. And sadly it is still going on today. God teaches love, not condemnation. I don't like preaching but I just had the strong belief that is was something that I had to bring to light.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAFriday, January 28, 2005 04:13:35 PM
IP: 209.74.24.104

I know a killer whale isn't technically a whale. A seahorse isn't a horse. A Tasmanian Tiger isn't a tiger. To this day, books and programs still refer to orcas as killer whales. It frankly is a pet peeve for me. But so long as books and movies like Free Willy keep coming out and refering to them as whales, all we can do is teach our children the correct terminology.

Matt>Let me quote the program best to my memory: "Scientifically speaking horses and donkeys shouldn't be able to breed healthy offspring. But they do. But like all hybrids, they are sterile." If I find a video clip of it or can record it, believe me, I will and post it here for you.
Siren
Friday, January 28, 2005 04:10:49 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

Drive you to drinking? For the first time in my life I actually want to have a smoke.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAFriday, January 28, 2005 03:59:22 PM
IP: 209.74.24.104

"We're against ALL kinds of sexuality, from a-sexual to zee-sexual! All of 'em! It's filthy, filthy, filthy! All good, loving people reproduce through budding! They don't so much as look at each other with that filthy, sinful lust in their eyes! I...what's that? Oh. Ladies and gentlemen, I've just been informed that "budding" is a form of asexuality. Well, clearly my original position can't have been wrong, and so rather than change them, we're against budding, too. Clearly MORAL human beings don't reproduce; in fact, look at anyone else of either the opposite or the same sex in ANY way, shape or form!"
Dr. James Dobson
Friday, January 28, 2005 03:42:23 PM
IP: 129.173.137.50

Aren't sponges asexual to begin with?

Aw well, Dobson and his followers probably don't know what asexual means.
Greg Bishansky
Friday, January 28, 2005 03:37:23 PM
IP: 162.84.130.8

People are debating evolution now? Not the process and details of evolutionary biology, but actually evolution vs. creationism?

This room is threatening to drive me to drinking.
Whitbourne
Friday, January 28, 2005 03:23:11 PM
IP: 129.173.137.50

Patrick> "Dobson is on a crusade against anything that promotes tolerance between people who are different, because if intolerance is bad then by deduction the anti-gay agenda his faction of Christianity supports is based on a flawed premise. So rather than deal with that, it's better in their minds to tear down anything that would dare to say that all people should be treated equally."

I hope I don't regret getting involved in this discussion. Dr Dobson is not against tolerance. All people should be treated equally regardless. However, the Bible specifically forbids homosexual behavior the way it forbids murder and covetousness. Whether you believe the Bible or not is your business, but I know that Dr Dobson takes it as Gospel. Therefore, from that perspective, a cartoon character promoting homosexuality is akin to a cartoon character promoting stealing.

The mistake that Dr Dobson seems to have made is in making an accusation based on an assumption. As far as I know, Spongebob's creators have not said he is gay, and therefore conclusions should not be drawn.


Phil - [p1anderson@go.com]
Friday, January 28, 2005 03:08:05 PM
IP: 134.215.241.133

Siren and Matt: <Pandas are related to racoons more then they are to bears>
Don't worry theories like that will probably be changed in a few years. They aways are.
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Marquette, Michigan, USA
Friday, January 28, 2005 01:38:55 PM
IP: 64.112.202.234

evolution> yes, its called the Theory of Evolution, but the word theory has more than one meaning. in everyday speech theory means a hypothesis, a guess, an idea. in scientific terms theory means a hypothesis that is supported by experiment and evidence. the Theory of Evolution falls under the latter definition, meaning scientifically is as proven as the Theory of Gravity. of course you don't have to believe that if you don't want to, but you don't have to believe the sun is a burning ball of gas either. science might say it is, but if you think stars are "fireflies stuck up on that blueish-black thing" (to quote a certain meerkat) thats your perogative. in the world of science, evolution is a fact. as i previously mentioned, we don't know all the details yet, and probably never will, but the basic outline of evolution is confirmed.

the Orca, or killer whale is simply one of the largest of the toothed cetaceans, making it a closer relative of the dolphin, than any of of the baleen whales. misnomers of this type exist all over the place, such as in the whale shark, which isn't a whale at all. anyway, its just a name, doesn't mean anything. its genetic heritage has far more to do with who its relatives are than its name of course.

Siren> ok, i'm confused. you said the program says its impossible that horses and donkeys can breed but says that they do? isn't that a contradiction in terms? if the program said that science says they shouldn't be able to produce young, then that is totally wrong. you have only to look at a mule to show thats its scientifically possible, unless of course you attribute a donkey and a horse concieving a mule a religiously miraculous event. the fact is, lots of closely related animals can produce young, if the program said otherwise i can prove them wrong. i love Discovery and i know they have good quality science shows, but if they said that, they are wrong.
matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Friday, January 28, 2005 01:18:58 PM
IP: 67.65.130.252

Dobson is on a crusade against anything that promotes tolerance between people who are different, because if intolerance is bad, mm-kay, then by deduction the anti-gay agenda his faction of Christianity supports is based on a flawed premise. So rather than deal with that, it's better in their minds to tear down anything that would dare to say that all people should be treated equally.

Of course, I'm not sure where this leaves that fellow who the religion is named after, who said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I would imagine, though, that He's shaking his head right now.
Patrick
Friday, January 28, 2005 01:02:25 PM
IP: 66.93.14.153

Okay folks, sorry for the double post. My computer is slow to update the comment room.
Re Evolution: Just thought I'd point this out. The theroy of Evolution is just that, a THEORY!!! Pandas are classified as Racoons. Let me throw another fun mammal in the works. The Orca, or Killer whale as it is more commonly known, is often linked with the whale family. That's a fun misnomer, it's acually a giant porpoise. Looks like a whale, swims like a porpoise.
Phoenyx
Friday, January 28, 2005 12:11:20 PM
IP: 135.214.150.125

Phoenyx, hm, maybe the Smurfs seeing the ratio of them is 1 to 100, the one being Smurfette and the only female, while the rest are male.
Matt Fews
Friday, January 28, 2005 12:06:56 PM
IP: 206.47.191.83

Re Spongebob: Dobson was also the guy who "outed" one of those teletubbies things. Didn't they say that the teletubbies are as asexual as earthworms? He also "outted" Arthur yesterday. The whole thing is preposturous. you cannot out a child's cartoon. the charecters are not written to be gay, they are written so that kids can identify with them. Zeesh. This is getting rediculous, all of these cartoons now that they call gay. Where was this Dobson guy when we were growing up uh? The smurfs!!!! Sorry Y'all, i'm just picking at Dobson.
Phoenyx - [Laurenw_38@hotmail.com]
Memphis, TN, USA
Friday, January 28, 2005 11:47:35 AM
IP: 135.214.150.125

Matt>I believe in evolution first off.

Second, I know exactly what I heard. I've done a lot of studying on donkeys since they are one of my favorite animals and I had a page once that I plan to put back up that was about donkeys. Do me a favor and rent/buy/download/catch on tv the program I am talking about. They have shown it on Discovery, Animal Planet, and Discovery Kids. I've watched it well over a dozen times. My hearing is just fine. They said it was impossible for the two to breed and they do. And after that, they say, "but like other hybrids, their offspring are sterile".
Siren
Friday, January 28, 2005 10:42:58 AM
IP: 24.173.175.46

Matt Fews>Please read my 2 previous posts. I agree they are related to racoons. But not because of the circles around their eyes. A lot of animals have eye masks/circles/marks and aren't racoons. Cheetah's have black marks under their eyes. But they are cats. Several species of dogs get dark and light circles around their eyes, but they are dogs. The panda is believed to be a part of the racoon family due to bone structure among other things. But science doesn't base theories on looks alone.
Siren
Friday, January 28, 2005 10:39:49 AM
IP: 24.173.175.46

i love Discovery Channel and its not like them to be wrong about such a basic fact. i'm pretty sure what they meant when they said that is that a donkey and a horse can reproduce, but not produce any fertile offspring. and since producing fertile offspring is what breeding is, they cannot breed. but i'm absolutly positive that they can concieve and birth a hybrid, i RODE on one once, its called a MULE, a cross between a horse and a donkey. if you don't believe me do a google searvh on it, you'll even find that some people have made hybrids of horses and donkeys with zebras! they can do this because all these animals are of the Genus Equus. Mules and other hybrids are almost always sterile however and suffer from chromosome oddities and genetic defects. theres a reason we define donkeys as their own species, they can breed among themselves and produce fertile offspring. horses and donkeys can breed but can't produce fertile offspring, thus they are closely related, but a different species.

evolution is only debated by people outside the scientific community and a few scientists who are conflicted by their religious beliefs. do we know all the details of evolution? no. does evolution happen? yes. its like any other scientific theory, like gravity. we know it exists but we don't know everything about how it works right now.
as for the Pandas, they are certaintly related to bears, the question is, how closely are they related? most likely they are slightly more related to bears than to racoons, but its still hard to say. DNA marking is shedding some light that seems to point towards the bear family, but again, we don't know yet. thats why i think they are desceded from the ancestors of both families.

James Dobson> i may not like a lot of what he believes religiously, and we both probably dissapprove of each other's lifestyles, but i have always respected the guy. when he wasn't preaching religion, i thought he was an amazing pyschologist and really knew his stuff. after this SpongeBob thing broke out i lost a lot of respect for him. Falwell doing something like this (purple tellitubby) was not surprising, but i guess i expected better behavior and a more logical approach from Dobson... oh well...
matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Friday, January 28, 2005 10:39:38 AM
IP: 67.65.130.252

Siren, Pandas aren't Bears, I don't pretend to be an expert on them, but the dark circles they have around their eyes is a common trait of the Raccoon family.
Matt Fews
Friday, January 28, 2005 10:34:19 AM
IP: 206.47.191.83

On the Ultimate Guide to Horses on Discovery, they had said it was scientifically impossible for them to breed. Though I haven't seen any articles on this, I trust Discovery.

And evolution is still a debated. Pandas are still debated, so if it was scientific fact that they are related to bears, the debate would be pretty much over. But that's the thing about science, everything is still debated.
Siren
Friday, January 28, 2005 09:28:45 AM
IP: 24.173.175.46

Boy, is this room behind. Spongebob was "outed" DAYS ago. :P

Of course, that's only if you're insane enough to take the stupid stuff that Dobson is always saying as gospel.

181 days left until The Gathering 2005 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Patrick
Friday, January 28, 2005 07:31:33 AM
IP: 66.93.14.153

brian: *nods* i'll try to make one, but the scanner is the hard part, i don't have one. Well if i ever get to the gathering maybe i can ask a few people if they'd like to collabarate.
Dan
Friday, January 28, 2005 12:47:13 AM
IP: 68.42.18.157

If you ever do the Seph pic, show me where it is when you're done. I'll have to show it to her.

Hey Matt, if you get a chance, drop me an e-mail. There's something I have to ask of you and I cannot do it here.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAThursday, January 27, 2005 11:09:36 PM
IP: 209.74.41.227

Siren> "Pandas are related to racoons more then they are to bears"

thats still a subject of much debate. some say Giant Pandas are in the Bear Family, other say they are in the Racoon Family. the theory i put the most faith in at the moment is that the Giant Panda and the Red Panda are descended from animals that spawned both the Racoon and Bear Families. making them about equally related to Bears and Racoons.

"A donkey and a horse can have young together, which by all scientific calculations thus far is IMPOSSIBLE, but they do it. Science still can't explain it."

thats not true. not only are donkey/horse hybrids POSSIBLE, but they are easily explained by science. Species within the same genus can often produce young. African Lions and Leopards both of the genus Panthera can and have produced young together, and many believe Modern humans (Homo sapiens) and Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalis) interbred quite often. so, often animals can and do breed within their genus, the fact that they can often concieve is more evidence of evolution, however, these hybrids are nearly always sterile and often have shorter lifespans and genetic problems as well.
matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Thursday, January 27, 2005 10:54:26 PM
IP: 67.65.130.252

What is the elephant's closest related reletive still alive today and lives on land?

I give you...the hyrax! (click my name)

The hyrax is more like an elephant internally and socially then any rodent.

Also look at humans. Overall, our bodies are the same for the most part. There are of course the pygmy tribes. But Native American, European, Asian, and African look very different in skin color and facial build. As well as bone structure. A forensic scientist can figure out the race of a person by their bones. So we are very different.

Also look at dogs. You have the chihuahua and then you have the Newfoundland. These breeds were created with selective breeding.

Also islands and other areas of the world with small populations of animals often come out with weird species. There are species on the Galapagoes and Madagascar...and of course Australia that no one else has. The kangaroo, tasmanian devil, sugar glider, and opossum are related, but look very different.

Pandas are related to racoons more then they are to bears

A donkey and a horse can have young together, which by all scientific calculations thus far is IMPOSSIBLE, but they do it. Science still can't explain it.

So no, Zafiro looking very different from Goliath isn't all that far fetched.
Siren
Thursday, January 27, 2005 10:23:22 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

Kellie> "There is such a thing as coevolution, which explains why a squid's eye is so simmilar to a human's eye and why Koalas look like bears even though they are marsupials more closely related to Kangaroos than bears."

you are talking about convergent evolution, not coevolution. coevolution is the evolution of two species to fit each other over time such as a flower that can only be pollinated by a certain insect, bird or bat. convergent evolution is where two unrelated life forms evolve to resemble each other in looks or behavior due to a similiar niche they both inhabit, such as Marsupial Moles and Insectivore Moles which look almost identical but are not closely related.

my problem with Zafiro having internal genitalia and the rest of male gargs having external is not that things can evolve to have these different characteristics, but that Zafiro and Goliath are from the SAME species. obviously gargates exhibit a wide range of individual morphologies within one species, but i wonder if this is just too much of a differene inside a single species. not taht i'm suggesting that Zafiro and Goliath are different species, but i'm only saying its a pretty huge anatomical difference for one species to have... but tahts gargoyles for you. i wonder how much we'd be willing to accept. what would everyone think if Goliath and Co had met gargoyles during the World Tour that had four arms as well as wings, legs and a tail? what would you think if they had met gargoyles with two heads? or ones that only grew to be a meter tall? i mean how much variety can one species have?

the list of what all gargoyles we've seen have in common is very short:

- a head with two eyes, two ears and some type of nose and mouth
- two arms
- a tail-like apendage (but again, is Zafiro's tail his tail or his legs or both or neither?)
- at least 2 apendages used as wings

thats all i can think of...
matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Thursday, January 27, 2005 09:48:33 PM
IP: 67.65.130.252

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/life_spongebob_dc

Theres an article on CNN.com as well, but I lost the link to it.
Vertigo1
TN, USA
Thursday, January 27, 2005 09:09:54 PM
IP: 207.65.41.155

Okay, only since yesterday have I started hearing about SpongeBob being gay. Where did this come from? I'm not saying he is or he isn't... but jeez. The only way I can consider him being gay is if it's in the context of being very happy. Otherwise.... I dunno.... I just don't think he is.
BrooksBabe - [belfour20_mccabe24@hotmail.com]
T.O., Canada
Thursday, January 27, 2005 08:55:56 PM
IP: 64.228.99.113

Sorry for the double post too...meant to add this...

Spirit pictures:
http://www.simbaskingdom.org/spirit/images/Grabs/ScreenGrabs/SpiritGrab097.jpg
http://www.simbaskingdom.org/spirit/images/Grabs/ScreenGrabs/SpiritGrab132.jpg

Frankly, I think if an animation wishes to draw animals realistically, then do so. Afterall, we draw breasts on women and that is considered as something sexual. Bambi surprises me that they didn't choose to be that realistic. I look back on Fantasia with the female centaurs and they were topless, but had human form. And then Bambi, which was a beautiful animated film. Spirit is probably best compared to Bambi more the Lion King, which is what it is usually compared with.

Another animated feature that showed animals realistically was Plague Dogs. Those dogs even urinated. Very depressing movie though.
Siren
Thursday, January 27, 2005 08:35:14 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

*The science Teacher cracks her knuckled not having made a post here in a very long time and wondering if people even know who she is.*

There is such a thing as coevolution, which explains why a squid's eye is so simmilar to a human's eye and why Koalas look like bears even though they are marsupials more closely related to Kangaroos than bears. This can explain why certian gargoyles have features that are different from other gargoyles who evolved in different parts of the world. Thust Zafiro could have retracted genitalia like a snake while other gargoyles need that loincloth. It depends on where they evolved.

And despite all the arguments about homiphobia and the like your all forgetting Standards and Practicies would never let a gay character on an animated series. All the fans would know, but they'd never be able to come out and say anything about it on the air. I mean look at what they're doing to Sponge Bob and Buster Bunny
Kellie
City of Gargoyles NYC
Thursday, January 27, 2005 08:28:51 PM
IP: 152.163.100.137

Accordingly to the movie's dialogue, no Kovu was not his son. But while writing the picture, it all was going on the end of Kovu being the son of Zira and Scar. Kovu means "scar" in Swahili. Hence where he got his name from. The script was written with Kovu being his son. The lines were read by the actors with Kovu being his son. The movie was ANIMATED with Kovu being his son. Then suddenly on one of the first screenings, someone realizes...Kovu and Kiara related. Disney didn't want kissing cousins. So they dragged in all the actors that talked about the father/son thing and lines were re-read as best as possible to match the lip movements of the characters that were already completely animated and colored. You can best see this when Timon says, "I didn't know your tyrannt". Watch his lip movements. It doesn't match the work tyrannt. He bites his lip, which is how one would make an "F" sound, to say "father". They replaced the work father with tyrannt. And notice how they mention it a LOT about him not being his son. Why exactly? How many times must they repeat it? It would be more understandable if they kept talking about how he IS his son and how hard it is? He was raised to walk in Scar's footsteps, so why does that matter? Originally, it was about how he was a son and Scar's blood is his blood. Frankly, I don't care what the movie says, Kovu is Scar's son.
Siren
Thursday, January 27, 2005 08:28:14 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

Sorry for the double-post. Got a little trigger happy with the submit button. ;)

Phoenyx: If you're interested in meeting with me, send me an e-mail. I can be in Memphis in roughly 45 minutes. I'm there everyday down at the Macon STCC campus anyways. ;)
Vertigo1
TN, USA
Thursday, January 27, 2005 08:18:31 PM
IP: 207.65.41.155

Here's a direct link to the snopes series of articles that Siren mentioned earlier:

http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/films.asp (copy and paste or click on my name)

Siren does bring up a really good point on the character animation. In "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron", you can clearly see Spirit does actually have a sheath. (For those that haven't been around animals, this is where his penis would reside.) However, you can also clearly see that he has no testicles, but its quite obvious that he can still father children since last I checked no equine has ever been born without all the required equipment. Same thing with Mufasa, Simba, and all the other lions. They clearly have the necessary equipment to sire cubs since we've seen their progeny in both films. (With the exception of Scar since he never had the chance to father a child. Kovu was a rogue that Scar "took under his wing" so-to-speak. This was established in dialogue in the second movie.) The very fact that they were animated sans genitalia doesn't mean that they cannot properly mate and have children.

That being said, the gargoyles that have been shown clothed could quite easily have external genetalia, but everything is hidden from view due to their clothing. If their genetalia were internal like Zafiro's, then why would they have a spell placed on them so their clothing wouldn't fall down when they turned to stone? If they had nothing to show, then why would a certain magician be concerned about modesty?
Vertigo1 - [md2389@gmail.com]
TN, USA
Thursday, January 27, 2005 08:15:52 PM
IP: 207.65.41.155

BISHANSKY - Thanks for telling us about the "Future Tense" outline. It's not as much fun as the actual ramble will most likely be, but made good reading.

One bit that really took me by surprise was the remark over the ironic situation regarding Demona being good again - but now she's with Brooklyn and it's too late for Goliath. (Although by this time, I honestly think that Goliath's feelings for Elisa were growing too strong for him to be able to just reunite with Demona even if she was single at this point.)

Almost as big an eyebrow-raiser was the fact that in the early draft, it was Talon rather than Alex who had the big battle with Xanatos in cyberspace in Act II. (I'm glad that they changed it to Alex; Xanatos killing his own son was far more dramatically effective in showing how ruthless he was than just killing another good guy.)

I'm really looking forward to the actual "Future Tense" ramble.
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Thursday, January 27, 2005 07:04:58 PM
IP: 4.245.17.52

lol, sephiroth should be cast in that olivia newton john video . I think it was the physical one, along with cloud. tifa and aeris could play in that movie, with the two women who drive off the cliff, don't remember the name.
Dan
Thursday, January 27, 2005 07:04:40 PM
IP: 68.42.18.157

I know someone who would dig that. She says he's hung like a bull.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAThursday, January 27, 2005 06:22:47 PM
IP: 209.74.24.53

matt: I think greg mentioned all scottish gargoyles and the ones who were at the roman courtes, all have genitalia on the outside (i'm guessing women to).

Change of subject: Anyone here play FF7? I can imagine sephiroth as a gargoyles:P. Hmmm more ideas for fanart, yay!
Dan
Thursday, January 27, 2005 06:05:54 PM
IP: 68.42.18.157

Oh crud, I haven't seen that one in quite a while.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAThursday, January 27, 2005 05:51:37 PM
IP: 209.74.24.53

Beauty and the Beast
Siren
Thursday, January 27, 2005 05:47:50 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

"Lefou always came off as gay to me. He oogled the Babettes once, maybe twice, but probably more peer pressure. His hands were all over Gaston and he was his willing slave. For what exactly? ;)"

I don't know for sure. I'm having a hard time figuring out what film this is.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAThursday, January 27, 2005 05:44:31 PM
IP: 209.74.24.53

Lion King: After Simba and Nala fight, Simba goes to a cliff and collapses. Pollen, dust, leaves and petals blow in the wind, for a moment it appears they spell out "SEX" or "SFX". I believe it is "SFX" on close exanimation. It only makes sense since the special effects team of animators animated the windy scenes, as well as rain, sand storms, etc.
Little Mermaid: When Vanessa/Ursula and Eric are at the wedding, the priest appears to be aroused. Again, on close exanimation on frames after this, you can see it is his knee.
Little Mermaid VHS cover: The original cover has the castle in the background and one of the towers looks like a penis.
Rescuers:This is the only confirmed case that it was deffinetly some fool messing around. On the original film, it wasn't there. On the first release to video, it wasn't there. On the second release to video, it was there. It was when the albatross is flying through the city and for about 3 frames, you see a naked woman in the window. It is actually a live action naked woman, not an animated one. Disney recalled the videos.

Anyways, do a google search or check www.snopes.com and you can find out more info on it.

Now on Greg passing Lexington off as gay, first the show is currently on hiatus until further notice. I don't believe Greg came out with his plans for Lex while the show was being produced. Whether Disney bites or not, I don't know. I guess it would depend on how the show comes back. Does it go back to being for 7-12 boys according to Disney, or would Greg have more license to do with it what he will and it be placed at a higher mark then that? I don't think the show frankly should be considered for over the teen set. I think it should be more geared towards 15 and up at the very least. A lot more parents are accepting of their 15 year old kid watching a show with a gay character then if their 7 year old did.
And frankly, Disney had their share of gay characters that weren't out of the closet. For instance: Lefou always came off as gay to me. He oogled the Babettes once, maybe twice, but probably more peer pressure. His hands were all over Gaston and he was his willing slave. For what exactly? ;)
Siren
Thursday, January 27, 2005 05:38:27 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

Someone must have had good eyes to pick those things up. I don't know how many times I had watched The Lion King and never found the sex. Actually I don't remeber seeing the other items when I watched the movies. Let's say you're right. If they are in hot water, not to beat this dead horse any more but if Disney does do Gargoyles again and Greg's plan comes to pass and someone does pick up on Lexington's orientation, wouldn't that end up putting them up a notch to boiling? It's not that I don't have faith in Greg, but it is always possible in one way or another to have an idea lay an egg.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAThursday, January 27, 2005 05:22:05 PM
IP: 209.74.24.53

Greg Weisman posted his Outline Notes for "Future Tense"
Greg Bishansky
Thursday, January 27, 2005 05:07:04 PM
IP: 162.84.130.8

Matt>As you said, S&P. I am sure Simba, Mufasa and Scar each had a penis. Afterall, they all did have cubs (technically Kovu is Scar's son and was originally written as so, till they figured out Kiara and Kovu would be related). But then you have Spirit, where not just Spirit, but other horses actually had a penis. Or something that looked like a small animated penis. For a short while, Spirit was draw very realistically. Penis and testicles, but it was too "distracting" the animators decided. And so they gelded him and made his penis smaller. By all indications though, Spirit was a wild mustang and to our knowledge, had no reason to be born without testicles. You just figure they are there and he has them.
The same can be said for gargoyles. Like with Bronx and other gargoyles that are not snake-like in body. One would think they are external. But the animators work for Disney, not Porn R Us. Disney has been in hot water before with supposed sexual additions to animation. The priest in Little Mermaid and "SEX" in Lion King. And then of course there's the Rescuers' glimpse at a naked woman. And Little Mermaid's original VHS cover. Bad enough they get accused of slipping a penis in thier artwork now and then, I doubt parents would enjoy their kids seeing a penis on a children's show. Personally, it wouldn't have bothered me for Bronx to have one. But if Goliath decided to strip one day, I would still feel compelled to sheild my daughter's eyes.
Siren
Thursday, January 27, 2005 04:44:16 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

ok, we know Zafiro has no external genitalia, and i'm taking Patrick at his word when he says goliath and most male gargs DO have external genitalia so i wonder:

a: we've never seen any external genitalia on Bronx or any Beast in the series. do they have internal genitalia also?

b: is internal genitalia another racial difference taht the Guatamalan Clan has? for instance, does Jade have an internal or external penis? and if its only gargs with Zafiro's body structure, why? why would the genitals have to be internal if his lower body is the way it is? obviously the real world answer is that S&P isn't gonna let it hang out... i wonder why no one thought to animate Zafiro with some sort of clothing below the waist...
matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Thursday, January 27, 2005 03:26:57 PM
IP: 67.65.130.252

Whitbourne>> Well, with regards to how I made the inference, a look back at your post (with emphasis [**] added to show how I made the inference):


"Oh, for god's sake. **Homophobia here?** Damnit, I though Gargoyles fans were smarter than that.

If the series ever did come back and it didn't play well in the **Bible Belt** because a character (gasp!) happened not to fit **their preconceived notions of legitimate sexual behaviour,** then they could just turn their TV to another channel, waiting for someone to have a wardrobe malfunction so they could write outraged letters to the FCC for not making everyone subscribe to **their standards.**

Can't have gay characters on a TV show! After all, we don't want the kiddies thinking that gay people might actually be people and not a collection of **"sinful" stereotypes.**"


That's what I drew from your post. If you meant nothing more by it than to illustrate a point, I'm sorry to have accused you of more malicious intentions; however, I stand by the fact that there are plenty of other ways to go about making your points than using stereotypical references (as you attract jerks like me who then blow them up).

Being one of those people who's at present posting from the Bible Belt, I agree that at times it seems like this area is filled with "brain-dead" bigotry with room for little else. But I've found that the apparent concentration is due to the fact that here the debate rages from all sides of the issue, which means that those who feel like they're under attack (the traditional values camp, et al.) are going to shout the loudest, as Phoenyx has pointed out.

I'm not trying to abandon this discussion or any position I've taken (I'm not above to taking some flak), but I invite and encourage you to fire me an e-mail so we can continue on (if you so desire) without distracting the board (and that's a general invitation, too, not just to Whitbourne).
Alex Garg - [alex_garg@yahoo.com]
VA, USA
Thursday, January 27, 2005 03:26:40 PM
IP: 216.145.68.246

That second however was supposed to be true. i have typing issues.
Phoenyx
Thursday, January 27, 2005 03:19:57 PM
IP: 135.214.150.125

Okay folks. Honest truth time. Everyone is a bigot. We all make some kind of judgment towards someone else based on race, religion, sexual preference, IQ. It doesn't matter, we all do it!!! HELLO!!!!
Whit> I live in the "Bible Belt". We have the most religious fanatics as far as Chrisitanity goes, however, we are not all driven by the same philosophies. However, there are some groups who shall remain nameless, who have a louder voice bc ther are simply more of them. Again, they don't speak for the majority of the "Bible Belt"
Phoenyx
Memphis, TN, USA
Thursday, January 27, 2005 03:16:17 PM
IP: 135.214.150.125

Well, Zafiro could wera a loincloth if he very well wanted to. He just chose not to.:p
Which is the same idea I have had back when the second season was just getting under way, which was quite a long time ago. Everything needed to get the job was entirely internal, and was done, not like the platypus, but more like the earthworm, which involves secretions being released and absorbed through the skin in certain areas. That is until a big fat reality check revealed that they have been sexualized by human standards since day one, not by any side of the fandom but by it's own design operatives, thus proving that nothing can be real to humans unless it has been sexualized. It's the gargoyle equivalent of humans giving something a name. I'm sorry you feel that way Kitty, but if we both agree on something and can back each other up on it, then it's not something to be upset about. Stuff like this can really stink.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAThursday, January 27, 2005 03:13:08 PM
IP: 209.74.24.53

...
Anonymous
Thursday, January 27, 2005 03:09:43 PM
IP: 135.214.150.125

Whitbourne: <I've not called anyone a Nazi, a fascist or anything of that regard. As far as I'm concerned, homophobic bigots are either idiots whom we would all like to think would know better, but probably have brains with the porous nature of sponges, or they're so deep in the closet themselves that we can only see their eyes peeking out from between last years sweaters.>
Maybe you should have tried scrolling down a bit because the hypocrits have been using those very words. You however are still condemed by your own words as being one of the Hypocrits of Tolerance, in my opion.

Alex Garg:<Tolerance isn't inherently hypocritic. Whitbourne's right to say that there are some things that are simply intolerable, intolerance being one of them.>
I never said tolerance was inherently hypocritical, but hypocrisy has been known to sneak into the anything including Tolerance.
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Marquette, Michigan, USA
Thursday, January 27, 2005 02:38:46 PM
IP: 64.112.202.146

That should read "it's true that not everyone is a bigot".

The rest of the cooment stands.
Whitbourne
Thursday, January 27, 2005 12:52:28 PM
IP: 129.173.137.53

Alex> No idea where you gather that I implied that everyone in the Bible Belt is a bigot. Of course it's true. Everyone knows it's true. There are people who post here and elsewhere who live there, and I gather we'd be hard pressed to find a bigoted cell in their bodies.

There is, however, a higher concentration of them there, or at least an apparent one, and the sad fact of the matter is that there seems to be a geometric relationship between the number of brain-dead bigots in that part of the world and their volume used to shout out their derogatory filth.
Whitbourne
Thursday, January 27, 2005 12:51:49 PM
IP: 129.173.137.53

Here's an idea. Let's not discuss ANYTHING. If we never speak to each other, we can be that no one is ever going to be offended by something someone else says. We'll need to change the headers to say "Station 8 No-Comment Room", of course, but that's a minor detail.

Matt > Sorry to shoot down your plane, but Greg has confirmed that Goliath has the same basic stuff under his loincloth that any Scotsman has under his kilt. And that's only reasonable, since gargoyles bear much more physical similarity to primates (apes, chimps, and humans) than they do to reptiles or amphibians.
Patrick
Thursday, January 27, 2005 12:29:38 PM
IP: 66.93.14.153

Makes sense to me that if you got it hanging, you wear a loincloth. Perhaps gargoyles, like humans have a certain sense of embarrasment about letting loose all the time.


Or perhaps Zafro is just a nudist gargoyle ;)
Siren
Thursday, January 27, 2005 12:27:02 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

I'm not going into the comment room right now to post anything. It's turning into a mean place where people try to rationalize or deny someone elses beliefs because it doesn't fit in with someone else veiws. Um honestly, I think we should follow this policy: Leave politics at home, leave religious veiws at home, unless the host brings it up. It's something that works for me, and has for years.
If you don't agree with this, I believe we should ask the website host to post a list of acceptible topics of disscusion. It might be the best way to avoid further displeasure among anyone who posts or visits the site. But that's just me and my personal opinion.
Phoenyx
Memphis, TN, USA
Thursday, January 27, 2005 12:05:21 PM
IP: 135.214.150.125

Geez, what on earth is going on here.

First Gays and Homosexuals and now Sexual body parts.

Man, some of you really need to get their minds out of the gutter.
Matt Fews
Thursday, January 27, 2005 12:02:00 PM
IP: 206.47.191.83

Siren> i didn't say that Zafiro does not have the tools to mate, i said he might not have a penis. all gargoyles have internal genitalia, but we don't know if Zafiro has a penis or not. and for that fact, lets say he DOES have a penis and keeps it tucked in, its far more likely that all male gargoyles do this then. so maybe they all have penises, but they all keep them tucked in. makes sense to me. it doesn't make much biological sense that only gargoyles that wear loincloths have external penises...
matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Thursday, January 27, 2005 11:06:39 AM
IP: 67.65.130.252

Ah, I did a search of Zafiro in the archieves and this is what I got...

". We wanted to really tie Zafiro in with Quetzacoatl, and I was so focused on him, that I didn't think to do the same with the others. I like their upper body designs a lot, but I wish I had had the art guys give them snake lower bodies too. I've decided that the majority of the slaughtered Mayan clan were lower-snake types. And when the new batch of eggs hatches the hatchlings would reflect that fact."

And here to confirm it as best Greg did...

Aris Katsaris (repost by Aris) writes...
And now a question for those of us with dirty minds... <evil laughter> :-)

Where the heck does Zafiro keep his genitalia? I mean the guy's *very* anatomically different, compared to the other gargoyles... Is he like dolphins or something where the genitalia are tucked inside the body unless when aroused?

Greg responds...
Uh, sure.

So not extreemly confident, but he did answer it.
Siren
Thursday, January 27, 2005 10:30:40 AM
IP: 65.33.112.90

There mere fact that a Zafiro exists is testiment that his bloodline somewhere's down the line did have a snake-like look to them. Usually sudden genetic mutation doesn't appear, it evolves down the line . It may skip a few generations, but Zafiro likily does has a penis. Nature is very much about sex and reproduction. Some species are born only too mate and then die right after. Some species can mate soon after birth. Some species are born preganant. And some animal species are born as both sexes. Nature is all about sex. So I am sure that Zafiro has internal gentalia. No, Greg has not confirmed it beyond a resonible doubt, but speaking scientifically here, it is unlikely that Zafiro doesn't have the tools to mate.

Greg has already asserted that Una, Leo, and Griff are not related to unicorns/horses, lions, and griffons. They are their own seperate species, gargates after all. Seperate species can look alike. Usually for defensive reasons. Some catipillars look like snakes to ward of predators, even going so far as to have appendages that flick in and out like a forked tongue. Butterflies have eye spots to look like a owl to scar of butterfly-eating birds. Other animals look like inanimate objects. Leaves, bird feces, rocks, plants, sticks, and so on. So Zafiro, Una, Leo, and Griff looking like other creatures is natural. But unlike the smaller animals, they don't need to look like that defensivly. Being a gargoyle is all they need to ward of enemies. So often, if that evolution point isn't for food, and it isn't for fighting, its often for sex. Perhaps the diversity of these 4 gargoyles makes them more likely to mate. Afterall, birds have great beautiful plumage which makes them very consicuous in the leafy greens, but to another bird of that same species and opposite sex, it's irresistable. :P
Siren
Thursday, January 27, 2005 10:09:46 AM
IP: 65.33.112.90

Whitbourne>> I certainly hope you don't tolerate bigotry, but that doesn't give you a license to imply that anybody and everybody who lives in the Bible Belt is homophobic. It's simply not true.

Vinnie>> Tolerance isn't inherently hypocritic. Whitbourne's right to say that there are some things that are simply intolerable, intolerance being one of them.
Alex Garg
VA, USA
Thursday, January 27, 2005 09:12:32 AM
IP: 216.145.68.246

Brian: Please don't use my dislike of the furry fandom as an argument for your point. I know the furry fandom can also be a touchy subject. Since this personal view of mine has come out, I feel that I should take a moment to explain it. Please, I do not want to start another long dicussion here. If you don't like something I said, please feel free to email me and I will be more than willing to talk about it.

Yes, in general I do not like the furry fandom. I spent a number of years part of it, and have decided it is not for me. Though it has left me with a bit of a bitter taste, I do not hate furries. I met some great people while in the fandom, and some horrible ones. I give every perosn I meet the benefit of the doubt. I still have friends within the furry community. My dislike of the furry fandom can be equated to Soap Operas. I dislike Soap Operas, but not the people who watch them, or who act in them.

Once again, please feel free to email me if you want to talk about this. My last intention is to start something that will cause tension.




TigerShard - [tigershard@yahoo.com]
Thursday, January 27, 2005 09:01:02 AM
IP: 69.212.54.79

some of you who are running around saying that tolerance was one of the main themes of Gargoyles are correct, but should also remember another theme of Gargoyles: giving up on the petty arguments of the past that divide you.

and keep in mind, Brian has a good point about Zafiro. we all assume his genitalia is internal, but i don't think Greg has confirmed that (i might be wrong, has he?). and keep in mind, Zafiro is no more related to a snake than Una is related to a Unicorn...
matt
Thursday, January 27, 2005 08:18:25 AM
IP: 67.65.130.252

LMAO!!! That's one hell of a typo! I out did myself...

Snack=SNAKE

LMAO
Siren
Thursday, January 27, 2005 08:05:19 AM
IP: 65.33.112.90

Patrick is correct. I don't believe any reptiles or amphibians have external sexual organs. Watch Croc Hunter for 30 minutes and you'll see him stick his fingers into the gator to see if it has a vagina or a penis. Birds can usually only be sexed either through color (depending on species) or surgically.
Pick up a snack and find the slit near their tail, give a little pressure and if you get a pair of penis, you got a very lucky boy.

And am I gay? No. Do I care if you think I am? No. You can think I am a flaming homosexual all you want. Want to think of me as male? Fine. How about a half and half. Don't bother me. You can think all you want about me. I don't care. I don't have ANYTHING to prove. I'm proud of who I am that if someone asked me a simple question like: Are you gay? I can give them a straight answer and be happy with MYSELF.
Siren
Thursday, January 27, 2005 08:04:36 AM
IP: 65.33.112.90

Male snakes keep their equipment internal. It only comes out for mating. They also have two, so it doesn't matter if the female is on the left or the right, and some of them are barbed so once the act starts, the female can't get away until it's over.

Yes, the animal kingdom is a strange and varied place. There are even species where the males carry the young (seahorses) and mammals (the duck-billed platypus and two species of echidna) that lay eggs. So there's nothing out there that says gargoyles can't also lay eggs and nurse their young. And looking at Demona and Angela and the other females in the show... it's pretty clear that they're equiped for the job.

As for whatever you may or may not find under the clothes of a toy... keep in mind that Barbie and Ken, who presumably are human despite the unrealistic body proportions, don't have anything under their clothes, either.

182 days left until The Gathering 2005 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Patrick
Thursday, January 27, 2005 07:31:25 AM
IP: 66.93.14.153

Vinnie> Suck it up.
I've not called anyone a Nazi, a fascist or anything of that regard. As far as I'm concerned, homophobic bigots are either idiots whom we would all like to think would know better, but probably have brains with the porous nature of sponges, or they're so deep in the closet themselves that we can only see their eyes peeking out from between last years sweaters.
Whitbourne
Thursday, January 27, 2005 06:53:11 AM
IP: 142.177.37.156

Ah, doesn't everyone just love the Hipocrisy of Tolerance?!
Personally, I hate the idea of accusing people of being Nazis, Facists, or any other type of hate monger just because some people don't happen to share the idea open-handed acceptance of anything.
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Marquette, Michigan, USA
Thursday, January 27, 2005 06:50:30 AM
IP: 64.112.202.28

KAYLLE - In my case, I missed "Walkabout" and "Ill Met By Moonlight" the first time that they aired, so the first time that I saw Titania on the small screen, either in her true identity or in Anastasia's identity, was in "The Gathering Part One", which gave her double identity away fairly early on. So I already knew that they were the same person by the time that I did see "Ill Met By Moonlight".

BISHANSKY - That's certainly an interesting theory about Morgana. Mind you, we don't know whether she'd have still been hostile towards Arthur and Merlin in modern times. For one thing, according to "Ask Greg", she helped take Arthur away to Avalon after his last battle, something that she'd hardly have done if she still hated him (unless, of course, somebody - say, Oberon - commanded her to). Not to mention that she might not have had that much opportunity to interact with Arthur and Merlin in the modern world, since, being a member of the Third Race, she'd have most likely been called back to Avalon for the Gathering.

(I might add that the notion of Morgan le Fay being hostile towards Arthur and Merlin came in relatively late in the legend; in earlier versions of the story, it was Guinevere whom she hated, not Arthur - the reason for that being that Morgan had been carrying on an affair with a cousin of Guinevere's, and Guinevere, as soon as she found out about it, broke it up at once, which didn't please Morgan much - and she must have been all the angrier when she found out about Guinevere's own affair with Lancelot, taking an attitude of "Not only is she a meddler, but she's also a hypocrite!" Come to think of it, that might explain one thing about some of Morgan's activities. In Malory, all of her efforts to kill Arthur directly came before Lancelot came to court and met Queen Guinevere; after Lancelot arrives, Morgan shifts her activities mostly towards kidnapping Lancelot or trying to inform Arthur about Guinevere and Lancelot's adultery rather than directly attacking Arthur. Could Morgan's real purpose in attempting to murder Arthur have been to target Guinevere by making her suddenly a powerless widow - in which case, it made sense to stop trying to kill Arthur once Lancelot arrived, since if Arthur did get assassinated, Guinevere might simply marry Lancelot. And, sorry, I'm rambling again.)
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Thursday, January 27, 2005 06:44:10 AM
IP: 4.244.12.161

Brian, it's pretty obvious that gargoyles exhibit sexual behaviours. I don't care if you're iffy on breasts and penises and uteruses and whatever, for for god's sake, how the hell do you figure Angela came along?

AlexGarg> I'm not setting myself up as a paragon of virtue, and I don't really care if there's any irony to be found in intolerance to those are intolerant. I just plain don't like bigots, and people who have "problems" with homosexuals are no different - no different at all - from people who out of the blue announce "well, I just plain don't like black people".
Whitbourne
Thursday, January 27, 2005 06:37:19 AM
IP: 142.177.37.156

It's late, and while doing some writing I was also going through the ASK GREG archives.

Forget if this theory has come up, but was reading the parts where Greg said that both Oberon and Titania have two biological children that we have not yet met (one male and one female). Was wondering about their identities.

While I have no theories yet on the son, I'm wondering if the daughter might be Morgana la Fay. We know Greg planned for her to be a changeling in the traditional sense. I'll admit I have no real evidence to back this up, save that I think Greg said there were strong connections between Nimue, Merlin, Morgana and the Children of Oberon. We know Morgana is one of the Children.

Merlin would have been Oberon's bastard son by a human, and while I'm not sure how Greg would have depicted Morgana, she was always kind of an enemy to both Arthur and Merlin. I think the drama could be potentially increased if they were half-siblings.

Again, just a theory. Not sure if anyone else came up with it already or not.
Greg Bishansky
Thursday, January 27, 2005 02:58:08 AM
IP: 162.84.130.8

Well, I did find something that would add a new topic to the pot and open a brand new can of worms...

"And yes, most gargoyles do have anatomy similar to humans. Greg Weisman and several other people who developed the series have said so. And again, in regards to breasts and nursing young, Gargoyles fall into their own category... and there is precedense... the platypus."

oO
Why do humans sexualize everything? This is why Kitty doesn't like the furry fandom. It's as if they need to take something and use it as the gargoyle equivalent of a dildo to turn themselves on.

Hey, I know how to solve this problem...

FREE BEER WITH YOUR VASECTOMIES, FOR EVERYONE *MUAHAHAHA*(j/k);)
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAThursday, January 27, 2005 02:29:15 AM
IP: 205.238.242.33

wow, it continues into the night, by morning you guys think it will finally turn to stone? Sorry me and my lame humor:P
dan
Thursday, January 27, 2005 01:50:31 AM
IP: 68.42.18.157

D'oh!
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAThursday, January 27, 2005 01:35:20 AM
IP: 205.238.242.33

You might want to ask a vet about that Brian. ;)

In all seriousness concerning the current 'debate', lets just let it go folks. We've all said our peace, so lets just let it be. Theres no need to have another flamewar session like a while back over Vinny so lets put it on ice before it goes way too far.

Now everyone shake hands.
Vertigo1
TN, USA
Thursday, January 27, 2005 01:08:07 AM
IP: 207.65.41.95

LOL you double-posted:p

No I do not know how a snake works. Or birds for that matter.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAThursday, January 27, 2005 12:33:43 AM
IP: 209.74.41.61

Not jumping back into the whole debate... but...

"Actually, there is an answer for the unclothed gargoyle in Gargoyles question. My answer is Zafiro. (sp?) Booyah!:p"

You do know how a snake's anatomy works, don't you ;)

And yes, most gargoyles do have anatomy similar to humans. Greg Weisman and several other people who developed the series have said so. And again, in regards to breasts and nursing young, Gargoyles fall into their own category... and there is precedense... the platypus.
Greg Bishansky
Thursday, January 27, 2005 12:31:39 AM
IP: 162.84.130.8

Not jumping back into the whole debate... but...

"Actually, there is an answer for the unclothed gargoyle in Gargoyles question. My answer is Zafiro. (sp?) Booyah!:p"

You do know how a snake's anatomy works, don't you ;)

And yes, most gargoyles do have anatomy similar to humans. Greg Weisman and several other people who developed the series have said so. And again, in regards to breasts and nursing young, Gargoyles fall into their own category... and there is precedense... the platypus.
Greg Bishansky
Thursday, January 27, 2005 12:31:29 AM
IP: 162.84.130.8

I'm going to start with the earlier question asked.
"Brian> why is Lexington's homosexuality dissapointing to you?" It came to me as more of a shock than anything else. Exactly like how it was the moment my uncle proclaimed that he was. Why I react that way, I don't know. If anyone can come up with something probable and REALISTIC *glares in THAT direction* then I'm all ears.

Twice I have received the question "What the hell is that supposed to mean?" and never really touched base on it. What I was trying to say is, if the new series ever comes to be with Lexington being gay, whether everyone can pick up on it or not, al it takes is the wrong person to pick up on it and BOOM! You have bad publicity. Excluding those that visit or ever have visited s8 and Ask Greg, for some it is not going to take a rocket scientist to figure out that Lexington is gay. And like I was trying to say before, if it gets bad publicity, it goes down the crapper. It'll be the Gay Teletubby all over again. I think BrooksBade has touched base on this somewhat already. But yes, it would be a hell of a lot worse if Lexington's orientation is made as clear as crystal.

Actually, there is an answer for the unclothed gargoyle in Gargoyles question. My answer is Zafiro. (sp?) Booyah!:p

"Lex was the one to back off in pursuing Angela. I know it doesn't say much, but it does explain why he did." Not necessarily. There is the good possibility of his declaration of not trusting anyone ever again in the thrill of the hunt. I could be wrong, but that's my two cents.

"Moral wise. Some people feel gays are abonormal. But actually it's natural. Some people just can't open their midns to hear truth.

Minds are like parachutes. Both only work when open." On the contrary. Some people feel homosexuality is wrong more so than being abnormal. It's not so much the willingness to open the mind so that truth can be heard. It's whether the mind and heart can accept the situation for what it is. I can believe someone is gay, but my acceptance of it is not as instantaneous as you would probably expect it to be.

"If the series ever did come back and it didn't play well in the Bible Belt because a character (gasp!) happened not to fit their preconceived notions of legitimate sexual behaviour, then they could just turn their TV to another channel, waiting for someone to have a wardrobe malfunction so they could write outraged letters to the FCC for not making everyone subscribe to their standards." It wouldn't even have a chance to go that far. You'd be lucky if your church didn't damn it because they say it teaches witchcraft. But what can I say, that's religious zealots for you. Actually I found the wardrobe malfunction pretty funny when I watched it during halftime last year. I say, more time and money was wasted over a cruddy boob then over anything else.

"Don't give me a straight answer and I have my answer." Don't press your luck. You have nothing on me to even make an accurate guess.

"Do you think gays are abnormal?
Yes or no.

It's as simple as it gets." If this wasn't slipped in here before I had a chance to read it then it probably could have avoided some of this mess. No, they are not abnormal. But they would have to be careful or they could end up letting the cat out of the bag. It doesn't take much of an effort to hit on someone or display affection, and if it is towards the wrong person, could cause an uproar.

"Reality check... the TMNT of the 1990's was actually a bad rip off of the original, black and white comic books that were created by Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird. The TMNT you speak off was a color-coordinated, sugar-puff abhoration that didn't reflect the true spirit of the original comics... which were darker, harsher and bloodier and much more adult in tone and content. It was the result of the people at PLAYMATES Toys that turned them into a grinder to sell toys and not stick to the true story of the original." I never saw the original comics, nor do I even recall them being available so I could see them. Not to mention the internet wasn't around back then to find them on so this explains a lot.

"Show's what having an open mind can do for you, hm?" How many people am I going to have to say this to?9_9 I am NOT against gays. Get off this notion that I am.>_<

"So, from only your line of earlier answers and statements, what about Lexington's sexual orientation detracts from Gargoyles? Why is it necessarily "doomed"? What suddenly makes the show "traditional"?" I believe I have already touched base on these in this post. If I didn't get everything, re-ask the ones I missed.

"and a word to Brian... its too late, we're everywhere... *joke!* : )" Thanks, I think you and Alex may be the only thing we need to cool this place back down again. I don't think it will last long, however, given that I have lashed out at Siren just prior to.:\

"Also for the record, I have no problem with Brian's opinions. In fact, I can understand some of his points and even agree with one or two of them." Second gay person this session to stand behind what I had to say earlier, even when it is clear that I am outnumbered. If I hated them as you said, Siren, why would they be doing this? Or is that a good question? Hmm...
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAThursday, January 27, 2005 12:22:31 AM
IP: 209.74.41.61

Hey, I'm just going by what I've learned, and what my professors have told me. And I have read the Odyssey, and I had someone fill me in on the Iliad, so I know what happened there.

As for how the ancients felt when it came to gays or gay acts, I can't really say, I was never there. And... oh jeez, I just lost my train of thought. At the same time, I can barely keep my eyes open. If I remember my thought, and if I'm not too lazy, I may decide to post it.

In the meantime, I'm hitting the sack.
"Why would she be wantin' to hit a sack?"
BrooksBabe - [belfour20_mccabe24@hotmail.com]
T.O., Canada
Thursday, January 27, 2005 12:02:55 AM
IP: 64.228.109.171

On the ancient sexuality issue:

1. There WERE women at Troy. Please read the Iliad, Odyssey, and post-Homerica. Achilles DID sleep with a woman in the Iliad by the name of Briseis. In fact, the whole issue of the Iliad is that Agamemnon has taken Briseis AWAY from Achilles and the latter is pissed. There were women in a "war zone" because they had been captured from other captured cities.
On the other side of the issue there is the (scholarly) notion that Achilles and Patroclus were lovers. I personally do not hold this view, simply because I have not seen any convincing evidence.

2. The homosexuality of the classical world is, to my thinking, slightly overemphasized. Yes, the most "equal" relationship to a Greek man was with another man. HOWEVER, homosexuality as we understand the term did not exist to the ancient Greeks (ironic that our term for such a relationship is derived from the Greek language). In fact, being homosexual in the 20/21st century sense would have been abhorred by the Greeks for the very reason that the (mostly foolish) Mr. Bush touts: without heterosexual relationships as the socially sanctioned institution, society would (Greek society believed) self-destruct. Just think about the plague in Athens in the sixth century. Having a wife and most importantly KIDS was very important if not INTEGRAL to positive societal interaction (if, of course, you were male).

And for the record, the Roman society in general DID NOT sanction homosexual relationships. There are certainly examples of erotic material involving young boys such as is found in Catullus, but in general it was frowned upon by "society."

So please don't make the mistake of touting the ancient Greeks as being the paragon of permissive sexuality, because they certainly were not. In fact, they were probably MUCH MUCH more intolerant of "non-socially sanctioned sexuality" than America ever has been. And certainly if you were a Greek man and decided you wanted to have a "civil union" with another man, you would probably be considered insane if not punished.

Note: when I use the term "the Greeks" or "the Romans" I certainly do not mean to imply that ALL Greeks or Romans felt this way. However, from what we can tell about classical culture, these seem to be these societies' general beliefs.
And for the record, I personally have nothing against gays/bisexuals and none of my comments above should indicate that I do.
TVB
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 11:09:15 PM
IP: 128.12.135.104

Jalepena, the moment I leave things get hotter than they were before.9_9 Siren, all you want me to do is lash out at you. I just might be able to give you that. Tell me if you heard this one before. Be careful what you wish for, Lass.
Get the hell off this crazy notion that I am against gays. I'm friggin sick and tired of it. You know what? People don't need to display any type of abnormal behavior to indicate they are gay. How the hell would you like it after this raging inferno you and Greg B have fueled if you were looked upon as some kind of hideous monster that is only in it to win? It's no different than regarding me as any kind of bigot or Hitler-ish character or troll for that matter when there are no grounds for you to do so on. You ain't got nothing, and you insist on ramming some kind of bull crap down my throat, or even slit it for that matter. You want an abnormality? Let's look at the one you have given me throughout today.>_< Let me ask you something. Are you gay? Be kind of hard to prove to me you aren't given the extremely defensive comments you have been making throughout today. You want me to hate gays? You got it. And I'll be making this exception just for you. And if you are gay, you are by far the worst one I have ever met since that hideous stalker. I grow tired of this. I am going to tend to the other questions left in my absence. Good day to you!>_<

And I was told I was living in the Dark Ages.9_9 Can anyone tell me, am I the only one this has ever happened to?
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAWednesday, January 26, 2005 11:02:42 PM
IP: 209.74.41.61

Brian: I'm not going to jump all over you for your earlier comments. I will say this however. You would be suprised how many people you've met on the street are gay. Most of them aren't the "flaming" or "in-your-face" type. You would be quite hard pressed to pick them out of a crowd of people. While I'm not gay, I do have a few friends that *are* gay and I can assure you that they aren't the "in-your-face" type. Just because you had a bad experience with a family member doesn't give you the right to lump all homosexuals into the same boat. That would be like me saying all black people are nothing more than thieves just because one kid stole a twinkie from a 7-11. Thats just not fair to the others that are nothing like that one person.

As for homosexuality being "abnormal", you couldn't be farther from the truth. I suggest you study the animal kingdom as there are plenty of examples of homosexual activity from relationships to establishing domination. Hell, you might even want to check your history. Particularly on the early periods of Greece. Before christianity was so widespread, homosexuality was just as commonplace as it is now. The only difference is that back then it was actually *accepted* by everyone as two people caring for eachother. It wasn't abnormal for two soldiers to sleep with eachother since it actually served to relieve alot of tension.

Now if you don't want to watch the show because one character has a different sexual orientation, then by all means. We're not making you watch it. Its your own choice to watch, or not to watch.
Vertigo1
TN, USA
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 10:48:22 PM
IP: 207.65.41.95

So not gonna touch this debate... not even with a twenty-nine and a half foot pole.

Kaylle > The voice of Titania in "Ill Met by Moonlight" being the same as Anastasia in "Walkabout" did make me wonder if something was up.


Patrick
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 10:45:49 PM
IP: 68.170.199.45

Having no desire to jump into the homosexual discussion late in the game, I have a completely unrelated question. As Greg asked in his ramble, did anyone guess Anastasia Renard was Titania? I was completely in the dark, but I like to pretend that's because I was a pretty young teenager <g>. Did anyone know?
Kaylle - [kaylle@ladyavalon.com]
Boston, MA
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 09:13:34 PM
IP: 18.244.2.5

Umm..... Hi.

For the record, in case some people in here do not know, I happen to be bisexual. At the moment, I've been dating men.

Also for the record, I have no problem with Brian's opinions. In fact, I can understand some of his points and even agree with one or two of them.

If this makes me a homophobe, so be it. ;p

Just my two cents.
Daermon
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 08:56:16 PM
IP: 68.54.246.130

As I said, all I wanted was my yes or no question answered and it would have been dropped. That's ALL I cared about. But he refuses to reply. How is this my fault? I can accept people who don't want a certain group to hang around them, I can't accept hate. I don't hate haters, but I simply would like an EXPLAINATION on WHY they hate them. That's all I asked for. And that's all I need. It gives me a chance to understand them. But if they scream at me that I don't know them and don't answer a simple question to HELP me understand them. That is not my fault.
Siren
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 08:43:19 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

Matt>I never compared him to Hitler. I compared him to his poor supports. Actually many of them don't want to eradicate either. They want to push all the Jews, blacks, gays, and every race and religion except white Christians with their beliefs out of this country and "back to where they came from". Believe me, if the hate groups wanted to eradicate the groups they hate, there would be a LOT more racially driven murders. Really, there aren't as much these days. So most hate groups are out to kill them all, just kick them our of their workplaces, schools, resturants, and country. And being he wants gay people to stay away from him, that is no different then the hate groups, IMO. As you said, we are entitled to our opinions. All I wanted to know was if he truely though being gay was abnormal. A why would be nice too, but I wanted him to confirm it. He did not. I don't think I was asking for much.
Siren
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 08:40:40 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

*reads Alex Garg's post and applauds him* probably the only post of of total reasonability and calmness in this whole mess.

i think Brian is totally entitled to his opinion. if Lex is abnormal in his mind for being gay, well fine. if gay people make him uncomfortable and he doesn't want to be around them or watch them on tv, great. this is a free country and he can say, think, and do what he wants within the boundaries of the law. people who are comparing him to Hitler or the KKK are wrong. these people cross the line of the law and general morality, i have yet to hear that Brian wants to eradicate the gay population or anything like that, so whatever. take his opinions as they are, his opinions. if you want to ask him about his opinion or whatever, do so, but don't tell him hes wrong or that he should change his beliefs because then you become a hypocrite, and no one likes a hypocrite. several of posts in here lately have been hypocritical and its dumb.

now, as a gay man myself, do i agree with Brian, nope. but it is as important to me that he can have his beliefs as it is that i can have mine. and for that, i commend him. its hard to stand by your convictions when you are overwhelmingly outnumbered. in fact, i really sympathize with Brian because he is in the same position in this room that gay people are in in the USA right now. opinionated, but outnumbered.

heres the thing, some of the most CLOSE-minded people i have ever met have been GAY and some of them have not been gay. the point is, you can't judge someone's state of mind based on where they stand on an issue.

if you are as open minded as you think you are you'd accept Brian's opinions as just another person's opinions.

SO, i propose a new direction in this conversation, if indeed anyone wants it to continue. Greg has established that Lex is gay. ok. lets go from there. how will people react, both in the real world and in the Gargoyles Universe? i think we've already seen how some people would react, but lets be adults. no accusations or pointing fingers. please no one say anything to the effect of "you are wrong cuz i don't agree with you" i've heard that ALOT in here lately, and its really a silly statement and idea when you think about it.

ok? lets be civil, and lets be open, truly open to other opinions...

and a word to Brian... its too late, we're everywhere... *joke!* : )
matt
O'Fallon, Mo
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 08:24:40 PM
IP: 67.65.130.252

Though I haven't seen Alexander, I heard there was a lot of gay going on there. It didn't do well in theaters because most of the people who saw it are the same people who like Braveheart, Gladiator, and Troy. They wanted to see men kill men and beautiful, nearly naked woman beg for the men to help them. Apparently Alexander was true to history and kept the women out and the gay in and it turned off the homophobic straight men, who then told their sports and bar buddies not to see it. :P
Siren
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 08:14:05 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

Not only in ancient Japan, but nearly everywhere in the world. If you go back far enough in time, it was perfectly fine for one man to sleep with another man, as long as it wasn't with a slave.

What really bothers me, is who the heck was that woman in the movie 'Troy'? The one that slept with, I think it was, Brad Pitt's character (Achilles). SHE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THERE? Since when was a woman hanging around in a war zone? None of the men in that war had women to sleep with! They very bloody well slept with each other!!!
Okay, I'm done my ranting. Just needed to get THAT off my chest.
BrooksBabe - [belfour20_mccabe24@hotmail.com]
T.O., Canada
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 08:09:43 PM
IP: 64.228.109.71

Siren: The main interesting thing, is even the great heroes of sparta and "male friends", in anchient japan, having a "male friend" was considered normal from a samurai perpective. True, when one looks at history, one does definately open up to everything. Sometimes history can teach us many things:D
Dan
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 07:55:43 PM
IP: 68.42.18.157

Gay isn't going away. Gay isn't a fad. It has been going on for centuries. Trace it back to the time of Roman rule and before. Lately, a lot of out there gay shows are on. Yes, Ellen pretty much started it. She not only started gay shows, but she also convinced other gays, "It's okay to be proud. To talk about it."
Greg pretty much had all the plot lines in mind for a long time. Most likely including the twist with Lexington. Greg also isn't a sell out. I compare him best to Joss Whedon. Both created shows with deep story lines and deep characters. Joss knew from the beginning either Xander or Willow was gay. He just wasn't sure yet. He wanted to let it evolve on its own, like with real people. Xander has many failed relationships with girls, but they weren't your boyfriend/girlfriend type too much. Xander had a lot of lust in him. Willow had her failed relationship with Oz which was very meaningful to her. By the second season, Joss had a good idea who was gay. And how did he do it? In the most respectful way I have ever seen with gays in the media up until then. It was soft. It wasn't, wow, look at our lusty lesbians! It was love. Love like Willow and Oz had. It wasn't to show off them kissing constantly or having sex. You hardly even heard a peep out of them when it came to the words, gay, lesbian, etc. They just didn't say it much. I can only suspect that is similar to how Greg may do it. Its just a theory of mine. Lexington's secret wouldn't be way over the top thing. You'd know, but it was more suttle. Not toned-down, but just respectful. Afterall, you didn't see Goliath and Demona or Goliath and Elisa talking sex and screwing constantly.

It just seems that these people who have a thing against gays think they are oversexed. Even pedophiles. Boy Scouts no longer allows gay troup leaders. Florida does not allow gay couples to adopt. It's sickening that some of the American public can so quickly put gays and pedophiles and child rapists into the same catagory. Like being gay has anything to do with children. Or being oversexed. I know more straight women who try and tell me about their sexcapades they I know gay men and woman who hardly mention a peep about what they do behind closed doors. Gays aren't oversexed. And they aren't pedophiles. They are no different then me. They just find the same sex attractive.
Siren
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 07:52:04 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

I will ad one more thing, then that's it. If people took more time out from complaining about black people, gays, and other foreigners, we could be doing this planet a good debt of gratitude. I personally would like to see everyone on this planet never go hungry, i would love to see this planet happy again with it's children, but wishfull thinking, this will never happen. Because everyone has this lovely vendetta against everyone else, which i don't understand. Well that's it, i promise, done, venite, l8
Dan
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 07:45:08 PM
IP: 68.42.18.157

(qoute)"If the series continues I really don't want it to go on with a gay Lex."

Why? What's wrong with a gay Lexington?
Kythera of Anevern(qoute)

I'm sorry, i know it's kind of late on this, but i'll still ad my two cents. Brian is afraid of disfranchising the series, making it another ellen 9 years ago or queer as folk. Greg, is not in the dark, i'm sure by now he knows what to do with the series. And who cares who is gay? I admit it's annoying sometimes were they push it down your throat, but there not forcing you to watch it. I'm personally not going to give my views on the whole "gay" thing, because it's just that, another part of life. You can love it, like it, be passive about, or just absolutely hate it (just kill yourself). As i said earlier, i'm not going to give my take, because it will blow up into a neo nazi fest. This world does not need another hatefull leader, nor does it need hate, and everyone wonders why aliens love abducting us. Because most of us are to clueless, were more open to hate everything, that means everything, next to killing everything. Sorry if i offended anyone, just my view. *slams two cents on table*
Dan
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 07:38:29 PM
IP: 68.42.18.157

I'm not sure what the use is in continuing this line of discussion since Godwin's Law has been invoked and one party has all but resigned, but oh well.

As with any exchange of this nature, the most amusing aspect for the observers (well, for me) is to watch both sides behave poorly and then get upset over their opponent's bad behavior. Of course, that also makes it difficult for interjections from the outside to bring calm to the discussion, at least if done so with an attempt to take sides; and so to disclaim I blame many parties for taking what could have been a mature discussion about the introduced element of homosexuality in a series about tolerance and turning it into a debate over who's more intolerant - the person who has a gripe with certain homosexuals or the people who refuse to accept that some people have gripes with homosexuals and might also like Gargoyles.

With no good point of entry, however, I'll start with the latter.

For a group that claims adherence to a show which promotes tolerance and acceptance and asserts that people should emulate those values (which I do not object to) I think you should double-take and see how quickly many of you jumped at the chance to abandon those values. The condemnation of religion, the stereotyping of geo-socio groups, *grossly* hyperbolizing and comparing opponents to Hitler and the KKK and essentially preaching on high to others about what they must believe while claiming a freedom of values were not the best way to go about reflecting the traits you're defending. As I think I'm right to assume any of you would be insulted and jump on the defensive if such attacks were leveled at you, it should be no surprise that Brian has gone on the defensive and taken on troll-esque dynamics. It's a product of your own doing.

I won't advise debate tactics for continuing as this discussion is probably better left to die out, but I will say that you missed many of the points you were so eager to make. It's not on the side of hypocrisy, but it was surely poor judgment.

Brian>> Siren asks a valid question - why did you use "abnormal" to describe homosexuals while later claiming that you don't have a problem with homosexuals as a general population? Simple question. I am not trying to get at any evidence of a deeper "Jersey" beef, but it's a curious word choice. Why did you use that particular word not once, which could have been dismissed as a fluke of poor diction, but twice?

Your position, as far as I can tell, is that having Lexington be homosexual is going to corrupt the show in some manner, or that it would become "traditional." If you want to start from before this conversation got on the sidebar of your personal beliefs, let's go.

Here's a sample of your line of earlier statements, in order:

"I didn't know about Lex until I found that little tidbit last night. I just don't know what to say, except it's a bit, oh how should I put this, disappointing.:|

"Oh watch me get some hate mail for that.9_9

[All hail Tiresias]

"Well why not? It's akin to the sick side of the fandom that will take the gargoyles and draw penises on them and what-not.

"What's wrong with a gay Lex? Let me put it this way... The future of Gargoyles is doomed...

"We now have Lexington being gay, of all things, and it isn't going to stop there. And here I believed Gargoyles was going to be the first to break this traditional mold. So far, I have been proven wrong."

And it's about there that everything fell apart.

So, from only your line of earlier answers and statements, what about Lexington's sexual orientation detracts from Gargoyles? Why is it necessarily "doomed"? What suddenly makes the show "traditional"?

...

Huh, that was a nice way to launch myself into the thick of it. Fantastic. Way to go, me.
Alex Garg - [alex_garg@yahoo.com]
VA, USA
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 07:24:38 PM
IP: 216.145.68.246

I don't agree when people try to force their ways on me either.

I don't want to be a Jevohah Witness. Or a Christian. Or gay. Nor do I want to smoke, do drugs, or drink excessivly. It is all in the same book.

But I have known a lot of gays in my life. And none of them, have ever shown any behaviour as to forcing their attraction on anyone. No lesbian has told me I HAVE to try it. They say its good for them. Well one guy in particular is good for me. I'm happy with myself. So are my gay and straight friends. Maybe I'm just lucky that I don't meet these people that are rumoured about to force their gaydom upon someone else. I have never seen it. Heard about it, and usually heard about it from people who have things against being gay.

Personally, I don't believe being gay is a sin. I really don't see how just because you love someone that isn't the opposite sex, you'll go to hell. It makes no sense to me. I don't see how the devil would have a hand in it. And I really don't see God caring all that much about gay people. I mean, afterall, wars and hate are more important to the devil. Why would the devil help to make a group of people were are described as "very happy" and use a rainbow as their symbol? I think if the devil was truely behind something with us, it would be the hate groups, not the happy people. And does god really care about what we do in the bedroom? When "His children" are killing eachother on the streets and starting wars, and raping women and children? I seriously doubt gay is at the top of God's list.

I was raised in a Catholic family. We were raised to be open minded to those who are different.
When I was 18, I converted to Wicca, due to the Catholic religion and local churches not fitting into my beliefs. Wicca fits for me. But that's me. Wicca is a very open religion. I like it for that. Among many other reasons.
Siren
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 07:09:26 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

Battle Beast > I don't think anyone could have said it any better.
BrooksBabe - [belfour20_mccabe24@hotmail.com]
T.O., Canada
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 07:02:57 PM
IP: 64.228.49.78

I once read a scientific journal about this guy who spent his life observing homosexual behavior in animals, and he observed it in NO LESS than 37 species including dolphans, turtles, elephants, ducks, albatros, seagulls, mice, dogs, rats, and a variety of other animals.

The thing that gets me about the whole "gay" issue is that it's thrust right into my face. I don't like that type of lyfestyle, but I am tolerant of it because everyone is different, and everyone has the right to choose their own path. If Madonna wants to follow Kabballah (SP?) and Ben Stien Judiaism, go right ahead. But please don't start parading down my street telling me that you want me to convert.

You are here, you might be queer, so keep it in the bedroom, please. I respect ANYONE's lifestyle, WHATEVER it may be so long as they dobn't preach it to me or the world. I don't care to know if you're gay or not. Pierre Trudeau once stated that "The Government of Canada must stay out of the bedrooms country" or something like that. Well, Will the bedrooms of the Country please stay out of the public eye?

P.S. I don't mean to make anyone angry, but this is just my opinion. Sorry if I did.

And as for Lexington being gay, I think it adds a GREAT twist to the series in general.

That is all I will say.
Battle Beast
CanadaWednesday, January 26, 2005 06:45:31 PM
IP: 198.53.28.99

Greetings all...

Best I'll say about gays is what my granma said: "Hate the sin, love the sinner"...

In truth, I've known many homosexuals over the years - both male and female - and all I've ever stated is that as long as they don't try to force me into their orientation, I'm perfectly okay with them... and the thing is, not one has tried to do that and I've ended up with some pretty great friends that way. Hell, one managed to help me work towards winning a trip to Cancun, where we both ended up having a great time with some other people that came along.

Show's what having an open mind can do for you, hm?

QUOTH BRIAN >>> My friend, have you ever heard of TMNT? It was quite prevalent back in the early 90's. Now here it is over a decade later it came back and it doesn't even come close to the original storyline.>>>

Reality check... the TMNT of the 1990's was actually a bad rip off of the original, black and white comic books that were created by Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird. The TMNT you speak off was a color-coordinated, sugar-puff abhoration that didn't reflect the true spirit of the original comics... which were darker, harsher and bloodier and much more adult in tone and content. It was the result of the people at PLAYMATES Toys that turned them into a grinder to sell toys and not stick to the true story of the original.

The current show that you speak of is very true to Eastman and Laird's works... even Laird was hired as a creative consultant for the show's writers and art team. If you check out the TMNT DVDs currently out on sale, you see in a multi-part interview with Laird that explains the backstory of the Turtles, and how Peter and Kevin came up with the whole shebang.

Brian, my son... the key to proving your point on this score was to do your research on the subject. But, you didn't.

And that's all I have to say on the matter.


Maintain and Check Six!

Stephen Sobotka Jr.
Tampa, FL, USA
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 06:35:55 PM
IP: 68.207.179.189

To think...a fan of Gargoyles, a show all about prejudice and understanding those who are different would show such indifference towards others that they can't even answer a straight question. No pun intended.
Siren
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 06:29:17 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

BTW, thank you for NOT answering the question before. Apparently it wasn't simple enough for a bigot. You have proven you are a bigot and a liar. Anyone who had condfidence in their own beliefs and own sexual orentiation would be able to answer a simple yes or no question. I am true to my word. Even if you said yes, I would have rested my case. But since you refuse to admit you are prejudice against gays because you think they are abnormal in some way, perhaps you need to work with other "abnormal" people. Mentally retarded. Are they abornormal? Black? Are they abnormal? Jews? Abnormal? The paralyzed, are they abnormal?

I don't expect any answers. Afterall, prejudice is just another word for cowardness. Too scared to find out the truth, so you come up with wild ideas of your own.
Siren
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 06:27:10 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

Since I'm posting crud late I'm going to give an opportunity for pieces to be said and wait until later or tomorrow to make replies. It's becoming burdensome on the both of us.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAWednesday, January 26, 2005 06:27:05 PM
IP: 199.224.75.220

It's plain to see when one is hitting on you but that is as far as I am going since I posted that last comment late (as usual9_9). If you are trying to get me to say something in particular that you want to hear from me, I apologize, but it is not going to happen.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAWednesday, January 26, 2005 06:25:13 PM
IP: 199.224.75.220

Okayfine...

By Greg's admission, Lexington would reveal he was gay later in the series. But due to early cancelation, it never came to light past the writing board. Now it didn't make sense to you that Lexington would be gay because he never seemed abnormal to you. Why would he have to show abnormal signs to come out of the closet later?
Siren
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 06:23:51 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

The "Brian's Beef with Gays and Lesbians" session you have with me is over. I'm not discussing anything else about it any further now that I have made my point. The last discussion I remember prior to this point is Lexington and gargoyles so if you'd like to continue from there, let the discussion commence.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAWednesday, January 26, 2005 06:22:07 PM
IP: 199.224.75.220

Brian>You won't answer my question. You want me to hear you out, here I am. Why do you feel gays are abnormal? It is YOUR own words so don't give me any B.S. Do you REALLY feel they are abnormal or did you simply use the wrong word? I am giving YOU the benifit of the doubt. Don't give me a straight answer and I have my answer.

Do you think gays are abnormal?
Yes or no.

It's as simple as it gets.
Siren
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 06:19:32 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

And you still insist I have a big fat Jersey of a beef with them. Whatever you're trying to get at, I'm not buying it.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAWednesday, January 26, 2005 06:15:59 PM
IP: 199.224.75.220

" It would be rather difficult to all of a sudden make someone gay without making them somewhat abnormal somewhere down the road."

I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood. But you said that gays are abnormal. How so? Because they are different then you? So am I. Does it make me abnormal too? Because I don't get your logic. You say you accept gays, except for the crazy stalker, I can accept that. But you still insist that gays are abnormal?
Siren
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 05:59:58 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

And the only one I have a severe dislike for is the one that found stalking me intriguing and that's it. The only hope I have for him is I hope he has found a life by now. This one man is just a chunk of the iceberg, not the whole. You think if I have a problem with the piece I have a problem with the whole, is that it? If it is, give it to someone else because I'm not buying it.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAWednesday, January 26, 2005 05:54:32 PM
IP: 199.224.75.220

Brian>And you don't know gays. You said it yourself, you want them to stay away. What? Afraid their gayness might rub off of you and suddenly you'll feel FAB-TAB-U-LOUS!

Funny story that just came to mind with this convo...I was dating a guy who I found out was such a homophobic one night. I was going to dog sit for my hairdress who is as gay. He told me he would have food and stuff there for me to. And if I wanted to get away from my house for a little, I was welcome to stay over as long as I liked, watch tv, use his pool, and hot tub. Well that sounded like a wonderful mini-vacation cause he didn't live in house, he has a mansion with his own personal movie theater. And hell, my bones were aching. I could use sometime in the hot tub. I was telling my boyfriend I was going over the house that night and wouldn't be home for a while due to my plans to relax in the hot tub. Well he flipped! "OMG! That's disgusting! You don't know what he does in there!". I replied, "Yeah, and they piss in the pool at the Motel 6, but you jumped right in. Not to mention all the nasty bacteria, fish crap, and human urine in the ocean, yet you'll go there too. It's chlorinated, hello!" Well he wouldn't hear any of it and finally before I left, "What's the matter? Afraid his gay cooties will rub off and I'll go butch?". The relationship crumbled soon after that. Can't stand people who can't keep an open mind about things and have fears for no reason.

As Goliath said...Humans fear what they do not understand.

And often, fear turns to hate.
Siren
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 05:45:25 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

Dammit I hate posting late! (GRRRR!)

I want to assure everybody that how I feel towards something, it hasn't anything to do with religion. I'm not a big fan of religion anyway. I think it's nothing but a fad that has been going on for millenia.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAWednesday, January 26, 2005 05:39:30 PM
IP: 199.224.75.220

Siren, you know nothing about me and that puts you in no position to tell me what I am and am not against. You make it sound like I want every gay, or lesbian, wiped off thye face of the earth. On the contrary. I do not hate gays. I am just uncomfortable having them around me for the reasons I have just stated. You get people who leave you alone when you say no, and I get jerks that don't take no for an answer. You should appreciate the fact that you are one of the lucky ones. I do not have a problem with gay people as long I can be assured that I will have no part in their orientation. Even if it was a girl, if I said "no", I mean "no". You said so yourself, a person is a person. Which is why it doesn't matter who hits on me, if they harrass me, or even if they rape me, they are in deep doo regardless of who or what they are because I'll have them locked up. Now, compare me to the Hitler regime again, please??

For that matter, how the hell did we get from Lexington to gays, lesbians, and the Hitler regime?oO
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAWednesday, January 26, 2005 05:36:19 PM
IP: 199.224.75.220

*applauds Whit and Siren*

Ah, tv shows with gay characters. 'Will and Grace' ring a bell? A mightly popular show last time I checked.

Religion, now that's one big mess when it comes to gays, women.... basically every group that's been repressed over the years. I was raised Catholic, and although they say being gay (or the act) is a sin, I was raised to accept everyone equally, and to be very open minded. Thank goodness for open minded parents.

I just had a class (two actually) where we were talking about gays. Sadly, in my law class, a good 20% thought lesbians were butch and gay men were very feminine.
And a guy in another one of my classes was gay bashed, JUST because he was wearing a pink shirt. Do people just not learn?
BrooksBabe - [belfour20_mccabe24@hotmail.com]
T.O., Canada
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 05:30:35 PM
IP: 64.228.49.78

"Dude, don't go and tell me that I don't know any gay people. I've come across two within the past four years. Both have hit on me, both tried getting me to do something I did not want to do, one rode with me in the car making very disturbing comments while looking at people walking down the street, and one stalked me to no end until I threatened to get the police involved."

Bet if it was a woman, you'd love every minute of it. I rest my case. Not only are you a bigot, but a sexist too. You can deny it all you want, but if it was a woman, you'd jump her bones. Get over yourself. Perhaps maybe the way you turned them down made them think you were playing hard to get. I bet your such a tease!

I've had gay people hit on me. I've politely turned them down, they move on. I find it flattering when a good looking lesbian asks me out :P
Siren
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 05:12:25 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

*applauds Whit*

Agreed. Gays are the new prejudice fad.

Jews, Blacks, Muslims, Women, Gays. For a country that has come a "long way", we haven't come long at all. So what if Lexington is gay?! Suddenly because you hear he's gay the show turns you off? Well, I guess you don't have a TV in your house because 98% of television has gay characters. Some shows are nothing about gays. And yet they are successful, highly rated shows that win awards. Why? Because your living in the dark ages. Do you hate women, jews, and blacks too? Because it's the SAME thing. Once it was thought that blacks were not fit to go to heaven. They were not fit to live like white people. And put into slavery. But now by most, they are accepted and most do believe they can go to heaven, that they are good people...and wait, that they are just that PEOPLE. To dislike or hate people because they are gay, I'm sorry, but then you are no better then Hitler's supporters. Because you are doing the SAME thing. Damning people, all because they are DIFFERENT from you. I highly doubt God will say, "You can't go to heaven because you are gay". HELLO?! What is it Christians say? Oh way, that's right...God loves ALL his children. Oh yeah, and God FORGIVES. So even if God were really against it, I highly doubt he would damn THAT many people to eternal damnation. What kind of kind and wonderful god is that? Sorry, but from the Bible I read and the church I attended as a child, we were taught that God actually cares about his children and only HE can pass judgement.

And I also do believe that homophobics are in the closet themselves. Met one too many homophobics who hated them so much and then find out 5-10 years later, they are just sooooo pink!
Siren
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 05:10:01 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

Again, a bit late.

A troll, my friend? I do not know where you get off referring to me as that, as I do not post crap like what is found about half the page down. If you are looking for trolls, please, target those posting huge chunks of SPAM and GOATSE here. Not myself.

This is the second time homophobia has shown up at s8 in regards to me. I'm not even going to say I have the balls to ask.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAWednesday, January 26, 2005 05:07:31 PM
IP: 199.224.75.220

Dude, don't go and tell me that I don't know any gay people. I've come across two within the past four years. Both have hit on me, both tried getting me to do something I did not want to do, one rode with me in the car making very disturbing comments while looking at people walking down the street, and one stalked me to no end until I threatened to get the police involved. The stalker was some fat slob with one hand on the keyboard and the other working it, and the passenger was my uncle, terminally afflicted with cancer. And he TOLD me he was. It took me about a year fo me to accept that he was. It's called EXPERIENCE, my friend, and it's the best teacher on the face of this cruddy planet. Now, I would like to be with my uncle during this very trying point in his life. But it's his self-proclaimed orientation that makes me uncomfortable being around him and keeps me away from him. The worst part is he doesn't understand why. Now, try giving me that John Ashcroft (sp?) bit again.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAWednesday, January 26, 2005 05:01:11 PM
IP: 199.224.75.220

Whit> Nothing to say except ::Applause::
Greg Bishansky
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 04:59:08 PM
IP: 162.84.130.8

Oh, for god's sake. Homophobia here? Damnit, I though Gargoyles fans were smarter than that.

If the series ever did come back and it didn't play well in the Bible Belt because a character (gasp!) happened not to fit their preconceived notions of legitimate sexual behaviour, then they could just turn their TV to another channel, waiting for someone to have a wardrobe malfunction so they could write outraged letters to the FCC for not making everyone subscribe to their standards.

Can't have gay characters on a TV show! After all, we don't want the kiddies thinking that gay people might actually be people and not a collection of "sinful" stereotypes.
Whitbourne
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 04:57:50 PM
IP: 129.173.137.57

BrooksBabe> Don't even bother, they don't teach certain things at Ku Klux Klan School ;)

I'm just writing Brian off as a troll and moving on.
Greg Bishansky
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 04:57:32 PM
IP: 162.84.130.8

Scientifically speaking, being gay is NOT abnormal. It is actually natural. Two species often deemed as highly intelligent have homosexual tendances. Dolphins and bonobos (pygmy chimpanzees) both exhibit homosexual tendancies naturally and often. Pods of young male dolphins often copulate. And bonobos both male and female mate with the same sex after a fight, to reinstate bonds.

Moral wise. Some people feel gays are abonormal. But actually it's natural. Some people just can't open their midns to hear truth.

Minds are like parachutes. Both only work when open.
Siren
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 04:56:54 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

>>Now all of a sudden, BOOM! Lexington is gay.<<
Well that's not true. Besides, who says there are qualities that makes a person gay? I know a few people who I thought were straight, until they told me they weren't.
And besides, Lex was the one to back off in pursuing Angela. I know it doesn't say much, but it does explain why he did.
BrooksBabe - [belfour20_mccabe24@hotmail.com]
T.O., Canada
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 04:56:00 PM
IP: 64.228.49.78

BRIAN> "It would be rather difficult to all of a sudden make someone gay without making them somewhat abnormal somewhere down the road."

John Ashcroft? Is that you?

Still, spoken like someone who doesn't know any gay people.

I'm not gay, but I've known a few people who were not even aware that they were gay until they were in their 20s. They didn't realize it, prior to that they tried dating someone of the opposite gender. And you know what, there is nothing abnormal about them.
Greg Bishansky
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 04:50:08 PM
IP: 162.84.130.8

BRIAN> "And here we are talking about creatures that lay and hatch from eggs. Since this is bound to open a can of worms in biology, how the hell can a creature lactate if there isn't anything to trigger it?"

Ever heard of the platypus? Fascinating creature. It's a mammal. It lays eggs, and it nurses its young once they hatch.

Besides, according to Greg, Gargoyles are not mammals or reptiles, they fall into their own category. Gargates.

"My friend, have you ever heard of TMNT? It was quite prevalent back in the early 90's. Now here it is over a decade later it came back and it doesn't even come close to the original storyline. Same applies to those corny spin-offs of HB classics on Cartoon Network. It's traditional, it seems. We now have Lexington being gay, of all things, and it isn't going to stop there. And here I believed Gargoyles was going to be the first to break this traditional mold. So far, I have been proven wrong."

And again, what the Hell are you talking about?
Greg Bishansky
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 04:46:23 PM
IP: 162.84.130.8

Diversity made it the way it is up to the point it was terminated. In this original part, Lexington had nothing abnormal about him. Now all of a sudden, BOOM! Lexington is gay. It would be rather difficult to all of a sudden make someone gay without making them somewhat abnormal somewhere down the road.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAWednesday, January 26, 2005 04:46:13 PM
IP: 199.224.75.220

>>If the show came back and Greg ever got to that, Lex would make a new "friend" eventually. They'd be good, close "friends".<<
Greg, you beat me to it.
If the series would ever come back, they would never come right out and say Lex was gay in an episode. It would upset a lot of people (those who are against gays), they'd get a bunch of hate mail, and the show would have multiple other problems after that. Like people wanting the show cancelled because "it's something children shouldn't be exposed to" and "it's recruiting others to become gay as well".
Frankly, I think it's great having a gay gargoyle in the series. It's a very diverse cast of characters; different genders, different backrounds, and different sexual preferences (did I get the right group of words there? Doesn't quite sound right).
Three cheers for diversity! :D
BrooksBabe - [belfour20_mccabe24@hotmail.com]
T.O., Canada
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 04:40:19 PM
IP: 64.228.49.78

"Really, were were the unclothed gargoyles in the series that you're talking about?" No

"And yes, Gargoyles do have those body parts. Greg Weisman has said so." D'oh!

"Heh heh, Demona not having breasts... I don't know, what do you call those things on her upper torso here... http://www.demona-obsession.org/pictures/stonecity4/cs4_035.jpg" And here we are talking about creatures that lay and hatch from eggs. Since this is bound to open a can of worms in biology, how the hell can a creature lactate if there isn't anything to trigger it?

"What the Hell does that mean?" My friend, have you ever heard of TMNT? It was quite prevalent back in the early 90's. Now here it is over a decade later it came back and it doesn't even come close to the original storyline. Same applies to those corny spin-offs of HB classics on Cartoon Network. It's traditional, it seems. We now have Lexington being gay, of all things, and it isn't going to stop there. And here I believed Gargoyles was going to be the first to break this traditional mold. So far, I have been proven wrong.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAWednesday, January 26, 2005 04:35:45 PM
IP: 199.224.75.220

Brian> Really, were were the unclothed gargoyles in the series that you're talking about?

And yes, Gargoyles do have those body parts. Greg Weisman has said so.

Heh heh, Demona not having breasts... I don't know, what do you call those things on her upper torso here... http://www.demona-obsession.org/pictures/stonecity4/cs4_035.jpg

"The future of Gargoyles is doomed..."

What the Hell does that mean?
Greg Bishansky
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 04:21:28 PM
IP: 162.84.130.8

I put that a little late. I have watched the episodes and found no gay Lex or any indication of it. Unless after all this time I have missed something?
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAWednesday, January 26, 2005 04:16:21 PM
IP: 199.224.75.220

As much as I have fantasized Demona having breasts, as far as the gargoyles actually having these parts, I do not believe you, kitty. I have come across gargoyles without any clothing so if I was able to take the clothing off of any of these characters, I wouldn't find any, um......human compatibility. what's wrong with a gay Lex? Let me put it this way...

The future of Gargoyles is doomed...
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAWednesday, January 26, 2005 04:13:26 PM
IP: 199.224.75.220

Though I must say, with a series that's about tolerance and acceptance, how could someone who says he's a fan have views like that. Tolerance and acceptance. Somebody needs to go back and re-watch the episodes.
Greg Bishansky
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 04:07:17 PM
IP: 162.84.130.8

Whoa! Was I slow to post or what? O.o

Brian-- You say "draw penises on them" like you don't think male gargoyles have penises (penii?) in the first place. ;] Of course, getting onto the subject of adult art and its whys and wherefores is a whole other can of worms...
Kythera of Anevern - [kythera@nospam-gmail.com]
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 04:06:59 PM
IP: 68.232.227.135

Well, Brian, look on the bright side... for you anyway. If the show came back and Greg ever got to that, Lex would make a new "friend" eventually. They'd be good, close "friends". That's as much as you would see on screen anyway. The real sharp viewers would pick up on it, and those who don't want that sort of thing in the show would just see close friends.
Greg Bishansky
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 04:03:49 PM
IP: 162.84.130.8

"If the series continues I really don't want it to go on with a gay Lex."

Why? What's wrong with a gay Lexington?
Kythera of Anevern - [kythera@nospam-gmail.com]
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 04:02:15 PM
IP: 68.232.227.135

Brian: People will draw penises on Gargs regardless. Just like many people will draw Demona with breasts. They do have those parts you know. People sexualize stuff, it is normal. Sexualized stuff isn't being forced on you. Even with Lexington being gay, you will not be confronted with sex. Goliath and Elisa's relationship is depicted in a conserved way, it is a cartoon after all! If Greg were to show Lexington's relationship, it would probably even more conservative, because of reactions like yours.
TigerShard - [tigershard@yahoo.com]
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 04:01:04 PM
IP: 69.212.54.79

I don't see why it would matter what Lex was. We are who we are. Like others I too always had a feeling that our beloved lex is gay, even my husband which is fan of the show belives this.
Lestat
OH
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 03:59:09 PM
IP: 209.173.191.28

Well why not? It's akin to the sick side of the fandom that will take the gargoyles and draw penises on them and what-not.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAWednesday, January 26, 2005 03:56:04 PM
IP: 199.224.75.220

Brian> why is Lexington's homosexuality dissapointing to you? this isn't hate mail, i'm just curious why that would dissapoint you.
matt
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 03:46:17 PM
IP: 67.65.130.252

If the series does go on, I doubt the issue of Lex's orientation would have much impact. I think Greg said somewhere in the archives that Lex's mate would appear in the very far distant future of the timeline.
Aelyria
Austin, Texas
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 03:44:20 PM
IP: 168.39.181.35

Let's just hope that's all that little piece of information was designed to do. If the series continues I really don't want it to go on with a gay Lex.
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAWednesday, January 26, 2005 03:41:38 PM
IP: 199.224.75.220

This topic is drawing out the lurkers I see.

Lestat> Yes, Greg said their are homosexual gargoyles. There are homosexual humans, homosexual ducks, homosexual dolphins... of course there are homosexual gargoyles.
Greg Bishansky
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 03:07:17 PM
IP: 162.84.130.8

Did't Greg once say that within the gargoyle race there to are homosexuals gargoyles as there are humans.
Lestat
OH
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 03:03:42 PM
IP: 209.173.191.28

Oh watch me get some hate mail for that.9_9
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAWednesday, January 26, 2005 02:38:02 PM
IP: 199.224.75.220

I didn't know about Lex until I found that little tidbit last night. I just don't know what to say, except it's a bit, oh how should I put this, disappointing.:|
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAWednesday, January 26, 2005 02:36:34 PM
IP: 199.224.75.220

Anonymous> Lex wasn't so much interested in Angela as he was competing with his two Rookery brothers. You'll notice that Lex is the first to back off, while Brooklyn and Broadway are still interested in her in the following episodes.

SIREN> "That is the Demona way :P"

You dissin Demona? ;)

PATRICK> "But let's just hope all those "Other" fans don't find out that our fandom already uses the name "Othercon" from time to time."

Ah, Othercon... G2003 staff, feel free to show up and take a bow ;)

TODD> Yeah, I too am looking forward to Greg's ramble on "The Journey", I'm sure it will be very interesting and informative.

Also, Lex himself probably didn't fully realize he was gay yet. Some people take a while to realize these things. Happens a lot.
Greg Bishansky
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 01:02:33 PM
IP: 162.84.130.8

I swear, I must be slow or something.
Just watched the last hour of 'The Master of Disguise' (*sigh* the things I put myself through when I'm stuck at home sick and there's nothing on tv) and I realized that Brent Spiner was the insane 'farts after laughing' bad guy.
Think it's possible I suffered a little bit of brain damage from that car accident? I seem to be missing the obvious quite a bit lately.
BrooksBabe - [belfour20_mccabe24@hotmail.com]
T.O., Canada
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 12:27:46 PM
IP: 64.228.119.150

Greg B, would that make Lex a gay-goyle, bad joke, I know.
Matt Fews
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 12:18:01 PM
IP: 206.47.191.83

I meant they DVD Toons people AREN'T stupid! Damn typos :P
Siren
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 10:41:17 AM
IP: 24.173.175.46

I agree with Todd. That is the Demona way :P Not to mention DVD Toons people are stupid. Polls have been won in this way before and it is likely they would find out about it and then how good do WE look as fans? It's just not the right way. Not the Gargoyle way ;)
Siren
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 10:25:19 AM
IP: 24.173.175.46

BATTLE BEAST - But then it wouldn't be an honest victory. I don't want to see "Gargoyles" win through cheating and deceit.
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 10:20:40 AM
IP: 198.209.226.130

And you can tell I just woke up because it's spelled Keith not Kieth.

It's been a long weekend up here in Massachusetts.
Gorebash
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 09:15:16 AM
IP: 192.207.57.21

Is this old hat?

http://www.sideshowtoy.com/cgi-bin/category.cgi?category=platoon&item=5506

Buy your very own Kieth David action figure. Currently sold out. Doh! But pretty cool.

Kieth David is, of course, the voice of Goliath in the show. But you already knew that.
Gorebash
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 09:14:24 AM
IP: 192.207.57.21

The voting thingy> If you go under "Tools" then "internet options" (ON Internet Explorer browsers) then click "delete cookies," anyone could vote again and again if they wanted to. Theoretically, we could *all* vote again.

That is all I will say.
Battle Beast
CanadaWednesday, January 26, 2005 09:02:12 AM
IP: 198.53.28.99

DPH - Um, Shakespeare never wrote a play entitled "I'll Meet By Moonlight". (It's getting increasingly easier to see why Greg half-regrets that title.)

I'm glad for the latest ramble. Only 11 more to go (and "Future Tense" is the very next one, in fact; I'm really eager to see what Greg has to say about it).

While I'll probably miss the expectation of future rambles once Greg reaches "The Journey", at the same time, there'd be a blessing (in a way) once he finishes that series. As long as he's doing the rambles, he has to keep the queue open so that people can submit their reviews. The trouble is that they also submit a lot of other questions, so the queue keeps on getting bigger - and just at a point when Greg doesn't have so much free time to answer questions. Once the rambles are done, he can have the queue closed again (after enough people have posted their replies to his "The Journey" ramble), and it will only be able to grow smaller after that.

Although the real reason why I'd like to read his "The Journey" ramble is for what he'd have to say about the Quarrymen in it. I think that the bulk of the "Gargoyles" fandom (including myself) has a difficult time seeing the Quarrymen as anything other than a bunch of one-dimensional thugs who don't even have a real motive in going after the gargoyles (because their strategies for killing the gargoyles are dependent on the gargoyles protecting people in need), and this is thanks to the 12 episodes of "The Goliath Chronicles" that followed "The Journey" giving such a strong picture of this misinterpretation on the part of the new production team. Greg's ramble could make it clearer as to how he visualized the Quarrymen as acting in the long run, and it might be able to counter the way that they were done by his successors.
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 07:38:45 AM
IP: 4.244.12.112

Re: G2005 site > I guess when you use stuff like PHP it makes a site more of a target then when you just use simple HTML. Good thing Hudson was right on top of it, and now it's patched so it won't happen again.

Re: Lexington > <<Why then was he interested in 'Angie' in Turf?>> - Peer pressure.

Re: Batman and Other > Obviously the "Other" fandom is very large and proactive in casting votes for the "Other" DVD. Having never watched "Other" on TV (it must be on one of those Other channels that I don't get), I can't say what the appeal of "Other" is. I also don't know if the "Other" fans have a convention like we do. But let's just hope all those "Other" fans don't find out that our fandom already uses the name "Othercon" from time to time. ;)

183 days left until The Gathering 2005 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Patrick
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 07:23:43 AM
IP: 66.93.14.153

Huh? Why then was he interested in 'Angie' in Turf?
Anonymous
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 04:21:19 AM
IP: 129.234.4.1

BRIAN> Indeed I can back that up. I was in the room when Greg Weisman (creator of the series, in case you didn't know) revealed that little tidbit. Yep, Lexington is gay.
Greg Bishansky
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 02:54:34 AM
IP: 162.84.130.8

Sorry, I got the spelling of title confused with the play with a similiar name by Shakespeare.
DPH
AR, USA
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 02:40:44 AM
IP: 67.14.195.10

I heard Lexington is gay. Can anyone back that up?
Brian - [Shendu42@hotmail.com]
USAWednesday, January 26, 2005 02:29:02 AM
IP: 209.74.24.230

DPH> The title is "Ill Met By Moonlight" not "I'll Meet".

It's a quote from "A Midsummer Night's Dream". The very first line Oberon has in the play, directed towards Titania.
Greg Bishansky
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 01:39:12 AM
IP: 162.84.130.8

Hmm. Sorry, I'm already voted. (umm twice - different browsers allowed me to vote twice) Right now, there are *54* more votes for Batman than Gargoyles. I still want to know who/what is responsible for keeping "Other" consistently in 3rd place. I figure there must be at least one or more organized groups out there making sure that "Other" doesn't fall behind. I'll feel much better when "Other" category gets out of the top 5.

I'll meet by Moonlight ramble - Honestly, I can't wait to hear the rambles on "Possession" and "The Reckoning". Then again, I'm not that big of a hurry. My biggest thing about "Sentinel" was the contrast in Goliath's behavior. In Awakening, he says "Humans call me Goliath". In Sentinel, he says "I am Goliath". I would still like to know when Nokkar arrived relative to Oberon's decree banishing the members of the 3rd race from Avalon.

DPH
AR, USA
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 12:42:25 AM
IP: 67.14.195.48

Greg just posted his ramble on "I'll Met By Moonlight". Go read!
Vertigo1
TN, USA
Tuesday, January 25, 2005 11:08:23 PM
IP: 207.65.41.79

Attention Tim Burton and Nightmare Before Christmas fans!

Burton is at it again. Making another wonderfully stylized animated feature as only he can!

It is called The Corpse Bride and is the story of a man named Victor who is engaged to a woman named Victoria. As a joke, he slips the ring over a small stick in the snow, only to discover the stick is really the finger bone to a murdered woman whom rises from the dead as a zombie is believes Victor to be her lawful husband.
Click my name for the trailer :)
Siren
Tuesday, January 25, 2005 09:14:16 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

Ahh, the infamous index.php exploit. This is why you check for updates. This has been going around (to my knowlege) ever since a similar exploit for phpBB 1.4 was made common knowlege (that gave a user admin rights to muck up the board).

Though you might get lucky and trace it back to the twerp(s) that did the "damage". People like this are more than likely too stupid to use proxy servers to mask their trail. If you do decide to persue the matter legally, I suggest you keep a copy of the edited index.php files as well as the server log(s) as evidence. Script kiddies are nothing more than an annoyance. They wouldn't know a real hack if it slapped them in the face. All they know how to do is download a "tool" and click a button and pretend they're re-enacting "Swordfish".
Vertigo1
TN, USA
Tuesday, January 25, 2005 08:37:53 PM
IP: 207.65.41.79

Gargoyles has fallen quite behind Batman:TAS. It is at 20% with 370 votes. Which is nothing to sneeze at. But Batman is winning at 23% with 417 votes
Siren
Tuesday, January 25, 2005 07:48:44 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

Aelyria > It's hard to say why people do annoying and malicious things. But it doesn't really matter. We're back and no real harm was done.
kathy
Tuesday, January 25, 2005 06:54:23 PM
IP: 66.82.9.87

What did they do to the site? Why would anyone want to hack it? Were they after the registration database or something?

Aelyria
Austin, Texas
Tuesday, January 25, 2005 04:26:47 PM
IP: 168.39.180.191

Shan and all. Yep. G2005 has been hacked. Techs are working on it and service should be restored shortly. Sorry for the inconvenience.
kathy
Tuesday, January 25, 2005 04:21:04 PM
IP: 66.82.9.20

Just called to reserve my rooms at Palace Station for the Gathering, glad I was able to reserve through their 800# and remembered the details, as it appears the Con site has been hacked...
Shan
Los Angeles, CA
Tuesday, January 25, 2005 03:24:20 PM
IP: 206.170.252.42

Voice-actors in movie: If they're not avialable it's not a problem. The hypothetical movie wouldn't be out for a least another couple years, and by then I'm sure they'll a computer the size of an iPod that'll be able to synthesize all the voices no sweat.
CKayote - [CKayote@worldnet.att.net]
Orlando, FL
Tuesday, January 25, 2005 02:51:47 PM
IP: 64.192.79.181

ah s8, where people take simple statements and turn them into fighting words...
matt
Tuesday, January 25, 2005 01:39:31 PM
IP: 67.65.130.252

GANTROS> "Use as much of the original cast as possible. While this is only likely for voiceover roles, I'm sure the actors wouldn't mind the work, except for maybe Cree Summer (Hyena, also known as Numbuh 5[KND], Foxxy Love[Drawn Together], and other series), Bill Fagerbakke (Broadway, also known as Patrick Star [Spongebob]), and Jeff Bennett(Brooklyn, also the voice of many Video Game and cartoon characters, such as Johnny Bravo). The rest of the voice actors would probably be glad for the work."

Um, could you possibly be any more insulting to the voice actors with that paragraph? And that last sentence? Pretty disgusting if you ask me.

As for when a new series would take place, Greg has said right after "The Journey", he should pick up where he left off... as for the date problem, they just never mention the date. New fans aren't confused, and old fans know the deal. If anything, I think it's one of the easiest problems to overcome. Simply always keep the "camera" pointed away from the Twin Towers.

Ah s8, where people take simple issues and make them into complex dillemnas. :)
Greg Bishansky
Tuesday, January 25, 2005 01:17:16 PM
IP: 162.84.130.8

I think a moment of laughter is a more fitting tribute than a moment of silence, so...

"Welcome to the Academy Awards: two hours of glistening entertainment spread out over four hours." - Johnny Carson

And come to think of it, that's about all I need to say about the Oscars, too.

I think at this point, I'd rather see the original voice cast get to do a big-screen version of "Gargoyles" animated like "Shrek" than I would care to see a live-action adaptation where the majority of the roles are re-cast. Goliath, Elisa, Xanatos and Demona just won't be the same without Keith, Salli, Jonathan, and Marina.

184 days left until The Gathering 2005 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Patrick
Tuesday, January 25, 2005 12:22:38 PM
IP: 66.93.14.153

Soory for the double post, but...

My Website has been totally updated in many areas including Oscar trivia with all the nominees annmounced today. Check it out if you want.

That is all I will say.
Battle Beast
CanadaTuesday, January 25, 2005 11:32:46 AM
IP: 198.53.28.99

THE 2004 ACADEMY AWARD NOMINEES HAVE BEEN RELEASED. CHECK OUT MY SITE FOR A COMPLETE LIST OF NOMINEES.

http://www.geocities.com/oscarmovs/2004.html

Or clicky my name.

34 Days untill the 77th Annual Academy Awards, February 27th, 2005!
Battle Beast
CanadaTuesday, January 25, 2005 10:44:15 AM
IP: 198.53.28.99

Thanks Matt :)
Siren - [Click my name for new music video!]
Tuesday, January 25, 2005 08:35:02 AM
IP: 65.33.112.90

If they were making a live-action movie out of "Gargoyles" (I'll admit that this is all a hypothetical at the moment, since the movie project's been scrapped), I think that it would most likely be an Alternate Universe take on the gargoyles awakening in New York for the first time. I know, this would seem horrifying - even blasphemous - to most of us, but the movie would have to be aimed at a general audience which would be mostly unfamiliar with the series rather than at just us fans, and so it would have to have as relatively uncomplicated a backstory as possible. That would mean restarting the continuity from scratch (something that they regularly do in super-hero movies anyway), since there wouldn't be room enough in a movie (as there would be in a revived television series) to throw in the essential background explanations for events up to "The Journey". (Greg himself, when he wrote a - rejected - script for the movie used this concept; in it, you might recall, not only did it cover the basic "Awakening" period, but there were other revisions to fit in everything in a less complex format, such as Macbeth living at Castle Wyvern as its ruler, only three gargoyles - Goliath, Lexington, and "Othello" - being revived in the modern world, and "Othello"'s death - as a lead-in to his becoming Coldstone - taking place in the modern world rather than the Dark Ages.)

So I doubt that the movie would be set after "The Journey". Rather, for practical reasons, it would most likely have to be an alternate "Awakening".

As a side-note, today is Robert Burns' birthday, and I find myself wondering whether the gargs would have taken any notice of that, given that they're all Scottish (even though Robert Burns lived long after their original time). For that matter, it's tempting to wonder what they must think of many of the familiar customs of Scotland (which mostly came along during the thousand years that they were in stone sleep). Of course, it might be just as well if they didn't adopt that many of them; the last thing that we need is the trio attempting to play the bagpipes, or, worse yet, after a certain wardrobe change for the clan, female "Gargoyles" fans eagerly speculating over what Goliath and Brooklyn wear underneath their kilts. :)
Todd Jensen
St. Louis, MO
Tuesday, January 25, 2005 07:18:56 AM
IP: 4.245.19.175

If anything new about Gargoyles were to be released, whether it be live action, CGI, or traditional, movie, series, or otherwise, I believe that the following would be likely:

Use as much of the original cast as possible. While this is only likely for voiceover roles, I'm sure the actors wouldn't mind the work, except for maybe Cree Summer (Hyena, also known as Numbuh 5[KND], Foxxy Love[Drawn Together], and other series), Bill Fagerbakke (Broadway, also known as Patrick Star [Spongebob]), and Jeff Bennett(Brooklyn, also the voice of many Video Game and cartoon characters, such as Johnny Bravo). The rest of the voice actors would probably be glad for the work.

Any new season would probably be based in current Manhattan. This is because Gargoyles was set in 1994 when it was released in 1994, so it would continue this theme. the other reason would be to bypass some of the more touchy subjects, namely 9/11. Any important events that happened between the Journey and the new season could be addressed through flashbacks, similar to that in 'Long Way to Morning'. Depending on the success on the series, the spin-offs could be developed and released.

As for TGC, I rather like the "it was all a dream" scenario. I rather picture the episodes after 'The Journey' going by in a montage, focusing on the Quarrymen, with Castaway's voice echoing "Dream of me, Goliath! Dream of me!". Then Goliath wakes up.
Gantros
Tuesday, January 25, 2005 04:40:26 AM
IP: 24.20.243.55

Siren> good job, i really liked that one!
matt
Tuesday, January 25, 2005 02:21:15 AM
IP: 67.65.130.252

Gargoyles live action movie> I don't think I'd go with Greg directing, well I would if he thinks he could direct. But he should definetly be one of the Hands on producers and screen writers.

As for who'd direct. Bryan Singer did good with the first two X-Men movies, he can handle a large cast. I'd love to see Peter Jackson do it, or at least have Weta Workshop involved, cause they did great with all the creatures in the Lord of the Rings film. I think Joss Whedon would be great also.

As for the cast, I'd use the series cast, I just can't see anyone else as these characters by this point.
Greg Bishansky
Tuesday, January 25, 2005 12:36:19 AM
IP: 162.84.130.8

Ah, I finished it sooner then expected. But it still was a pain, but fun :)

A pure experiment of how much crap I can put into one video. Apparently, more then enough. Not Gargoyles...a little, but not much, but it's just a little Disney hero compilation. Click my name or copy/paste http://www.sirens-grotto.com/holdingout4ahero.wmv
Siren - [Click my name for new music video!]
Monday, January 24, 2005 11:48:26 PM
IP: 65.33.112.90

How about Greg Weisman to direc the Gargoyles Live action movie?

That is all I will say.
Battle Beast
CanadaMonday, January 24, 2005 11:35:19 PM
IP: 198.53.28.99

Demonskyre> i totally agree with you about Hulk 100%. in my opinion, the entire Hulk storyline and plot was dull in the first place. the movie did nothing to help the Hulk image in my mind. i think The Incredible Hulk is the most boring comic character and i think the movie was the worst (by far) of all the superhero movies of recent years...

*slams down 2 cents on table*
matt
Monday, January 24, 2005 10:36:21 PM
IP: 67.65.130.252

Snow snow. Snowsnow snow snow snow. Snow snowsnow? Snow, snow snow. Snow.

Being in New England, we got walloped pretty bad. About two feet of snow plus extra long driveway does not equal fun. Fortunately, we had some sun today and were able to get out of the house.

Anyway...

A Director for the "Gargoyles" Movie> I move to disqualify Ang Lee because "Hulk" was so horrendous. I know some people and critics think it's a misunderstood psychological take on the character. But in my opinion, it was just dull with some absolutely boneheaded script and editing choices.

I think Sam Raimi might be a good candidate. He shown with the Spider-Man films that he can take a popular character and make a movie that doesn't confuse newcomers, but still keeps die-hard fans happy and interested.
Demonskrye - [<---Jim Hill media]
Monday, January 24, 2005 07:10:24 PM
IP: 146.115.115.131

As for the spambot, all I can say is...pity DDoS attacks are illegal in the US. Otherwise I'd be running a certain screensaver on a certain college campus. ;) (This is all in jest of course. Besides, more than likely its just spoofing IPs.)
Vertigo1
TN, USA
Monday, January 24, 2005 05:57:33 PM
IP: 207.65.41.155

Whomever traced this spambot's IP,

Let's spam him with rehab sites and gambling addiction help sites (referring to the website category this bot's posting)!

(Cue Weird Al's "Spam")

Anyway,

Yeah, the news about Johnny was sad. But now he's entertaining in (insert whatever you believe to be after death here). May he rest in piece.

Gargs Live-Action movie>> I think that whomever would direct the movie should be a fan of the show. Even if they had 2 co-directors (a fan and an A-lister), it would be fine, but definitely have a fan. And Greg as a "Creative Consultant", aka "The Guy who Okays EVERYTHING".

And what would the storyline be? In order to set up a sequel, you could just use the original script from "Awakenings", with some minor tweaks. But what about a spinoff? How would they be able to manage a spinoff from just the first movie, and still have the first movie be good?
And I think that they should have Sean Connery be MacBeth, but have him lip-sync to Rhys-Davies' voice. And (after makeup and a wig) have Keith David play (even as a bit placeholder, as in "Awakenings") Morgan. And probably a newbie for Matt, if they decide to put him in early.
Lord GargFan
Monday, January 24, 2005 12:03:06 PM
IP: 24.11.252.213

Some depressing news for everyone. Johnny Carson passed away Sunday morning due to complications from emphazema. Take a moment to remember him and laugh as we morn a man who saw so much good in the world.
Phoenyx
Memphis, TN, USA
Monday, January 24, 2005 10:30:57 AM
IP: 135.214.150.125

Guess that makes me tenth! :D
BrooksBabe
T.O., Canada
Monday, January 24, 2005 09:57:26 AM
IP: 64.228.119.48

oops that was me.
Faieq
Monday, January 24, 2005 09:09:10 AM
IP: 195.10.45.200

Nine
Anonymous
Monday, January 24, 2005 09:08:51 AM
IP: 195.10.45.200

Or is that Eight! Sorry if I am making the countdown even more confusing then usual.
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Marquette, Michigan, USA
Monday, January 24, 2005 04:40:45 AM
IP: 64.112.203.181

Ninth or Tenth depending on your point of view, hopefully!
Vinnie - [tpeano29@hotmail.com]
Marquette, Michigan, USA
Monday, January 24, 2005 04:37:53 AM
IP: 64.112.203.181

yay me! I've never been 7th before:} ok 7th it is then:)
Dan
Monday, January 24, 2005 04:11:06 AM
IP: 68.42.18.157

no Dan, you are 7th... the next person to post is 8th...

sorry i messed that all up... i tried...
matt
Monday, January 24, 2005 03:11:42 AM
IP: 67.65.130.252

um 8th?
Dan
Monday, January 24, 2005 02:57:28 AM
IP: 68.42.18.157

STILL NOT 7TH

sorry, that was me, wasn't trying to be anonymous...
matt
Monday, January 24, 2005 02:23:11 AM
IP: 67.65.130.252

NOT 7TH

ya know, at the risk of getting yelled at, there isn't a point in posting your post twice (or three times) even if the room has wiped, is it so hard for people to check the "Last Weeks Post" link to see what they missed. if we didn't have that post, then repost away, but i've never understood why people feel the need to repost things ad nauseum or wait til the room clears to post something in the first place. thats like trying to fit an entire story on to one page. each week here is a page, so if you wanna know what happened before you can just turn the page...
sorry for the rant...
Anonymous
Monday, January 24, 2005 02:21:52 AM
IP: 67.65.130.252

Sixth! (and I hope no one minds the re-post...wrote all that, want people to at least read it and respond to it if it provokes discussion)

Regarding casting of a theoretical Gargoyles live-action/CGI film...doesn't it make sense that Salli Richardson would play Elisa? Let's say Gargoyles gets greelit and starts extensive pre-production in the next few months, filming begins in 2006 and the movie debuts in 2007. Richardson would be 40 by then, but she could still pass for younger than that, she still looks like she's in her prime. There's no reason plot-wise for Elisa to be 27, she could be in her mid-thirties or even 40 if they like. Same goes for Xanatos. He's 40 at the beginning of the series, Jonathan Frakes is 52 or so right now, but who says he needs to be 40?

As for the rest of the cast, have the same actors who voiced non-human characters in the series do so for the film as well.

John Rhys-Davies COULD play Macbeth, but if they wanted to be true to the look of the animated model he'd need to slim down and maybe bulk up considerably. Otherwise I really wouldn't be opposed to a recast.

No reason they couldn't model Demona after Marina Sirtis...just in case they ever got around to the changing-human detail if the movie ever became a franchise (it would be smart to have that detail in there, since I believe the films would take on some of the themes of the TV series, ie racism, and having one of the main villains become exactly what she hates most...Well, it was a stroke of genius when they did that in the series, it may as well be implemented in the films as well). Marina Sirtis has great definition in her face, sharp features just the way most characters' faces were drawn on Gargoyles, so I think with a really good wig or dye job, she could make an awesome live-action Demona.

Tom Wilson's a good actor, seen him in a few bit roles, but I think Matt Bluestone would require recasting if they used him in the movies.

Kate Mulgrew's would be a shoe-in as Anastasia Renard/Titania if the films made it to portaying the Fey.

No idea for Owen. Someone who wears glasses well and can be stuffy. I'm thinking Alexis Denisof who played Wesley on Buffy & Angel, but then I think of the earlier pratfall years of the character. Maybe wouldn't be able to buy into him being constantly cool and collected as Owen.

As for director, oh man, so many possibilities.

Ridley Scott mostly because of Alien and Legend (especially because of Legend), but would you believe I've never seen a second of Blade Runner despite loving film?

Joss Whedon (natch). Paired with Greg Weisman as writer, or having the two of them co-write...that'd be a fantasy fulfilled.

Darren Aronofsky (Requiem For a Dream, Pi, the upcoming The Fountain).

How 'bout Danny Boyle? He seems to be all over the map when it comes to the genres he's willing to work in (Trainspotting--to tie in nicely by giving it that Scottish touch--A Life Less Ordinary, The Beach, 28 Days Later, and the upcoming Millions). Has an interesting directing style...

Ang Lee?

Tim Burton. I'm afraid he might favor quirk and style over substance though. Don't get me wrong, I think Edward Scissorhands is his coup de grace, Big Fish had some great stuff going on despite a few minor flaws, Batman (and I suppose Batman Returns) were beautifully dark superhero films, and Mars Attacks! had perfect humor...but then there's that Planet of the Apes remake and Sleepy Hollow (I liked Sleepy Hollow okay, just didn't think it was anything special). Hmm...
Kris - [plekopleko@hotmail.com]
Ontario, Canada
Monday, January 24, 2005 01:52:01 AM
IP: 69.17.169.178

Fifth!
Vertigo1
TN, USA
Monday, January 24, 2005 01:12:14 AM
IP: 207.65.59.139

<h1>You can also check out some relevant pages about<A HREF="http://bontril.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> bontril </A> bontril <A HREF="http://bontril.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://bontril.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://buy-phentermine.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> buy phentermine </A> buy phentermine <A HREF="http://buy-phentermine.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://buy-phentermine.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://buy-hydrocodone-online.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> buy hydrocodone online </A> buy hydrocodone online <A HREF="http://buy-hydrocodone-online.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://buy-hydrocodone-online.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://online-casino-games.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> online casino games </A> online casino games <A HREF="http://online-casino-games.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://online-casino-games.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://internet-gambling.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> internet gambling </A> internet gambling <A HREF="http://internet-gambling.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://internet-gambling.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://internet-casino.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> internet casino </A> internet casino <A HREF="http://internet-casino.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://internet-casino.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://online-blackjack.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> online blackjack </A> online blackjack <A HREF="http://online-blackjack.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://online-blackjack.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://refinance-loan.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> refinance loan </A> refinance loan <A HREF="http://refinance-loan.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://refinance-loan.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://xanax.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> xanax </A> xanax <A HREF="http://xanax.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://xanax.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://zoloft.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> zoloft </A> zoloft <A HREF="http://zoloft.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://zoloft.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://paxil.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> paxil </A> paxil <A HREF="http://paxil.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://paxil.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://acyclovir.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> acyclovir </A> acyclovir <A HREF="http://acyclovir.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://acyclovir.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://valtrex.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> valtrex </A> valtrex <A HREF="http://valtrex.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://valtrex.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://medications.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> medications </A> medications <A HREF="http://medications.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://medications.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://prescription-drugs.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> prescription drugs </A> prescription drugs <A HREF="http://prescription-drugs.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://prescription-drugs.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://online-prescriptions.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> online prescriptions </A> online prescriptions <A HREF="http://online-prescriptions.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://online-prescriptions.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://buy-viagra-online.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> buy viagra online </A> buy viagra online <A HREF="http://buy-viagra-online.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://buy-viagra-online.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://buy-levitra-online.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> buy levitra online </A> buy levitra online <A HREF="http://buy-levitra-online.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://buy-levitra-online.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://buy-cialis.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> buy cialis </A> buy cialis <A HREF="http://buy-cialis.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://buy-cialis.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://buy-bontril.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> buy bontril </A> buy bontril <A HREF="http://buy-bontril.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://buy-bontril.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://buy-ambien.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> buy ambien </A> buy ambien <A HREF="http://buy-ambien.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://buy-ambien.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://buy-zanax.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> buy zanax </A> buy zanax <A HREF="http://buy-zanax.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://buy-zanax.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://buy-zanax-online.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> buy zanax online </A> buy zanax online <A HREF="http://buy-zanax-online.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://buy-zanax-online.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://buy-prescriptions-online.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> buy prescriptions online </A> buy prescriptions online <A HREF="http://buy-prescriptions-online.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://buy-prescriptions-online.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://buy-vicodin-online.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> buy vicodin online </A> buy vicodin online <A HREF="http://buy-vicodin-online.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://buy-vicodin-online.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://buy-viagra.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> buy viagra </A> buy viagra <A HREF="http://buy-viagra.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://buy-viagra.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://keno.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> keno </A> keno <A HREF="http://keno.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://keno.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://casino-gambling.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> casino gambling </A> casino gambling <A HREF="http://casino-gambling.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://casino-gambling.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://casino-online.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> casino online </A> casino online <A HREF="http://casino-online.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://casino-online.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://chase-credit-card.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> chase credit card </A> chase credit card <A HREF="http://chase-credit-card.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://chase-credit-card.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://home-equity-loans.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> home equity loans </A> home equity loans <A HREF="http://home-equity-loans.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://home-equity-loans.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://bad-credit-auto-loan.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> bad credit auto loan </A> bad credit auto loan <A HREF="http://bad-credit-auto-loan.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://bad-credit-auto-loan.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://credit-card-deal.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> credit card deal </A> credit card deal <A HREF="http://credit-card-deal.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://credit-card-deal.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://backgammon.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> backgammon </A> backgammon <A HREF="http://backgammon.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://backgammon.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/><A HREF="http://backgammon-game.best-buy-site-4u.info/"> backgammon game </A> backgammon game <A HREF="http://backgammon-game.best-buy-site-4u.info/">http://backgammon-game.best-buy-site-4u.info/</A> <br/>... </h1>
bontril - [absinth1231@hotmail.com]
bontril, bontril, bontril
Monday, January 24, 2005 12:39:15 AM
IP: 82.194.62.17

4TH!!!!
matt
Monday, January 24, 2005 12:33:18 AM
IP: 67.65.130.252

3rd!!
DPH
AR, USA
Monday, January 24, 2005 12:17:25 AM
IP: 67.14.195.43

2nd!

*Ambles in again, totally depressed and sad, but puts on a gigantic red turban. Holds a piece of paper to his forhead and thinks for a moment*

A: Clean air, a virgin and a gas station open on Sunday.
Q: Name three things you won't find in Los Angeles.

A: sssss BOOM Baaa
Q: What sound does an exploding sheep make?

A: That darn cat.
Q: Who ruined that darn rug?

A: An unmarried woman.
Q: What was Elizabeth Taylor between 3 and 5 pm on June 1, 1952?

Haay-O!

*Is now cheered up*

I lived for almost nine years without watching him. Granted I was 0-8 years old, but still... I do have the DVD set, but it's still no replacement.

To the king of latenight, we'll miss you. :'(

*Fade to black*



1 day untill the 77th Annual Academy Award Nominations!
35 Days untill the 77th Annual Academy Awards!
Battle Beast
CanadaMonday, January 24, 2005 12:06:58 AM
IP: 198.53.28.99

*Ambles in again, totally depressed and sad, but puts on a gigantic red turban. Holds a piece of paper to his forhead and thinks for a moment*

A: Clean air, a virgin and a gas station open on Sunday.
Q: Name three things you won't find in Los Angeles.

A: sssss BOOM Baaa
Q: What sound does an exploding sheep make?

A: That darn cat.
Q: Who ruined that darn rug?

A: An unmarried woman.
Q: What was Elizabeth Taylor between 3 and 5 pm on June 1, 1952?

Haay-O!

*Is now cheered up*

I lived for almost nine years without watching him. Granted I was 0-8 years old, but still... I do have the DVD set, but it's still no replacement.

To the king of latenight, we'll miss you. :'(

*Fade to black*



1 day untill the 77th Annual Academy Award Nominations!
35 Days untill the 77th Annual Academy Awards!
Battle Beast
CanadaMonday, January 24, 2005 12:06:35 AM
IP: 198.53.28.99

1st?
Leo
Monday, January 24, 2005 12:01:07 AM
IP: 68.231.241.236