OT: Buffy

[unknown]

Brendon says Buffy film is happening
Posted on Wed, 28-Apr-2004

It's still a lot of ifs, maybes, wish's, want's and could happens...but a
"Buffy" movie is supposedly happening according to Nicholas Brendon.

According to a scooper for Aint it Cool, Brendon announced that Joss Whedon
is doing a film version of his popular Slayed series while at last weekend's
Cleveland Slayer Convention. "Brendon did a Q/A and let slip that Joss is
working on another show. When asked what it was called he mumbled something
like "Brothers" but then said he didn't know. He also said that a Buffy
movie is going to happen it's just a question of when. I also found it
strange that he mentioned a Buffy cartoon that has Allison, Anthony and him
doing voices that might be picked up soon. I thought the Buffy cartoon was
dead...?"

Um, yeah, even Whedon thinks it's dead. It's funny that Brendon knows so
much.

Meanwhile, the scooper got some dirt on both "Angel" and "Ripper", the
planned 'Giles' Spin-off which the BBC was supposed to do. "Mercedes McNab
said that Angel is dead as an ongoing series but she did hear about the TV
movies. She even started to cry when talking about the shows end. Anthony
Head talked about Whedon and him doing a spin off called Ripper. He said
that he and Joss talk about it every time they see each other. It is
supposed to start off as a 2 hour TV movie."

Meanwhile, the rumour mill is abuzz that James Marsters might be in talk to
do his own show. Yep, "Spike", the series, is an idea being discussed. Here'
s hoping something comes of it. Marsters is apparently up for it - no idea
which network is/would be interested in it though. Fingers crossed peoples.

[lab~rat]

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:35:39 -0400, "Mattitude Follower" <MF'er>

Post by unknown
Brendon says Buffy film is happening
Posted on Wed, 28-Apr-2004
It's still a lot of ifs, maybes, wish's, want's and could happens...but a
"Buffy" movie is supposedly happening according to Nicholas Brendon.

Oh, christ. Not another remake. Well at least this time they should
get another hottie like in the original movie and retire that wonky
old yenta crone.

My prediction (if, and a big IF at that) it gets made it will suck.

Mr. Subliminal/

<straighttovideo>

/Mr. Subliminal

Howard Stern's remake of Rock & Roll High School and Porky's has a
better chance.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

[BTR1701]

Post by lab~rat
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:35:39 -0400, "Mattitude Follower" <MF'er>

Post by unknown
Brendon says Buffy film is happening
Posted on Wed, 28-Apr-2004
It's still a lot of ifs, maybes, wish's, want's and could happens...but a
"Buffy" movie is supposedly happening according to Nicholas Brendon.

Oh, christ. Not another remake.

Remake? Who said anything about a remake?

If a Buffy movie happens, it will be continuation of the story, not a
remake of anything.

[lab~rat]

Post by BTR1701

Post by lab~rat
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:35:39 -0400, "Mattitude Follower" <MF'er>

Post by unknown
Brendon says Buffy film is happening
Posted on Wed, 28-Apr-2004
It's still a lot of ifs, maybes, wish's, want's and could happens...but a
"Buffy" movie is supposedly happening according to Nicholas Brendon.

Oh, christ. Not another remake.

Remake? Who said anything about a remake?
If a Buffy movie happens, it will be continuation of the story, not a
remake of anything.

Oh, kinda like the X-Files? Long after the shark is jumped and
Fonzie's on the beach with two babes on his arms?

Please! Who the hell is gonna fall for that? You people in this
group may think Buffy has mass appeal, but it's pretty clear by the
ratings and the fact that it was canceled, er, SMG quit, that it's a
niche franchise.

They need to do something that will rake in people that even aren't
fans of the series, so who's gonna give a crap about a story line from
a show they chose not to watch in the first place?

The formula needs to be:
1. Hot chick
2. Action/adventure
3. Blood and guts
4. Entertaining story line

SMG won't be able to carry #1 any more. Christ, she'll be in support
hose by the time this project gets off the ground (if).

And isn't there a vampire slayer movie out right now?
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

[BTR1701]

Post by lab~rat

Post by BTR1701

Post by lab~rat
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:35:39 -0400, "Mattitude Follower" <MF'er>

Post by unknown
"Buffy" movie is supposedly happening according to Nicholas Brendon.

Oh, christ. Not another remake.

Remake? Who said anything about a remake?
If a Buffy movie happens, it will be continuation of the story, not a
remake of anything.

Oh, kinda like the X-Files?

No, not really. Who said anything about the X-Files?

Long after the shark is jumped and

Post by lab~rat
Fonzie's on the beach with two babes on his arms?
Please! Who the hell is gonna fall for that? You people in this
group may think Buffy has mass appeal, but it's pretty clear by the
ratings and the fact that it was canceled, er, SMG quit, that it's a
niche franchise.

Irrelevant. Your assertion was that if a movie is made, it will be a
remake.

It won't be and the franchise's mass appeal or lack thereof has
absolutely nothing to do with that.

Post by lab~rat
1. Hot chick
2. Action/adventure
3. Blood and guts
4. Entertaining story line

And none of that can be done by remaking the original movie.

On the other hand, they can continue the story and accomplish it all.

[lab~rat]

Post by BTR1701

Post by lab~rat

Post by BTR1701

Post by lab~rat
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:35:39 -0400, "Mattitude Follower" <MF'er>

Post by unknown
"Buffy" movie is supposedly happening according to Nicholas Brendon.

Oh, christ. Not another remake.

Remake? Who said anything about a remake?
If a Buffy movie happens, it will be continuation of the story, not a
remake of anything.

Oh, kinda like the X-Files?

No, not really. Who said anything about the X-Files?

I did, ya retard. It's right up there. And if you saw the X-Files
movie, you'd know what I was talking about.

Post by BTR1701
Long after the shark is jumped and

Post by lab~rat
Fonzie's on the beach with two babes on his arms?
Please! Who the hell is gonna fall for that? You people in this
group may think Buffy has mass appeal, but it's pretty clear by the
ratings and the fact that it was canceled, er, SMG quit, that it's a
niche franchise.

Irrelevant. Your assertion was that if a movie is made, it will be a
remake.

And your assertion was that it would be a continuation of a story that
a vast proportion of people have no idea about. It's called a
response to a statement. Learn about it, it makes conversation more
interesting.

Post by BTR1701
It won't be and the franchise's mass appeal or lack thereof has
absolutely nothing to do with that.

Post by lab~rat
1. Hot chick
2. Action/adventure
3. Blood and guts
4. Entertaining story line

And none of that can be done by remaking the original movie.
On the other hand, they can continue the story and accomplish it all.

Ok, here's the story. SMG plays an aging yiddish vampire slayer with
wonky eyes. She meets this young hardbody and starts rambling about
her exploits like a shopping cart-pushing bag lady.

Of course, the young hardbody has nothing to do with her because the
last thing she needs in her life is some crazed varicosed veined yenta
hanging over her shoulders preaching about vampires. So she kicks
Buffy's ass and assumes the role that Buffy once had.

This happens in the first five minutes of the movie so the uninitiated
viewers don't have to look at SMG while they're trying to enjoy their
popcorn. And I would recommend the hardbody to be Jessica Alba.

And they could change the story line to drift away from the vampire
thing, they could write it off as the old wonky woman's delusion.
Then the character played by Jessica Alba would discover a barcode
tattoo on the back of her neck and start to question her past...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

[BTR1701]

Post by lab~rat

Post by BTR1701

Post by lab~rat

Post by BTR1701

Post by lab~rat
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:35:39 -0400, "Mattitude Follower" <MF'er>

Post by unknown
"Buffy" movie is supposedly happening according to Nicholas Brendon.

Oh, christ. Not another remake.

Remake? Who said anything about a remake?
If a Buffy movie happens, it will be continuation of the story, not a
remake of anything.

Oh, kinda like the X-Files?

No, not really. Who said anything about the X-Files?

I did, ya retard. It's right up there. And if you saw the X-Files
movie, you'd know what I was talking about.

Of course you did, moron. I meant who other than your fevered brain
brought up the X-Files. In the future, I'll try and be more pedantic for
the slow-witted among us.

Post by lab~rat

Post by BTR1701
Long after the shark is jumped and

Post by lab~rat
Fonzie's on the beach with two babes on his arms?
Please! Who the hell is gonna fall for that? You people in this
group may think Buffy has mass appeal, but it's pretty clear by the
ratings and the fact that it was canceled, er, SMG quit, that it's a
niche franchise.

Irrelevant. Your assertion was that if a movie is made, it will be a
remake.

And your assertion was that it would be a continuation of a story that
a vast proportion of people have no idea about.

I never even brought up the mass appeal or lack therof. That's your own
windmill to tilt.

You're the one who thinks remaking a movie that was a proven failure is
somehow a better idea than continuing a storyline from a show that
lasted nearly a decade.

Post by lab~rat

Post by BTR1701
It won't be and the franchise's mass appeal or lack thereof has
absolutely nothing to do with that.

Post by lab~rat
1. Hot chick
2. Action/adventure
3. Blood and guts
4. Entertaining story line

And none of that can be done by remaking the original movie.
On the other hand, they can continue the story and accomplish it all.

Ok, here's the story. SMG plays an aging yiddish vampire slayer with
wonky eyes. She meets this young hardbody and starts rambling about
her exploits like a shopping cart-pushing bag lady.
Of course, the young hardbody has nothing to do with her because the
last thing she needs in her life is some crazed varicosed veined yenta
hanging over her shoulders preaching about vampires. So she kicks
Buffy's ass and assumes the role that Buffy once had.
This happens in the first five minutes of the movie so the uninitiated
viewers don't have to look at SMG while they're trying to enjoy their
popcorn. And I would recommend the hardbody to be Jessica Alba.
And they could change the story line to drift away from the vampire
thing, they could write it off as the old wonky woman's delusion.
Then the character played by Jessica Alba would discover a barcode
tattoo on the back of her neck and start to question her past...

This is what happens when someone who finds Dark Angel entertaining
tries to come up with a story.

No wonder Buffy survived four years longer than that drek.

[lab~rat]

Post by BTR1701

Post by lab~rat

Post by BTR1701

Post by lab~rat

Post by BTR1701

Post by lab~rat
On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:35:39 -0400, "Mattitude Follower" <MF'er>

Post by unknown
"Buffy" movie is supposedly happening according to Nicholas Brendon.

Oh, christ. Not another remake.

Remake? Who said anything about a remake?
If a Buffy movie happens, it will be continuation of the story, not a
remake of anything.

Oh, kinda like the X-Files?

No, not really. Who said anything about the X-Files?

I did, ya retard. It's right up there. And if you saw the X-Files
movie, you'd know what I was talking about.

Of course you did, moron. I meant who other than your fevered brain
brought up the X-Files. In the future, I'll try and be more pedantic for
the slow-witted among us.

The X-Files movie was a continuation of the story line, like you
suggested. If you weren't so slow yourself you would have realized
that I was having a dialog, but it's pretty much your modus operandi
to throw out shit just to be a pain in the ass. Either that or you
have A.D.D. and didn't take your ritalin before reading this post.

Post by BTR1701

Post by lab~rat

Post by BTR1701
Long after the shark is jumped and

Post by lab~rat
Fonzie's on the beach with two babes on his arms?
Please! Who the hell is gonna fall for that? You people in this
group may think Buffy has mass appeal, but it's pretty clear by the
ratings and the fact that it was canceled, er, SMG quit, that it's a
niche franchise.

Irrelevant. Your assertion was that if a movie is made, it will be a
remake.

And your assertion was that it would be a continuation of a story that
a vast proportion of people have no idea about.

I never even brought up the mass appeal or lack therof. That's your own
windmill to tilt.

No, you brought up how it would be a good idea to continue some stupid
story line that nobody but a few wonky-loving geeks would give a
flying crap about.

So I thought I'd point out how you're wrong.

Post by BTR1701
You're the one who thinks remaking a movie that was a proven failure is
somehow a better idea than continuing a storyline from a show that
lasted nearly a decade.

Post by lab~rat

Post by BTR1701
It won't be and the franchise's mass appeal or lack thereof has
absolutely nothing to do with that.

Post by lab~rat
1. Hot chick
2. Action/adventure
3. Blood and guts
4. Entertaining story line

And none of that can be done by remaking the original movie.
On the other hand, they can continue the story and accomplish it all.

Ok, here's the story. SMG plays an aging yiddish vampire slayer with
wonky eyes. She meets this young hardbody and starts rambling about
her exploits like a shopping cart-pushing bag lady.
Of course, the young hardbody has nothing to do with her because the
last thing she needs in her life is some crazed varicosed veined yenta
hanging over her shoulders preaching about vampires. So she kicks
Buffy's ass and assumes the role that Buffy once had.
This happens in the first five minutes of the movie so the uninitiated
viewers don't have to look at SMG while they're trying to enjoy their
popcorn. And I would recommend the hardbody to be Jessica Alba.
And they could change the story line to drift away from the vampire
thing, they could write it off as the old wonky woman's delusion.
Then the character played by Jessica Alba would discover a barcode
tattoo on the back of her neck and start to question her past...

This is what happens when someone who finds Dark Angel entertaining
tries to come up with a story.
No wonder Buffy survived four years longer than that drek.

Maybe they could make the musical a Broadway production.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

[lab~rat]

Post by BTR1701
This is what happens when someone who finds Dark Angel entertaining
tries to come up with a story.
No wonder Buffy survived four years longer than that drek.

If the rat is representative of DA's fanbase then I'm suprised it made
it past season 1.

I hear ya. But time and time again, more people of my ilk watched
Dark Angel than people of your ilk watched Buffy. It's proven by
ratings.
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

[Diane Wilson]

In article <***@4ax.com>, ***@cheese.net
says...

Post by lab~rat

Post by BTR1701
This is what happens when someone who finds Dark Angel entertaining
tries to come up with a story.
No wonder Buffy survived four years longer than that drek.

If the rat is representative of DA's fanbase then I'm suprised it made
it past season 1.

I hear ya. But time and time again, more people of my ilk watched
Dark Angel than people of your ilk watched Buffy. It's proven by
ratings.

Could you please quantify that "ilk factor"?

Diane

[lab~rat]

Post by Diane Wilson
says...

Post by lab~rat

Post by BTR1701
This is what happens when someone who finds Dark Angel entertaining
tries to come up with a story.
No wonder Buffy survived four years longer than that drek.

If the rat is representative of DA's fanbase then I'm suprised it made
it past season 1.

I hear ya. But time and time again, more people of my ilk watched
Dark Angel than people of your ilk watched Buffy. It's proven by
ratings.

Could you please quantify that "ilk factor"?

Quantify: (Dark Angel Viewers) > (Buffy Viewers)

I wouldn't dare 'Qualify'...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

[Rowan Hawthorn]

Post by Diane Wilson
says...

Post by lab~rat

Post by BTR1701
This is what happens when someone who finds Dark Angel entertaining
tries to come up with a story.
No wonder Buffy survived four years longer than that drek.

If the rat is representative of DA's fanbase then I'm suprised it made
it past season 1.

I hear ya. But time and time again, more people of my ilk watched
Dark Angel than people of your ilk watched Buffy. It's proven by
ratings.

Could you please quantify that "ilk factor"?

Please don't. The fact that there are (presumably) more poeple of that ilk
is disturbing enough...

[Anton Sherwood]

Post by Diane Wilson

. . . time and time again, more people of my ilk watched
Dark Angel than people of your ilk watched Buffy. . . .

Could you please quantify that "ilk factor"?

How many people know that _ilk_ means `same'?

[Aethelrede]

Post by Anton Sherwood

Post by Diane Wilson

. . . time and time again, more people of my ilk watched
Dark Angel than people of your ilk watched Buffy. . . .

Could you please quantify that "ilk factor"?

How many people know that _ilk_ means `same'?

And "That", as in "That family: or "That class", although the OUD
classes that as vulgar speech

[Diane Wilson]

Post by Anton Sherwood

Post by Diane Wilson

. . . time and time again, more people of my ilk watched
Dark Angel than people of your ilk watched Buffy. . . .

Could you please quantify that "ilk factor"?

How many people know that _ilk_ means `same'?

There are no synonyms in the English language.

Diane

[Rowan Hawthorn]

Post by Diane Wilson

Post by Anton Sherwood

Post by Diane Wilson

. . . time and time again, more people of my ilk watched
Dark Angel than people of your ilk watched Buffy. . . .

Could you please quantify that "ilk factor"?

How many people know that _ilk_ means `same'?

There are no synonyms in the English language.
Diane

Gleaned from dictionary.com:

ilk(1) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lk)
n.
Type or kind: can't trust people of that ilk.

pron. Scots
The same. Used following a name to indicate that the one named resides in an
area bearing the same name: Duncan of that ilk.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
[Middle English ilke, same, from Old English ilca. See i- in Indo-European
Roots.]
Word History: When one uses ilk, as in the phrase men of his ilk, one is
using a word with an ancient pedigree even though the sense of ilk, "kind or
sort," is actually quite recent, having been first recorded at the end of
the 18th century. This sense grew out of an older use of ilk in the phrase
of that ilk, meaning "of the same place, territorial designation, or name."
This phrase was used chiefly in names of landed families, Guthrie of that
ilk meaning "Guthrie of Guthrie." "Same" is the fundamental meaning of the
word. The ancestors of ilk, Old English ilca and Middle English ilke, were
common words, usually appearing with such words as the or that, but the word
hardly survived the Middle Ages in those uses.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


il·ka ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lk) also ilk (lk)
adj. Scots
Each; every.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
[Middle English ilk a, each one : ilk(variant of ech, each. See each) + a,
one, a; see a2.]

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

ilk(2) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lk)
adj.
Variant of ilka.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


ilk

\Ilk\, a. [Scot. ilk, OE. ilke the same, AS. ilca. Cf. Each.] Same; each;
every. [Archaic] --Spenser.

Of that ilk, denoting that a person's surname and the title of his estate
are the same; as, Grant of that ilk, i.e., Grant of Grant. --Jamieson.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


ilk

n : a kind of person; "I don't like people of his ilk"

Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University

[Diane Wilson]

Post by Rowan Hawthorn

Post by Diane Wilson

Post by Anton Sherwood

Post by Diane Wilson

. . . time and time again, more people of my ilk watched
Dark Angel than people of your ilk watched Buffy. . . .

Could you please quantify that "ilk factor"?

How many people know that _ilk_ means `same'?

There are no synonyms in the English language.
Diane

ilk(1) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lk)
n.
Type or kind: can't trust people of that ilk.

Exactly. While English contains many words of
similar or closely related meaning, it's usually
true that they also carry unique and subtle emotional
implications. Note the example chosen for "ilk":
can't trust them. They're different, not like us.
As the derivation noted, it implies clannishness.
When used to describe others, it does tend to be
negative.

So "ilk" can mean "same" and "not same" at the same
time.

As I said, there are no sysnonyms in English.

</pedant>

Diane

[lab~rat]

Post by Diane Wilson

Post by Rowan Hawthorn

Post by Diane Wilson

Post by Anton Sherwood

Post by Diane Wilson

. . . time and time again, more people of my ilk watched
Dark Angel than people of your ilk watched Buffy. . . .

Could you please quantify that "ilk factor"?

How many people know that _ilk_ means `same'?

There are no synonyms in the English language.
Diane

ilk(1) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lk)
n.
Type or kind: can't trust people of that ilk.

Exactly. While English contains many words of
similar or closely related meaning, it's usually
true that they also carry unique and subtle emotional
can't trust them. They're different, not like us.
As the derivation noted, it implies clannishness.
When used to describe others, it does tend to be
negative.
So "ilk" can mean "same" and "not same" at the same
time.
As I said, there are no sysnonyms in English.
</pedant>

I don't know, 'ilk' and 'you people' kinda ring the same for me...
--
lab~rat >:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

[Steve Schaffner]

Post by Diane Wilson

Post by Rowan Hawthorn

Post by Diane Wilson

Post by Anton Sherwood

Post by Diane Wilson

. . . time and time again, more people of my ilk watched
Dark Angel than people of your ilk watched Buffy. . . .

Could you please quantify that "ilk factor"?

How many people know that _ilk_ means `same'?

There are no synonyms in the English language.
Diane

ilk(1) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lk)
n.
Type or kind: can't trust people of that ilk.

Exactly. While English contains many words of
similar or closely related meaning, it's usually
true that they also carry unique and subtle emotional
can't trust them. They're different, not like us.
As the derivation noted, it implies clannishness.
When used to describe others, it does tend to be
negative.
So "ilk" can mean "same" and "not same" at the same
time.
As I said, there are no sysnonyms in English.

Being really pedantic . . .

Synonym, n.
1. Strictly, a word having the same sense as another (in the same
language); but more usually, either or any of two or more words (in
the same language) having the same general sense, but possessing
each of them meanings which are not shared by the other or others,
or having different shades of meaning or implications appropriate
to different contexts

[Justin]

Post by Steve Schaffner

Post by Diane Wilson

Post by Rowan Hawthorn

Post by Diane Wilson

Post by Anton Sherwood

Post by Diane Wilson

. . . time and time again, more people of my ilk watched
Dark Angel than people of your ilk watched Buffy. . . .

Could you please quantify that "ilk factor"?

How many people know that _ilk_ means `same'?

There are no synonyms in the English language.
Diane

ilk(1) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lk)
n.
Type or kind: can't trust people of that ilk.

Exactly. While English contains many words of
similar or closely related meaning, it's usually
true that they also carry unique and subtle emotional
can't trust them. They're different, not like us.
As the derivation noted, it implies clannishness.
When used to describe others, it does tend to be
negative.
So "ilk" can mean "same" and "not same" at the same
time.
As I said, there are no sysnonyms in English.

Being really pedantic . . .
Synonym, n.
1. Strictly, a word having the same sense as another (in the same
language); but more usually, either or any of two or more words (in
the same language) having the same general sense, but possessing
each of them meanings which are not shared by the other or others,
or having different shades of meaning or implications appropriate
to different contexts

And there are plenty of synonyms in English, words that mean the EXACT
same thing, but are used in certain regions. Spanner/Wrench. Boot/Trunk
of car. etc. etc.

[illitrate]

Post by Justin

Post by Steve Schaffner

Post by Diane Wilson

Post by Rowan Hawthorn

Post by Diane Wilson

Post by Anton Sherwood

Post by Diane Wilson

. . . time and time again, more people of my ilk watched
Dark Angel than people of your ilk watched Buffy. . . .

Could you please quantify that "ilk factor"?

How many people know that _ilk_ means `same'?

There are no synonyms in the English language.
Diane

ilk(1) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lk)
n.
Type or kind: can't trust people of that ilk.

Exactly. While English contains many words of
similar or closely related meaning, it's usually
true that they also carry unique and subtle emotional
can't trust them. They're different, not like us.
As the derivation noted, it implies clannishness.
When used to describe others, it does tend to be
negative.
So "ilk" can mean "same" and "not same" at the same
time.
As I said, there are no sysnonyms in English.

Being really pedantic . . .
Synonym, n.
1. Strictly, a word having the same sense as another (in the same
language); but more usually, either or any of two or more words (in
the same language) having the same general sense, but possessing
each of them meanings which are not shared by the other or others,
or having different shades of meaning or implications appropriate
to different contexts

And there are plenty of synonyms in English, words that mean the EXACT
same thing, but are used in certain regions. Spanner/Wrench. Boot/Trunk
of car. etc. etc.

ah, but technically, only one of each of the examples you've given is
english, the other is american

but there lots of synonyms in the english language. if there weren't
then there'd never be the word hypernym wouldn't exist in the english
language
for more info:
http://efl.htmlplanet.com/synonyms.htm

[BTR1701]

In article

Post by illitrate

Post by Justin

Post by Steve Schaffner

Post by Diane Wilson

Post by Rowan Hawthorn

Post by Diane Wilson

Post by Anton Sherwood

Post by Diane Wilson

. . . time and time again, more people of my ilk watched
Dark Angel than people of your ilk watched Buffy. . . .

Could you please quantify that "ilk factor"?

How many people know that _ilk_ means `same'?

There are no synonyms in the English language.
Diane

ilk(1) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lk)
n.
Type or kind: can't trust people of that ilk.

Exactly. While English contains many words of
similar or closely related meaning, it's usually
true that they also carry unique and subtle emotional
can't trust them. They're different, not like us.
As the derivation noted, it implies clannishness.
When used to describe others, it does tend to be
negative.
So "ilk" can mean "same" and "not same" at the same
time.
As I said, there are no sysnonyms in English.

Being really pedantic . . .
Synonym, n.
1. Strictly, a word having the same sense as another (in the same
language); but more usually, either or any of two or more words (in
the same language) having the same general sense, but possessing
each of them meanings which are not shared by the other or others,
or having different shades of meaning or implications appropriate
to different contexts

And there are plenty of synonyms in English, words that mean the EXACT
same thing, but are used in certain regions. Spanner/Wrench. Boot/Trunk
of car. etc. etc.

ah, but technically, only one of each of the examples you've given is
english, the other is american

There's no such language as "American". It's English just as the
language the Brits speak is English, just a different dialect.

[illitrate]

Post by Tammy Stephanie Davis
In article

Post by illitrate

Post by Justin

Post by Steve Schaffner

Post by Diane Wilson

Post by Rowan Hawthorn

Post by Diane Wilson

Post by Anton Sherwood

Post by Diane Wilson

. . . time and time again, more people of my ilk watched
Dark Angel than people of your ilk watched Buffy. . . .

Could you please quantify that "ilk factor"?

How many people know that _ilk_ means `same'?

There are no synonyms in the English language.
Diane

ilk(1) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lk)
n.
Type or kind: can't trust people of that ilk.

Exactly. While English contains many words of
similar or closely related meaning, it's usually
true that they also carry unique and subtle emotional
can't trust them. They're different, not like us.
As the derivation noted, it implies clannishness.
When used to describe others, it does tend to be
negative.
So "ilk" can mean "same" and "not same" at the same
time.
As I said, there are no sysnonyms in English.

Being really pedantic . . .
Synonym, n.
1. Strictly, a word having the same sense as another (in the same
language); but more usually, either or any of two or more words (in
the same language) having the same general sense, but possessing
each of them meanings which are not shared by the other or others,
or having different shades of meaning or implications appropriate
to different contexts

And there are plenty of synonyms in English, words that mean the EXACT
same thing, but are used in certain regions. Spanner/Wrench. Boot/Trunk
of car. etc. etc.

ah, but technically, only one of each of the examples you've given is
english, the other is american

There's no such language as "American". It's English just as the
language the Brits speak is English, just a different dialect.

it is a different language - example:
there is no such word as color in the english language, no matter what
dialect of it you speak. it's colour in english

[BTR1701]

In article

Post by illitrate

Post by Tammy Stephanie Davis
In article

Post by illitrate
ah, but technically, only one of each of the examples you've given is
english, the other is american

There's no such language as "American". It's English just as the
language the Brits speak is English, just a different dialect.

there is no such word as color in the english language, no matter what
dialect of it you speak. it's colour in english

Well, forgive me if I take the word of linguists over yours on the
subject.

[Justin]

Post by Tammy Stephanie Davis
In article

Post by illitrate

Post by Tammy Stephanie Davis
In article

Post by illitrate
ah, but technically, only one of each of the examples you've given is
english, the other is american

There's no such language as "American". It's English just as the
language the Brits speak is English, just a different dialect.

there is no such word as color in the english language, no matter what
dialect of it you speak. it's colour in english

Well, forgive me if I take the word of linguists over yours on the
subject.

Cunning.

[illitrate]

Post by Tammy Stephanie Davis
In article

Post by illitrate

Post by Tammy Stephanie Davis
In article

Post by illitrate
ah, but technically, only one of each of the examples you've given is
english, the other is american

There's no such language as "American". It's English just as the
language the Brits speak is English, just a different dialect.

there is no such word as color in the english language, no matter what
dialect of it you speak. it's colour in english

Well, forgive me if I take the word of linguists over yours on the
subject.

yup, your forgiven
like with alcoholism and drug addicts, asking for forgiveness for your
mistakes is the first step on the road to recovery
:-)

[Cindylover1969]

Post by illitrate

Post by BTR1701

Post by illitrate

Post by Justin
And there are plenty of synonyms in English, words that mean the EXACT
same thing, but are used in certain regions. Spanner/Wrench. Boot/Trunk
of car. etc. etc.

ah, but technically, only one of each of the examples you've given is
english, the other is american

There's no such language as "American". It's English just as the
language the Brits speak is English, just a different dialect.

it is a different language

French is a different language. Tagalog is a different language.
Spanish is a different language. American is NOT a different language.
Slightly different spellings and different accents do not a language
make.

Cindylover

[A.E. Jabbour]

Post by Cindylover1969

Post by illitrate

Post by BTR1701

Post by illitrate

Post by Justin
And there are plenty of synonyms in English, words that mean the EXACT
same thing, but are used in certain regions. Spanner/Wrench. Boot/Trunk
of car. etc. etc.

ah, but technically, only one of each of the examples you've given is
english, the other is american

There's no such language as "American". It's English just as the
language the Brits speak is English, just a different dialect.

it is a different language

French is a different language. Tagalog is a different language.
Spanish is a different language. American is NOT a different language.
Slightly different spellings and different accents do not a language
make.
Cindylover

Well, my father once had a language professor who used to say that
a "language" is just a "dialect" which got itself a country.

Obviously, this was in a particular context, but it's still
sort of funny. Obviously, French is a language. Is the way
they speak in Provence a language? Probably not. It's a
dialect. But is that because Provence is a province of France?

There are numerous people here in the U.S. whom I cannot
understand at all. Whatever they are speaking, it isn't
English as I learned it (I grew up, and still live, in
Michigan). They are speaking some dialect which doesn't
even resemble the language spoken here.

If teh South had managed to secede, would Southern American
be a language, or still a dialect?

[Anton Sherwood]

Post by A.E. Jabbour
Well, my father once had a language professor who used to say that
a "language" is just a "dialect" which got itself a country.

"A language is a dialect with an army and a fleet." ---variously
attributed to Uriel Weinreich, Fred Householder, Charles Hockett

Post by A.E. Jabbour
Obviously, this was in a particular context, but it's still
sort of funny. Obviously, French is a language. Is the way
they speak in Provence a language? Probably not. It's a
dialect. But is that because Provence is a province of France?

Everybody speaks a language. If two people speak differently but
understand each other, they are said to speak dialects of "the same"
language.

According to http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=728
Provenzal and the other langues d'Oc are classified Ibero-Romance, more
closely related to their southern neighbors than to their northern.

The tree structure is somewhat arbitrary, though; related dialects
continue to influence each other so long as they are in contact, and
often a regional feature cuts perpendicular to a conventional boundary.

[Aethelrede]

Cindylover1969 wrote in message

Post by Cindylover1969

Post by illitrate

Post by BTR1701

Post by illitrate

Post by Justin
And there are plenty of synonyms in English, words that mean the EXACT
same thing, but are used in certain regions. Spanner/Wrench. Boot/Trunk
of car. etc. etc.

ah, but technically, only one of each of the examples you've given is
english, the other is american

There's no such language as "American". It's English just as the
language the Brits speak is English, just a different dialect.

it is a different language

French is a different language. Tagalog is a different language.
Spanish is a different language. American is NOT a different language.
Slightly different spellings and different accents do not a language
make.

American English differs in so many ways from the English spoken
elsewhere in the world that it might well be on the way to becoming an
entirely different language. The grammar is already becoming utterly
different; so is the pronunciation.

[BTR1701]

Post by Aethelrede
Cindylover1969 wrote in message

Post by Cindylover1969

Post by illitrate

Post by BTR1701

Post by illitrate

Post by Justin
And there are plenty of synonyms in English, words that mean the

EXACT

Post by Cindylover1969

Post by illitrate

Post by BTR1701

Post by illitrate

Post by Justin
same thing, but are used in certain regions. Spanner/Wrench.

Boot/Trunk

Post by Cindylover1969

Post by illitrate

Post by BTR1701

Post by illitrate

Post by Justin
of car. etc. etc.

ah, but technically, only one of each of the examples you've given is
english, the other is american

There's no such language as "American". It's English just as the
language the Brits speak is English, just a different dialect.

it is a different language

French is a different language. Tagalog is a different language.
Spanish is a different language. American is NOT a different language.
Slightly different spellings and different accents do not a language
make.

American English differs in so many ways from the English spoken
elsewhere in the world that it might well be on the way to becoming an
entirely different language.

Sorry, but "might as well be" doesn't count. Any linguist in the world
will tell you that American and British English are just two dialects of
the same language.

[Don Sample]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Aethelrede
American English differs in so many ways from the English spoken
elsewhere in the world that it might well be on the way to becoming an
entirely different language.

Sorry, but "might as well be" doesn't count. Any linguist in the world
will tell you that American and British English are just two dialects of
the same language.

And some might argue against them being dialects. There is more
variation within British English, and American English than there is
between mainstream British and American English.

[John Campbell Rees]

Post by Aethelrede
American English differs in so many ways from the English spoken
elsewhere in the world that it might well be on the way to becoming an
entirely different language. The grammar is already becoming utterly
different; so is the pronunciation.

English is in danger of splintering and self-destructing as Latin did
when it was the dominant language of a large part of the world. What
will save English is the fact that despite the fact that the British
Empire went the way of the Roman Empire, Britain remains as a sovereign
country, where as Rome disappeared completely. (No the Vatican is not
the same thing at all).

[illitrate]

During the course of this discussion, "Aethelrede"

Post by Aethelrede
American English differs in so many ways from the English spoken
elsewhere in the world that it might well be on the way to becoming an
entirely different language. The grammar is already becoming utterly
different; so is the pronunciation.

English is in danger of splintering and self-destructing as Latin did
when it was the dominant language of a large part of the world. What
will save English is the fact that despite the fact that the British
Empire went the way of the Roman Empire, Britain remains as a sovereign
country, where as Rome disappeared completely. (No the Vatican is not
the same thing at all).

also, these days, most of the world can speak to most of the rest of
the world, and the language they choose to do that in, is english
(albeit american english)
in the days after the roman empire, Rome was a very long way away from
northern europe. these days, you can get to Japan or Australia within
the same day. so it's easier for a common language to stay alive and in
common useage

[Justin]

Post by illitrate

During the course of this discussion, "Aethelrede"

Post by Aethelrede
American English differs in so many ways from the English spoken
elsewhere in the world that it might well be on the way to becoming an
entirely different language. The grammar is already becoming utterly
different; so is the pronunciation.

English is in danger of splintering and self-destructing as Latin did
when it was the dominant language of a large part of the world. What
will save English is the fact that despite the fact that the British
Empire went the way of the Roman Empire, Britain remains as a sovereign
country, where as Rome disappeared completely. (No the Vatican is not
the same thing at all).

also, these days, most of the world can speak to most of the rest of
the world, and the language they choose to do that in, is english
(albeit american english)
in the days after the roman empire, Rome was a very long way away from
northern europe. these days, you can get to Japan or Australia within
the same day. so it's easier for a common language to stay alive and in
common useage

Throw in international communications mediums, some of which are text
only, and it's even easier.

[Anton Sherwood]

Post by illitrate

Post by BTR1701

Post by illitrate

Post by Justin
And there are plenty of synonyms in English, words that mean the
EXACT same thing, but are used in certain regions. Spanner/Wrench.
Boot/Trunk of car. etc. etc.

ah, but technically, only one of each of the examples you've given
is english, the other is american

Dialect borrowing is often an important source of specialized words.

Post by illitrate

Post by BTR1701
There's no such language as "American". It's English just as the
language the Brits speak is English, just a different dialect.

Group of dialects.

Post by illitrate
there is no such word as color in the english language, no matter what
dialect of it you speak. it's colour in english

Strange for an "illitrate" to let the language be defined by its written
form, which sometimes differs more from the spoken form than two spoken
dialects from each other.

[illitrate]

Post by Anton Sherwood

Post by illitrate

Post by BTR1701

Post by illitrate

Post by Justin
And there are plenty of synonyms in English, words that mean the
EXACT same thing, but are used in certain regions. Spanner/Wrench.
Boot/Trunk of car. etc. etc.

ah, but technically, only one of each of the examples you've given
is english, the other is american

Dialect borrowing is often an important source of specialized words.

Post by illitrate

Post by BTR1701
There's no such language as "American". It's English just as the
language the Brits speak is English, just a different dialect.

Group of dialects.

Post by illitrate
there is no such word as color in the english language, no matter what
dialect of it you speak. it's colour in english

Strange for an "illitrate" to let the language be defined by its written
form, which sometimes differs more from the spoken form than two spoken
dialects from each other.

i may well be illitrate, but i've got a big fk off dictionary :-)

anyway, that's a good point - i'll admit that the mere pronounciation
of words in different areas does not make for a seperate language - but
when words are spelt differently too, it points towards a big schism
between english and american english
when we install software over here, we're asked if we want language we
want: UK English or US English. we're not asked if we want cockney
ryhming slang or broad yorkshire
the french language is littered with american words that have become
common place because of the abundance of american products in france
these days - but you can't say that french is a dialect of american?

:-) :-)

[Aethelrede]

illitrate wrote in message

Post by illitrate

Post by Anton Sherwood

Post by illitrate

Post by BTR1701

Post by illitrate

Post by Justin
And there are plenty of synonyms in English, words that mean the
EXACT same thing, but are used in certain regions. Spanner/Wrench.
Boot/Trunk of car. etc. etc.

ah, but technically, only one of each of the examples you've given
is english, the other is american

Dialect borrowing is often an important source of specialized words.

Post by illitrate

Post by BTR1701
There's no such language as "American". It's English just as the
language the Brits speak is English, just a different dialect.

Group of dialects.

Post by illitrate
there is no such word as color in the english language, no matter what
dialect of it you speak. it's colour in english

Strange for an "illitrate" to let the language be defined by its written
form, which sometimes differs more from the spoken form than two spoken
dialects from each other.

i may well be illitrate, but i've got a big fk off dictionary :-)
anyway, that's a good point - i'll admit that the mere pronounciation
of words in different areas does not make for a seperate language - but
when words are spelt differently too, it points towards a big schism
between english and american english
when we install software over here, we're asked if we want language we
want: UK English or US English. we're not asked if we want cockney
ryhming slang or broad yorkshire

Microsoft offers spell checkers in 4 or 5 different varieties of
English, not just to get over the American/British but because Australian,
for example, has words not common in British English.

Post by illitrate
the french language is littered with american words that have become
common place because of the abundance of american products in france
these days - but you can't say that french is a dialect of american?

That's a really sore point with French linguistic purists. They loath
the use of English words, or words from any other language in their precious
frog-babble, apparently because they are shorter, easier to remember and
more convenient than the proper French words. It's probably why so few
people bother to learn French these days: it's dying from this insane
refusal to steal new words to describe new things.
The French are quite amusing: I used to get annoyed at the way they'd
make me repeat the simplest question until they eventually made a big deal
out of finally understanding my terrible English accent, until I realised
they also did it with native born French people who spoke a different
regional dialect. To a Frenchman, his accent is the only perfect accent,
with his family next and his neighbours after that.

[Anton Sherwood]

. . . . It's probably why so few people

Asterix isn't as good as it was when Goscinny was alive?

it's dying from this insane refusal
to steal new words to describe new things.

Oh that.

On another hand, I always enjoy learning how new concepts are rendered
in borrowing-averse languages like Icelandic and (written) Chinese. Who
knows, their metaphor might be better than ours.

[illitrate]

Post by Anton Sherwood

. . . . It's probably why so few people

Asterix isn't as good as it was when Goscinny was alive?

amen to that !

[Aethelrede]

illitrate wrote in message

Post by illitrate

Post by Anton Sherwood

. . . . It's probably why so few people

Asterix isn't as good as it was when Goscinny was alive?

amen to that !

I was amused by the British characters who drank hot water every
afternoon because tea hadn't reached Europe. But I haven't even seen those
books in stores for ages.

[illitrate]

In article

Post by Aethelrede
illitrate wrote in message

Post by illitrate

Post by Anton Sherwood

Post by illitrate

Post by BTR1701

Post by illitrate

Post by Justin
And there are plenty of synonyms in English, words that mean the
EXACT same thing, but are used in certain regions. Spanner/Wrench.
Boot/Trunk of car. etc. etc.

ah, but technically, only one of each of the examples you've given
is english, the other is american

Dialect borrowing is often an important source of specialized words.

Post by illitrate

Post by BTR1701
There's no such language as "American". It's English just as the
language the Brits speak is English, just a different dialect.

Group of dialects.

Post by illitrate
there is no such word as color in the english language, no matter what
dialect of it you speak. it's colour in english

Strange for an "illitrate" to let the language be defined by its written
form, which sometimes differs more from the spoken form than two spoken
dialects from each other.

i may well be illitrate, but i've got a big fk off dictionary :-)
anyway, that's a good point - i'll admit that the mere pronounciation
of words in different areas does not make for a seperate language - but
when words are spelt differently too, it points towards a big schism
between english and american english
when we install software over here, we're asked if we want language we
want: UK English or US English. we're not asked if we want cockney
ryhming slang or broad yorkshire

Microsoft offers spell checkers in 4 or 5 different varieties of
English, not just to get over the American/British but because Australian,
for example, has words not common in British English.

don't get me started on australia!! that's another bluddy langauge that
doesn't deserve to called english! SHE'S YOUR QUEEN TOO Y'KNOW!!!!
ahem, sorry, where was i.......
:-)

[Justin]

Post by Tammy Stephanie Davis
In article

Post by Aethelrede
illitrate wrote in message

Post by illitrate

Post by Anton Sherwood

Post by illitrate

Post by BTR1701

Post by illitrate

Post by Justin
And there are plenty of synonyms in English, words that mean the
EXACT same thing, but are used in certain regions. Spanner/Wrench.
Boot/Trunk of car. etc. etc.

ah, but technically, only one of each of the examples you've given
is english, the other is american

Dialect borrowing is often an important source of specialized words.

Post by illitrate

Post by BTR1701
There's no such language as "American". It's English just as the
language the Brits speak is English, just a different dialect.

Group of dialects.

Post by illitrate
there is no such word as color in the english language, no matter what
dialect of it you speak. it's colour in english

Strange for an "illitrate" to let the language be defined by its written
form, which sometimes differs more from the spoken form than two spoken
dialects from each other.

i may well be illitrate, but i've got a big fk off dictionary :-)
anyway, that's a good point - i'll admit that the mere pronounciation
of words in different areas does not make for a seperate language - but
when words are spelt differently too, it points towards a big schism
between english and american english
when we install software over here, we're asked if we want language we
want: UK English or US English. we're not asked if we want cockney
ryhming slang or broad yorkshire

Microsoft offers spell checkers in 4 or 5 different varieties of
English, not just to get over the American/British but because Australian,
for example, has words not common in British English.

don't get me started on australia!! that's another bluddy langauge that
doesn't deserve to called english! SHE'S YOUR QUEEN TOO Y'KNOW!!!!
ahem, sorry, where was i.......
:-)

No wukkas mate, she's an English as the poms English.

[Rowan Hawthorn]

Post by Diane Wilson

Post by Rowan Hawthorn

Post by Diane Wilson

Post by Anton Sherwood

Post by Diane Wilson

. . . time and time again, more people of my ilk watched
Dark Angel than people of your ilk watched Buffy. . . .

Could you please quantify that "ilk factor"?

How many people know that _ilk_ means `same'?

There are no synonyms in the English language.
Diane

ilk(1) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lk)
n.
Type or kind: can't trust people of that ilk.

Exactly. While English contains many words of
similar or closely related meaning, it's usually
true that they also carry unique and subtle emotional
can't trust them. They're different, not like us.
As the derivation noted, it implies clannishness.
When used to describe others, it does tend to be
negative.
So "ilk" can mean "same" and "not same" at the same
time.
As I said, there are no sysnonyms in English.

Maybe you should have read more closely - the example sentence does not
translate to "can't trust people of that same." While the archaic Scottish
word meant "same" in some of its uses, the common meaning of the word "ilk"
is "type or kind." So the example translates to: "can't trust people of
that type," where the word "that" is used to designate "not same" and the
word "this" would be used to designate "same."

[Aethelrede]

Rowan Hawthorn wrote in message ...

Post by Rowan Hawthorn

Post by Diane Wilson

Post by Rowan Hawthorn

Post by Diane Wilson

Post by Anton Sherwood

Post by Diane Wilson

. . . time and time again, more people of my ilk watched
Dark Angel than people of your ilk watched Buffy. . . .

Could you please quantify that "ilk factor"?

How many people know that _ilk_ means `same'?

There are no synonyms in the English language.
Diane

ilk(1) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lk)
n.
Type or kind: can't trust people of that ilk.

Exactly. While English contains many words of
similar or closely related meaning, it's usually
true that they also carry unique and subtle emotional
can't trust them. They're different, not like us.
As the derivation noted, it implies clannishness.
When used to describe others, it does tend to be
negative.
So "ilk" can mean "same" and "not same" at the same
time.
As I said, there are no sysnonyms in English.

Maybe you should have read more closely - the example sentence does not
translate to "can't trust people of that same." While the archaic Scottish
word meant "same" in some of its uses, the common meaning of the word "ilk"
is "type or kind." So the example translates to: "can't trust people of
that type," where the word "that" is used to designate "not same" and the
word "this" would be used to designate "same."

These days English does have synonyms: people use "destroy',
"decimate", and 'raze" interchangeably, or describe a wooden building as
either dilapidated" or "rotten". And there are lots more, thanks to the
need of babbling TV news twinkies to have words streaming across the idiot
board that sound different. Websters dictionary doesn't help with its
decades old policy of legitimising every usage of a word no matter how
inappropriate it may be or how far it is from its original meaning.
I mean: who knows these days what "decimate" or "dilapidated" really
mean without looking it up in a dictionary and picking one of 2 or 3
definitions?

[Jillun]

Post by lab~rat

Post by BTR1701
This is what happens when someone who finds Dark Angel entertaining

Post by BTR1701
tries to come up with a story.
No wonder Buffy survived four years longer than that drek.

If the rat is representative of DA's fanbase then I'm suprised it made
it past season 1.

I hear ya. But time and time again, more people of my ilk watched
Dark Angel than people of your ilk watched Buffy. It's proven by
ratings.

Then it would be nice if you would go post over in a DA group and
please bugger off. You never say anything in this group worth
reading. At least, not that I ever see you post.

And I liked Dark Angel very much, so there.

[Justin]

Post by Jillun

Post by lab~rat

Post by BTR1701
This is what happens when someone who finds Dark Angel entertaining

Post by BTR1701
tries to come up with a story.
No wonder Buffy survived four years longer than that drek.

If the rat is representative of DA's fanbase then I'm suprised it made
it past season 1.

I hear ya. But time and time again, more people of my ilk watched
Dark Angel than people of your ilk watched Buffy. It's proven by
ratings.

Then it would be nice if you would go post over in a DA group and
please bugger off. You never say anything in this group worth
reading. At least, not that I ever see you post.

This message *is* posted to the DA group.

[Justin]

Post by unknown
Meanwhile, the rumour mill is abuzz that James Marsters might be in talk to
do his own show. Yep, "Spike", the series, is an idea being discussed. Here'
s hoping something comes of it. Marsters is apparently up for it - no idea
which network is/would be interested in it though. Fingers crossed peoples.

There's a show to NOT WATCH!

[Steven Blue]

Post by unknown
Brendon says Buffy film is happening
Posted on Wed, 28-Apr-2004
It's still a lot of ifs, maybes, wish's, want's and could happens...but a
"Buffy" movie is supposedly happening according to Nicholas Brendon.
According to a scooper for Aint it Cool, Brendon announced that Joss Whedon
is doing a film version of his popular Slayed series while at last weekend's
Cleveland Slayer Convention. "Brendon did a Q/A and let slip that Joss is
working on another show. When asked what it was called he mumbled something
like "Brothers" but then said he didn't know. He also said that a Buffy
movie is going to happen it's just a question of when. I also found it
strange that he mentioned a Buffy cartoon that has Allison, Anthony and him
doing voices that might be picked up soon. I thought the Buffy cartoon was
dead...?"
Um, yeah, even Whedon thinks it's dead. It's funny that Brendon knows so
much.
Meanwhile, the scooper got some dirt on both "Angel" and "Ripper", the
planned 'Giles' Spin-off which the BBC was supposed to do. "Mercedes McNab
said that Angel is dead as an ongoing series but she did hear about the TV
movies. She even started to cry when talking about the shows end. Anthony
Head talked about Whedon and him doing a spin off called Ripper. He said
that he and Joss talk about it every time they see each other. It is
supposed to start off as a 2 hour TV movie."
Meanwhile, the rumour mill is abuzz that James Marsters might be in talk to
do his own show. Yep, "Spike", the series, is an idea being discussed. Here'
s hoping something comes of it. Marsters is apparently up for it - no idea
which network is/would be interested in it though. Fingers crossed peoples.

Don't get me wrong, I like Spike. I loved him on Buffy and Angel. But I
don't want to see him in his own spinoff. I think its time for some fresh
blood.

[Aaron Pynn]

Post by Steven Blue
Don't get me wrong, I like Spike. I loved him on Buffy and Angel. But I
don't want to see him in his own spinoff. I think its time for some fresh
blood.

I agree but if anyone can pull it off it's Marster's ..DB didn't do that
great with it...

[Tammy Stephanie Davis]

In article <4HRjc.31422$***@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Aaron Pynn <***@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote:
:> Don't get me wrong, I like Spike. I loved him on Buffy and Angel. But I
:> don't want to see him in his own spinoff. I think its time for some fresh
:> blood.
:>
:>
:
:I agree but if anyone can pull it off it's Marster's ..DB didn't do that
:great with it...

The show lasted five years, its still one of WB's highest
rated shows and there's talk of making TV movies from it.

Oh yeah, its sooooo obvious that DB didn't do that great with the show.

I'm being extremely sarcastic.
--

[Linda]

Post by Tammy Stephanie Davis
:> Don't get me wrong, I like Spike. I loved him on Buffy and Angel. But I
:> don't want to see him in his own spinoff. I think its time for some fresh
:> blood.
:>
:>
:I agree but if anyone can pull it off it's Marster's ..DB didn't do that
:great with it...
The show lasted five years, its still one of WB's highest
rated shows and there's talk of making TV movies from it.
Oh yeah, its sooooo obvious that DB didn't do that great with the show.
I'm being extremely sarcastic.

Keeps making me wonder why these people come and post to the ****ANGEL****
ng. The best show on TV and soon I'll have nothing to watch except *The
World Poker Tour* and Celebrity Poker.

Sigh.

[BrAnd0n H3x]

Post by unknown

Post by unknown
Brendon says Buffy film is happening
Posted on Wed, 28-Apr-2004
It's still a lot of ifs, maybes, wish's, want's and could happens...but a
"Buffy" movie is supposedly happening according to Nicholas Brendon.
According to a scooper for Aint it Cool, Brendon announced that Joss

Whedon

Post by unknown
is doing a film version of his popular Slayed series while at last

weekend's

Post by unknown
Cleveland Slayer Convention. "Brendon did a Q/A and let slip that Joss is
working on another show. When asked what it was called he mumbled

something

Post by unknown
like "Brothers" but then said he didn't know. He also said that a Buffy
movie is going to happen it's just a question of when. I also found it
strange that he mentioned a Buffy cartoon that has Allison, Anthony and

him

Post by unknown
doing voices that might be picked up soon. I thought the Buffy cartoon was
dead...?"
Um, yeah, even Whedon thinks it's dead. It's funny that Brendon knows so
much.
Meanwhile, the scooper got some dirt on both "Angel" and "Ripper", the
planned 'Giles' Spin-off which the BBC was supposed to do. "Mercedes McNab
said that Angel is dead as an ongoing series but she did hear about the TV
movies. She even started to cry when talking about the shows end. Anthony
Head talked about Whedon and him doing a spin off called Ripper. He said
that he and Joss talk about it every time they see each other. It is
supposed to start off as a 2 hour TV movie."
Meanwhile, the rumour mill is abuzz that James Marsters might be in talk

to

Post by unknown
do his own show. Yep, "Spike", the series, is an idea being discussed.

Here'

Post by unknown
s hoping something comes of it. Marsters is apparently up for it - no idea
which network is/would be interested in it though. Fingers crossed

peoples.
Don't get me wrong, I like Spike. I loved him on Buffy and Angel. But I
don't want to see him in his own spinoff. I think its time for some fresh
blood.

Folks pretty much assumed Dawn would be the new Slayer but that seems to
not be an issue. The whole group of Slayers would be though. With Xander
and that one pussy from the (triad) who's still alive and like 15 hot
chix! Plus that Michelle Thresanhotbaber is hot so she'd be the NEXT Sarah
Michelle Gellar.

And Gyles and Willow. Spike would show up and maybe get Anya back some how
cause she ruled !!!!!!
--
When I finally do go to Hell, I am kicking Satan's ass and taking over.

I hate everything I like.

Hex don't know no 'good' magic!

(jedi mind trick)This isn't the troll you are looking for.

0wning kooks since ... you!

[BTR1701]

Post by unknown
Meanwhile, the rumour mill is abuzz that James Marsters might be in talk
to do his own show. Yep, "Spike", the series, is an idea being discussed.
Here's hoping something comes of it. Marsters is apparently up for it - no
idea which network is/would be interested in it though. Fingers crossed
peoples.

That would be a good idea, except it would suffer from the same problem
the last couple of seasons of Buffy and this season of ANGEL suffered
from: too much Spike.

[Ca!nmanIsADwarf]

Post by BTR1701

Post by unknown
Meanwhile, the rumour mill is abuzz that James Marsters might be in talk
to do his own show. Yep, "Spike", the series, is an idea being discussed.
Here's hoping something comes of it. Marsters is apparently up for it - no
idea which network is/would be interested in it though. Fingers crossed
peoples.

That would be a good idea, except it would suffer from the same problem
the last couple of seasons of Buffy and this season of ANGEL suffered
from: too much Spike.

The last couple of seasons of Buffy suffered from too much Michelle
Trachtencrap.

The last season of Angel(and previous) suffered from too much Gunn. He
sucks.

Spike was the best thing to happen to the last Season of Angel. Without him,
I doubt this Season would have been so good.

[BTR1701]

Post by Ca!nmanIsADwarf

Post by BTR1701

Post by unknown
Meanwhile, the rumour mill is abuzz that James Marsters might be in
talk to do his own show. Yep, "Spike", the series, is an idea being discussed.
Here's hoping something comes of it. Marsters is apparently up for it
- no idea which network is/would be interested in it though. Fingers
crossed peoples.

That would be a good idea, except it would suffer from the same problem
the last couple of seasons of Buffy and this season of ANGEL suffered
from: too much Spike.

The last couple of seasons of Buffy suffered from too much Michelle
Trachtencrap.

Even her whining was better than Spike.

Post by Ca!nmanIsADwarf
The last season of Angel(and previous) suffered from too much Gunn. He
sucks.
Spike was the best thing to happen to the last Season of Angel. Without
him, I doubt this Season would have been so good.

Sure. Whatever. Spike can do no wrong. I forgot.

[Justin]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Ca!nmanIsADwarf

Post by BTR1701

Post by unknown
Meanwhile, the rumour mill is abuzz that James Marsters might be in
talk to do his own show. Yep, "Spike", the series, is an idea being discussed.
Here's hoping something comes of it. Marsters is apparently up for it
- no idea which network is/would be interested in it though. Fingers
crossed peoples.

That would be a good idea, except it would suffer from the same problem
the last couple of seasons of Buffy and this season of ANGEL suffered
from: too much Spike.

The last couple of seasons of Buffy suffered from too much Michelle
Trachtencrap.

Even her whining was better than Spike.

Get out! Get out! Get out! Spike's tha bomb.

Post by BTR1701
Sure. Whatever. Spike can do no wrong. I forgot.

Spike is god.

[A.E. Jabbour]

Post by Ca!nmanIsADwarf

Post by BTR1701
That would be a good idea, except it would suffer from the same problem
the last couple of seasons of Buffy and this season of ANGEL suffered
from: too much Spike.

The last couple of seasons of Buffy suffered from too much Michelle
Trachtencrap.

You will notice that BTR didn't, in any way, attack James Marsters
in his comments. Those comments were directed at a *character.*

You don't have a lot of class, as in obvious from your post. But
I would think that even a classless cretin could avoid lashing out
in the manner you did.

I guess I was wrong, though.

[Justin]

Post by BTR1701

Post by unknown
Meanwhile, the rumour mill is abuzz that James Marsters might be in talk
to do his own show. Yep, "Spike", the series, is an idea being discussed.
Here's hoping something comes of it. Marsters is apparently up for it - no
idea which network is/would be interested in it though. Fingers crossed
peoples.

That would be a good idea, except it would suffer from the same problem
the last couple of seasons of Buffy and this season of ANGEL suffered
from: too much Spike.

Exactly!

A little spike is OK. But they need to realise less is more.

[Kaz]

Post by unknown
Brendon says Buffy film is happening
Posted on Wed, 28-Apr-2004
It's still a lot of ifs, maybes, wish's, want's and could happens...but a
"Buffy" movie is supposedly happening according to Nicholas Brendon.
According to a scooper for Aint it Cool, Brendon announced that Joss Whedon
is doing a film version of his popular Slayed series while at last weekend's
Cleveland Slayer Convention. "Brendon did a Q/A and let slip that Joss is
working on another show. When asked what it was called he mumbled something
like "Brothers" but then said he didn't know. He also said that a Buffy
movie is going to happen it's just a question of when. I also found it
strange that he mentioned a Buffy cartoon that has Allison, Anthony and him
doing voices that might be picked up soon. I thought the Buffy cartoon was
dead...?"
Um, yeah, even Whedon thinks it's dead. It's funny that Brendon knows so
much.
Meanwhile, the scooper got some dirt on both "Angel" and "Ripper", the
planned 'Giles' Spin-off which the BBC was supposed to do. "Mercedes McNab
said that Angel is dead as an ongoing series but she did hear about the TV
movies. She even started to cry when talking about the shows end. Anthony
Head talked about Whedon and him doing a spin off called Ripper. He said
that he and Joss talk about it every time they see each other. It is
supposed to start off as a 2 hour TV movie."
Meanwhile, the rumour mill is abuzz that James Marsters might be in talk to
do his own show. Yep, "Spike", the series, is an idea being discussed. Here'
s hoping something comes of it. Marsters is apparently up for it - no idea
which network is/would be interested in it though. Fingers crossed peoples.

Please.. please.. PLEASE!!! :)