[ Index by Subject ] [ Index by Date ] [ New P&P2 BB ] [ FAQ ] [ Links ]
Posted by Ann2 on November 14, 1996 at 02:25:04:
] ] ] I think we can all agree that Colin Firth as Darcy is very sexy, but exactly what is it about him? ..snip.. I love his (Colin's) voice.
] ] _______
] ] I know that everyone thiinks he's very grand and sexy, the way he was sitting at Rosings when he first visits Lizzie bothers me. It's very feminine. I guess it must be those pants.
] ] Rebecca
] He had his legs crossed. You never saw a man cross his legs.
] Should he sit like Mr. Hurst.
Oh Donna, heaven forbid! LOL though.
Those pants in some stretch cloth are no good I agree, Rebecca. Not that I mind 'body hints', but how vastly preferable are not the yellow ones after quick dress at Pemberley or the woolen white ones as Avenging angle?
Posted by Ann on November 14, 1996 at 02:32:20:
] My feelings are quite the opposite. I was NOT advocating the imposition of a moral order but AGAINST its imposition on our rights. Freedom of expression is not a moral issue but a Constitutional right. This is precisely why the Constitution provides for the separation of church and state, to allow for the right of freedom, including freedom of expression, to exist and flourish.
] : Janet
Freedom of expression and religion are moral issues....and constitutional ones.
Morality is not synonymous with the teachings of religious institutions, but exists beyond their reach. Morality has nothing directly to do with religion, though most religions do deal directly with morality. Churches, like individuals, sometimes make immoral decisions--the alleged complicity of some branches of the Catholic church during the Second World War is one example. Another example is the historic use of religious teachings to justify slavery. One can not point to a church and universally say: there lies morality. The constitutional separation of the church and the state does not mean the separation of morality and the state.
In addition, your desire to disallow the imposition of a moral order against our constitutional rights neglects the fact that our Constitution and Bill of Rights are a moral order!
The protections ensconced in our Constitution did not fall out of the sky. The Bill of Rights exists and was written in its present form, because the people who enacted it believed that its provisions and protections were moral, or necessary for the moral order of the nation. That we continue to agree is a testament to the vision of the founding fathers and of the importance of the Bill of Rights. To choose the rights of the individual over the rights of the state is a choice based in the morality of the Eighteenth Century Americans who wrote our Constitution. Freedom of expression, of religion, as well as the other provisions in our Constitution are both constitutional rights and a moral issues.
I. Because the authors of the Constitution believed that it was morally right to prevent the government from imposing religious doctrines on the population, and because they believed that lack of free speech could lead to an immoral government--perhaps even to dictatorship--the First Amendment was born.
II. Because the authors of the Constitution believed that, absent the means to defend oneself, one's family and one's community through the use of arms, the people at large could suffer from an immoral abridgment of their freedoms by those who have the might to impose their own version of order, the Second Amendment was born.
III. Because the authors of the Constitution believed that it was immoral for the government, through its military arm, to impose itself on the hospitality of the populace, the Third Amendment was born.
IV. Because the authors of the Constitution believed that it was immoral for the government to arrest citizens or search or seize their property without just cause, the Fourth Amendment was born.
V. Because the authors of the Constitution believed that it was immoral for a person to be charged by the government with a crime without reason, or to face prosecution for the same offense more than once, or to be compelled to bear witness against themselves, or to have their lives or property taken by the government without due process of the law and proper compensation, the Fifth Amendment was born.
VI. Because the authors of the Constitution believed that without the right to a speedy trial in front of a jury of one's peers, without the right to call and examine witnesses, and without the right to counsel, an individual's freedom could be immorally stripped by an unjust governmental judiciary or judicial system, the Sixth Amendment was born.
VII. Because the authors of the Constitution believed that it was immoral for the government to deny an individual the right to a trial in front of a jury, or to retry a case which a jury has already found insufficient, the Seventh Amendment was born.
VIII. Because the authors of the Constitution believed that it was immoral for the government to impose excessive, cruel or unusual punishment against an individual, the Eighth Amendment was born.
IX. Because the authors of the Constitution believed that it was immoral for the government to usurp the power of the individual, the Ninth Amendment was born.
X. Because the authors of the Constitution believed that it was immoral for the federal government to usurp from the states or the people those powers which the Constitution does not delegate to it, the Tenth Amendment was born.
Though many of the writers of these provisions were deeply immersed in their religious institutions, the Constitution is not a religious document; it is, however, a deeply moral document. It does not impose a religious vision, but it does impose a moral one.
Eric is right. It is a rare legislator who votes for things they believe to be immoral. Every vote in a democracy is a statement of morality in one form or another. That some groups in our society have appropriated the term "morality" to suit their vision of the world, does not mean that they own the right to it. The legislator who votes for a ban on smoking in public places does so because they believe it is morally right to discourage an unhealthy habit. The legislator who votes against a ban on smoking in public places does so because they believe it is immoral to impose on the right of the individual to act freely--even if the actions the individual takes may be unhealthy.
Laws and morality are necessarily intertwined. No law is passed which does not impose a moral order. The debate is, rather, over whose vision of morality should prevail. All of us have an innate wish that it be our morality which is followed, and not their morality.
When we come out on the losing side, we decry the imposition of unjust laws.
When we win, we celebrate the victory of our vision of the world.
Ann, the Long-Winded.
Posted by Ann on November 14, 1996 at 02:42:24:
I think we may safely say that this is the wierdest thread yet!
Posted by Ann on November 14, 1996 at 02:52:53:
] All right, Anna, what about the theory someone just hinted at somewhere else in this thread; that Darcy admitted that part of his wanting to seperate Bingley from Jane was to promote a match between Bingley and Georgianna. Does this not qualify as "absurd and impertinent"? Darcy admits this to Lizzy, could he not have admitted it to Bingley in this conversation we are trying to reconstruct?
] Cheryl (who has been accused, on occasion, of arguing for arguments sake!)
While such a theory might lead to the term "impertinent", I do not think it would lead to "absurd". How much more absurd than simply trying to direct Bingley towards Georgiana, would be Darcy's preventing Bingley from approaching Jane, because he felt Jane wasn't good enough for Bingley, and then turning around and asking for Jane's equally insufficient sister Elizabeth.
Posted by Ann on November 14, 1996 at 03:01:43:
Please be careful to close the tags that produce italic and bold lettering. To do this you put a slash just before the "i" or the "b" in the closing bracket. Without that slash, the tag keeps going, and going, and going...and the whole page from there down turns slantwise or shouts at you.
See "Your comments" box below for this example:
It's pretty easy stuff.
Posted by Kali on November 14, 1996 at 03:31:09:
] I think we may safely say that this is the wierdest thread yet!
So Ann - where do you come down? Mr. Love or Mr. Butt?
You must have a preference!
Posted by Ian on November 14, 1996 at 04:07:46:
] The King George III reigned until 1820, but after 1810, the Prince of Wales (later to be George IV) was "in power" as Prince Regent.
] Then it was George the III that lost the colonies.
Thanks HC I kneel as your humble servant once again and thank thee for correcting me.
Donna, if by the colonies you mean the USA then yes he lost those but he gained a new domain in Australia shortly after. That's the reason for the really strong stock of descendants that England sent to Oz, borne of convict labour. According to historical details Mrs Jane Perrot, Jane Austen's aunt, was accused of shoplifting ... a crime which carried the penalty of transportation to Botany Bay.
So another of England's best may have come here.
Check out OJ's page for the latest information on the novel "Jane Austen in Australia" by Barbara Ker Wilson.
Posted by Joan, too on November 14, 1996 at 04:08:05:
] Pressure! I am very insecure about my ability at this computer. Don't go anywhere to soon Joan,too
] Thanks again Donna
You are doing great - you are getting in there and trying stuff. It's the only way to learn. If it's any comfort, I've been "working" at this for over 10 years, and I used to be a rabid technophobe. Ran the other way when computers were mentioned. If I can do it, anyone can. Seriously!
Posted by Joan, too on November 14, 1996 at 04:29:38:
] Do you think he's blowing it? What do others think?
Blowing his chance for what? Fame and notoriety? Paparazzi and freaked out fans following you everywhere? Complete loss of privacy and personal life? Fame ain't necessarily all it's cracked up to be. If, indeed, he is seriously seeking to avoid all this, he is likely to have a happier personal life than many others in his profession.
Posted by Joan, too on November 14, 1996 at 04:45:10:
] What magic those makeup artists and hairstylists/wig-makers can create (I wish they'd try it on me!)...
But then you'd have to be in the make-up room at 5:30 and spend 2 hours getting made-over every morning. Pretty steep price to pay for a "look". Think it would get tiresome very quickly! Imagine poor JE having to do that daily for 5 months.
Posted by Joan, too on November 14, 1996 at 04:49:30:
] That was George IVth, a.k.a. "Prinny", the one responsible for the quaint monstrosity at Brighton.
Monstrosity, perhaps. Quaint, hardly! Ostentatious would be more accurate. Or perhaps bizarre. (But do see it if you're ever in the neighborhood!)
Posted by Joan, too on November 14, 1996 at 04:59:38:
] Jane probably believed that if Lizzy had changed her mind about Darcy, she would have confessed it to Jane. ssince there was no such confession, Jane would not know of Lizzy's change of heart and would only know that Lizzy thought better of Darcy than she once did, but nothing more than that.
And in fairness to Jane, each time she asked Lizzie whether she wanted Darcy to renew his addresses, Lizzie professed herself disinterested.
Posted by Joan, too on November 14, 1996 at 05:21:13:
] But how could they have discussed it as being impossible, if Bingley did not already know of Darcy's first proposal (or at least of his love for Elizabeth)?
Jane was, of course, most eager for Lizzie to find a man who would make Lizzie as happy as Bingley made her, and as per the discussion some time ago of how the word might have reached Lady C. about a Lizzie/Darcy match, both Bingley and Jane could think of nothing that would make both of them happer than to see Jane's dear sister and Bingley's dear friend united - but of course they considered that impossible because of what both of them knew (and also because of what neither of them knew) about what Lizzie and Darcy thought of one another.
Posted by Joan, too on November 14, 1996 at 05:46:51:
] While such a theory might lead to the term "impertinent", I do not think it would lead to "absurd".
When brought down to basics, what is more absurd than that Darcy should have thought it any of his business whom Bingley married? Darcy now recognizes that his own pride had led him to the absurd conclusion that it was his responsibility to interfere at all.
Posted by Cecily on November 14, 1996 at 08:03:53:
] After I taped Part 2 this morning I realized the VCR was set to EP for more condensed recording (and lesser quality) instead of SP for better quality (never mind the greater length). duplicated version - ne'er to be returned, I'm afraid. (Sorry, Barbara, you can't have it back.) I have an 8 year old son who is also Darcy savvy. Wise decision to expose them early on.
] : Janet
Apparently others had difficulties of all sorts, too. I may have gotten the recording OK on SP, but even while watching the show I noticed A&E was using a poor copy of their own production (tiny horizontal lines evident in the film grain)! You'd think they'd use a newer copy themselves at air time.
P.S. My daughter's favorite line is currently Mr. Bennet's when he tells Mary to let the other young ladies "exhibiTTT" their piano skills and that she'd "delighted [us] long enough."
Posted by Ian on November 14, 1996 at 08:31:21:
Having recently seen the film version of "Emma" how do you think the "The Maggot" dance in it compares with the one in P&P2? The "E" version was slightly faster and no dialogue was spoken by Emma or Mr Knightly, or none that I observed at any rate. Of course we all know how the P&P2 version proceeded. I think in many ways it was a much better version of the dance.
Posted by Ian on November 14, 1996 at 08:44:18:
] Yes, the BBC is affectionately known as Auntie Beeb or sometimes just Auntie.
Did you see my explanation for the colloquialism "Pom" before it was removed from the BB? If you didn't perhaps you'd like to e-mail me and I'll only be too happy to send you the explanation.
Curiously the ABC in Australia is also known as Aunty. Funny really. What is the CBC in Canada affectionately called?
The ABC screened P&P2 in Australia.
Posted by Grace on November 14, 1996 at 09:11:29:
] ] ] ] ] ] Yes, Cheryl -- you're absolutely correct. "Hunk-a" certainly flows off the tongue much better than Fitzwilliam. But I do believe that Lizzie might refer to him, as say something to the effect of, My Dearest Lovliest "Hunk-a Hunk-a Burning Love".
] ] ] ] ] ] - Candace
] ] ] ] ] _______
] ] ] ] ] "Dearest Lovliest"?...I don't think so, too effeminate. What about "My Dearest Hunk-a Studmuffin"? Kinda catchy.
] ] ] ] ] Cheryl
] ] ] ] _______
] ] ] ] ROTFLOL -- To answer Donna's question below -- was Studmuffin really an actual 19th century term of endearment? I'm all amazement!!
] ] ] ] - Candace
] ] ]
] ] ] _______
] ] ]
] ] ] Well, I'm sure that muffins were around, and studs...well, livestock and breeding pracitices were certainly common knowledge. Lizzy was an uncommonly quick and witty woman. If anyone then could have put the two words and their meanings (sweet, delicious and sexual performance) together, I am sure it would have been our Lizzy!
] ] ] Cheryl
] ] ] PS Oh my, what goes on after the East Coasters have gone to sleep and we Westerners are still up. Can you imagine their reactions to reading this thread with their morning coffee? It will be coming out of their noses!
] ] _______
] ] Cheryl it started out very naively. Should we put a tissue warning.
] ] Donna
] We should create a new humor reaction acronym - how about ROTFLOLAN (Rolling-on-the-floor-laughing-out-loud-and-attaining-nose)?
] - K
] PS - To attain nose is to laugh so hard that you blow your drink out your schnoz.
(P.S. K's suggestion of Ralph or Frank is sounding better and better.)
Posted by Ayelet on November 14, 1996 at 09:18:19:
I'm reading "Little Women" now, and remember Aunt march warning Meg from the foolish in marrying John Brook? Well, it somehow reminded me (yes, yes, I know it's not the same at all) Lady Katherine warning Lizzy from marrying Darcy, something in the spirit the old Ladies are talking in, the brave answers the young give and the way they (the oledrs) have brought to marriage when they Absolutely didn't meant to do so. Anyone agree/disagree?
Posted by Amy on November 14, 1996 at 09:23:58:
] What time a day do you usually delete the previous day's posts? I worry that I'm logging on afterwards and missing some.
I was afraid of that. We have gone from keeping two weeks worth of messages up to less than a day's worth. Other the past week or so, since messages began topping the 200 a day mark, I have been trying to leave up the previous day's messages until after midnight Eastern -- unless problems get reported during the peak posting hours of 8 to 11 pm. In those cases I have been deleting the previous day's posts early. Definition of problem: I mean things like messages going into the wrong thread. I'd also call Anna's six attempts at posting a big problem.
What to do? Let me think about it.
[ Index by Subject ] [ Index by Date ] [ New P&P2 BB ] [ FAQ ] [ Links ]