XPost: rec.arts.tv   
   From: weberm@polaris.net   
      
   In article , dtravel@sonic.net wrote:   
   > On 7/27/2018 10:49 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:   
   >> Dimensional Traveler  wrote:   
   >>> On 7/27/2018 6:55 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:   
   >>>> Ubiquitous  wrote:   
   >>>>> anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:   
   >>>>>> Dimensional Traveler  wrote:   
   >>>>>>> On 7/26/2018 7:10 PM, David Johnston wrote:   
   >>>>>>>> On 2018-07-26 7:56 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:   
      
   >>>>>>>>> I thought there could only be one "slayer" at a time?   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> Not by the end of the series.  They'd rewritten the slayer   
   >>>>>>>> spell so that all the potential slayers became actual.  I   
   >>>>>>>> thought that not considering the reason why the spell was so limited   
   >>>>>>>> in the first place was liable to make this decision a terrible   
   >>>>>>>> mistake.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> At what point in fetal development does Slayer potential kick in?   
   >>>>>>   
   >>>>>> It's always there.  They're "potentials" until activated.  There are   
   >>>>>> hundreds, maybe thousands, of potentials waiting to be called, almost   
   >>>>>> all of which won't even ever know about it.  The mechanism that chooses   
   >>>>>> the next successor is unknown, although it does have set rules - when   
   >>>>>> Buffy died (she got better) her death called Kendra, and Kendra's death   
   >>>>>> called Faith the Lovely.  But when Buffy died *again* she didn't call a   
   >>>>>> new slayer, as the line of succession (apparently) passed to Faith   
   >>>>>> (this was never tested).  All this changed in the last horrid season   
   >>>>>> as the mythos was destroyed by the incompetence and uncaring of Marti   
   >>>>>> Noxon. All Slayers were activated (although the show was so stupid at   
   >>>>>> that point that most of them seemed to be in their 20s); the comics   
   >>>>>> follow the adventures of this army, which really shouldn't have a lot   
   >>>>>> of trouble keeping the demons at bay.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> I thought it was like Highlander where suddenly one day you're immortal.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Well, no.  First, in Highlander, you have to get killed and come back to   
   >>>> be immortal, so you kind of notice something.  :)   
   >>>>   
   >>> In Highlander you have to die a violent death for the immortality to   
   >>> kick in.  So if you die of old age in your sleep, you are dead dead.   
   >>   
   >> It has to be violent?  Poisoning works doesn't it?   
   >   
   >I can't remember if they addressed death by poison.  I don't think they   
   >did but then poison wasn't really a method preferred by Immortals in   
   >that universe.   
      
   I do not remember having to die violently, whatever that means, but I vaguely   
   remember someone finding out after falling off a cliff or some great height.   
   And here is another example of it not holding up to much scrutiny.   
      
   --   
   Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd   
   have to audit liberals  & wire tap reporters' phones.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)