Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 9:55 AM
Subject: Where's Lucy Lawless?
You are way out of line. The word is 'give' and Lucy gives alot to New Zealand organizations . Hey Calif, how much are you making off of her loyal fans as chief editor.
From: Geoffrey Hedger
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 3:53 PM
Subject: Whoosh Editorial.
Gathering from Whoosh's current disclaimer you've taken some flak over your editorial.
For what its worth my opinion on this is, that I do not believe your editorial was intended to "dis" Lucy, but that it was simply expressing the thought "Gee, wouldn't it be great if Lucy let Sword-and-Staff have some autographed photos for their charity auctions."
Okay, one came never be sure of what exactly another person's intentions in any given matter are, but one thing I am sure of is;-
Whoosh is a great magazine and that you and your colleagues do a great (unpaid) job of running it. Please continue to do so.
All the best,
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2000 7:05 AM
Subject: January Editorial
I found your editorial a bit offensive... it should have been a positive editorial stressing the good that Sword and Staff have accomplished and thanking everyone that contributed.The charities that you or I (or anyone) choose to participate in are a personal choice.
Commenting or noting that Lucy Lawless is not on the list would not have jarred me so much. It's just that you editorialized and ranted about it so much that it took away from the "greater good" of Sword and Staff.
That said...it does appear incongruous with what we have read and seen in the press that Lucy Lawless has not responded to Sword and Staff requests for autographed photographs.
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 11:02 AM
Subject: Letter to the Editor
I would just like to express my personal point of view regarding your opinions of Lucy Lawless. I appreciate that it is your right to express your very strong feelings regarding Lucy, but I do feel that you over stepped the mark by what you said. Personally, I found them very offensive and insulting towards Lucy.
So what if she didn't give any clothes away, it doesn't mean that she doesn't care, and I don't take it as that. If she were asked what has made her the star she is, she would answer her fans. (I know this, because I have already witnessed this).
I appreciate that you are upset at what you see as ignorance on her part, but there is no call for you to go out on a character assassination in the manner you did. The only person to loose out at an act like this is yourself and your web site. I know, from the people in the Xena multimedia newsgroup that there support of Lucy is in no way dented by your article but, if anything heightened. As for their feelings towards your article then I feel you have lost a number of fans yourself.
From: Margueri Mullaney
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 5:02 PM
Your editorial may not reflect well on "the fans good nature." What the lady does or does not do is nobody's business but her own.
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 6:42 PM
Subject: Letter to the Editor
The following comprises the edited text of a post I made to Xenaverse in reaction to the flame war that erupted in response to Kym's editorial for the January issue of Whoosh! It was suggested that it might be worthwhile to submit it as a letter to the editor, so here 'tis. I've edited it slightly so it'd read nicelier. The post follows.
An editorial is, by definition, the opinion of an editor or editors.
One definition of "opinion" is:1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: "The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion" (Elizabeth Drew).#
Some synonyms for "opinion" are: sentiment, mind, point of view, viewpoint, stand, position, attitude, angle, impression, feeling, thought, idea, way of thinking, outlook on life, Weltanschauung, philosophy, assumption, presumption, principle, premise, theory, hypothesis, supposition, surmise, guess, conjecture, conclusion, judgment.##
Nowhere in the definition or the synonyms does it say anything about an editorial as an imputation of truth, validity, verifiability, or correctness. An editorial, therefore, does not qualify as a statement of fact, but rather as a statement involving subjectivity. We are not only entitled to our subjective opinions, we cannot avoid them. We do have the opportunity for discretion in voicing opinions and in choosing the places where we voice them.
Editors, among others, are notorious for voicing, and are expected to propound, points of view that, when they don't curry favor or serve political ends, are inclined to agitate the masses. During the extraordinarily puerile thread following Kym's editorial, to which I am now adding, there has been a great deal of agitation. Kym, you've obviously done your job.
My hat's off to Kym for having the courage to give her honest opinion, thereby calling up the storm she must have known would follow it's expression. I don't have to agree with what she said to defend her right, nay, her obligation as an editor, to say what she believes needs to be said.
My hat's also off to LL for whatever the hell she chooses to do of a charitable nature, which seems to be a great deal, although charitable acts are not what I expect from her. What I expect from and appreciate about LL and ROC and (almost) everyone else connected with X: WP is their hard work. From actors I expect acting and from LL and ROC et al. I believe I get that to the best of their ability. When they go beyond that and perform charitable acts, they join the ranks of hundreds of thousands of people who also engage in personal acts of caring and compassion for the joy of it.
I do not share the view expressed by some that noblesse oblige (I use this term because it was the term used in a relevant post). I believe compassion compels and only life experience evokes compassion. I also believe that obligation is something I place on myself either by my beliefs or via contract and that it is I, or those with whom I contract, to whom I am answerable. Everyone else in the world must answer to himself or herself, not to me, when it comes to acts of charity and compassion. I confess I do forget this from time to time.
I'm grateful to S & S and Mist for providing a way for those who want to support the greater good and express support for the show simultaneously to do so. I'm not able anymore to go into the world to "do the good." If I were, I'd do it for personal reasons: a desire to put compassion in action and to give back some of what I've been given. S and S provides one venue for that desire. Since it is fan-run, I would think the obligation for making it run and the joy in doing it should be fan-based. If members of cast and crew contribute items, that's great. But the money comes from the fan base and it's from thence that the benefit derives. I doubt that most recipients of charitable acts care whether they're from LL, S and S, or Jane Dither.
I also hold the probably flammable viewpoint that misfortune does not give those who suffer a lien on the charity of the famous for provision of their wants, whether these are bedside visits or autographed photographs. I think that compassion works from inside out and loses its real force when it becomes obligation. Most celebrities select charities that are meaningful to them and work to support those. The rest of us do exactly the same thing. Their contributions are no more compassionate nor socially valuable than ours.
Judging LL, ROC, Kym, or anyone else publicly, particularly negatively, for their personal behavior in the world or their attitudes is not my business until I become perfect and enlightened. At that point, of course, I will no longer be judgmental. Until I reach that point I try to reserve my Xenaverse judgments, and goodness knows I make them, for behavior that's relevant to the show. I feel perfectly free to judge performances, scripts, directing, eps and all other facets of the show as being public domain. I also have opinions about a lot of other things that are absolutely *none* of my business, but I try to keep them more or less to myself. Mind you, I don't say I hold to my own advice scrupulously. If I did, I guess I wouldn't even be writing this. I'm just saying what I think I *ought* to do.
I try to view voiced opinions simply as warm air expelled past the vocal chords and formed into sounds that are interpreted by the ears and neurological systems of the hearers. Written words are merely symbols, usually black lines on a white background. The reader creates the meaning. What a witch's brew we can make of little black marks. Boggles the mind.
As for charity, I believe it is not just a matter of offering goods, payments and services. It is benevolence, forbearance, compassion, generosity, and love without strictures. How can we expect charity from anyone else, LL, Creation, or whomever, when we cannot demonstrate the most basic charity among ourselves toward diversity of opinion?
Celebrate diversity, let be what is.
#Excerpted from The American Heritager Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition c 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.
##The Original Roget's Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases (Americanized Version) is licensed from Longman Group UK Limited. Copyright c 1994 by Longman Group UK Limited. All rights reserved.
From: katheryn jayne santos
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2000 7:14 AM
Subject: Sword and Staff
I felt that the recent report you did on Lucy Lawless not contributing to Sword and Staff, was not only very distasteful but very humiliating. Not for Lucy Lawless, but for the fans of Xena. To find that Whoosh - in my eyes a respectable "organisation" - which I might add represents so many fans, has insulted one of the many stars - not to mention the main- and this is not what contributing to charities is all about. May I take a few seconds to direct you to this page, which says it all: http://ausxip.com/editorial.html.
My comment may be worthless in your opinion but I feel that how ever much you think you have raised a point, it was in bad taste and not very well put together.
Okay so maybe Lucy could contribute a few autographs to Sword and Staff for them to auction off, but you didn't have made it so horribly crude and offensive.
(Reads over e-mail and realises I'm the world's biggest hypocrite!) (g) Glad I have that out of my system. On a more positive note, your website has caused my phone bill to shoot sky high!!
Thanx for listening to me ramble!
Table of Contents