Foamies = yes.

I've just read the last 300+ posts. I know that following Jim's advice is the best course of action, but I wanted to clarify something.

Far upthread, Allyson mentioned my idea of social capital. She didn't explain it fully and it echoes much of what many of you have said. MM, you and I have discussed this IRL, so you already know what the deal is. It's basically the idea that certain people have a lot of social capital and certain people have none. If you are unknown, chances are that you have none. If you are known to the community, people will draw on their relationship with you to overlook and accept things from you that would be intolerable from anyone else. (or conversely, if you are known to the community and disliked by certain members, they will always read your posts, even those intended in the mildest manner, as offensive).

The way you increase your social capital is to become "known" and to build relationships with people.

When someone steps over the bounds of what is acceptable (however it is defined or perhaps not defined) and a member of the community calls them on it, generally speaking, the person with the higher social capital prevails.

Let's say, I'm in a fight with my a person at work over how something should be handled. He has been there for 30+ years. Chances are he will prevail and his way will be how it works. Except, if he actually has offended, pissed off and upset lots of people. Then it's possible I could prevail.

It's the social version of the cost benefit analysis of whether or not I could beat someone in a fight.

This is all cruel and cliquish, but also how social groups function. This is the very basis of politics (and, therefore, sadly our governmental system), in fact, probably the very basis for how groups work.

At my previous school, everything was run by consensus. Which worked great the first year (staff of 15 or less) and worked somewhat the second year (staff of 22). It was hell trying to define what got a kid in trouble, let alone kicked out of school. There was an incident where the head and founder of the school wanted to expel a student and 4 teachers fought like hell against it. What they came up with is once a person loses all advocates among the staff, then it is time for the kid to go.

This is surprisingly simple approach. Once someone has lost anyone to advocate for him or her, then that person is no longer a community member. Of course, if there is only one advocate left, then it is awful to figure out the courses of action for the pariah to go through to rebuild the broken relationships.

Blah blah blah.

I also wanted to add two more things: Jim is right. We must chill! t Lloyd Dobbler. But also, I didn't read what happened as being offensive as the rest of you read it. We are a sensitive bunch (and I'm definitely including myself in that list. I gave myself an emotional time out this weekend which was very helpful.)

Sophia, you mentioned that you worry people backchannel about you. I worry too. I'm sure it happens to me. Then I have to yell at myself for being egocentric, because Not Everything Is About Me. So, you aren't the only one to worry.

Well after that post, I'm not alone in thinking much should be about you, Kat.

Volfram ees your friend. Volfram vill not bite you un trow you un de basement.

You wanna take that to Previously? Becuase I'd love to chew over W&H with you, but this isn't the place.

Okay. I assume Previously is for Angel as well, b/c the description says Buffy.

I assume Previously is for Angel as well, b/c the description says Buffy.

goes to look

It does say Buffy, but I'd always assumed that it was for Angel as well. I guess that because there's not a spoiler issue so much, it doesn't matter...

I'd ask for a 'Core Buffista opinion', but that would make people jumpy again. Um... other people's opinions? I think 'what's the thread for' is still bear buae ber Like Kafka.

Yeah, it is. I imagine it'll be for Firefly too, eventually. All Joss, all the time, as long as its not the current season.

Previously got started when FX in the US started running past seasons of Buffy, so a lot of people were re-watching the same old Buffy eps. As long as it's been broadcast everywhere it's going to be broadcast, I'd guess we're all right.

Okay, here's the revised Mythology FAQ. Do with it what you will.

Lyra, you left out my other bit, about "Are there any other alternate universes I should know about?".

I did a quick read through and my only initial correction is this:

Q: Who is the Ripper?

A: Giles, when he was young and wild and into some serious black magic. The nickname (probably a variation of "Rupert") was revealed by Ethan Rayne in "The Dark Age" (S2). The quintessential latter-day Ripper act is probably killing Ben in "The Gift."

It was revealed by Ethan during "Halloween." Also, many here have argued that by having Giles put his glasses on before killing Ben, the writers were effectively saying "This is not Ripper!Giles."

And I'd say "Ripper" not "the Ripper."