And Ted, learning what we did about Xander in the above referenced scene does us very little good if we are supposed to get information about Buffy and Riley. Can you use the above referenced scene to explain why Buffy ran after Riley? I can’t. I am still baffled by it.

Not me. After that speech I wanted to run after Riley.

I expect to go to one and be highly irked because it won't live up to my expectations.

They have an airline now.

I think Andrew said the produce was funky.

After that speech I wanted to run after Riley.

Me too. With a rocket launcher.

And then come back and slap Xander for being so preachy and awkward.

Another minor nitpicky rant:

I'm a big believer in SDT, but I don't think I'm as absolutist as many here. Because I don't have a problem with a character saying, for example, "I love you," and having them be utterly sincere and honest. I really don't. That's not a violation of SDT unless it comes out of the blue.

wrod to ita.

It's always nice when the character talking is telling another character. Less nice when they're telling the audience. Again.

Total wrod to ita.

A REALLY BIG rocket launcher.

Except that this right here is one of the basic principles of "show, don't tell," balzacq!

Except that that scene didn't tell us anything OR show us anything. It just wasted time on a visual joke stretched out too long.

You missed my point, balzacq. What I meant was, the speechifying you spoke of was *telling*. *That's* why you thought it went on too long.

I meant that it was an example of BADNESS. Telling and not showing.

Ted - you can believe whatever you want to believe, but you have not actually been *shown* Spike's redemption. It has been told to you, whether you believe it or not, whether I like it or not.

You are being seriously obstinant on this point, and I don't know why.

At this point, the only way I can conceive of to prove to you that you have been told and not shown is to present you with a season in which Spike's redemption *is* actually shown, rather than told.

Since that's not going to happen, *again* I say you are right that we will never agree on this.

But I submit to you that simply because we cannot agree, that does not mean that it is purely subjective. But you won't concede that point either.

SEAN!! Station tonight?

You missed my point, balzacq. What I meant was, the speechifying you spoke of was *telling*. *That's* why you thought it went on too long.

I meant that it was an example of BADNESS. Telling and not showing.

No, you've missed my point... :-) You seem to be equating Bad => Telling in all cases.

If that scene had been Andrew chasing a squirrel and falling down on the lawn for five minutes instead of fifteen seconds it would have been equally bad, with no Telling whatsoever -- in fact, it would have been showing us that Andrew is a klutz. That's nice, now move on already.

The fact that Anya happened to be speaking at the time made no difference at all. In fact, the spoken content of the scene was completely irrelevant to the plot -- again, it didn't show us or tell us anything.