**************************************************************

>From: "Endre"

>Date: Sun, 06 Apr 97 18:21:32 -0100

>Subject: Re: AW: German availability of Beautiful Thing?

>

>On Sun, 6 Apr 1997 14:18:04 +0100, Jason  wrote:

>

>>On Fri, 4 Apr 1997 at 17:41:44, ceursit wrote:

>>

>>>Can anyone give me the phone number of Virgin Direct in UK (to order BT

>>>video)?

>>

>>Boxed set: BT03 price 24.99 (includes video and soundtrack CD)

>

>Don't forget that it includes 4 colour prints too:-) At least I got colour

prints with my boxed

>editon. One is of the foot lotion scene where Jamie rubs Ste's back, one of

Sandra and

>Leah, on of Ste and Jamie at the stairs just before they dance at the end

of the film, and

>finally one of Ste, Jamie and Leah.

>

>-Endre

>

>

**************************************************************

>Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 17:23:23 -0400 (EDT)

>From: CARMEN

>Subject: Re: Dancing and IRC

>

>

>On Mon, 7 Apr 1997, Jeff  wrote:

>

>> As for IRC, I missed the main talk Sunday, but got on later to have a great

>> chat with Mike and Jason. I hear I missed Tory. Sorry! I'm sure we can

>> do it again.

>>

>> Jeff.

>>

>

>OK, let's see if we can get this organised *properly* this time...

>At 2pm EDT(Eastern Daylight time, which is what I'm on now..) Which

>should be 6pm GMT if I'm calculating everything right...it should be 11am

>in the San Franscisco Bay area (Hi Mike!)if you went to Daylight saving

>time on Sunday Morning, or 10am if you didn't...All those in North

>America between Mike and I, fit yourself in according to where you are,

>and if you're on Daylight savings time...

>As for the channel, Andi was on #Beautiful-thing at one point, though I'm

>not sure which server, since I couldn't find him after I got the

>message...and Mike and I were chasing each other back and forth on

>#btlist and #beautifulthing until we finally ended up on the same channel

>at the same time! I'd suggest that we meet on the irc.stealth.net server

>at #btlist with the Topic Beautiful Thing...since this is a relatively

>private meet I suspect, and we all know what btlist stands for! :-)

>Whoever gets there first can set it up...

>

>Anyone have any other opinions, suggestions?

>See you all Sunday!

>Tory

>

**************************************************************

>From: "David "

>Subject: Re: It's a bit late, but...

>Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 05:45:28 +1000

>

>: It isn't "romantic." It's very strong. Very clear. Very powerful and very

>: deep. And my point is, it is something in ME. That's the revelation. It's

>: not about Jamie and Ste or David; it's about something in me which is

>: capable of feeling that level of "committment" or "love" or "openeness" or

>: "vulnerability" or "intimacy". I don't know what the right word is because

>: all these sound too one sided.

>

>: Yes, David and I loved oneanother and

>: sometimes we really pissed one another off -- and you better believe we

>let

>: the other know about it too!

>:

>: Mike

>=================

>Hi Mike

>

>It sounds like you REALLY loved each other. I believe that the ability to

>let each other know how much you are pissed off by the other is a sign of

>the real depth of your love. Xcellent!

>

>DAVID

**************************************************************

>Date: Wed, 9 Apr 1997 12:40:40 +0100

>To: CARMEN

>From: Mike

>Subject: Re: Invitation to Let It Soar

>

>Hey, Tory,

>

>I'm a bit confused myself but here's what I know:

>

>1) I sent the Invitation to the Beautliful Thing List:

>

>2) I Bccd myself when I did this to make sure that my post to the list got

>through (there's no way to tell, otherwise, aparently).

>

>3) Also BCCd a private list of people not on the BTL, who had emailed me

>regarding David's passing. It's a long list but I don't see

>

>4) I have Bccd myself to the BTL re other matters recently and NOT received

>my own post. Hmm?

>

>I hope this helps. It may be that the list serve is buggy.

>

>I'm glad we bumped into one another on IRC. Hope to get the chance to do

>that again. Let me know what you think of David's web site. I hope SOMEONE

>from the BT list can make it to this event. I know there's one person in

>the bay area (can't think of his name at the moment). There will be quite a

>few gay folks and couples there along with David's family and friends.

>It'll be interesting for sure and possibly even fantastic -- if David has

>his way!

>

>M>

>

>ps, if this helps, the last post I got from you via BTL was this one:

>

>

>>Date: Mon, 7 Apr 1997 17:23:23 -0400 (EDT)

>>From: CARMEN

>>Subject: Re: Dancing and IRC

>

>(I might have received others I deleted but don't think so).

>

>

>>Hi! I won't be able to make it to the gathering in David's memory on the

>>19th, since I'm way over on the east coast...:-) but I'll be thinking of

>>you, and I'll take a bit of quiet time then, to think about what you've

>>told us about him, and I'll certainly check out the Let it Soar site...I'm

>>looking forward to seeing it.

>>

>>To change subjects completely...has there been anything on the

>>Beautiful-thing list since Monday afternoon? I've been doing some playing

>>around with a mail-filtering program, and I've been doing all the trials

>>in my old account (cv_atwo) and since one of the things I want to do is

>>file my BT list mail to a separate incoming mail folder, I just

>>re-subscribed cv_atwo to the list. Only I never got the confirmation e

>>back from the FTList, and yet I got *your* e at cv_atwo. The *really*

>>confusing part is that tory never got it! The only

>>explanation I can think of is that you're using an older mailing list? ie

>>a Reply to those of us on the list who were present when David passed

>>away... could I just get a quick e confirming this, because if it's not

>>that, then I've got something *seriously* wrong here :-( Although then

>>again...If you did use reply, did you reply to the *list* or to the list

>>of members at that time...if you replied to the *list*, then I *do* have

>>something wrong...Arrgh!

>>

>>Anyways, I'll chat with you on Sunday at the BT meet if I don't here from

>>you sooner...:-)

>>

>>Hugs, Tory

>

>

**************************************************************

>Date: Wed, 9 Apr 97 15:53:33 +0100

>From: Clem

>

>hello friends--

>

>Mike, I'm trying to figure if I can get up to the

>event. Thank you for the invitation. If I can get

>out of working that day, or part of it...I'll certainly

>be joining you all--it sounds like it will be a wonderfully

>special day.

>

>i'll be in touch,

>clem

>

>

**************************************************************

>Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 07:31:55 -0400 (EDT)

>From: JW

>Subject: Re: I got it.

>

>At 05:22 PM 4/3/97 +0100, you wrote:

>>Hi everybody!

>>

>>WOW! I never thought a simple question would bring so much controversy.

>>Anyway, now I know what 'Stumpy' means. Thank you all. I thought I had the

>>best/newest English dictionary of all (specially because of the money I

>>spent for it), but I started wondering when I couldn´t find many of BT´s

>>slang terms. I thought I was going nuts!! The point is that Jamie was stumpy

>>but he´s grown now. It´s crystal clear!!

>>Besides, these discussions brighten up the list!!

>>

>At the risk of beating the proverbial *dead horse,* I want to jump back into

>the *stumpy* debate. Its been rattling around in my head since the original

>question was asked. I think that most of us have gotten used to the idea of

>suppressing our true feelings as a way of life, so it feels good to be able

>to say to hell with convention and once in a while express how you really feel.

>

>I am going to go against the tide as far as where the *stumpy* discussion

>ended up with the general consensus that Sandra is referring to Jamie's male

>member. It may be funny and cute to think that*s what Sandra is

>surreptitiously referring to, but I don't think Sandra would be that plainly

>crude, potentially embarrassing Jamie in front of Leah or revealing what may

>have been a private conversation Jamie and Sandra have had before.

>

>It may be titillating think that Sandra is indirectly referring to the size

>of Jamie*s dick, but I want to think that Sandra shows more sensitivity in

>this struggle Jamie*s having with getting *hit* on in school. Plus, I don*t

>think that Sandra and Jamie*s relationship at this point in the story has

>them as *buds* enough to discuss even in a joking way the size of Jamie*s

>dick in the same way two *jocks* would over a beer. Besides, Jamie doesn*t

>need anymore belittling and Sandra knows this. She may not know how to

>express it exactly, but she knows he needs support to make it through this

>difficult time of being picked by the likes of Brian McBride and company.

>*I told you you*d grow* doesn*t sound like the way we would tell someone

>that their dick is going to get bigger. People grow, dicks get bigger. To

>think that Sandra would lower the discussion to immature *pee-pee do-do*

>talk takes away from the urgency and sensitivity of the moment.

>

>Second, look at the setting: Jamie is standing out on the walkway. Leah*s

>standing right there; Marlene may come out any minute to clean or straighten

>up; anyone could come walking by as Ronnie did moments before; several

>others may have their windows open during this heat wave. Does Sandra need

>to embarrass him in front of any or all of these people?? I think not. We

>see later on how Sandra has *been fighting all my life. Kids picking on

>him. I was there.... So don*t talk to me about fighting.* Why would she

>think it necessary to embarrass him in public. Again, Leah is standing

>right there. Sandra is going to make sexually belittling comments about her

>son, a vulnerable 15 year old, in front of one of Jamie*s contemporaries?

>In front of a girl no less???? A girl that Jamie may end up wanting to

>date? I don*t think Sandra is out to shame, embarass or to be this

>destructive and hurtful to Jamie*s sexual being.

>

>Finally, as I have discussed before here, Sandra is a kid herself who has a

>kid coming of age and she doesn*t really know how to deal with it. She*s

>struggling to find answers as to why the kids have been hitting on Jamie. I

>went back and reread Jay *s posting:

>

>Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 09:17:11 -0800

>From: Jay

>Subject: Re: Stories -Reply

>

>I think Jay*s posting really sums up the relationship between Sandra and

>Jamie. It is a special one. Jamie and Sandra may in fact have had

>discussions about his stature in the past. I doubt very much that she*s

>going to dredge up what was discussed in private and parade it in front of

>Leah or whoever. Any teenager is unsure of what*s happening to them

>sexually and socially, let alone having to struggle with feelings of

>homosexuality that Jamie feels.

>

>

**************************************************************

>Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 08:52:50 -0500

>From: JOE

>Subject: Re: Just a test...delete me : )

>

>David  wrote:

>

>>

>> Once Digiville has moved into offices (2 months away I think) and is

running a leased line, the thing will be running 24 hours, 7 days a week.

>>

>> Oh, BTW, Digiville got it's first order yesterday :-)

>>

>Congratulations!

>

>Gary

>

>--

>

**************************************************************

>Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 09:31:07 -0700

>From: Jay

>Subject: Re: I got it. -Reply

>

>

>>>> JW

>wrote:

>>

>>I am going to go against the tide as far as where the "stumpy"

>>discussion ended up with the general consensus that Sandra is

>>referring to Jamie's male member. It may be funny and cute to think

>>that's what Sandra is surreptitiously referring to, but I don't think Sandra

>>would be that plainly crude, potentially embarrassing Jamie in front of

>>Leah or revealing what may have been a private conversation Jamie

>>and Sandra have had before.

>

>>It may be titillating think that Sandra is indirectly referring to the size of

>>Jamie's dick, but I want to think that Sandra shows more sensitivity

>>in this struggle Jamie"s having with getting "hit" on in school.

>>Plus, I don't think that Sandra and Jamie's relationship at this point in the

>>story has them as "buds" enough to discuss even in a joking way the

>>size of Jamie's dick in the same way two "jocks" would over a beer.

>>Besides, Jamie doesn't need anymore belittling and Sandra knows this.

>>She may not know how to express it exactly, but she knows he needs

>>support to make it through this difficult time of being picked by the likes

>>of Brian McBride and company.

>

>

>>"I told you you'd grow doesn't sound like the way we would tell

>>someone that their dick is going to get bigger. People grow, dicks get

>>bigger. To think that Sandra would lower the discussion to immature

>>"pee-pee do-do" talk takes away from the urgency and sensitivity of the

>>moment.

>

>>Second, look at the setting: Jamie is standing out on the walkway.

>>Leah's standing right there; Marlene may come out any minute to clean

>>or straighten up; anyone could come walking by as Ronnie did moments

>>before; several others may have their windows open during this heat

>>wave. Does Sandra need to embarrass him in front of any or all of

>>these people?? I think not. We see later on how Sandra has "been

>>fighting all my life. Kids picking on him. I was there.... So don't talk to

>>me about fighting." Why would she think it necessary to embarrass

>>him in public. Again, Leah is standing right there. Sandra is going to

>>make sexually belittling comments about her son, a vulnerable 15 year

>>old, in front of one of Jamie's contemporaries? In front of a girl no

>>less???? A girl that Jamie may end up wanting to date? I don't think

>>Sandra is out to shame, embarass or to be this destructive and hurtful

>>to Jamie's sexual being.

>

>>Finally, as I have discussed before here, Sandra is a kid herself who

>>has a kid coming of age and she doesn't really know how to deal with

>>it. She's struggling to find answers as to why the kids have been

>>hitting on Jamie. I went back and reread Jay Peregrine's posting:

>

>>Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 09:17:11 -0800

>>From: Jay

>>Subject: Re: Stories -Reply

>

>>I think Jay's posting really sums up the relationship between Sandra and

>>Jamie. It is a special one. Jamie and Sandra may in fact have had

>>discussions about his stature in the past. I doubt very much that she's

>>going to dredge up what was discussed in private and parade it in front

>>of Leah or whoever. Any teenager is unsure of what's happening to

>>them sexually and socially, let alone having to struggle with feelings of

>>homosexuality that Jamie feels.

>

>Your's is a very sensitive and perceptive analysis of the character's

>motivations in this scene, and I agree with your conclusion that Sandra

>wouldn't be intentionaly humiliating Jamie by referring directly to his

>penis. I too think that she is simply referring to his general growth

>pattern. As you say, she suspects that Jamie is still having problems at

>school (although he denys it) - he's bunking off football, not a sign of a

>well-adjusted hetersexual boy, to say the least. So, she knows

>something's up, she just doesn't know what.

>

>Thanks for sharing your reaction to my earlier post on the Jaime/Sandra

>relationship. I wasn't sure if it had gotten through, as I had had no

>reaction from the list until this. But, to me, their relationship is at

the core

>of the play's effectiveness. So, I'd love to read more of what other's

>have percieved on the subject...

>

>:o) jay

>

>

**************************************************************

>From: "Andi "

>Subject: Re: Just a test...delete me : )

>Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 11:48:09 +0100

>

>Yeppers, I got it :-)

>

>

>Andi

>xx

>

>----------

>> From: Clem

>> Subject: Just a test...delete me : )

>> Date: Wednesday, April 09, 1997 15:53

>>

>> Hi all,

>>

>> Sorry, you can delete this--like Tory, I have

>> my doubts that my posts are getting through.

>>

>> If anyone is inclined to, please give me just

>> a personal reply that, yes, it got through.

>>

>>

>> late

>> clem

>>