SparedTurkey

But look at what Brandon has done - Continued to attempt to canoodle Callie - despite Stef talking to him about it as soon as Mariana's Quincenera episode (maybe 1X03 or 4? - I may well be wrong, but it was early in the show), to him breaking a restraining order to see Callie (which, did the audience know that S/L didn't know? if not, at least I guess S/L do know now AND it justifies them betting quite pissed about it-) and him being pissed at AJ (maybe because of Callie/the softball, but maybe/probably not - more likely because of race yes? I would be much happier and more inclined to like Brandon if it were even framed as an age thing. But it isn't so I am not). Combining all that with the selling fake ID's, AND, stealing Lena's keys to the school, AND, attempting to bribe Ana, I am surprised Brandon was allowed to go on tour, let alone to Idlewyld. Let alone have a pretty awesome (and by the looks of it new) car at the end of it all. Without him even being told/considering it would even be shared with his SIBLINGS. I do like the story of foster parents perhaps assuming that a biological kid would be okay with any foster kid that comes along. I also like the idea of showing that foster parents are more inclined to let foster kids get away with maladaptive behaviour. However, that doesn't seem like what the show is selling. Rather - the show/Stef /Lena have pointed out A LOT that Brandon was totally fine with Mariana and Jesus when they came to live with them. Also, while Mariana gets shamed for sex (by both, because Lena told her to not tell Callie about Wyatt), Stef offers to buy Brandon condoms. Similarly, Jesus, clearly wasn't offered condoms and the morning-after pill turned into a thing. Mariana was led by the nose by her biological mother - Brandon at all but consoled over Mike's drinking. Ultimately, what the show is trying to sell I buy the reverse - Stef/Lena (and Mike) let Brandon out of a hell of a lot of bad decisions/consequences and that generosity is not extended to the other kids. Maybe if the show develops the story into Stef feeling unnessecarily guilty about recognising and embracing her lesbianism and is projecting that onto Brandon and letting him get away with bad behaviour, then if done well, okay. But at the moment, this looks like a biological white kid being told he is the victim of a cruel world and has done nothing wrong at all ever, in contrast to his adopted persons-of-colour adopted/foster siblings who have been through a lot more trauma not of their own making.

Nope. Absolutely not. You don't get brownie points for doing the right thing (the word that should be used is acceptance, not tolerance, although that is not something a catholic priest is gonna give anyway to be fair). I thought Stef's reaction to the baptism was completely appropriate and Mariana even considering being baptised was ridiculous - particularly in light of her reaction to Jesus going to Jesus-camp in season 1. This is an institution built on hatred and telling people they are going to hell for not believing and/or sinning and having a great deal of influence. Stef had the best reaction, though watering it down with crap about a 'higher power' or whatever was ridiculous. I did like that neither parent assumed Mariana's inclination towards baptism meant a rejection of them - lesser shows, or ones written 5 years ago, probably would have. And that Lena and Stef even showed up to the baptism is is a pretty solid testament to their characters and love for their kid. I don't think I'd be able to do that. But at least Mariana told the priest to get stuffed - that was a great moment. I also liked Lena's tree-thing - even that there was no build up given to the audience. Sometimes it is the way it happens. And Teri Polo completely nailed the terrified look that happens when your partner says that they are terribly sad. It was a good scene. And Ana's PPD was the first time I have particularly appreciated her character. Although it also made me think Mariana is THE most relaxed teenager ever - after listening to her birth mother tell her to her face she felt nothing for her when she was little. But then, Mariana does have two awesome mums so maybe it cancels out?

Re: the Nate/Lena incident - I'm not American and I don't know what if any laws or policies are in place that may or may not have prevented the show from using that word in its entirety. That said, if they were, would the scene of Lena/her mother telling her father what her brother had called them been more powerful if it had been used? Probably. In the hands of Sherri Saum and Lorraine Toussaint - aboslutely. Would that scene, its message, have been completely overrun by the commentary and/or criticism of the show for having scripted that word - I believe so, absolutely. Considering that, and the network on which it is run and the demo they are aiming for perhaps it is enough that the idea and message was communicated without the actual word being used. Also, I don't think Nate and Brandon are comparable. Perhaps if Brandon had been shown to be a homophobe who grew as a person and changed his viewpoint - maybe. MAYBE. But Brandon, even from the beginning of the show, was never ever shown to be at all upset or resentful of either Lena, Mariana or Jesus. Maybe if anything is to be taken, Brandon and Nate can be seen as a contrast. Brandon may be an issue for the show, may be seen as whiny and/or a brat. But in terms of his acceptance of his siblings and Lena's authority as a parent, I don't see any issue at all.

I did like Season 6 - particularly A Bullet Runs Through It. Though I didn't like the whole Grissom/Sara Romance that was a bit of a subtle/unsubtle hint during that season, moreso towards the later episodes. I did like Sofia's addition in that season with being a detective - getting to play off of Brass and some other characters without being an 'impediment' towards the Grissom/Sara relationship that shouldn't have happened for the benefit of both characters. I liked seasons 1-3. Nothing was overdone. Grissom was..Grissom but not as bad - not as overdone. Everyone got their own episodes, their own arcs. It Season 4 was a bit of a wash, solid, but nothing to write home about. Season 5 seemed to change things - some characters got more prominence, possibly a result of BTS shenannigans or not - but it didn't really feel like the same show. More showy but with less substance. Maybe culminating in that season finale - Grave Danger, which set of a trend of sorts. I also like season 7, but would have liked much less Grissom/Sara relationship thing. After the start of season 8 it seemed to slide into a SVU-kinda-soap-opera-plot show. Stayed that way through the Laurence Fishbourne seasons, which I refuse to believe was the result of LF but the writers. I believe the writers (were either pressured by a network OR) felt they couldnt write a show without the highest paid actor being given the most meat/lines/gravitas in every episode. I think LF could have carried of anything he was given - Hannibal has shown that - but the plan was interferred with because there is no other reason for a character who was introduced as the greenest of the green, becoming the Go-To-Guy (Complete with Serial-Killer Story) in a handful of episodes as being anything else but CBS interference. I did like the Ted Danson era - I think he was a better supervisor than Grissom (though maybe not better character, in terms of interest, even though TD is awesome!). I liked it when it was more even. When it became the soap-operatic, Morgan/Ecklie/Finn show with TD struggling...I lost interest. Additional questions - favourite characters and/or line up?

I don't think Caputo and Healy are at all similar. Healy never roots for anyone but himself. The way he went after Birdie was just gross. I so want her to come back and kick his ass. Actually, maybe once Boo and 'Tucky are done with Rapist Guard they can focus on Healy! I'm sure that the guy playing Healy is lovely and I gotta say, he is really good because Healy just makes your skin crawl. I didn't like Caputo much in earlier seasons. I really didn't much like the whole Fig-Blow job thing from last season. But I did like him this episode. And do now hope he doesnt get screwed by MCC and the dickbag son. I loved Boo this episode. I like her and Tucky. I liked her outrage. I loved how she helped Doggett realise it wasn't okay. Considering how they started these two are an awesome pairing.

Poor Pennsatucky. I shouldn't even like her but I do and that is just so sad. I knew that guard was gnarly after that crap in the park. And I don't care how unbelievable this would be - I want Doggett and Boo to take that piece of crap out. I feel like those ladies would get the job done. Also - I like Lolly. Made me laugh so much in the beginning with the Alex confrontation.

Regarding Pennsatucky - she wasn't ever a true blue anti-abortion nutjob. It was shown - either season 1 or 2 - that she fell into it after shooting up the abortion clinic because the nurse said something that pissed her off, and said nutjobs paid for her lawyers. Seeing as she has now not been on meth/drug of choice for awhile, and having lived in close quarters with the others AND having been rejected by her previous meth friends - I buy her looking else where. And, well, it's funny. I buy it.

Maybe a rewatch turned snarky drinking game come season 3....

Or Carol! Can't forget Carol......So obviously on the CJ/Danny ship - I would have loved a minor subplot where her and Danny were scheming against CJ over something (nothing unprofessional, because CJ wouldn't be having that). And she looked so sad when CJ got made CoS and left behind... (Although Margaret and CJ were also awesome together, so I can't be too upset).

I agree - though as much as I do like Sonia Braga, it was a mistake to cast her as Elena. As Nadia's orphanage surrogate mother, sure absolutely. But I just couldn't see her as fitting in with Lena Olin and Isabella Rossellini. Those two you could picture as sisters, and could possibly imagine their interactions together based on their characters. I could have imagined the Derevko's owning their own organisation, with their own endgame, and also protecting Jack and Sydney. Of course, they would have to also screw with the CIA for their own amusement. I could also imagine them taking down Sloane and all other organisations (though keeping Sark, cause I feel like there was some kind of mutual respect connection between him and Irina - though I could have got that from the TWOP recapper of the time). Honestly, I with there was a good fic I could read featuring the Derevko sisters + Jack and Sydney. Or I guess, wait till the inevitable reboot. I also liked Anna Espinosa, and wished she could have stuck around. She was a good foil for Sydney. Damn, I miss this show. Anyone up for a rewatch?

I loved/love this show. I even bought the Rambaldi box-set because I loved it, even though I watch seasons 4/5 for Irina Derevko mainly. For me, the heart of the show was Sydney/Jack, and then later Irina/Jack/Sydney. And Sark. I liked that Sydney (and by extention Jennifer Garner) actually looked she could hurt if she kicked you, unlike other shows. The only place where the show went wrong, was loosing the Derevko side of the story. Once they unbottled a character like Irina, and the impact she had on the entire second season, they couldn't put that back in the bottle. A scene between Jack, Irina and Katya would have been awesome - especially with Sydney in the middle. (Though, the whole thing with Elena I could have done without - and she wasn't as I would have pictured her anyway). But, even in the less that standard seasons, I couldn't fault the acting, the production. It was a good show. And I have always coveted Sydney's wigs/the ability to pull off most of them.

The more I have thought about it, the more I like that the show ended with 'I Lived' and not DSB. While DSB is the show's anthem, I think do have done it would not have paid tribute to the show properly because it would have emphasised Finn/Cory's absence. I think they maybe knew they wouldn't top what they had done and so left it alone. While 'I Lived' is not the best song ever, it was done more in the style of Season 1/2 group numbers. So for that, I appreciate it and I am happy with where DSB ended. That said, 'I Lived' didn't have enought Naya Rivera but had less Blaine. I will settle, but I'm just saying....

I doubt it - Katie is only 16 and already known to police. I think it would be a huge stretch for her to go on the run. I would have liked to have known if she believed this whole thing was because Spector was messing with the police, and was going along with that. Afterall, no one has shown her any proof, or evidence and Spector did tell her he sent the note to Sarah Kay's family so for all she knows, she is just helping mess with Gibson. Not that it makes her any less dumb, but it is an interesting piece of the story. I also love the little girl playing Olivia - she seems to nail her scenes, and only when I rewatched it did I notice how fast she grew up from season 1 to 2. I really liked Gibson this episode - from telling Constable McSad Eyes the truth about what he had done, or attempted to do in her hotel room, in absolute blunt terms - to telling Merlin that while Spector seems fascinating to him, he scares the shit out of her. I know Spector referenced abuse in her history, from her dad, but given a lack of reaction without even a blink (and the deleted scene from the first season) I wonder if he was grasping at straws and came up empty. After all, I feel like some part of raising the awesomeness of Stella Gibson came from both parents. I wonder if there will be a season 3, and what that would be like.

I don't think Jesus cared about the Christmas lights, he cared about winning so he could get the money (like $250?) He did the same thing when he sold Stef and Lena's bed. And even though he was in a tent, him and Mariana had a really sweet scene together, I thought anyway. And I think, with his lights, was the fact Mariana helped him, and I guess looked better than the neighbours? So that him taking his hat out of the ring had some kind of sweetness to it. Also, I think, for an episode that was purely about christmas (network interference maybe? Pretty Little Liars is doing the same thing) I figured it was pretty well bookended into where it will eventually kick off next year. As for Stef, I think they were driving at a number of things. 5 kids is heaps to look after, and she has been shown to be worrying about it before (Mariana's party, having the new baby etc), so I don't know that that was terribly OCC. But also, she said her mum was a massive spender, and while she was worried about not having the money, she was also worried that her mum wouldn't save the money to live off, given that she had it (and somewhat valid, considering Sharon bought the kids hovercrafts and stuff). She didn't know her mum was a saver, and I think going off evidence, it is hard to begrudge her assumptions. I don't think it was about 'my dad hates me' just a number of different stressful thigns - and at the time, Lena was just newly pregnant (I think?) so that was probably also driving her irritability. Not that she was right, but something to consider. Should they have had the fight on christmas eve dinner? No, probably not. But I don't think she was being a shrew just to be a shrew (consider how embarrassed she was that she hadn't got Lena a present too). Jude - eh. It was nice what he did for Callie. And clearly he got the shopkeeper on a christmassy day. Same with Daphne (though if that was a flashback, you'd think there would have been some references to it before...which in this case was after....) I don't know, I liked the episode as a whole, even if Lena's brother is a bit of a shoe-in to give her another family member after the stephen collins gross-ness. Which, considering what happened, I'm willing to roll with.

I don't know - maybe she saw something similar to him that she did in Dani back in season 1? A willingness to listen to her/respect her case (calling her out on the off chance it may have been Rose Stagg) and to do something to help her case (not immediately declaring it wasn't Rose to the media). Perhaps he showed a level of respect not so much given to her at the moment (see: Eastman and ACC McSadEyes) and she wants someone like that, less judgy, on her team. Especially considering she has recently had little say over who is in the taskforce. Or you know, she thinks he is hot. :) Which may well be true, but it feels like nothing is particularly that simple with Stella. I also can't wait for a Stella/Katy showdown. I hope her faking Paul's alibi for every murder comes back to bite both her and him. I also wonder if hurting her friend is going to be the point where she realises who Paul really is and runs - it is one thing to flirt with danger and mess with an English copper but it would be another thing to actually realise he is a serial killer. Also, how long was the police officer in the roof and he didn't see the journals still there? Seriously? Luck or a deux ex machina? Considering Paul poked them and they fell down, I can't imagine they were well hidden.

I didn't think Stella had sex eyes, and to be honest if she did, I can't imagine she'd try to get him transferred just to shag him. She didn't with Olsen after all. Although nice to see Eastman is still a prick about it and tries to slam her whenever possible. Also, if Assistant Chief Constable McSad-Eyes (TM someone else) could possibly focus on something other than his issues, grow a backbone and stop looking at Stella with a hangdog expression, it would be much appreciated.

Xander can be furious. He can be critical. But for god sake's make it constructive otherwise what is the point? So he isn't The Law when it comes to himself, but when it comes to Buffy, he is? And if Buffy is the law, shouldn't she have cut ties with Xander (and yes, later Willow) when Xander was summoning demons? Causing the death of random people? I don't know, I'd personally like my friends to continue to respect me even in my stupid moments. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Yeah, she excused his stupid behaviour. As she later excused others. But that doesn't matter because Xander is human and his crimes are much less heinous so really, she was doing the right thing. The other times were an abuse of her power though. Have you never ever said anything to your friends that was a complete exaggeration? I'm not saying Buffy is good because Xander did worse. But I'm baffled why Buffy gets so much judgement for things she may have done wrong while Xander seems to be awarded a pass for similar behaviour because he is either human or too young.

How is that possibly the same thing? Or sounds at all what I was getting at? Considering I agreed with you that there was nothing wrong with Xander disabusing Dawn of the notion that Spike was awful. I just balk at what he chose to say. As how SilverShadow put much more eloquently than I would have - choose something else. It wasn't like Xander was gently explaining, I don't know, Buffy's mood or depression to her sister. Its not as though he thought it was really important that Dawn know. It was because he was annoyed with a young teenager, and lashed out from a place of moral superiority. Although SilverShadow went in depth, I'll chuck my two cents in. With Buffy, unlike others, Xander is remarkably callous and dismissive. He doesn't criticise her without slipping in some personal dig. And for the majority of the time, it seems to be caused by just jealousy. Obviously a good friend will tell you when you're being an idiot, yours do, mine do. But when I'm doing something idiotic, my friends are still nice to me. Look, contrast Xander's attitude to Buffy and Willow in Surprise. Willow runs off and gets all overdramatic over Cordelia and Xander hooking up. Which, really, is a non-issue in the grand scheme of things, but is a nice thing he did. Xander follows her, makes sure she is okay and tries to talk her through it. He doesn't bow to Willow's feelings and say he'd never see Cordelia again. In other words, he is a pretty decent and assertive friend. In that same episode, Buffy is clearly worried that Angel might be dead. Openly worried. The Judge is around looking to destroy the world. Yes, he doesn't know about the sex (although isn't it interesting that Buffy never discusses that stuff with her good friend Xander?). But can he spare one shred of sympathy for his friend who is worried that her boyfriend might die? Nope. Can he be cruel, callous, dismissive? You betcha.

I agree with SilverShadow. Xander's actions are fundamentally unethical because not only are wrong, but he knows they are wrong and does them for purely selfish reasons. In BB&B he has the spell cast just to hurt someone - and yet he is supposed to be a paradigm of virtue because he doesn't shag Buffy during that time? I don't think so. Casting spells resulting in the death of random people? Willingly shagging an ex-demon who tortured and killed people for hundreds and hundreds of years? And yet when he criticises Buffy for the similar things, he is supposedly right? How does that work? Yes Buffy is somewhat of a procrastinator. Yes she claims she will kill anyone who goes near Dawn in that final Season 5 battle. Would she have done it? No. Was it hyperbole? Absolutely. Did she want to kill Angel in Season 2? No. Did she? Yes. Buffy doesn't cause pain or problems from a selfish place. She fundamentally wants to help, and obviously she cares more about her family and friends than a stranger. But when push comes to shove she would have and did do anything she needed to. That really is the difference between Buffy and Xander's ethically grey choices.

Well, obviously Dawn is wrong and barking up the wrong tree. Spike is gross and awful and a monster. But as you say she was working without knowing the whole deal. That said, Xander could have left her with the impression that Spike was the gross, awful monster without dropping in the attempted rape. Buffy was the only one who should have (if she wanted) told Dawn about the attempted rape. It isn't malice for Xander to express any dislike of Spike (and one can't blame him). I also give Xander the benefit of the doubt that he didn't intend to say it to hurt anyone. But seriously, say something else. It isn't like he didn't have a wealth of other points that wouldn't have shown a level of disrespect for a sexual assault victim. I know I have been in threads criticising Xander for a few things. That said, I do like him. I think he was a good friend to Willow, Giles and Dawn, Tara etc. I don't think it is wrong for anyone to criticise Buffy and if Xander was genuine in his critiques I'd have no issues. My only thing is that I wish he was as good a friend to Buffy as he was to the others.

I get that but what I mean was out of the scooby gang, she was the only one who really could lay down the law as it were. Changing topics though, I thought it was a good character trait that she was so possessive about being The One and The Best One (until season 7 where it just got irritating). I don't mind heroes that have some kind of bite to them. The show never really explored it in depth, though it got a bit of a show everytime Faith showed up. I didn't mind that she wanted to be special and she was good at it for awhile. Even tempered and with her own moral code. She was (at first anyway) less impulsive than Faith. I think the two of them could have been a pretty good and balanced version of the law and if there was a little less of a pissing contest between the two, it could have worked really well. Sort of like 'The Heat" but with vampires. Do you mean when Kendra first rocked up in What's My Line? I'm not gonna lie, I am drawing a blank (I should find my DVDs sometime). I will go on record as saying that I don't agree with the view that giving out the slayer power was at all metaphorical for rape. At the end of the day, those girls had the slayer powers but they weren't being forced to do anything with them. No agency was taken away from them, their lives need not have been any different (unless that happens in the comics, which I haven't read). I don't really think it was unethical - more like the idea of putting flouride in water. An open question - what does everyone think the most unethical moment was on the show?

For me, I think the difference is that Buffy was the leader. It was her responsibility to dispatch the vamps and the forces of darkness. (And CoStar, I agree that she was better at it earlier, brief moments of immaturity notwithstanding). While I know one of the main themes of the show was that Buffy was stronger with her friends, at the end of the day it was up to her to fight. None of the scoobies (with the exception of Willow, later on) could have done what she did. Buffy, imo, was the general. Put it this way (this is the last thing I'll say about The Lie): What if, following the plot, Buffy wasn't told about Willow's spell. Angelus opens Acathla. Gets his soul back. Does no one think that maybe, maybe, it was particularly dangerous in letting Buffy be blindsided like that? What if it took her a few minutes to get her equilibrium back, and in the meantime Sunnydale is Hoovered into Hell (tm CoStar!). She wasn't previously ready to kill Angelus before, perhaps when push comes to shove, she wouldn't have been ready to kill Angel either. If the main argument is that knowing about the potential spell would be dangerous, I can't see why Buffy not knowing about the spell is not equally dangerous. But I agree that in later seasons Buffy went with the flow, and didn't seem to be much of The Law. Had she maintained her seasons 1-3 'code' I can't imagine she would have accepted Willow back, or Anya come to think of it. Perhaps her flip-flopy nature was due to her depression issues. Maybe the show just didn't care by that point. But I agree there was a distinct lack of standards. Jack Shaftoe - I don't really understand what you mean by this? They were all about the stopping of Glory weren't they?

Well, given that vampires have super-human strength and there is 'only one girl in all the world' who can beat them, surely if Angel really wanted to hurt Xander, taking a free shot or not, the punch would have killed him, were Angel not (to use a cliche) pulling his punches. That I think is more comparative to Xander attempting to dispatch Angel via Faith, rather than "The Lie" is. For all that was shown, Xander was unconscious for all of 30 seconds. And what I am getting at is that, if there is a general to further the military analogy, its Buffy. Not Xander, not Willow, Giles, anyone else (because evidently not even Faith got a swing at leadership). Buffy is the one who had to take out all threats, at risk to her life and who even put the Watcher's Council back in the box. So if there is anyone who needs that information, it is her. If the roles were reversed between Buffy and Xander, I'd be saying the same thing. Whoever is up for killing the menace needs all information. What is to say, if Buffy had been told that Willow was gonna have a decent crack at the curse again, that she wouldn't have fought a fraction harder to prevent Angelus from starting the spell at all? Then it would have been two birds, one stone, happy ending for all etc. Agreed, agreed. Hindsight and all that. But that particular hesitation was months before the Acathla deal was even a factor. Buffy, at the time of 'The Lie' was ready to kill him. She wasn't hesitating, or dickering. And considering she killed him, with a soul, to save the world, tells me that yes she would have saved the world, regardless of whether she knew what Willow was doing. I think the scenario is better likened to the Master saga - she didn't want to die, but she went to fight him anyway. I don't think I'm having it both ways. At the time the world was about to be "Hoovered into Hell" (awesome term btw, it made me chuckle) she was ready to kill him and did even though he just got his soul back so I'm not sure quite what you mean when you say she should have been ready before that. I'm not saying she is perfect and made no mistakes ever. But she was ready for that battle and I don't think anyone else needed to help her with that. ** I also do think it counts that she killed him, even though he was brought back three months later, because she didn't know that would happen. As far as she knew at the time, she had killed the first person she ever loved, to save the world. That does count for something. If she had brought him back herself that would be different. But I don't think what happened in Season 3 takes away from what she did in Becoming Pt 2. It obviously screwed her up. And yes, I agree, she lied when he came back. I'm not sure where I said she was a beacon of truth at all times, but, at the time of "The Lie" she hadn't lied to anyone. She was completely forthright so I don't know why that is an issue? I am not saying Buffy was perfect (and never meant to give that impression). And no, she wasn't combat-ready initially. I'm not at all saying she was. But by the time of the final battle, she was combat-ready. It took months and months and people died during that time (which I am not handwaving at all). But it wasn't like it was just a week between "The Sex" and Becoming Pts. 1&2. If you want to go back to it, they should never have had sex at all. I just see Buffy being upfront about what she could and couldn't handle at the times they occurred and in lieu of that, she had earned the trust and respect of Giles and the Scoobies. You know, I was never a part of the fandom when this show aired (because I had no net) so I honestly, without sarcasm or offence, have no idea what the Caleb thing is. But I do like discussing this with you!

Ahhh gotcha (Clearly my reading comprehension is -1 at the moment). I guess the difference for me is intent. While I don't think Angel particularly liked Xander and was a dick to him at times, I think, to be honest, that scenario was mainly about the ruse. If he had of wanted to, he could have punched Xander numerous times over or just left him for dead. I think the bigger goal here was to get at Faith. And at the end of the day, the street was deserted. No vampires around. And considering the death rate wasnt that high in Sunnydale (unless an episode is trying to make a point) I really don't see it as that bad. Especially as being knocked unconscious on this show meant you were out for like a minute. See, I think that given that Buffy was the lone fighter and everything was resting on her shoulders, she had a right to know everything. It wasn't up to Xander (or indeed anyone else) to cherry pick what information she should and shouldnt know. It's her ass on the line and her responsibility to save the world. And at the end of the day, she stabbed him . For all the arguments that she wouldn't have fought to the best of her ability had she known, or that she'd never be able to kill him I think that line of thought is squarely defeated by the fact she did kill him. He had his soul back and she still saved the world. I think it reeks of a lack of confidence on Xander's part that he assumed she wouldn't. And that is why I feel like it is patronising. It was disrespectful and an assumption that she was weak. Yes, she didn't kill Angelus earlier because she wasn't "ready". But considering all the other times she backed up and saved the world she deserved more.

Oh, CoStar, I didn't mean to make it sound like that was what I thought you said. It was just a general/non-personal 'you' I was meaning. And I take your point about Angel technically 'harming' Xander. But I'd echo other posters in that it wasn't intentional to hurt him. I mean, Angel was stronger than Spike so I think its a no-brainer that he would have stepped in during School Hard, if their plan hadn't of worked. Well, considering Xander was unconscious, I'd say maintaining the ruse. No point taking a pot shot at someone who can't hear. hehehe For what it is worth, I don't find Angel/Spike/Riley paticularly compelling romantic leads. But I dislike the 'Nice Guy' side of Xander because he never lets it go. Yes he is only 16 when the show starts, but Buffy pretty quickly blocks his romantic overtures. So yeah, even though Xander is emotionally immature, it takes years for him to let it go. And of course he doesn't have to like Buffy's boyfriends, but that should be because they personally don't get on not just for a simple reason being that Buffy likes him. Regarding "The Lie" I hate it for no other reason than I find it so bloody patronising. I find Xander so patronising in that moment because of course the Nice Guy has to manage the girls mood. I don't really care why he did it, I just hate the implication of it. I don't care that it was described as a 'General's Decision' (but then, I don't care for military rules). I don't know if I find it worse because they are the same age, and perhaps I wouldn't care if it had come from Giles. But it is just such a patriarchal and patronising moment that I hate watching it.