Hathor Watch-Along – Firefly, S1 Ep3: “Bushwacked”

Sorry I wasn’t around for the discussion in the comments section last week (stuff came up, you know how it is), but hey! Sunday! It’s Firefly time again!

This week the episode is “Bushwacked,” which I had to rewatch with one hand ready to cover my eyes. This one has always freaked me out, even after a jilliondy viewings. Anyway, for those whose memories might be a bit rusty, here’s a quick summary of the events:

The main action of the episode starts when the crew of Serenity come across a derelict ship spinning in space. It seems at first to be abandoned, but the creepy music and River’s creepy commentary lets us know that there’s something more, y’know, creepy going on. Amidst the tension, Jayne is a total jerk to Simon, firmly launching the Jayne/Simon hate!sex ‘ship in Firefly fandom. Hooray!

Er… Back to the show. We learn that the ship was attacked by Reavers, who left behind a lot of corpses and one survivor. The crew bring the survivor back to Serenity, talk about what Reavers are, strip the ship of valuables, disarm a booby trap, and…get caught by an Alliance ship. After a series of interviews (most of them hilarious), a search of Serenity that fails to turn up fugitives Simon and River (who are cleverly hiding outside the ship), and some more ruminations on the nature of Reavers, the Alliance flunky decides that Mal is a bad guy and needs to be arrested and stuff. Mal protests! And explains things! In a shocking turn of events, Mal is actually totally right about what’s really going on, and saves the Alliance guy from being eaten by the survivor-turned-Reaver, and everybody gets to go home happy. Well, except the dead people. Most of them get blown up.

Discussion time!

There are some really interesting and cool things about this episode. I love the interview sequences – they are such interesting character portraits, and even what Simon and River are doing instead of being interviewed tells us something about them (River’s fascination with the stars versus Simon’s terror of the vastness of space). Zoe and Wash continue to be one of my favorite sci-fi couples evar. The structure of the episode itself, with the slow-building tension, is effective and intriguing. I think the music is particularly well-done.

And then there’s some stuff that makes me roll my eyes until my head aches. Jenn was emailing me about this episode, and she shares a couple of my big “OMG WUT”s, which mostly revolve around the portrayal of mental illness(es). River and the survivor/Reaver are both pretty clearly insane, but the way they’re depicted is quite different. Which on the one hand is very much as it should be – there’s not any one way to be crazy, of course, and in this particular case what’s going on with the characters is definitely unique to each of them. However, one of the big differences is problematic when taken in context with our cultural milieu in general (and, arguably, with Whedon’s oeuvre in particular): while the male Reaver has agency and enough rationality to make effective plans (for mutilating himself and killing people, sure, but still), female River is hysterical, incomprehensible, and ineffective. Hmmmm.

Beyond that, the whole Reavers thing is often pretty nonsensical. Jenn wrote:

In this ep, we have a guy who… what? Is suffering from Stockholm syndrome + 1? He’s seen horrific abuse, so he’s going to become like his abusers? Thank goodness that’s not how it works on non-fiction humans, or you can imagine the fallout from Bosnia, the Holocaust and tortured POWs – not to mention abused kids. I mean, we’d be extinct already with that amount of conscience-free sport abusers wreaking their havoc. So, you know, if there’s a pathogen Reavers are passing on that effects a transformation, okay. But Mal’s line of thinking in this episode is the result of Whedon wanting a new version of vampires, and not having thought through how these monsters transform their victims into monsters. It makes Mal look incredibly stupid (just observation and a moderate knowledge of history overcomes this idea) and it insults the vast majority of survivors of abuse and horror who absolutely did NOT go on to resemble their abusers in any way.

Myself, I don’t want to speculate on what Whedon was or was not thinking re: Reavers as vampires or whatever. No matter what he, or any of the other writers, meant to do, what is there on the show just doesn’t really make sense.

But what do you think? And can you watch this one without flinching?

Next week, we’re watching “Shindig” – see you again then!

Comments

  1. Tristan J says

    One thing I love about this episode is when Mal sends Jayne out with Book and Simon to look over the dead bodies, then tells Kaylee about the Reaver trap. I read it as Mal trusting the optimistic, childlike Kaylee not to freak out but not the big ol’ thuggish Jayne.

  2. says

    Tristan J – Yeah! I think it’s really interesting that Jayne is so wholeheartedly terrified of Reavers. And I like it, too, that we see how competent Kaylee can be when she needs to be even when stuff is scary. She gets the job done under the threat of possibly blowing up, just as she managed to focus on the engines in the pilot when she was suffering from a gut wound.

  3. says

    Yeah, I need to learn never to speculate on what writers are thinking, but sometimes it seems so obvious to me that I kind of forget I actually don’t know!

    Wash’s chatter about Zoe’s body to the interrogator – I cannot believe they pulled that off without making him look stupid or making her look objectified. It was just so sincere, and so spectacularly pointless (and therefore helpful in wasting the interrogator’s time) that it worked. And OMG hilarious!

    As was Zoe’s absolute refusal to so much as confirm she loved her husband. Beautiful!

    Tristan J: One thing I love about this episode is when Mal sends Jayne out with Book and Simon to look over the dead bodies, then tells Kaylee about the Reaver trap. I read it as Mal trusting the optimistic, childlike Kaylee not to freak out but not the big ol’ thuggish Jayne.

    That’s a great point! Kaylee’s good at setting aside her fear, and Jayne isn’t.

  4. says

    Jenn -

    Yeah, I need to learn never to speculate on what writers are thinking, but sometimes it seems so obvious to me that I kind of forget I actually don’t know!

    It pretty often does seem embarrassingly obvious, yeah. I try to focus on the text itself when I’m in critical discussion mode, but on a personal “am I going to buy anything else from this creator?” level, my impressions of what they’re putting in unintentionally definitely makes a difference for me.

  5. says

    Myself, I took it for granted that the Reavers had infected the victim with something. It didn’t make sense to me that these big bad bogeys would leave a survivor that easily, therefore they must have known he was one of them. All of Mal’s chatter I assumed was his explanation, not canon. We see conflicting explanations for different things in the series. Whedon may have intended Mal’s explanation to be canon but I took it in as a ghost story which may or may not have roots in fact but which did spook its audience as intended.

    Of course, the Movie blows that out of the water – Reavers are not contagious – but I didn’t know that at the time.

  6. Fey says

    “He’s seen horrific abuse, so he’s going to become like his abusers?”

    Actually, I think that IS kind of how it works for RL humans. Obviously the Reaver transformation is an extreme case and I wouldn’t deny that in the ep the explanation could really need some other factors to make it seem more plausible. BUT, in RL for example people who were abused by somebody as a child are more likely than people who were not to become abusers themselves. People who survived the trauma of war are also more likely to be abusive/ treat the people around them badly. Without going into the mechanics of Trauma and Coping it’s getting kind of hard to explain this further and I really do want to say too that there are people who live through horrible events without being traumatized or who manage to work through their trauma and be very nice people. But the sentiment that: If you lived through this horrible thing, then you’ll know how horrible it was and never do it to anybody else is not true in itself. Some people manage to make it so through hard work, but to paraphrase something somebody (I think it was a Holocaust survivor) said: The concentration camps didn’t teach you something, they BROKE you.

    So, I wouldn’t say that the survivor IMMEADIATE transformation into something EXATLY like his abusers is a bit suspect, but I don’t find the idea of him lashing out in respose to what happened to him implausible. And if you take into account that maybe the Reavers can tell who is going to react in this way, then it’d make sense that they’d let only these survive. The other people on the ship would maybe have had different (maybe more self-harming, or other) reations.

  7. Tristan J says

    Revena: Tristan J – Yeah! I think it’s really interesting that Jayne is so wholeheartedly terrified of Reavers. And I like it, too, that we see how competent Kaylee can be when she needs to be even when stuff is scary. She gets the job done under the threat of possibly blowing up, just as she managed to focus on the engines in the pilot when she was suffering from a gut wound.

    I hear that Jayne’s fear of the Reavers was basically a way to quickly explain how scary the Reavers were – the big tough guy nearly breaks down when he even hears about them, so they must be pretty bad. I like to think that Kaylee and Jayne are a sort of explanation for the difference between childish and childlike. Kaylee is a young woman who tries to see the best in everyone and is always happy, but that doesn’t mean she’s not a mature adult who handles danger well. Jayne is a grown man who is very cynical and bitter, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t terrified of the boogeyman.

    I may be reading too much into it though.

  8. ninjapenguin says

    You know, I had a theory about the Reavers being the sufferers of some sort of bacteria or virus (mutated by the Pax chemicals) which would explain how their victims could become new Reavers, but then I realized that made this Space AIDS, and that’s not good.

  9. Robin says

    Jennifer Kesler, re: Wash and Zoe’s interviews — I love the dichotomy of those two so much. A lot of Wash’s dialogue was Alan Tudyk improvising, and there’s a great montage of the stuff they didn’t use in the Firefly gag reel. “Have you ever been with a warrior woman?” Cracks me up every time.

    Joss Whedon is generally the first to admit that he’s not very good at the science in his science fiction. I think that’s a big part of why he keeps working with Tim Minear, who tends to be better at such things. This early on in the series, it’s clear that they didn’t have a really firm grasp on what the Reavers were, and it does mar the storytelling in ‘Bushwhacked’.

    I can forgive River’s ineffectiveness in this episode because I know her whole story arc from the pilot to the film, but I can see how it would be irksome in comparison to the male victim in the context of this single episode.

  10. says

    Fey,

    Most or all of what you say is factually accurate but the phrasing bothers me. I’m picking up a sense of…inevitability? probability? from what you say about about abuse survivors. You say “some people manage to make it so [they don't abuse others]” but the statistics I’ve seen are something around 85% or 90% of survivors do not go on to abuse – the vast majority of abuse survivors and a lot more than “some”.

    I haven’t been in the Holocaust or anything near as horrific, so I’m not trying to presume for whoever you’re quoting. But I have been broken in several different ways, and broken does not always equal warped. Scar tissue is stronger than unharmed skin; I’m a stronger person for what I’ve been through. Other people stay broken and never recover; that doesn’t make them warped either. Abuse survivors are more likely to abuse than non-survivors, but double nothing is still nothing. The percentages we’re talking about are small enough that they’re really only significant on a societal scale, not an individual one.

  11. says

    Fey:

    Actually, I think that IS kind of how it works for RL humans.

    Wow, lot of misinformation here, Fey.

    It’s rare for abuse survivors to become abusive. Studies suggest maybe 1 in 8. Considering every child molester molests an average of 70 kids, and that’s just one form of abuse, you can imagine what a cess pool the world would be if EVERY abused kid became abusive.

    BUT, in RL for example people who were abused by somebody as a child are more likely than people who were not to become abusers themselves.

    Only in that abusive behaviors are learned, so people who haven’t been abused will virtually never become abusive (barring some very unusual head injury or something, perhaps). But again, it’s very rare.

    People who survived the trauma of war are also more likely to be abusive/ treat the people around them badly.

    Provide a source or retract. I’ve read a LOT of lit on PTSD and abuse and trauma survival, and NEVER have I come across anything to suggest this.

    Without going into the mechanics of Trauma and Coping it’s getting kind of hard to explain this further and I really do want to say too that there are people who live through horrible events without being traumatized or who manage to work through their trauma and be very nice people.

    It’s not a matter of working through trauma. It’s a matter of having ethics and/or empathy. Most abused people have both. Trauma often accompanies a lack of discipline, or a refusal to allow a child to have boundaries, and those things can make a child turn out abusive. But trauma alone doesn’t make people abusive.

    God, imagine all the raped women of the world going around hurting people. How can you look at the world you live in and think these thoughts?

    • Maria says

      THANK YOU, Jenn, for saying all of that. I get really tired of people saying that because I’ve been assaulted I’m doomed to being dysfunctional. That’s really a kind of victim blaming in perpetua.

  12. says

    Tristan J: I hear that Jayne’s fear of the Reavers was basically a way to quickly explain how scary the Reavers were – the big tough guy nearly breaks down when he even hears about them, so they must be pretty bad. I like to think that Kaylee and Jayne are a sort of explanation for the difference between childish and childlike. Kaylee is a young woman who tries to see the best in everyone and is always happy, but that doesn’t mean she’s not a mature adult who handles danger well. Jayne is a grown man who is very cynical and bitter, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t terrified of the boogeyman.

    I may be reading too much into it though.

    The intent may have been simple irony, too. But the thing about good writers? However simple an idea they start off with, they develop their characters enough that complex readings become perfectly valid, whether or not they reflect the author’s intentions. (I believe Whedon has said Buffy started as an ironic subversion of the Blond Girl Who Trips And Dies trope in horror films, but she became a lot more than an ironic hero very quickly.)

  13. Kex says

    You know, I always saw the Reaver thing as a parallel to the Cthulhu Mythos. A “some evil is so great so you cannot face it without becoming insane” kind of thing. But I suppose that that does not match up to well with “Serenity”

  14. says

    General thoughts: this is honestly my least favorite ep, mostly because of how the reaver thing doesn’t line up with the movie (which I saw first). Also because Whedon’s writing is at it’s best doing witty banter and gritty scenes, not when his characters try to wax poetic or philosophical…I feel a lot of the dialogue comes off as stilted or unrealistic. Compared to the normal dialogue (which actually sounds like how people talk most of the time), it breaks up my suspension of disbelief and immersion. It reminds me I’m watching a show, if that makes sense.

    I agree with everyone on the Zoe/Wash stuff (they are the most awesome sci-fi couple ever), and I rather liked the mild contrast of Simon’s fear of space with Jayne’s fear of reavers.

    Other problems:

    1.) How did the reavers board and slaughter everyone so quickly/neatly? The characters even say at one point “no signs of a struggle”…how the hell do you torture and slaughter tons of people without some signs of a struggle? I can’t picture Reavers “cleaning up” after themselves. I realize it was done to make things more creepy/spooky, but it flat out doesn’t make sense.

    2.) I find it odd that the Alliance doesn’t have sensors capable of finding Simon & River on the outside of the vessel. The Firefly-verse has some interesting tech issues, but that one seemed kinda flawed…this is the Alliance, after all; I’d expect them to have state-of-the-art technology.

    Re: Kaylee and dealing with fear/danger…I honestly don’t see that. Not that Kaylee isn’t totally awesome, but I think she simply deals well with things that are in her element (ships and machines)…the trap didn’t freak her out, because she’s like “I can handle this”. Contrast that with stuff that is OUT of her element (like shooting people), in “War Stories” and “Objects in Space”.

    And really, that holds true for Jayne as well. He doesn’t get freaked at the possibility that people might shoot him…that’s just a normal day for him, and he can deal. But Reavers are outside his experience, outside his ability to even comprehend on some levels…and THAT freaks him right out.

    @Ninjapenguin:

    1.) In what way would a “reaver virus” be “Space AIDS”? There are plenty of other contagious diseases it could be like…may as well say “Space Plague”.
    2.) In what way would “Space AIDS” be bad?

    @Kex:

    I think you’re right, that was the intent…the reason it falls flat is that “self-mutilating space cannibals” (while scary) cannot hold a candle to the “unspeakable evils from beyond reality” of the Cthulu mythos. When all is said and done, they make more sense as a more “human” evil than an inhuman one.

  15. Fey says

    Replying to everybody who replied to me at once here:

    I certainly never meant to make any reference to anything somebody here lived through. I actually agree that surviving anything horrible takes stregth and certainly doesn’t automatically turn anybody into a horrible person. So, first I’d like to apologize to those I hurt.

    I actually agree that it’s rare for survivors to become abusers (depending on the type of trauma and the person more or less likely, but still unlikely). There are many ways to react to trauma and the incredible majority of them will be much more harmful to the survivor than to anybody else and probably more inwardly direted than outwardly aggressive.

    The thing where trauma becomes a likely thing is in the reverse reasoning: Once you take somebody you know is an abuser and look at their background, there’s a high probability of some kind of trauma (I really don’t know enough to make any statements about born sociopaths or anything else like that, I did read a few books about trauma, which is of course not the same as surviving one, and again, I never meant to make any general statements about what would be likely, just an examination of one special rare case in an already kind of fantasy world). So, IF anybody would turn into a Reaver, I’d be one of their victims. Of course most of their victims are dead, or would react differently, but as I said, maybe they can tell. i didn’t want to bring Spoilers into it, but as other people have already mentioned the PAX, I’d guess that maybe they can tell which are the ones who would not lay down and go to “sleep”, again, a very small percentage, but nobody NOT exposed turned into a Reaver all by themselves (in this reasoning of course they’d still be carrying the above postulated sort of contagion).

    • Maria says

      @Fey but with the number of sexual assaults and instances of child abuse, it’d be more unusual to find someone without some history of trauma imo.

  16. says

    Kex,

    I like that. But I think we’re dealing with a really bad trope that most people take at face value (I did) until they come across a better source to contradict it, and that trope is: military guy with PTSD goes all delusional and hurts somebody. This is a really over-done trope. In reality, most people with PTSD – including combatants – just suffer depression, dysfunction, and the same symptoms survivors of rape and other violent crimes suffer. On those rare occasions they have delusions, the PTSD survivor remains himself in the delusion, he just suddenly thinks he’s in a hostile environment. Yes, if someone’s got serious combat training, this could be a problem. But our would-be Reaver wasn’t a soldier. He was turning into someone else, and that’s just not how human brains work.

  17. says

    Fey: Once you take somebody you know is an abuser and look at their background, there’s a high probability of some kind of trauma…. So, IF anybody would turn into a Reaver, I’d be one of their victims.

    You’re still not listening. ADULTS DO NOT SUDDENLY LOSE THEIR EMPATHY. It’s just not how the brain works. ONCE YOU HAVE LEARNED EMPATHY, YOU CANNOT LOSE IT (barring some very unusual brain injury perhaps).

    Did I not just type these words earlier in this thread? I feel like I’m shouting into a wind machine.

    So, NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT, UNDER NO CONDITIONS EVER is an adult who has empathy going to lose it due to a trauma. It just doesn’t work that way, period.

    If anyone can figure out which part of this I’m not explaining clearly, or which massive cultural meme is shouting louder in meta than anything I can say here, please let me know so I can clarify this.

  18. says

    Jennifer Kesler,

    That was one of the examples I heard of how Freud’s work was limited. When men and women presented to him with the same symptoms, he diagnosed the men with battle fatigue (their term for post-traumatic stress disorder) and the women with hysteria. Well, the women were most likely suffering from PTSD as well, due to rape and all the other abuse that went on behind closed doors. But because he couldn’t comprehend that women were being exposed to violence, he assumed women’s nerves must be more delicate than men’s and were overloaded from normal stresses rather than abusive stresses.

    Fey,

    You’re still speaking as if trauma is something unusual. It’s not. 25% of women and 3% of men have been raped, and that’s just one form of abuse. For most survivors, life doesn’t end at that moment. There’s no brand on the forehead setting them apart from the rest of the population. You have no way of knowing if your barrista or your boss is a survivor. In fact, statistically speaking, you’re probably related to at least one.

    And while it’s true that most abusers have a history of being abused, it’s most likely a childhood history and a long term history of years or even decades. Not a response to a single traumatic event in adulthood. As Jennifer said, abuse is a learned behavior.

    For a real world approximation, we’d need to look at civilians snatched away from safety by strangers, tortured for several days while almost everyone around them died and then rescued/escaped. I’m having trouble thinking of a group for comparison that is large enough to be statistically significant. (POWs would not be a valid example because soldiers have significant psychological differences from civilians.) The closest I can come is the Nazi concentration camps, and those went on for years. But even then, how many went on to become mass murderers?

    Trauma isn’t magical. It doesn’t cause any mysterious, inexplicable changes in the brain. If you want to know what a trauma survivor looks like, go sit in a busy coffee shop.

  19. says

    Sylvia Sybil: Well, the women were most likely suffering from PTSD as well, due to rape and all the other abuse that went on behind closed doors. But because he couldn’t comprehend that women were being exposed to violence, he assumed women’s nerves must be more delicate than men’s and were overloaded from normal stresses rather than abusive stresses.

    That connects nicely with something Anemone told us about him: that when he went to others in his professional community and told them patients’ stories about being molested by their own parents in childhood, the community simply couldn’t believe that many people were raping their own offspring. So they assumed it must be that people unconsciously wanted to have sex with their parents, so he constructed some “complexes” to account for that. Which of course means adult molested children had the added burdens of believing they couldn’t trust their own memories AND secretly longed for the “sex” that had actually been an act of abuse. And it was the 90s before people really started coming out and saying, no: we’ve been molested by our parents, and we’re not making it up, and we didn’t want it.

    Trauma isn’t magical. It doesn’t cause any mysterious, inexplicable changes in the brain. If you want to know what a trauma survivor looks like, go sit in a busy coffee shop.

    Exactly. Even, as you said, a single trauma in childhood does not alone make someone grow up to be an abuser. Interestingly, one of the most fragile times for us to handle trauma is between ages 8-12, due to the developmental stage the brain is at. And most abusive personalities do have a trauma that happened to them around that time… but that trauma itself doesn’t make them turn out abusive adults. It has to be coupled with other consistent problems in how the child is being taught to respect other people’s boundaries.

    It is far, far more common for abuse survivors to have trouble respecting their OWN boundaries than respecting other people’s.

    Maria:
    @Fey but with the number of sexual assaults and instances of child abuse, it’d be more unusual to find someone without some history of trauma imo.

    I agree with this. Especially amongst women (though I suspect men are just less likely to share their stories).

  20. says

    Jennifer Kesler: That connects nicely with something Anemone told us about him: that when he went to others in his professional community and told them patients’ stories about being molested by their own parents in childhood, the community simply couldn’t believe that many people were raping their own offspring. So they assumed it must be that people unconsciously wanted to have sex with their parents

    That makes sense. “Nice” people don’t do those things, so obviously it didn’t really happen, the patient’s just making it up. And it jives with why manual stimulation (self or other, voluntary or in-) was often prescribed as a cure for hysteria. Obviously a nice woman with PTSD symptoms and stories about Daddy Dearest is just sexually under-stimulated! *eyeroll*

    I guess Freud deserves some credit for asking the questions, even if he got the answers wrong and probably screwed up many of his patients even more.

    You know, I’m really glad I don’t live back then, but then I think my descendants are going to be really glad they don’t live back now, too.

  21. Attackfish says

    Sylvia Sybil,

    There’s also the fact that hysteria was an umbrella diagnosis for a lot of things, including depression. Orgasms make you feel better at least temporarily, and therefore…

    It used to make my psychology professor furious at how close Freud came to documenting and bringing to light the entire concept of molestation, and instead he buried it and silenced its victims as mentally ill.

  22. says

    Whatever the intentions of Freud and his colleagues, they effectively sentenced sexually abused people to a lifetime of thinking they had perverse lust fantasies about their abusers, and couldn’t trust their own minds because the abuse that still haunted them must never have really happened. You couldn’t block recovery more thoroughly if you worked at it.

    And I think that attracted a lot of abusive personalities into the profession of psychiatry, and so basically the psychiatry of the 20th century will someday end up being labeled “mostly regrettable.” I’m a huge fan of the potential of psychology in helping us understand ourselves and others, but it wasn’t until the 80s, when profilers started getting involved, that this line between “criminal psychology” and “the psychology of the guy who lives next door to you and only breaks the law with his own family” began to break down. We still have a long way to go.

  23. Patrick McGraw says

    From the “Psychology” Thread:

    “This, by the way, would be the most logical explanation for what happens to our Reaver victim turned abuser, by the way – that he was always lacking empathy, and what happened with the Reavers freed him of the need to keep maintaining his Mr. Ordinary facade.”

    I hadn’t thought of this before, but it makes perfect sense. It explains why the Reavers spared him – for the same (unknown) reason that they don’t attack each other. Mal’s reasoning, that the survivor’s reaction was so that the Reavers would see him as one of their own, was backwards. They spared him because they already saw him as one of their own, and this was the stressor that broke his facade.

  24. says

    Sylvia Sybil,

    Well, yeah, but some have already had their push. I mean, serial killers torture their victims very much like Reavers. In the Congo, it’s… let’s just say, there’s more than just rape going on there that is seriously depraved. The stuff real people are capable of, especially when a group mentality takes over and uninhibits them by diffusing personal responsibility, wouldn’t be allowed on TV.

  25. says

    Jennifer Kesler,

    Oh absolutely, I wasn’t meaning to minimalize that. I just like that the scariest monster they could come up with already exists in the real world. The window dressing of self-mutilation doesn’t really change the underlying behavior of the Reavers that is reminiscent of actual atrocities. I like it when my art circles around and reflects life back at me, you know? Makes me think.

  26. ninjapenguin says

    Oh, sorry, I just meant Space Aids as in a big scary disease. I didn’t like it as a solution because it seemed too simplistic to me to say “it’s a disease!” when that wouldn’t really explain all the contradictory aspects of Reaver behavior. I guess it could be more of a Space “Rage Virus,” but that still doesn’t explain to me how they can be really smart at some stuff and really stupid/out-of-control with others.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.