And here's me saying I'd give up on this thread :)...
I *should* resist the urge to keep going on this, myself, as I think we've about gotten to the point where there isn't a whole lot left to say on the subject...
Well, the point I was making is that people were saying "it's not visually there so it can't be ruled out," and I was pointing out that it *is* visually there, just not for the characters under discussion.
Well, I think it comes down to how you view negative evidence again, really...
Exactly. The thing is, if we do take the canon, divorced from all evidence about production, intent etc., the fact still remains that Avon and Blake do not show "loverly," flirtatious or potentially-attracted behaviour in the way that other characters do;
Of course, the thing also is, the evidence for any of this stuff, whether it's A/B or B/J or Carnell/decorative staff officer, is primarily based on how one reads body langauge, facial expressions and tones of voice. That is subtle stuff, and it is possible for different people to look at the same examples and come away with different impressions of just what's going on. (Which is probably belaboring the obvious, I know...)
Right, they don't know it. But they are. Every thirteen episodes, a disaster happens. The characters speak with far too perfect diction. Somehow everybody fails to notice that Travis' face and accent change from one year to the next.
Actually, that's an interesting point, and it can certainly make "Approach #2" kind of a challenge. The disasters and diction don't bother me that much, but I do find the Travis thing highly annoying... :) I think "Approach #2" tends to chalk those things up to annoying flaws which are best downplayed if they can't be internally explained.
-- Betty Ragan ** bragan@nrao.edu ** http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~bragan Not speaking for my employers, officially or otherwise. "Seeing a rotten picture for the special effects is like eating a tough steak for the smothered onions..." -- Isaac Asimov