From: blakes7-d-request@lysator.liu.se Subject: blakes7-d Digest V00 #13 X-Loop: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se X-Mailing-List: archive/volume00/13 Precedence: list MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/digest; boundary="----------------------------" To: blakes7-d@lysator.liu.se Reply-To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se ------------------------------ Content-Type: text/plain blakes7-d Digest Volume 00 : Issue 13 Today's Topics: Re: [B7L] Many many people... [B7L] Too quiet Re: [B7L] Many many people... Re: [B7L] Star One Re: [B7L] Heroes and Brains Re: [B7L] Star One Re: [B7L] Heroes and Brains Re: [B7L] Many many people... Re: [B7L] GSP and Oppression Re: [B7L] Too quiet Re: [B7L] GSP and Oppression Re: [B7L] Many many people... [B7L] Star One Re: [B7L] GSP and Oppression Re: [B7L] Too quiet [B7L] Great Big Sale Re: [B7L] Many many people... [B7L] Avon club news [B7L] Many, many people... [B7L] socks Re: [B7L] Too quiet Re: [B7L] Too quiet Re: [B7L] Too quiet Re: [B7L] Many many people... Re: [B7L] Mission to Destiny Re: [B7L] Many many people... Re: [B7L] the netcop strikes again Re: [B7L] Too quiet Re: [B7L] Too quiet [B7L] Idle curiosity prompted by last night's episode of The Bill... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 05:32:26 -0800 From: mistral@ptinet.net To: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people... Message-ID: <388076E9.1191D97B@ptinet.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Neil Faulkner wrote: > >we might as well all agree to hate each other > > Sounds good. I'll let you start:) No, after you, I insist. > Not everyone who criticises Blake is a 'Blake-basher', but there *are* > people out there who hunt down every excuse they can find to stick the boot > in. I never said you were one of them. I never thought you did. I was objecting in general terms. It's equally true that every time certain issues come up--for example Star One, and whether or not Blake is manipulative--somebody complains about Blake-bashing; but in the past year, I don't think I've *seen* any actual Blake-bashing. Just a lot of complaining about it. > (I know *I* lay into Avon, but not because I'm > pro-Blake. I just do it to annoy people.) Gilding the lily. > > > Blake was smart. And ruthless. > > > And manipulative. But that's alright because it was all in a good > cause. > > > > Rubbish. > > Oh. You mean I should have put the smiley in at the end after all? No, dear, I mean that you had the shockingly bad taste to make a joke out of one of my pet peeves; I was annoyed enough that I didn't care it was a joke. That's a risk you take with irony. Said peeve: > >'The end justifies the means' is just a cop-out for those > > who don't have the patience or the backbone or the intelligence to > > persevere against the odds, without caving in to the temptation > > to take the easier, less ethical path. > > Rubbish yourself. This is the whining rhetoric of bourgeois cowards who > endlessly argue the case for change but live in perpetual dread of anything > ever really changing. etc..... No, Neil, you really don't know me well enough to assume that I'm spouting empty platitudes. > Why should the 'less ethical' path be 'easier'? It isn't always; but then, there's no temptation to cave in, ergo no caving in, ergo no need to justify the means. > In my experience, such > supposedly high-minded homilies against the 'less ethical' are really > referring to the illegal, to the breaching of laws that have been written by > the perpetrators of perceived injustices to facilitate their continued > perpetration. This kind of sermonising is a sham. It is fear of the law > masquerading as respect for the law, because it dare not admit its own fear. > Who, then, really lacks the backbone? Or the intelligence, for that matter? You must have severely limited experience, then. Personally, I don't care two pins for the law for its own sake. Sometimes doing the right thing means breaking the law. Sometimes not. The trick is in knowing where you are comfortable believing that point to be--preferably before you come up against it. > He has > committed himself to the ends, which in turn binds him to what appears to be > the only effective means. He is not setting out to destroy Control for the > sake of doing so, so this is not a case of ends justifying means. It is a > case of ends determining means. (Largely because Nation/Boucher rigged it > that way.) Disagree. It is exactly a case of Blake saying the ends (overthrow of the Federation) justify the means (the losses caused by the destruction of Star One.) It isn't the only method; his dialogue in 'Voice' (?) is more supportive of the idea that it simply wasn't happening fast enough for him. > However, this is a digression from your objection to my endorsement of > Blake's less savoury aspects, which go back more or less right to the > beginning (the ruthlessness, the manipulativeness). I've already noted that > you seemed to miss the ironic dimension of that endorsement. No, actually. > But looking at > these qualities seriously, I don't think Blake would have stood much chance > without them. Of course, we agree. No rebel can succeed without at least ruthlessness; and good leadership and manipulativeness are two faces of the same gift. > All those not against Blake are for him. Hmm. But I thought you objected to my characterization of Blake as a messiah-type? TTFN, Mistral -- "Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo. So little time! So much to know!" --Jeremy Hilary Boob, Ph.D. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 15:53:54 +0100 From: Angria@t-online.de (Tanja Kinkel) To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Too quiet Message-ID: <129UaQ-18dMtkC@fwd04.sul.t-online.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT mistral@ptinet.net wrote: > > Well, the polling is your idea; I've never suggested it. I think that > you're probably right, he can't get such authority. But your take > seems to be, since he can't get authority, he should do it anyway. > My take is, since he can't get authority, he shouldn't do it. Okay, let's take another historical situation: there were some German resistance groups during the Third Reich. Sadly, very few, and in small numbers, but they existed. They, too, had no way to gain authority from the people, and moreover, until the last years of the War, they could be reasonably sure the majority of the people supported the government or at least went along with it. At the same time, they were utterly convinced the government was completely evil. (Bearing in mind the actions of the Federation (look it up at Judith's site), and the fact that Terry Nation had Nazi Germany in mind when creating the whole B7 premise, I think the comparison is more viable than the one with the American Civil War.) To give you some specific examples: In 1939, carpenter Georg Elser tried to kill Hitler with a self constructed bomb. He didn't even belong to a group, he was alone in making this decision. Since Hitler unfortunately left the inn half an hour earlier than planned, he missed the bomb which went off eight minutes after he had gone and killed quite a lot of civilians (and SA members) who were in that inn. As Elser had known it would, but he was prepared to sacrifice those lives if it meant Hitler would die as well. In making this decision, he wasn't supported by anyone, he took that right much in the same way as Blake did. Was he wrong? The White Rose, a small group mainly consisting of students, called in their leaflets mainly for civil disobedience as a means to bring down the Nazi Government. However, they also called for sabotage of the production not just of weapons but also food and clothes. If they had been successful, it would have meant death for "many, many people". (They weren't. Instead, they were caught and executed.) Was their attempt wrong? Then there were the conspirators who made the last attempt to assassinate Hitler, on July 20th, 1944. They, too, had no possibilty to get authority in a legitimate way, and not only did they plan to kill Hitler, they also planned to arrest and execute quite a number of officials and to form a totally unelected interim government. Were they wrong? Tanja ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:09:04 -0500 From: Susan Beth To: blake7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people... Message-Id: <3.0.4.32.20000115100904.007065a8@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I've been thinking that that "many, many" is unusual phrasing for B7. It's sloppy, almost baby-talkish, while usually the dialog tends to be more specific and exact. So I've been wondering if that was possibly a slip of the tongue by the actress that was Close Enough to be ignored. More specifically, has anyone ever seen the script for the episode? Is that how the line was written? Susan Beth (susanbeth33@mindspring.com) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:23:22 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Star One Message-ID: In message <387FF977.902@jps.net>, Helen Krummenacker writes >> >> What interests me is the way Star One is quoted, but not Pressure Point. >> It will somehow kill fewer people if the control system is located on >> Earth when it's destroyed? >> -- >None of us saw the *sort* of control the central computer was used for >(traffic control, weather control) until after Pressure Point, during >the Star One episode. So we didn't have any idea what there might be to >object to. We assumed, on the basis of trusting Blake, that he was >choosing a military target rather than what might be no more than a >thing for building order out of chaos. But most of us (I can't say all because we keep picking up recruits) have seen the episodes now. Certainly most of those who misquote Cally's speech in order to point the boot into Blake, as opposed to simply disagreeing with him, have seen the episode. It seems to slip their mind that Cally was enthusiastic about the project in Pressure Point. Somehow I doubt that Cally was unaware of the full implications at the time. The Auronar were isolationist, but one of the reasons they were isolationist was that they were well aware of what the Federation was like, and they thought that absolute neutrality would protect them should the Federation think of expanding their way. -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:25:14 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Heroes and Brains Message-ID: In message <20000114.223606.8670.1.Rilliara@juno.com>, Ellynne G. writes >So, was Avon a hero (or anti-hero) in the making from day one or was he >another case of the fans seeing something good and pushing it? And would >he have worked better with a vain female, a spineless sidekick (male), >and a . . . . Oops. He had those, didn't he? Does Orac count as a dog? > Well, if K9 does... >At least he didn't have a baby sister working the computer. You just haven't read the right fanfic. -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:13:31 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Star One Message-ID: In message <387FF16C.6384@jps.net>, Helen Krummenacker writes >What if the destruction of Star One had ended up having the opposite >effect of the intended one? Enough chaos ensued that, rather than >weakening the Federation for overthrow by groups such as those led by >Avalon or Kashabi, the people, frightened by the loss of controlled >climates, reliable transportation and communication, and such, ended up >backing the existing government because they wanted the emergencies >dealt with? I think one of the biggest problems with Blake's plan is that there actually are worse things than the Federation (the Andromedans being an obvious example), and the destruction of Star One could open the door for a hundred planets run by people like Vargas. The scenario quoted by Helen is a very plausible one, and could be exploited either by local warlords, or by the remnants of the Federation itself. The Federation might be seen as a better choice in some quarters. The classic example of this (risking Godwinating the thread) is "Well, at least Hitler made the trains run on time". And of course, the communists had a strong resurgence in the polls in much of the former communist bloc in the 1990s for precisely this reason. We know that the Federation contracted sharply after Star One, because in series 3 and 4 there are planets that have regained their freedom, and are being left alone for the moment - and the pacification programme is initially being used to grab back territory that was previously part of the Federation. But it clearly didn't fall apart altogether, and the above may well be one contributing factor. >The alternative, of course, which is what I think Julia and others >suggest indirectly, is that Star One's destructiion is more like the Y2K >bug. A lot was expected, but not much happened. More that you can work around it, as long as you know what's actually happening and have other methods to fall back on. -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 09:36:26 -0700 From: Penny Dreadful To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Heroes and Brains Message-Id: <4.1.20000115092921.00935300@mail.powersurfr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 10:35 PM 14/01/00 -0700, Ellynne G. wrote: >So, was Avon a hero (or anti-hero) in the making from day one or was he >another case of the fans seeing something good and pushing it? He was forced into the hero role by the departure of Blake. I personally prefer him as snarky Spocky second-in-command. -- For A Dread Time, Call Penny: http://members.tripod.com/~Penny_Dreadful/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 16:26:24 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: b7 Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people... Message-ID: <+i0cz1Aw+Jg4EwMm@jajones.demon.co.uk> In message <000801bf5f47$0041eb20$e535fea9@neilfaulkner>, Neil Faulkner writes >(c) it's by Chris >Boucher and therefore better than anything Terry Nation could write. There is that:-) I think this actually has a lot to do with it - Boucher does a very good job of ramming home the point that what these people are doing is terrorism from the point of view of the people they're fighting. This is actually part of what I was asking - why does killing and destruction suddenly become wrong at Star One, when it's what they've been doing all along? Because only now is the audience made to take a long, hard look at exactly what these people they've been cheering on are doing? Go back through the archives, and you'll find me arguing just as enthusiastically against the case: Blake is a Hero, and therefore obviously right to kill people in the name of freedom. After all, the dead guys were bad guys, dressed in black and with faceless masks. Except, in B7 they're not. We've been dissecting _Rumours of Death_ on The other List this week. One of the things I like about that episode is that we are shown the faces of the little people on the other side. Grenlee and Forres are typical soldiers, not people I would necessarily want to meet in a pub, but not bad people who deserve to die. -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 16:12:18 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: b7 Subject: Re: [B7L] GSP and Oppression Message-ID: In message <000901bf5f47$012b60c0$e535fea9@neilfaulkner>, Neil Faulkner writes >Another way of fighting crime is to put up video cameras in public places to >monitor who goes where. Like in that opening shot of 'The Way Back' that >shows us how nasty and oppressive the Federation is. You don't see anything >like that in your local shopping centre, do you? In a free society like >ours, nobody would stand for such a thing. Of course not. And they certainly wouldn't stand for those cameras being linked to computers running software with automatic face recognition that can track individuals from one camera to another, even if they're wearing a balaclava. As for those Trafficmaster cameras fitted every three miles or so along the most amazing selection of roads, the ones that tell how well the traffic is flowing by reading number plates and doing calculations as to how fast individual cars are travelling between cars - well, Trafficmaster assure us that there are no civil liberties implications, since the processing power and disk size couldn't cope with reading more than the central three digits. Besides, even when the numbercrunching capability becomes available in a few years time, the only crimefighting it would be used for is automatically sending out notices informing people they've been fined for speeding. > >The GSP thing can be taken even further - fit everyone with a locator chip >(they can be injected under the skin), so our kind protectors can tell where >anyone is, at any time. But given the growth in mobile phone use, this might not even be necessary. All those people (including me), voluntarily carrying around their electronic tags. And in many cases, paying some pounds per month for the privilege. One thing that strikes me about those cameras in _The Way Back_, and aboard the London - some six or seven years ago, my car was broken into when it was parked in a camera-monitored car park at the university. I went to see the security guard about it, in the hope that he'd have a useful bit of video tape. No such luck. But he did tell me that the *visible* camera was provided as a target for thieves to attack, and the real camera was a carefully hidden miniature one. "See if you can spot it." I couldn't, even though I knew where it had to be from the view I'd seen on the monitor. What if the cameras we see on screen are *meant* to be seen? Yes, they have to be big things for dramatic purposes, otherwise how would we the audience at home know they were there? But maybe in that other universe where the Federation is real, they're made big and visible so that the intended audience knows that they're there. -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 16:30:37 +0000 From: Julia Jones To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Cc: B7 List Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet Message-ID: In message <16ce01bf5f57$26902e80$0d01a8c0@hedge>, Una McCormack writes >What about rebel leaders with overwhelming popular support? I'm thinking of >Ireland after 1916 here. > Una, Una, Una, I've been trying not to open that can of worms, remember what happened the last time... -- Julia Jones "Don't philosophise with me, you electronic moron!" The Turing test - as interpreted by Kerr Avon. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:25:43 -0700 From: Penny Dreadful To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] GSP and Oppression Message-Id: <4.1.20000115102306.00917ca0@mail.powersurfr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" At 11:51 PM 14/01/00 +0000, Neil Faulkner wrote: >And my socks have perfected >teleportation. Well, one in every pair seems to have... I'm pretty sure that particular futuristic phenomenon was in existence even 23 years ago. -- "Why would anybody eat snails on purpose?" -Angela Anaconda ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 11:30:30 -0600 From: Lisa Williams To: blake7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people... Message-Id: <4.2.2.20000115112944.00afd7a0@mail.dallas.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Susan Beth wrote: >More specifically, has anyone ever seen the script for the episode? Is >that how the line was written? I've got a copy of it. Her line in the script is, "A lot of people will die without Star One." - Lisa -- _____________________________________________________________ Lisa Williams: lcw@dallas.net or lwilliams@raytheon.com Lisa's Video Frame Capture Library: http://lcw.simplenet.com/ From Eroica With Love: http://eroica.simplenet.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 10:20:43 -0700 From: "Ellynne G." To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Star One Message-ID: <20000115.102044.9022.0.Rilliara@juno.com> Besides Boucher making a point, there's another way in which things have changed in Star One since Pressure Point. In Pressure Point, the plan apparently went something like this-- 1) Make initial contact with the main rebel leader on Earth (presumeably having all the underground groups in readiness for Something Big, even if they don't know what) 2) Destroy the Federation's central computer 3)Overthrow the government and move immediately into the power vacuum. In Star One, the scenario now seems to be 1) Don't make contact with any rebel groups. It's anyone's guess when we'll find this thing, and we saw what a few leaks did the last couple times. Besides, given our track record, who knows how much of this plan we'll carry off. They can just improvise. 2) Blow up Star One 3) Race back to Earth as fast as possible, keeping fingers crossed that there won't be so much chaos that we can't successfully unite these groups and move into the power vacuum. Sure, there'll probably be lots more dead at either Federation or rebel hands, and a few warlords are bound to break off and set up their own nasty regimes, but, hey, it beats the alternative, right? I said 'right'? I can't heeeaaaar you . . . . Ellynne ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 12:38:36 EST From: Tigerm1019@aol.com To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] GSP and Oppression Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 01/15/2000 11:23:51 AM Central Standard Time, pennydreadful@powersurfr.com writes: > >And my socks have perfected > >teleportation. Well, one in every pair seems to have... > > I'm pretty sure that particular futuristic phenomenon was in existence even > 23 years ago. Nah, that's just demons stealing them from the dryer. I'll leave it to you to figure out what the forces of darkness want with all those unmatched socks. Tiger M ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 17:49:48 -0000 From: "Una McCormack" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet Message-ID: <183b01bf5f80$ee0bda30$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Julia: > In message <16ce01bf5f57$26902e80$0d01a8c0@hedge>, Una McCormack research.connectfree.co.uk> writes > >What about rebel leaders with overwhelming popular support? I'm thinking of > >Ireland after 1916 here. > > > Una, Una, Una, I've been trying not to open that can of worms, remember > what happened the last time... Sorry. You're quite right. I'm not sure I can be arsed to go through that one again. I retract that last statement completely and don't expect an answer at all. Una ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 18:53:00 -0000 From: "Una McCormack" To: "lysator" Cc: "Freedom City" Subject: [B7L] Great Big Sale Message-ID: <000901bf5f89$c0da8d50$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit At the risk of cementing a reputation as most tedious person on two lists, may I let people know that there have been more additions to our Great Big January Sale? Matthew forgot to mention that there were some extra special annuals which he'd tucked away in a safe place, so these are added to the coffee books/annuals section (1960s and 1970s ones). Also, I've catalogued the back issues of the magazines which we're selling off, including issues of DWM, DWB, TV Zone and a bunch of others, and there is also a list of the audio tapes we are getting rid of, including the BBC science fiction special effects tape with the Liberator on (ObB7). These can all be accessed through the magazines/tapes etc. link. The sale front page is: http://www.qresearch.org.uk/personal/jansale.htm Thanks for your patience. Normal levels of tediousness will now be resumed. Una ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 14:10:35 -0500 From: Susan Beth To: blake7@lysator.liu.se Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people... Message-Id: <3.0.4.32.20000115141035.01386e6c@mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Lisa Williams wrote: >Susan Beth wrote: > >>More specifically, has anyone ever seen the script for the episode? Is >>that how the line was written? > >I've got a copy of it. Her line in the script is, "A lot of people will die >without Star One." > Oh, well, *that's* so much more usefully definitive then. Susan Beth (susanbeth33@mindspring.com) ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 16:08:19 +0000 (GMT) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List cc: Freedom City Subject: [B7L] Avon club news Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII > AVON: PDS > Latest News+++ Latest News +++ Latest News > 13th January 2000 > > This week Paul was near the Millennium Dome filming an advert for Channel 5's > Sci-fi film weekend. A spoof Avon in black making out the Dome was his space > ship! This sounds like great fun. If anyone manages to tape the ad, I'd love a copy! > > He has also been doing the voice over for the Film 4 ads. > > * > > At last, after a couple of false starts Sky TV will be broadcasting episode > one of THE STRANGERERS on Tuesday 15th February at 9pm. Each episode will be > repeated on the following day - Wednesday - at 10pm........ANN sounds like the date has been chopping and changing a lot, so keep a close eye on the listings magazines. Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 - Fanzines for Blake's 7, B7 Filk songs, pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth Thomas, etc. (also non-Blake's 7 zines at http://www.nas.com/~lknight ) Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 17:13:15 -0500 (EST) From: Sondra Sweigman To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Many, many people... Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Susan Beth wondered if Jan Chappell may have misdelivered Cally's line about "Many, many people" and asked if the script for "Star One" actually uses that phrase. I have the script, and the line there reads: "A lot of people will die without Star One." Hardly "more specific and exact" than "Many, many" so whether the actress botched the line or whether it was deliberately changed by the director, it's clear that it was never intended to read "millions" or "billions." Sondra ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 22:14:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Judith Proctor To: Lysator List Subject: [B7L] socks Message-ID: Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII On Sat 15 Jan, Tigerm1019@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 01/15/2000 11:23:51 AM Central Standard Time, > pennydreadful@powersurfr.com writes: > > > >And my socks have perfected > > >teleportation. Well, one in every pair seems to have... > > > > I'm pretty sure that particular futuristic phenomenon was in existence even > > 23 years ago. > > Nah, that's just demons stealing them from the dryer. I'll leave it to you > to figure out what the forces of darkness want with all those unmatched > socks. For goodness sake, hasn't anyone here heard of conservation of odd-sock parity? It's *physics*, not demons. Judith -- http://www.hermit.org/Blakes7 - Fanzines for Blake's 7, B7 Filk songs, pictures, news, Conventions past and present, Blake's 7 fan clubs, Gareth Thomas, etc. (also non-Blake's 7 zines at http://www.nas.com/~lknight ) Redemption '01 23-25 Feb 2001 http://www.smof.com/redemption/ ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 08:21:05 +1100 From: Kathryn Andersen To: "Blake's 7 list" Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet Message-ID: <20000116082105.B7850@welkin.apana.org.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Hi Mistral! Glad to see you're back. I'm back too. (well, mostly) (If anyone sent me any important mail from Nov 20 onwards, can you send it again, because I no longer have a copy of my correspondence from that point onwards, Nov 20 was when I did my last backup) On Sat, Jan 15, 2000 at 04:05:09AM -0800, mistral@ptinet.net wrote: > > Well, the polling is your idea; I've never suggested it. I think that > you're probably right, he can't get such authority. But your take > seems to be, since he can't get authority, he should do it anyway. > My take is, since he can't get authority, he shouldn't do it. He > ought to take a deep breath and try another method that doesn't > overstep his authority. And another, and another, and another, > if necessary. Yes, I realize it's more difficult, takes longer, and > people will suffer under Federation rule in the meantime. But > Blake won't have paid for his dream of freedom with lives that > aren't his to spend. [big snip] > I'm afraid I can't agree that rebel leaders, however righteous > their causes may be, have the same range of options open to > them that legitimate governments do, with regard to civilian > populations. And yet you said elsewhere (in another post) that the *legality* of something is not a factor in deciding whether or not it is right to do. (When you were responding to Neil's response to the argument about the-end-justifies-the-means). Yet, with the example you state of a civil war, you state that a civilian-killing decision is taken with authority. But (coincidentally) it is also a decision that is done legally, too. Even though the legality of a decision is putatively not something about which you are concerned. I'm just beginning to wonder if the difference between a "civil war" and a "rebellion" is just as semantically slippery as the difference between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist", as we've discussed here many a time before. That it depends which side you're on. After all, if a "civil war" is lost by the side that was not part of the original establishment, surely the history books (written by the winners) would write it down as a failed rebellion? No, I guess not, cuz I've just thought of one example - the English civil war. But where do the parties in a civil war get their authority, their legitimacy? In a case where it's a battle for two different contenders for a throne, then both sides get their legitimacy from whichever heir they're backing. But what about other cases? I'm afraid I'm not a student of history, so I don't know. But, fundamentally, rebels can never have authority (not until they win), so complaining that they don't is just a moot point. I do not see that there's much difference between the rightness of a civilian-killing decision when made by a war cabinet and made by a rebel - all those people would be dead anyway, wouldn't they? Darn, as soon as I said that, I saw the difference. The people where there is a government making that decision, have already implicitly granted their consent, wheras with a rebel, they have no way of doing so. So we have an implicit consent, versus an unknown. But even so, surely an action has a rightness or wrongness in itself? The end does not justify the means, no, I agree with Mistral there, but sometimes one has to choose the lesser of two evils. The problem with Star One is that we don't have enough data to know whether it was the lesser of two evils or not. Blake seemed to think so. (gee, I am rambling today!) As for alternatives, Blake had *already* taken the peaceful protest, civil disobedience route, *and it didn't work*. Surely it is even more wrong to kill your followers and achieve *nothing*, making all those deaths a pointless waste? I think that is one thing that was knawing at Blake - that he didn't want it all to have been for nothing. KJA -- _--_|\ | Kathryn Andersen / \ | http://home.connexus.net.au/~kat \_.--.*/ | #include "standard/disclaimer.h" v | ------------| Melbourne -> Victoria -> Australia -> Southern Hemisphere Maranatha! | -> Earth -> Sol -> Milky Way Galaxy -> Universe ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 21:30:10 -0000 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet Message-ID: <01b201bf5fa7$921b40e0$94a801d5@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Firstly an apology. I've been out for a while and I'm posting replies as I get to them. They may appear out of date when you receive them. Sorry. Star One. I'm in the camp that asserts that the catastrophic deaths weird climates etc were caused by, if you like, a malicious Star One. In this case the destruction of Star One would actually be a mercy (Not that Blake knew that), no more ships exploding just above major population centres etc.. Ships happening to be landing at the time however, would be in trouble etc etc. So we get some deaths from the sudden loss of control, but not once people realise what has happened and switch over to back up systems. If they have back up systems. The Federation is greedy, Star One is perfect. Why pay for back up systems that will never be used (because the perfect Star One is at no risk what so ever) ? Just a thought. Of course, before anybody else pulls me up for it, the Federation did build an anti matter minefield, "just in case", so they could very well have back up systems capable of taking over in the event of a loss of Star One. But at best (assuming back up systems), we now have economies that are entrenched in a system where all data bases are synchronised via Star One, and they are no held locally on back up systems, and because of the finite speed of communication (OK FTL, but still finite, eg messages sent in Horizon) data is now out of synchronisation. Communication networks would be disrupted, especially when people try new routes to swap all this data about, with all the disastrous consequences that has when people learn to rely on it. After all, we know (Aftermath) that the eventual loss of Star One was a big set back. We also know that, under martial law, it was not a disaster, because the human alliance won in the end, even without Star One. My estimate of "many many people" would probably be a few planets worth. The odd nuclear disaster, the loss of emergency services (999 / 911 type things) for a few hours, the destruction of the economy. A number that would resonate strongly with a character who has recently seen her planet decimated, feeling alone and lashing out against the world by taking the moral high ground. But also a number that could well be smaller than the losses caused by rebellions on all planets such as the one in Countdown should they take place with the Star One able to co-ordinate the Federation response. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 21:49:33 -0000 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet Message-ID: <01b401bf5fa7$97ee0980$94a801d5@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >> Also on Orbit--Avon's other actions seem suspicious. Vila was obviously >> the wrong choice to bring down. Tarrant was better in a fight, as were >> Dayna and Soolin. > >But Robert Holmes liked writing for A and V (and be fair, he did make a good >double act out of them). Maybe Avon wanted someone he could be sure of >calling the shots with. Tarrant etc might argue against him in such >uncertain circumstances. Vila might argue too, but ineffectually. > Vila was the only character who could do something Avon couldn't. Vila was also good at hiding his true intelligence, and so could find things out whilst playing the fool. Tarant, Soolin and Dayna were all just gun hands with particular faults (impetuous, inexperienced, full of anger). Avon was not expecting a war, but subterfuge. And remember, Avon has a huge respect for Vila, he just doesn't see the need to show it. (OK OK, at then end of the episode, we learn that he has MORE respect for himself and Orac but that's nothing new) Before Tarant fans lynch me, he was also a first rate pilot and had leadership skills but Avon didn't need these skills. So basically Avon takes his top team, Vila and Orac. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 22:06:41 -0000 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people... Message-ID: <01b601bf5fa7$9980de80$94a801d5@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Re. "we get the governements we deserve" - I'd say that this has a lot of >weight on its side in the case of the Russians. But not for the Poles, >Bulgarians, Czechs and other East Europeans who had communism forced on them >at the point of a tank barrel. > Brings to mind From Strength to Unity or do I misquote ? Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 21:40:29 -0000 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: "b7" Subject: Re: [B7L] Mission to Destiny Message-ID: <01b301bf5fa7$95502d20$94a801d5@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > 3) Is >> there anyone who doesn't think either the alphabet or handwriting would >> have had to change considerably for _Avon_ to take that long figuring out >> the one clue? Or has he been going through a great deal of effort to hide >> his mild dyslexia and this one slipped past him? > >The obvious is always obvious in retrospect, never necessarily so before you >realise how obvious it is. > Indeed, the viewers all get to see it several times during the show, and I don't remember guessing it was Sara from that clue first time around (or even second time, 15 years later, or third time, 2 years after that !). Once you fixated with one approach to a problem, it takes a jolt to get into another way of looking at the problem. In fact, even during Avon's explanation, I didn't register letters (rather than numbers) when he was talking about LCD displays. I think Avon's insight was in this case more like hindsight. He worked out it was Sara from other clues, and then looked at the blood and went... Of course .... Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 22:19:11 -0000 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] Many many people... Message-ID: <01b801bf5fa7$9b1b54a0$94a801d5@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----Original Message----- From: Julia Jones >I am not aware that there was large scale compulsory use of pacifying >drugs in the Soviet Union. Vodka doesn't count, as its use was merely >state-subsidised rather than mandatory. >> And the Soviet Union didn't last as long as the Federation. (But I also disagree on the WIDESPREAD use of pacifying drugs pre season four). Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 22:15:46 -0000 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: Subject: Re: [B7L] the netcop strikes again Message-ID: <01b701bf5fa7$9a28b740$94a801d5@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit You all remember the message. Just want to say. Hear hear. And I apologise if I am guilty. Andrew p.s. Of course this message has also cost ....... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 23:16:09 -0000 From: "Una McCormack" To: "Blake's 7 list" Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet Message-ID: <01fa01bf5fae$83d6bda0$0d01a8c0@hedge> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kathryn wrote: > I'm just beginning to wonder if the difference between a "civil war" > and a "rebellion" is just as semantically slippery as the difference > between a "freedom fighter" and a "terrorist", as we've discussed here > many a time before. That it depends which side you're on. > After all, if a "civil war" is lost by the side that was not part of > the original establishment, surely the history books (written by the > winners) would write it down as a failed rebellion? No, I guess not, > cuz I've just thought of one example - the English civil war. Well, I would have argued rather that the two sides in that war were just two factions within the same establishment - the monarchists and the parliamentarians. I think the English Civil War is a better example for elucidating the question you ask next... > But where do the parties in a civil war get their authority, their > legitimacy? Easy in this case: one side claims from parliament (and, by implication) the 'people'; the other from having the divine right of monarchs. Both perfectly acceptable traditions in political theory at that point - the civil war comes in because they're incompatible. > In a case where it's a battle for two different > contenders for a throne, then both sides get their legitimacy from > whichever heir they're backing. But what about other cases? I'm > afraid I'm not a student of history, so I don't know. In most other cases, I should imagine it's usually one of two things: popular support or (to paraphrase a .sig Tom Forsyth used to have) 'bigger fucking guns'. If there isn't a *legal* case for authority, then I'm sure it can easily be justified in terms of moral 'rightness'. And here we get back to B7, I think. I remember this discussion about authority, power, legitimacy and justification theory nearly killing me last time round. Una ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 22:04:29 -0000 From: "Andrew Ellis" To: "B7 List" Subject: Re: [B7L] Too quiet Message-ID: <01b501bf5fa7$98afd2e0$94a801d5@leanet.futures.bt.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mistral said, of Avon chosing Vila in Orbit.... >For >that reason, he would need someone whose reactions he could >predict, and control if necessary. > I don't think that Vila was that subservient. He thought before he acted. He thought well. And he looked out for his own back (unlike some other rash, impetuous characters). I agree broadly with everything else. Andrew ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 10:23:15 EST From: "Joanne MacQueen" To: blakes7@lysator.liu.se Subject: [B7L] Idle curiosity prompted by last night's episode of The Bill... Message-ID: <20000115232315.65104.qmail@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Anyone have an idea of just how tall Stephen Greif is? I ask, because I don't imagine that Simon Rouse, at the very least, and Christopher Ellison are all that short, yet Greif seemed to tower above everyone. Somehow B7 has not left me with any impression of imposing height. Wonder (idly) why? The GITHOG people will be overjoyed to know he was extremely recognisable! Regards Joanne ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com -------------------------------- End of blakes7-d Digest V00 Issue #13 *************************************